March 25, 2009
Consumers Checking Out TV
According to research conducted by GfK Custom Research North America,
consumers’ recall of ad messages from the Premier Retail Networks’ (PRN)
Checkout TV was up 18 percent in 2008 compared to the year before.
Sixty percent of consumers recalled brand
messages, according to the study with 70 percent of those saying
"it influenced
their intent to buy the product in the future."
PRN’s retailer
customers in the U.S. include Best Buy, Costco, Pathmark, ShopRite, Supervalu
and Wal-Mart Stores. According to PRN, U.S. viewership of Checkout TV is
coming up to the 100 million mark with viewership increased
8.4 percent in 2008, according to a viewership study by Knowledge Networks
Inc.
Richard Fisher, president
of PRN worldwide, attributed the growth of Checkout TV to it serving "retailers,
shoppers and advertisers equally well."
Discussion Questions: What do you think could
be behind an 18 percent year-over-year increase in message recall for
ad messages broadcast at store checkouts? What is the key to effective
messaging at the checkout? What are your thoughts about the ability of
checkout messages to influence future purchases?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
So many questions–so few answers. Does anyone believe sustainable recall is even 60%? Does anyone believe advertising at check-out stays with the shopper and influences their next purchase? Are the products/services being advertised this year different from last year–is GFK comparing apples to oranges here? Has anyone seen lift from using check-out ads?
I haven’t seen specific examples of the evolution of the content, but that’s where I would point to in looking for an explanation of the recall and influence numbers. We’ve been saying all along that the content for in-store–and for specific points in the store, like checkout–needs to adapt to fit the needs and expectations of consumers in that place and at that point in time. You can’t just take a 30-second spot and throw it in the store. As an industry, we’re hopefully learning a lot about what makes for strong, effective content in the store environment. I’ve got to think that PRN’s results reflect the application of lessons learned.
Digital Signage networks (DOOH) are usually behind checkout-TV. Normally it is a broadcast channel operated from a single-player PC per location, while the content is being distributed over so called “last mile distribution systems,” picking the output signal from the player PC and transmitting it over CAT5 cabling to the various displays. Location is key, content is king. Don’t simply use TV ads and believe they create the same impact. Content needs to be specifically adapted.
There is a very nice collection of case studies on the DOOH topic–have a look.
I wonder if two of the stores on today’s list might be a factor to each other.
People are waiting in line at checkouts too long and they are remembering what they see.
If the lines at checkout were shorter, would this still be the case?
The first thing to do is re-read yesterday’s discussion on surveys.
Secondarily, I don’t believe the numbers. I have seen plenty of in-store media research and this one is an outlier. Historically, at the check-out media, except with a message that is directed to products at the check-out, have only accomplished one thing. That thing is to make those standing on line underestimate the time they were on line. Does this research mean that people are standing on line longer and watching more TV?
This is just another effort to measure a unique media with traditional tools. The fact is that it doesn’t matter if a person leaving the store says, “It influenced their intent to buy a product in the future.” That sentence itself strangely mixes tenses. What matters for in-store media is if they buy the product on that trip. Why oh why do we continue to avoid the obvious measures of effectiveness of in-store media?
A potential self-serving survey and research? Likely! Seems totally unbelievable and suspect.
Gene’s dead right. Ad recall research is always suspect, in my humble opinion. The link between recall and sales lift is only slightly less tenuous than the link between opportunities to see and sales lift.
For those advertising folk who persist in trying to define in-store media value using concepts created to understand broadcast radio and television, I have this to say (one more time): It’s not TV.
Need proof? Ask yourself why Actmedia put a blinking LED on top of its Instant Coupon Machine. The answer: because a silly little light has the power to stop, attract attention and incite action. Conclusion: In stores, content isn’t king. Wattage is king.
Not to be unfair, but we need to at the least ask some questions when reading research results like these. I don’t have enough category knowledge to know whether they make sense, but I would ask:
1) The “Recalled brand messages” measure took place how long after exposure? (2 minutes? 2 hours? Next day? Next store visit?)
2) The fact that they had 8% growth and last year had 100 million “viewers.” Does that growth rate basically mean that they’ve placed the system into more stores? Is this like counting clicks? Is this actually the number of transactions? Number of men, women and children? Bodies through the door? What’s being counted?
3)How can 70% of shoppers say it “influenced their intent to buy the product in the future”? That’s an enormous number. Are they promoting some array of products that actually appeals to 70%?
As the person at PRN who owns all things Checkout, I appreciate the comments and questions. With nine years in this business and a CPG marketing and strategy background before that, I get the deeper inquiries on what is a summary press release.
First, a bit of background on the study. It was a random exit survey of over 1,200 shoppers–so they had watched the program a few minutes before. We do this survey every year with virtually the same methodology and survey construct. Of course, the brands change from year to year, but we try to keep the mix similar between the broad product categories.
The recall percentage was impressive to me as well–I am a pessimist at heart until I get the results. The totals are unaided plus aided recall (total recall). Unaided average recall was 31%–which is also very impressive, and still well above those of traditional media.
