Talk:Digital signage

ROI

Anybody here think it's funny that the statement that Digital Signage can provide higher ROI is supported by a vendor-sponsored "ROI" calculator that seems to throw numbers out of thin air? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.221.22 (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

yea, kinda. oh wait do you mean funny haahaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.223.104 (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Links

Lets ask ourselves Who is this page for? Well, its for people interested in digital signage, right? Those people want to know the facts, not marketing propaganda, but the facts often come from industry experts, but then citations must not be specific to any particular product or commercial body.

Is it reasonable to add links to industry publications? Yes, I think that´s useful to readers. And to commercial supplier? Yes, a list in alphabetical order would be useful to readers.

Lets look at the section "Suppliers", Pro AV has been referenced as an industry expert source, but its commercial, paid advertising. And someones added the small list of "top" suppliers, again from Pro AV. However, readers might want a broader spectrum of advice, not just from one commercial source like Pro AV, and other manufacturers of DS systems should be listed so readers can search through the available systems to find what suits them best. Rubén Mar (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to "The recent introduction of free digital signage software". This is a reference without a source. As I am very interested in this free software, I would like someone to (perhaps) begin a list of Digital Signage Software? I know some proprietary ones, but no free ones. 212.104.204.79 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello - In order to be fair there simply must be NO links to company blogs here. To pretend that these blogs are not marketing arms of the associated companies is a joke. Rather than get into fights about who or what is independent, why not just make a blanket rule that only genuniley independent blogs are listed. I am MD of Ryarc Media Systems, a software company who's blog is not listed here. Thoughts? --Fergal O' Ceallaigh.

16:9 guy here ... I appreciate the many positive comments about my blog. I noticed the other day the traffic in from Wikipedia had dried up and came here to learn my blog had been voted off the island. If the blog mentioned immediately above makes the cut and mine doesn't, I'm mightily confused about your policy. Kick me and others off if we're breaking vows and shamelessly humping products. But as others have noted, there is way too much hype and blabber out there and a handful of bloggers are just trying to help weed out the crap and point to what's real and relevant. My two cents, in Canadian $$$.

Views on the deletion/reinstatement of the links to the Digital Signage Forum, Self-Service World and Digital Signage Today, please? Barnabypage 13:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see we were taken off the nice list. We feel our open discussions are a great resource to the industry for newcomers and end-users. We do not allow a free for all advertising in our threads and our forum is heavily monitored as such. That being said, the cost of running our forum, (most months) outweighs incoming revenue and we try and keep it as educational as possible. I really do not understand why it would be banned from this list as a resource?? - LisaJ here from the Digital Signage Forum.

Per Simetrical's comments back in June, I think the Forum is a good contender for the list. Barnabypage 13:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Barbabypage - Lisa

I see that an editor has now removed all the links except that to The Screen. At the very least, I can't see much logic to allowing The Screen and excluding the CDSA - but can we have views from other editors before embarking on an endless cycle of reversions? Barnabypage 13:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to revisit this discussion now that two blogs (DailyDOOH and mediadigitalsignage.com) have been added to the list. I'm not going to remove them as I am personally associated with aka.tv (removed a while back) and it could look like sour grapes - but we do need some consistency here... Barnabypage 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added in links to digitalsignagetoday.com and SCREENS.tv, neither of which is a blog or directly associated with any individual vendor. It seems absurd to be listing The Screen - a credible body but one that represents only the UK industry - as our only source of further info. For the record, I am associated with SCREENS.tv. Barnabypage (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - I see these have been reverted - so in line with Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked I am asking other editors to consider adding www.screens.tv - and AnmaFinotera to clarify what they consider 'shady' about digitalsignagetoday.com! Barnabypage (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

