The Dirty Little Secret of Digital Signage: Proof of Play vs. Audited Proof of Display
October 19th, 2007 Daniel Parisien
Digital signage as a medium appeals to advertisers because of its potential to deliver both pin-point targeting and unprecedented levels of accountability. What may be this industry’s dirty little secret, however, is the fact that a large number of networks that are currently enjoying success do not have the proper reporting in place to provide this accountability to the marketers they service.
As my colleague Nurlan has been saying for years, digital signage has a strong advantage over broadcast media because of the fact that it can account for every ad played on every screen. Imagine if you could track with certainty every single time a commercial is displayed on every TV screen in the DMA when this TV set is on and tuned to the proper channel. Such tracking would be worth a lot of ad money, but it is not feasible for broadcast TV (except by way of expensive metering of sample audiences).
Well, the good news is that, in digital signage, near-real time tracking of each ad play on each screen (not just a player) can be a standard and automated procedure.
In order to take advantage of this, networks need to put in place the four components of a properly accountable digital signage reporting system:
1. Provide Proof of Display, not just proof of play. Proof of play is the term used in digital signage to describe the summary playback reports and the raw play logs. Proof of play is the equivalent of tearsheets in newspapers and of online impressions and click-through reports in pay-per-click marketing. While it seems obvious that proof of play should report on which ads were actually displayed on each screen and when, most of these reports only register which content was played by the playback device at best, not on the screens connected to it. If one or more of the screens are off or disconnected from the player, the proof of play would not detect that in many cases. This leads to the wrong count of ad plays, distorted count of impressions and the wrong conclusions in the post-campaign analysis. So by saying ‘provide Proof of Display versus proof of play’ we want to stress the importance of reporting of what really matters: playback at the screen level.
2. Audited Play Logs: most digital signage playback devices produce raw play logs that track what ad played, the date and time when it played and the duration of time it has played. In order to validate the accuracy of the entire reporting system, these play logs will need to be audited by a third party. Again, these audits register what’s being played on the actual screen, and then the results are compared to the play logs.
3. The Campaign Plan Report: the purpose of the campaign plan is to be able to provide a promise to the media buyer before they sign the ad contract. Using the characteristics of the network, one can generate a forward-looking plan that estimates how many times the ad will play in each targeted location. Having a Campaign Plan report with planned ad plays numbers will make it easier for you to justify your initial billing estimates.
4. The Campaign Performance Report: the campaign performance report aggregates the raw play logs for that campaign and presents the total results of the campaign against the “promise” made in the campaign plan report. The comparison between the planned plays and the achieved plays is how performance is calculated. The first 3 components are what make this report the basis for invoicing the media buy, make-goods or invoice reconciliation.
Based on my experience, the vast majority of digital signage networks out there do not have even two out of the four of the above components of a fully accountable digital signage reporting system.
Some networks charge a flat fee for a week-long, a month-long, three month-long, etc., campaign, based on approximate “impressions”, without providing any proof of play (or providing just an affidavit). Since the ways the impressions are calculated vary from network to network, such campaign cost estimates (and CPM values) are highly questionable.
Some provide a proof of play report, or play logs. As I mentioned earlier, most of the play logs, however, only report the fact that the player was on when the ad was supposed to play, not what played on the screens.
How is the industry getting away with it? I think the answer lies in the inherent appeal of digital signage as a medium. We see that even without any standards and metrics, retail digital signage and digital outdoor billboard networks are attracting more ad dollars every year. I believe that, similar to the world of Internet advertising before it, digital signage will soon undergo a rapid shift where the wheat will be separated from the proverbial chaff.
The question for network operators then becomes: will your network be ready in time for this shift?
