The DPAA Problem That Needs To Be Addressed
The industry seems to love making light of the DPAA – err do you mean the Doberman Pincher Alliance of America or do you mean the Draught Proofing Advisory Association?, Ed but I believe that lightheartedness can be seriously counterproductive.
The New DPAA President?
I think that in its current form and direction, the DPAA represents a potential danger to the survival of the DOOH industry in general. They are not a joke, they are in fact in my opinion, a problem that needs to be addressed.
They represent only a small fraction (approximately 16 networks) of the actual DOOH providers and an even smaller fraction of advertising-acceptable screens-available in the US yet they position themselves as speaking for the industry as a whole.
Their structure fosters a division within the industry of ‘haves and have not'” with an annual fee of USD 30k to USD 50k it effectively shuts out those that cannot afford it and those that think it is far too expensive an entry fee to a ‘club’ that endlessly does free tests off of the backs of its membership.
I believe that the DPAA is a place where there is a concentration of people that actually believe the best thing for the DOOH industry is for it to consolidate down to 20 or so networks which, from an advertising / marketing and industry perspective is probably the worst thing imaginable.
Let’s recap the downsides of such a (smaller number of networks) scenario: –
- what if you have a very large buy that 20 providers simply cannot handle, do you walk away or do you retain that capability to service these large buys
- who gets to decide which 20 providers are allowed to live
- there are more than 20 venue types so who gets to decide which venue types are unworthy
- the whole beauty of DOOH is that, in combination with several providers; DOOH can provide meaningful campaigns at the local level. DOOH can provide national support-but only where you want it, DOOH plans come in at far lower CPM’s than TV, DOOH delivers to clients high levels of target message frequency which TV cannot do, DOOH has hundreds of providers each with their own flair and personality and approach to the medium
There is a real danger with what I believe are the DPAA members’ real motives that DOOH is ‘flattened’ into a commodity product instead of the value product that it is today.
My business is effectively a marketing agency and as such we deal with clients on a different level, clients want MORE messaging options, not fewer and clients want better DOOH plans, not plans based on, at best 6 or 7 % of the actual screen inventories out there.
The DPAA also seemingly refuses to view mobile or digital outdoor as DOOH. I suggest that they look at the term ‘Digital Out of Home’ in a bit more detail – mobile compliments and enhances DOOH screen campaigns via the addition of interactivity and digital outdoor enhances DOOH campaigns via the addition of ‘quick reminder messaging.
The claim that the name change from OVAB to DPAA was at the agencies request is frankly ridiculous. All the agencies I, and many others deal with, refer to the medium as Out of Home and Digital Out of Home.
DOOH has a hard enough time now selling in this crazy environment. This type of myopic association does not help reverse that issue and it is now time for the DOOH industry to come together properly as one coherent/easily purchasable mass messaging system for all the agencies and brands out there.
As Benjamin Franklin said “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately” and I would suggest that any association needs to be managed properly by DOOH providers and for the sole benefit of DOOH providers. That would mean…
- There would be no large fees (maybe USD 300 – USD 500)
- No aggregators to poach on the membership to join their ‘rep firm’
- No market research folks trying to sell the membership
- No media folks unless there is some form of a counter-balancing client marketing advisory board
Unfortunately I don’t believe that the new DPAA President will make any difference (or more precisely have any power to make any difference) to the organisation so maybe what we actually need is a new industry association?
Again in the words of Benjamin Franklin “God helps those who help themselves”
Categories: DailyDOOH Update
A surprise that Suzanne LaForgia ends up at predatory RMG? You are in the club or you are not. Groucho Marx once said he’d never join a club that would have him as a member. He was no dummy.
by BizAsUsual on Aug 22, 2010 at 19:10 @840
Yes, what I was surprised by, but not, was that apparently the Bylaws or Board of Directors of DPAA did not stop this person from seeking the job… maybe they tried and had no legal recourse. That organization is supposed to be Switzerland, where people can speak their mind. Due to the constant free trials she oversaw she gained and had access to, what I would call confidential information about each of the participating networks—for free–and hence this person probably has intimate knowledge of the OVAB members when she was running it. Now she goes to a job that could compete with them…outrageous. I do not blame RMG for trying to gain a selling advantage in this crazy market….but in my opinion this person should not even been “on the table”.
by Tony Raymond on Aug 23, 2010 at 13:54 @621
Sour grapes, much?
by Anon on Aug 23, 2010 at 14:10 @632
I think this category is populated by some sincere agency and network operators who really would like to do the right thing.
