Subscribe: Digital Signage Insider Blog
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
big  content  cost  data  digital signage  digital  led  make  making  might  people  screen  screens  signage content  signage 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Digital Signage Insider Blog

Digital Signage Insider: News, Trends and Analysis

Last Build Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 23:31:14 +0000


Making a case for less-customized marketing content

Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:09:52 +0000

It's been a while since I wrote about making effective digital signage content, and in fact these days I don't get the opportunity to focus in on content strategy with clients nearly as often as I'd like. And that's a shame, since even after a decade of considerable growth (I think it's fair to say that digital signage in nearly all forms is solidly in the "mature" section of the technology catalog) I frequently come across signs in serious need of improvement. In just the past few weeks I've noticed a half dozen offenders, ranging from QSR menu boards to corporate lobby screens. But the real catalyst for this post came from research house eMarketer, who noted that even in 2016 lowly email marketing outperformed the more fashionable social media and paid search industries. Perhaps most interestingly of all, the humble one-size-fits-all email newsletter was still found to be the workhorse of the industry, offering a greater return per dollar than far more elaborate hypertargeted mailings. In light of the fact that marketing automation platforms these days will slice and dice content into dozens or hundreds of different forms in an attempt to best fit each recipient, that's pretty telling, especially as it flies in the face of the conventional wisdom in the digital signage arena. The drive toward automating content production on digital signage networks is nothing new. I remember listening to Jeff Porter (a longtime VP at Scala) give a presentation on the subject well over a decade ago, and since then the barrier to entry for auto-generated content has fallen shortly. For large networks the need to automatically customize content playback can be particularly important, since it quickly becomes unwieldy (and expensive) to create, catalog, organize and deploy multiple variations of even a simple piece of content. Tech companies were quick to answer the call, and today there are hundreds of solutions on the market that will ingest your data inputs and spit out as many different output variations as you care to make. This kind of wrote work is exactly the type that benefits from automation, after all. That said, while "delivering the right content at the right place and time to the right audience" has been the mantra of the digital signage (and now, mobile) advertising worlds for as long as they've existed, it's unclear exactly how beneficial it is. There seems to be general agreement that some amount of customization does indeed boost the performance of out-of-home ads. There's no point in advertising snow tires in Florida, after all. And far on the other end of the spectrum we have things like AdWords and Facebook ads that hyper-target to your specific interests based on an exhaustive analysis of your online browsing habits. While there's no denying these programs do astonishingly well for Google and Facebook, it's less clear whether they're as effective as they're purported to be (case in point: in 2016 global CPG giant Procter & Gamble phased out their Facebook ads program citing lack of effectiveness). And there have definitely been anecdotal cases of people opting out of Facebook entirely because the ads have gotten "too creepy" (something that I actually touched on waaaaay back in 2009 in an article discussing digital signage and the uncanny valley). Remember this diagram? I continue to read about new tech developments in face recognition, beaconing, etc. that put a lot of stock in being able to show a highly-targeted spot to a specific person as they make their way about in the real world. At one point in time, this seemed like a pretty good idea to me. Now, though, I'm in the same boat as the email marketers mentioned earlier on. If I had to, I'd bet that quality content that follows many of our best practices for digital signage content and has high production value will work better (and be more cost effective) than content that bends over backwards to hypertarget to a very small group of people (or even just an individual). I don't expect that we'll ever see a well-controlled test of this theor[...]

A 2016 update to the digital signage price calculator

Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:02:42 +0000

Quick note - we've updated our digital signage price estimator for the first time since its release back in 2012. More accurate pricing, better volume discount estimates, and support for the latest-and-greatest tech are available to all who might want to generate a digital signage project estimate.

What's new?

There are three big upgrades in this version of the price calculator: first, we added an option for 4k support. This basically just bumps up the cost of the screens and media players for those people who simply must have the newest, shiniest objects. Are there cases where using 4k content makes sense? Yeah, a couple. High-end video walls and retail installations might benefit from some really eye-popping ultra high def content, but the vast majority of the time it adds nothing. You remember this graphic, right?


Even in the best case -- and using a huge screen -- the visual advantage of 4k content basically disappears before the viewer is even 10 feet away.  Buuut, people want to know how much it costs, so we stuck it in the calculator.

