This is a terrific way to get people engaged with a brand. And Kraft and MonsterMedia took the essence of the product – the elbow macaroni – and created a fun and engaging interactive. Very well done.

But here’s the problem. This doesn’t sell Mac and Cheese. That’s the point. Right?

These interactive screens were placed around the country (Chicago, New York, LA) in high traffic areas. And it looks like it got a lot of audience engagement. But did it sell any Mac and Cheese? Here are three reasons why this is a challenge:

Where Can I Buy? One of the most important tenets with digital engagement is the viewer’s ability to act upon what she has just experienced. The takeaway here is not the smile, it’s the brand impression. She needs to move that impression forward on the path to purchase. But if she can’t, the impression is lost as soon as the next bright, shiny object enters her field of view.

There Is No Takeaway. Unlike the Smile Happy Ice Cream campaign that Unilever created, this doesn’t give the viewer any takeaway, like the product, or a coupon, or a QR code for their mobile device to really open the gates of communication. With an immediate return, the customer connects the impression with the result – the product or access to it. This creates an indelible mark on the viewer’s mindset, and provides marketers with real data on the success of the device.

Using a Shotgun When You Need a Sniper Rifle. These were placed in high traffic areas to get viewer engagement, but I’m willing to bet that a large percentage of the people who interacted with it aren’t really Mac and Cheese fans. Sure, you’ll get a massive amount of people who will try it, making the numbers sexy, but if those viewers are not customers of Kraft or Mac and Cheese, it’s an inefficient execution. The value of each impression is much lower because of the high traffic strategy.

In the end, someone has to pay for this (yes, I know it’s the customer, but bear with me). As these devices become more prevalent in our culture, so too will the need to justify the expense on the marketing budget to create and deploy them. This is advertising, and advertising is made to get people to buy. If they don’t buy, these devices are no more than costly wet noodles.

Ba dum dum.

Share/Bookmark

People who have been around the sector for a very long time have watched as it has grown and evolved. Much has changed in the last five to 10 years. Oddly, though, what has changed very little is the presentation of content.

If you walked into an elevator or convenience store 10 years ago, you would have seen news headlines, traffic and weather reports, sprinkled around with some trivia and other soft content. If you walked into those same scenarios now, you would almost certainly see the same blend of content. Same story, as well, in thousands of other places where DOOH screens are now operating. The content formula has changed little, in spite of loud, open questions as to whether that sort of content makes any sense given the context and audience dynamics.

We have our own opinions about the merits of news tickers and other commoditized content that, for many networks, is there for not much more strategic reason than to fill up the time between the ads and venue messages.

A couple of theories come to mind. We think many new networks run this content mix because that’s what they’ve seen elsewhere, so it MUST be what’s done. We also think that situation is perpetuated by software operators and integrators who can’t offer many alternatives, and don’t want to introduce new costs that could stop a project in its tracks.

Relevant, engaging, compelling content that actually gets and keeps people watching is a big part of the success equation for retail and digital out of home networks, and more work needs to be done to get a clear idea of what’s appropriate.

The first step is understanding what resellers and end-users are using or asking for, and why.

So The Preset Group has developed an online survey that methodically sorts out where respondents sit in the decision and delivery chain, and asks a series of questions. The survey is quick and easy, and the answers entirely confidential, It won’t take more than a few minutes of time and we think if we get enough responses, we will get a useful snapshot of the current state of content needs.

To thank users for their time, those respondents who exercise the option to leave the basic name and email contact will be sent a summary of the findings, at no charge. If you really want to see that report when it comes out, it will be easier to be a participant and just get it than it will be trying to figure out who does have a copy and will send it along. So borrowing a famous brand line, Just do it (the poll),

To get started, click here.

Share/Bookmark

Just Do It.

A few weeks ago, I heard that OVAB was thinking of changing the name. The reason was that “OVAB,” both as a name and as a function, restricted the overall abilities and value of the organization to the ecosystem of Out-of-Home Advertising. My reaction, coming from a retailer that they pitched for membership and being a consultant looking at it objectively was, “Really?”

On Wednesday, OVAB officially changed its name to DPAA (Digital Place-based Advertising Association). The news was reported on MediaPost, then later on OVAB.org.

I think OVAB just kicked their brand to the curb. Here’s why:

“Video” Killed the “Television” Star
Any type of moving video outside the home is place-based. No video ends up in places randomly, especially where advertising is concerned. It’s all “place-based” to begin with. “Place-based” is, by admission of the MediaPost article, old school. When talking about the future of communication between an advertiser and a potential customer, nothing should be old school. Joe Mandese, the author of the MediaPost piece writes, “To some extent, the repositioning of the DPAA reflects a broader rethinking that has been influencing Madison Avenue, which is starting to move away from the term “television” in favor of “video” to describe the multiplatform nature of its long-dominant medium of choice.” Then why take the word “video” out of the title?

