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.

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.

The concept of standardizing and packaging ad space from multiple DOOH networks to make media buys easier for agencies is becoming more and more prevalent. For this post I borrowed a smart headline from Rob Gorrie of AdCentricity, who commented on the overview of DOOH aggregators published on Digital Signage Today.

The idea of media aggregation is a relative novelty only in digital signage. Traditional media started using web sites for aggregation of media properties in the late 90s. Online media agencies began doing that almost since the beginning of Internet advertising. This trend was followed by the idea of cross-media exchanges and auctions, all of which successfully collapsed when the tech bubble burst.

What we are seeing today is a re-birth of the idea of media- and cross-media buying platforms, on a new qualitative level. However, when it comes to digital signage, its specific nature inevitably causes ‘aggravation’ of aggregation, at least in its early stages. If we follow Bill Yackey’s overview on Digital Signage Today, it becomes evident why.The trick with digital signage aggregation is that it has little value without an automated campaign execution (see points 4 and 5 in the workflow described in Bill’s article).

No affiliation with a big-name agency platform can resolve this issue, as such platforms deal mostly with the planning and buying aspects, and campaign execution is always based on a manual workflow. In all other media except digital signage campaign execution is a relatively mature process that does not involve complete and complex control at the receiving end. TV sets are controlled by viewers; radios are controlled by listeners, static billboards are updated once in a few weeks/months and are at the mercy of weather and vandals; magazines and newspapers are beyond control once they are distributed; PCs are controlled by users, etc.

Only in digital signage it is required and expected that one must enforce playback to a single screen in a network, fully control what’s showing when and account for it. Add several other networks – and you have a nightmare tech challenge for automation. Most traditional media and cross-media aggregators do not realize this until they try to do something with digital signage… And when they do… many of them give up the idea.

The solution is also obvious – DOOH aggregators must connect their cross-network planning and buying interfaces to a cross-network campaign execution (traffic) tool. My next statement is self-serving, but also true: there is only one such tool on the market today and it is called BroadSign Open API. So far it works only with BroadSign-powered networks (total of 160+networks in 25 countries), but this is only the first step. The technology is there. I invite you click here to learn more.

If you have not had time to read the abundant news on digital signage throughout the year, don’t get upset, just read this one article and you’ll know almost everything you need to know about the state of the industry and the outlook for 2009.

Getting back to the subject of what name should the industry adopt that Brian Dusho and I discussed in the previous post, Lyle confirmed that ‘digital signage’ is currently the most used name, despite the attempts of various groups to introduce other names. Besides, ‘digital signage’ doesn’t have the connotaion of being part of ‘out-of-home’ media. The latter has lately become rather a liability than an asset, as Outdoor/out-of-home bucket is ‘the last one to plan and the first one to cut’ when it comes to media plans and budgeting.

Click here to read Lyle Bunn’s article.

Looking back, most of the names ended up to be short-lived, as they failed to resonate with providers or their clients. Out of the initial aka.tv list only ‘digital signage’ remains in heavy use, the rest got either extinct or were modified; for instance: ‘out-of-home media networks’ evolved into ‘digital out-of-home’, ‘out-of-home video’ and ‘alternative out-of-home’ (e.g., in PQ Media reports). ‘Place-based media’ was backed by Nielsen, but did not fly either.

So, unlike the clearly defined traditional media and Internet, we remain for the most part a ‘no name’ media segment in the eyes of agencies, although many advertisers recognize the potential impact of communicating with consumers when they leave home.

Nevertheless, despite the confused identity, since aka.tv was launched, the medium has quickly expanded into a two-billion-dollar-plus sector, with a growth rate of 27% per annum in 2007 (PQ Media Report) and forecasted CAGR of 12.9% from 2007 through 2012 (PQ Media Report). That’s impressive, considering the recession (it was factored in the report) and the fact that digital signage is thus far largely off the radars of major media buying houses.

The recent Digital Media Summit organized by OVAB in New York showed that Madison Avenue finally succumbed to the two-prone pressure – from advertisers and networks, and is now ready to consider digital signage for inclusion in media plans.

