7 Comments

Summary:

Despite strong box office sales of 3-D movies, TV programmers and consumer electronics manufacturers who are betting big on 3-D technology entering the home may want to curb their enthusiasm a bit. According to recent survey data from KPMG, few consumers see the need to bring […]

3d

Despite strong box office sales of 3-D movies, TV programmers and consumer electronics manufacturers who are betting big on 3-D technology entering the home may want to curb their enthusiasm a bit. According to recent survey data from KPMG, few consumers see the need to bring 3-D into the home, with just 15 percent saying they expect to buy a 3-D-capable set the next time they shell out for a new TV.

According to the most recent KPMG Media and Entertainment Barometer, more than a quarter of respondents said they had viewed a 3-D film in the theater over the past 12 months, and those numbers are even higher for 18-24 year olds (42 percent) and 25-34 year olds (45 percent).

Comparatively, only 5 percent of those surveyed said they had watched a 3-D film on TV — and very few seemed to want to, with only about one in six respondents said they were likely to buy a 3-D TV for their next purchase. Only about a quarter of respondents said they would prefer to watch TV in 3-D if it was available, with a third saying they would prefer not to. A whole 42 percent were unsure if they’d prefer to watch 3-D TV, which signals unfamiliarity with the technology.

So why the lack of interest for 3-D in the home? Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents said they didn’t see a need for 3-D TV, and 59 percent said they expected 3-D sets to be too expensive. More than 40 percent said they believed 3-D was a “gimmick.” That’s bad news for the consumer electronics industry, which is investing heavily in 3-D technology, and for cable companies and programmers, which are rolling out dedicated 3-D TV stations.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user bark.

Related content on GigaOm Pro: Are We Putting the 3-D Cart Before the Horse? (subscription required)

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Related stories

  1. Three possible reasons for the statements made in the survey:

    People have seen 3-D movies (especially Avatar) but they’ve hardly seen 3-D TV.

    The technology of 3-D movies is much more developed than the technology of 3-D TV.

    There’s an assumption 3-D TV will be expensive.

    Share
  2. 3D will just be a fad until a few things happen:

    1) 3D is shown on a 3D display and not on a 2D display showing slightly offset videos.

    2) Artists begin to understand the medium. 3D is not about shooting video with two video camera’s taped to each other. Nor is it over exaggerating the 3D effect for the “coolness” of it. That’s the part that makes you sick and gives you headaches.

    3) Creators provide compelling stories that require 3D. 3D is a near field effect. Anything fast moving or further than a few feet away from you and you naturally use other cues to gauge depth and distance. By creating content that requires the viewer to be close to the scene would make 3D a more compelling effect.

    3D has come and gone many times in the past. The Virtual Reality buzz in the late 90’s was the last time it hit the market this big and we all know where that ended up.

    This 3D feature is just another way for the Display Manufacturers to wring out more dollars from the market as the Displays have come down in price so much they are almost a commodity. By adding this 3D feature they can charge more for the display and charge ridiculous amounts of money for the shutter glasses, one set for each viewer, which cost them probably 120Hz refresh rate should be asking why 3D is not supported on your TV. It probably is but you just didn’t pay to have it activated. Nice feature.)

    Share
  3. 3D will just be a fad until a few things happen:

    1) 3D is shown on a 3D display and not on a 2D display showing slightly offset videos.

    2) Artists begin to understand the medium. 3D is not about shooting video with two video camera’s taped to each other. Nor is it over exaggerating the 3D effect for the “coolness” of it. That’s the part that makes you sick and gives you headaches.

    3) Creators provide compelling stories that require 3D. 3D is a near field effect. Anything fast moving or further than a few feet away from you and you naturally use other cues to gauge depth and distance. By creating content that requires the viewer to be close to the scene would make 3D a more compelling effect.

    3D has come and gone many times in the past. The Virtual Reality buzz in the late 90’s was the last time it hit the market this big and we all know where that ended up.

    This 3D feature is just another way for the Display Manufacturers to wring out more dollars from the market as the Displays have come down in price so much they are almost a commodity. By adding this 3D feature they can charge more for the display and charge ridiculous amounts of money for the shutter glasses, one set for each viewer, which cost them probably less than $20. (And those of you with TVs that support greater than 120Hz refresh rate should be asking why 3D is not supported on your TV. It probably is but you just didn’t pay to have it activated. Nice feature.)

    Share
  4. Some 3D movies are really cool, some seem to lack any 3D-ness and were just a waste of 5$. Ill start passing on most of the 3D films from now be just fine with the standard version.

    I wont invest any money into 3D at home, seems like a waste. What if the fad dies out in 6 months or changes formats (HD-DVD vs Bluray) and what happens when you have 10-15 people over at a party and you only have 6 sets of 3D glasses ?

    Share
  5. 3D in the theaters was, is, and will always be a fad. There just isn’t enough kinds of movie to make it add anything to the movie experience. And then when it does, it takes away from the movie experience as you then notice it.

    And 3D TVs are even more ridiculous. Think of all the TV programs that you watch. How many would actually benefit from 3D? News? Sit-coms? Reality shows? Game shows? Nope. Yes, 3D TV movies but then you fall into the same quandary as my first paragraph.

    Hollywood is desperately trying to put off the day that people don’t go to the movie theaters anymore because their home flat-screen TVs are give them just as large of an viewing experience (if not more) than what they can experience in the movie theaters. That’s what 3D is all about in Hollywood. Trying to survive the home theaters. 3D is like swords trying to beat back the tide. Too little too late.

    Share
  6. [...] event could be a major factor in driving 3-D adoption in the home, though only 15 percent of consumers polled in April thought they would be buying a 3-D TV anytime [...]

    Share
  7. [...] don’t see the point of 3-D in the home. According to a KPMG study earlier this year, just 15 percent of consumers surveyed said they would likely shell out for a 3-D capable set the next time they bought a TV, with 63 [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post