BrainTrust Query: What do consumers want from in-store media?

By Adrian Weidmann, Principal, Adrian Weidmann Consulting
A hot topic in today’s retail media landscape is trust and acceptance. As new and evolving retail media are appearing, the industry is looking to better understand how they will affect consumer trust in-store. To answer that question, let’s look at some history:
- The radio was invented in 1895 but it took 27 years before a business model emerged from this newfangled technology.
- Vladimir Zworkin followed in 1927 with the invention of the iconoscope – the basis for today’s television. It wasn’t until 1941, 14 years later, that the newly formed FCC authorized commercial television.
- ARPANET was commissioned in 1969 and became the birth of the internet. On August 9, 1995, Netscape had its IPO and the dotcom era began. It wasn’t until after the bubble burst in the late 1990s, that traditional rules of commerce emerged out of this technology boom.
- Networking technology spawned the introduction of ‘digital media networks’ in the 1990s and, not unlike the media technologies before it, this too was a tactical solution in desperate search of a meaningful business strategy. Technologists introduced digital media networks with a ‘field of dreams’ attitude blindly (and wrongfully) assuming that in-store advertising would pay for their displays and/or widgets.
At their onset, one common denominator that proponents of these technologies failed to recognize was lack of trust by their targeted audience. In every case, years passed between the introduction of the technology and when trust was established with the consumer so that commerce could begin.
The eroding efficacy of traditional media channels can largely be attributed to the fact that they have lost the trust of the consumer. If the consumer doesn’t trust the medium, they will certainly not trust, or be receptive to, the message. The consumer is taking control through media that have earned their trust.
Google is a terrific example. Google provides services that internet users find useful and helpful. It is only after these services are accepted in a trusted online experience that Google can reach out and develop commerce on the consumer’s terms. Banking ATMs, self-service airline ticketing and check-in have similarly gained the trust of their users and, hence, their acceptance.
To date, many in-store displays have been implemented as location-based store television networks or websites. Often, they are being utilized much like traditional TV – rooted in capturing people’s attention while they shop with little thought to the context of the shopping experience. It is only a matter of time until we see text scrolling diagonally across a screen, rationalized no doubt by claims of “engaging the customer.” These implementations are out-of-context “visual speed bumps.” If the consumer isn’t responding to your message in the comfort of their home, why would they respond favorably when you’re following them into the store like stalking paparazzi? Trust is gained by having a positive bidirectional relationship, not a one-way dialogue.
Discussion Questions: What will it take to nurture consumer trust in in-store media? How must in-store media differ in its approach, compared to TV and
other media?
In today’s media cacophony, what the consumer wants is helpful and enlightening filtration. Surprise and delight them and you’ll begin to gain their trust!
Digital media networks are inherently multi-channel (in both marketing and technical terms) but must first be architected in environmental context and implemented to help
the consumer (and retail associates). Upon that foundation, trust is built one brick, click and clip at a time. Having established this ecosystem, the consumer will then allow
commerce on their terms. – Adrian Weidmann
Join the Discussion!
24 Comments on "BrainTrust Query: What do consumers want from in-store media?"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trust is only part of the issue. Consumers don’t rush to a new media or format until it is clearly in a form that is easy to use and desirable by them. Just because new technology is there doesn’t mean that consumers want it, know what to do with it, or will use it. When it is clearly and obviously important to their life, they use it. When in-store signage is obviously useful and contributes positively to their shopping experience they will use it. Until then it will just be something else that slows up the shopping trip that they are trying to finish quickly.
Retailers need to edit their in-store media mix better, just as they need to edit their SKU assortment properly.
The movie industry at one time had a good idea when they showed a couple of previews before each movie, that would spark viewer interest. But, they couldn’t leave well enough alone and 2 became 3 and now it’s regularly 5 previews before a show, preceded by as many as 5 commercials, along with a few “welcome” messages. The movie industry overdid it so much that consumers are protesting in some areas, wanting the actual start time for the shows to be published.
It’s always tempting to toss in “just one more” message but eventually you reach a tipping point and your customers have had enough.
Might we change the question and ask why we should want in-store media to succeed? Are there not a lot of people who would prefer to shop without being stimulated?
In-store media can be very impactful. For one client, we calculated that the in-store communication impact of their permanent display with signage equivalized to upwards of $50MM in traditional TV commercial value.
More and more, preferences are forming instantly at POP, rather than the traditional (flawed) model of AIDA (i.e. that TV commercials create a premeditation to buy as a pre-requisite for purchase).
Also, in-store media can be entertaining, or it can be cacaphonous. Each store must police this, to not have it cross the line.
In-store media is either viewed as forced on the consumer (I’m a captive audience) or found as useful and valuable by the shopper– which should be the goal of retailers. Retailers need to be cautious since they now own the gate key, and not the suppliers who drive TV, Radio, print, etc.–which shoppers can choose to turn off and tune out. If shoppers are “turned off” by in-store media bombardment, trust and loyalty in the chain suffers; not just that store.
