Split-Screen Personalities

Each weekday at 1 p.m., insurance broker Tom O’Hara escapes the daily grind by tuning to the History Channel, logging his computer on to the channel’s Web site and kicking some virtual butt.

In a friendly way.

O’Hara’s lunchtime diversion--OK, maybe “obsession” would be closer to the truth--is “History IQ,” an interactive quiz show entering its second season on the History Channel. It’s one of a growing number of shows that offer two screens of programming: one on the TV set, the other on a computer connected to the Net.

Several are game shows such as “History IQ” and “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” which let viewers compete for prizes against contestants online and on air. But others are sports broadcasts, news programs, special events and movies. There’s even a sitcom being developed for Fox that will let Web surfers decide how each episode ends.

Interactive TV, the long-delayed Next Big Thing, wasn’t supposed to look like this. It was supposed to happen all on a single screen, the one on your TV set. Until technology catches up with the vision, however, the most popular form of interactive TV turns out to be a kludgy--but effective--combination of devices already in most homes.

Despite decades of experimentation, TV manufacturers and cable and satellite operators have yet to put the pieces in place to support interactive TV shows. Less than 3% of U.S. homes can experience even the simplest form of interactive programming on their TV sets.

However, analysts estimate that as many as 50 million people have a computer and TV set in the same room. The research firm Dataquest also has estimated that 44 million people have surfed the Internet while watching TV.

That’s why many of the networks and TV studios are working with companies such as Venice-based Spiderdance Inc., GoldPocket Interactive and ACTV to use the Internet and computers to deliver interactive accompaniments to their shows. The Web-based elements are usually synchronized with the action on the TV screen and often are designed to mimic the look of the broadcast.

The move comes as consumers are spending more time on the Web and less time watching TV--at least, that’s what they say when surveyed. For broadcasters, two-screen interactivity is a way to convert the Web from a rival into an ally, helping to keep people glued to their shows.

The rise in two-screen programming also responds to a shift in TV habits in the home, said Bruce Crowley, president of ACTV Enhanced Media Services. “The television has replaced the radio as a background media stimulus while people are spending more and more time online,” Crowley said.

Interactive TV can mean a lot of things, which is another way of saying that the industry hasn’t yet figured out what to do with the technology. The most common forms of interactivity invite viewers to play games, answer polls, submit comments or questions or view statistics.

Those interactive elements can be transmitted as part of the TV signal or separately from it, depending on whether the programmer wants them to pop up on the TV or on a second screen. Typically, that second screen is a computer monitor, but conceivably it could be a wireless “Web tablet” or hand-held computer. The problem with the one-screen approach is that the vast majority of TV sets and set-top boxes don’t have the software or the electronic brainpower needed to display the interactive signals.

“We just can’t afford to go ahead and have Al Michaels on ‘Monday Night Football’ look at the

camera and say, ‘Turn on your interactive box, and you can interact with us right now,’ and only one-third of them can do that, or one-half or one-tenth,” said Jonathan Leess, a former executive producer of ABC’s enhanced television efforts.

Disney, the parent company of ABC and ESPN, is now the leading source of two-screen programming, offering Web-based, synchronized enhancements for pro football games, special events such as the Academy Awards, some news shows and every broadcast of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” Between 75,000 and 125,000 viewers play along with “Millionaire” each night on a customized section of ABC’s Web site.

The two-screen approach has its drawbacks too. For viewers who use a dial-up modem, staying online ties up a phone line for the duration of the show. And if their connection should fail midway through the broadcast, they’re likely to lose any points they had accumulated.

And viewers might not like the amount of information the programs ask them to submit as they register to participate online. Those who want to compete for prizes are asked to reveal not only their names and addresses but also their age, gender, e-mail and other personal tidbits--and then trust the programmers not to disclose or misuse the data.

The interactive version of “Millionaire,” which is typical of many of the two-screen programs, requires only a standard Web browser and a live Internet connection. Viewers watch the TV show to hear the questions asked by host Regis Philbin, then choose one of the four possible answers that pop up on their computer screen--the same four choices given the contestant on TV. The faster they pick the correct answer, the more points they receive.