The problem is defining the right thing without the bias of “place” as dictated by the “in group” of network, agency, research suppliers, or technical suppliers dominating the conversation and direction of the industry.
In fact, in my past two years in this category, I have found CLIENTS and forward thinking STRATEGIC MEDIA AGENCIES very open to our category and opportunity, BUT only if the proposition puts the consumer first with collaborative research included.
What I mean is that after experiencing platform migration from print to in-store advertising, internet, satellite radio, and digital on-the-go media, what remains constant is that marketers and agencies really do not care about one category in particular, but will always follow the consumer’s eyeballs and increasingly fingertips.
If this category would stop worrying about the place and spend more time on the delivering the benefits to viewers seeing and touching campaigns delivered by all networks in this category, I think we might see all boats start to rise with the tide.
Mobility is our moment of opportunity since the very nature of this platform is in large part about being away from home! Let’s show how effective we are at promoting downloads, encouraging usage and conversions while giving our on-the-go consumers information, incentives, and general utility to make their lives more efficient and satisfying.
I think Ben Franklin would have also said “you get what you pay for” and this association has never shown that kind of value at large.
How about an open source forum that puts how we are better and/or different than other advertising options with the consumer regardless of the platform at the front of the story?
Oh, one more thing, the client seat at the table really needs to be filled out to help our agency friends tell the story at large.
by Jerry Hall on Aug 23, 2010 at 14:17 @637
I think that the value comes in the form of insight provided, rather than their business model and strategy. The insight they bring in terms of place-based audience measurement does have value, even if it is not adopted–because every form of measurement and methodology will deliver more insight, which doesn’t have to be the Holy Grail answer, but another stepping stone toward meaningful targeting in the space, which is what the brands ultimately value the most. This type of accountability is what will open the doors. But when it comes down to addressing this notion of fragmented metrics, I believe that metric agnosticism is the only way to execute cross-platform campaigns. We’ve developed a platform that automates this, so agencies can deal with the metrics they are comfortable with, while streamlining how networks assess and organize their data.
by Nikos Acuna on Aug 23, 2010 at 17:23 @766
I don’t think we have ever met “author Tony”…but let’s get a couple of points straight.
1) In the 4 years of DPAA (OVAB) there were two “tests” run that the organization sponsored/guided…two….Michael J Fox (which, BTW, is a very good cause) and the Schering Plough (that one maybe could have gone better, but was not a total disaster). So, two programs. I’m not sure how that qualifies for “endlessly does free tests off of the backs of its membership.” I have known agencies that ask for two free tests a quarter (with free research thrown in), so how much different is that really?
Second, you may be right about the current group thinking that ultimately there will be only 20 networks (or companies that own many networks alla RMG), but to insinuate that membership in “the club” is in any way, shape or form a “rite of passage” to being one of these networks is to lay out the most sophomoric argument imaginable. I’ll give you a super quick lesson in economics….here is comes…don’t miss it….”The Market” will pick the final list of members.
While you are probably right that the group needs to work hard on the $30k/$50k “entrance fee”, that is not the whole story. Many (most) agencies do not really care if a network is a DPAA member or not. They are looking for an audience that can be reached by an effective media vehicle.
As for your “4 points”…yeah…what if. I could write 100 scenarios that are equally preposterous.
So, let’s get to the real point here… “YOUR BUSINESS”. You seem to have a problem with balancing the needs of your client with the membership ranks of the DPAA. I’m not sure why. If you don’t like the roster of companies, spend your money someplace else. But I’m guessing that today there really is not a good alternative. Hum, let’s look at that for a moment. “The Club” has most of the trustworthy networks (most, not all, and I’m not saying that every DPAA member is perfect), so it is a bit difficult to spend money and justify those expenditures with other networks. Your client wants to see his media spend as “effective”, but due to lack of research and confidence that the media buy will even run, this is difficult with many second and third tier networks ! This is “The Market” in action.
As to mobile and digital outdoor…both of these have been legitimate platforms for about 24 months. Go back to the summer of 2008 and see how many digital billboards existed outside of NY and LA. Same goes for mobile. Go back to 2008 and see who was doing more that “tests” in mobile. The DPAA has a lot of work to do, no question. But there is a changing of the guard right now (I’ll address your Suzanne La Forgia comment in a moment). I think it would have been difficult to address either of these groups much before now, but now might just be the time. Perhaps the DPAA will bring some mobile expertise in-house?
