An Essay on the Compulsive Need to Rename Digital Signage

There is a lot of discussion going on in recent weeks surrounding the term digital out-of-home compared to digital signage. Some say digital out-of-home is a subset of digital signage where DOOH is related to advertising networks. Others say digital signage is not related to advertising and is a different category than digital out-of-home. Veterans to this space must remember the cyclical nature of our industry and the compulsive need gurus-of-the-week have to give a new name to digital signage.

Maybe most do not remember the fact that industry portal aka.tv named itself that way for exactly that reason. The tagline used to read “aka.tv for the industry with an identity crisis” right beside a banner with 40-or-so odd names this industry has tried to carry:

• Captive audience networks
• Video advertising network
• Outdoor video advertising
• Place-based media
• Digital Out-of-Home
• Digital Billboards
• The Outernet
• … and dozens more

Of all these terms, the only one to really stick through the better part of two decades is the term digital signage. The new kid on the block seems to be digital out-of-home and to its credit, it is the only alternative to digital signage that has really stuck. The issue with using the term digital out-of-home, or DOOH, for networks that wish to generate advertising is alluded to by my colleague Nurlan Urazbaev in his previous post “Is Digital Signage Ready for Media Buyers?” when he points out some of the complaints from media buyers:

Another big question is: what category does digital signage belong to? Is it part of OOH (which in itself is not a big category), should it be a subset of cable, digital or alternative ‘buckets’? In fact, none of those category options actually do digital signage any good, as they do not reflect the unique and enormous potential it carries. So the debate goes back to: what this medium should be called and whether a separate, independent media category should be created to properly identify it.

Out-of-home, as a category, is already relegated to a relatively small category in the media mix that is one of the first off the planner’s list in times where money is tight. Some of the proponents of the digital out-of-home term probably do not realize they are classifying themselves in a subcategory and aren’t doing themselves any favors.

One of the discussions at the CODACAN meetings we had a few weeks ago really got me thinking about the industry, the technology and our terminology. The discussion we were having was related to the charter of CODACAN and whether it was related to promoting standards for advertising sales or promoting the possibilities of the technology. What came to me is that there are 3 real types of digital signage, all of which have as a core purpose to communicate a message to an audience within the context of a specific location:

1. Product promotion within a retail location to increase product sales
2. Advertising sales to an audience targeted based on the type of venue they are visiting
3. Utility functional reasons such as an interactive director, schedule display or queue-and-ticket system

Do all three of these types of digital signage need their own term or bucket? The Internet is considered its own category for media buyers even though it has many different permutations from banner advertising to search advertising to social media advertising. In that respect, isn’t digital signage the term that fits best? In terms of standards, it is the de facto standard. We are always explaining OVAB member networks, DOOH networks and others in terms of digital signage anyways.

What is wrong with with digital signage as a name for this industry?

Is television, radio, magazine or newspaper the most descriptive and appropriate name for those media? We recognize them due to the fact those terms achieved the tipping point and became de facto standards. If you search Google or Yahoo, “digital signage” matches 2.7M results in Google and 8.2M in Yahoo over 0.7M and 0.4M for “digital out-of-home”. The name isn’t what’s hurting the evolution of this space. Instead it is the compulsion to keep changing the name and push through re-education which adds confusion.

Add comment October 27th, 2009

Is Digital Signage Ready for Media Buyers? A Look Beyond 1,000,000 Ads

DOOH expert Lyle Bunn continues to diligently cover digital signage industry growth, extracting data from the latest studies and analyzing trends.

In his recent post he estimated, among other things, that the volume of unique ads played across all DOOH networks in North America in 2009 exceeds 1,000,000. Lyle further quotes a research company that puts the total number of DOOH displays in North Amedica at 900,000.

Lyle’s latest numbers are definitely useful to industry players and they most certainly will have an effect on new would-be venue owners, operators, suppliers and resellers researching the industry. However, as exciting as the numbers may look, it is not likely that they will serve as a catalyst to entice agencies or adverisers to put more money into DOOH space.

Unfortunately, to agencies, who for decades have been evaluating, planning and buying media using tools that process impressions, ratings and demographics, the number of ads displayed is not a metric.

The question today is no longer whether DOOH is a significant and viable medium – this much has been proven beyond doubt; the question is: how to buy it? 

The main complaints from media buyers are that the industry has not yet been able to answer  a few simple but critical questions:

1. What is the audience by geography, demographics and consumer behaviour? – so they could plan it like they do other media.

2. What is the ad spend by brand? – a standard metric – so Unilever, for instance, could see if P&G is already advertising on certain networks and decide for themselves… The problem here is that networks are withholding this information whereas in mainstream media it’s a standard parameter.

3. When will DOOH network ad space and audience data be included in agency media mix modelling tools and into syndicated research reports? This is what media buyers use for their media plans and if DOOH is not visible in those tools, it cannot possibly become a line item.

4. Another big question is: what category does digital signage belong to? Is it part of OOH (which in itself is not a big category), should it be a subset of cable, digital or alternative ‘buckets’? In fact, none of those category options actually do digital signage any good, as they do not reflect the unique and enormous potential it carries. So the debate goes back to: what this medium should be called and whether a separate, independent media category should be created to properly identify it.

OVAB is spearheading efforts to resolve all of the above issues. Following the publication of Audience Metrics Guidelines networks are now equipped with agency-endorsed approach to bring their audience measurements to a common denominator – impressions. The next big thing on the agenda is to standardize proof-of-performance metrics (proof of ad delivery, proof of effectivenes). Arbitron is going full steam ahead to assist networks in creating proper campaign performance validation.

Communication is underway between OVAB and syndicated media and consumer research suppliers on ways to include DOOH ad space into regular standard surveys. OVAB is also talking with media mix modelling software companies.

True, despite all impediments, digital signage has been growing even throughout the recession. This is a phenomenal result. But the real growth will commence when real advertising money starts flowing in.

Hopefully, 2010 and 2011 will see a shift towards the integration of digital signage into media planning and buying infrastructure on a systemic level. Only then can we expect a tidal change in ad spending in favor of our exciting but underfueled medium.  

You can read Lyle Bunn’s article that inspired this commentary of mine here.

Add comment October 2nd, 2009