Digital Signage News
Bill Gerbahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08395701056399983055noreply@blogger.comBlogger815125
Updated: 6 hours 26 min ago
When digital signs leave a bad taste in your mouth... or something
Ran into two articles that seem to fit well together.
The first comes from The Consumerist, where reader Grey was confronted (and affronted) by a shelf-edge signage system for Bumblebee Tuna:
This absurd Bumblebee Tuna display was jutting into the isle at my local Safeway. It had a black screen, single silver button, and a card stock sign demanding I "push the button." Out of nothing more than utter disbelief and morbid curiosity I bow to the will of the sign.
"Will it start talking to me, the grocery store shopper?" I wonder. "Perhaps it will suggest some Tuna-themed dish for me to prepare for dinner tonight?" No. Instead I see the lowest resolution version of some 30 second, made for TV ad I'd ever seen.
The guy sounds a little whiny, and is obviously saddled with a either a serious TV addiction or else a terribe lack of willpower if the mere presence of the diminunitive screen was enough to "force" him to push the button or see what happens. That aside though, the remainder of his complaint is completely valid. 30-second TV spots have no place at the shelf-edge, especially if/when they rely on audio and will be presented on a postage stamp-sized display. Kudos to Bumblebee and SmartSource for taking a stab at low-power and presumably low-cost digital shelf-edge advertising, but guys, seriously, you need to do a lot better. At least bundle some coupons with the thing. If you want a laugh, I recommend you read the comment thread attached to that article at The Consumerist.
The inanity of the Bumblebee display must have primed my brain because when I ran into this article at Advertising Lab it seemed like it might as well have come from the same company. Straight out of the what-were-they-thinking department of RightGuard's R&D lab comes this inspired idea to put digital advertising not where one might purchase the product, but where one might actually use the product. That's right, we're talking about armpit advertising! Awful puns aside (and there are lots of them), there's really not much else I can say about this. In fact, I think the expression of the woman on the left pretty much says it all...
Leave a Comment
The first comes from The Consumerist, where reader Grey was confronted (and affronted) by a shelf-edge signage system for Bumblebee Tuna:This absurd Bumblebee Tuna display was jutting into the isle at my local Safeway. It had a black screen, single silver button, and a card stock sign demanding I "push the button." Out of nothing more than utter disbelief and morbid curiosity I bow to the will of the sign.
"Will it start talking to me, the grocery store shopper?" I wonder. "Perhaps it will suggest some Tuna-themed dish for me to prepare for dinner tonight?" No. Instead I see the lowest resolution version of some 30 second, made for TV ad I'd ever seen.
The guy sounds a little whiny, and is obviously saddled with a either a serious TV addiction or else a terribe lack of willpower if the mere presence of the diminunitive screen was enough to "force" him to push the button or see what happens. That aside though, the remainder of his complaint is completely valid. 30-second TV spots have no place at the shelf-edge, especially if/when they rely on audio and will be presented on a postage stamp-sized display. Kudos to Bumblebee and SmartSource for taking a stab at low-power and presumably low-cost digital shelf-edge advertising, but guys, seriously, you need to do a lot better. At least bundle some coupons with the thing. If you want a laugh, I recommend you read the comment thread attached to that article at The Consumerist.