However, as I see from my discussions with marketers, agencies and networks, the continuing identity crisis keeps preventing the industry from getting a legitimate seat at the media buyers’ table.

While agencies say they are ‘ready’, they are still structured by silos, or ‘buckets, neither of which gives digital signage any visibility. If we do not proactively help them define the appropriate category for our sector, we risk staying buried somewhere deep in the ‘out-of-home’ or ‘alternative’, or ‘digital’ buckets and, as such, being eligible for nothing but ‘crumbs’ versus real ad dollars.

Due to the fact that we are currently a subcategory of a category, or even a subcategory of another subcategory, most planners are also largely unaware of digital signage. And, as the saying goes, ‘if you’re not on the plan, you’re not in the buy.’

The question is, should we keep hiding within an existing category, or simply create one of our own and get the attention our medium deserves? A separate category would have a much better chance to distinguish itself from other media by clearly stating its unique value in implementing marketing strategies.

The next question is: if we push for a separate category, how should we pitch it, what name would reflect its true identity? Should we promote ‘digital signage’, which is already the most wide-spread and proven term inside the industry, or make a brand new one?

Speaking about a new name, what quality makes digital signage so valuable to advertisers? Undoubtedly, the fact that it reaches people when they are at a location other than home, when they are in a ‘consumer mode’ and are not so opposed to advertising messages, as when they are at home. Following this logic, why not name it ‘location-based media’? Or revive the ‘place-based media’, but make it a stand-alone category this time?

PQ Media in its latest report adopted the general name ‘digital out-of-home media’ for the industry and subdivided it into ’video advertising networks’ (VANs), ‘digital billboards’ and ‘ambient advertising’. This classification makes sense and is in line with recently increased usage of ‘digital out-of-home’, but if we go along this path, we will inevitably find ourselves back in the Out-of-home/Outdoor category, which is “the last one to plan and the first one to cut”. Even certain influential members of the OVAB (Out-of-home Video Advertising Bureau) are now doubtful about the ‘out-of-home’ part in the bureau’s name for the above-mentioned reason. Besides, ‘video advertising networks’ can be confused with online networks (just ‘google’ it and see what comes up).

Our trade, by all conservative estimates, is one of the fastest-growing media with unrivaled effectiveness, and it fully deserves a clear voice, a distinct name and an independent media buying category. It all starts with a name that may either help it soar, or stall acceptance by the advertising community. How do we resolve the identity crisis and get to play with ‘the big guys’? I would like to know everyone’s opinion.

Ken Borusso of Visual Incite published a very useful article in digitalsignagetoday.com on why should a business consider digital signage and how it is different from TV.

Here are a couple of insights from the article:

- While some business owners are undecided about the value of digital signage, large broadcast media companies have been acquiring and consolidating network ad space for the past two years.

- The value of digital signage CPM is much higher than that of broadcast media, even though the numbers are comparable. Digital signage delivers viewers who are prequalified by targeting, are less distracted, are near the products advertised, and are more likely to make a purchase.

Ken also explains the difference between broadcast TV, cable TV and digital signage programming models.

This is a great update on the subject BroadSign’s Brian Dusho wrote about in 2005: Loop Vs Playlist: How to target Your Digital Signage Audience.

You can read the full article by Ken Borusso here.

 You can also find the Power Point Show of BroadSign’s presentation on a similar topic at Screen Expo Europe 2006 here.

The preamble to the report says: “‘Digital signage’ networks of connected digital screens in public spaces (airports, stations, trains, supermarkets, hotels, surgeries, etc) are generating opportunities for traditional out-of-home contractors, digital specialists, technical enablers and system integrators, display manufacturers, venue owners and advertisers.” (Source: http://www.researchandmarkets.com).

The key findings of the report include:

– Digital out-of-home (DOOH) advertising revenues in Western Europe will quadruple over the next five years from 160m in 2007 to 626m by 2012. By 2012 DOOH share is expected to grow to approximately 10 per cent of total OOH ad revenues.

– Driven by the migration to digital and the incremental revenues generated from digital sites, the out-of-home sector will be the only traditional advertising media to post real revenue growth in the next five year.