digitalsignagetoday.com seems to primarily an advertising website and not an industry expert or particularly suited for external linking. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of content there, updated most days. Personally I don't think it falls afoul of the Wikipedia:External links proscription of "objectionable amounts of advertising", though obviously that's a subjective issue. Barnabypage (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having aka.tv listed there. It's a useful source of information. However, there are a lot of other useful sources of information. So perhaps a directory page of digital signage news pages would be the answer?Legion722 (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The DailyDOOH is a blog, not a news source. It's biased, poorly informed and very opinionated (serving to spark argument and increase its own web traffic). I'd like to see if anyone wishes to defend its place here on Wikipedia as a valid news source? I propose the link is removed. Legion722 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a revision to the way links are added to "External Links": 1. Links should only go to a website's main page, not to a specific page (these should be saved for citing references if the page has anything to say). 2. Links should remain focussed to the digital signage industry as a whole and not just to advertising or retail. Digital signage is NOT just for these markets.

Based on those two points, I would like to remove In-store Marketing Institute, OVAB, OVAB Europe and POPAI from the External links. The alternative would be to add more links which balance the other market sectors, but I believe that would just make the situation worse. Legion722 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly see the case for removing ISMI as it's not specifically a digital-signage organisation. OVAB I believe should definitely stay - okay, advertising is just a subset of digital signage, but it's an important one, and the organisation is undeniably dedicated to this sector. As for POPAI, well, that could go for the same reasons as ISMI, or perhaps more constructively we could change the link so it points to POPAIdigital (http://www.popai.co.uk/popaidigital/).

As I think I've suggested on this page before, there's something of a paucity of really good published information on digital signage (and unfortunately one of the best sites - http://www.wirespring.com/dynamic_digital_signage_and_interactive_kiosks_journal/ - fails Wikipedia's link policy on multiple grounds), so we don't have the luxury of rejecting links for falling a bit short of ideal. Barnabypage (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I blogged a bit on the issue of repeated linkspam additions to this page - it may be a useful read to anyone considering adding a commercial link, or an interesting one to anyone who's been removing them. Barnabypage (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the 12th reference link to oxygennext.com really necessary? Why link to that particular company's site (to the main page of it, no less) when there are several providers of free digital signage out there? Noventri-ds (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Noventri, I'm sure you're right and that there's a better (non-vendor) source out there for the assertion about free software widening the market. Please keep your eyes open and let us know if you spot one - I'll do the same. Barnabypage (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

POPAI

I'm not sure that the paragraph below is at all helpful:

The large number of terms that have emerged to describe the nascent industry led Point of Purchase Advertising International (POPAI) to form a digital signage standards group in 2005. This group is currently tasked with assembling a list of standard terminology for describing digital signage technology and business models. It is expected to release a final list of its recommendations in 2006.

I think the section on POPAI needs more citing/linking. I've tried to find out more about this alleged list of recommendations but even the POPAI digital site seems to have nothing on it. What's more, its directory doesn't list any of the five digital signage companies I've seen presenting their products. HOw unbiased is POPAI and how useful? --Rhi 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A new section appeared in the article promoting the POPAI industry standards. I've read the 3 page PDF of these standards and I'm not partiularly impressed (mostly seems to added unnecessary jargon and terms in an attempt to "clarify the jargon" :/). Anyway, I've merged that cited section into the "Issues and Progress" section, where it makes more sense. I also kept/added the link to the POPAI article (which is pretty dismal). Legion722 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

