The Common Sense of Going OOH

The Common Sense of Going Out-of-Home

by??Glenn Carroll, Founder/CEO, Carroll Media Services

In all my years in the OOH industry I’ve seen many positive changes in the way this dynamic medium has evolved. From hand painted and paper production to vinyl; from static only to incorporating digital; and to improved measurements and buying platforms – just to name a few. One thing that has not changed, however, is the need to physically go out-of-home to verify key elements that contribute to the potential success of an OOH campaign. It’s just common sense.

There are a variety of positive headlines surrounding OOH these days, including a recent study released by the OAAA that slight reallocations of existing media budgets to OOH advertising can lead to substantial gains in return on ad spend (ROAS).? In addition, companies on the buy and sell side have developed promising measurements and analytic tools that are now validating the lift and ROI of OOH and DOOH campaigns. With all these robust tools and positive findings, however, one cannot overlook the need for OOH campaign best practices in planning/buying, creative, media mix, unit selection, and proof-of-performance (POP). The latter of these two elements are best done in the field – Out-of-Home.

Our mission for over 31 years at Carroll Media Services has been to provide third party pre-rides and post-buy audits to OOH advertisers, and to be their agents in the car, on foot, and on transit where Out-of-Home is consumed. I’ve always encouraged our clients to get in the field when they can to evaluate their programs, but our Field Network has been the go-to alternative when time or expense does not allow it.

I had a client a few years ago that was a CPG brand manager that hired us to do some audits on an upcoming OOH campaign. She understood the need to physically check programs in the field, as she mentioned that when they invest in costly placements at retail, vendor-provided reports simply cannot be used exclusively as actual POP. As an added measure, they conducted unannounced spot checks in the field to get a better picture of performance. Again, common sense.

[caption id="attachment_144393" align="aligncenter" width="551"]

Visual impairment[/caption]

The same rationale should be applied to OOH, especially programs in multiple markets or with campaigns that require additional scrutiny. Vendor-provided completion/proof-of-play reports, along with outside vendor-assisted tracking reports, are simply status quo reports and should only be used as a guide to ensure that contracted terms are delivered. While scoring better than the vendor’s reports, DOOH verification companies that use software, and not bodies in the field, can only report on so much. A deeper dive of OOH’s POP should involve a physical inspection of campaign assets to ensure there are no issues with the condition of the copy, visibility, screens, illumination, structures, environment, and demographics. If any of these crucial elements have notable problems that take away impressions or discount brand image, it is unlikely to be flagged in a report from the vendor or by (non-field) services. Just as my brand manager client had taken that extra step to inspect their retail investment - at retail - OOH should be physically inspected and evaluated Out-of-Home. It’s just common sense.