And buyers and brands say Digital Signage has problems? Try traditional OOH!
What you’re looking at above is a Viacom outdoor sign that’s near my house. It’s a series of pictures I had to take while I was out for a dinner with a friend because I was blown away that
A.) A company would have the audacity to actually rent the side of a building for ad space that could only be seen by someone whose neck was permanently rotated right 45 degrees and up 45 degrees.
B.) That a Brand would feel comfortable paying for an OOH space that only 10% of passers-by would notice
The pictures don’t do it as much justice as the in person view but, basically, this is an ad space that shouldn’t even exist. There is no way that automotive or walking consumer traffic would ever notice this sign. You have, be it in a car or walking, maybe 1 second to actually take the time and look upwards and to the right to even maybe be able to register what the billboard is advertising. I can only hope/pray that they got this one for a dollar.
This particular billboard was advertising Beer selection at the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) which is actually the single largest purchaser of alcohol in the world (…and yes…I live in Ontario 
Funny that…). The LCBO spends an enormous amount advertising.
As Digital Signage is a new’ish medium, you’ve got to expect some trials and tribulations along the way. Awful implementations, bad location decisions, abused signs, etc. It’s part of the learning process. As Dave Haynes pointed out back in February, those of us who are proud of our industry hate seeing things like this:
Duct tape screens, all broken, etc. I’ve taken a poke or two at Esso for the same type of thing (Dead screens, etc). We, as an industry, had better be pretty damn cognizant that by allowing the type of thing above to be implemented or exist, we’re only hurting ourselves.
…But “Outdoor”, as a medium, is over 30 years old as a media option for buyers. You’d think that, instead of just finding any wall in a back alley that no one can see and throwing up a poster, the OOH industry would frown upon this practice and self-manage/self-discipline. Apparently no such luck. We’ve all seen instances of strangely placed OOH signage and it continues to persist.
Case in point:
I’m about 30-40 feet from the sign at this point, standing on the road
…and here at 10 feet. There’s a building just to the right of this camera shot, blocking the sign
Not much time in that span to get much of a look/impression from the ad!
A bit of a call to action for those in the business of operating Networks. We have a responsibility to those who buy media from us to ensure that the locations they’re buying and advertising on are actually suitable and demonstrably impactful on consumers - and realistically, it’s all about common sense. The more we allow bad Digital Signage implementations to exist, the less credibility we have with media buyers and the more of a reason we give them to say “no” to buying our space.
Funny enough, apparently the LCBO didn’t think it was media worth paying for either because the billboard was only up for a week….
August 23, 2007 at 8:58 am
Playing devils advocate I could say :who cares if anyone looks at the sign. If someone is dumb enough pay for something like that what’s wrong with taking their money. There’s a sucker born every minute.
Traditional Mass Media kneels at the alter of Traffic. Again and Again I hear “oppotunity to see” (traffic) numbers given as how many people saw or will see various media. why? Because until very recently that’s all their was.
With new technologies now available (from my company as well as others) it is now possible to go beyond OTS or “exposure” numbers to understand things like a signs ability to attract eyes, Engage, or even motivate a viewer in a certain way.
But the paridigm in place today is traffic = eyeballs. The research my company has been doing keeps showing that isn’t always the case. After capturing results from several million viewers I can tell you there’s much more to it than that. In a recent project we found that moving a digital display by several feet and adjusting the angle to better fit prevailing traffic patterns increased viewer ship by 300%. If all I am worried about is selling inventory and I can do it with traffic why the hell would I care if ANYONE was looking at the screen.
Well I might if took pride in the industry and wanted to move it forward and legitimize it. I might if I was looking at making more that a quick buck by selling a “pig in a poke”. I might if I was really consciencious about bringing value to those who advertise on my network.
We can argue all day and night about the definition of “engagement” or “exposure”. We can throw in the controversial issue of Audio. In the end, though, I still think if no one is looking, it’s not working. As an advertiser I’d get more value from 1000 people who Look at (saw) an ad than 100,000 who walked right by without looking.
So if advertisers are suckers enough to buy the pig in the poke, shame on them. Nothing will change until they demand more and are willing to pay more for the networks that can demonstrate results rather than “oppotunity” in reaching people.
August 23, 2007 at 10:11 am
As always Steve (and I’m sure you’re getting sick of hearing it from me), I’d argue that you have to separate out the “medium” from the “content” and the “advertising”. The medium and content can be great, but if the advertising sucks, it won’t have impact
You’re dead on about minor tweaks in shifting “locations” so the OTS is increased. Unfortunately, downstreaming the knowledge of how and where to do this is the difficult part for the industry.
WRT “caring” about a legitimate industry, I guess it’s our job to help bring this to light and mitigate this between the brands and the networks
August 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Rob,
not to split hairs, but shifting locations doesn’t increase OTS. OTS (traffic) remains the same. What I’m talking about isn’t increasing those who have the opportunity to see, but those who ACTUALLY SAW the ad. Isn’t that the whole point? Good ad or bad ad (static or digital) if no one sees it it has no effect regardless of how many people walk by it.
I understand what you are saying seperating the medium from the ad, and that is all “Do-able”, but that is going to take more than raw traffic (OTS) numbers. We need to know if people are looking.
Here’s what I mean. If I have two digital signs that have 10,000 people a day walking by them (OTS)but one has 9000 people actually looking at it while the other only has 3000 looking at it. If we were running the same ads on each I’d have to say it’s the sign. Under the old school plan they would be the same price,though, because it would be based on 10,000. The network would say each “reached” 10,000.
It would be easy enough to figure out if it was a particular ad that sucked by looking at it in comparison to other ads in the loop on the same sign. If five of the six can grab eyes and one can’t I’d have to say it’s the ad. But again, traffic (OTS) can’t give you any of that. You need to know what can attract and engage.
I might even argue that Under the “attract and engage” valuation that a network would have a strong incentive to not only make sure the screens were in the best locations to grab eyes, but also to inform an advertiser if his ad sucked because it would be hurting the networks ability to grab eyes.
In the end it would help the whole industry. Ineffective, irrelevant, or offensive ads wouldn’t attract and engage the viewer. The network would have a strong incentive to let the advertsier know. The advertiser would want to know so they could produce better ads that people would actually watch. In the end the real winner is the consumer who get to actually vote on what they will see, by what the will watch. Kind of a snow ball effect that makes the whole damned industry better. None of that happens with traffic (OTS) as the currency.
At the end of the day, though, it’s the people with the ad dollars that need to demand more and eventually they will.