Archive | WireSpring
Legendary bank robber Slick Willie Sutton is probably better known for a clever quote than his lengthy criminal record. When asked why he robbed banks, Willie answered "Because that's where the money is." With a slight twist, we might apply Willie's wisdom to the digital out-of-home (DOOH) world and pose the question: Do advertising agencies think DOOH is where the audience (money) is? And the logical follow-up: how important is it to the long-term growth of the industry that the agencies jump on board?
Nearly five years ago, as a wide-eyed attendee at my first DS show, I heard this same question asked over and over. The response was always the same: "Unless the agencies get involved," one DS veteran told me, "this business is going nowhere." At that show, you could have fired the proverbial shotgun, repeatedly, on the trade show floor without hitting an agency person (though hardware and software sales teams would have suffered heavy casualties). Now, five years later, the scene has changed but the song remains the same. The question is as topical, and top-of-mind, as ever.
How important is agency involvement?
Image credit: Stephanie Carter
"It is critical," says Virginia Cargill, President of CBS Outernet, one of the largest DOOH networks. During my interviews with industry leaders I decided to play devil's advocate: "What if the agencies don't increase their involvement beyond the current level?" I'd ask. But none of the industry experts I spoke with took the bait. Rob Gorrie, President of Adcentricity (one of the top DOOH buying/planning/strategy groups) voiced the typical response: "The agencies are getting more involved and I think that will continue. But media is a wacky world." Wacky, complicated and lacking clear direction.
If you were to judge the market's health solely by the daily industry headlines, you might expect to see an agency stampede toward digital signage and DOOH. In just the past few weeks, Ad Age has declared a "Boon for Billboards" as DOOH is one of the few media "experiencing real growth." And ADWEEK weighed in on the fast growth of retail media, claiming that "retail has become a big media buy." It is worthy to note that there's significant research behind both articles.
So as Bill Murray might say, "We got that goin' for us, which is nice."
But that's the view from 30,000 feet. Dive down into the trenches today, and you'll hear a different story. Agency buyers and planners are clamoring for reach, frequency and measurement. DOOH executives counter by asking for more focus and energy from their agency counterparts. The frustration on both sides is palpable. "At the agencies, the out-of-home people understand the space but don't have the money," says Cargill. "The network people have the money but don't understand the space." The importance of measurement can't be overstated. DOOH business managers admit that they're struggling to provide it in a form palatable to the agencies. "What I hear a lot," Gorrie says, "is 'prove to me that the audience you say you are giving to me you are actually giving to me'."
Sensing little urgency to invest in DOOH, many agencies continue the legacy of buying TV, especially since large chunks of network time are drastically discounted due to economic conditions. But those old habits don't sit well with Ashley Swartz, a former VP at media firm PHD, and now the CEO of Ag8, a boutique "trans media" shop in London. Swartz knows whereof she speaks. And she doesn't mince words: "The agencies are lazy," claims Swartz. "One of the biggest challenges [DOOH] will face is that people will never get fired for buying a 30-second spot." Thus the onus is on the DOOH industry, Swartz believes, to make the process more user-friendly through standardization of the buy and (here it comes again) improved measurement.
What about Marketing at-Retail?
Retail digital signage, unlike purely ad-driven networks, feature a mixture of marketing, branding and product content married together. So that sector of the industry faces a combination of the agency-related ills and some problems all of its own. Fortunately, there are some experts guiding the way in that sector, like one Laura Davis-Taylor. If they ever build a digital signage hall-of-fame, Laura will surely be one of the first inductees. Coming from an agency background, Laura has been working the retail digital signage beat tirelessly for years. Ask her about the relationship between retail DS and the agencies and she'll tell you it's still very much a work in progress. One big stumbling block, Laura believes, is the lack of knowledge about the space. "The agencies know broadcast but they don't know retail," she says. "You don't learn retail unless you live it, and they've shown little desire to do that."
Another player in the retail digital signage game is Paul Flanigan. Flanigan produces the Best Buy in-store network, which touches virtually every aspect of the chain's operations, including collaborating (or cajoling) with multiple agencies on creative and content. Flanigan sings the praises of Crispin Porter + Bogusky, an agency that he says has become a great partner. Crispin made the effort to learn what works and what flops on retail screens, and has produced content specifically for Best Buy's in-store network rather than re-purposing existing broadcast content. That is a revelation unto itself, and, according to Flanigan, still the exception to the rule. "I have seen, first-hand, major agencies balk at wanting to engage in this space," Flanigan says. "They don't get it and they don't care." On more than one occasion, Flanigan says Best Buy's suppliers, the major electronics manufacturers, have gone around their agencies and requested that his in-house team produce content promoting everything from computers to cameras on Best Buy's in-store TV network.
Well Paul, I met Peter, your German brother-in-arms. While working as Germany CIO for Daimler, the car and truck behemoth, Peter Muller-Bruhl created a digital signage network in Mercedes-Benz dealerships throughout the country. He then moved on to a venture capital firm investing in the digital signage space. Now, he is at fischerAppelt tv media, a division of a large German ad agency. His primary responsibility: digital signage business development. "Is there anyone else working at a German ad agency devoted solely to digital signage?" I asked him. "I am one of two in all of Germany," Muller-Bruhl replied. "And it's not much different throughout Europe." An admitted DOOH evangelist, Muller-Bruhl doesn't worry that the agencies will fail to engage our medium. He predicts they will increase their involvement out of necessity. "Their clients will force them to jump on the bandwagon," Muller-Bruhl believes. "The agencies will claim to understand DS but will go for a quick fix using their existing resources. It will blow up and the clients will think DS doesn't work. The agencies will eventually develop specific expertise. But in the meantime, I'm afraid we'll see bad DS execution from the agencies."
But enough with the agency bashing and teeth gnashing!
Cutting through the emotion with a straightforward analysis is Jeremy Lockhorn, the director of emerging media and video innovation at Avenue A/Razorfish. Lockhorn would love to see our medium take off, but says that digital signage and DOOH is currently battling a double whammy: a terrible economy combined with too much supply and not enough demand. "The unfortunate reality for the industry," according to Lockhorn, "is the growth rate of inventory is grossly out pacing the growth rate of ad spend."
What's the conclusion? Our business has certainly come a long way. But we still have a long way to go. As Cargill says, "consumers are as out-of-home as ever," but capturing their attention, and monetizing that experience, remains a challenge for the industry. And the agencies? Well, they have their hands full trying to figure out mobile, social networking, online video, and the changing landscape of broadcast. Add DOOH to the mix and it's little wonder the agency folks gloss over whenever we start trying to engage them. We're working in a new channel. And with new channels, it takes time for everything to fall into place. Nonetheless, there is progress. There is energy. There is talent focused on this space as never before. "There is a recognition," according to Gorrie, "that this could be where the money is."
If Slick Willie Sutton was alive today, and planning his next job, he might take a long look at DOOH. No reason for him to look at a bank... there's no money there anymore. Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
As one of just a handful of people who can claim to have worked in the digital signage industry since 1991, I suppose I could be called 'old school.' In fact, the term 'digital signage' didn't even exist when I helped build and program the Blockbuster TV network in their 900 locations at the time. But as the store count grew (at a rate of 1.5 openings per day back then), it became face-slappingly obvious how powerful a medium this new thing was. Fast-forward 18 years, though, and while there has been plenty of progress in our industry, there are still far too many companies attempting to launch networks blindly -- when they should instead be drawing on the huge body of experience that we now have at our disposal. One of my biggest gripes comes while I'm wearing my creative agency hat, since I continue to see network owners skip some vital steps of the content creation process. This leads to bad results and in turn, a negative view of our industry.
Whither the Content Strategy?
I have witnessed so many networks, particularly the in-store variety, skip any discussion of a content strategy. It's one of those things that gets mentioned often at seminars, but is rarely explained in detail. Consequently, few networks really understand the process of building an effective content strategy. Granted it can be a somewhat complicated process, but the experience pays a huge dividend. It basically starts with getting a clear understanding of the network's objectives, their integrated marketing communications plans, and the physical limits of the network itself (audio or video driven, passive or interactive, where it is merchandised, dwell time, etc).
