February 26, 2009
Being a Media Buzzkill: The Future of Digital Signage Measurement
By Nikki Baird
I’m participating in
a panel today on "better practices" and the future of measurement
for digital signage at the Digital Signage Expo in Las Vegas. I’m on the
panel with Paolo Prandoni, the founder of Quividi,
a company providing measurement solutions, and Herb Sorensen, the founder
of TNS Sorensen. I feel mildly outclassed!
But I find myself in
a quandary: the information that Herb and Paolo will be presenting in our
session is excellent – it provides a lot of details on measurement techniques,
data sources, and some of the thinking on how to bring multiple data sources
from within a store together to get some real understanding of in-store
media. At the same time, I find myself in the same place I’ve been in since
I first started covering in-store media as an analyst. While I have been
very positive about the opportunities and benefits that in-store media
can provide, I find myself playing the role of "buzzkill" when it comes to measurement.
I believe it is critically
important to understand how in-store media works – what messages work,
what formats of messages work (long vs. short, for example), how people
view it, and most importantly how it changes consumers’ shelf approach
and ultimately what they buy.
But it’s this last part
that seems to get lost in the scramble for retail real estate, and I believe
it is this fundamental gap that is one of the biggest barriers to the growth
of the space. Here’s the Catch-22: media buyers need critical mass before in-store media
becomes an interesting place for them to invest their budget dollars. They
also very much want to understand how in-store media compares to other
places they could invest (like TV advertising, for example) – and so have
pushed the industry to focus on defining in-store media measurements in
terms that translate easily to traditional mass-media buys.
On the other side of
the coin are retailers. They don’t really care that much about what media
buyers want, except perhaps for their own internal media buyers. In some
cases, this has manifested to an extreme where in-store media plays purely
a brand-building role for a retailer, and no external advertising is allowed.
Why? Because the retailer is there to sell stuff – the stuff that happens
to be on the shelf in that store right this very minute. And before retailers
let media networks in their stores en masse – or even before they build
their own networks – they need to understand how in-store media helps them
sell more stuff.
Sell more stuff vs. find
more "eyeballs" or the CPM’s (cost per thousand viewers) that media buyers use as
their measure of value is a big gap. Until we cross that chasm, in-store
media will go nowhere.
Discussion Questions:
Do you agree the in-store media needs to "sell more stuff"? What measures
do we need to understand in order for in-store media to progress?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Of course media should sell–most people don’t go to the supermarket to be entertained or informed. That said, we need to become much better attuned to attachment revenues (if you promote “X” what else do you sell); consumer purchase triggers (it doesn’t–and shouldn’t always be about price); and the critical importance of the perishability of signage and messaging.
When we begin to understand the complex in-store communication ecology–the aggregate of all messaging and its impact on the retail environment, and find ways to measure it accurately, the door will finally be open to effective use of in-store media.
In-store media effectiveness can be measured, by taking emotion out and agreeing upon metrics to monitor targeted SKU lift, etc. When I think of the expense involved in hanging a 42″ flat screen in a store with a nondescript video loop running, all I picture is the crowd of customers passing it by. When I think of the screens at the checkout in a supermarket, it tells me, “Hey, you’re gonna be in line for a while, so here’s some TV to keep your mind off our long lines.” There has got to be a more defined strategy for in-store media, than “Build it, and they will come.”
Shoppers become “blind” to the sea of static signs throughout stores these days. Therefore, how can we make digital media more proactive in the selling process? One example, is the 3-D vending kiosk that displays a holographic-type image to grab the shoppers’ attention and sells the product at that moment. Click here for one example. Other examples include some of the media types mentioned in previous posts.
Just be sure you have a goal in mind when you set up the display: > Attract shoppers to new items, > Drive incremental volume of specific SKUs, > Highlight services of which shoppers are unaware. Don’t just be a “me, too” in your motivation behind the activity.
But, if we take the direct sales or “mini infomercial” approach to digital signage, do we have any idea how many customers we will drive away because they don’t want to face a hard-sell pitch while they are trying to get their shopping done and go home? Of course, this varies by channel, type of shopping trip, etc.
It just seems to me that if a retailer runs too many programs that are too “in your face” and/or has too many screens (a la one in every aisle or every department) that store could become an unpopular place over time. So, I think making sure the media enhances the shopping trip/experience is important, too.
