Here were two different networks targeting the same locations and demographics. And as insiders know, this is an example of the “pain” that media planners/buyers at agencies have to go through in terms of sorting through the duplication that exists in much of the industry.

According to Outcast, PumpTop TV partner on at-the-pump digital network:

The consolidated venture creates a national network with more than 12,600 high-definition large screens in 15 of the top DMAs reaching more than 20 million active consumers each month. The reach in these markets equates to a top-5 ranked prime-time show on network television, but without the negative impact of DVR ad-skipping or multitasking.

Indeed, the partnership has built a huge and more relevant network, that is definitely more “buyer friendly,” and hopefully ties in the research and methodolgies/metrics together as one. These two companies already seem to have merge their messages together somewhat with the website(s), where their domains lead to the same intro page, which is also good brand communication.

Very smart move for the two companies, and a model for the industry.

             

Illustration by Genzoman

In an ever-changing landscapes that is the Out-of-Home and Digital Out-of-Home; developments, strategies, options, rules / requirements, as well as the overall perceptions on the industries are changing rapidly. This is expected in any developing media(s) and industry.  

But sometimes, the internal beliefs remain stagnant in reinforcing past (mis)perceptions, and do not adjust fast enough to keep up with the changing environment, and hinder the development of long-term opportunities in the OOH and DOOH worlds. 

For the past few years, I have been fortunate enough to meet many individuals in the OOH and DOOH sectors; whether it be on the network owner/operator, or the agency-sides (not to mention content, and software developers/providers). There are a lot of “goods” that comes within these individuals and organizations, and that is a fact. But in particularly consulting for what are considered “smaller” network owners (or startup networks) recently; there is also one prevailing and consistent fact that seems to be “understated” within certain parts of the industry, which is the fact that “the size of a network does Really still matter,” and size of the network can determine whether a network can survive long enough to either get off the ground and have time to realize its potential, or simply placed into the “archives” of OOH/DOOH history. The philosophy that smaller networks are not worth the time is simply unfortunate, and those who believe in this narrow sighted view could be missing out on a huge revenue source in the long-term.

The Overall Industry Perspective: The hidden rule of “50+ locations”: For those who know me well; you know my uncompromising perspectives in the OOH and DOOH sectors and medias, and also know that I know of this particular perspective quite well. For the “unfamiliars;” through my experiences, I have seen numerous networks start from scratch, as well as existing ones develop into larger and well known networks in the industry. Developing networks is one of the more exciting aspects of the industry, and highly enjoyable, but there are times where the prevailing thought seems to be that that networks that are at the startup phase; or are under 50 locations (or even a 100 locations for that matter), are simply not worth the time to help develop/represent, or plan ad/marketing campaigns in. This is fact, especially when listening to the difficulties that several network owners in OOH and DOOH are facing in the current environment, and talking to the various operators as well. The general perspective of Quantity Over Quality is certainly unfortunate. 

A Quick “Case Study” of The GameStop Network: The OOH/DOOH network at GameStop, the top videogame retailer in the US (perhaps the world), is one of the all time favorite networks, both professionally and personally. Even what is now know as GameStop, started as one shop selling software and videogame in Houston, TX, in the early 80′s (then known as Babbage’s). Then through m&a involving Dalton’s, then Barnes and Nobles later, it was known as Software Etc., then as GameStop just about 10 years ago. Like most franchises, the retailer grew location by location. Even in the recent years, GameStop’s network was largely an OOH/POP-based network, where the In-store programming (DOOH) was still at its infancy and no where near where it is today / where it will be heading in the future. This was also before EBgames and GameStop merged together to build a location count of 4,000+. 

The key point is; certain brands and agencies were STILL strategizing and buying media at Software ETC. and GS/EB at their OOH/POP phases, and when it was still at a fairly small location count years ago. Coming back to the past couple of years, duing the media planning/strategizing/buying processes on both the agency/brand and operator sides, there were numberous “smaller” and regional campaigns that always seemed to be the easier “sell,” especially in terms of price and effectiveness. In fact, the practice has been to respond to RFPs with strategies that proposed national and regional levels, as well as a mix of both that spreads out the different media products that are available within the network, which included POPs, DOOH, Web Media assets, and even some mobile options. Of course, demand did ramped up as the EB and GameStop merged and the DOOH network grew as well. But the final point is: even a monster network such as GameStop has gone through the “small” network phase at one point, and is a network that many have fought to represent.