The name restricts the potential for DPAA’s growth in the entire ecosystem of advertising and video, including online and mobile media and communications. What is strange is that the DPAA seems to be okay with this. According to Suzanne La Forgia, President of the DPAA, “The new name emphasizes the place-based video networks that compromise the bulk of its membership — companies like CNN’s Airport channel, Captivate’s elevator network, and CBS’ Outernet – which are basically focused on extending the reach of TV-like video advertising into public places.” This is a bit insulting to those networks that do not comprise the bulk of the DPAA’s membership but still work to adhere to the guidelines set forth and continue to pay the high dues (which appear to be rising and which will certainly generate questions about the cost-to-value ratio). It also seems to ignore those smaller networks that are trying to conform to the DPAA’s metric guidelines, even if they cannot afford the membership, as if their network impressions are worth very little.

Ms. La Forgia, whom I very highly admire and respect, said, “The mission of DPAA. . .will not emphasize things like static digital billboards, point-of-purchase media, ‘shopper media,’ or mobile media, which may fall under the charter of other trade associations, but will be aimed specifically at the type of advertisers and agency executives who ‘influence television investment and digital investment.’” This is a mistake. In a culture of communication that spans everything from billboards to TVs to iPods to Blackberrys, across a multitude of outlets, with video clearly being the dominant medium, those advertising and agency executives are trying desperately to wrap their brains around the value of an impression in a rapidly evolving world of communication, and would love nothing more than a collective and standard operating procedure that all networks adopt and monetize for them. They would love to look at one sheet, see a matrix of network options paired with impression rates and media buy rates, and say, “Go.” Isn’t shopper media exactly what CBS Outernet does? Doesn’t point-of-purchase media describe just about every checkout video program in the world? What about Walmart’s Smart Network? How is that categorized?

By separating from the other forms of communication, the DPAA appears poised to drive misunderstanding and indecision even deeper into the minds of decision makers. It seems like the DPAA is seceding from the collective effort.

How do you say OVAB in German? Hopefully not “Pinscher.”
There is not enough difference between the names to warrant the change, given the global presence that OVAB has built over the last five years. There are OVAB seminars all over the world now, and I think OVAB, as a name and a brand, was charging full steam into owning the brand of out-of-home video measurement and accountability in all its forms, and developing true measurement metrics that could be adopted across several (if not all) platforms.

OVAB is easy to say as a phonetic representation of the acronym. No one says “O-V-A-B.” We all say “OH-vab.” With “DPAA,” everyone will now call it by those four letters, which is two syllables more than OVAB. This seems silly to write, but think about it. Did you know that GEICO is an acronym? (Government Employee Insurance Company.) How about AFLAC? (American Family Life Assurance Corporation.) My colleague, Dave Haynes, called it “D P Double A” in his article about the subject. But the catchiness of the old title was a degree of brand ownership that “DPAA” just eliminated.

When you plan to give yourself a new name, you have to consider how the name will be used in communications. One of the first rules in naming: Look for a URL. It would make sense to use dpaa.org. But that belongs to the Doberman Pinscher Alliance of America.

Okay, this is, like, the LAST group of people on earth I would want coming after me for any reason.

Looking on ovab.org, it appears they have secured the URL www.dp-aa.org. But when I called that up, here’s what I saw:

Great. Now I have a pack of websites coming after me.

While some out there may not have believed in everything OVAB stood for, or what DPAA is positioning themselves as right now, the name came to mean something prominent that many of us saw as a channel of communication to industries outside our own. We saw OVAB speaking with the media conglomerates of the world, bringing awareness to digital signage, to out-of-home messaging, and the applications that we continue to build.

I’m a big fan of the DPAA and will continue to stand with DPAA in their efforts to raise awareness of our industry. I have written OVAB/DPAA metric measurement guidelines into media guides for clients. I think they are still on the right track with defining the audience and the value of an advertiser’s dollar. But this is not where their efforts are best spent. Instead of continuing to lead the pack, DPAA will now backtrack and redefine their brand and focus. They didn’t have to.

Woof.

Share/Bookmark

"Can you tell me if these spats come in a size 14?"

A core factor of the retail customer experience is advertising. But, how we speak to a potential customer versus a point-of-sale customer is not the same.