Gene, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I did note in several of the posts, and in the descriptions of the media buyers’ views, a wistful equating of these in-store screens with the televisions in consumers’ living rooms: “Why could retailers be so short-sighted as to want to make sales from these videos NOW?”
And the old agency creative director in me almost bought it: we could look at several measures of aggregate sales before and after a given brand started buying ads on the networks–average cart size on a given day; average monthly or weekly sales–all connected to Nikki’s comment about what *else* a shopper might buy after seeing those presentations.
But I’m a relatively recent convert to the gospel of direct response. And I know the power of the infomercial. What’s more, the formula isn’t rocket surgery, as some of my friends joke.
So if a well-written infomercial can get each of us to sit up 30 minutes longer than we were planning to, at 3 am, and think seriously about buying that putter for just $297 (even those of us who don’t even play golf! But we would start taking lessons…because we’ve been looking for an activity to do with our spouse anyway….) I feel sure that an even better-conceived, better-written and shorter one can cause a mass exodus of whatever high-value, high-margin product an advertiser and retailer would care to see vanish from the shelves over the course of the next week.
But it can’t be a normal awareness ad–it’s got to be a full-on, no-holds-barred direct-response ad–an infomercial.
What an interesting discussion! During the history of every advertising medium the question of whether the medium was actually selling anything has taken place. Marketers like David Ogilvy, Rosser Reeves and even as far back as Claude Hopkins questioned and looked for ways to ensure their marketing methods and media resulted in more sales.
In the frenzy to adopt in-store and digital marketing, it seems there are few ways to measure, evaluate and determine whether these efforts are actually producing more sales. Until we have such measurements and methods marketers and merchants are going to continue wasting large sums of money.
No one sells TV advertising on the basis of its sales impact, but strictly on its reach and frequency. The reality is that true reach and frequency with in-store advertising is minuscule compared to TV advertising metrics. On the other hand, the immediacy of the merchandise being right there at hand in-store means that you can measure immediate impact, which can be huge relative to a minuscule impact for TV.
In-store advertising is far more similar to online advertising (which does NOT follow the TV model.) As the internet is progressively deployed in the store, (fixed digital media, interactive or not, mobile store provided systems, phones/PDAs, etc.) the online click stream will simply merge into the in-store clickstream. But I expect there will be a few hundred million dollars wasted on “TV thinking” in stores before reality creeps into the ad world.
In-store media does sell more stuff. That is all it does. And that is all that should be measured.
In the late 80s I started a company that eventually became NBC OnSite. It grew to have in-store systems in over 200 supermarkets. Ongoing research of over 50 participating brands and their competition indicated that the incremental business generated by the in-store advertising was considerably more than cost effective. The research was thorough and included paired stores not on the system as well as pre- and post-participation movement. The research was available to any participating brand.
Still, despite the ability to pay out at the 10, 50, 100 or 200 store levels, the issue was still “critical mass.” The advertisers wanted the equivalent of at least 60% ACV. They wanted to know how many people saw the ad, you know–reach & frequency. (Strange. It seems to me if one person sees your ad and buys your product, it is better than 100 people seeing your ad and none buying your product.) They wanted to know how many people remembered the ad. (We did research on that also and found that people didn’t necessarily remember the specific ad. But, in comparing store entry and store exit interviews that people remembered the brand.)
nUntil the advertisers understand that in-store advertising has only one function, to move product, as Nikki said, it will go nowhere. The advertiser’s position is terribly short sighted and as a result, they will eventually forfeit this opportunity to the retailer, a la Wal-Mart.
One of the most interesting parts of this thread to me is that Nikki references “media buyers” when talking about in store communication while Lisa references “trade promotion” as the budget source in question for the very same activity. And isn’t the truth of every business question found when you “follow the money”?
Shopper marketing lies somewhere along the continuum often referred to as the “path to purchase.” In simpler times this path had a clear gateway between “advertising” and “promotion”–the door to the store. Inside = promotion = trade budget. Outside = advertising = media budget. We neatly accommodated by consumer promotion by treating it as an extension of couponing, thus protecting it from media dollars and attempting to leverage trade dollars to fund it via “account marketing” and “tailored marketing.” Retailers swept that money into the trade bucket pretty fast.
