News Broadcasting
Consumers prefer plasma TV sets to LCD: Synovate
MUMBAI: Seeing is believing! While there is debate the world over about which television technology is superior -Plasma or LCD a study by Synovate in Europe has thrown up insights.
Consumers in Europe significantly prefer plasma TVs over Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) sets after viewing in home conditions.
The study, conducted by global market research company, Synovate, is the first ever European research into consumer preferences in medium to large-screen television sets.
The margin was almost two to one in favour of plasma screens, with 73 per cent of respondents who viewed a side by side comparison rating plasmas as providing the ’best image quality’ ahead of LCD (27 per cent).
The Synovate study, conducted in the UK, France and Germany, asked consumers which screen provided the best overall image quality for the following criteria: sharpness, colour, response speed, contrast, black quality and resolution. The study was commissioned by Panasonic and Pioneer.
Plasma takes the lead The results reveal a clear favour for plasma. 61 per cent of consumers felt plasma screens provided the best sharpness experience, compared to 21 per cent who preferred LCD.
When it came to consumer perception of colour, response speed and contrast, 65 per cent of consumers deemed plasma screens to have the best colour quality compared to 24 per cent who favoured LCD.
Similarly, plasma screens were voted as providing the best quality for response speed by 62 per cent of consumers, with LCD scoring 15 per cent. Nearly a quarter of respondents believed both technologies provided a similar performance.
Plasma screens once again lead the way with contrast quality. 61 per cent of consumers tested believed plasma had the best contrast performance, compared to 26 per cent for LCD.
The reproduction of black is of pivotal importance to the overall viewing experience. Before seeing the video sequence, plasma was deemed to have a slight lead (37 per cent to 30 per cent for LCD), while a third of people felt that both formats provide similar black performance. After seeing the comparison, the majority of people who felt that the ’best black quality’ is created by plasma shot up to 72 per cent.
Synovate research director Yves Robeet says, “We have been watching the television market for some time and there is no doubt that buying a new TV is a confusing decision for consumers. This is partially due to the arrival of new broadcast technologies like HD and digital as well as the heavy promotion of LCD and plasma by manufacturers and the ongoing technical debate between media and analysts about which is the best technology. This research is designed to make the process much easier by asking consumers what they think.”
Synovate canvassed 603 consumers and executed the study under certified home viewing conditions. Two groups were established. The first, with no prior knowledge of plasma and LCD, were simply asked to express their preferences after watching a 90 second video sequence played side by side on LCD and plasma displays (with their brand names covered) in three presentation suites. All respondents rated the experience using TVs in the 37-inch (XGA PDP and XGA LCD), 42-inch (XGA PDP and 1080p LCD) and 50-inch categories (both 1080p).
The second group, who claimed to have knowledge of plasma and LCD, were asked before the comparison to reveal which format they believed provided the ’best overall quality’ and to reveal their initial preferences for plasma or LCD in several feature categories, including resolution, image depth, colour and black tone. These benchmarks were used to track changes in perceptions after the video sequence had been viewed.
Initially, no preference was expressed in either Germany or the UK for overall image quality though French respondents expressed a preference for plasma.
After watching the content, however, the whole group was asked the same question. Sentiment swung sharply in favour of plasma: 73 per cent of people rated plasma as the superior performer in image quality compared to 27 per cent for LCD.
Robeet adds, “The research replicated the typical viewing conditions found in the home and produced very clear results. This suggests that retailers might consider researching the conditions in which customers watch their TVs to provide a similar environment in-store to compare performance in a life-like situation; after all, the viewing environment and the type of content people watch should dictate model choice more than any other factor.”
News Broadcasting
Newsrooms rethink AI, trust and revenue models
Editors and tech leaders debate tools, deepfakes and viability.
MUMBAI: If yesterday’s newsroom ran on caffeine and chaos, tomorrow’s may well run on code but with a human still holding the pen. At the 22nd edition of the Video Broadcast and Broadband Tech Summit hosted by IndianTelevision.com, some of the sharpest minds in Indian media gathered to examine how artificial intelligence, automation and shifting audience behaviour are reshaping journalism. The session, titled The Newsroom of Tomorrow Tools, Trust, and Business Viability In Focus, did not descend into techno-utopian hype. Instead, it wrestled with a more uncomfortable question: how do you stay relevant, credible and profitable when the audience is changing faster than the headline cycle?
The panel featured Govindraj Ethiraj, Editor of The Core, Dr Nilesh Khare, COO of Sakal Media Group; Prakaran Tiwari, Chief Executive Producer at NDTV Profit; Manoj Padmanabhan, Head of Business Media and Entertainment at AWS; Neeraj Mishra, Key Account Manager at Vizrt and session chair; and Mayuresh Konnur, Bilingual Correspondent at Collective Newsroom, publisher for BBC in India.