POPAI is a legendary organization in the retail industry (active members include McDonald's, PEPSI, Coca Cola, P&G, etc., the LARGEST buyer list of digital signage!!). If POPAI establishes anything, there is no reason why it is not a significant reference. They have REAL customers. We need to make people aware what the real drivers to the industry is (definitely not any supplier or commentator, but real buyers), and understand the full depth and impact that is coming. --Jcwang (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Loaded phrases like "legendary organization" are not needed here to promote POPAI. My point was that it's not the only organization doing what they do and their standards are not yet adopted. As such, putting them on this article prematurely (and as a promotional piece) is not in accordance with Wikipedia's general policy. Perhaps if the tone of the section was more neutral and didn't make it appear as though POPAI were somehow in charge of the digital signage industry? Possibly highlighting that the standards are new with an aim to unify the industry, but not yet actually in mainstream use? However, I am just one voice and I'm happy to leave it as is if the people here are in agreement with you. What do others think? Legion722 (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What I meant was that POPAI is probably the industry's oldest organization (since 1936) with the largest potential customerbase (retail brands) which make the organization significant. The aim is not to promote POPAI, but make the industry aware of the progress in standardizing digital signage (also voted #1 key factor to mold the industry in F&S's 2007 industry report). If anyone can suggest a toned-down wording to state the fact that POPAI has release the industry's first standard for the benefit of us all, please feel free to suggest. Removing it altogether is not the best way to carry forward this idea. --Jcwang (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I can fully appreciate that POPAI is a significant organisation, arguably a significant organisation for digital signage (which, by the way, didn't exist in 1936). I believe my more recent edit reflects what we're both trying to say and still gets the point across. Eg. That POPAI has released the first of a series of documents which aim to provide a standardisation within the industry. However, this standardisation is still new and not fully adopted (especially not globally). Wikipedia is not a blog or a forum for new things, or regional things. I think we should just leave at saying there are efforts to standardise the industry and this is one of them.Legion722 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on a further re-reading, why does this require a new section called "Standards"? Can it not go into point 2. of the progress in "Issues and Progress"? As I said above, these standards are not yet adopted (no matter how important POPAI is), so they aren't 'Standards' yet. They're just 'proposed standards'. Would moving it to the "Issues and Progress" section be acceptable? --Legion722 (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which Screen Association?

I find the mention of The Screen Association confusing. The article contains the text:

The Screen Association has sought to address some of the most pressing issues for the advertising market by releasing a white paper on audience measurement and a directory of UK based ad-networks.[citation needed] For the broader digital signage market the Screen Association has also issued an Industry Directory which is intended as a proposed roadmap for industry development.

There is also a link marked The Screen Association UK which links to http://www.thescreen.org/

However, the UK Screen Association as I understand it is the trade body that represents UK service companies to the film and television screen industries. (http://www.ukscreenassociation.co.uk) The Screen, which is what the link actually leads to, represents itself as an independent UK based trade association for the digital signage industry. Both sites are members only, neither has an industry directory but both have members directories which list fee-paying members.

Accordingly the paragraph on the Screen Association seems to be duplicitious (the lesser known digital signage group are trading on the name of the more prominent group), fradulent (the white paper isn't linked and doesn't appear to exist) and promotional (advertising digital signage suppliers rather than providing content). --Rhi 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Rhi - you reminded me that I've been meaning to fix it for a while. The organisation referred to is The Screen, which is the correct name of the association running the Website to which we link. It is, as far as I know, nothing to do with the other association you mention.

Having said that, I have for now removed the text from the article (while leaving the link) - it seems misleading to talk about what The Screen is doing and not mention what other organisations e.g. POPAI, various audience-research groups, etc. are working on - it gives the misleading impression that The Screen is the only one active in this kind of 'thought leadership'.

So - I'll try to do it, but if anyone has the time and inclination to add some information on other groups which are working on standards, measurement etc. that would be great, and The Screen could then take its rightful place among them. Barnabypage 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Content

