Digital Signage Blog

I recently read an article I gleaned from Slashdot entitled, “The 5 most laughable terms of service on the net” (although I only really saw four in the article). The article basically goes through the privacy encroachment companies can have because you agreed to adhere to their specific guidelines. Metrics proponents have understandably been advocating increased control and advances in the segment of audience measurement and metrics. I don’t want to discount the need. However, when “Minority Report” appears as an our culminating end goal, we should be somewhat cautious. Before I jump into this topic, let’s take a look at the five most ridiculous terms of service on the web.

1. Google’s gmail states: “Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service.” This may sound a bit incredulous, but it could be an issue when you’re trying to send a message and Google just feels like doing some filtering that day. Not that they would or have (I think because the cry of “foul” would reek so bad they’d get slapped), but it’s still interesting.

As a side note, I’m not sure how the suit between Google and a consumerturned out when Google decided to put pictures of the family’s home on Google’s “street view.” Google was doing a little assuming of their own on that one.

2. Facebook terms of service say the following: “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”

The moral of the story: don’t put anything on Facebook you want to keep. Once it’s there, kiss it goodbye. It’s theirs. It’s gone.

3. YouTube: “You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.”

So even if something is deleted from the site, they can still use it. In addition, the site claims rights to anything you publish. Crazy.

4. The last one from AIM: “You May Use the AIM Products for Lawful Purposes Only. You may use AIM Products for lawful purposes only. You may not post on or transmit through community areas (e.g., message boards, chat, e-mail, calendars, instant messaging products) or other means any material that (1) violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, (2) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, vulgar, obscene, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable, (3) encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, (4) gives rise to civil liability, (5) violates any policies posted in any community areas or (6) otherwise violates any law. You also may not undertake any conduct that, in AOL's judgment, restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying the AIM Products, including without limitation the community areas.”

Assuming Makes an _____ out of you and me…you know

But one may ask, how does this relate to digital signage? I think it relates greatly. Certainly metrics standards are needed, and their reality is coming soon. But, where do we draw the line? Who’ll be the last man standing when the music stops?

A couple examples of intrusive digital signage come to mind. The first can come from a company who harvests cell phone numbers from a mobile marketing campaign integrated with the signage. The second—and perhaps more obnoxious and far-fetched—version is the one that involves eye reading and facial recognition software. Will signage companies have to place a little disclaimer stating, “By looking at our sign you agree to have your face and eyes read to target advertisements to you more specifically.” How absurd is that!

As metrics and measurement devices continue to improve, it will be interesting to see the uniformity and standards that begin to emerge—especially those that emerge from litigation. But there are always certain “assumed” terms of service that come with interacting with any device in a public setting.

Intrusiveness increases in proportion to Interactivity

The more a customer interacts with a public display, the more the signage device has the right to intrude. It’s like caving to a door-to-door salesman or acquiescing to a telemarketer. If you ask for it, you’re going to get it. And persons doing so usually are intelligent enough to know exactly what they are getting in to.

Making Digital Signage Compelling

The way to combat the problem of being to obnoxious when it comes to digital signage is to increase interactivity. Compelling and non-intrusive interactivity increases advertisers’ ability to be a bit more intrusive. There is a give and take principle every good salesperson knows. Give someone something and they’ll feel obligated to do something for you. Interactivity in digital signage works with this same principle. A person interacting in an engaged way with a digital sign would feel less offended by a targeted ad at the end of the session than otherwise.

On the flip side, too much solicitation from a digital signage for interactivity can sometimes be more intrusive than any metrics device. Then we’re back to the circular argument we started with. Like life, a delicate balance must be reached. Digital signage needs interactivity. Digital signage needs metrics. We can't just assume digital signage is effective. And we know what assuming does...