Tag Archives: OOH

My First Friday 4-1-1

In an effort to write more regularly, I’m going to implement something that every other blogger on the planet does – a regular series. It’s called the Friday 4-1-1. And here’s how it breaks down:

Each week, on Friday, I’ll highlight 4 stories/events/implementations that I’ve seen during that week and give my impressions. On top of that, I’ll highlight the best “uh-huh” (rockin’) thing I’ve seen and the worst “duh” (what were they thinking?) thing I’ve seen. And we’ll see how it works. So, here we go.

1. Interactive Technology to Enhance Museum Experience – an affiliate museum of the Smithsonian, The Northwest Museum of Arts & Culture in Washington state, is piloting a “Passport to Discovery” project that sounds a lot like the myLOC passport system (set up in the Library of Congress). Solid idea – make the user’s experience smarter each time they visit, based on their actions/interactions from the last visit, but my question is – how much of a pain is it to keep track of a passport-like tchotchke? I would either lose it, forget it, or be annoyed that I have to sift through my catch-all drawer every time I need it. Tie this into the one thing that people keep track of and don’t leave home without – their mobile phone – and you have something.

2. Google Introduces Branded Map Icons – simple – brands can now “brand” their locations into Google maps. For OOH/DOOH/IOOH, brands can benefit in a major way. They not only benefit from the brand recognition when Google maps is integrated into a digital/interactive sign, they benefit from the native functionality that allows users to automatically click-through to details about the brand. I’m big on driving deeper brand experiences through all mediums, particularly OOH/DOOH/IOOH, and this is an example of an API unlocking that feature. This feature has been available before now, but for a brand, there is a big difference from their location being tagged by a grey dot and being tagged by their logo, especially on an interactive sign, when you want to make it as enticing as possible. Of course, this feature is only available to paying brands (using this as a form of advertising). :)

3. Eye Expands Mobile Marketing at Malls, Sans “Big Brother” Effect – this is cool, but I just wonder for the end-consumer, if they make any distinction with geo-location ads. The average consumer probably thinks it’s still creepy, regardless of “how” it’s done. EYE and Ace Marketing & Promotions are working a system based on phone proximity, nothing GPS-related. Here’s where I think digital/interactive signage (I don’t even think you’d need a “digital” sign) serves an ideal purpose – the sign is the bridge between the smart-but-creepy ad and the not-knowing-and-wary consumer. Imagine in a mall, you walk up to a sign that lets you know what to expect on your phone – in terms of store advertisements – just because you’re “in the area.” Viola, without doing anything other than being in that place, you’re pleasantly delighted when you look at your phone and see that Gap is having a sale on jeans. You don’t walk away creeped out. We need as much of this “non-creepy” interaction/advertising as possible right now – it will only help in the acceptance of digital/interactive signs (that have the potential to be very smart).

4. Seahawks Utilize iPad Kiosks for Fan Registration – first, I can’t wait for football to begin next Thursday. Second, anytime interactive technology and football are mentioned in the same sentence, my ears perk up. So, I was delighted to read about the Seattle Seahawks building kiosks with iPads to “register over 20,000 fans” at their training camp this summer. Sounds like they were also able to allow the fans to experience some premier content, which I would fully expect on devices like that. I think this is a great, relatively cost-effective solution to explore when wanting an interactive out-of-home solution. Take a $800 sophisticated piece of hardware & software, build a nice unit around it and you have yourself a feature-rich, well-functioning IOOH solution.

“Uh-huh” – I give this the “uh-huh” head nod each time I see it. Imagine what could be done with this interactive film – The Wilderness Downtown – in an out-of-home setting? Not only would the current iteration be sticky enough for people to stop, interact, and gather around, it sure would be cool to integrate the point where people are interacting with it and the point where they ultimately go (their hometown house). That idea goes against what I said earlier about the “creepiness” factor, but it would be cool.

“Duh” – I don’t know if this is the right word for this category. Nor do I know if it’s a “what were they thinking” category. I just know it’s opposite of the cool, “uh-huh” category. But this week’s installment of the un-cool comes in the form of QR codes. And not one specific implementation. Just as an overall solution. I saw this one and this one, not to mention this one in a magazine I was reading:

Now, look, there’s not another enabling technology that I’ve written about more than QR codes, but the more I learn, read, see, not to mention actually work with QR codes and other mobile technologies, the more I question whether or not the average consumer knows what the heck to do with them. It’s all about the audience – the JFK/Twitter example will probably get more interaction because Twitter, in and of itself, does not attract the “average” consumer, but I just might be at the point of QR code over saturation. Good to see so many examples this year, but are they working? Jury is still way out.

