11th Screen

Thankfully, I was too busy with work yesterday, particularly in the morning, to tune into the Steveosphere.  I knew the news.  I know the news.  The iPad.  I get it.  I don’t like the name, but I get it.  I have read so many opinions pre-news and now, post-news, that I’m already tired of it.  But, alas, here we are and I’m writing about it.  I think it’s important.  I think it’s revolutionary.  And I think it’s rockin’. 

I’ve used tablet PCs for the past few years in events that we supported, so I was really interested to see what my meeting/event colleagues had to say about the iPad.  I keep up with two in particular, Samuel J. Smith and Midori Connolly, and they’re right on point with their thinking around how the iPad will impact conferences and events – for both attendees and brands/exhibitors.  They’re projecting and predicting all of the different ways that this device will enable deeper, richer, more meaningful interactions betweens brands and consumers.  (Read them, follow them if you’re interested in this space.)

These events are ”closed” environments where technology that fulfills multiple needs is used and effective.  In my experience, we found tablets to be effective at displaying digital (and interactive) content for intimate, 1:1 scenarios.  This focused, 1:1 time was very meaningful for the brands and the relationships they were developing with key attendees.  We also hooked bar-code scanners up to the tablets so we could capture leads directly into our system.  The bar-code scanners were clunky, but highly effective at data capture and expanding our footprint in the booth.  The mobility of tablets is perhaps their greatest strength, especially in a setting like this.  They allowed us to use the entire booth to our advantage rather than limiting attendees to stationary screens.  And on top of everything else, they’re cool, which tends to work in the brands’ favor more often than not.  

Right now, I think this is the most reasonable expectation for “mass” use – a closed environment with specific needs.  Attendees won’t need to own them.  They’re a low cost to brands/exhibitors.  But to both audiences, they present a huge value proposition – exposure, expanded capabilities, enhanced experiences and we can’t forget the cool factor.  I hope brands/exhibitors will listen to the Samuel’s and Midori’s of the world when planning their next event.  Contrary to popular belief, I don’t think the brick & mortar events are going away anytime soon.  Certainly not before these things can be used effectively in this environment.

Out of this environment, they’ll eventually catch on for the masses.  Eventually, they will be part of our lives.  Eventually, they will be my kids’ Trapper Keeper, which, as a lover of organization, is an awesome thought.

Whatchou got?

In my opinion, the term “Digital” Out of Home, or “DOOH” is becoming widely overused.  So much so that I think it dilutes the space, minimizes the impact of what can truly be done through technology outside of the home, and ultimately, confuses people – advertisers, marketers and brands alike. 

I look at the term through a simple lense.  Digital Out of Home (DOOH), to me, is nothing more than adding display technology to an otherwise static OOH installation.  So, let’s take a billboard for instance.  The standard OOH installation is a static billboard.  The digital OOH installation is created by simply adding some sort of display technology onto the the static billboard.  This can be through LEDs (as is the case with billboards), LCDs, plasmas, or projection.  It’s a finite list, but apply any of them to any static OOH installation and voila, you now have a digital version of said installation – Digital Out of Home. 

I think it’s important to make this distinction, especially with the introduction of other technologies that make our surroundings, including these billboards, come to life.  As mentioned in a previous post, I call these sorts of technologies enabling technology.  Right now, I think it, too, is a finite list, but it’s a bigger list than display technology.  RFID, for example, is an enabling technology.  GPS is an enabling technology.  Mobile, albeit more broad, is also an enabling technology.  But within mobile, I think you start to see a subset of enabling technologies like Augmented Reality, QR Codes, MS Tags, and Bluetooth.  Then, you have touch screen technology (single and multi-touch, even gesture-based) that is on the list, too.   The point is – these technologies enable personal interactions with an otherwise digital installation.  At this level, it is not Digital Out of Home to me.

