The trouble with measuring outdoor audiences

I’m surprised it has taken this long for someone in our industry to pen this.

There is so much lustre surrounding outdoor but it is absolute SHIT when it comes to any accountability, reporting, etc.

The lack of proper targeting and inability to report on any true metrics bar the ones they have made up are a license to print money for the likes of oOh! and Decaux with zero governance….. And shame on marketers for believing the rubbish stats their agency feeds them.

“Well MOVE tells us that 2000 motorists passed your billboard yesterday, so if you multiply that by another 2000 and then divide by 10 you get your Outdoor ROI Index”

I’ll go with my gut feeling in this and say that the article is entirely self serving and one sided. Basically an ad.

My “gut” tells me not to put my “blind faith”
in sales people of unmeasurable products.

Hi Charles, this is a fair argument. If the other outdoor providers are using OMA as a measuring stick, and their methodology isn’t suitable for your product, how are you future proofing Running Boards in a world where clients need numbers to justify marketing decision making?

Agencies aren’t the ones who can’t trust their guts, we all would love a responsible test and learn, or even better, just investing in something our gut tells us. However, it’s the clients who have to report to stakeholders who front the money, and if it were your own money, would you be hesitant to punt on your media?

For instance, graffiti artists are sometimes asked to paint ads on a client’s behalf as part of a launch stunt. Many sites they select have what one would expect would be low R&F but at least it stands out, much like your boards. Are you filming the boards to show they were where they promised and then offering footage to clients to be cut up and used as social content? I’d love to park a giant F you to my competitors using Running boards, but beyond the R&F that won’t be provided, how are you addressing measurement, or if not that, added value to stay competitive?

Agree, Another Agency… and it is all well and good to criticise others when he fails to even acknowledge that his trailers are banned in NSW, with other States considering the same path.

Oh dear Charles,
You have missed the point in so many areas here…no data and insights required to plan and buy media? Having a go at integrity and accountability of the major players? The same players who have invested significantly in that space for both planning and post reporting areas as required by their key stakeholders (read: agencies and advertisers). Two key areas it sounds like Running Boards just ignore to promote a pure ‘gut feel’ approach only….similar to what was probably done in the 1970’s before tech started playing a role!
Digital billboards providing the ability for dynamic messaging, day parting, message context? Interesting those digital billboard advertisers seem to keep coming back…I guess it might be working when advertisers are assessing their own data at the back end.
I can’t help but feel any advertisers investing with you are the ones who are applying blind faith.
And yes, I will caveat by saying I’m part of one of the ‘major’ players.

There is a rather easy to implement solution to measure OOH effectiveness and that’s installing a camera on OOH billboards. The footage can then be analysed in real time by time-stamped, anonymised facial and vehicle recognition.
This can not only tell you how many people and vehicles came past a billboard at the exact time an ad was up, with pedestrians you can even analyse people’s gender and age, how long they looked at each ad etc.
In fact, you can even program an ad to only come up on an OOH digital screen when a brand’s target audience is coming towards the billboard. This will be beneficial for both OOH as well as brands as OOH can charge more for those targered ads while brands will see greater ROI.

If what the author said was true I’d be concerned.

But MOVE DOES take into account obstruction, lighting, angularity, size, offset etc. And yes the sites are regularly checked. What’s more an outdoor sales rep is bloody quick to report when a competitor’s site is defaced, obstructed, not illuminated etc. It’s a human form of self-regulation.

And MOVE does NOT base its data on ‘Opportunity To See’ but on ‘Likelihood to See’. The ‘likelihood’ is based on hundreds of hours of eye-gaze data which bascally removes people who didn’t see a site.

However, MOVE was based around static billboards. And yes, does need to adjust for digital rotations, but the other three-quarters of the market is doing fine.

But course, if the author ad spoken to anyone at the OMA they would already know this.

And if the author had spoken to a cross-section of media agency buyers they would also know that the advertiser (yes, the one who pays for the billboard) basically demands audience quantification in order to approve the investment.

In my many years in the media industry, I’ve always found that you always achieve more by being collaborative and being involved in solutions to problems, rather than standing on the sideline throwing rocks at a target that has been misunderstood.

Apart from that … no issues with the article.

I started in OOH when traffic counts were the benchmark, without going into the relative benefits or otherwise of the data sources the progress in terms of available data-sets has been a key element in why OOH is more front and square in marketing conversations than ever before. Charles – believe in your story, you have a good product. Don’t be deflated or defeated by numbers or algorithms – win with evolution and ideas – agencies and clients still get excited by ideas executed well. That hasn’t changed.

If you’re asking marketers to go with their gut, that’s a bad place to start in media.

Often it’s that which can’t be measured that is in fact most effective.

Hey Mumbrella,

Two points – first, is this a paid piece? It feels so manufactured with key and buzz words its not funny? Why would you allow this?

Secondly – if it is opinion and not paid for, you’ll hopefully share mine

I’ve worked with Charles before [edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy].

Charles you infer that MOVE was developed in response to programmatic . It wasnt . MOVE came to market well before the term “programmatic” was even invented .
At the time it was the gold standard that the rest of the world have tried to benchmark against.
In the meantime the work towards MOVE 2 is well underway .

MOVE and its eventual successor exists largely at the insistence of Ad Agencies and Advertisers .
Its not perfect but having worked with it for several years its a great tool .