Govindraj Ethiraj set the tone with a frank assessment. “The reason people do not consume as much news through us is because they are consuming news through other sources they trust more,” he said. In a fragmented ecosystem flooded with content, trust has become the real differentiator.
Yet AI is undeniably transforming workflows. Ethiraj admitted he now uses AI tools to proofread his own articles. “Sometimes it is scary how much it picks, but it helps,” he said. What once required layers of sub-editing can now be assisted by machines trained to flag errors, inconsistencies and structural weaknesses.
He pointed to how newsroom roles have evolved. The desk editor, widely advertised over the last 15 years, barely existed in its current form before the internet boom. As digital publishing accelerated, tasks such as curating listicles, ranking stories and optimising headlines became specialised functions. Now, many of those responsibilities can be performed or at least supported by AI systems. The disruption is not hypothetical; it is operational.
Dr Nilesh Khare approached the issue from both a business and technological standpoint. Sakal Media Group is developing its own large language model, built on 60 years of text and photo archives. The goal is independence. “We won’t need to depend on other platforms to develop ours,” he said, underscoring the strategic value of proprietary data.
For Khare, AI represents opportunity as much as anxiety. It can help expand content across geographies and languages, particularly in bridging North and South Indian markets. It can streamline production and reduce costs. He did not shy away from the implications. “As a journalist I feel bad but as a content producer I feel good that we will require less manpower,” he said, articulating a tension many in the room recognised but few openly admit.
He also highlighted how audience behaviour is evolving. Today, a retail investor can follow a stock using Gemini or GPT instead of toggling between multiple news channels. News is no longer consumed linearly; it is queried, personalised and synthesised. The newsroom must therefore produce content that survives not just on screens but within AI-generated summaries.
Prakaran Tiwari offered a more philosophical reflection. “AI has developed itself and adapted on the basis of how news is consumed. It’s all about giving a perspective,” he said. In his view, the competitive edge will not lie in speed alone but in interpretation. Facts are increasingly commoditised; context is not.
He also suggested that formats are fluid. While short-form video dominates social feeds, long-form audio is resurging. Govindraj Ethiraj noted that in the United States the 2024 election was described as the “podcast election”, reflecting how audiences are investing time in deeper, long-form discussions. The newsroom of tomorrow must cater to both scrolling and sustained listening.
Manoj Padmanabhan of AWS reframed the debate. Technology, he argued, is not an existential threat but an amplifier. “The power is given to the human journalist with all this technology in their hand, with it acting as a support or assistant to deliver the correct and relevant news to the people,” he said.
The traditional divide between a “normal” newsroom and a “digital” newsroom is fading. “It will not be two newsrooms,” he said. “It will be one newsroom.” In that integrated environment, the storyteller remains central. AI may assist with research, editing and distribution, but editorial judgement remains human.
Neeraj Mishra of Vizrt echoed the assistive narrative. India, he said, is a market of organised chaos, where news broadcasters are pushing ever-increasing volumes of content. AI will help manage scale. It is not here to replace people but to assist them.
Production barriers are already collapsing. “You don’t need a green screen to produce content now,” Mishra observed, hinting at virtual production tools and real-time rendering technologies. And this, he said, is only the beginning. In a cost-conscious market like India, AI adoption in both B to B and B to C segments is likely to rise sharply. The skills are available, he argued, the real question is whether organisations are willing to invest.
If opportunity was one half of the conversation, risk was the other. Mayuresh Konnur warned that fake news is now being peddled with alarming ease using AI tools. Deepfakes, synthetic audio and fabricated visuals can damage credibility overnight. Several journalists, he said, have already faced instances where manipulated content was circulated in their name.
“Eventually it becomes a question of how authentic you are in the market,” Konnur noted. In a crowded information economy, credibility is the ultimate moat. Regulations and clear guidelines, he argued, are necessary to curb misuse without stifling innovation.
Mishra added a note of caution against overuse. “AI should not be everywhere. It has to be used optimally,” he said. The value lies not in blanket automation but in strategic integration.
One of the most resonant metaphors came from Padmanabhan. AI, he suggested, is like a brush in a human hand. Powerful, versatile, transformative but inert without the artist. It cannot survive without the human touch.
Konnur distilled the session’s core takeaway, AI is inevitable, but the art of storytelling will never disappear.
In a media landscape defined by speed, shrinking attention spans and intense competition, the newsroom of tomorrow is not simply a technological upgrade. It is a recalibration. Between efficiency and ethics. Between automation and authenticity. Between reducing manpower and retaining meaning.
The algorithms may write cleaner copy and generate sharper graphics. They may even predict what audiences want before audiences know it themselves. But the enduring task remains unchanged to tell stories that inform, interrogate and inspire.
And for that, the human newsroom is still very much open for business.