Sacrifice for the Greater Good
In a consumer’s home, the advertiser competes with everything; there is nothing “endemic” about a TV program, a magazine, or the internet. During a break of a recent sporting event I saw the following ads: Nextel (Wireless), Taco Bell (Food), Zantac (Medicine) Progressive (Insurance), and Ford (Auto). Each advertiser thinks you need their product more than anything else.

Something about the proposition will be sacrificed for the greater good of brand awareness due to factors like broadcast running times and lack of actual products or services. You can only drive a car when you get to the dealership. You can only experience a wireless device by actually using the wireless device. Lifestyle benefits are a core proposition of broadcast advertising; it’s easier to show how your life will be with the product because you can’t actually use the product…yet.

...feel the HVAC racing through your hair...

Terrific creative and understanding the audience and the environment is crucial in winning a viewer’s attention.

But retail is different. Very different.
At retail, the competition narrows down to the category. When Nike competes with Budweiser at home, it’s only a matter of who likes shoes and who likes beer. But when Nike competes with Adidas and Reebok and K Swiss and Puma on a wall of footwear, the category focus by both the customer and the advertiser at the point of sale is paramount. This is where the brand “wins the last 10 feet.”

And, in many cases, you can use the product. You can try on the shoes or the clothes. You can test drive the car, or make a wireless connection.

So why do advertisers and venues accept external advertising for the network in a retail environment? Why do so many brands and manufacturers just re-purpose their 30-second awareness ads to run on the shelf?

The Push (or Pull) for Better Content
The simple answer is insufficient data to support the theory that custom content does any better at selling a product than regular broadcast advertising. Numbers get thrown around all too easily: 70% of shopper decisions are made in-store. Or is that 50%? I recently read that POPAI’s MARI project claims that only “…three percent of in-store marketing communications is currently passed and seen by shoppers…” So that means that 97% is ignored? Or is it missed completely? How does this affect the 50-70% of shoppers who make the purchase decisions? In a 2008 study from IMI Consumer Track, North Americans were asked what influenced them to purchase brands they don’t normally purchase. The respondents said they were influenced by an ad they saw on TV 24% of the time.

If your head hurts right now, you're not alone.

Statistics, always subjective and often misleading, should compel an argument, not decide it. They should not stand in the way of engaging the customer. Instead of believing in one side of the statistic, look at the other side: 50% may be influenced, but 50% are not. 50% is a really, really big number.

Why should retail marketing push brands and advertisers to create custom content?
You have to stand out. The amount of retail environmental stimuli waging a war for the customer’s attention is close to immeasurable.

Re-purposing advertising does two things: It tells the customer what she already knows, and it tells her you don’t have anything to add to your proposition. Result: She deselects you because there are other, newer things to look at.

Talk to the hand.

Decisions. Decisions.
The customer’s mindset is different in the store. Marketers must stop believing that “purchase decisions” and “unplanned decisions” are the same thing. A purchase decision usually starts outside the store.

I need bar of soap.
Where do I get soap?
At the store.
I’m going to the store.
I’m at the store.
I’m here for soap.
There’s the soap.

External advertising starts the path to purchase by compelling the viewer to decide whether or not he needs what you’re selling. In-store advertising must pick up where broadcast left off – at the curbside or front door – and guide the customer along the path, not simply reiterate what he already knows.

Purchase decisions may lead to unplanned decisions. An unplanned decision is based on impulse. Oh…I need shampoo, too. While I’m here… Where the two types of decisions mix is in the shopper’s mindset at the point of sale. Therefore, the approach to the customer should be different.

Advertising is part of the equation, not the solution; it must work in tandem with everything else.

Duh.

The Effort Starts Here
The marketing team must collaborate with merchandising team to create that holistic experience. Merchant teams will negotiate massive deals with brands for product placement with little regard for how the product is actually presented to the customer. A big victory for the brand is a prominent location, but the surrounding presentation materials may not complete the entire experience. Marketing must sit at the table and be a part of the deal so that proper attention can be given to the messaging that accompanies the product.

To this end, the need for extra money to create custom content will diminish. The content and production will be part of the negotiated deal for the product life-cycle in the store. It will not be an afterthought tapping into other budgets. Further, because of its separation from any other kind of advertising, it will give marketers the ability to better measure impact.

While statistics may support some of the arguments, they should never make a case. Knowing that the customers at home and customers at a store are different should warrant the argument for custom creative at the point of sale.

Terrific creative, coupled with understanding the audience, is crucial in winning a viewer’s attention.

Share/Bookmark

Imagine if everyone actually watched all the ads. Holy brightlightsbigcity...

As the industry matures, so too does the need to understand 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.

Share/Bookmark