Next point: The reason that the group changed its name was to be more inclusive…and get at the “D” in DOOH. OVAB was NOT the right name. You can argue that DPAA might not be either, but it is definitely better. You say “The claim that the name change from OVAB to DPAA was at the agencies request is frankly ridiculous”…well apparently nobody asked you (and from the tone of your rant, I can probably see why), but there were quite a few agency people who were part of the decision making process.
As for Susanne La Forgia: what did/could she really learn as President of DPAA that would be so damaging to everyone now that she is at RMG. Honestly, you sound like having a working knowledge of the overall industry infrastructure is somehow the “golden key” that will make RMG successful at the expense of all other networks. This could not be further from the truth. What it takes to be successful in this space is a constant eye on your network, your audience, your value proposition and a hardworking, smart sales organization that can turn those three things into money. The President of the DPAA does not get access to anything that makes them super human. Suzanne will have to go out and work just as hard as the rest of us if she is to be successful there.
I am getting fatigued…but I continue: Your list of “association must haves” is misguided. Look at what the DPAA (OVAB) has accomplished….there is a set of media metrics that networks are following…this alone took the online world years to accomplish. $500 times all the members you could possibly dream up does not even turn the lights on to get something like this done.
My guess in reading all of this is that you would like to propose yourself as the head of a new industry association. Your second Benjamin Franklin quote really should be “I hope God helps Me because I certainly am trying to help myself.”
Why don’t you sit back and see how the DPAA evolves over the next 6 months before you write another one of these ridiculous rants.
by Anon on Aug 23, 2010 at 18:03 @794
TR–It seems odd that you are willing to hide behind an “anon” while throwing misguided spears….if you do not agree with me, I do not really care, as you have your opinion and I have mine, it is a free country…my opinion is based on 8 years in media ending up at the VP Media Planning Group Supervisor, 8 years in Account Management ending up as SVP Account Group Director and 16 years as CEO of a Marketing agency… see my responses after TR–. Regarding your opening comment, I would love to meet you, just because we disagree does not mean that a constructive dialog cannot occur.–TR
I don’t think we have ever met “author Tony”…but let’s get a couple of points straight.
1) In the 4 years of DPAA (OVAB) there were two “tests” run that the organization sponsored/guided…two….Michael J Fox (which, BTW, is a very good cause) and the Schering Plough (that one maybe could have gone better, but was not a total disaster). So, two programs. I’m not sure how that qualifies for “endlessly does free tests off of the backs of its membership.” I have known agencies that ask for two free tests a quarter (with free research thrown in), so how much different is that really? TR—- My statement comes from what a) ex members have stated, in fact that is why they left b) ex Board members have said and c) what current board members are saying, which is why they are re-thinking the going forward…so if you are wondering where I am getting this position…it is solely from OVAB/DPAA itself, sorry, I did not make this up. Why would I do it…for what reason, to what gain would I make this up. The other aspect to this is “why do free tests at all”….. DOOH has been around for a while, done fantastic things for many companies of various sizes…why do the DOOH providers have to prove they are real (It seems kind of like the DOOH providers get treated something akin to what Winston Churchill once characterized India as “the great unwashed”). DOOH providers are not second class citizens and should not be treated as such….does TV have to undergo “tests” even though it is a fact that ad viewership is dismal?–TR
Second, you may be right about the current group thinking that ultimately there will be only 20 networks (or companies that own many networks alla RMG), but to insinuate that membership in “the club” is in any way, shape or form a “rite of passage” to being one of these networks is to lay out the most sophomoric argument imaginable (TR—what “right of passage”, you must have been reading someone else’s article…the members of DPAA are by and large part of my agency planning system so I can quickly get to “who makes sense”, they are valuable partners and help shape the plans we produce–TR). I’ll give you a super quick lesson in economics….here is comes…don’t miss it….”The Market” will pick the final list of members. TR–Very cute, that must have taken quite some time to think that one up, but obviously you do not understand marketing, if there are forces actively trying to suppress or shut out the companies that they do not want to be in the 20, the Market does not get to decide because the options were taken from them…the Market decides based on the options it sees and there are wonderful companies that simply do not have the resources currently to “get their name out properly, or companies run by engineers that do not know how the get their name out.–TR
While you are probably right that the group needs to work hard on the $30k/$50k “entrance fee”, that is not the whole story. Many (most) agencies do not really care if a network is a DPAA member or not. They are looking for an audience that can be reached by an effective media vehicle. (TR–That is correct and appropriately so–TR)