To keep viewers from doing something productive during commercial breaks, the interactive game throws in a few extra questions tied to the advertisements. For example, viewers might be asked what color the car was in the Mazda Tribute commercial they just saw.

Viewers compete by geographic region, with the running tallies appearing online between questions. The top 10 scorers in each cluster receive small prizes, ranging from mouse pads to T-shirts.

“What we’ve learned is that it’s habit-forming,” Leess said. “We have a sizable amount of people that return to play along.”

O’Hara--the “History IQ” fan--his wife, Kathleen, and sons, Liam and Ciaran, are among the many who have interactive “Millionaire” habits. The Malverne, N.Y., family didn’t have interactivity in mind when they put their Internet-connected PC in the living room with their TV--the parents simply wanted to keep an eye on their sons’ Web browsing.

The TV is in one corner and the PC in another on the same side of the room. Kathleen and Liam usually watch the show from the couch in front of the TV, while O’Hara and Ciaran park at the computer.

“We used to just sit around watching the show and try to figure out the answer,” O’Hara said. “When the opportunity came up to actually go on and compete against other people in the area and across the country, I just like that idea. It’s fun. You can kind of put your money where your mouth is.”

A 49-year-old who still plays rugby, O’Hara is a competitive guy. He’s also a history buff and former history teacher, which is why he plays along with “History IQ.”

The interactive game, which was developed by Spiderdance, enables groups of players to chat online with one another as they play along with the game on TV. The regulars form a community of sorts, which O’Hara said is one of the best parts of the game.

Tracy Fullerton, president of Spiderdance, said the company’s first interactive TV project, the “webRIOT” game show for MTV, targeted a younger group of viewers prone to more . . . umm, aggressive chatting styles. The company has since added a feature that lets participants slap an electronic gag over other competitors in their group.

Not that it’s necessary for “History IQ,” where players resist the urge to trash-talk, O’Hara said. “It’s pretty sportsmanlike, maybe because there’s not so much at stake,” he said.

Actually, in its first season, the interactive version of “History IQ” offered thousands of dollars’ worth of prizes to online viewers with the top scores. But there was a fundamental problem: The show was broadcast in the afternoon and repeated in the evening, so contestants in the evening could watch the earlier show and find out all the answers.

“You’d see these guys with perfect scores, night after night after night,” O’Hara said. “I consider myself pretty knowledgeable, but nobody knows everything.”

O’Hara used to play during the evening, but he now confines his “History IQ” sessions to his lunch break “because I think that’s [a] more honest [game].” He’s done well enough to win not only a smattering of hats and T-shirts but also an invitation to compete on the televised show.

His day on air came in March, and he got his clock cleaned by a reference librarian from Wellesley College and a former “Jeopardy!” tournament of champions winner. “I knew a lot of the questions, but I wasn’t fast on the buzzer,” O’Hara said.

Most interactive TV analysts see the two-screen approach as an interim step, with programmers moving to one screen as soon as enough set-top boxes and TVs will support it. Nevertheless, Scott Newnam, co-founder and president of GoldPocket, predicted, “You’ll see two-screen from every major network. . . . By the fall season, I think you should expect to see a whole lot more come out two-screen.”

Interactivity seems to work best on shows with an extremely dedicated base of fans, such as sports, music and science fiction. In addition to the allure of having their names posted on a televised leader board, Fullerton of Spiderdance said, “one of the main reasons [interactive viewers] do it is television on its own does not satisfy all our needs for meeting and becoming involved with media . . . and the other people surrounding it who like it as well.”

In the coming months, officials at interactive TV companies predict that the two-screen approach will spread to more news and staged, unscripted programs in the “Survivor” mold. There’s also an interactive sitcom in the works: “Nathan’s Choice,” a show that Fox has on hold as a midseason replacement.

“Nathan’s Choice” follows a new college graduate as he confronts such made-for-TV foibles as an exotic but possibly insane girlfriend and a roommate with skeletons in his closet. But each week, viewers will make a critical choice for Nathan, deciding how the show will end.

Of course, Fox alone will decide when the show will end.

*

Times staff writer Jon Healey covers the convergence of entertainment and technology.