<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>The DOOH Advertising Paradox: Better Spots Are Harder to Sell</title>
		<description>Discuss The DOOH Advertising Paradox: Better Spots Are Harder to Sell</description>
		<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 23:42:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="https://www.wirespring.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>John says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1134</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good post Bill, never thought about ad space this way.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:05:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1134</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Gerba says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1133</link>
			<description><![CDATA[\\If DOOH aspires to a sales lift justification, it will end up killing most of the models getting funding right now.\\
There's a big difference between those models getting funded today and those that will ultimately be successful. Specifically, there are a lot of the former, but very few of the latter.
I'm ok with clearing the wheat from the chaff it it will move things along with big-time advertisers and planners.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Gerba</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1133</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chauncey says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1132</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ah you are in the sales lift per ad camp. That is an interesting place to go as I know a good deal about relative results. Imagine CPM as arbitrage. Arbitrage delivers rewards to those who have more information. CPM actually prices in MORE value to DS advertising operator than does sales lift. The industry needs to be very careful here and be cognizant of what has happened to pure media rates in digital vs. search on the web. If DOOH aspires to a sales lift justification, it will end up killing most of the models getting funding right now.
Completely get the conceptual nature of your post. But engagement is important as an eye-level screen will almost always get better engagement from a viewer (as measured by time of view and recall) than an overhead screen. Lots of research behind that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chauncey</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:31:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1132</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Gerba says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1131</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Chauncey,
Yes, you're correct, my CPM numbers above are high. They weren't meant to be indicative of what a convenience store network might actually get, they were just to make the example math easy.
In reality, even at a low traffic number of 500 viewers/day that would equate to 15K viewers/month. Assume that 2/3 of them have an opportunity to see your screen and you're at 10K viewers/month, which is probably fair for most above-the-counter screens. Per Dave's post above, my guesses about the relative percentages of people who'd see something on the ceiling versus the wall versus an endcap were just that: guesses. They weren't meant to be authoritative, and I haven't studied any data about traffic flow in convenience stores, so they're almost certainly way-off.
The point of the table above was to show the relationship (which in the real world is almost certainly non-proportional and non-linear) between screen placements and opportunities to see, which are the **only** valuable component in a classical CPM measurement. Engagement really has nothing to do with it at this point, since if we were tracking and measuring **that**, we'd also be tracking and measuring sales lift per ad, which is how digital in-store **ought** to be measured, but isn't.
Thus, the paradox.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Gerba</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:23:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1131</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chauncey says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1130</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bill:
Good post. Important to note that Lisa's original question regarded a convenience store. They see about 600 to 1000 shoppers per day per store for a five minute trip.
Your point on placement is derived from the two variables in the CPM metric. The C is defined by engagement and targetability and the M by sheer numbers of shoppers who can see the placement. It's an inherent tradeoff. But it's a non starter when you only pull 600 potential viewers into a site in a day vs cost of operation and equipment.
The only folks getting $30 CPM are in unique captive dwell like theaters. Transient dwell like the checkout monitors mentioned above are only pulling a fraction of that. Do the BE analysis and you can see the traffic you need before you even think about how many you actually convert into viewers. Icapture will help you confirm that you started with a tough business model.
This business is not rocket science. But it never fails to amaze me after a decade the assumptions that get made on traffic, cpm, and engagement.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chauncey</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1130</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Peter says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1129</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You can use ICapture (for celling and wall mount) and ICap (for endcap) systems from TruMedia, to generate all viewer statistics. It cost but you have data from every screen: who watching, how long,etc. For tests you can use this same content for all and it helps what place and screen size is effective...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1129</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Gerba says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1128</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dave: The 15/10/5 thing was just an example/not really indicative of what people are or aren't doing. But I've definitely seen screens hung at least 14" off of the ground, so I don't think it's too far off of the mark.
I agree the OVAB definitions are a good step in the right direction. What I have a problem with is that a) there aren't any widely-used systems in place for measuring "notice" or anything similar, and b) advertisers haven't exactly been clamoring to add OVAB to their planning suites, so we're often still stuck with the least-common denominator, CPM.
Stephen:
I agree, while it seems a little counterintuitive to some to have several screens all running the same thing, the effect (when done properly) is very hard to ignore. I expect to see more of that kind of thing in the future, especially now that more people are willing to experiment with smaller screens, screen combinations, etc.
Great points, both. Thanks!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Gerba</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:45:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1128</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen Ghigliotty says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1127</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As somebody who is actually selling ad space and working on DOOH campaigns, I couldn't ask for a more timely post...
Retailers are indeed loathe to give up an endcap space for a screen; even when it is designed for them. And that leaves us with too many networks using ceiling mounts and screens way too high.
What does mitigate that to some degree is synchronized content. The Walmart check out screens are very hard to ignore, even though they are still a little high; the combined visual impact of nine or so screens all running in sync demands attention.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen Ghigliotty</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1127</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dave Haynes says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1126</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good post Bill
Where I stumble a little is on the screen placement and viewers thing. Why would screens at 15 feet up be three times as noticeable as screens at five feet? (And do people really put them THAT high??? If so, that's loopy). The OVAB guidelines (if you take two or three weeks and read them) talk about presence and notice, and I would probably argue 10,000 may be in the presence of the screens way up high, but only three in 10 people would notice them ... if that.
I agree entirely with the fundamental point that screens way up high, even at eight feet, are largely a wasted investment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave Haynes</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:07:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/744-the-dooh-advertising-paradox-better-spots-are-harder-to-sell#comment-1126</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