Image credit: HikingArtist.com
The early phase of a content strategy session feels a lot like reverse-brainstorming. This is the time to toss out questions rather than ideas, and as in a creative brainstorming session where there are no "bad ideas," at this stage of the content strategy no question is out of bounds. It's the time to figure out where there might still be lingering doubts or uncertainties about the content program, and begin shaping the content to match the client's marketing plans.
Skimping on Development Means Spending More Later
A second area in the content process that is often overlooked is the creative development stage. I have recently been part of two RFPs/Creative Briefs (reluctantly) where the parties believed the next step after delivering the RFP or Creative Brief was the execution, i.e. a finished video or animation, ready for in-store viewing. However, skipping the creative development stage (including the presentation of concepts, storyboarding, developing treatments, writing outlines, creating animatics, and so on) is akin to making a movie without a script. Heck, even reality shows have scripts these days, so it always amazes me when clients want to skip this all-important series of steps. There is a saying in the film business that a bad movie can be produced from a good script, but a good movie can never be made from a bad one. Now imagine the movie made with no script and you have an idea of where we are going by sidestepping the creative development phase.
I understand that all clients want their projects to come in ahead of schedule and under budget, but I doubt any of them would agree to those terms if it meant that the final product was poorly thought-out and executed. What would be the point of that? Yet many still seem surprised when creative agencies bill for their hours during the development stage -- even though this step can take as much time and effort as final production. Moreover, spending enough time at this stage will likely save the client money in the long run by bringing down production and execution costs, yielding content that performs better, and preventing the need to reinvent the wheel when everyone is wondering why the network is not performing as promised.
There are a lot of tangential benefits of these creative pitches too. In my experience, it has led to better creative that's functional, but more in keeping with the client's own desires than something we might put together without the development process. It involves the client on a deeper level, as sometimes they are not quite sure what they really want in their network at the brief or RFP stage. Consider someone who buys a plot of land and wants to put a house on it. It certainly is easier to visualize the house after it's built, but by that time it's too late to make major changes. That's why houses aren't built without architectural drawings and blueprints. Likewise, it's much easier to satisfy the client if they've had a chance to make their suggestions and voice their concerns before the production phase. Not every idea needs to be storyboarded and presented, especially as the network grows and matures. But in the early stages of a digital signage network's deployment, or when the client decides that the overall content strategy must change, it is indeed vital.
Don't Forget to Roll with the Punches
Our content strategy at Blockbuster did change over the years, so it's important for agencies to constantly review their strategies with their clients. For instance, when Blockbuster's business model moved to a revenue-sharing deal with the studios (vs. outright purchase of the movies), our content strategy changed too, since our higher-margin products turned out to be the paid-for and dust-collecting catalog titles. This in turn led to different creative. That all changed again when Blockbuster started selling advertising and developing more marketing partnerships. By 1996, so many internal departments were involved in the input process that the network was seen as a critically important, enterprise-wide program, used by marketing, buying, training, corporate communications, and even HR.
So in this time of 'hope and change', I hope that we can move forward as an industry, and that more of us will stress the importance of a sound (yet flexible) content strategy and creative process. As I noted at the beginning, I came into the in-store TV world backwards, with no true strategy and no creative plan. But that changed quickly after I took a few trips to Blockbuster stores around the country, and was finally able to visualize how our in-store program would interact with the environment. Starting with that seed of understanding, we then developed a content strategy based on Blockbuster's business model and marketing initiatives. Each concept that we deemed appropriate got a full treatment and outlines with the goal of maximizing its presence in the store. By the time we started conducting research on the program's effects, we were pleased to find that it was responsible for increasing rentals and sales by 8% (which was the main objective identified in our Content Strategy). Within a few years, we were able to fine-tune our content strategy and creative process to yield a program that would boost that number to more than 15% on average.
Want to learn more about Gary's techniques for creating in-store media programs that really work? Be sure to catch his talk on the "Basics in Content Strategy, Process and Design for Out-of-Home Networks" at the Digital Signage Expo in Las Vegas. His presentation is scheduled for February 26 at 3 pm. Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
When it comes to today's grocery stores, what's old is new again, and small is the new big. You see, many of today's supermarket chains began as small Mom and Pop groceries -- or, as in the early version of Loblaw's, "Groceterias." But the 20th century saw the number of Mom and Pop stores dwindle down as the supermarket became a mainstay of American life. Today, it's possible to get some kind of food almost anywhere you go, but the actual venues for groceries are more complex. Convenience stores inconveniently fill up strip malls and street corners, while Walmart and Target invest more space and more store brands for groceries. Even so, some lower income neighborhoods, urban downtown centers, and rural town centers exist in so-called "food deserts" that are miles away from sources of fresh produce, meat, poultry and fish. For something as parochial as grocery shopping, figuring out the right course for the future, whether big or small, is surprisingly complicated.
The trend towards small-format
For a variety of reasons, the major grocery conglomerates (Tesco, Whole Foods, Walmart, and Giant Eagle, to name a few) have been experimenting with small format stores recently. These venues are usually 15,000 square feet or less, feature high product density, and are located in urban or high-traffic areas. Price Chopper is the most recent to announce that it will open specialized smaller stores, particularly in locales where community demand is high but doesn't warrant the costs of more shelf space and bigger inventory. From Albany to India to South Africa, the small format store seems to be taking off.
Image credit: Jess Lander
The market has room -- and need -- for both large and small outlets. Most of the news has focused on the size of the store and what these versions mean for the overall direction of retail food sales. But if you look closely, what's important here is the ability of smaller stores to attract and maintain a core customer base. Most of the people I interview on their grocery habits rely on a variety of types of food stores, from convenience marts and local shops to the big warehouse discounters. Interestingly, no matter how big or small the store, people talked about an important factor besides the over-analyzed concerns for low costs, merchandise availability, and convenience. That factor is the personalized service for which only the Mom and Pop stores were known.
Attracting -- and keeping -- core shoppers
Core customers -- the constituency that likes your product and regularly returns for more -- are critical to big and small chains alike. Not only do they consistently outspend their non-core peers, but they also serve as part of the marketing machine by spreading news via word-of-mouth. So it's no surprise to see them being so heavily wooed these days. Many retailers are giving out coupons and depending on the strength of loyalty cards and reward programs. Others are putting their hopes on social media, word-of-mouth and online sites that tout their product over others. While each of these strategies has its pluses and minuses, the real retail magic lies in providing what some segment of the local populace needs no matter what the economic climate. And the emphasis here is on local.
Food seems like a pretty basic and obvious necessity -- everyone needs it. The problem is that in our previous incarnation as a Land of Abundance, we produced enough food to feed our own population three times over on a daily basis. The work for marketing was not in convincing people to buy food, but to buy a specific brand, a specific item, and to buy a lot of it on a regular basis. But in the words of Bob Dylan, things have changed. The introduction of the small format grocery is not a return to Mom and Pop's Deli, but a chance for the large chains to re-establish themselves in particular niches. The ones that will be successful are those who recreate the feeling of a personal relationship between store and shopper without losing the ability to draw on a larger, adaptable inventory. Add in a healthy dose of contemporary technology (seating areas with WiFi, an in-store video network, green building design) and you have the next incarnation of the corner grocery. Ironically, for a glimpse of a format-of-the-future, we need look no further than Walmart.
Walmart? Small? Are you joking?
Image credit: Les Chatfield
While Walmart generally seems to be successful by treating its customers as one indistinguishable mass driven solely by bargains, its latest small format test store reveals an ability to cater to geographically specific core customers. The retail giant's recently opened Garland, Texas location has a plethora of fresh and prepared foods appropriate for the local Latino community. There are aisles of specialty products, fresh tortillas and rolls made daily, fresh herbs in bunches, chiles of all kinds, and fresh tamarind, cassava, spices and other items widely used in the kitchens of Mexican-American families. But what's interesting here is that this is also one of the new environmentally green, energy efficient stores that Walmart has been promising. Potential PR coup aside, Walmart's push into sustainability is a calculated business move, as research suggests that segments of the Latino market are concerned with the environmental impact of giants like Walmart, and are buying organics.