I have edited a large amount of the Content section. It was getting far too confusing and missing the point of what 'content' on 'digital signage' actually is. It was full of references to Fifth Screen (a page with very little detail}, which is a concept and not a replacement term for 'digital signage'. I have cited almost all the sources of the things which are written, however I am aware that such a large amount of changes may upset people. Furthermore to this, I feel that the whole digital signage article is getting far too long, with too much irrelevant and unnecessary detail. Unless there is a significant objection, I intend to have a look at the Technology section and attempt to clairfy it. I would also like some help writing a a History section, which considering the age of digital signage, is very much needed.Legion722 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article is a bit of a mess and waffly in parts. I don't think it's too long overall, though - probably about the right length. Barnabypage (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now edited the detail in the Content section. Mostly, it was removing or moving irrelevant information (such as detail about internet access or mobile phones) and adding some detail about what displays, playback/content management and networks actually mean when it comes to digital signage. I would like next to approach the Issues and progress section, and try to cite some of the claims made.Legion722 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just put in a whole load of tags as well as making other general edits. It would certainly improve the article a lot if we could deal with the citations issue. Barnabypage (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that the article is a bit of a mess. I did some work to get consistency in what the components are called, a 'media player' for instance for the playback component. I did delete one paragraph which seemed totally irrelevant (discussing the pricing factors for LCD displays). Clarified some of the networking section too. App (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Would anyone object to me removing conversation threads which are older than 2007? This talk page seems a bit cluttered with old conversations.Legion722 (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do archive them. Barnabypage (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive of posts from 2006 or before can be found at Talk:Digital signage/Archive 1Legion722 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Digital signage. -- Legion722 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I think that Digital Signage Broadcasting (DSB) has some duplication of information from Digital signage (DS), and that both articles would benefit being merged together. The DSB article is fairly over-technical, with a degree of unsubstantiated claims. But the information it gets to might be of more interest on the DS page. What do other people think?Legion722 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%, with the proviso that - as you say - there's a lot of speculation and POV on Digital signage broadcasting, not uninteresting but not appropriate here. Besides, "digital signage broadcasting" is not a common phrase and the article is an orphan, so as it stands it's probably wasted. Barnabypage (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the article in. When I actually took the time to read the (mostly nonsensical) article, I found it was full of rehtoric, POV and duplication, mostly on IPTV (which has it's own article). If anyone has a good reason why "Digital signage broadcasting" should be seen in it's own light (whatever that is), then please go ahead and either discuss it here, or rewrite the article with references, explainations and detail. Legion722 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

adfotainment

Does anyone else think that "adfotainment" is a made up term and one which should perhaps be left out of an article on Digital signage? I have posted my views on the Talk:adfotainment page, so please discuss it there. However, my question for this talk page is: should we use "adfotainment" on the digital signage article when it is (at best) a niche term only used by a handful of people? - Legion722 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's an imaginary word - I've certainly never seen or heard it except on this page (and I've worked in the digital signage sector for five years). See also my comments on Talk:adfotainment. Barnabypage (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "adfotainment" and reintroduced the term "DOOH" (with reference to a conference about DOOH). Also, it may interest people to read this article from DailyDOOH - http://www.dailydooh.com/archives/9563 --Legion722 (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

hijacked by SCREENS.tv?

RE: Barnabypage - Statements and Uber enforcement tactics to keep Digital Signage an extension of SCREENS.tv

Stating no commercial links in wiki is one thing however just because you are blogging does not make you "non-profit"

As your website states

"..contact us, please email the editorial or advertising department.

We are located at:

Saint John Patrick Publishers Ltd. 6 Laurence Pountney Hill London EC4R OBL United Kingdom

Why would you have an advertising department if you are not profiting by "hijacking" the Digital Signage wiki description.

It reeks of self promotion.

Just a question to your readers of your SCREENS.tv

Wayne Frisch, VP Software Development

Selenium Interactive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.222.252 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, please see WP:ELNO and past discussions on this Talk page. The Wikipedia policy is not against linking to sites that are run by profit-making organisations (which would rule out huge numbers of eminently reliable sources), but against linking to "Web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". The difference between www.screens.tv or www.digitalsignagetoday.com and www.seleniuminc.com or www.broadsign.com is that while the former might ultimately have a profit-making purpose, they also provide the visitor with a range of general information on the topic at hand, in this case digital signage. The latter examples, by contrast, exist primarily to promote particular products rather than to give broad-based general info on the subject. Barnabypage (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - Point taken I will agree to disagree. You have a valid point however consultants and industry assocations walk a very fine line when they start taking monies in advertisement dollars and selling information. Saint John Patrick Publishers profits by selling information on the Digital Signage industry correct? Who is Saint John Patrick Publishers? Are you employed or enjoy financial benefits through Saint John Patrick Publishers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wefrisch (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Let me answer your questions before commenting:

Saint John Patrick Publishers profits by selling information on the Digital Signage industry correct? Incorrect. SJP profits by providing free information on the digital-signage industry, and selling advertising alongside that. The difference is significant when we are discussing linking from Wikipedia!