Now we have further confused things by arguing that you can “advertise to the consumer” while they are “shopping.” “Shoppers” are merely consumers who are ready to buy. We can probably influence a consumer to make spaghetti instead of beef stew tonight with in store media; that sells ground beef, pasta and sauce. Whether the pasta is Barilla or Ronzoni is a combination of the brand equity built over time and the price offer made in the store today. That will always be the trade off.
So, where does this leave us on Nikki’s question of the correct strategic target for shopper marketing and its measurement? dunnhumby did a great presentation on this at last year’s In-store Marketing Institute summit, reporting findings of their ongoing analysis of Tesco UK data. The findings were not very popular with brand marketers and ad agencies–in-store messages that are short, sweet, direct communications of value sell the most product in both the short and longer term.
Gene Detroyer’s experience with low-IQ ad agency folks: absolutely typical, not unusual at all. Most ad agencies won’t admit to themselves: brand building = excuse building. Advertising has only 1 legit purpose: sell the product asap. Audience measurement, buying intention, awareness, recall: it’s all irrelevant.
Owners want to know: did the ad increase sales? By how much? Retailers are owners: they own inventory and they’re paying for real estate. Ad agencies don’t act like owners, so owners suffer. Ad agencies should be paid based on proven sales and profit improvement. No commissions, no fees. Make them shareholders/partners/stakeholders. See how few ad agencies could stand that test. Not one in a hundred.
The dilemma media buyers face is that reach and frequency is harder to achieve given traditional media fragmentation and is less and less consumer-relevant. So the choices are move in-store or online.
In-store is cool in that it moves the message closer to the action. Should be no real surprise that “action” oriented messaging such (buy now, aisle four, $1.59) trumps traditional brand awareness creation. Should prove to be a very lucrative opportunity to creatives and given the medium, production should be a relative bargain. However, with the death of P.R.I.S.M. R&F/impressions will be hard to come by and so comparatives to traditional media will be tough to make.
Online…WOW. Wait until the world wakes up the the power that is unfolding there in CPG. Media companies such as MyWebGrocer, who are tuned to that week in/week out CPG consumer doing their hum-drum shopping chores, and delivering salient messages and action-ability to interested consumers are turning in closure numbers through the roof.
This is an attention-based economy. There is no more valuable currency for suppliers or retailers than a consumer’s attention. If in-store signage gets that attention, it’s worth money. It that signage gets attention and then converts the attention into sales, it’s worth more money. I don’t think we have a model for measuring in-store signage, and I’m not sure retailers need a model.
In my opinion, the roll of any media is to “sell more stuff.” The only issue is what is the appropriate time frame. Brand support, etc. is about selling the brand and ultimately, more stuff. However, in these times, certainly retailers want to see a lift for their products now.
When a retailer “borrows/rents” an in-store digital network or even those you now see at the gas islands at c-stores, it comes with the understanding that they are only going to get a limited number of the ads shown. This encourages them to concentrate on ads that have a more immediate result. It also means that they are dependent on other advertisers who want eyeballs so they can sell more stuff. Failure of the network to attract sufficient advertisers means that ultimately the network provider will fail and the retailer loses access to this form of media.
When a retailer builds their own digital network, they have full control and can determine what mix of brand building versus item/price they want. As part of this they can also determine whether they want to sell space on their network to others.
All that being said, I can not imagine anyone making an investment in digital or other media without a long-term plan to sell more of something.
In-store media should have a role in “selling more stuff,” which is the ultimate goal of every retailer. But in-store media also needs to be consistent with the retailer’s brand image and marketing objectives. Simply adding more clutter to a store that may already be overloaded with visual cues may be counterproductive, and may lead the customer to decide that the merchandise content itself is just a “bunch of stuff.”
So whether you are talking about digital signage, paper signage, POP displays, fixtures with vendor logos, or other types of in-store media, consistency is the key to a successful strategy.
One of the many reasons I miss working with you, Nikki! I agree completely and I think the flawed logic here is the notion that in store media should be funded by above-the-line media dollars. Although that’s an appealing bucket of funds to go after, the truth is that everything related to in-store media is different from regular media: the format, the messaging, the “deliverable” (e.g. to your point brand impression vs. sales). The goal is to drive sales within a specific retail environment–which is the goal of the trade spend budget.
The real conversation is around allocating and measuring trade promotion dollars, making both sides accountable for how and where it’s spent and whether it’s actually driving an end result. That’s the difficult conversation no one likes having but it’s really where in-store media metrics, measurement and spend belong.