One may ask, why would brands and agencies buy campaigns at the smaller levels, or just a few locations in such a network that has a national (and at times, international) coverage? – It is due to the intelligent insights of certain decision-makers that go beyond the location count, and considering the more important factors such as the fit of the demographics/reach, and as well as the cost/price of the overall campaign(s) in order to deploy their marketing budgets as effectively as possible. As stated before, regional/smaller campaigns are usually the easier sell most of the time, especially with an emerging media, and agencies and brands often ask for and desire, then ultimately decide on the smaller option.

Of course, the brand name certainly helps, and GameStop does have a strong one as well as a very focused demographic that brands and agencies seek, but the above has been the case with much smaller networks, and lesser known franchises/businesses as well. Personal experiences has served as proof that brands and agencies have approved multi-million dollar campaigns (with annual renewals, no less)  in networks that were less than 200 locations, where 30% to 40% of the budgets were dedicated to less than 50 locations that were considered the “critical” markets or DMAs. It has been more of the case where successful development in terms of integration of medias and opportunities; even at small amounts of locations, that have recieved the buget approvals, rather than a simple location number game. 

Loyalty/stake is also an factor: for the lesser known or startup networks, some have apparently been more than willing to offer a stake in the company once certain certain (and fairly reasonable) conditions are met. Even with such offers, network owners still have a difficult time getting agencies / brands / operators to give them the light of day. There was a post about Customer Service on this site before, and in the OOH/DOOH world(s), the networks/owners themselves are critical customers in conjunction with the brands and agencies in this business; especially for operators. Perhaps even more so for the operators, as networks directly correlates with the operators’ media / network inventory. Any savvy business knows that the ultimate goal of customer service, and CRM, is to build long-term relationships and trust. In this sense, in bypassing a small or startup network due to the current size, and without serious considerations to the quality of the network,  media, and the potential(s); such simple views can certainly be a detrimental business decision, and a mistake that is very regrettable down the line. 

The Supposed Agency/Brand Perspective-Myth: Networks owners who are attempting to do the ad sales themselves, and network operators know the challenges and demands related to getting the agencies to make the buy. There are indeed many, but this is expected due to the fact that the media/industry is still considered an emerging one; especially in the DOOH front. As stated many times on this site; it is the agencies and the decision makers’ (at the brand levels) jobs to justify and protect the marketing budgets; at least for the good ones. But as stated above, it has rarely been the case where the size of the networks was the ultimate factor, but rather, the price that is being requested. This is where the coverage of the OVAB Digital Media Summit and one of the statements that Chris Harder of Starcom made really hit home when he stated, “We need incentives (read price reductions) to help us sell DOOH into our clients.” In many cases, priceing structures/strategies may relate more to the rejected RFPs than any other factors/challenges, with measurement probably being the close second. The issue of pricing also resonates in personal experiences of developing initial rate strategies, ad sales foundations, and later proposing them. Simply put, agencies want the RFPs to be approved as most make a percentage off the media buys, and brands do want to market their brand and wares; just at the “right” price. This is also where startup / smaller networks can be advantageous, as they tend to have smaller expectations in terms of media rates as they are more focused on getting the campaigns in, and to get the network more on the “radar.” Again, agencies and brands also do breaks down regionally/locally many of the times; so the overall myth that they consider the network size as a critical factor is simply false; although some still do have the “network is too small,” and some networks just do not have the quality factor, regardless of their size.

For the Network Owners: At the end of the day, the simple reality is that it is difficult to cover all brands and agencies individually or with a small staff, which is why the network operators become the best option. Great network operators have the experience, knowledge, contacts, and sales force to not only generate revenue for the network, but also know how to develop the network itself and grow it. Many have recently expressed frustrations, and unfortunately, the down economy has effected the small networks the most in many negative ways. The question of selling or merging has become a common topic that has been asked much recently, but “merge to grow” personally seems to be the smarter strategy for the long-term. Of course, meeting half way, or even all the way (if the other network has the better quality/features) may be required, but this is most likely to benefit your network more than harm it.  Create at least the illusion of being a larger network, then operators and agencies/brands will be easier to approach, and the revenue is bound to come if factors such as demographics, media offerings/options, metrics, price, and major markets are covered and the network is high quality overall. A recent personal victory has been serving a key role developing a 20 location network, and helping to get the network to the final stage of recieveing venture capital; so even in this down economy, if the network quality is there, then the money is also still out there as well. But ultimately, nobody said this was going to be an easy game; and you are well aware, Goliath does beat David in this game so far…

     Overall, in this downtime, it may be good to review the internal strategies on all sides of the industry(s) in increasing the quality levels of both the media assets and services, as well as evaluating existing/potential opportunies to build long-term perspectives and relationships. The economy will rebound at some point, but it is always difficult to rebound from bad decisions made in terms of opportunities and customer service.