So, there you have it. My first Friday 4-1-1. What do you think?

Celebrating (and Reflecting on) the 1st 6 Months

1 Reply

We’re at a good halfway point in the year, so I think it’s an opportune time to look back on the first 6 months of this blog and reflect.

All in all, I think I’ve done a fairly good job of finding a relevant and clear point of view. It’s evolved from something narrow when I started to a bit broader now. Most everything has been grounded in OOH – I just look at things with more experience and exposure as time has gone (and goes) on. I’m also surrounded by different people in my everyday life who have impacted my thinking. So, naturally, my point of view will evolve. I just don’t want it to slow me down and/or turn into something crazy and incomprehensible.

I need to write more. I’m averaging about 10 posts a month. I feel like I need to double that so I’m providing a steady source of information. I’ve asked a couple of my work colleagues, all of whom are very bright and have an opinion and aren’t shy to voice it, to provide guest posts on as regular basis as they can. So, hopefully, you’ll not only get more content, but you’ll get more (and different) perspective. If any of you want to provide a guest post, just let me know. I’m open to it.

I haven’t found the secret sauce of doing conferences. Blogging, tweeting, meeting people, and just plain going to the conference is a lot of work and certainly requires some juggling. I’ve provided a decent mix of “live streaming” + my perspective. I feel like I need to focus on getting in front of some of “names” there and interview them (or something.) I can see how that would be valuable. So, any of you names at these conferences, take this as my initial request :)

Other than that, I’m pretty happy with everything. It’s still very new and the test is really going to be sustaining over time. I’m committed to continue learning and doing and writing. I expect big things and as a result, everyone reading this will experience that with me.

I’ve met some really great people through this avenue and that, more than anything, is the thing I’m most proud of. This blog allows for these words to live on until some Y2K catastrophe, but I hope to keep those relationships for much longer.

I thought it would be a fun exercise to share some of my favorite posts. I’ve enjoyed reading back over everything and for those who are new to this blog, it might help you navigate through some of my thinking up to now. To those of you who are not new to this blog and my regular readers (again, thank you guys for regular readership!!), I’d love to hear some of your favorite posts. So here they are, broken down by month (I picked a favorite per month):

January – The 11th Screen Puzzle – this was my 3rd post and really where I felt like I was able to really give everyone a sense of where I’m coming from and what to expect from this blog.

February – Keep It Simple Stupid – here, I showed a few examples of “simple” and effective Interactive Out of Home (IOOH) and an example of not so simple and not so effective. To me, there are many different kinds of enabling technologies that make OOH solutions “interactive.” These technologies are vital, not only for the industry, but for the future of marketing. On one hand, these technologies allow us to merge the offline with the online and on another hand, they allow brands to make “complete” experiences.

March – Facebook + QR Codes + A Good Idea? – a little snarky here, but this was on the heels of doing a big QR code initiative for one of our clients and all I was reading was how Facebook was going to save QR codes. That’s right, I said “save” because here in the US, I think they might have died before they were even born. I personally think there’s value to QR codes, if used the right way + proper eduction, but how many of you have used QR codes and like it? I just don’t know that we, as consumers of information through technology, need this particular technology. Point is – is Facebook going to save them? I don’t think so.

April – Why Business Cards and Video are the Same to Me – one of the un-IOOH-related posts, but something that allowed me to provide my perspective on more of what I do everyday.

May – Are You an Expert Learner? – I am of the mindset that if you aren’t learning, you’re wasting your time. I don’t particularly care for know-it-alls, but I really like learn-it-alls.

June – Kinect (and others) – “DOOH” Killers? – the launch of Microsoft’s Kinect should really open eyes on what can be done sooner rather than later with human computer interaction. It is particularly compelling for anyone in the “DOOH” (if you’ve read this blog, you know how I feel about that moniker) industry.

And here we are in July. Many more to come.

Out & About: Target’s Gaming Touch Screen

1 Reply

I heard Chris Borek from Target speak at the Digital Signage Expo earlier this year and walked away from it impressed with their approach to serving customers – “it’s about interacting with the customer on their (the customer’s) terms, on their schedule. It’s not about being there all the time, it’s about being there when they need it.” So, I was not surprised when, over the weekend, I saw this touchscreen in the middle of their electronics/gaming section. Apparently, they’re planning a full chain roll-out with these babies.

