Labour – limping badly if not yet in intensive care – launched its manifesto in a hospital, while the Tories chose an old power station that has not provided light for decades. The Liberal Democrats, trying to convince the electorate that only they are talking sense on the economy, opted for Bloomberg’s headquarters in the City of London.

For new clues on what to expect in terms of media, communications and technology policy after the May 6 general election, the three manifestos offered slim pickings.

There was the inevitable effusive prose about the wonders of the “digital economy” and ambitions for Britain to be a “European hub for hi-tech, digital and creative industries” or a “world leader in the development of broadband” but little in the way of new insights into precisely how this might be achieved.

Election manifestos are necessarily limited in detail on specific policy points and much of the three parties’ thinking on media had already been widely trailed through other channels. Labour’s grand vision outlined in Digital Britain, the digital-media and technology white paper created by former communications minister Lord Carter last summer, has made it onto the statute books in the scaled-down and inadequate shape of the new Digital Economy Act.

The Conservatives published a “technology manifesto” last month and have maintained a high profile on media-policy issues over the last few months, focusing on the BBC, its governing body the BBC Trust, local media and the future role – and size – of communications regulator Ofcom. The Liberal Democrats, through their energetic media all-rounder Don Foster, have also kept up a high profile on media issues during the last Parliament.

But in the manifestos there is scant detail from any of the parties. For instance, given Ofcom’s pivotal role in regulating the UK’s media sector, some clarity on what exactly the regulator would look like if it “ceased to exist” in its current form – as promised last year by Conservative leader David Cameron – would have been welcome.

The BBC will probably feel more comfortable with the endorsements of its role – albeit with caveats – in the Labour and Lib Dem manifestos than with the sole Tory promise relating to the Corporation, of opening up its books to the National Audit Office.

None of the three parties emerged smelling of roses from the recent “wash up” of the Digital Economy Bill and it is disappointing that just one manifesto – Labour’s – contained any reference at all to online piracy. This should worry not only consumer rights and Internet freedom advocates and campaigners – those in favor of tougher measures against copyright infringement would also be served better by more clarity.

Given the sensitivity of the issue, it should not be too much to ask all three parties to show their cards on precisely how they propose to deal with protecting intellectual property rights, what measures they would support and where they draw the line.

Whatever happens on May 6 – and a hung parliament could lead to some interesting horse-trading on various policies – it is to be hoped that there are no more fiascos like the rushed Digital Economy Act. Indeed, the next government might find itself having to clean up the mess that was deposited on the statute books just hours before the election was called.

There is no shortage of wish lists from industry executives, which vary considerably depending on which sector they come from. But one theme keeps popping up – the perennial question of what (if anything) should ITV be doing in pay television. It is a question that has taken on more importance thanks to the economic downturn (which has affected pay television far less than free-to-air commercial channels) and reports this week suggested that pay-TV options for the ITV digital channels were on the list of priorities for Crozier and new chairman Archie Norman. Frankly, it would be a surprise if they were not.

But turning a desire for steady pay-TV income into a paid-content strategy that plays to ITV’s strengths could prove to be more difficult. Crozier and Norman will rightly be expected to figure out what ITV wants to do with pay TV, even if the answer to this is ultimately “nothing”. If they decide that pay-TV is a must, it would probably take extensive toe-dipping into online pay options before they would consider launching pay-television channels, let alone taking an entire digital-channel portfolio to pay. The expensive failure of ITV Digital, the pay-DTT service, will remain as a cautionary tale as they make their deliberations.

Online video is likely to feature in any ITV pay-TV foray, so a strong online distribution partner could play an important role in moulding ITV’s pay-TV identity. One possible candidate to take on the role of mentor is Hulu, the US online-video service, which is understood to have offered ITV equity in return for exclusive content deals. Hulu is itself figuring out pay options and in News Corporation, NBC Universal and Disney it has some very experienced pay-TV players as shareholders.

After much buzz in early 2009, it all went rather quiet about a Hulu/ITV deal in the second half of the year. In part, this was because ITV was unlikely to commit to significant equity deals before a new chief executive and chairman were in place. ITV arguably has some catching up to do in terms of online innovation and its next Web moves – with or without Hulu – will be watched with great interest and seen as an indication of what Crozier’s promise of a business “transformation” might mean.

A final note on “grocers” and “postmen”. Despite much noise about ITV’s having been entrusted to two broadcasting ingénues, industry executives expressed little palpable concern about the lack of broadcasting experience of Crozier and Norman (the former chief executive of supermarket chain Asda). Leaving aside the occasional silly, snobbish remark (mostly tongue-in-cheek), there were many that saw the appeal of getting in some “fresh DNA” into ITV.

Michael Grade, the previous chairman, certainly had independent television running through his veins – as nephew of Lew Grade whose ATV was one of the original ITV franchise owners. Adam and Archie come from different stock but they could be just right for pay-TV. After all, there is little a grocer doesn’t know about selling packages and who better than a postman to handle a form of television that is addressable?

After all, it is a tough job convincing people to pay for HDTV subscriptions if they have not noticed that they are missing out in the first place. Now a Dutch study suggests that the key to convincing consumers of the benefits of high-definition picture quality is less about how good that picture actually is and more about creating the right expectations.

Researchers led by the University of Twente in Enschede conducted an experiment in which they showed the same piece of standard-definition footage to two groups of consumers and then asked them what they made of the picture quality.

The difference: one group was told that they were about to experience HD quality (reinforced by posters praising the benefits of HD and – hilariously – a particularly thick cable connecting set-top box and TV set); the others were told to expect standard-definition quality.

What they ended up with was the digital-TV equivalent of the placebo effect: consumers will convince themselves that they are watching a superior-quality picture if they have been told to expect one, regardless of how good the quality actually is.

There are some interesting lessons for operators and broadcasters to be taken from this.

As one of the researchers involved in the project said to the New Scientist, if consumers are not really very good at telling the difference between standard- and high-definition pictures (unless they are presented with a side-by-side comparison, as is now often the case in television retailers) framing – or the lack thereof – could be the decisive factor in whether a consumer decides if HDTV is worthwhile.

The good news is that the framing effect also appears to work the other way around.

Those consumers who already subscribe to HDTV services and have bought the necessary reception equipment are likely to convince themselves that they have made the right investment – and therefore believe they are watching a better-quality picture even if they, too, cannot really tell the difference.