This week MediaPost published a short article I had written comparing the benefits of online and in-store video. Given the positive reaction of Phil Contrino over at Digital Signage News - “I think it should be recommended reading for everyone in the industry” no less - I decided to post it here for those that do not receive MediaPost direct.
Published in MediaPost’s Online Video Insider, “Online, In-Store: Two Big Opportunities for Video.”
In spite of the fact that most people - including those elusive teens and twenty-somethings - still spend a big chunk of time watching TV each day, the decrease in cost effectiveness of TV advertising is causing marketers to seek alternative platforms for their video ads. Right now, two big opportunities exist: online and in-store.
Online video is currently receiving a lot of attention, but its reach is still limited by a dearth of inventory. In-store media, on the other hand, reaches millions each week and provides an opportunity to influence people at the point of purchase. The Wal-Mart TV Network already rivals broadcast networks in terms of weekly reach, and market research firm Frost & Sullivan says that by 2011, 90% of retailers will have in-store digital screens.
Some shoppers will be too preoccupied with loaded shopping carts and unruly children to attend to the screens, but the evidence so far suggests that many people are looking at them. A Nielsen Media Research study gauged overall SignStorey viewership in Albertsons and Pathmark at close to 40%.
Despite its scale, in-store advertising has had only patchy success to date. In the U.K., the major grocery chain Tesco endured three years of lackluster results before figuring out what really drives in-store success: brevity. While online advertisers debate whether a pre-roll of 15 seconds is too long, Tesco’s marketing partner Dunnhumby recommends five seconds for screens placed in the main shopping aisles, because the power of these “alerts” rests not in their creativity but in their proximity to purchase. The alerts reported to be most effective are those for price-off events and new or seasonal items.
And that’s both the strength and weakness of in-store video. Because its influence is concentrated at the point of purchase, it will be most successful for categories that are already impulse- or activation-oriented. Though useful for encouraging switching, in-store video is not as good at building long-term brand loyalty.
Moreover, in-store is a very complex medium; many factors influence its efficacy. In deciding what message should be conveyed, and where a screen might best be located, advertisers need to consider the likely attitude of shoppers when they come across the advertising.
Shopper mindset will vary according to the type of store and the items being purchased, as well as the point during the shopping trip in which the advertising is encountered. Someone in the market for an HDTV screen who is unsure of the benefits of plasma versus LCD may appreciate a five-minute video on the topic. But someone in the grocery section of the local supermarket is unlikely to devote that amount of time to a video. In that setting, a quick news flash or reminder will work far better than an infomercial. The checkout line is yet another story; as they wait in line, shoppers will welcome some distraction to pass the time.
The mindset of the online viewer is much more consistent across viewing situations. People are likely to pay attention to in-stream ads placed in content they really want to see. This makes online a great brand-building medium, capable of planting ideas among people who have not yet realized a need for the advertised product or service.
As inventory scales and the potential reach of online video improves, it may one day provide the ideal complement to in-store video. Online video can seed ideas and associations which can then be triggered by in-store video at the point of purchase, making for a truly powerful combination.
End of article.
Now, of course, not everyone was taken with this piece. If you are interested in learning more about the complexities of in-store video advertising check out Rob Gorrie’s viewpoint on >> Advertise Here! While he takes issue with the simplicity of my article (come on Rob, I only had 600 words to work with!) I definitely agree with his final conclusion, “don’t assume every advertiser wants the same thing.”
What is your experience with in-store advertising? What would make you stop and watch an ad and why?
Tags: online video advertising,, in-store video advertising,, Phil Contrino,, Rob Gorrie,, in-store video,, online advertising,, in-store advertising
(19 votes, average: 2.26 out of 5)
Loading ...
September 24th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Our agency is doing a presentation this week at the In-Store Marketing Expo (Chicago, IL, USA) on the New Digital Path to Purchase. I’m sure in-store TV will be a hot topic.
Our talk involves all POP, though. And how the Path to Purchase impacts marketing communications both in-store and out of store. (And post-purchase marketing).
One of our points is that someone is searching for your product (or your category). Regardless of what it is. That’s now part of the path to purchase. And that means two things:
1. We the people are getting good at finding stuff online, but retail outlets are notoriously crappy at helping us find things in-store. Read “Everything is Miscellaneous” and you’ll learn that every product in-store just gets in the way of finding the thing we’re coming in store to find.
2. Even better, we can craft the message we use in-store by stealing data from Google. If you’re an energy bar, you’ll be interested to know that people search for power bar 5 times more than they search for energy bar. Thus, on your pop you might want to consider using energy bar. Even if your POP is TV.
So, in closing, TV will be good if it: helps people find that they seek. And, talks in the language they are used to. Chart the path to purchase, and TV most likely will fit in.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Matt, you are talking my language! Understanding the path to purchase is critical to any marketer and I love the idea of checking consumer speak as suggested. All too often we make assumptions about how our consumers and customers refer to categories and needs.
The only slight concern I have about what you said is that someone is searching for your product (or category). That’s true when the person has recognized their need for the category but the path to purchase may predate them even thinking about that need. By creating a sense of familiarity, a positive impression or ensuring a claim is remembered advertising can stack the deck in favor of people searching for a specific brand (or even how they search).
September 25th, 2007 at 7:57 am
I skipped a few steps from our presentation. Our path to purchase has nine stages, the first one being awareness. And in our presentation, Suzy Q (based on research) finds out about the product watching a TV ad.
For the purpose of the in-store people (who typically don’t care about what goes on out-of-store), we move through awareness, recall and frequency fast on our fictional Suzy Q’s path to purchase.
But we’re doing this a lot more for our client before we even start creative. And as a creative guy, I love getting involved (I wrote the presentation). We do a lot of in-store marketing, one of our biggest clients is a worldwide brand that has a big in-store focus.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that understanding the different paths to purchase is critical these days, particularly if your client is focused on optimizing the first momenet of truth.