Let’s put her to the test and see how she does.

Purpose – They are here to sell games. They’re providing this solution to make it easier for you to a) search for the game you want b) search for the game you don’t know you want c) find the most convenient store for you to get it at and d) get the information in the form you want. This experience delivers on all fronts. If I were looking for a game, I would go straight to this touchscreen vs. a store employee, but that’s just me. If I was intimidated by this touchscreen and wanted the comfort of a store employee, that employee could walk me straight to this and step through the experience with me (hopefully, that’s what they’re trained to do.) In that regard, it even levels the playing field for all of those employees – now they don’t need to know about every game in the store. The technology serves that purpose and allows the employee to focus on the customer.

Drama – As you can see, this touchscreen was built into the display unit and it all looks very nice. You can tell they spent a lot of time thinking this through and designing the entire unit, not just the touchscreen. I don’t know how they could have done a better job with placement, although it would have been much more noticeable if it were right on the main aisle. (As it is, it’s hidden behind the display unit on the main aisle.) Once I noticed it, the subtle animation and large text with prominent call-to-action made me want to interact with it and set my expectations on exactly what I needed to do. In my opinion, they made a good decision with the vertical monitor – it creates more of a dramatic impact than the same size horizontal monitor and for this type of information, I think it makes for a better use of space.

Usability – The interface was set up very much like a web interface. In some respects, it mirrors Target’s online experience, certainly the way in which the content was bucketed. I didn’t have a problem finding the information I wanted. In some cases, there were multiple ways to get to the same content, which I think is good. And regardless of where I was in the experience, I could always “Go Back” Home and “Notify an Employee.” It’s great (and smart) to have those anchors. I think it makes the user feel comfortable that they can always get the information that they ultimately want, even if it isn’t through this touchscreen experience.

Interactivity – This experience was touch-based with email & mobile integration.

The screen was responsive to touch and aside from the internet connection (which I suspect is needed to utilize their web content management system), I thought the experience itself was fluid and smooth. The email & text component was simple and provided only the information I needed in either of those channels.

Information – All games, all systems, all accessories, all the time. The content here is hooked into Target’s chain-wide inventory, so if the store that you’re in doesn’t have what you’re looking for, you can locate it at the stores closest to you. In addition to the product information, they worked in a social component via user reviews. That said, I couldn’t find any user reviews in the games that I searched (which I think can be easily remedied with some seeded content), but it might have just been by chance that those specific games didn’t have reviews. This application didn’t seem to have any un-needed information and it didn’t seem to lack any either. Everything in here seemed purposeful.

Personalization – There wasn’t much personalization in this experience, but there was more than in the touchscreens that I’ve previously featured. The email and mobile component was a nice, personal touch and a step in the right direction to make the experience personal. I think they have the opportunity to build user’s profiles, recommend content based on previous purchases, incorporate a loyalty-type program – all might not be appropriate for the everyday consumer, but would certainly help Target compete with stores like GameStop with the hardcore gamers.

All in all, this was a very good, efficient application. One of the best I’ve seen, and certainly the best touchscreen that I’ve featured here. Why other game stores and movie stores (like Blockbuster) and music stores don’t do this more, I just don’t understand, especially if they’ve already got a good system online. I think anyone who’s considering building/updating a retail-based interactive application should go to their nearest Target and play around with this for a little while – you’ll learn alot.

Kinect (and others) – “DOOH” Killers?

3 Replies

How far away do you really think we are from mass adoption of interacting with the physical spaces around us?

Can this be the year of mobile and “interactive out-of-home?”

Has technology made “medium” really irrelevant?

My answers: Closer than we actually think. Yes and quite possibly (who would have thought?). Technology has shifted each medium’s relevancy from consumption to experience, thus shifting the necessity of each.

For anyone who does not know what “out-of-home” (OOH), “digital out-of-home” (DOOH), or my own “interactive out-of-home” (IOOH) is, or does not believe its place or efficacy in today’s media environment, I believe you will learn very quickly otherwise.

I’m struck by examples of new technology that I have seen in a short 12 months, each adding another element of seamless human-to-computer interaction, directly affecting our experiences in the spaces around us:

Layar – through the use of your mobile phone, you can simply hold it up in any environment and instantly see, through this “augmented” reality, people around you, what they’re saying, what they’ve said, where they want to go, where you should go, etc…The open space around you instantly becomes interactable.

Audio Graffitti – here, you can walk up to any surface, speak or make a noise, and “tag” it for others to hear/experience from that point forward. The surfaces around you instantly become audible.