Frustrate or add pain to the shopping experience, and shoppers will take their business elsewhere. Give shoppers added value, (which effective in-store media can be) and they will line up to spend more money with you. Right now, shoppers are mostly indifferent to In store commercials/ media but the fine line to cross can come with big gain or loss consequences.
What, exactly, is this “positive bidirectional relationship”? Is this just another term for “positive consumer feedback?” If it is, the consumer’s only possible channel for positive feedback is to purchase the advertised products. Thus, in order to attain a “positive bidirectional relationship,” all in-store media (not to be confused with “decor”) must be accountable for increasing sales velocity. So, how can video – commonly associated with ad exposures rather than unit movement – contribute in-store?
Contrary to some comments, trust IS an essential element in successful in-store ad/promo. Shoppers generally trust in-store signs and shelf tags. For in-store video to work (i.e., to be measurably effective for the sponsoring advertisers), it must be integrated into campaigns that include trusted media such as signs, coupon distributors, and sampling.
I must agree with Charles Walsh; the issue has little to do with trust. The examples in the Query, with the possible exception of ATMs, aren’t examples of consumer trust either. It’s quite a leap to use examples of the technology adoption curve to illustrate the effectiveness of advertising media.
Nevertheless, the use of in-store media is going to be more or less effective depending on how well it is executed. TV screens endlessly looping through a list of specials are just so much more background noise after a while. A video showing how to prepare a dish using a particular item, playing in the meat or produce section, or a useful cleaning tip in the household section may have a clear positive impact.
Any in-store media, i.e. communications to the customer, needs to inform, direct or answer customer questions. Entertainment is fine if you have lots of time. But if any media wants to be needed and appreciated by the customer, it must essentially take the place of an informed salesperson, the original in-store media.
I agree with Mr. Walsh. It’s not about trust. It is about satisfying a need better than alternatives. Further, in-store media is bigger than narrow casting networks; it includes the signs, posters, handouts, flyers that populate the store space. The networks [let’s call them ISBs–In-Store Broadcasters] are just another layer of customer directed communication. If they are relevant [meaning they reach a customer at a point in time and place where the customer is open to communication about X] and meaningful [information the customer wants] then it can be successful. We’re going thru the “ain’t it neat” phase of adoption. And it’s the providers and retailers who think it’s neat. The customer has yet to weigh in. Personally, I find it irritating. The Jewel stores have put ISB screens at check out. If you stand and watch people in the line, 90% don’t even glance up. It’s the tabloids that capture their attention. ISBs have a long way to go to prove they are in fact viable.
I find that, as a consumer, I go to a retailer to shop. I have an item or list in mind and want to get them and quickly. I find these in-store media attempts distracting and annoying, especially where there are several media kiosks within earshot.
And here I am badmouthing something the company I work for does at the end of many aisles. Go figure!
I don’t know Herb Sorensen, but I’m finding he hits the mark on RetailWire no matter the subject. I think he’s gotten right again here.
I don’t think anyone knows whether in-store networks will work over the long term. There are many exceptional details to be solved before we get anywhere close to knowing whether there’s potential or not. Chief among these is the CONTENT that will influence consumer behavior. Let’s hope it all gets solved before retailers just give up.
Besides the consumer trust, we have to be concerned about trading partner trust. Retailers would love to get access to brand marketing dollars and break out of the allocated trade promotion bucket. They’ll twist the brands’ arms to get them to advertise on their network, regardless of whether the brands find it to be effective.
With Wal-Mart putting monitors on end-caps, it looks like a price roll-back with end-cap display is about to get a lot more expensive.
In-store media will succeed when it is used to “serve” the customer and not to “sell” the customer.
The content MUST be something that the customer wants to view; it’s ridiculous to think that a customer will want to see a commercial while they are shopping a store, yet that’s what a lot of the in-store media attempts to do.
The challenge for in-store media is similar to the challenge for email and the internet. If you want customers to pay attention, you have to provide value. If you can provide informational or entertainment value for the customer and at the same time communicate your company’s expertise, show how your product meets a need, or provide an additional incentive to purchase, then you might have a winner.
People waiting on the checkout line would appreciate in-store TV that entertains or gives usable info. Some office building elevators have screens that give weather, news, and stock prices, for example. The elevator screens usually have no sound track, so they’re not intrusive, and the ads don’t wipe out the useful content. Some checkout line TV fits the high standards set by the elevator screen broadcasters. But much of the in-store broadcasting is useless, intrusive, or annoying. Do you feel bad for the retail employees victimized by having to listen to the repetition? And how many customers will prefer shopping in a less intrusive environment?
Consumers want an easier shopping experience where they can get in and out of the store quickly, can get what they want at a reasonable price with customer service (as defined by the customer). Some consumers like a fun and entertaining experience while shopping, others do not. If in-store store media can assist consumers with their shopping experience, then it can increase the consumer’s trust of that retailer over time.
It seems to me that more in-store media should be based on consumer needs and focus on things like clear signing to show product locations, pick-up for quick meals at the deli, products with certain health attributes, family meal ideas, identification of what items really are on sale and even restroom locations.
Consumers have lots of choices in retailers and don’t want to be bombarded while shopping. On the other hand, useful information to direct their shopping can be a positive.