Nikki has hit the nail right on the “catch 22.” In my opinion, in-store media is currently lodged into the same retailer erroneous zones as other retail advertising; featuring only the mainstay products carried by everyone else, emphasis on low prices, and calling attention to very little points of differentiation. The benefits that in-store media should capitalize on are that the consumer is already inside the store. This is an opportunity to show her, excite her, and tell her about something new, different, or special.
The goal of all advertising should be to sell stuff. However, in the absence of means to accurately measure/relate the sales of dollar equivalencies of comparable in-store/out-of-store vehicles, the playing field has to shift to “audience.”
In order for media planners to evaluate in-store media with magazines/TV they need similar audience measures to build into their reach/frequency analyses. Since it’s now spring training, that’s the 1st base that needs to be achieved in order for “media” dollars (as opposed to “trade”) to be shifted into the store.
This is what has restricted media/advertising agencies from embracing extending their messages within existing in-store programs that are currently in thousands of supermarkets and reach more eyeballs per dollar than traditional media . . . and have achieved “critical mass.” And a unit of in-store media–even the smaller programs–costs less and reaches more people than the “spot” or “insertion” it may replace.
And, that’s the heart of the matter: the planner needs the very same information for the in-store “XYZ” program that is available for “Better Homes & Meatballs” or “Good Woman’s Journal”–audience size and demographist in order substitute one for one. “What am I getting for what I replace?” needs to be answered. From a media perspective, it’s strictly audience numbers. Advertising performance and sales production are secondary…and used as a cop-out for not extending messaging into stores to reach people while they are shopping…instead of sitting on sofas.
Only a dope would argue that an advertisement appearing at home can sell more ice cream, detergent, cream cheese or frozen vegetable brands (that were established 50 years ago) than the same message reaching more of the same people for less money–in the store. Or, someone who believes their advertising agency’s mantra of “you need more in television”…to reach 1964 weight levels. (And, when there was no broad scale means to advertise in the store.)
It’s about balance: a little less here and a little more here. The synergy between the two makes for a more productive total marketing effort. The reality of it all is that very little traditional media needs to be “sacrificed” to fund an effective in-store effort. And, nothing really gets sacrificed. It’s simply a matter of trading places: moving the message from here to there.
Consider: “advertising” is a combination of what you say and where you say it. While the 30 second commercial may generally be the most dramatic means of establishing a “brand image,” it is too far away from where it matters most to efficiently generate a sale. While most in-store advertisements will be derivatives of the gold standard, they appear in a far more sales appropriate place.
Advertising at home makes people feel good about a brand and “predisposes.”
Advertising in the store also accomplishes the objective of making people feel good; but, it also can trigger the predisposition made by last night’s commercial. Without that message repetition, a lot more of the vast majority of last night’s predisposed viewers will leave stores empty-handed. Of what value are “feel good” and “predisposed” if people don’t ACT on advertising.
Too many advertising agencies have taught their clients to “satisfy objectives in one medium before going to another.” If the messages and audiences are similar, there’s absolutely no reason to pay attention to this 1964 bologna.
Use TV for reach. Use in-store for frequency. As long as you know that they reach–the same–people.
Sorry for rambling. If I had time I’d write something tighter.
Which is why I am anonymous.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
Of course media should sell–most people don’t go to the supermarket to be entertained or informed. That said, we need to become much better attuned to attachment revenues (if you promote “X” what else do you sell); consumer purchase triggers (it doesn’t–and shouldn’t always be about price); and the critical importance of the perishability of signage and messaging.
When we begin to understand the complex in-store communication ecology–the aggregate of all messaging and its impact on the retail environment, and find ways to measure it accurately, the door will finally be open to effective use of in-store media.
In-store media effectiveness can be measured, by taking emotion out and agreeing upon metrics to monitor targeted SKU lift, etc. When I think of the expense involved in hanging a 42″ flat screen in a store with a nondescript video loop running, all I picture is the crowd of customers passing it by. When I think of the screens at the checkout in a supermarket, it tells me, “Hey, you’re gonna be in line for a while, so here’s some TV to keep your mind off our long lines.” There has got to be a more defined strategy for in-store media, than “Build it, and they will come.”