Are you employed or enjoy financial benefits through Saint John Patrick Publishers? Yes, this is neither a secret nor particularly relevant - either the link is a worthwhile one for Wikipedia, or it isn't.

The issue here is not whether a linked Website is a profit-making organisation. There is no policy or presumption that Wikipedia only links to nonprofits. The issue is whether the purpose of a linked site is primarily...to sell products or services, which unfortunately is true of www.seleniuminc.com and not of www.SCREENS.tv.

To give another example of the distinction, if I were to insert a link to www.stjohnpatrick.com (the corporate site of the SCREENS.tv publishing company), it would be entirely appropriate for another editor to remove this, because the primary purpose of that site is to promote the business, rather than to provide information on digital signage. Barnabypage (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Very eloquently stated however; I will counter you opinion is slanted/skewed by your employment with a company who enjoys the benefit of linking to this wiki discription. Your statement that only a small fraction of visitors link into your website via this page is not of any concern. A fact is that by linking into this page you increase you goolge PR (page ranking).

Here is some reading on this subject for those dropping in...

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_ranking see: http://www.thegooglecache.com/white-hat-seo/966-of-wikipedia-pages-rank-in-googles-top-10/

This is not a mystery to any person with a background in SEO promotion. This greatly effects the promotion of your group of websites which in turn allows you to enjoy the spoils gained by attracting advertising.

Still not convinced google "Digital Signage" see where the link to this page ranks. In many cases number 1 position.

I do know that this is a valuable asset to your company even if you are unaware of this fact I would place my bets on the fact someone in your organization does.

I see that St John's Publishing also produces a bi-monthy "Internet Retailing: Bi-Monthly Magazine" seems odd that your enterprise would be industry experts in this but not employ SEO tactics.

Another fact of some note is if it truely of no value -- why are you doing updates and checking the page daily during the course of your workday?

I strongly suggest for the interest of "keeping it real.." I challenge you to keep your links to SCREENS.tv site/blog off of here and no one will question your intentions.

or

Create a section on Industry Related Publications, E-ZINES and open it up to everyone in the trade producing a magazine relating to digital signage industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.222.252 (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I disagree that this article has been "hijacked by SCREENS.tv". Many contribute here and everyone is free to do so. I would say though, that there are quite a lot of news links on the article (even after you removed aka.tv and SCREENS.tv). Compared to other media industry articles, Digital Signage has news links on it, of which similar kinds are unfound on other pages. See: Film_making, Music and Photography.

If I may quote Wikipedia guidelines: "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories" WP:NOTLINK, "Links in the 'External links' section should be kept to a minimum." WP:ELPOINTS, "It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents" WP:FIVE. If we are going to remove one news link, shouldn't we then remove them all? And if we don't, how do you decide which ones to keep? - Legion722 (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wayne, just to reply to what amounts to your central point - quite possibly my opinion is slanted by working for a company which has been linked from this article, likewise yours may be slanted by working for a company whose link has been repeatedly removed. Since we can't really remove this kind of bias, probably the best thing is to let other editors determine the fate of both the SCREENS.tv and Selenium links?

Just for the record, however: I am not employed either explicitly or implicitly to promote the site on Wikipedia. Editing this article (and dozens of others, some related to the topic and most not) is something I do on my own time.

The concept of a Publications links section I can surely live with, but is it really that different from what we have today - do we need a new heading?

Legion - I tend to agree - the problem (historically) that we have had with this page is that there haven't been many reliable third-party sites other than news sites. That's probably down to digital signage being such a new (and of course relatively niche) phenomenon compared to the other media you mention. Barnabypage (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Digital billboards

What about digital billboards? It seems they should fall under the category of "digital signage", but they are not mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.49.253 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevant External Links

In regards to the content of this artile my site is more relevant than the other external links, should I put it onto the External Links section? My site is www.allsee-tech.com Is has multiple signage solutions and there are no prices as it is not a retail site.