• by Mike Bloxham , Op-Ed Contributor, May 7, 2008

As with last week's TV Board, this one goes to context again. When speaking on a panel about out-of-home video, Joe Mandese -- our esteemed moderator -- asked us all if we felt there was anywhere that it is not appropriate to place screen-based media. Are there locations where screens just wouldn't cut through or be acceptable to consumers?

Bearing in mind the rate at which new out-of-home media properties are popping up, it is an interesting question and one that is becoming harder to answer. Is there no space left un-screened? Increasingly not , it would seem. Does it matter? Maybe not, but I would suggest that the answer lies more with the consumer than with the owners of the space, the screen or the content it displays.

Those more devout than I were able to assure me that churches have long since used screens to convey images and information to congregations (and not just those in the mega-churches, which can accommodate as many people as the average major league baseball stadium). The extent to which advertising or sponsorship can succeed in such spaces is debatable, but there are many businesses that explicitly cater to church and religious communities, and there is a long history of such businesses supporting church activities. Maybe the PBS underwriting model could work if presented properly and if the companies are positioned as helping said churches.

Hospital bedrooms have long since provided entertainment on TV screens for the bedridden, bored and willing-to-pay, to say nothing of screens in waiting rooms of doctor's practices, dentists and so on. Even funeral homes are getting in on the act.

There was probably a time when we would have been able to come up with more "no-go areas," either on the basis of a perceived likelihood of consumer rejection or simple inability to believe anyone would take note. We might have thought of gas stations, restrooms and clothing store dressing rooms, but time has shown that we would have been wrong -- assuming these all stand the test of time, that is (after all, it's still early days.

The one situation in which we all agreed screen-based media could not realistically expect to either do well or be welcomed by consumers was in those outdoor moments when one is actively seeking to be "away from it all": hiking, fishing, on the beach and so on. But....

Having initially agreed that none of us could see it working, we posed the question "How would a screen-based proposition need to take shape in order to succeed on a hiking trail?" Surprisingly it took us no time at all to crack the problem (at least conceptually).

Our solution was to imagine a solar-powered kiosk (styled to look suitably rustic in wood or stone - fake or otherwise), with touch-screen functionality. Content would provide mapping information (Where am I / how far to the next rest-stop etc?), details of features of the landscape, local flora and fauna, local history, what to do in the event of extreme weather conditions and so on. Inevitably, all this could be sponsored or carry appropriate levels of advertising.

What made the notion acceptable to us (as people who had rejected the initial notion of any screen in such an environment) was contextual relevance and the ability to navigate through useful content. Another useful possibility would be a communications channel to Park Rangers in the event of an emergency (seeing as cell phone signals frequently don't penetrate such areas).

So the point I guess, is that if content is relevant (i.e. interesting, engaging, informative and useful - as defined by the user) and if functionality allows for control according to my needs, interests and whether or not I want to use it at all, then a screen can potentially find a home in pretty much any environment. Of course, whether it is ultimately worth actually placing a screen anywhere comes down to the levels and frequency of use and the cost of doing so relative to the rate of return through selling inventory. Hence the following (tentative) equation could be potentially be applied:

Relevance + Functionality x Frequency of Use - Cost = worth it / not worth it

Needless to say it's not an equation in any truly mathematical sense, but as a device for assessing the viability of an idea, it could provide a framework for consideration -- as long as the consumer gets heard within the process.

In the final analysis, the only scenarios in which we felt screens had no place were either blindingly obvious on the grounds of practicality (i.e. where they can easily be stolen, where they can't be seen) or - more importantly - where they interrupt or detract from a specific activity that I have paid to pursue and where they do not facilitate what I'm doing. Other than that, I'm pretty hard pushed to come up with a no-go area that couldn't be successfully approached with an understanding of the consumer, the environment and a creative mindset.

Whether or not that is a good thing is for the individual to decide.