Bank of America - latest network failure (bsod)

Much has been written here about the disappointing execution of Bank of America's digital signage network--poor screen placement, primitive TV/bank content mix, etc.--but the feared black-screen-of-death ("BSOD") captured across at least nine screens in a high-profile location during rush hour is without doubt a new low. Network operators, this is a lesson on why local cache-ing of content ("store and forward"), PC redundancy and/or local service should be non-negotiable criteria for your digital signage technology.

Maybe the "no sync" message on the screen is meant to signify that the bank and Creative Realities, its digital signage provider, just "don't get it"...

Content Worst-Practice #3

3. You've split the screen into multiple content windows
This is likely a controversial addition to the list, given that so many digital signage networks partake in it, but splitting the screen into multiple content windows—generally in the form of a main panel, a side-bar, and a news/stock ticker or two—is an unabashedly bad practice. For a moment, let’s explore two most common reasons for doing so…

The big television news networks do it. Yes, the networks do, but they don’t have anything invested in what particular bit of content their viewers are watching on their screen. Banks, on the other hand, are generally footing the cost of the network in hopes of selling additional products to their customers…why would they want to provide an alternative to watching their ads while they are running? Given the choice between reading a news ticker, watching the weather, or watching an ad for home equity, which would you choose?

The news material keeps customers entertained, and alleviates wait-line fatigue. Yes, news, weather, and sports material does keep customers entertained, but there’s no need to provide it all at once. In fact, exit interviews conducted during a pilot test for one of the US’ largest retail banks indicated that customers preferred when syndicated content was provided one bit at a time (ie. separate spots for news, weather, and sports sprinkled throughout the loop), finding it easier to read. And on the wait-time point, branches whose screens displayed multiple content windows faired no better than those in which the entire screen was dedicated to one spot at a time.

It helps keep the content fresh. Bosh. XML feeds can be incorporated into other content just as easily as they can into a ticker. If anything, keeping content in four panes fresh should be more difficult, because there are more “mouths” to feed.

In all, just a bad idea.

Content Worst-Practice #2

2. Your digital content changes out less frequently than your print

Two of the most frequently cited benefits of digital signage are the ease and low-cost of message change-out, but don’t tell that to a number of banks, who change their print materials more frequently than they do their digital content.

This actually occurs pretty frequently in cases where there is either a sub-scale network or stalled pilot program (Citi here in New York, ABN Amro in Chicago, or US Bank and Fifth Third in Cincinnati come to mind) and frankly it’s understandable. Given limited time and capital, resources should always be concentrated on the programs reaching the largest audience, ie. existing print. However, in a number of scale bank digital signage networks, print is still changed out more frequently than digital content….in a word, inexplicable.

Take Wachovia’s 30 branches here in New York, which are equipped with digital screens located above tellers and in the windows, along with some fantastic, large-scale print campaign fixtures (disclosure: Wachovia is my bank, and they’re fantastic from a service perspective). In the last six months, I can remember the print campaigns changing at least four times (high-rate money market account, $100 bonus checking offer, student checking, and co-op equity line). During that same period, I think the digital content has changed once. Let’s explore the economics, based the following assumptions:

• 3 print merchandising fixtures per branch
• 2 campaign graphics per fixture (2-sided) @ $ 50 per graphic
• $ 20 shipping and $15 installation per campaign, per branch
• $ 20,000 agency and print production fees per campaign

Using these figures, and assuming the Wachovia NY branches receive unique material (believable, given that the offers are different here than elsewhere in the network), the cost to produce and install every print campaign is $ 30,050, or $ 120,200 for the four campaigns I saw over the past six months. Let’s assume, generously, that Wachovia spent $20k for the 2 new spots they produced for their digital signs during the same period (likely overstated given the low production value).

If you believe those figures, in an environment where all branches have both print and digital campaign capabilities, Wachovia is allocating its branch marketing budget 85/15 in favor of print materials, spending 6x the dollars on print, and changing campaigns 4x as frequently. If you believe the statistics on media effectiveness, which skew heavily in favor of digital…what gives?

(Final note: my personal opinion is that large-scale print graphics are more effective than digital when it comes to windows-based messaging, but it still doesn’t justify the change-out frequency skew)