Shoppers become “blind” to the sea of static signs throughout stores these days. Therefore, how can we make digital media more proactive in the selling process? One example, is the 3-D vending kiosk that displays a holographic-type image to grab the shoppers’ attention and sells the product at that moment. Click here for one example. Other examples include some of the media types mentioned in previous posts.
Just be sure you have a goal in mind when you set up the display: > Attract shoppers to new items, > Drive incremental volume of specific SKUs, > Highlight services of which shoppers are unaware. Don’t just be a “me, too” in your motivation behind the activity.
But, if we take the direct sales or “mini infomercial” approach to digital signage, do we have any idea how many customers we will drive away because they don’t want to face a hard-sell pitch while they are trying to get their shopping done and go home? Of course, this varies by channel, type of shopping trip, etc.
It just seems to me that if a retailer runs too many programs that are too “in your face” and/or has too many screens (a la one in every aisle or every department) that store could become an unpopular place over time. So, I think making sure the media enhances the shopping trip/experience is important, too.
Gene, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I did note in several of the posts, and in the descriptions of the media buyers’ views, a wistful equating of these in-store screens with the televisions in consumers’ living rooms: “Why could retailers be so short-sighted as to want to make sales from these videos NOW?”
And the old agency creative director in me almost bought it: we could look at several measures of aggregate sales before and after a given brand started buying ads on the networks–average cart size on a given day; average monthly or weekly sales–all connected to Nikki’s comment about what *else* a shopper might buy after seeing those presentations.
But I’m a relatively recent convert to the gospel of direct response. And I know the power of the infomercial. What’s more, the formula isn’t rocket surgery, as some of my friends joke.
So if a well-written infomercial can get each of us to sit up 30 minutes longer than we were planning to, at 3 am, and think seriously about buying that putter for just $297 (even those of us who don’t even play golf! But we would start taking lessons…because we’ve been looking for an activity to do with our spouse anyway….) I feel sure that an even better-conceived, better-written and shorter one can cause a mass exodus of whatever high-value, high-margin product an advertiser and retailer would care to see vanish from the shelves over the course of the next week.
But it can’t be a normal awareness ad–it’s got to be a full-on, no-holds-barred direct-response ad–an infomercial.
What an interesting discussion! During the history of every advertising medium the question of whether the medium was actually selling anything has taken place. Marketers like David Ogilvy, Rosser Reeves and even as far back as Claude Hopkins questioned and looked for ways to ensure their marketing methods and media resulted in more sales.
In the frenzy to adopt in-store and digital marketing, it seems there are few ways to measure, evaluate and determine whether these efforts are actually producing more sales. Until we have such measurements and methods marketers and merchants are going to continue wasting large sums of money.
No one sells TV advertising on the basis of its sales impact, but strictly on its reach and frequency. The reality is that true reach and frequency with in-store advertising is minuscule compared to TV advertising metrics. On the other hand, the immediacy of the merchandise being right there at hand in-store means that you can measure immediate impact, which can be huge relative to a minuscule impact for TV.
In-store advertising is far more similar to online advertising (which does NOT follow the TV model.) As the internet is progressively deployed in the store, (fixed digital media, interactive or not, mobile store provided systems, phones/PDAs, etc.) the online click stream will simply merge into the in-store clickstream. But I expect there will be a few hundred million dollars wasted on “TV thinking” in stores before reality creeps into the ad world.
In-store media does sell more stuff. That is all it does. And that is all that should be measured.
In the late 80s I started a company that eventually became NBC OnSite. It grew to have in-store systems in over 200 supermarkets. Ongoing research of over 50 participating brands and their competition indicated that the incremental business generated by the in-store advertising was considerably more than cost effective. The research was thorough and included paired stores not on the system as well as pre- and post-participation movement. The research was available to any participating brand.
Still, despite the ability to pay out at the 10, 50, 100 or 200 store levels, the issue was still “critical mass.” The advertisers wanted the equivalent of at least 60% ACV. They wanted to know how many people saw the ad, you know–reach & frequency. (Strange. It seems to me if one person sees your ad and buys your product, it is better than 100 people seeing your ad and none buying your product.) They wanted to know how many people remembered the ad. (We did research on that also and found that people didn’t necessarily remember the specific ad. But, in comparing store entry and store exit interviews that people remembered the brand.)
nUntil the advertisers understand that in-store advertising has only one function, to move product, as Nikki said, it will go nowhere. The advertiser’s position is terribly short sighted and as a result, they will eventually forfeit this opportunity to the retailer, a la Wal-Mart.