As for your “4 points”…yeah…what if. I could write 100 scenarios that are equally preposterous. (TR–What is preposterous about having an association by and for only DOOH Providers–both screen and mobile–…nobody else in the room except when the association decides to invite them for a specific purpose.TR–)
So, let’s get to the real point here… “YOUR BUSINESS”. You seem to have a problem with balancing the needs of your client with the membership ranks of the DPAA (TR–Totally untrue-TR). I’m not sure why. If you don’t like the roster of companies (TR-I have never stated that and obviously you have not been to my website doohcentral.com otherwise you would know that I love the companies and already spend money with them directly and have great relationships with them directly—this has nothing to do with the DOOH providers and I do not appreciate your trying to involve them…it is DPAA that I have an issue with…you did read the title to the article correct?—my opinion has everything to do with making DOOH a legitimate contender for TV$ or Radio $ and you need a large volume of screens to do that so you can do Target Contact Point of Purchase planning almost anywhere in the US–TR), spend your money someplace else (TR–you really are missing the point…totally clueless… and to do that you must involve many more providers than are currently with the DPAA–TR). But I’m guessing that today there really is not a good alternative (TR–that is not true, there are many, many DOOH providers out there that offer a fine product and care about it just as much as any other DPAA DOOH Provider…you just do not know who they are…sorry–TR). Hum, let’s look at that for a moment. “The Club” has most of the trustworthy networks (TR–based on what…that is an outrageous statement…so 16 or so are trustworthy and the other hundreds are not…boy you need to get out more often–TR) (most, not all, and I’m not saying that every DPAA member is perfect), so it is a bit difficult to spend money and justify those expenditures with other networks (TR–there you are …this is the real nut…finally the truth comes out, you want all monies to be spent with DPAA providers so media plans can be based on 3-4% of what is actually out there to plan with, you are hamstringing the planner by even thinking this way and ensuring that clients do not get the best thinking from their agencies…this is a totally false premise, you are drinking the cool aid, you cannot run an agency on only that inventory base–TR). Your client wants to see his media spend as “effective”, but due to lack of research and confidence that the media buy will even run, this is difficult with many second and third tier networks ( TR–So anybody who is not a DPAA provider is a second or third tier network…I do not think you know who all is out their because you could not be further from the truth….DPAA Provider members are fine partners, but so are other companies, many companies that are also fine companies…I think you may be living in an echo chamber–TR) This is “The Market” in action (TR–no, it is you are trying to control what the market gets to react to, and based on what I’ve seen so far, you are unaware of at least 2/3 of the industry… I have and will continue to place buys with DPAA members directly, not through any aggregators or outside reps….you are missing the whole point, if I or any other agency bought all of the DPAA member providers all the time a) they do not cover many venue types b) I have over 3 million screens in the planning resource our planners use…the biggest source historically is Adcentricity…has 90 companies….much more than DPAA will ever have with the cost of entry….they have 175,000 to 200,000 screens or 6-7% of the screens I can access, and they are not small companies as this math will show you. When we released our press release we had 2.6 times the networks of Adcentricity, but they had only 6-7% of the screens, that means there are a lot of big, medium, and small providers that are not signed up…..why, not everyone wants to give 1/3 of their sales to rep.) It is the power of the volume that will allow the DOOH industry to grow, the more it splits apart into these aggregators, reps, sub reps, association groups that think only they shopuld be viable….whatever….the harder it is for a client to actually make a DOOH buy at the campaign levels they need.–TR)
As to mobile and digital outdoor…both of these have been legitimate platforms for about 24 months. Go back to the summer of 2008 and see how many digital billboards existed outside of NY and LA. Same goes for mobile. Go back to 2008 and see who was doing more that “tests” in mobile. The DPAA has a lot of work to do, no question. But there is a changing of the guard right now (I’ll address your Suzanne La Forgia comment in a moment). I think it would have been difficult to address either of these groups much before now, but now might just be the time. Perhaps the DPAA will bring some mobile expertise in-house? (TR-Their DPAA name press release specifically stated that they did not consider mobile part of DOOH, what century are they from, do they know what DOOH stands for? Do they understand the state of mobile in the UK…we are in the stone age compared to the UK in acceptance/usage of mobile–TR)
Next point: The reason that the group changed its name was to be more inclusive…and get at the “D” in DOOH. OVAB was NOT the right name. You can argue that DPAA might not be either, but it is definitely better (TR–I agree, I suggested it to Board members over lunch…part of the original press release sounded eerily like what my conversations were with some of the, then OVAB board members–TR) .. You say “The claim that the name change from OVAB to DPAA was at the agencies request is frankly ridiculous”…well apparently nobody asked you and from the tone of your rant, I can probably see why.( TR–I guess if you do not understand something, it is a rant…so something you disagree with but is logically presented as an opinion, because you disagree…it is a rant…very open minded–TR) , but there were quite a few agency people who were part of the decision making process. (TR–Again you miss the point, why are agencies naming your association…you folks need to take more control of your destiny…BTW…what % of the media dollars that ad agencies spend go to DOOH?…not much huh.–TR)