The inanity of the Bumblebee display must have primed my brain because when I ran into this article at Advertising Lab it seemed like it might as well have come from the same company. Straight out of the what-were-they-thinking department of RightGuard's R&D lab comes this inspired idea to put digital advertising not where one might purchase the product, but where one might actually use the product. That's right, we're talking about armpit advertising! Awful puns aside (and there are lots of them), there's really not much else I can say about this. In fact, I think the expression of the woman on the left pretty much says it all...Leave a CommentCategories: Digital Signage
Putting signs between you and your fix
First Dave Haynes notes the creation of a new smoothie vending machine with digital screens attached and now this (from Engadget):
While it's still a concept, [Douwe Egberts]'s so-called BeMoved coffee machine promises to finally bring the disparate worlds of hot beverages and motion control together at last, and do nothing short of raise "human interaction with a coffee machine to a higher level" in the process. Because, really, you can never truly feel close to a coffee machine until it's taunted you to jump up and down to fill your cup of joe. Of course, you can also do some slightly more practical things like tailor your coffee exactly the way you like using the massive touchscreen, and even check up on the weather and news while you wait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY1uDPO_3ps&feature=player_embedded
Leave a Comment
While it's still a concept, [Douwe Egberts]'s so-called BeMoved coffee machine promises to finally bring the disparate worlds of hot beverages and motion control together at last, and do nothing short of raise "human interaction with a coffee machine to a higher level" in the process. Because, really, you can never truly feel close to a coffee machine until it's taunted you to jump up and down to fill your cup of joe. Of course, you can also do some slightly more practical things like tailor your coffee exactly the way you like using the massive touchscreen, and even check up on the weather and news while you wait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY1uDPO_3ps&feature=player_embedded
Leave a CommentCategories: Digital Signage
Online Ads Not Working for You? Blame the Creative
Digital: Online Ads Not Working for You? Blame the Creative - Advertising Age - Digital
Something we've harped on for a long time over at WireSpring is the need for great content on your digital signage systems. Too often, people blame their network failures (and there have been many of these over the years) on cost management, technology problems, unwilling advertisers and dozens of other things, when in reality the real problem was that their content wasn't compelling, and consequently their network wasn't achieving its goals.
We're not alone in this problem, as the above-linked AdAge article explains:
It's bad creative that makes online advertising ineffective, so stop obsessing over targeting and placements, according to a study from online-ad-research group Dynamic Logic.
Something we've harped on for a long time over at WireSpring is the need for great content on your digital signage systems. Too often, people blame their network failures (and there have been many of these over the years) on cost management, technology problems, unwilling advertisers and dozens of other things, when in reality the real problem was that their content wasn't compelling, and consequently their network wasn't achieving its goals.
We're not alone in this problem, as the above-linked AdAge article explains:
It's bad creative that makes online advertising ineffective, so stop obsessing over targeting and placements, according to a study from online-ad-research group Dynamic Logic.
After analyzing the highest and lowest performers from its database of more than 170,000 online ads, the Millward Brown company determined that creative factors such as persistent branding, strong calls to action and even human faces -- and not super-targeted or high-profile ad placements -- make for better ad recall, brand awareness and purchase intent.
Simply put, an ad is only as strong as its weakest links, and according to the Dynamic Logic study, that weakest link is frequently the quality of the creative itself. Not planning, not placement, not measurement, but content.
Digital signage content producers and ad network owners need to keep this in mind when deciding how to apportion their budgets. Don't leave enough in for good creative, and you might be deploying a very expensive, very failure-prone network.
Categories: Digital Signage
In-Store Marketing Beats Traditional Ads
In-Store Marketing Beats Traditional Ads, according to a new survey conducted by the National Research Network on shopper marketing firm Miller Zell’s behalf. The study notes:
Nearly a third (32 percent) of the 999 shoppers polled online in March said that in-store marketing is "very effective." Only 27 percent said the same about ads living outside of the store.
The report, which is part three of the “Gone in 2.3 Seconds: Capturing Shoppers with Effective In-Store Triggers Series,” found that the shopping experience is crucial for marketers. Sixty-nine percent of those polled called the in-store experience a “make or break” scenario. While 65 percent of shoppers are making lists, brand decisions are still being made at the store, according to 60 percent of respondents.
End-aisle displays are the most engaging according to 70 percent of those polled, followed by merchandising displays (62 percent), and department signage (58 percent). Ceiling banners and overhead mobiles have the least impact.