While small format stores might seem like a good way for giant retailers to reconnect with shoppers, and for smaller retailers to expand on the cheap, we need to keep in mind that very little real-world research has been done on these stores in their latest incarnation. So while companies often approach the market with a focus on convenience -- the urban, time-constrained consumer who will also be attracted to in-store specials -- the core constituency is more likely to be locals who can turn the store into "their own" by finding recognizable products and brands that are suited to their cultural niche. Many small format stores promote too great a reliance on in-store brands, which may backfire unless it's demonstrated that core consumers in that area really want those products.
Fostering community and loyalty
As a model, consider the chain restaurant (the donut or bagel shop or even that ubiquitous coffee shop whose name we need not mention) that becomes a local draw simply by participating in community life. They might sponsor softball teams, provide product to local charity drives, and adapt menu offerings to regional tastes. While Starbucks tried to position itself as "The Great Good Place," there's no reason why the center of community life can't be a different kind of commercial site. As discussed in the Retail Media News analysis of Giant Eagle's Get Go, adding seating and WiFi, value-added meals-to-go, good coffee, and single-serving items also enhances the viability of these sites. Consumers don't really want to "hang out" in the regular supermarket, but its sheer size means that the average trip lasts about half an hour. In small format stores, people need a reason not to rush out, whether it's a food tasting or a digital display with tailored content, such as cooking demos or local sports highlights.
Finally, small format stores should focus on what they do best: catering to the needs and desires of their already-loyal following. For example, JoAnn stores, which have expanded their offerings to home decor, crafts and framing, have had success with small format stores that cater more explicitly to their core constituency: people who sew. The point is not whether small format is new or old, successful or silly, but rather that it exists and it does speak to core customers who desire a convenient but not overwhelming experience. The key is tapping in to a nostalgia for the small and the convenience of the local without losing the excitement of the new or the selection of the grand. It's no small order, but in today's tough retail landscape, the consumer demand for this precarious balance can no longer be ignored.
As a consumer, do you prefer small local stores or larger national ones? Does your perception of the store's local or environmental focus influence your shopping decisions? Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
When trying to explain the benefits of installing an ad-funded digital signage network, I'm often asked the same question again and again: "Isn't it just an expensive way of replacing my printed ads?" The extreme focus on price might have something to do with the fact that I live in Mexico, where we've seen the exchange rate with the US dollar rise 30% in just a few months (and most things you need for a network are priced in dollars). But I think it has more to do with the fact that people still compare the cost of installing the network with the cost of printing ads once. While the benefits of digital signs might be obvious to many of us, there are still plenty of people who don't understand the additional value that digital signage can offer over traditional signage.
Do digital signs really earn more money than traditional ones?
I'll use a project I'm working on right now with 85 stores as an example. Our initial estimate is that it will cost them around $200K for the necessary hardware and software for an 85 store installation, which comes out to $2,352 per store (not including installation and ongoing production costs). If we assume the installation will run nicely for five years -- a fair, even conservative, estimate -- that comes out to merely $39.20 per store per month. Even assuming that the customer makes this initial investment through a financial (leasing) company and incurs some fees there, it seems like a pretty reasonable figure. By comparison, considering the costs of designing and printing ads, shipping them to each location and being sure they are displayed, you'll see that the monthly cost of the traditional method isn't too far away from the cost of buying the equipment for the digital signage network.
Image credit: Gaetan Lee
Production and distribution costs are only a part of the whole equation, though. Another thing you have to estimate is the value of the ads being shown, typically by calculating the impressions -- or opportunities to see -- that you can make at the same space at each store. If you install a digital screen, you'll have the ability to run several ads in the same piece of real estate (but with fewer impressions for each). With a traditional printed ad tacked to the wall, you can't use that same spot for another ad at the same time. While the opportunity to see each piece of content may be lower, the ability to put multiple items in the same high-value location is very compelling for advertisers, so the real value of each spot remains pretty high. I'm not the kind of guy that will tell you to replace all of your printed stuff with digital, but using digital for high-value locations is a great way to squeeze more value out of your high-traffic or high-impact areas, which is more important during our current economic crisis than ever.
What's the secret to getting the most value from digital signs?
If you've made it this far into today's article, you're surely wondering "How can this guy prove I'll make more on the net with digital ads instead of print?" Well, I can't tell you that for sure, but speaking from experience (in a past life I managed the entire Walmart TV network in Mexico), what I can tell you is that the right content mix will absolutely make more sales. And I'm not talking about flashy, expensive, high production value content either. You can use simple tools on your own PC to create the right kind of ads as long as you know the right messages to transmit to your customers.
For starters, in the digital world the "one size fits all" concept is simply wrong. When you have a digital network, you simply don't do a country-wide promotion like you might in a catalog (where all of the "best" items typically have the best placement because you know for sure they will sell well). What we found to be productive was to run specific local promotions with our first-tier items, mixed in with promotions for some of our lesser-selling items (which tended to have a lot of excess inventory). Even better was when we would change our promotions on specific days, weeks or months based on past data about the kinds of shoppers who would be in our stores at the time. For example, the people buying a high-end beauty product around the holidays may have been doing so for a gift, whereas those that bought the same product mid-year were more likely buying it for themselves.
Another benefit of digital signage is the speed it brings to your internal workflow and distribution. When you only have traditional signage to promote your products, the workflow of that system is really slow. In your best scenario, your September catalog has to be at the printers by July to allow enough time to print and deliver it. This means your promotions for September have to be designed and defined somewhere around May. Where is the "opportunity" there? With a digital network you can build your promotions for September even one week or one day before the month starts. Imagine you have a beautiful raincoat in your September catalog, but this year turns out to be particularly warm and dry. Your printed catalog's advertisement is worthless. With digital ads, on the other hand, you can continue to promote summer clothing until the first drop of rain appears (whenever that happens). Just like the guys in New York City that pop up out of nowhere with umbrellas when it starts to rain, digital signage has the ability to be on time with the right message when needed -- and advertisers are willing to pay some premium for that advantage.
Image credit: Kevin Coles
Make sure you try new things
In the end, digital signage is all about the opportunity to let your customers see what they need to see at a specific place and at a precise moment. Like the digital menu boards that show you breakfast in the morning, lunch in the afternoon and dinner at night, digital signs add value by letting you use your most valuable space as efficiently as possible, with less "waste." But there's another advantage that frequently gets overlooked. Because digital signs are often put in the best possible store locations, store owners and networks owners can be reluctant to let certain ads run. When you see traditional signage in a store, 90% of the space is used to advertise products that store owners already know will sell well (even if they don't advertise them). Because it's inexpensive to update content on a well-designed digital signage network, you have the ability to go beyond these "safe" advertisements and try to push items that have great potential, but don't yet deserve the prime poster space. While we continue to find value in selling ad space to A-list advertisers, there's even more to be found in atypical uses. Digital sign networks have turned out to be amazingly useful for moving the products that were sitting in the warehouse, great for temporary promotions, and truly excellent for promoting new arrivals -- all of which were either too expensive or too difficult to accomplish with static posters.
How have you explained the value of digital signage to your customers? Has the process gotten easier over time, or are people becoming more skeptical due to the hype that accompanies many projects? Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
Back from a week in Las Vegas and the 2009 Digital Signage Expo, I'm struggling to find a way to summarize what I saw, heard and experienced that won't just be a rehash of what so many others have done across the web already. Sure, there were lots of great conferences and presentations. And there were lots of booths showcasing new and interesting products. But I didn't get to see most of those, and I didn't get a chance to meet up with a lot of the people that I had on my list. Thus, any "comprehensive" overview from me would be woefully incomplete. Instead, I'd like to go through some of the things that struck a chord with me -- especially the developments that give some perspective on where our industry might be headed.
