MRC Releases Second Phase Of OOH Standards, Includes 'Comparability' With Other Media

The Media Rating Council (MRC) this morning released a draft of "Phase 2" of its controversial out-of-home media audience-measurement requirements for a 30-day public comment period before they are ratified as the U.S. ad industry's standard.

Phase 2, which can be read here, adds requirements for measuring the demographic -- or persons-based -- audience exposure to out-of-home media, building on Phase 1, which only established standards for counting out-of-home media audience impressions.

Phase 1, which was released in April, can be read here.

advertisement

advertisement

Importantly, the Phase 2 standards also provide "comparability to other measured media" (see chart above), which some believe will help out-of-home media compete on more of an even playing field with other higher-priced ad-supported media.

Key elements of the Phase 2 requirements include:

Evidence of "likelihood-to-see" (LTS) required for audience qualification such as considerations in the following areas:

  • Size of the asset (minimum apparent size)
  • Environmental and visual obstruction
  • Presence of audio
  • Precise location of the asset
  • Dynamic nature of the asset
  • Visual clutter
  • Visual attractiveness
  • Illumination and seasonality
  • Exposure time
  • Speed, direction and mode of travel
  • Audience characteristics

Requirements for the use of LTS thresholds

Deterministic data use requirements including:

  • Representative nature of data
  • Robust and sufficient coverage
  • Recency and staleness policies
  • Granularity

Empirical support requirements

Quality control over data sources

Model selection and support

Disclosures

Comments on the draft, which will be accepted through August 27, can be submitted via email to MRC at rpinelli@mediaratingcouncil.org

4 comments about "MRC Releases Second Phase Of OOH Standards, Includes 'Comparability' With Other Media".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, July 29, 2025 at 6:39 p.m.

    Joe: As you likely surmised from your "controversial" comment, this MRC Phase II OOH measurement document will surely continue the damage to the true value of OOH media from Phase I as eloquently revealed by Kym Frank, former GeoPath President, and my "In Dissent" Op Ed in Media Post - we were both members of the MRC Working Group.  It, delibertely I suggest, confuses and/or contradicts many of the key principles, definitions, methododologies, and best practices in OOH Measurement long embraced by the majority of OOH JICs globally via the WOO Global OOH Audience Measuerment Guidelines, May 2022.  
    Phase I was found to be almost farcical at a meeting of OOH JICs from around the world after it was released and subject to a more thorough assessment of this Phase II document, I would posit that any assessment of Phase II by the international OOH research cognoscente would not change.  
     

  2. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, July 30, 2025 at 6:14 a.m.

    Tony, as we both know, the sellers want big numbers and that's why all of this is oriented towards OTS--"opportunity to see"---not actually seeing the ads. If the MRC was focused on ad attentivensss would the sellers accept that and willingly support ongoing measurements to provide the needed data? I tend to doubt that. As for the advertisers--all concerned with their own issues not the industry's wellfare as a whole--do we think that they will step up and demand change? How would this be organized? Who would lead it? What kind of pressure would be applied? 

  3. Tony Jarvis from Olympic Media Consultancy, July 30, 2025 at 2:57 p.m.

    Ed:  As you are fully aware, our beloved advertisers have been "conned" into believing that "viewable impressions" (NO REAL OTS) and/or even basic OTS if real, with their typically low CPMs will deliver cost effective campaign outcomes assuming the creative meassage is meaningful and impactful for the target group.
    This position was uttertly demolished by Johnathan Waite of Havas Media at an ARF event based on a European Audi campaign using attention metics versus VIs.  (The CPMs were significantly higher of course but the outcomes were substantially better for the same media budget.)
    "Viewable impressions" for digital devices will generally generate larger numbers especially compared to persons-based attention metrics for the same device/content provider (per Lumens Research, TVision, etc.).  However, per Kym Frank, the MRC fails to understand that for a classic OOH panel the 'viewable impressions' number is simply - one!  And, as Kym also correctly reminded OOH vendors, whether using VI's (or even OTS) without a value/exposure consideration there is no differentiation between panels/boards notably on the same stretch of road that have the same traffic counts unless adjusted for visibility to produce "visiblity adjusted contacts", VACs, or Eyes-On metrics per GeoPath. So premium OOH boards/locations receive the same "numbers" as the poorer quality inventory.  
    Based on these flawed documents, the real question for advertisers and their media agencies as well as for Joe Mandese is: Why is MRC ignoring the international OOH research community (who are no longer welcome on the MRC OOH Working Group!) plus the recent WOO Guidelines, along with OOH JICs current best practices, and, ipso facto taking a run at GeoPath the sole and ONLY JIC/MOC in the US?   

  4. Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, July 30, 2025 at 4:33 p.m.

    Tony, yep, I agree about the advertisers. That's the root of the problem. While the sellers are organized and work together in tight little groups--as is the case in TV and other media as well as OOH--the advertisers are a very diverse collection of folks who mostly think of media as a boring numbers game and who don't care to get deeply  involved. So they are taken advantage of.---sort of. But so long as they see some positive results and can't be bothered to push for even better performance, little will change.

    Which is exactly what is happening with TV where in 2025 we are still using set usage, modified by claims by panel members that they are "viewing" when content is first selected as if this tells us how many and what kind "watched" each and every commercial in a TV  program's various breaks. Nonsesne. 

Next story loading loading..