Project Natal/Kinect – this gesture-based controlling system brought to us by Microsoft/Xbox was formally announced last night at the E3 conference (although the technology has been open to developers for at least a year.) This is a game changer (pardon the pun, it’s just the right thing to say) – it allows users to control their experience in games without pressing a button of any sort. Nothing. All actions are controlled by the user’s gestures. The displays around you instantly become responsive.

This Kinect news is really groundbreaking in my opinion. Now, this technology is available for gamers, just a fraction of the general population, but in a year from now, how much bigger does that fraction get? Who else is this kind of technology available for on a mass scale?

Technology is no longer the barrier. Yes, it’s going to continue to get better and take different shapes, but as evidenced by the three examples above, it’s at the point where we no longer need to touch anything to interact with the spaces around us. Just take a minute to think about that.

The other common thread among these three – they are all inherently social.

I’ve said before that “DOOH” as a medium is talked about wrong (“digital” just means display and without interaction, it is dull, tired, and un-sustainable) and I’m afraid that it is already becoming extinct, before it even gains traction. We are rapidly moving beyond one-way, static displays, digital or not.

Take a look at the spaces around you when you’re on your way to work, or at the grocery store, or at the park. Think you can interact with them? If not, think again.

Applying Technology to my OOH Basics

2 Replies

A couple of days ago, I shared my vision of OOH. It’s pretty simple. In my view, OOH is broken down into 3 buckets – categories of displays if you will – billboards, posters & kiosks. They are separated by 3 differentiating factors – amount of information, length of engagement and potential for human interaction.

This view is important to me because of what happens when you start to add technology onto it. What exactly does that technology do? And what is the true impact of technology on this medium? So, first, to show my view on the most overused moniker in the industry – Digital Out of Home (DOOH):

When you add digital to this model, you get the same exact model with just a little different shading. It doesn’t change much other than the fact that there is now some sort of technology applied to the medium. In this case, “digital” is just the addition of display technology. As I’ve said before, display technologies are a finite list of technologies – LCD, LED, projection. All it does is enable a static display to become dynamic. For advertisers, this, of course, has a substantial impact, both with advertising-based displays/networks and non-advertising-based displays/networks. But the true effect on the consumer’s experience isn’t drastically different. When you apply a display technology to a billboard, you get a different type of billboard, but by and large, it has the same effect. Ditto for posters and kiosks. As a consumer, I’m still getting the same amount of information, I’m still engaging with it the same length of time and the potential for my interaction with it hasn’t changed. The primary difference is that it now moves. Is it more effective? Maybe. If I respond better to moving images rather than static display. If the content is compelling. But I don’t think it moves the needle by itself. The true magic happens when you make OOH & DOOH interactive, which I’m calling Interactive Out of Home (IOOH).

Now, not only is the model shaded even more differently, it takes on a completely different form. Interactive billboards become something closer to posters. Interactive posters become something closer to kiosks. And kiosks become something they’ve never been. Interactivity and the technologies that enable it have a profound impact on OOH & DOOH. I call these technologies enabling technologies – technologies that enable personalized experiences from each of these displays. Technologies like touch screens, motion sensors, RFID, NFC, Bluetooth, mobile and its enabling technologies like GPS, 2D/3D barcode scanners and Augmented Reality – the list is certainly larger than the display technology list, but still finite (at least right now. I have no doubt it will grow with time.) But they all drastically effect the experience in the same fundamental way – they enable a level of personalization that is deeper than any of these displays provide in their raw, even digital, forms. This personalization is really the key to effective communication, which is the key to creating and sustaining relationships between brands and their audiences. This is the special effect that I believe OOH, as a medium, can and will have on marketers and consumers in this new day and age, particularly as newer technologies are introduced. But it’s all about the interactivity. A traditional OOH installation can be made interactive, just as a DOOH installation can be made interactive. In some cases, I believe the technology inherent in DOOH makes it easier to incorporate enabling technologies, but this is not always the case. It does not need to be “digital” to include interactivity. A perfect example of this is our QR code initiative at SXSW. A static (non-digital) QR code was added to a static display (car, which in this case, I would consider a “poster” in my model – not that it includes a wealth of information, but a static car like that, in that type of environment, provides a level of human interaction and length of engagement similar to a traditional poster) and with the use of mobile as the enabling technology, attendees were able to experience a deeper, personal engagement with the brand. This is why I think it’s critical to make a distinction between “digital” and “interactive” in this way. Interactivity allows the consumer to experience more information, and engage and interact with it in a deeper way. It is worlds different than just “digital.”