I sense more and more that the industry and many of the players in it call everything Digital Out of Home just because it occurs outside of the home through any sort of technology.  But unless we start talking about it in consistent terms, how can we expect it to catch on and even grow?  Do you agree?  I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I am humbled, although not surprised, by the human condition and the outpour of support for all of the people of Haiti.  Just like other major catastrophes of the decade (9/11, Thailand Tsunami, Katrina come to mind), people from all over the world are contributing in all sorts of ways.  It’s awesome to witness how new technology – social & mobile – has enabled immediate outreach and support.  Red Cross’s text message campaign has already raised $10 million plus.  Say what you will about FarmVille and Mafia Wars, but their maker, Zynga, has utilized them as a platform and already raised $1.2 million plus.  And Paste has partnered with musicians to offer up a library of exclusive MP3s to support the relief effort.  Not to mention all of the companies, including mine, encouraging their employees around the world to contribute, and matching dollar-for-dollar those contributions.  These are only a handful of examples that not only exhibit good will that I believe is inherent in people, but also exhibit the power of technology and how it can be used for productive, meaningful outreach and (global) connection.  I’ve often told people that I wish there were a news channel dedicated to good news 24/7, particularly for events like this.  Touché, there is such a thing, yet another example – if you follow the right people/sources, that is what Twitter has become for me.  :)

The 11^th screen is a multi-piece puzzle.  But to me, there are two key pieces.  The first key piece is what I previously talked about – bucketing technology into “screens” based on HOW we consume and engage with media.  The second key piece is just as important and that is WHERE we consume and engage with media. 

HOW + WHERE = 11^th screen

My WHERE focus is Out of Home (OOH).  The easy way to think of this is the literal translation – outside of your home.  For those that this does not make sense to, let me give you my definition of “Out of Home”:

Any experience that occurs outside of the home that does not require the audience to own the device, medium or platform from which the experience originates.

When I talk about “OOH”, this is what it means to me.  My basis for everything here will be grounded in this, specifically this part:  does not require the audience to own the device, medium or platform from which the experience originates.

If we look at the examples in my previous posts, you’ll see what I mean:

Mini served up messages to people driving on the highway (out of their home) on digital billboards (platform that they didn’t own).

Microsoft created experiences in retail stores (outside of the home) on interactive tables (device that users don’t own).

Now, to me, there’s another key piece to this puzzle and that is the piece of personalization, which really gets to the core of my focus.  The way this personalization happens is through the use of technology, specifically through the use of what I’m going to call enabling technology.  Like RFID.  Like touch screens.  Like mobile phones.  This is where the lines start to blur, which we’ll experience more and more, but the point is – this sort of technology enables an otherwise static experience to be “personalized” on some level.

So, to personalize their billboards, Mini used RFID chips that were “assigned” to individuals and when that individual drove by an otherwise “digital” billboard, they received a personalized message.  Technically, the audience owned the RFID chip.  They had to have that in order to receive the personalized experience.  But they didn’t own the digital billboard from which the experience originated.

Let’s look at the Spore/QR code example, though- here’s where the mobile phone piece of this puzzle comes into play.  There are more and more OOH initiatives that are personalized through the use of mobile phones as the enabling technology.  On this example, the audience didn’t own the poster from which the experience originated.  But because there was a QR code on the poster, they were able to interact with it through the use of a device that they owned, and as a result, received a personalized experience. 

On the other hand, users interacting with the MS Surface don’t own the device, nor do they need to own anything else to experience that level of personalization.  Personalization, to a certain extent, is inherent in multi-user touch screen devices.

I think this one of our first big challenges – to understand the difference between “Traditional” and Digital OOH that is made interactive and true Interactive OOH.  Specifically, the impact that this difference has on us and the brands that we represent as engagement agents.  We know people are spending more and more time outside of their home.  They’re engaging with media (and their surroundings) in a way that they have never engaged before.  So, it’s important to engage with them in meaningful ways while they’re outside of their homes.  But is there a more effective way to do this over another?  Is it more effective to engage people through Traditional or Digital OOH made interactive or Interactive OOH? 

Aside from creating an experience where the audience doesn’t have to own anything to have a personalized experience, I don’t think it does.  What’s the one thing that all of us won’t leave home without?  Our mobile phones.  So, if we’re using mobile as an enabling technology, what’s the difference? 

Perhaps the real question is, is the brand driving individuals as “deep” as they can through their OOH initiatives, whether it be through a “native” Traditional, Digital, or Interactive experience?  Are they creating personalized experiences?  Are they putting all of the pieces of the puzzle together?

What examples have you seen that effectively put all the pieces together and create personalized OOH experiences?

