Broad Thinking. Narrowcasting.
By: Ken Goldberg
In: Digital Media Technology|Digital Signage Industry|OOH Advertising|Uncategorized
26 Aug 2010A couple of related posts caught my eye this week. Network operator Raji Kaira penned (I suppose no one really “pens” anymore, but it is still sounds good) a guest column on Sixteen:Nine lamenting the impact of dead screens on the perception of his agency friends. The ad buyers told him that seeing dead screens made them view digital signage in general as a risky buy, in that they can’t be sure that promises are kept. That’s a pretty serious issue, as Raji points out. Stephen Ghigliotty of ScreenVox took the conversation a bit further in a blog post entitled “Compliance: The Cost of Doing DOOH Business”. Stephen correctly pointed out the absolute necessity of knowing what media has actually played correctly, as well as a few hardware and software checklist items to be mindful of. Without doubt, if we as an industry want to get the full benefit of the increasing number of positive studies with respect to advertising effectiveness, then we have to minimize damage done by non-compliant networks and screens.
Here’s the dirty little secret: No network of any scale will ever be 100% compliant, and that is not a black eye for digital signage. The endpoints in any Neilsen or Arbitron rating study of broadcast/cable TV are not 100% compliant, either, and this is a known fact. Many are on but unwatched, and many have the sound turned off,. That does not detract from the credibility of the ratings numbers, nor should it. It is accepted because it is understood. What we need is similar understanding.
We’ve posted before on compliance, but what I’d like to examine today is why screens become non-compliant, what reasonable expectations of overall compliance might be, and how networks can gain credibility by managing and positioning compliance.
Delivering a piece of content to a screen at a given time requires many things to go right. There are many points of failure between the content distribution server and the display. Each of them can impact playback and compliance. Let’s list a few:
Even with all of these points of potential failure and non-compliance, technology exists that gives us the ability to both monitor and manage all aspects of performance. It also gives us the ability to understand whether a screen was functioning as desired when a piece of media was played out by the player. Properly specified and deployed components, good software and well-trained people provide for a network that can be expected to operate properly (i.e., be compliant) at a rate well above 95%. While all good operators strive for 100% compliance and are never happy with anything less, there are enough gremlins and gotchas out there to reasonably expect a certain number of non-compliant screens at any given point in time. Like the unwatched or muted TVs, the non-compliant screens are a fact of life. To be sure, causes must be identified and addressed, but the pursuit of perfection is likely to be recast as the pursuit of realistic optimization. Part of optimization is actually knowing what elements are sub-optimal.
Given all of that, savvy operators do not base their rates or performance metrics by extrapolating out a 100% compliant playout forecast. Instead they sell on a number that accounts for likely compliance. That way, if an anomaly occurs during a campaign, there can be enough slack and time to make good on the promise. Similarly, if everything works swimmingly, the advertiser will likely get more than they expected, which is good for business relationships.
Raji is correct to raise the issue of the ripple effect of dead screens. Stephen is right to remind us that compliance is the price of poker in an ad-supported network. But the sooner we help our ad buying partners to understand that we are not any more perfectly compliant than a home viewer of broadcast TV; that we are on top of compliance monitoring; that we relentlessly optimize performance; and that we sell based upon an expected net compliance percentage, the sooner we will be seen less a “risky” and more as “reliable”.
Related posts:
2 Responses to How Do We Go From “Risky” To “Reliable”?
Dave Haynes
August 26th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Good perspective. I would actually put people at the top of the list if we’re ranking the most likely points of failure.
Anybody starting to deploy a network who thinks the people at the venue are going to be field support are in for some major forehead-meets-desk sessions.
Where I disagree a little is with the Shit Happens thing, and how media people know that and factor it in.
Yes, true … but when I actually emerge from my home office lair and go out into the real world of malls and stores and bars and restaurants, dead screens are not a rare sighting. They’re a regular sighting.
I’d suggest planners and brands see too much failed stuff in the field to just write all that carnage off as anomalies.
PCs and other devices do fail, but there are many, many, many ways to limit the risk of failure and quickly remedy those failures when they happen.
Ken Goldberg
August 26th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Dave:
Good point on not merely writing off dead screens to anomalies. Sadly, too many of the networks out there are not capable of remotely managing their screens and players, or have a plan for addressing issues when they arise. “Dead” screens should have a “heartbeating” player attached that can be accessed to diagnose and usually correct whatever caused the outage. If you wait for someone to call, it may be a long wait, as you also point out!