The sessions: Content Day, Mobile and Gestural Signage, and more
I had the opportunity to speak at sessions for both the "Content Day" track and the "Mobile and Gestural Signage" track on Tuesday, before the expo hall opened. The good news is that the Content Day room was mobbed -- it was standing room only the whole day through -- which means that there are at least 120, maybe 130 people out there who understand how important this stuff really is. That day's festivities began with a creative brief smack-down, with four different creative houses competing for a hypothetical contract with Samsung. There were several other good presentations, including a very interesting and illustrative panel session with a bunch of content lawyers at the end of the day. What I learned from the lawyers: if you're doing anything that effectively allows you to make money off of somebody else's content, you need permission. What I learned from the audience members: many companies are too cheap/small/busy to get permission, so they're going to shoot first and ask permission later.
Image credit: Sid/Stephen
My favorite quote of the day came from Show + Tell's Phil Lenger, who gave a fantastic presentation on developing a creative strategy (echoed on their pretty killer new website too). His fundamental insight: your digital signage network simply can't be compelling all the time, so don't try to make it. Strive to be really, truly compelling sometimes, so that your audience will come to appreciate your quality content, but not get tired out. It's one of those counter-intuitive thoughts that makes so much sense after you've worked on a network -- or ten or a hundred. He also has some pretty charts and graphs that you might want to download from here (PDF format).
I didn't get to catch much of the Mobile and Gestural Signage event. However, the one event that I did participate in (along with Jay Patel from Bluefire Digital and Stephen Randall from LocaModa) demonstrated that the audience there, if somewhat smaller, was no less enthusiastic and knowledgeable. Between talking to people at that event and noting the number of mobile- and touch-enabled screens on the floor, it's clear that interactive digital signs are the next hot thing. Which means I can dust off that old article about kiosk-signage convergence from 2004 and pretend it's all new :)
The show floor: Solid turnout, a few new toys, and signs of maturity
As I mentioned, I didn't really get a chance to spend a lot of time on the show floor aside from walking to or from meetings. There was a lot of square footage, and a LOT of exhibitors. Conversely, floor traffic looked a bit down from last year (though it might have been an illusion because there was so much empty space). But the folks I talked to were pretty happy with the traffic levels, and generally thought that turnout was good. It certainly could have been much worse given this economy. Every cab driver I came across made an effort to tell me that business was down 30% from last year. I think they were mostly fishing for bigger tips, but I'm sure the story was rooted in truth somewhere.
Aside from lots of new ways to interact with screens, it also seemed like everyone and their brother were also flogging 3D screens of some sort or another. I've been watching those things evolve for years, and this is the first time I've come across one and thought "you know, that might actually work." The manufacturers seem to be figuring out how to improve brightness and viewing angle. I understand they're getting cheaper, too. Along the same lines, the small form-factor, low-power media player seemed to come into its own at this year's expo. There were easily a dozen companies on the floor flogging tiny, fanless boxes for digital signage. Too bad most of them still cost upwards of $1,000. But the trend towards embedded devices and reduced power consumption seemed to be pretty strong.
In all, I was actually kind of satisfied to find myself bored after just a few minutes of perusing booths at the DSE. We're a maturing industry now, and while there are still hundreds of vendors out there essentially trying to solve the same problem over and over, at least now the solutions are starting to look more like one another. Were there new, cool technologies that might be able to make a meaningful contribution to the industry? Absolutely. But the fact that most companies on the floor were offering "better mousetraps" instead of "new paradigms in mousetrap technology" is an indicator that maybe the flood of hype will begin to subside and we can get on to some real business.
Other thoughts and observations
I was really surprised by the number of people who just walked up to me and said something like "Hey, you're Bill Gerba! I read your stuff all the time!". I'm continually both surprised and flattered by the amount of attention that this blog gets, and I very much appreciate the feedback -- both good and bad -- that you provide.
DailyDOOH's Adrian Cotterill doesn't care much for fish. He will, however, down deep-fried soft shell crabs with wanton abandon.
The folks at BroadSign had the good sense to keep Dave Haynes locked up in a small plexiglass box a'la David Blaine for most of the show. Surely they were worried that his célébrité was such that out in the open, he would be overwhelmed by hordes of die-hard fans pleading for his autograph.
Neither @KioskGuy nor @DigitalSignGuy look like their Twitter icons. @raffivartian and @manolo_almagro do (the latter only recently), as do I (though I'm a bit less blue in real life). By the way, you can follow me on Twitter if you like.
Speaking of Twitter, one company on the show floor actually issued a two-sentence press release indicating that they were joining the "Twitter revolution." Seriously. Lame.
Lyle Bunn simply must be two or three different people. No matter where I went in the convention center, every time I turned around he was there, deep in conversation with someone or other. I walk pretty fast, so there's just no other explanation aside from there being at least two Lyle's. Scary -- I know -- but it must be true.
Consumed too quickly or with too much enthusiasm, DS-IQ's specialty "Optimizer" cocktail will leave you in a decidedly less-than-optimal state, I'm told.
Despite what many predicted, Scala's Jeff Porter + CoolSign's Lou Giacalone != spontaneous combustion. We had them both in a room for quite some time and there was hardly even a spark. Bummer. Oh well, maybe next time.
So there you have it. Another year gone, and another Digital Signage Expo over. (Well, technically they have another DSE show coming up in September, but I'm referring to the flagship event.) For me, the show was a good opportunity to see what the industry has to offer and meet up with people I normally only get to talk to on the phone or over the 'net. If you made it out there, I'd love to hear your perspective on how the show worked for you, and whether you think it will help you to meet some business objective in the future.
What was your favorite conference session, or your favorite booth on the show floor? Leave a comment to let us (and them) know! Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
David Verklin, former CEO of Aegis Media and now CEO of Canoe Ventures, had some interesting things to say about the future of television during a keynote address at an industry event in New York a few weeks ago. On subjects like addressability, creative versioning and media targeting, Verklin made it a point to reference the out-of-home industry, which counts those abilities as key advantages over today's broadcast media.
So, what did he say?
Here's what Verklin told the audience during his keynote at the conference:
Another bright spot in the business is the outdoor business. You know, a picture on a stick in the age of TiVo is actually a pretty darn good idea. In many cases, the out of home business... Every one is under pressure. Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to paint a rosy picture of the American media business, but outdoor is doing surprisingly well."
Image credit: Rob DiCaterino
He even mentioned OVAB:
"Also, pay attention to something called the OVAB. The [Out-of-home] Video Advertising Bureau, a new trade association that has been started in the last two years to track the delivery of out of home video advertising. Think about it. Everywhere you go in America you see a flat screen. You see a flat screen in the airport. You see flat screens in elevators all the time. We have seen an industry emerge in America, the OVAB... it is actually a growth spot in the American economy.
Why is Verklin paying so much attention to OOH?
"I think it actually does relate to Canoe because it's about video. Isn't it? It's not about television. It's not about television. Video is coming in all kinds of forms. We're seeing video obviously being delivered on the web. We're seeing video in television."
Verklin’s comments are in line with what Donna Speciale, President of Investment and Activation at MediaVest USA, said during an interview in September:
"It will eventually end up being a video choice. We need to stop thinking it is TV, OOH or digital."
Part of the ramification for a "video" buy vs. TV vs. OOH vs. digital is that of budget allocation. If and when that materializes, the pot for networks to dip into will likely get bigger. Much bigger. And that should pave the way for stronger growth and sustained health.
Bill's comments:
Reallocation of funds is happening today, so Christie's observations are very much on target. Don't believe me? Just ask the guys at SeeSaw Networks or Adcentricity where their clients are taking money from to dump into digital out-of-home ads. Funding for DOOH media like flat-screen LCD advertising in airports and roadside LED billboards has to come from somewhere. And as we've noted before, the budgets for TV, radio and other broadcast media are so gigantically huge that even allocating a tiny fraction of those media buys to below-the-line channels can have a big impact (both percentage wise and dollar wise) for smaller markets like ours.
Can the market for digital out-of-home media grow without taking revenue away from more traditional advertising options? Leave a comment and let us know. Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
When we tallied up the results from our 2009 reader poll, I promised to invite more ongoing conversation by pointing out some of the interesting comment threads that are popping up in articles long after the original publication date. There's a large amount of untapped insight and perspective in some of these posts, so in what I hope will become a recurring feature (based on your feedback), I've picked three articles with comments worth exploring and expanding upon. The first has to do with where the statistics for advertising performance come from, the next is a rebuttal of my little "uncanny valley" article on in-store privacy, and the last concerns everyone's favorite whipping-boy, scrolling text tickers.