One of the most interesting parts of this thread to me is that Nikki references “media buyers” when talking about in store communication while Lisa references “trade promotion” as the budget source in question for the very same activity. And isn’t the truth of every business question found when you “follow the money”?
Shopper marketing lies somewhere along the continuum often referred to as the “path to purchase.” In simpler times this path had a clear gateway between “advertising” and “promotion”–the door to the store. Inside = promotion = trade budget. Outside = advertising = media budget. We neatly accommodated by consumer promotion by treating it as an extension of couponing, thus protecting it from media dollars and attempting to leverage trade dollars to fund it via “account marketing” and “tailored marketing.” Retailers swept that money into the trade bucket pretty fast.
Now we have further confused things by arguing that you can “advertise to the consumer” while they are “shopping.” “Shoppers” are merely consumers who are ready to buy. We can probably influence a consumer to make spaghetti instead of beef stew tonight with in store media; that sells ground beef, pasta and sauce. Whether the pasta is Barilla or Ronzoni is a combination of the brand equity built over time and the price offer made in the store today. That will always be the trade off.
So, where does this leave us on Nikki’s question of the correct strategic target for shopper marketing and its measurement? dunnhumby did a great presentation on this at last year’s In-store Marketing Institute summit, reporting findings of their ongoing analysis of Tesco UK data. The findings were not very popular with brand marketers and ad agencies–in-store messages that are short, sweet, direct communications of value sell the most product in both the short and longer term.
Gene Detroyer’s experience with low-IQ ad agency folks: absolutely typical, not unusual at all. Most ad agencies won’t admit to themselves: brand building = excuse building. Advertising has only 1 legit purpose: sell the product asap. Audience measurement, buying intention, awareness, recall: it’s all irrelevant.
Owners want to know: did the ad increase sales? By how much? Retailers are owners: they own inventory and they’re paying for real estate. Ad agencies don’t act like owners, so owners suffer. Ad agencies should be paid based on proven sales and profit improvement. No commissions, no fees. Make them shareholders/partners/stakeholders. See how few ad agencies could stand that test. Not one in a hundred.
The dilemma media buyers face is that reach and frequency is harder to achieve given traditional media fragmentation and is less and less consumer-relevant. So the choices are move in-store or online.
In-store is cool in that it moves the message closer to the action. Should be no real surprise that “action” oriented messaging such (buy now, aisle four, $1.59) trumps traditional brand awareness creation. Should prove to be a very lucrative opportunity to creatives and given the medium, production should be a relative bargain. However, with the death of P.R.I.S.M. R&F/impressions will be hard to come by and so comparatives to traditional media will be tough to make.
Online…WOW. Wait until the world wakes up the the power that is unfolding there in CPG. Media companies such as MyWebGrocer, who are tuned to that week in/week out CPG consumer doing their hum-drum shopping chores, and delivering salient messages and action-ability to interested consumers are turning in closure numbers through the roof.
This is an attention-based economy. There is no more valuable currency for suppliers or retailers than a consumer’s attention. If in-store signage gets that attention, it’s worth money. It that signage gets attention and then converts the attention into sales, it’s worth more money. I don’t think we have a model for measuring in-store signage, and I’m not sure retailers need a model.
In my opinion, the roll of any media is to “sell more stuff.” The only issue is what is the appropriate time frame. Brand support, etc. is about selling the brand and ultimately, more stuff. However, in these times, certainly retailers want to see a lift for their products now.
When a retailer “borrows/rents” an in-store digital network or even those you now see at the gas islands at c-stores, it comes with the understanding that they are only going to get a limited number of the ads shown. This encourages them to concentrate on ads that have a more immediate result. It also means that they are dependent on other advertisers who want eyeballs so they can sell more stuff. Failure of the network to attract sufficient advertisers means that ultimately the network provider will fail and the retailer loses access to this form of media.
When a retailer builds their own digital network, they have full control and can determine what mix of brand building versus item/price they want. As part of this they can also determine whether they want to sell space on their network to others.
All that being said, I can not imagine anyone making an investment in digital or other media without a long-term plan to sell more of something.