Next, we added support for speccing touch screens. We see a lot of projects these days that make use of a smaller touch screen and larger standard screen together, or else touch screens that are integrated into some larger device. Speaking of "larger" we also added pricing guesstimates for a larger class of screen -- 60-70 inch -- but honestly there's so much of a price difference between a 60" and 70" screen right now that our price estimate for that not going to be very accurate.

Finally, we considerably improved the way volume discounts are calculated, though honestly no online estimator is really going to do a good job estimating both a 10-screen pilot and a 1,000-screen rollout. But at least now we're making the attempt!

What's coming next?

I'd love one day to be able to put a content estimator-guideline-thing up to give people a better idea how how the initial capex of installing a network pales in comparison to feeding it content forever, but that's a tall order and perhaps of limited value, since most people who are serious about their projects will so some internal calculations and everyone else... well... they probably won't be interested in a lot of math no matter who's doing it.

At one point we also considered something along the lines of an organization estimator which would attempt to quantify the number of people needed to manage the network, create the content, etc. (based on the estimates from Digital signage staffing analysis), but honestly that's hopelessly complicated and would be so extremely error-prone.

There are also some additional fixes that we need to make, in particular the handling of very low-cost Android-based players, HDMI sticks and the like. While many commercial-grade systems are still in the approximate ballpark of a lower-end Intel-based player, there is definitely still a good deal of downward pricing pressure, and we haven't fully captured all of that, so it goes to the top of the to-do list.

More than anything we'd like some feedback on whether this new and improved estimator is useful, and whether the numbers it's spitting out mirror people's experiences in the real world. Let me know what you think!

LED billboard costs fall about 15% in 2015

Tue, 05 Jan 2016 03:36:49 +0000

Unless you're in the large-format LED billboard business, you can file this under "boring, but important." As the headline above says, the cost of those LED modules that make up the giant displays found in Times Square, Tokyo, Las Vegas and your local interstate fell at least 15% in 2015. While I haven't been keeping particularly close watch on the prices of these things for very long, that, to me, seems like an astonishingly big drop in a very short period of time. During the same period it seems like 16mm pixel pitch has become the preferred size for roadside and building-mounted displays, versus 20mm in the previous year. Because most LED billboards are made out of smaller modules, this price drop scales linearly with the size of the display (measured in square feet or square meters, usually) and means that in many cases that 14x48' billboard (a standard size for US roadside billboards) costs around $155K as opposed to the roughly $182K it would have cost in 2014. I've seen even bigger drops for older 25mm pixel-pitch screens, but most vendors and buyers these days seem to be interested in the better resolution of 16mm, 12mm and even 10mm displays. What's "pixel pitch" again? The pixel pitch describes how much space is between the individual pixels (picture elements) of an LED screen. Back in the days of CRT monitors it was called "dot pitch" (and measured in fractions of a millimeter). These days for LCD and OLED screens it seems we've settled on dots per inch (DPI), which is admittedly a much smarter thing to do than describing your smartphone as having a 0.001mm dot pitch. A single pixel of an LED screen contains 3 individual LEDs - red, green and blue The pixels on an LED screen are spaced much further apart than on an LCD display. However, it is difficult to notice the gaps when the screen is viewed from far away. Smaller LED screens and screens that will be viewed closer in need to use a smaller pixel pitch to display high-quality imagery. However, because they use so many more LED lamps, they are considerably more expensive. In this example, a 10mm pixel pitch display uses 4 times the number of LEDs as a 20mm display of the same size. So how much do these things tend to cost? We of course have an elaborate LED billboard price calculator that can provide a pretty accurate range of prices for all sorts of bells and whistles, but if you're looking for ballpark pricing, the most popular "standard" size is the aforementioned 14x48' sign. At a 16mm pitch, they currently cost between $140K and $310K, depending on options. At 20mm (so, effectively a lower resolution for a screen of the same physical size), that range is more like $115K and $255K A "poster" or "30 sheet" screen -- another standard size based on old-school OOH media -- is 12x24' and costs $45K - $100K. Why is the price range so huge? Well, there are a lot of different options to consider, like country of origin, the quality of the individual LED lamps (which affect everything from longevity to brightness to reliability), and the materials that the modules are built from. Special ratings and certifications can affect the price too. Fortunately, for most applications the bog-stock offerings from the major vendors will be the best choice, and those tend to be on the low side of the range (for example, we're working with a US-based supplier right now who stocks 14x48' 16mm billboards and sells them for $155K, FOB Miami, FL). And what about the environmental impact? As I said, in the past 12 months (or a bit more) many vendors have been working just as hard at lowering the environmental footprint of these devices as they have at lowering the cost. Why? Well, after the capital cost of an LED billboard, electricitity is one of the highest ongoing operational costs, with some screens costing thousands of dollars per month to operate (they're really, really bright, and bigger than you think). While I've yet to hear about a LEED-certified billboard, I've seen literature fr[...]