Advertising performance: What do the numbers really say?
In our article back in October about hedging traditional media buys with ad placements on digital signs, I asked whether a spot on a digital signage network will "do" more than a spot running on TV, and if so, whether that additional work would justify more experimentation by brands and their media buyers. Mary Anne Fleisher (from aim digital visions, if the link is anything to go by) noted that:
[The] economy today has set our revenue back a bit. But it has really set back revenue for radio, tv and newspaper. For the first time in history radio revenue is going backward. Layoffs are huge and their big ego's are shrinking. We are doing a great job taking a share and as you pointed out even a 10% share can be big even with local advertising. Its a hard way to go the revenue generating digital signage, but testing the results is very exciting. The best thing going for us is 80% retention.
Image credit: ArtemFinland
However, Gaurang Shah from DSN Global felt that the discussion may have generated more questions than it answered. Specifically, he noted:
I have yet to find few really good case studies that we can show our advertisers the merits of our medium/industry. You mentioned that from your own experience you think the return is 7-8% with sometimes even 300-400% - could you provide some details on these cases?
As I noted in my response, a big part of our problem is that ad performance is very inconsistent, partly because the networks themselves are inconsistent, and partly because much of the content being produced today is still pretty bad. (TV advertisers have had 50 years to perfect their skills. We haven't... yet.)
The 400% example I cited in the article comes from an old client of ours, Bass Pro Shops. Bass Pro is a chain of sporting goods stores with a very loyal customer base. In the example I mentioned, they were advertising a type of fishing line, which was on the shelf with approximately 30 other similarly-packaged items. When advertised on the in-store network, sales of the product jumped 400% versus other brands of fishing line, none of which were advertised on the network. The ad ran in 22 stores, and was not featured in another 25, yielding a statistically significant result.
Was it typical? No, of course not. Most ads in that chain had nowhere near that kind of impact. But it does show what's possible.
In-store privacy: Are consumers really at risk, or am I just whining?
I got a pretty strong reaction to our recent "Uncanny Valley" article, which talked about the dangers of trading the privacy of digital signage viewer data in exchange for added convenience. While most of the folks who either commented or emailed expressed a view similar to my own (that a tight policy with strictly-enforced opt-in and opt-out provisions could yield a working system for trading privacy for personalized service), one commenter, only known as Anonymous, clearly felt I was off the mark:
Bill, I disagree with your chart and your theory behind consumer squeamishness.
First, your chart only places face/iris identification below the X axis, without explaining why the other applications you list don't belong there as well.
In fact, the application in which the kiosk is activated by RFID in a consumer's loyalty card is actually a much greater invasion of privacy than iris/facial recognition.
The loyalty card not only identifies individual consumers, but links this identification with their shopping histories.
This application belongs below the X axis of your chart even if it has yet to gain as much media attention as facial recognition.
The other loyalty card application is less privacy invasive because it suggests tea and crumpet information is analyzed in aggregate, not at the individual level; so this may not belong in the valley.
Second, I think consumers' distaste for facial recognition in digital signage has very little to do with the existential paradox of human-like robots; that theory trivializes some very concrete privacy issues.
On one level, it's more simple than that: people instinctively don't like being watched or scrutinized without their consent and especially without their notice.
Digital signage with identification technologies represent a new front in mass surveillance; in this case the surveillance is used for marketing and not security, which makes the privacy encroachment more offensive because it is surveillance for profit and not for safety (and consumers are already bombarded with ads to begin with).
It's naive to think that digital signage will not evolve to routinely identify individuals, because it will be profitable to do so once the technology is less costly.
Similarly, it's against the trend of history to believe that the data digital signage firms collect on individual consumers will never be shared with other parties or used for purposes other than marketing; law enforcement is one good example: remember that any records kept by a digital signage firm are available via subpoena or court order.
Digital signage companies, trade associations, their partners and their affiliates must commit to consumer anonymity when using facial recognition cameras, and notify consumers of when such cameras are in use; RFID and mobile applications should operate strictly on an opt-in basis.
It is past time for the industry to establish concrete consumer privacy standards, both technical and policy-based.
I don't even know where to start with this one. Obviously everyone's entitled to their opinion. That includes our anonymous commenter. But it also includes me. The chart I made reflects something close to my own opinion on the privacy-personalization exchange, so of course it's going to be different for others. My main point, though, is that I think everyone ought to be able to decide this for him or herself. What we have right now is a wild west-type scenario where people are gathering data, often without consumer consent or even knowledge, and are then using that data in ways that might not be in the consumer's best interests. I agree wholeheartedly with the anonymous commenter's last point -- we do need to establish a set of standards and stick to them. I know it's something that's being worked on by at least one major industry group, so I'm hopeful we'll hear something about it soon.
Scrolling tickers: How should you display two tickers at once?
That's the question asked by Jessica, on our article about using motion and silhouettes to improve your digital signage content. My simple answer to "how to use two tickers?" Don't do it. Seriously, unless you have a very unique situation, two tickers is almost certainly a terrible idea. In fact, unless you really know what you're doing, even one ticker often doesn't make sense. It all has to do with how we absorb information from the screen, and while this will be the subject of an upcoming blog article (and I went over it during my presentation at the DSE last month), suffice it to say that using a ticker is one of the least efficient ways to transmit information to your viewing audience. Heck, even CNN figured that out and abandoned their ticker late last year.
So that wraps up our first collection of reader questions and comments. As you can see, there are some pretty interesting conversations taking place throughout these five years' worth of articles. And sometimes (OK, often) the commenters prove more insightful and perceptive than me. So the next time you come across something I've said and you want to call me out on it, please be my guest. My loss will certainly be the community's gain -- but if you want to agree with me, that's OK too :)
Did you enjoy the format of this article? Leave a comment and let us know. Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
While visiting the recent ISE convention in Amsterdam, I was attracted to the booth of the Korean company Tovis. In their booth, they were showing something decidedly different from the other screen vendors on the floor (who were apparently engaging in the usual fight for the largest screen ever seen). Tovis took a different approach to catching eyes by showing off a full range of "stretched" displays, presenting form factors different from the common 16:9 we're all so used to. While the screens certainly drew my attention, I first dismissed them as a novelty -- something unusual, but not necessarily useful. As I thought more about it, though, I realized that catching my attention is the ultimate use of most digital signs. So perhaps these stretched screens will have an important role to play in our field.
Not all screens are created equal
Among the unusual screens I saw were "1/2" and "1/3" height monitors, ranging from 6" to 42", which provide a new way to present extended landscape content. These were especially well-suited for digital signage applications in public transportation, entertainment and retail. The screens have been "announced" for a while (I remember LG presenting a couple of stretched monitors last May). However, those models were apparently prototypes intended to test market reaction. I've read about a few deployments with stretched screens, but they are still very uncommon.
Image credit: Roberto Vogliolo
I must confess that I have a particular interest in the subject. This arose when I was looking for some ideas regarding the evolution of our queue management product line, in which we are using LED panels to show the number being served at each line, integrated with standard 16:9 LCDs for information related to the services and other video content. A brilliant and dynamic "stretched" monitor in place of an "old fashioned" LED display could potentially give a boost to the system by providing a means to integrate service information with video communication. At the same time, it could preserve the traditional form factor of the LED display and easily fit within existing venues. I don't think this will be the killer app for such screens, though. It seems that with their unique form factors, stretched displays could help improve digital signage effectiveness inside railway and underground stations, airports, malls and cinemas, or wherever users need to find a place, a point of interest or a direction.
Judging a screen by its cover
Another interesting approach to making screens more noticeable and eye-catching is to integrate them with the branding and color scheme of the venue itself. This usually involves dealing with interior designers and companies specializing in the production of custom-made frames or enclosures. A couple of exhibitors were showing off-the-shelf solutions for "dressing" any standard 40" monitor with plastic or steel "skins" available in different colors and styles. These screen skins are designed to be integrated with a full range of wall and ceiling mounting systems. All of the screen bezels are fully certified and the estimated delivery time for standard colors is very quick. I saw the same concept applied to indoor and outdoor totem shells, designed to fit standard monitors from the major producers. These seemed a bit less "stable" in design and production, but I believe they can deliver the product as claimed.