Shelf strips (55 percent) and shelf blades (50 percent) have become more important, especially among the Gen X and Gen Y crowds, who feel the more information the better, per the report. Overall, women and Gen Y consumers were most influenced by in-store marketing efforts. I don't really have any commentary to add here -- the results more or less speak for themselves, and in my mind make a lot of sense. We continue to see data posted indicating that in-store marketing is a must-have component of any CPG marketing mix, and certainly big guys like P&G have been pouring resources into making their in-store presence more effective. While one might treat data compiled on behalf of a company that stands to profit for them as suspect, I think in this instance we're seeing further corroboration of past studies and common sense understanding of how marketing at retail works.Leave a Comment
Nearly a third (32 percent) of the 999 shoppers polled online in March said that in-store marketing is "very effective." Only 27 percent said the same about ads living outside of the store.
The report, which is part three of the “Gone in 2.3 Seconds: Capturing Shoppers with Effective In-Store Triggers Series,” found that the shopping experience is crucial for marketers. Sixty-nine percent of those polled called the in-store experience a “make or break” scenario. While 65 percent of shoppers are making lists, brand decisions are still being made at the store, according to 60 percent of respondents.
End-aisle displays are the most engaging according to 70 percent of those polled, followed by merchandising displays (62 percent), and department signage (58 percent). Ceiling banners and overhead mobiles have the least impact.
Shelf strips (55 percent) and shelf blades (50 percent) have become more important, especially among the Gen X and Gen Y crowds, who feel the more information the better, per the report. Overall, women and Gen Y consumers were most influenced by in-store marketing efforts. I don't really have any commentary to add here -- the results more or less speak for themselves, and in my mind make a lot of sense. We continue to see data posted indicating that in-store marketing is a must-have component of any CPG marketing mix, and certainly big guys like P&G have been pouring resources into making their in-store presence more effective. While one might treat data compiled on behalf of a company that stands to profit for them as suspect, I think in this instance we're seeing further corroboration of past studies and common sense understanding of how marketing at retail works.Leave a Comment
Categories: Digital Signage
The self-host vs. SaaS debate, and the disingenuous security argument
David Keene at Digital Signage Magazine proffered a short post yesterday wondering about whether self-hosted digital signage systems (he calls them "Premise" systems) or those offered in the software-as-a-service (SaaS) model are better, and why. As he notes, people who doubt the SaaS model tend to believe that, "premise-based digital signage content management software packages are often more scalable, more secure, and more reliable because they are not based on a constant internet connection,". While tech novices might be easily swayed to believe these types of arguments, they're actually pretty poor indicators of the "quality" of a system for a particular application. They're also littered with presuppositions about how self-hosted and SaaS systems work. Here's a breakdown:
Unsubstantiated Claim #1: Premise systems are more scalable than SaaS systems
The fact of the matter: This one's easy. SaaS providers (like myself -- I'd like to point out that I have a vested interest here) live and die with their ability to provide service to their customers. I have literally thousands of devices checking in to my servers, for hundreds of clients. If there's any kind of problem, we hear about it very quickly. And our ability to win new business relies on our ability to quickly and inexpensively increase our capacity. How many networks hosting their own stuff can claim that? Very, very few.
Unsubstantiated Claim #2: Premise systems are more reliable because they don't depend on an Internet connection
The fact of the matter: In certain scenarios this might actually be really important. However, with the most common scenario (a player can't get onto the 'net to get content), I doubt there's really a difference in the majority of situations. Large files these days are usually downloaded ahead of time and stored on a local hard disk. And of course, if you don't have a good net connection, you won't be able to do streaming media, live data feeds, etc. regardless of what platform you use. If you have a network that you KNOW will never need to be connected to the Internet, I could see using this argument. Otherwise, it doesn't really resonate with most network applications nowadays.
Unsubstantiated Claim #3: Premise systems are more secure
The fact of the matter: This is the one that really irritates me when I hear it, because if the people claiming to be worried about security actually knew anything about computer security, they'd realize the flaw in their argument. That's because computer security essentially comes down to two things: technology and personnel. Any reasonably good product is going to have well-secured technology, including removing unnecessary programs, getting rid of common virus/hacking vectors, using recently updated or patched software, and implementing strong, non-obvious passwords. However, that's only half of the equation.