To connect with your viewers, appeal to emotions

Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:55:34 +0000

It's a well known fact that emotions play a powerful role in our decision making processes -- nobody ever claimed that we humans were rational actors (well, aside from economists, who are great for making detailed hypothetical models of things that will never happen, but little good for anything else). And it goes without saying that our attitudes about everything from the products we buy to the companies that we work for are profoundly influenced by our feelings towards those places and things. Unfortunately, anybody who has tried to develop a marketing campaign, whether for selling a new product or motivating employees in the break room knows that making a successful emotional appeal is really hard, especially when you're trying to appeal to a broad group of people. That's why this article from the Harvard Business Review really caught my eye. In short, researchers claimed to have cracked the code on making potent emotional appeals, and they have the data to back it up.   The researchers were able to identify hundreds of individual "emotional motivators," any combination of which might be influential to a consumer at any given time. But they were also able to identify 10 motivators that apply broadly, nearly all of the time: I am inspired by a desire to:Brands can leverage this motivator by helping customers: Stand out from the crowd Project a unique social identity; be seen as special Have confidence In the future Perceive the future as better than the past; have a positive mental picture of what’s to come Enjoy a sense of well-being Feel that life measures up to expectations and that balance has been achieved; seek a stress-free state without conflicts or threats Feel a sense of freedom Act independently, without obligations or restrictions Feel a sense of thrill Experience visceral, overwhelming pleasure and excitement; participate in exciting, fun events Feel a sense of belonging Have an affiliation with people they relate to or aspire to be like; feel part of a group Protect the environment Sustain the belief that the environment is sacred; take action to improve their surroundings Be the person I want to be Fulfill a desire for ongoing self-improvement; live up to their ideal self-image Feel secure Believe that what they have today will be there tomorrow; pursue goals and dreams without worry Succeed in life Feel that they lead meaningful lives; find worth that goes beyond financial or socioeconomic measures Of course it's easy to say "oh, just give your target audience a visceral, overwhelming pleasure and excitement," but actually pulling it off is a very different thing. For some people, watching a trailer for a new movie might be enough to tick that box. But others might need to BASE jump off of the Statue of Liberty to satisfy the same requirement. And it goes without saying that the approaches to making these emotional appeals is going to vary widely by discipline. Product marketers will rely on one set of tools, HR professionals another, safety officers yet another still, and so on. The thing I like, though, is that it's easy to imagine a lot of these emotional motivators in the context of digital signage messages. As we know, messages have to be short and to-the-point to be memorable. There are also dozens of other digital signage content best practices to follow to make sure they are clear and communicate core ideas properly. But in addition to that, if this research is to be believed, messages that can also integrate an emotional motivator may be more successful (or memorable, or actionable, or something) than those that don't. And the nice thing is that the emotional component might actually be conveyed better with a non-verbal, visual cue. This is really great, because we know that making messages longer reduces their effectiveness. So while I haven't done any formal research on this matter yet (and I'd love to -- any DS network man[...]