Image credit: Roberto Vogliolo
Just a few years ago, a customer of ours asked for special custom frames for their monitors. At that point in the industry's development, we had to contract with a specialty craftsman to custom-build them for us. It would have been much easier (and probably much less expensive) to use an out-of-the-box solution. From just a few hours on the ISE show floor, it was obvious that the digital signage market is now big enough and mature enough for vendors to take these unconventional ideas and specialty products, and produce them in quantities big enough that they're affordable. Industrial solutions will start to appear not only for the basic components (e.g. monitor or player) but for these more exotic products as well, giving customers and integrators more options for the make versus buy decision.
Bill's thoughts
In an industry whose primary function is to make sure messages get seen, novelty devices have had a decidedly mixed success ratio. On the one hand, flat screens themselves were once unique enough to get noticed on their own, and we've certainly seen a huge adoption of them in all sorts of out-of-home spaces. Likewise, rear-projection and polarized films like 3M's Vikuiti are turning up all over the place, despite reasonably high upfront prices. On the other hand, though, there have been more failed 3D devices than I can count at this point, and some cool gadgets like those 360 degree LCD screens look great, but are too expensive to ever make it into mass-adoption territory.
Nonetheless, the drive to be seen will continue to foster new developments in display technologies. Like the stretched screens, they'll start out in the realm of business services products. But like Microsoft's Surface (or any of the other multitouch and gestural systems that came out right before and after), they might find their way into the home before too long. When that comes to pass, the novelty value decreases dramatically, which could force networks to look for the Next Cool Thing to attract eyeballs.
Flat screens are standard fare now, and 3D has been "around the corner" forever. What new displays or technologies will be the new "gotta have" novelties in the next 2-3 years? Leave a comment to let us know what you think! Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
Laura Davis-Taylor was nice enough to let me give a presentation on content optimization strategies at the Digital Signage Expo this year. While it turned into a 60-minute whirlwind of slides and sample clips that left more than one person's eyes glazed over, I actually received quite a few compliments and requests for the PowerPoint deck itself. I don't really like giving out PowerPoints, since a lot of my slides don't make much sense without a narrator. Instead, I came up with what I think is a better approach: I'll be sharing the contents of the presentation in a series of blog articles. Today, I want to start with some tips that our designers and partners have used to make on-screen motion that looks great -- without sacrificing clarity and readability.
A brief review of motion in digital signage spots
For anyone new to this blog, I translated last year's DSE content presentation into blog articles, creating a list of best practices for digital signage content creation. With regard to motion, I pointed out seven things to keep in mind when using motion (moving text or imagery) on your digital signs:
Just because you can make it move doesn't mean that you should.
Don't let motion interfere with readability or comprehension.
You get only 1.5 - 3 seconds of full attention for glance media.
Leave enough time to read the text.
Treat moving text like it's not there at all (from a readability perspective).
Motion on the periphery is more subtle than motion in the middle of the field of view.
The most important features of your spot should be static.
Some new tips and tricks for using motion effectively
Image credit: Andrew Larsen
As you can see, most of the tips focused on improving readability. Why is that? Well, you could have the most recognizable and iconic brand imagery in the world (and I'm talking mouse ears or golden arches), but unless your message is actually readable on-screen, your content isn't going to be performing up to its full potential. From a practical standpoint, I'd like to add three more items to the motion checklist:
If you're the DESIGNER of the content, make sure you can read any on-screen copy 5 times in the time allotted. Quite simply, as the person most familiar with the copy, you're going to have a predisposition to vastly underestimate the amount of time it takes to read it. That's because you've not only had lots of practice reading it during the content development process (so it's already floating around in your memory), but also because you'll be familiar with the other distractions on screen (things like layout, animations, etc.)
If you're a REVIEWER of the content, make sure you can read any on-screen copy 3 times in the time allotted. A good designer will hand off a semi-finished piece of content to at least one other person to review before signing off on it. This person might be familiar with the account or campaign being worked on, but should be looking at the piece with "fresh eyes," in order to offer up some constructive criticism. The reviewer should be able to read any copy that you have on-screen at least three times before it disappears. We've found this to be a good rule of thumb for approximating the amount of time it will take an average engaged viewer to actually read what's on screen in the screen's actual out-of-home venue.
Ensure that the text can be read from a non-ideal angle of incidence. One common pitfall of designers and reviewers alike is that they typically view the content dead-on (e.g. perpendicular to the screen), and from only a few feet away. In reality, your content will probably never be seen like that out in the real world, so why would you review it like that? Take five big steps back, turn your head to the side a bit, and then see how easy or hard it is to get the gist of what's going on. I've seen more than my fair share of content that becomes unreadable if you're not staring at the screen from point-blank range, as I'm sure many of you have as well.
Should you include a ticker? Let's check the research
Oh tickers, how misunderstood you are. It's no wonder I get so many questions about using scrolling tickers. They look cool. They add motion and interest to static content on screen. And even though CNN toned down their tickers, they're still in full force at CNBC and other networks. Tickers seem to be quite popular, so they must be effective, right? Well, the truth is that unless you've got content that everyone is already used to looking at on a ticker (such as stock quotes), then a ticker is more or less the worst way to display it on screen. I've done a bit of research on the subject, but thankfully the boffins at Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Cornell, IBM and others have done many more in-depth experiments to determine the efficacy of using tickers to disseminate critical messages. This is a surprisingly popular area of research, probably because ticker displays are often used as notification systems that provide emergency/interrupt information to people performing primary tasks. The key takeaways from their studies are as follows:
Moving text takes longer to recognize/comprehend: 2-10x the time -- or more. The faster the scroll, the lower the comprehension rate. And I include the "or more" since you can scroll a ticker really fast and drive comprehension down to 0% if you want to.
Scrolling text has a 10-22% lower recall rate versus "fade in/fade out" delivery. Assuming that the text is on screen for the same amount of time in both cases, using a simple text "fader" to bring messages in and out with some visual appeal might be a better way to go, since the text is much more readable and memorable that way.
In-place displays such as a fade or blast are better than motion-based displays like a ticker for rapid identification of items. More than just being less readable, text messages that scroll are actually harder to understand than those that fade or blink in and out, probably because our brains are simultaneously trying to keep track of the moving text while deciphering the letters, forming the words, and working out the meaning of the message.
However, a scrolling ticker might make sense in certain situations. For example, dwell zone screens where a viewer will be waiting for more than 3.5-4 minutes (and will thus experience time dilation) are a suitable candidate, since it might actually be better to occupy the viewer's mind with a more challenging mental problem. Similarly, locations where there are no other distractions nearby would be acceptable. However, once you start talking about complex environments with lots of motion, other kinds of displays, and the like, a ticker is going to be an inefficient way of getting your message across. Don't believe me? Then just ask Earl K. Miller, a professor of neuroscience at MIT. As he explained to the New York Times, viewers may think that they can process it all, but they're fooling themselves. "A lot of times, when you think you're multi-tasking, you're just switching your attention between one or two or three things," he said.
Want to see some examples of great (and not so great) content?
There's one day left to vote for your favorite digital signage content over at the 2009 POPAI Digital Signage Viewer's Choice Awards. Even if you don't want to vote (for some reason), there's over a half hour of digital signage content online for you to review. Some of it is truly great. Some of it could probably use a pass or two through some of our best practices. But if you're a designer or creative director -- or even if you work in ad sales -- I suggest you take a look through the reel of content to see how other people have approached the problem of getting their message out on the moving screen.
Looking for more places to learn about content?
One other note: the folks at Strategy Institute are giving readers of this blog the opportunity to attend their 4th Annual Content Strategies Summit at a nice discount. The lineup looks pretty good, with Al Witteman from Tracy Locke, Christopher Gray from Saatchi X and Doug Bolin from Razorfish speaking, just to name a few. If you're interested in going, the discount code for our readers is WST10, which will entitle you to a 10% discount on top of the $500 early bird discount (which ends on March 30th). Perhaps I'll see you there!