The other half is maintaining those systems over time, and this is where SaaS systems shine. At WireSpring we have full-time employees that do nothing but monitor our system status, read security bulletins, and continually maintain our software and servers. How many of those who host their own systems can claim that? We complete monthly security audits and maintain compliance -- at both the server and player level -- with strict standards like PCI-DSS and PABP. Again, how many self-hosted networks are going to go through the time, trouble and ongoing expense of that? I'd be willing to bet that it's a small percentage of the whole. Our servers are securely located in vault-like datacenters around the country, where physical access is limited via three-factor authentication, and armed guards patrol the perimeter. Meanwhile, I've had people tell me their "secure" systems are kept in a closet of their office.
Now admittedly, one place where self-hosted solutions *can* offer better security than SaaS solutions is when there's an "air gap" -- the network controlling the digital signs is PHYSICALLY disconnected from the Internet, and all activities like content upload and remote management must take place on this entirely separate network. In this case, it's physically impossible to compromise the network over the Internet (though local attacks are of course still possible). In reality, I'd be surprised if there were many such networks out there just because having such a gap is inconvenient.Leave a Comment
Unsubstantiated Claim #1: Premise systems are more scalable than SaaS systems
The fact of the matter: This one's easy. SaaS providers (like myself -- I'd like to point out that I have a vested interest here) live and die with their ability to provide service to their customers. I have literally thousands of devices checking in to my servers, for hundreds of clients. If there's any kind of problem, we hear about it very quickly. And our ability to win new business relies on our ability to quickly and inexpensively increase our capacity. How many networks hosting their own stuff can claim that? Very, very few.
Unsubstantiated Claim #2: Premise systems are more reliable because they don't depend on an Internet connection
The fact of the matter: In certain scenarios this might actually be really important. However, with the most common scenario (a player can't get onto the 'net to get content), I doubt there's really a difference in the majority of situations. Large files these days are usually downloaded ahead of time and stored on a local hard disk. And of course, if you don't have a good net connection, you won't be able to do streaming media, live data feeds, etc. regardless of what platform you use. If you have a network that you KNOW will never need to be connected to the Internet, I could see using this argument. Otherwise, it doesn't really resonate with most network applications nowadays.
Unsubstantiated Claim #3: Premise systems are more secure
The fact of the matter: This is the one that really irritates me when I hear it, because if the people claiming to be worried about security actually knew anything about computer security, they'd realize the flaw in their argument. That's because computer security essentially comes down to two things: technology and personnel. Any reasonably good product is going to have well-secured technology, including removing unnecessary programs, getting rid of common virus/hacking vectors, using recently updated or patched software, and implementing strong, non-obvious passwords. However, that's only half of the equation.
The other half is maintaining those systems over time, and this is where SaaS systems shine. At WireSpring we have full-time employees that do nothing but monitor our system status, read security bulletins, and continually maintain our software and servers. How many of those who host their own systems can claim that? We complete monthly security audits and maintain compliance -- at both the server and player level -- with strict standards like PCI-DSS and PABP. Again, how many self-hosted networks are going to go through the time, trouble and ongoing expense of that? I'd be willing to bet that it's a small percentage of the whole. Our servers are securely located in vault-like datacenters around the country, where physical access is limited via three-factor authentication, and armed guards patrol the perimeter. Meanwhile, I've had people tell me their "secure" systems are kept in a closet of their office.
Now admittedly, one place where self-hosted solutions *can* offer better security than SaaS solutions is when there's an "air gap" -- the network controlling the digital signs is PHYSICALLY disconnected from the Internet, and all activities like content upload and remote management must take place on this entirely separate network. In this case, it's physically impossible to compromise the network over the Internet (though local attacks are of course still possible). In reality, I'd be surprised if there were many such networks out there just because having such a gap is inconvenient.Leave a Comment
Categories: Digital Signage