Entry Filed under: Digital Signage Evolution, Digital Signage ROI, How to: Digital Signage Tips, Toys and Technologies
5 Comments Add your own
1. Tom Muniz | October 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Dan – spot on commentary!
The future of critical mass digital signage is intrinsically tied to advertising that is contextual and matched to the behavior of the consumer – and the kicker….accurately measurable to the connected consumer who is moving from platform to platform (TV to the PC..leaving the house with cell phone in hand and frequenting the 4th screen, digital signage OOH environments).
As an industry, we must set the standards – now – for Ad Serving and Ad Measurement with universal agreement to opening up all competing digital signage players and backends with the requisite SDKs/APIs and creating data compatible XML widgets to access the ad servers. If we don’t – Cisco, Google or Microsoft most certainly will.
2. OOHic » The Dirty L&hellip | October 29th, 2007 at 5:07 am
[...] Read the entire article. [...]
3. Ken Liao | November 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Daniel – great topic. We, at SeeSaw, whole-heartedly agree with the industry moving toward much greater accountability. It is refreshing to see your position that proof-of-play goes beyond logs of a playback device and needs to focus on playback at the screen level.
While we generally agree with your four components of an accountable digital signage reporting solution, we would respectfully add two additional factors: traffic and awareness. Traffic is represented the foot traffic passing by a specific location (the potential viewers) and awareness represents the percentage of people that are aware that a digital signage device is in place, displaying content. Everything in the system can operate perfectly, playback on the device is logged correctly, screens are on and displaying ads correctly – but without foot-traffic and awareness, there is no measurement of how many people actually SAW an ad.
By adding these two data components, the advertiser now has a more complete picture of their digital signage campaign’s performance. As Tom mentions, it’s imperative that standards be put forth by those looking to lead this industry.
4. Nurlan Urazbaev | November 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
I think Ken brings up a highly valid point: in order to get reliable impressions numbers, you need to measure the audience and match that data with the proof of play (rather, proof of display, as per Daniel’s definition).
The problem is, in the real world, a lot of networks have neither accurate proof of display stats, nor regularly updated audience measurements. The audience surveys are very expensive and are usually done only once in a few months or once a year at best. So, the accountability becomes fuzzy.
This could be resolved first of all by improving the proof of display reporting process, and, secondly, by implementing digital monitoring of viewership.
Digital cameras that capture every instance of a customer looking at a sign, the duration of eye contact, often even the age, gender and ethnicity of a viewer are already available on the market. The monitoring is real- or near-real time, and various types of reports can be generated based on that data. This new technology allows to deliver the ad impressions numbers as “hard” data, as opposed to the “soft” data, when only a sample of audience is polled by way of traditional exit interviews and then the results are extrapolated to the whole “universe”.
Such proof of performance can be sufficient to analyze the effectiveness of media spending in a non-retail environment. In retail, however, the ultimate goal is sales lift (see the previous post on the topic), so the campaign performance picture would be completed if sales conversion data is added to the two previous tiers, i.e., proof of display and audience measurements.
Earlier this year I have proposed draft definitions of “the three tiers of accountability” for in-store digital signage:
Tier I:
Proof of ad delivery: How many times was my ad displayed on the targeted screens, in what markets, locations, sites, and over which period of time? Such analysis requires robust proof-of-play reporting mechanisms. This level of accountability is used to justify billing per campaign and reconcile invoices. It also facilitates pricing your airtime, if you want to base it on the cost per ad play.
Tier II:
Proof of audience delivery: While my ads were served, how many customers had the opportunity to see them, or actually saw them? The trick here is: you cannot prove audience delivery without having accurate proof of ad delivery first.
Tier III:
Sales uplift measurement. This is the crowning achievement of advertising effectiveness analysis that has become easily available only in Internet advertising (when it is combined with e-commerce) and properly set up in-store digital signage networks. It requires correlation between ad campaign data and POS data.
5. A Digital Signage Trends &hellip | November 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
[...] Ken Liao from SeeSaw Networks sent this great response to Daniel Parisien’s post “The Dirty Little Secret of Digital Signage: Proof of Play vs. Audited Proof of Display“: [...]
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed