June 18, 2008
Digital Signage Draws Attention
By Tom Ryan
According to a new study, digital signage catches the attention of more people than any other comparable advertising medium. It was also found digital signage to be more interesting than any other medium and more entertaining than every other one except TV.
The survey of 900 adults in July 2007 conducted by OTX (Online Testing eXchange) found that digital signage – defined as videos of electronic images on LCD, plasma or normal TV outside of the home – “catches their attention” for 63 percent of respondents. That’s higher than billboards (58 percent), magazines (57 percent), TV (56 percent), internet (47 percent), newspaper (40 percent), and radio (37 percent).
SeeSaw Networks, a media company specializing in digital out-of-home media, commissioned the study.
Respondents said they noticed digital signage in an average of six locations over the past week. Among the places cited was airports, train stations, elevators, doctor’s waiting rooms, casinos, health clubs, golf courses, restaurants, bars, gas stations, checkout lines and sports stadiums.
Forty-four percent of respondents paid “some” or “a lot of” attention to digital signage. That rated below TV (52 percent) and close to magazines (45 percent). But it was higher than radio (40 percent), newspaper (40 percent), billboard (33 percent) and internet (32 percent).
Asked which advertising medium they found to be “least annoying,” only newspapers (23 percent) were less annoying than digital signage (26 percent). Billboards were also at 26 percent, followed by magazines (33 percent), TV (51 percent), radio (52 percent) and internet (67 percent).
The study also broke out digital signage awareness across 12 Life Patterns. Although all groups were highly aware of digital signage, young urban professionals, college students, mobile affluents, avid moviegoers, and Hispanic families skewed slightly higher.
One clear difference was around text messaging. The survey found that 73 percent of college students and 68 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 used text messaging versus 50 percent to total adults. And of all respondents using text messaging, 53 percent said they are likely to “text a response” to an offer seen on digital signage.
Discussion Question: What if any take-aways from this study might influence your opinion about digital signage as an advertising medium? Where have you found that the medium works most and least effectively? When do expect digital signage to be fairly pervasive at the retail level?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I’ve read all the comments and find that many of us feel the same way, only half the question is asked/answered by this survey.
Once again we have a research study asking the customer if they like sliced white bread, or a piece of a hearty, healthy and freshly baked multi-grain loaf. Does the customer notice the digital sign? Surely they would, but why stop the questioning there? Does the message played on the sign make the produce more attractive, seem to be a better value, appear more or less expensive, and were you convinced enough about the attributes of the product to buy it? Would you rely on digital signage in the future when you shop at this store for recipe ideas, new product introductions, staff suggestions, etc? What is the best location of digital signage in the store? Is it complementary to the merchandise displays, or are they a distraction? Does the size of the visual display matter to the importance of the product being advertised? How long did you actually spend looking at the digital sign? What messages did you find enticing, which were really a turn-off, why?
Before I would encourage any retailer to introduce a digital sign program in their stores, I would want to know what it can do for the customers, not how much additional revenue the store could make from vendors, or how it will increase the ‘cool’ factor of the store.
I suspect this study was done on the internet asking people about their recollections from previous shopping trips. Therefore the result is not surprising.
For more definitive results, you would need to conduct the study in the context of an actual store and measure the differences versus traditional signage. These studies will be forthcoming as digital signage becomes more common.
I think the most relevant part of this study for the shopper marketing industry is the percent of consumers who would be likely to “text a response” to an offer they saw in the digital signage medium. That is a good testing opportunity for progressive retailers and brands. If any provider wants to test that proposition, please send up a flag. I’ll bet many agencies, including MARS, will take a test program opportunity to all clients.
I’d like to understand the engagement/relevance of the content/message/ offer to the target shopper, why the shopper responded and of course a tracker of corresponding sales.
It makes sense that digital signage would be attractive to consumers. Clear images that frequently change catch the eye. As Anne points out, the next step to is actively engage consumers in the ads. This can be done through text messaging or messages sent from the ad to mobile phones.
In the world of advertising it’s no longer good enough to attract attention. That attraction needs to be actionable.
Digital displays offer a multi-faceted opportunity to retailers. The concept allows the retailer to create excitement within its stores with catchy videos. It allows the retailer to advertise and promote its own brand. It also allows the retailer to advertise related products from which it may derive income. It has also been found to be a great distraction for customers waiting in queues, when properly positioned. It’s a win all around.
Terrific conference held in Chicago in May on this subject, run by a company called DisplaySearch out of Austin Tx. At the conference, speaker after speaker talked about the money pushing expansion of this medium…$BILLIONs. About deployment opportunities including a very focused effort on retail, which ties in nicely with the P.R.I.S.M. efforts in CPG.
Also mentioned time and again was the need for scientific, and significant ROI research.
For more on the conference refer to "Big Bets on Fourth Screen!" in my blog brandedpantry.com.
To a certain degree the newness factor of digital signage certainly contributes to the receptivity of the medium but the relevance of environment also plays a key role in effectiveness. This medium will work most effectively when the right offers are served to the right customer segments in the right environments. The good news is that companies like DS-IQ are emerging to effectively and efficiently measure what works and what doesn’t. Measurement combined with further store deployment and case studies of learning to build on will make the medium more pervasive.
The study appears to focus on the awareness of digital signage, rather than upon the influence of messaging seen on the displays. To be fair, it is hard not to be aware of 42″ multimedia displays in a shopping environment, doctors office or gym. What would be more valuable are additional metrics validating the effectiveness of the medium.
The devil is in the details, of course. Effectiveness will not be driven as much by the medium itself, but by the execution therein. Put more succinctly: content remains king. Defining objectives at the start and building a content strategy around those objectives will separate successful implementations from also-rans. While Mark points out that it is “free money,” that money doesn’t flow freely or blindly. Defined demography, thoughtful content execution and flexible delivery options all come into play. Ann’s comment about the convergence of digital signage and text messaging is also worth noting. A call to action that is inherently measurable and opt-in in nature makes perfect sense. Consumers are walking around with high tech gear on their hips. Leveraging that makes all the sense in the world.
We will continue to see studies that validate and boost digital signage as a very effective out-of-home vehicle. SeeSaw and OTX seemed more excited to identify 12 groups of viewers than any other finding. One must surmise that it serves their purpose. Empirical evidence of the actual sales lift will not flow as freely: retailers who benefit from their networks will be reticent to share that data with competitors. But it will start to come, because it is quite real.
Ad dollar flow will increase. New and larger networks will appear. When something works, it grows.
The results presented here talk about people noticing the video signage. Absolutely, that is attractive to consumers. The movement and action is going to get attention and consumers will notice it. In one small study I conducted, consumers noticed the signage but only watched for about 15 seconds. If your product happens to be the one on the screen when consumers look and if you have an effective message that can be conveyed in about 15 seconds, then the video signage can be very effective. Noticing the signage is only the first piece of important information.
As to be expected with any new intrusive medium, the novelty factor no doubt plays into the high awareness results reported here. Instead of a study that asks consumers to report their behavior, I’d rather see a study that observes actual behavior, including viewing, interacting, and purchasing.
Also, the broad nature of the “digital signage” definition used (covering media in a variety of types of public spaces) makes these results only somewhat applicable to digital advertising in the retail environment.
And finally, any study that talks about digital signage’s “stopping power” and the entertainment value of programming content is based on a tenuous assumption–that consumers will watch digital signs like they do their TVs at home and like it. This is NOT TV. Shoppers are busy shopping, not lolling in the aisles watching video clips. Attendees at sporting events, or travelers passing through transit hubs or filling up their cars are otherwise engaged.
Do I believe in-store digital media have great value for marketers? You bet I do. So I’m happy to see research that suggests consumers like it. But despite the rectangular, glowing screen, this is not TV. Wallpapering our landscape with too much digital advertising may eventually cause mind-numbing or even antipathy toward the messenger.
Recent informal polls of retail CIOs indicate that digital signage is very much on their minds. Broadband into stores has opened up a world of possibilities, from paperless price signs, to lifestyle advertising, televised fashion shows and customer training. One question seems to be where the content will come from…but that will work itself out over time. The companies that sell digital signage will find themselves in very good shape in the next few years.
A couple thoughts:
1. Since a moving picture gets folks to look at a banner ad on the web, it makes perfect sense to me that a moving picture on a video screen–oops, I mean digital sign, will get more attention than a still picture on a printed sign. And, if the offer is good enough and relevant enough, those among us who are quick of thumb (or, in my case, a narrow part of one finger) will be happy to text a response.
2. Why do we have to keep reminding ourselves that content is king? Wait–don’t answer that.
As an industry, we’re going to spend billions of dollars putting these things up, targeting audiences and neighborhoods, tracking responses and ROI, doing eye-tracking studies, developing coop programs between brands and retail chains, figuring out what else people are doing when they come upon these digital signs, and so on.
And then, as an afterthought, we’re going to throw up any old creative we have lying around, or drag a video camera in to shoot the retailer’s Thursday cooking class, or subscribe to some syndicated your-brand-here video series.
All because, as we’re fond of telling each other, “original creative is just too expensive.”
Yet if there’s one industry where production costs in every medium have been falling steadily for the last two decades, it’s the creative industry. Digital audio and video have revolutionized the way we shoot and edit, and there’s never been a shortage of seasoned, big-agency-refugee freelancers and small agencies who can run rings around their younger competitors at the big-name shops (and are just as technically savvy, too.)
If we really want digital signage to pay off, it would be a good idea to run targeted creative with compelling offers that mean something to the people who see it–and not treat it merely as a store-aisle version of YouTube.
Digital signage is considered “free money” by many retailers. They assume, often correctly, that they can get a slice of the brand spending. Smarter retailers will invest some of that money into improving their own marketing. A retailer need not devote 100% of the digital signage time into either brands or their own marketing. The time can be shared or the paid time can be recycled into other media.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
I’ve read all the comments and find that many of us feel the same way, only half the question is asked/answered by this survey.
Once again we have a research study asking the customer if they like sliced white bread, or a piece of a hearty, healthy and freshly baked multi-grain loaf. Does the customer notice the digital sign? Surely they would, but why stop the questioning there? Does the message played on the sign make the produce more attractive, seem to be a better value, appear more or less expensive, and were you convinced enough about the attributes of the product to buy it? Would you rely on digital signage in the future when you shop at this store for recipe ideas, new product introductions, staff suggestions, etc? What is the best location of digital signage in the store? Is it complementary to the merchandise displays, or are they a distraction? Does the size of the visual display matter to the importance of the product being advertised? How long did you actually spend looking at the digital sign? What messages did you find enticing, which were really a turn-off, why?
Before I would encourage any retailer to introduce a digital sign program in their stores, I would want to know what it can do for the customers, not how much additional revenue the store could make from vendors, or how it will increase the ‘cool’ factor of the store.
I suspect this study was done on the internet asking people about their recollections from previous shopping trips. Therefore the result is not surprising.
For more definitive results, you would need to conduct the study in the context of an actual store and measure the differences versus traditional signage. These studies will be forthcoming as digital signage becomes more common.
I think the most relevant part of this study for the shopper marketing industry is the percent of consumers who would be likely to “text a response” to an offer they saw in the digital signage medium. That is a good testing opportunity for progressive retailers and brands. If any provider wants to test that proposition, please send up a flag. I’ll bet many agencies, including MARS, will take a test program opportunity to all clients.
I’d like to understand the engagement/relevance of the content/message/ offer to the target shopper, why the shopper responded and of course a tracker of corresponding sales.
It makes sense that digital signage would be attractive to consumers. Clear images that frequently change catch the eye. As Anne points out, the next step to is actively engage consumers in the ads. This can be done through text messaging or messages sent from the ad to mobile phones.
In the world of advertising it’s no longer good enough to attract attention. That attraction needs to be actionable.
Digital displays offer a multi-faceted opportunity to retailers. The concept allows the retailer to create excitement within its stores with catchy videos. It allows the retailer to advertise and promote its own brand. It also allows the retailer to advertise related products from which it may derive income. It has also been found to be a great distraction for customers waiting in queues, when properly positioned. It’s a win all around.
Terrific conference held in Chicago in May on this subject, run by a company called DisplaySearch out of Austin Tx. At the conference, speaker after speaker talked about the money pushing expansion of this medium…$BILLIONs. About deployment opportunities including a very focused effort on retail, which ties in nicely with the P.R.I.S.M. efforts in CPG.
Also mentioned time and again was the need for scientific, and significant ROI research.
For more on the conference refer to "Big Bets on Fourth Screen!" in my blog brandedpantry.com.
To a certain degree the newness factor of digital signage certainly contributes to the receptivity of the medium but the relevance of environment also plays a key role in effectiveness. This medium will work most effectively when the right offers are served to the right customer segments in the right environments. The good news is that companies like DS-IQ are emerging to effectively and efficiently measure what works and what doesn’t. Measurement combined with further store deployment and case studies of learning to build on will make the medium more pervasive.
The study appears to focus on the awareness of digital signage, rather than upon the influence of messaging seen on the displays. To be fair, it is hard not to be aware of 42″ multimedia displays in a shopping environment, doctors office or gym. What would be more valuable are additional metrics validating the effectiveness of the medium.
The devil is in the details, of course. Effectiveness will not be driven as much by the medium itself, but by the execution therein. Put more succinctly: content remains king. Defining objectives at the start and building a content strategy around those objectives will separate successful implementations from also-rans. While Mark points out that it is “free money,” that money doesn’t flow freely or blindly. Defined demography, thoughtful content execution and flexible delivery options all come into play. Ann’s comment about the convergence of digital signage and text messaging is also worth noting. A call to action that is inherently measurable and opt-in in nature makes perfect sense. Consumers are walking around with high tech gear on their hips. Leveraging that makes all the sense in the world.
We will continue to see studies that validate and boost digital signage as a very effective out-of-home vehicle. SeeSaw and OTX seemed more excited to identify 12 groups of viewers than any other finding. One must surmise that it serves their purpose. Empirical evidence of the actual sales lift will not flow as freely: retailers who benefit from their networks will be reticent to share that data with competitors. But it will start to come, because it is quite real.
Ad dollar flow will increase. New and larger networks will appear. When something works, it grows.
The results presented here talk about people noticing the video signage. Absolutely, that is attractive to consumers. The movement and action is going to get attention and consumers will notice it. In one small study I conducted, consumers noticed the signage but only watched for about 15 seconds. If your product happens to be the one on the screen when consumers look and if you have an effective message that can be conveyed in about 15 seconds, then the video signage can be very effective. Noticing the signage is only the first piece of important information.
As to be expected with any new intrusive medium, the novelty factor no doubt plays into the high awareness results reported here. Instead of a study that asks consumers to report their behavior, I’d rather see a study that observes actual behavior, including viewing, interacting, and purchasing.
Also, the broad nature of the “digital signage” definition used (covering media in a variety of types of public spaces) makes these results only somewhat applicable to digital advertising in the retail environment.
And finally, any study that talks about digital signage’s “stopping power” and the entertainment value of programming content is based on a tenuous assumption–that consumers will watch digital signs like they do their TVs at home and like it. This is NOT TV. Shoppers are busy shopping, not lolling in the aisles watching video clips. Attendees at sporting events, or travelers passing through transit hubs or filling up their cars are otherwise engaged.
Do I believe in-store digital media have great value for marketers? You bet I do. So I’m happy to see research that suggests consumers like it. But despite the rectangular, glowing screen, this is not TV. Wallpapering our landscape with too much digital advertising may eventually cause mind-numbing or even antipathy toward the messenger.
Recent informal polls of retail CIOs indicate that digital signage is very much on their minds. Broadband into stores has opened up a world of possibilities, from paperless price signs, to lifestyle advertising, televised fashion shows and customer training. One question seems to be where the content will come from…but that will work itself out over time. The companies that sell digital signage will find themselves in very good shape in the next few years.
A couple thoughts:
1. Since a moving picture gets folks to look at a banner ad on the web, it makes perfect sense to me that a moving picture on a video screen–oops, I mean digital sign, will get more attention than a still picture on a printed sign. And, if the offer is good enough and relevant enough, those among us who are quick of thumb (or, in my case, a narrow part of one finger) will be happy to text a response.
2. Why do we have to keep reminding ourselves that content is king? Wait–don’t answer that.
As an industry, we’re going to spend billions of dollars putting these things up, targeting audiences and neighborhoods, tracking responses and ROI, doing eye-tracking studies, developing coop programs between brands and retail chains, figuring out what else people are doing when they come upon these digital signs, and so on.
And then, as an afterthought, we’re going to throw up any old creative we have lying around, or drag a video camera in to shoot the retailer’s Thursday cooking class, or subscribe to some syndicated your-brand-here video series.
All because, as we’re fond of telling each other, “original creative is just too expensive.”
Yet if there’s one industry where production costs in every medium have been falling steadily for the last two decades, it’s the creative industry. Digital audio and video have revolutionized the way we shoot and edit, and there’s never been a shortage of seasoned, big-agency-refugee freelancers and small agencies who can run rings around their younger competitors at the big-name shops (and are just as technically savvy, too.)
If we really want digital signage to pay off, it would be a good idea to run targeted creative with compelling offers that mean something to the people who see it–and not treat it merely as a store-aisle version of YouTube.
Digital signage is considered “free money” by many retailers. They assume, often correctly, that they can get a slice of the brand spending. Smarter retailers will invest some of that money into improving their own marketing. A retailer need not devote 100% of the digital signage time into either brands or their own marketing. The time can be shared or the paid time can be recycled into other media.