At the same time, the basic theory that Advertising and Branding serves as the “voice” of an organization, and Customer Service serves as the means of providing and proving the real value of the brand or organization are still, and always, in tack. Especially relevant to advertising sales; one of the realms I have had personal experiences with, the issue of “Customer Service” related to how we conduct business and communicate with brands, agencies and media partners seems incredibly relevant in this manner and the up-most importance. So why suddenly the post talking about the issues of “Branding,” and “Customer Service” in an Out-of-Home Media blog? It is simply because in the past few months, I have heard and become aware of numerous cases where these simple underlining principles seems to have been broken and ignored; which was highly disappointing.

Whether they are cases of poor communications (or even no communication at all), providing shallow, inaccurate, or meaningless “proof” of performance/information/strategy, difficult access to the true scope of what is actually occurring, and even simply ignoring or having the “you can go to someone else if you are not satisfied..”-attitude because the scope or scale of the business or budget is small; this is a great blueprint for failure in any organization even outside of the advertising and branding worlds. Especially, the concepts of “ignoring” and moving business to someone else (a competitor, most likely) are factors I personally shutter to even think about. After all, most businesses around the world start small, and to have a short-sighted customer service strategy simply due to the scale of the business could be absolutely detrimental to the potential long-term relationship that an organization should always be seeking to build, and ultimately, can kill the “Brand” that is your organization. Would you provide poor relations and / or customer service to a Microsoft (started in a garage), or a Google (the result of two college grad dropouts)? Many actually did at the beginnings of these companies, and it would be a safe assume that those companies still regret their decisions (and the way they treated these two companies) to this day, and also pretty sure some “heads have rolled” within them since.

Lesson of the day, and a simple life principle to live by everyday: “Treat others like how YOU would like to be treated.”

A simple case in point: on Twitter; I’ve been following and communicating (vice-versa) with @thebrandbuilder (a.k.a. Olivier Blanchard of brandbuilder.wordpress.com). To get some sources for this post, I asked him to send me a link/site that discusses the topic of “customer service.” I didn’t pay him, nor is there some sort of promise of a return in service. He sent me a great site pretty much right away without hesitation. Is this because he thinks he will get something out of me? No. Maybe Olivier does thinks we are friends; and I hope so, but more importantly, what I Knew was that he is an information aggregator, and loves sharing knowledge like myself; FOR FREE no less. THIS IS HIS “SERVICE,” and I, his “Customer.” At the same time, we may be in different fields, but I also believe that you never know what’s thrown at you in life, and it could just as well be that we may work together professionally down the line. This is a simple example of how long term professional / business relationships are started, and also a great example of having an excellent “Customer/Client-Oriented Mentality.”

At the end of the day; this post is not going to be a “hit list” of organizations that have failed in these manners, but to serve as more of a reminder in terms of some of the basic principles that should be the basis of all organizations; whether you are in advertising, branding, or customer service-oriented industries or not. The source that was provided, serviceuntitled.com points out some of the basic principles related “Customer Service,” so read them below, and those who have been “sleeping;” Get reacquainted.

Customer Service Experience Priorities:

1. Resolving problem / answering question.

2. Working with someone who has a good attitude and is friendly, helpful, etc.

3. Getting issue(s) resolved quickly.

The first and most obvious suggestion is to not misrepresent the information in the first place. Consistently accurate information comes as a result of experience, training, and easy to access resources to verify information. Companies have to work very hard to strongly and actively discourage the giving of inaccurate information. Make complete accuracy a major quality standard,..

Apologize for the miscommunication. First of all, apologize for the miscommunication. Clarify what the correct answer / information is and then apologize to the customer for having to hear the wrong information. (And case of NO communication)

If it’s simple, give it to the customer. If the thing that was miscommunicated is easy to do or follow through with, just do it.

If it’s complicated, try to compromise. If it’s complicated to follow through with what the customer said was promised to them, try to compromise.

Some information about the customer. Don’t go into the call with just a name and a phone number. Check how long the customer has been with your company, what type of services they use, their support history, and so on. 

Ask your customers to stop by. It lets employees and customers interact in a different way. When you have a strictly phone/email relationship with 99% of your customers, putting a face to the names and account numbers can be helpful. - It is a great opportunity to get ideas and feedback. - It improves the brand.

Ever since I saw Ridley Scott’s 1982 film, “Blade Runner,” it served as the framework for my inspiration in various industries and positions I’ve held in my life. In my advertising career, the OOH; or more specifically, the digital signage applications shown throughout the futuristic cityscape still serves as my inspiration for my interest in the Out-Of-Home space where I dream of a city covered with screens; this future is now quite close…