– Thanks to the increasing affordability of digital displays, digital signage networks not only conquer brand new spaces for advertising (e.g. in-store point-of-sale advertising) but also upgrade static poster format sites in a growing number of locations (airports, stations, roadsides, etc.).

– Sales of displays and other hardware for digital signage generated revenues in the amount of approximately 4m in Western Europe in 2007.

– Lower maintenance costs and higher revenues, combined with reduced hardware costs, are making a profitable business case out of upgrading many existing to digital, as well as creating new sites intended to reach audiences on the move.

– The added value of digital OOH formats over traditional OOH formats (superior impact of moving image, creative and dynamic copy, booking flexibility and scalability, etc.) allows contractor to sell inventory at premium rates.

The report was produced in partnership with German research company Goldmedia and can be found here.

According to the updated report, “the “alternative” out-of-home media sector will grow at a compound annual rate of 22.5% through 2012, which is considerably faster than the overall growth of the U.S. advertising marketplace, and only a slight slowdown from the 24.6% annual rate of growth the medium experienced over the past five years.

Based on those projections, VSS estimates alternative out-of-home ad spending won’t be so alternative by 2012, when it will total nearly $6 billion, and account for nearly half (46.4%) of the entire out-of-home advertising marketplace. That compares with a tepid 3.8% rate of annual growth for traditional outdoor ad spending through 2012.”

…  “While video ad networks remains the largest alternative OOH category, digital billboards and displays grew the fastest in 2007, due to the strong rollout of new at-road signs, primarily from Lamar and Clear Channel. Spending on digital billboards increased 59.7 percent in 2007 to $372.0 million,” writes the Digital Outsider, quoting the report.

The forecast “likens the digital out-of-home ad marketplace to the explosive growth of the early Internet’s, but cautions that the growth will not come without challenges, including the impact of a general economic downturn that is expected to last through next year. Despite the positive outlook, the digital out-of-home business faces challenges,” the report warns. “In the short term, the sector is untested in an economic slowdown, although it was holding up well in the first half of 2008. Second, while major brands are pressuring their agencies to take a closer look at digital OOH, agencies are demanding more and better measurement on the effectiveness of digital out-of-home advertising. This will be key to the struggle [of] digital out-of-home,” reports Joe Mandese.

The VSS reports also validates our previous predictions that digital signage has a much bigger potential for accountability than any other media: “While macro economics may be somewhat out of the control of digital outdoor media purveyors, VSS notes that the industry is taking proactive steps, including efforts by the Outdoor Video Advertising Bureau, the Traffic Audit Bureau, and individual companies, to accelerate better measurement and ROI metrics.

“Cutting-edge measurement, particularly engagement metrics such as new ‘eye-dwell’ technology, has the potential to make digital out-of-home spending a prominent component of media plans in the future,”" the analysts forecast.

“Improved metrics, and accountability, coupled with increasingly mobile consumer lifestyle patterns, and a shift away from static video advertising, meanwhile, is expected to accelerate digital out-of-home advertising’s share of the outdoor medium, as well as the overall advertising marketplace,” quotes the Digital Outsider.

Ironically, traditional agencies are still referring to network TV, radio and print as “measured” media, and put all new media, including the Internet and digital signage  into the “unmeasured” category. Ad Age’s 100 Leading National Advertisers report says : “unmeasured disciplines, primarily marketing services such as direct marketing, promotion and digital communications (including unmeasured forms of internet media such as paid search).” (Ad Age, June 23, 2008)

I understand that “unmeasured” means not measured by traditional yardsticks like TNS, Nielsen or Arbitron, but what other means of communication has more potential of being tracked and analyzed than digital, which, as we see, is already being measured in a myriad of ways?

The same publication, Ad Age, in its July 15 editorial contradicts the LNA report: “… the drive to digital is providing new ways to measure multimedia efforts and proving a catalyst that’s bringing this movement to fruition.”

It’s just a question of bringing existing but disparate data to some common denominators. Hopefully, the OVAB’s long-awaited Audience Metrics Guidelines and other research initiatives will help introduce standards, starting with their fast-expanding list of member-networks.  

