Imagine if everyone actually watched all the ads. Holy brightlightsbigcity...
As digital media and content matures, so too does the need to understand the synergy between the screen and the viewer. It is paramount that resources be applied to understanding this synergy, discovering the challenges and exploiting the solutions. This continues to be the brass ring of out-of-home messaging.
That was a hoity-toity way of saying: Viewer engagement is difficult to achieve.
I see the current model of programming for digital media networks unable to live up to its potential of viewer engagement for three reasons:
The content model is the opposite of television.
Advertising is the programming feature on almost all digital screens with little to no emphasis on entertainment. Because ads are abundant for broadcast, it’s easy to re-purpose them for the digital sign, mobile device, or online. No one, no one, ever watched a screen just to watch the ads. Television, as a cultural phenomenon, was designed to entertain, inform, and educate, not sell, pitch, or swindle. (Sorry, Mr. or Ms. Agency, but arguing this is like saying you read Playboy for the articles. Yeah…right.) The digital media programming model is antithetical to a consumer’s mindset when watching the screen.
Viewer control over the content.
TiVo has forced advertisers to be more creative in their approach. You now see production value and storytelling that rivals the top television programs; advertisement now is entertainment. That’s why the Super Bowl draws 30 million viewers. We all know that great advertising, regardless of product, is fun to watch.* The problem is that these good storytelling ads are hard to re-purpose for non-TV broadcast digital environments. A 30-second ad will never be fully absorbed in an environment where the viewer is always moving, like a storefront on a sidewalk, or where there is no audio. The story cannot be told. The ads are not versioned for a different audience and a different mindset. In addition, trying to say the same thing outside the home that the customer made every effort to avoid in her home borders on disrespect for the viewer’s time and attention. They don’t want to see you.
There is no such thing as a captive audience.
Some network operators are enamored with the theory that their out-of-home screens can hold an audience “captive.” Under no circumstances are viewers forced to watch the screen. Even in a movie theater, people will ignore the pre-show ads, talking with each other or texting on their mobile device until they see the dancing filmstrip dude who asks all of us to hush up for the movie. The best a screen can hope for is a captivated audience. And because there’s no real way to measure it, advertisers are reluctant to spend money there.
In all three cases, the common variable is viewer engagement, the ability to get a viewer to stop, notice, linger, and engage with your message. Tough stuff. But understanding the potential pitfalls is key to building a solid strategy. Viewer engagement is the objective in compelling messaging. Remember, television has had 60 years to figure this out. We’re trying to get this solved in less than five years with a brand new medium.
*My dad worked in television for 30 years and knew good advertising when he saw it. I remember vividly as a child watching television with him and seeing an ad and him saying, “Nice ad.” I emulate him today when I see good advertising. Of course, back then the Miller Lite ads were the bomb and made everyone laugh. Maybe that’s why there was always a cold 12-pack in the fridge. And to answer your question, no. I never drank beer with my dad. Honest.