Back to basics: digital signage content goals

Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:17:34 +0000

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been used and abused by too many disciplines to count. In fact, I'm guilty of one such infraction back in 2012, when I wrote "5 Tips for Engaging Your Viewers Through Digital Messaging" (which is thankfully still pretty relevant). Since good -- as in useful -- digital signage content design is something that many network managers continue to struggle with, I thought it might be a good idea to once again trot out that tired old pyramid, give it a bit of polish, and once again describe the expectations that compelling content must meet.   Before getting started I need to note that while the content in the image above is all my own, I cribbed the color scheme and dimensions for this graphic from an image I ran across on Twitter. Unfortunately I can't find it again, but if anybody happens to know what it was, please leave a comment below so I can give credit where it's due.  My perspective on digital signage content is that it can generally be thought about in four stages of "completeness." In the first stage, the content attracts. It must be eye catching enough to grab the attention of viewers distracted by other tasks, goals and stimuli. That's true whether the digital signs in question are on a factory floor (where, presumably the viewers would be factory workers who ought to be preoccupied -- namely by their jobs), or a grocery store where distracted shoppers pull coupons on their mobile phones while racing through their weekly shopping list. Once a viewer's attention has been captured, the content must explain -- it should quickly convey enough information to explain or frame an overall message or position. As we've talked about before, the optimum message length on a digital sign is pretty short -- only about 22 characters, so brevity is essential. And we know that even the order that words appear in (and how many you use) can have a significant effect on how much your viewers will be able to absorb and understand when they're casually glancing at your signs. As if that wasn't enough, though, we still have two performance tiers left to climb. For example, good digital signage content will not only inform, it will persuade the viewer to broaden his range of thought, change his opinion or take action -- converting them from a mere viewer to an engaged actor. Conversion might be as simple as using breakroom signage content to convince employees to put their empty soda cans in a recycling bin instead of the trash can. Or it might mean trying a new product being promoted on an aisle endcap. The critical moment for conversion is when an otherwise passive viewer decides to take action. Finally, truly exceptional content will provide value beyond what is expected. It has been 10 years since P&G introduced the concept of the "First Moment of Truth" in consumer product marketing, and the notion that as message producers we should aim to surprise and delight our viewers. That insight is no less true today than it was then, which is why digital signage contnet that can delight an engaged viewer will be better remembered and more frequently acted upon than content that can't reach this final stage. Of course how your digital signage content might delight will be very situation-dependent, but I've seen something as simple as a piece of humorous trivia content on an airport sign bring a bit of much-needed levity to an otherwise tense and uncomfortable situation. In virtually every case I've run across in the past 15 years, the best performing digital signage networks were those managed by a dedicated team of content professionals who both understood the audience that they were trying to reach, and had some vested interest in making compelling content. This was just as true in cases where we were working with HR and corporate communciations teams as it was when we were working with flagship marketing and advertising agencies and their big retail clients. Thankfully, mak[...]

Do we make more impulse decisions just because it's easy?

Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:42:47 +0000

I'm going to call out Betteridge's Law of Headlines right away today -- I don't actually know the answer to the question I'm answering. And I'm not really sure if an article of this sort even makes sense to post on a blog purportedly focused on digital signage. But I do know that one of the major presuppositions about making digital signage content is that when you include a call to action, some people will actually take it. Measurably more, in fact, than when you don't give them a little nudge. Yet while it might be possible to show a causal link between, say, a banner ad or in-store campaign and the purchase of the advertised product, I'm starting to wonder how much of an effect a constant bombardment of messages -- marketing and otherwise -- really has, and whether or not it can compel us to take additional action (whether purchasing stuff or otherwise) by reducing the action's perceived difficulty. The answer to this has ramifications far beyond digital signage, retail marketing and even advertising in general -- when our smartphones are bleeping important external news from subscription services, our IoT and smart home devices are chiming in with important notices about physical events, and our fitness trackers and wearables are contributing a steady flow of personal information (that was always out there but we never paid attention to before), I have to imagine that at a certain point the sheer amount of data we process will become distracting. But will the cumulative flow of data distract to the point where no message gets processed and consequently no decisions are influenced? And if so, how near (or far) from that point are we already?   Source: It has been well known for over a decade that human beings are pretty terrible at multitasking. As Jeff Atwood at Coding Horror notes, we may lose up to 20% of our cognitive performance when switching between just a handful of tasks (this is known as context switching, and is also a problem in computer science). We're constantly switching contexts, of course. As you walk through the grocery store, for example, you may be visually surveying a dozen different signs, product packages and even the faces of nearby shoppers as you mentally walk through your shopping list and pull up some coupons on your mobile phone. This works fairly well because a) other shoppers are generally doing the same thing, so to a certain extent you are able to mirror their behaviors, and b) the different behaviors all fall into the same mental bucket of "grocery shopping," so your context switches are rapid and cooperative. Of course, if you happen to be doing that while getting a text or posting to Facebook, all of those nice mental optimizations go out the window, which is why you now also frequently see people colliding with each other or stopped dead in the middle of an aisle at a grocery store. Multitasking and context switching has become such a problem that by some estimates the US economy loses nearly $1 trillion a year due to the downtime associated with switching between tasks. Intel estimates that the problem costs their firm alone upwards of $1 billion. So clearly, being constantly interrupted, reminded and updated is not always a good thing, especially when your measure is overall productivity. But where do things like the Twitter Buy button, Amazon Dash buttons, FitBits and Amazon's Echo IoT hub come into play? All of these devices make it easy to track our lives down to minutae and make snap decisions on everything from product purchases to meal plans to taking the stairs instead of the elevator. Do these little nudges affect our mental context the same way as "big" task switches? I haven't see any formal research on the subject yet, but I'm willing to bet that at some point, adding more messages becomes a cognitive problem, creating a overall net loss in terms of what we're able to [...]

Retailers make a big push for Big Data

Mon, 24 Aug 2015 19:43:31 +0000

Retailers were arguably some of the first power-users of what we now call Big Data -- information pulled from a variety of sources and crunched together to make predictions and decisions. In fact, I think Wal-Mart (that's how they spelled it at the time) was one of the earliest users of the term "data warehouse" because they were generating such a staggering amount of information, and collecting it all in a single place for analysis.

Today you don't have to be the biggest retailer in the world to be able to put together a Big Data plan. A huge amount of useful information can be pulled for almost nothing thanks to for-hire marketing analytics providers, government website APIs for pulling socioeconomic, ethnographic and geographic information, and of course social networks like Twitter and Facebook who have access to (and often republish) the public (and sometimes private) information of billions of individuals around the world.

While thinking about this, I came across a nice infographic from Data Science Central which attempts to outline some of the benefits that Big Data analysis can confer on participating retailers. When I first looked over the graphic, one part (where they posit that retailers have transitioned from "making transactions" to "formating relationships" with customers struck me. My initial reaction was "ah, typical Big Data hyperbole." But after considering it more, it seemed more true. Today the majority of retailers (online and off) that I frequent "know" a lot about me. They're -- at times -- uncannily good at predicting what I'm shopping for, what I need, and what I simply want. And yes, the "relationship" between us is extremely superficial, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of what it would have been shopping in a big retail store or discount club 15 or 20 years ago. In a nutshell: it's useful.

I've clipped only a small part of the infographic below. The whole thing is quite a bit larger and available on the Data Science Central link above, and is certainly worth a few minutes of contemplation.


Finally a convincing-looking replacement for the Flat Lady

Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:18:30 +0000

Once upon a time it was fashionable to produce specialized POP displays that used a short-throw projector to light up a roughly human-shaped piece of 3M Vikuity film. When a recorded image of a person was displayed, it kinda, sorta looked like a live person talking, if you squinted and cocked your head just the right way. These "virtual mannequins" never really took off in a big way, probably because they were expensive, took up a fair amount of floor space, and, once you got past the novelty, looked terrible. To wit:



However a new approach using a ridiculously impractical (for now) 216 projectors to simulate a 3d object on a flat screen. By recording the initial subject using an array of cameras instead of just one, and then using a computer to crunch the resulting data down into small slices, each projectors can display the light for just a small portion of the subject at a specific viewing angle. The result is a compelling and convincing 3D-looking display on a 2D surface:


src="" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen>

c109-f109 3005-a77-rep video-v2 from ACM SIGGRAPH on Vimeo.

Given the cost and complexity of putting together the initial footage, and the massive amount of floor space that the display device takes up, I think that practical applications for the technology are currently somewhat limited. An article over at Gizmodo suggests that museums and other educational contexts might benefit the most, especially in cases where adding a human touch would be beneficial, but it might be too expensive to keep actual humans on staff. The summary article from the researchers at USC suggests similar applications.

I sometimes think, though, that these researchers work on these projects simply because they can and they're awesome.