Moving text and tickers are a hot-button issue in our industry, and something we continue to research. Do the points above match your experience, or even just your "gut feeling"? Leave a comment to let us know! Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
The second part of my content presentation from the Digital Signage Expo dealt with screen placement -- the how's, where's and why's of putting screens into venues to make sure that they get looked at. After all, the very best content in the world is utterly useless if it's played somewhere that no one can see it. As it turns out, this is a very complex subject, rife with provisos, exceptions and gotchas. Plus, an approach that works in one venue might not work in another, even if they appear very similar. The reason? Even if you do everything you possibly can to properly integrate your screens into a venue, the differences in personalities, demographics and mentalities of the viewers from one place to the next can make a huge difference. Still, our research has turned up a few key recommendations to keep in mind when deciding where to place your digital signage screens.
The Decompression Zone
You've all read Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping by now, right? No? But it was on our summer reading list. Surely you breezed through all of those weighty tomes during your downtime, right? Well, if you had, you'd probably remember that in that book, author and retail anthropologist Paco Underhill identified something peculiar about the entryway to a retail space: namely, we don't notice anything about it when we walk in. You see, shoppers change walking gait and mental state when moving into a store, especially from outside. Once in the store, they tend to ignore the first 10 to 15 feet of space. And unless they have a specific destination in mind (e.g. the checkout counter in the floor plan for a convenience store as shown below), they tend to move ahead and to the right, beginning a counter-clockwise path through the store.
Consequently, the decompression zone is a veritable no-man's land when it comes to messaging. Many folks still tack up posters and install POP displays at or near the store entrance. But at best, these work like visual "speed bumps" that attempt to get the shopper to slow down and start processing the displays. With a poster or cardboard POP display, that might not be too bad. But using a digital sign for that purpose? That's an expensive proposition. Consequently, we usually recommend that customers avoid installing digital signs at the store entrance. Are there ways to do it that are attractive and effective? Sure, probably. But are there better places to spend the money? Most definitely. Don't believe me? I'll give you an example.
Location, Location, Location, Baby
A few years ago, we did a project for a chain of large furniture showrooms in Florida. The chain wanted both kiosks and digital signs installed. The kiosks would print coupons and allow prospective customers to apply for a line of credit. The digital signs would advertise the services available on the kiosks (since in-store credit is a big money maker for furniture stores), as well as show some ads for current specials. The digital signs were mounted directly on top of the kiosks on large stands that stood about six feet off the ground. This made both screen and kiosk very easy to spot, even across the large showroom floors.
In a dozen locations using a similar store layout, we placed three kiosk/screen combos in strategic areas to measure where they would be most used. On the first floor, we placed them at the entrance (about 10-12 feet inside the doors), and in the center of the main showroom floor near a large stairway. On the second level, we placed a third kiosk/screen in the high-volume bedroom furniture area, which tended to be in the middle of the floor. After about six months, we looked at the data, and were astonished to find that the kiosks in the middle of the showroom floors handled 300% to 500% more transactions than those near the entrance. It became clear that moving that entry kiosk somewhere -- anywhere -- else would probably make more financial sense (and sure enough, it did).
In our case, we also found that transaction volume (which I'm using here as a proxy for engaged viewership) was also directly proportional to the amount of floor traffic in the area. We thus learned, over time, to simply keep the devices in the most heavily-trafficked parts of the store, excluding the entry landings. In this example, we had the good fortune to have access to the transaction data from the kiosks, which represents bona fide interactions between the device and a shopper. For more traditional non-interactive screens, coming up with an understanding of who's watching will be more challenging, and will likely require some kind of visual measurement (either using people or technology -- or probably both). By the way, if you want to learn more about analyzing foot traffic within a venue, check out this vintage article on using store traffic patterns to optimize digital sign placement.
So far, I've given you a lesson on what not to do, but you're probably wondering what you should be doing in terms of planning out your digital signage screen arrangements. Well, that will have to wait for next week's installment, when we take a look at viewing angles, the angle of approach, and making sure that your screens get seen when shoppers are most receptive to messaging. (We're about to launch our new FireCast Digital Signage EasyStart product for small networks next week, so it might be teensy bit delayed, but I'll try my best.)
Have you had any success with marketing to shoppers in the "decompression zone"? We're sure it can be done, and we'd love to hear some first-hand accounts. Take a moment and share by leaving a comment below. Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
Have you ever wondered why so many digital signs are placed, hung or duct-taped to such seemingly terrible places? At airports, hotels and retail stores I often find myself wondering "what on earth were they thinking when they put that there?" Upon completing some research on the subject, I realize why this probably happens: what looks good to one person doesn't necessarily look good to all -- and I don't just mean aesthetically. The fact is, where a screen is placed and the angle at which it addresses its viewing audience can be almost as important as the content playing on screen, and the optimal angle and placement is different for virtually everyone. This makes things tough for store planners and venue owners preparing for a digital signage deployment. So while we've given plenty of attention to making great content, today I want to focus on the relatively unknown and still under-appreciated art of screen placement.
The Angle of the Dangle
There are two parts to figuring out the expected viewing angle. Well, three, really. First is the angle at which the screens actually hang. Second is the expected angle of incidence of the viewer (in other words, the angle a viewer's head might be expected to be at while approaching your screens). And third, in some cases, is the "correction angle" that you use to compensate for any obstacles that might come up between your viewers and your screens. Consequently, I can't give you general wisdom like "hang the screens at a 17 degree angle from the floor". Without knowing the size and shape of the store, its layout, the average height of a viewer, etc., there's no way to make that recommendation. However, we have determined a few key facts that influence how one might go about placing screens in a venue.
For example, a person with normal 20/20 vision has pretty decent visual acuity for about six or seven meters (roughly 20-23 feet). They can read text a few inches tall from that distance without too much trouble (you'll see why this is important later on). A few years ago, Walmart Mexico did some research and found that it takes a typical shopper somewhere between 5 and 7 seconds to cover that distance. This means that if you put a screen smack-dab in front of somebody at precisely their own eye level, you'd have at most 5-7 seconds to get your message across, assuming they were paying attention to your screen the whole time (which, of course, they won't be). By fiddling with screen placement -- both the height of the screen from the floor and the angle at which it points relative to the floor -- you will directly impact how much time a typical viewer has for taking in your message.
(Thanks to blog contributor Axel Vera for unknowingly supplying me with a bunch of graphics and icons to slice and dice into these charts.)
Wait, the amount of time changes?
That's right. It's a little counter-intuitive until you think about it: if I put a sign right in front of you about 20 feet away, and it's at exactly your eye level, then assuming you have normal vision, you will be able to see that sign for every moment that you approach it. If I pitch the sign a few degrees up or down, that's going to make it a little harder to see while you're far away -- up close it should be fine, but let's say you can now only see it clearly from 18 feet away instead of 20. I've just decreased the amount of time I have to message you by 10%. Since I can't possibly know your exact height or adjust my sign's position relative to each new viewer that comes into range, all I can do is pick a representative height and angle and hope that it works well enough that a big percentage of my viewers will be able to see it.
What's more, just because a screen is in front of a viewer doesn't mean that it falls within his field of attention, which is considerably narrower than his field of vision. The field of attention only constitutes about 20-25 degrees of your field of vision. This means that you'll actually have a lot less than 5-7 seconds to connect with a viewer (and get him to turn his head towards the screen). If your screen is a mere 5 feet away, it'll have to be within about 2 feet of eye level to be in the field of attention. At 10-11 feet away, it needs to be within 4 feet of eye level. At the "full" 20-22 feet away (the maximum we can count on a person of normal vision being able to see clearly, assuming normal-sized text, etc.), it would need to be within about 8.5 feet of eye-level. If we assume the average shopper at a retail store is 5 feet 6 inches or so, then a screen should never be more than 14 feet off the ground (8.5 + 5.5 = 14). Having a screen placed so high up does mean that more people will probably "see" it (though not necessarily be able to take in its message). But it also means that the average viewer will have to be a bit closer before they can read it clearly (since the distance from the eye to screen is the red hypotenuse line, not the black linear distance line), and that it will be in the average viewer's field of attention for a shorter period of time than if it was placed closer to eye-level. In a shelf-mount or endcap scenario, again if your typical viewer is 5'6" then your screens should be placed from 3'6" to 7'6" for maximum attention time, again with the best bet being at just around eye-level.