In-store media should have a role in “selling more stuff,” which is the ultimate goal of every retailer. But in-store media also needs to be consistent with the retailer’s brand image and marketing objectives. Simply adding more clutter to a store that may already be overloaded with visual cues may be counterproductive, and may lead the customer to decide that the merchandise content itself is just a “bunch of stuff.”
So whether you are talking about digital signage, paper signage, POP displays, fixtures with vendor logos, or other types of in-store media, consistency is the key to a successful strategy.
One of the many reasons I miss working with you, Nikki! I agree completely and I think the flawed logic here is the notion that in store media should be funded by above-the-line media dollars. Although that’s an appealing bucket of funds to go after, the truth is that everything related to in-store media is different from regular media: the format, the messaging, the “deliverable” (e.g. to your point brand impression vs. sales). The goal is to drive sales within a specific retail environment–which is the goal of the trade spend budget.
The real conversation is around allocating and measuring trade promotion dollars, making both sides accountable for how and where it’s spent and whether it’s actually driving an end result. That’s the difficult conversation no one likes having but it’s really where in-store media metrics, measurement and spend belong.
Nikki has hit the nail right on the “catch 22.” In my opinion, in-store media is currently lodged into the same retailer erroneous zones as other retail advertising; featuring only the mainstay products carried by everyone else, emphasis on low prices, and calling attention to very little points of differentiation. The benefits that in-store media should capitalize on are that the consumer is already inside the store. This is an opportunity to show her, excite her, and tell her about something new, different, or special.
The goal of all advertising should be to sell stuff. However, in the absence of means to accurately measure/relate the sales of dollar equivalencies of comparable in-store/out-of-store vehicles, the playing field has to shift to “audience.”
In order for media planners to evaluate in-store media with magazines/TV they need similar audience measures to build into their reach/frequency analyses. Since it’s now spring training, that’s the 1st base that needs to be achieved in order for “media” dollars (as opposed to “trade”) to be shifted into the store.
This is what has restricted media/advertising agencies from embracing extending their messages within existing in-store programs that are currently in thousands of supermarkets and reach more eyeballs per dollar than traditional media . . . and have achieved “critical mass.” And a unit of in-store media–even the smaller programs–costs less and reaches more people than the “spot” or “insertion” it may replace.
And, that’s the heart of the matter: the planner needs the very same information for the in-store “XYZ” program that is available for “Better Homes & Meatballs” or “Good Woman’s Journal”–audience size and demographist in order substitute one for one. “What am I getting for what I replace?” needs to be answered. From a media perspective, it’s strictly audience numbers. Advertising performance and sales production are secondary…and used as a cop-out for not extending messaging into stores to reach people while they are shopping…instead of sitting on sofas.
Only a dope would argue that an advertisement appearing at home can sell more ice cream, detergent, cream cheese or frozen vegetable brands (that were established 50 years ago) than the same message reaching more of the same people for less money–in the store. Or, someone who believes their advertising agency’s mantra of “you need more in television”…to reach 1964 weight levels. (And, when there was no broad scale means to advertise in the store.)
It’s about balance: a little less here and a little more here. The synergy between the two makes for a more productive total marketing effort. The reality of it all is that very little traditional media needs to be “sacrificed” to fund an effective in-store effort. And, nothing really gets sacrificed. It’s simply a matter of trading places: moving the message from here to there.
Consider: “advertising” is a combination of what you say and where you say it. While the 30 second commercial may generally be the most dramatic means of establishing a “brand image,” it is too far away from where it matters most to efficiently generate a sale. While most in-store advertisements will be derivatives of the gold standard, they appear in a far more sales appropriate place.
Advertising at home makes people feel good about a brand and “predisposes.”
Advertising in the store also accomplishes the objective of making people feel good; but, it also can trigger the predisposition made by last night’s commercial. Without that message repetition, a lot more of the vast majority of last night’s predisposed viewers will leave stores empty-handed. Of what value are “feel good” and “predisposed” if people don’t ACT on advertising.
Too many advertising agencies have taught their clients to “satisfy objectives in one medium before going to another.” If the messages and audiences are similar, there’s absolutely no reason to pay attention to this 1964 bologna.
Use TV for reach. Use in-store for frequency. As long as you know that they reach–the same–people.
Sorry for rambling. If I had time I’d write something tighter.
Which is why I am anonymous.