This sort of engagement opens up an exciting and scary world of possibilities. Brands will sooner or later understand that they can (and should) use the spaces and things around us, in our everyday lives, as effective communication tools. It has a drastic impact on them and their ability to touch their audience anywhere they want/need. We’re a ways off though, as you’ve heard me say before. But make no mistake, technology – specifically enabling technologies (not display technologies) – transforms the OOH world into something that has only truly been applied in books and movies. For now, we keep pushing and experimenting.

Getting Back to my OOH Basics

Recognizing the Art of Communicating

1 Reply

I read many trade magazines. Wired, Fast Company, Harvard Business Review – these are some of my favorites. But, my real favorite is Communication Arts. It’s my favorite because it focuses on the art of communication, which truly is an art. If you’re not familiar with it, I recommend it. It features high quality work from all industries, all verticals, in all mediums – print, photography, video, animation, motion graphics.

My favorite issue every year is their Interactive Annual (they just published the latest one last week). Here, they award the best interactive experiences executed in the industry over the past year. Guess how many IOOH initiatives were recognized this year? 6. Out of 40. This is good. It might not seem that high, but it is double the number of IOOH recognitions last year. To me, this is incredibly encouraging. Industry experts consider these to be among the best interactive experiences executed, regardless of medium.

And there were 2 more – very unique – recognized this year that had elements of OOH/digital/interactive, although I don’t know that I would completely consider them IOOH. The 6 are really nice. All interactive through touch and gesture, but really nice. (2 of which I experienced for myself at the Hard Rock Café in Vegas). However, it’s not these 6 that I want to talk about. It’s these 2 very-unique experiences that I want to talk about.

One is from Nike. Say what you will about Nike, they are great marketers. Medium agnostic. Emerging media experimentalists. I enjoy most everything I see from them. This example is no different: Chalkbot. The concept is simple – let the collective public decorate the roads during the Tour de France (which is a tradition) through the use of various digital media, namely computers and/or mobile phones.

This experience occurs outside of the home (so it’s partly there through my definition of OOH), but the actual experience does not originate from a device, medium, or platform that the user does not own. In this case, it originates from a user’s computer or mobile phone (which does not completely fit my definition of OOH). So, I ask, is this a true OOH initiative? I believe yes, it is. As a spectator (and not an enabler/participant), I experience it outside of my home on a device, medium, or platform that I don’t own. I can’t turn it off. It might as well be a billboard. But the real question that I struggle with is, is it an IOOH initiative? And to me, given my definition of IOOH, it is not. Here’s the thing – as an enabler/participant, I must control what the chalkbot does on the street through a device that I already own. Without that device, I wouldn’t have an experience. So, unlike a traditional billboard, where you would have an experience – you would see the billboard on the side of the road – the road is essentially bare without my interaction. In this case, I choose to turn everything on. And I think that’s the biggest difference between the two. If the chalkbot was a billboard (and already “on”), I would have an easier time accepting that it was an IOOH execution.

But it’s very interesting for sure. It turns interacting with the physical spaces around us on its head.

The other example is just as fascinating, called Thinking Inside the Box. This is brilliant, really. Eight “thinkers” locked themselves inside a huge box in the middle of a busy public space in Toronto, solicited creative challenges by the general public, and solved them on the spot. All of their interactions were filmed and culled down to make a site. So, let’s go back to whether or not this is IOOH, according to my definition. I think that we can most certainly say it isn’t. In fact, it’s much more clear cut than Chalkbot. But let’s break it down – it occurs outside of the home on a device, medium or platform that you don’t own. So, OOH? Yes. But there is no interactivity through technology. So, IOOH? No. However, they streamed video and Q/As on digital billboards in the square, so DOOH? Yes, definitely. And very intriguing DOOH, due to the real-time nature of feeds and the content itself.

Both of these examples truly illustrate the art of communicating – with each other, between brands/consumers, and most exciting – the spaces around us. I think that it’s encouraging to see so many “untraditional” digital/interactive executions being recognized. I think we can all learn something very valuable from all of these stories – don’t constrain yourself to the little grey box on your desk. Think big. Be smart. You can do a lot with a thinking mind. And it doesn’t always break the bank.

So, what do you think of these examples? Do you agree with my differentiations? Or do you lump them into all OOH?

The 11th Screen Puzzle

1 Reply

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?