What changed? Nikki is on the right trail. I credit the evolution of our content strategy for the success. Our insights-driven creative services team designed ads specifically for this captive audience–ads that were contextually relevant to shoppers at that moment. The ads were placed strategically in the broader context of our show created specifically to drive engagement with the Checkout Viewer. Together, this yields a strong effect on the shopper who has proven to be receptive to learning about products and services available both inside and outside the store. To answer Doug’s question, the increase in viewers does not involve new stores–simply higher viewership rates as a result of the improvements in our programming year on year.
Lastly, with regard to Doug’s question on purchase intent: this measure is actually an average of the purchase intent scores for each of the recalled product ads–a good sign that our creative is driving the shoppers’ ultimate vote of confidence in this media.
This is a great forum–I invite any questions that arise!
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?
So many questions–so few answers. Does anyone believe sustainable recall is even 60%? Does anyone believe advertising at check-out stays with the shopper and influences their next purchase? Are the products/services being advertised this year different from last year–is GFK comparing apples to oranges here? Has anyone seen lift from using check-out ads?
I haven’t seen specific examples of the evolution of the content, but that’s where I would point to in looking for an explanation of the recall and influence numbers. We’ve been saying all along that the content for in-store–and for specific points in the store, like checkout–needs to adapt to fit the needs and expectations of consumers in that place and at that point in time. You can’t just take a 30-second spot and throw it in the store. As an industry, we’re hopefully learning a lot about what makes for strong, effective content in the store environment. I’ve got to think that PRN’s results reflect the application of lessons learned.
Digital Signage networks (DOOH) are usually behind checkout-TV. Normally it is a broadcast channel operated from a single-player PC per location, while the content is being distributed over so called “last mile distribution systems,” picking the output signal from the player PC and transmitting it over CAT5 cabling to the various displays. Location is key, content is king. Don’t simply use TV ads and believe they create the same impact. Content needs to be specifically adapted.
There is a very nice collection of case studies on the DOOH topic–have a look.
I wonder if two of the stores on today’s list might be a factor to each other.
People are waiting in line at checkouts too long and they are remembering what they see.
If the lines at checkout were shorter, would this still be the case?
The first thing to do is re-read yesterday’s discussion on surveys.
Secondarily, I don’t believe the numbers. I have seen plenty of in-store media research and this one is an outlier. Historically, at the check-out media, except with a message that is directed to products at the check-out, have only accomplished one thing. That thing is to make those standing on line underestimate the time they were on line. Does this research mean that people are standing on line longer and watching more TV?
This is just another effort to measure a unique media with traditional tools. The fact is that it doesn’t matter if a person leaving the store says, “It influenced their intent to buy a product in the future.” That sentence itself strangely mixes tenses. What matters for in-store media is if they buy the product on that trip. Why oh why do we continue to avoid the obvious measures of effectiveness of in-store media?
A potential self-serving survey and research? Likely! Seems totally unbelievable and suspect.
Gene’s dead right. Ad recall research is always suspect, in my humble opinion. The link between recall and sales lift is only slightly less tenuous than the link between opportunities to see and sales lift.
For those advertising folk who persist in trying to define in-store media value using concepts created to understand broadcast radio and television, I have this to say (one more time): It’s not TV.
Need proof? Ask yourself why Actmedia put a blinking LED on top of its Instant Coupon Machine. The answer: because a silly little light has the power to stop, attract attention and incite action. Conclusion: In stores, content isn’t king. Wattage is king.
Not to be unfair, but we need to at the least ask some questions when reading research results like these. I don’t have enough category knowledge to know whether they make sense, but I would ask:
1) The “Recalled brand messages” measure took place how long after exposure? (2 minutes? 2 hours? Next day? Next store visit?)
2) The fact that they had 8% growth and last year had 100 million “viewers.” Does that growth rate basically mean that they’ve placed the system into more stores? Is this like counting clicks? Is this actually the number of transactions? Number of men, women and children? Bodies through the door? What’s being counted?
3)How can 70% of shoppers say it “influenced their intent to buy the product in the future”? That’s an enormous number. Are they promoting some array of products that actually appeals to 70%?
As the person at PRN who owns all things Checkout, I appreciate the comments and questions. With nine years in this business and a CPG marketing and strategy background before that, I get the deeper inquiries on what is a summary press release.
First, a bit of background on the study. It was a random exit survey of over 1,200 shoppers–so they had watched the program a few minutes before. We do this survey every year with virtually the same methodology and survey construct. Of course, the brands change from year to year, but we try to keep the mix similar between the broad product categories.
The recall percentage was impressive to me as well–I am a pessimist at heart until I get the results. The totals are unaided plus aided recall (total recall). Unaided average recall was 31%–which is also very impressive, and still well above those of traditional media.
What changed? Nikki is on the right trail. I credit the evolution of our content strategy for the success. Our insights-driven creative services team designed ads specifically for this captive audience–ads that were contextually relevant to shoppers at that moment. The ads were placed strategically in the broader context of our show created specifically to drive engagement with the Checkout Viewer. Together, this yields a strong effect on the shopper who has proven to be receptive to learning about products and services available both inside and outside the store. To answer Doug’s question, the increase in viewers does not involve new stores–simply higher viewership rates as a result of the improvements in our programming year on year.
Lastly, with regard to Doug’s question on purchase intent: this measure is actually an average of the purchase intent scores for each of the recalled product ads–a good sign that our creative is driving the shoppers’ ultimate vote of confidence in this media.
This is a great forum–I invite any questions that arise!