While the economic slowdown is hurting the traditional “measured” media, the so-called “unmeasured” digital and Outdoor media seem to be doing great. Digital out-of-home is fitting into both categories, so we are in good shape so far…

I expect that this outdated classification will disappear from the trade lexicon in the near future, the same way as we no longer hear about “above the line” or “below the line” media any more…

In the meantime, the “unmeasured” media is running full steam ahead…

Nielsen is about to launch a new service that will provide monthly audience ratings for digital out-of-home networks in a format similar to that of TV ratings “pocketpieces” (booklets that you can fit into your pocket).

According to MediaWeek, “Nielsen has already issued its first report for Ideacast’s health club network. Sources confirmed other networks have also signed up for the service, among them Gas Station TV, Arena Media Networks and CBS Outernet.”

Katy Bachman, the author of the MediaWeek’s article, continues: “…standardized metrics could be a game changer for a medium advertisers find attractive but that lacks the metrics to give it a fair evaluation.”

“Measurement will bring some order to the whole medium,” said Jim Spaeth, president of Sequent Partners, a research consultancy hired by the Out-of-Home Video Advertising Bureau to write research standards to be released later this summer.

MediaWeek says Nielsen will issue reports free to agency clients, which it does with its cinema reports. For Ideacast, it takes the business to the next level. “Nielsen has a database of 30,000 planners and buyers, and they’re sending this to their entire database,” said Jason Brown, president, sales and marketing at Ideacast, which has already begun selling with the data. “Our business plan and internal projections are based [on these reports]. It’s now our currency.”

MediaPost wrote that, “… perhaps the most important aspect of the new pocketpieces will be Nielsen’s imprimatur, a stamp of approval that would provide legitimacy and authenticity for place-based networks calling on advertisers and agencies.”

Another advantage, according to Paul Lindsrom, Senior Vice President-Nielsen Strategic Media Research, would be “the ability to flow place-based TV audience estimates into media-planning software from firms such as Nielsen’s IMS unit, or various media and marketing mix modeling systems.

Lindstrom called the plan a “fairly simple, fairly straightforward approach” that would enable place-based TV networks to be planned and bought alongside traditional TV outlets, writes MediaPost.

MediaBuyerPlanner.com explains: “Whereas television and internet audience estimates are taken from consumer panels, Nielsen will gather data for the out-of-home video networks primarily from compiling and modeling third-party data, and combining that with Nielsen research conducted by telephone.”

MediaWeek says Nielsen already has competition in digital signage measurement: “While Nielsen is the first research firm to try to establish currency for the medium, it may not go unchallenged. Several other players, including Arbitron, Knowledge Networks, Edison Research, Peoplecount and MRI, as well as TruMedia and Quividi, have developed research and have worked with OVAB to develop guidelines.

“There are a lot of companies out there [looking to measure OOH video]—two companies may also work together,” said Suzanne Alecia, OVAB’s president. “Our guidelines are a rule book for any research provider to use,”” writes MediaWeek.

Advertising Age pointed out on June 23 that, “While out-of-home video advertising was estimated by PQ Media to take in $1.28 billion in spending in 2007, the emerging media sector did so with no standardized metrics for advertisers and agencies to buy it efficiently. The 18-month-old Out-of-Home Video Advertising Bureau is working with more than two dozen vendor and measurement partners (including Nielsen, Arbitron, Screenvision and CBS Outernet) to help create a universal measurement checklist for out-of-home media buyers. But even after the metrics receive official approval from the American Association of Advertisers and Agencies, they’re not likely to be employed until early 2009.”

My colleague Brian Dusho and I were part of several rounds of dicsussions of the OVAB’s Audience Metrics Guidelines, and I can testify that the document absorbed input from all stakeholders: the largest networks, research firms, technology providers, agencies and advertisers. Once endorsed by trade organizations and published, it will be a solid starting point for standardizing the digital signage ad space.

***

While screens are the most visible component of digital signage, the critical part of any network is the software that powers it. One of the obstacles to faster growth has been the lack of software platforms that could accommodate the necessary functionality without being cost-prohibitive to network owners,” – this is an excerpt from a MediaPost’s article based on BroadSign’s white paper on digital signage software distribution models.

You can find the full version of the white paper here.