How do we increase viewing time?
Well, the obvious answer is to make such amazingly beautiful and compelling content that it simply can't be ignored and draws viewers in like moths to a flame. Or you could use some gratuitous nud ity, but that's likely to get you fired and sued in a hurry. Really, the best practical answer is to make sure your messages are easily understandable from a distance so that you give approaching viewers more time to see the message and act upon it. We've given you all sorts of tips on how to make great digital signage content in the past, but I'll add just a little more data to that conversation today. While visual images do most of the communicating on digital signage systems, text still does most of the selling, so that seems like an obvious place to try some optimizations. If we go back to the premise that an average viewer should be able to read your screen from about 6-7 meters (20-23 feet) away, that means the text on screen needs to be about 2 inches tall. That translates to about 50-60 pixels on a typical 40" 1360x768 screen. If that same size of screen is running at 1080p resolution (1920x1080), the text would need to be about 115-130 pixels tall. Speaking of which...
I get asked so many questions about whether to use high-def (1080p) screens or not. This chart is my new answer. The bottom line is that either your screens have to be whompin' big, or your viewers need to be really close to realize any benefit from moving from 720p to 1080p. So for most applications today, there's probably no reason to go with the added cost, complexity and bandwidth/server/player needs of 1080p content. If you're in an environment where people will be really close to your large screens, then sure, it might be worth it. But if you're using 19" screens on an endcap or 40" displays atop high shelves, there's really no point.
Ok, so now you can whip out your planograms and a protractor and start figuring out where put your screens, right? Well, almost. You might want to wait a little while, because next time I'm going to talk about some in-store research that sheds a bit of light on where in a store you should place your messages for optimal impact. Whether you're planning a new deployment or a retrofit of some existing screens, we'll be looking at why viewing angles are only one part of the equation.
I once saw a 42" plasma mounted directly behind a two-foot-thick concrete pillar. What's the worst-placed screen that you've ever seen? Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
It's been a very busy two weeks here at HQ, since we've been preparing for the release of FireCast Digital Signage EasyStart, our first truly new product in nearly seven years. As evidenced by the dearth of posts on all our blogs, I've been swamped by a ridiculous number of last-minute details and decisions concerning everything from our MSRP ($1350) to the type of label to use for product activation keys (plain ol' paper won out over my favorite: holographic foil). But I wanted to get at least one article out this week, since after five years of doing this, I start to feel a nagging sensation when the blog goes un-updated for long periods of time. So in the tradition of the great Signal vs. Noise blog (authored by 37signals, a company whose mantra of simplicity has earned them something like 3,000,000 users), I thought I'd take a few minutes to explain some of the decision making that goes on behind-the-scenes at your average, workaday digital signage software company.
Caveat emptor
This is not an ad. Seriously, after years of writing this blog I hope you'd have a little faith in me :) That having been said, if you have absolutely no desire whatsoever to listen to anything to do with my company, just stop reading. I mean it. Don't worry, I won't be offended. And next week we'll get right back into digital signage screen placement research, I promise.
OK, so the rest of you are going to stick with me for a bit. After reading this article, I believe you'll think twice before you call up your software vendor to yell at them. "Maybe...," you'll think, "...that mauve on fuscia color palette the software uses is designed to streamline my workflow." Of course, even if you did think that, you'd still snap right out of it, place your call and let your vendor have it, I'm sure.
A new product? What on earth were we thinking?
Although the screens may look the same,small projects are a different animal.
Geez. I ask myself this question two or three times a day. But about 18 months ago, we started noticing a trend. While large deals of say 50 or more screens took forever to close -- 18 to 24 months is not uncommon, as anybody in the digital signage software business will tell you -- smaller deals of 10-20 units would often close quite quickly. This is good, since revenue from those smaller deals evens out the cash flow between periods when you're closing bigger deals.
On the other hand, while many of those guys in the 10-20 range thought they'd expand to hundreds or thousands of screens (one guy a while back even said "millions"), history and mathematics indicated that only a very few ever would. So we were left with a problem. Our software had to have all of these complex, sophisticated features and scalability for thousands upon thousands of screens for our big clients, but still needed to be simple enough for the smaller clients who were (and are) our bread-and-butter to use and enjoy. Needless to say, this caused many heated debates between myself and our software design team.
Trading flexibility for simplicity
Our ultimate solution (as much as anything can be an "ultimate" solution in the software world) was a compromise: we'd continue to put effort into simplifying our enterprise-level software as a service (SaaS) platform, while still retaining all of its powerful features. But we'd also create a new product, aimed squarely at the smaller guys. We estimated that it would take six to nine months and cost around a half million dollars to get version 1.0 out the door.
We knew our focus for this new product would be simplicity, but there was debate over what that meant. No multi-zone support? No network support? No interactivity? Those all seemed like pretty vital features, so they couldn't be left out, even though our support history showed that those three areas created the greatest number of support requests. But because our enterprise product was (and is) web-based, we realized that our server logs had a perfectly good record of exactly which features our customers had been using the most for the past seven or eight years. Suddenly, multi-zone support could be streamlined because 90% of our small clients were using fairly simple layouts. The look-and-feel of our network configuration tools changed as the emphasis shifted from "configure 1,000 players as fast as you can" to "help the average Joe configure his five players, at a pace he's comfortable with."
And so we went down the list. Over time, we realized that most of our customers were only using 25-30% of the features in our SaaS product. Those 25-30% became the base for the new product, which we decided to call EasyStart (it's easy, get it?). We went back to our pool of common feature requests to fill out our feature set, adding in things like real-time screen previews (impossible due to bandwidth constraints for most of our large customers with huge networks), easier file uploading and importing, and more built-in training videos and tutorials.
Unfortunately, all of this "simplicity" turned out to be pretty complex on the back-end. Our timelines and budgets both ballooned as we realized what a significant break EasyStart would be from our enterprise software applications.
You don't get a second chance to make a first impression
After 16 months and (embarrassingly large amount redacted) dollars, we were finally satisfied that our new creation was something that even our brethren at 37signals would agree is "simple." And by simple, I mean easy-to-use and understand, and not necessarily feature-deprived, which is always the nagging concern. But ultimately that won't be something for us to decide anyway. The free market -- whether you love it or hate it these days -- dictates that our prospective customers will tell us whether we hit the right combination of features and ease-of-use.
Competition in our industry is tough, and there are many companies out there with products that run the gamut from utter crap to really-freaking-awesome. Hopefully the market will decide that we're closer to the latter than the former.
So what do you think, did this article read like an ad? Go ahead, call me on it if you think so. But if you feel that way, please leave a comment and let me know how I could have made it more useful to you. Click here to leave a comment What's WireSpring's Blog All About? WireSpring provides hardware, software and services for digital signage and kiosk projects. But our blog is a labor of love. Our posts cover everything from case studies to creative briefs, and are authored by some of the industry's most well-respected leaders.
GREAT post by Mr. Gerba, CEO of WireSpring. http://www.wirespring.com/dynamic_digital_signage_and_interactive_kiosks_journal/articles/Customizing_digital_signage_content_for_key_audience_segments-580.html A few days ago, I gave my spiel about making great digital signage content to a customer that has been unsuccessfully trying to grow their retail signage network. They had a good footprint, well-placed screens, and the support of an enthusiastic retailer/partner. But for all that, [...]
Latin America’s Top Retailer Teams with the Region’s Largest Media Company to Reach Shoppers at the First-Moment-of-Truth FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. & MEXICO CITY–(BUSINESS WIRE)–In a partnership that unites two of Latin America’s most dominant companies, Grupo Televisa (“Televisa”) and Wal-Mart de Mexico (“Wal-Mex”) have launched an in-store media network covering 292 Wal-Mex stores across Mexico. [...]
Sunday, April 12, 2009
0 Comments