So, what is the 11^th screen, you ask?  Here’s my simple answer:

In technology terms, we consume and engage with media through different “screens.” 

1^st screen = big screen (cinema)

2^nd screen = TV

3^rd screen = computer

4^th screen = mobile phone

5^th screen = digital signage

And I would add a 6^th screen = everything else. 

This “everything else” bucket is so big and contains so many different types and ways of consuming and engaging with media, I don’t think it’s fair to just call it the 6^th Screen.  It could be the 6^th, 7^th or 8^th Screen, really.  In this bucket, everything seems to be changing every day, in large part due to technology and in larger part, due to great, progressive thinking.  Mini turns a standard billboard into a real-life LA Story experience through the use of RFID.  Spore turns a poster into a mobile coupon with QR Codes.  And Microsoft turns tables into deep, social shopping experiences with their multi-touch surface tables.  These are all examples of the types of engagement that have been and continue be created in this bucket.  (We will explore many more.) 

So, I bring you a different, much larger bucket and in the interest of staying ahead of the curve, I will call it the 11^th Screen.

I woke up dreaming about the blog yesterday.  Then, today, I woke up dreaming about Twitter.  Very anxious to get this thing up and running, this new “brand.”  Even when I’m not sleeping, my mind races.  Who am I talking to?  What am I trying to say?  Who do I want to form a relationship with?  What will my voice be?  What kind of information will be within my “boundaries”?  On and on and on.  You name it, I’m thinking about it.  In sleep and while awake.  Talk about anxiety.

So, now, I’m breathing.  And doing.  Wait no more.  The time has come.  I’m getting it out.  And this is it – the 11^th Screen. 

The set-up:

I’ve spent the last four years of my life helping develop and implement a piece of software that is used in specific locations (like conferences and events) on technology that users don’t own (like touch screens).  When we initially started the process, we knew these two requirements, but didn’t fully understand their effects.  Nor did we understand the breadth of the opportunity that was staring us in the face.  Once we got into it, we based everything on these two insights:

1. These events occur outside of the home (OOH) in an environment where the audience is a) captive and b) doesn’t have any form of personal technology (like computer) to interact with, other than their mobile phones.  (At the time, smart phones weren’t what they are today – both in technology and penetration.)
2. These events require attendee registration and result in each attendee receiving a name badge, all of their registered, personal information packed away in a 2D or 3D barcode. 

As far as the software is concerned, the 2^nd insight drove its differentiator.  The system can scan badges, store the information immediately and track every action back to an individual user.  On top of that, the system can handle an unlimited amount of brand content.  The differentiator is tying the data together with the content real-time.  So, everyone who interacted with this experience could receive a custom presentation based on the data that we knew about them or gathered from them real-time.  It’s really cool, but that’s not the point of this blog….

As far as this blog is concerned, insight #1 opened up a door for me that I have fallen in love with.  Again, at the time we were developing this, Digital Signage – or Digital “Out of Home” (DOOH) – was in its infancy (some would say that it still is, but it still gives you a point of reference.  I think it’s more grown up now, but still has a long way to go.) so we felt like we were discovering something revolutionary, certainly discovering unchartered territory. 

Well, we really weren’t. 

But we were on the front lines of creating innovative, interactive out of home (OOH) experiences.  Which brings me here now.

I have been to more conferences and events than I care to admit over the past four years, observing what others are (or in this case are not) doing with “digital signage.”  And while digital signage is starting to take off and get a little bit of attention, interacting with that signage is and has been virtually non-existent.  Of course, there are examples like this and that and the other thing, but talk about something in its infancy.  These can be considered more experiments than anything else, certainly not something that brands and people are comfortable with enough to accept.  Certainly not something that will take significant portions of budgets right now.  But we are getting there.  I truly believe it. 

Everyone is hoping big things for mobile this year.  I’m hoping big things for interactive out of home, which in large part, is tied directly to mobile.   I think industries will make great strides in connecting people with brands and each other through enabling technologies – like mobile, like touch screens – this year.  So, while I may be a little late (try YEARS) in starting a blog, I feel like this is an appropriate time to join in the discussion. 

I can’t wait any longer…

NOTE – I no longer work for the company that I helped develop the software for.  I have no affiliation with the software either, other than to wish it great success.