As for Susanne La Forgia: what did/could she really learn as President of DPAA that would be so damaging to everyone now that she is at RMG. Honestly, you sound like having a working knowledge of the overall industry infrastructure is somehow the “golden key” that will make RMG successful at the expense of all other networks (TR–why do you think they hired her, if OVAB was a real organization deeply involved in many issues she should have unique knowledge…what did she do, just serve chicken at the meetings…I do not think so). This could not be further from the truth. What it takes to be successful in this space is a constant eye on your network, your audience, your value proposition and a hardworking, smart sales organization that can turn those three things into money. The President of the DPAA does not get access to anything that makes them super human. Suzanne will have to go out and work just as hard as the rest of us if she is to be successful there. (TR–This does not even deserve comment, get with the real world…if she did not know anything then what was she doing?–TR)
I am getting fatigued (TR–I think a dim bulb is a better description–TR)…but I continue: Your list of “association must haves” is misguided. Look at what the DPAA (OVAB) has accomplished….there is a set of media metrics that networks are following…this alone took the online world years to accomplish. $500 times all the members you could possibly dream up does not even turn the lights on to get something like this done. (TR–Because it has never been tried…the big tent association would allow Nielsen to do what they should do…do what made the company in the first place….they should conduct an impartial 3rd party study of all providers and sell that product back to all the agencies, all the marketers and all DOOH providers….create and lead a level playing field, this cannot be done within the current industry setup…I love Nielsen, they would make more money doing what I propose and the providers would not have to shoulder large study costs….. just keep drinking that cool aid–TR)
My guess in reading all of this is that you would like to propose yourself as the head of a new industry association. Your second Benjamin Franklin quote really should be “I hope God helps Me because I certainly am trying to help myself.” (TR–Your guess, just like everything else is totally off base, I specifically do not want to head any industry association–TR)
Why don’t you sit back and see how the DPAA evolves over the next 6 months before you write another one of these ridiculous rants. (TR–No, what you have written was a ridiculous rant, obviously the Daily DOOH did not consider my article as such. But again, someone that is spineless and attacks from the shadows can say what they want with no harm, at least I am honest enough and care about the industry enough to try and stop what I believe are counterproductive practices–TR)
by Tony Raymond on Aug 24, 2010 at 02:47 @158
I really have to jump in here. Not the same anon – but please do not slay me because I write anonymously. It’s simply because I know too much, people trust me, and I want it to stay that way.
I’ve been in this business before there was an OVAB or DPAA. I worked at one of the companies that founded OVAB. When I started there was PRN, RMS (nee Argo), NGN, and Captivate. There was truly a need for OVAB.
I do agree that they squandered the early momentum they had. The other anon is right. They did very little original research. If TR thinks they did a lot of studies, it’s because the co-opted member studies as their own.
And yes they did create an acceptable metric, but to TR’s point they did nothing to guarantee that the inputs and components of that metric were iron-clad. A Nielsen is what’s needed to audit and bless the metrics in the space. I personally know that the numbers being used by many of the member companies are inflated, and they are using the OVAB standard to twist and cover that fact.
And if Ms. La Forge was crazy enough to jump to RMG that says a lot. That’s a mess of stuff that can’t be sold together, and a financial house waiting to collapse into the emptiness inside of it. TR – don’t worry about that one. They can’t take over the world, and they are misguided to think they even should.
I’m not planning to waste much more time on this because it’s so meaningless. They will essentially fade from existence, much as many of their member companies will as well. Jerry Hall is right (though I am not a big fan of TargetCast to support his point) – we need to focus on the viewer/consumer/shopper. This space has already been jumped by mobile from a value standpoint. I personally know the revenues of many of the DPAA member companies. They are not high. PRN is shrinking rapidly, RMG can’t sell much more than the health clubs and airlines, and they still list CBS Outernet (GameStop is all they have and it can’t generate more than 3-4MM right now). Think about that and ask yourself does it even matter. Mobile already has more dollars than we hoped to get. In a couple of years you will ask yourself if we ever even existed.
So where does that leave us? Back with Jerry’s points – we need to think about people and not screens. And with TR’s more salient points about local activation. And with the need for something bigger than than what we’ve got.
And if
by anon on Aug 24, 2010 at 14:51 @660