Want more on the industry research Adcentricity conducted about which digital out-of-home media advertising formats are working best? Well, you can see a bunch of industry leader interviews here: http://player.delvenetworks.com/preview/?m=6fed2c18740d4151b19f4d82151f6bb6 .

Sound a little creepy? Well, sort of. Sullivan, who was elected to serve twice on today's Digital Out-of-Home Forum agenda - on the opening Big Buyer's panel, and on the just introduced "Are We Getting A Little Creepy" panel - quipped that he thought the second one was, "going to talk about the creeps in the out-of-home business," not about the creepy new technologies and analytics that can tell marketers increasingly personal things about digital out-of-home consumers. Commander-in-Creep Sullivan

Differing views on the need to standardize formats and other creative parameters for digital out-of-home advertising. Razorfish's Lockhorn said it's crucial to establishing economy of scale, and lack of standardiation will limit the medium. Phil Lenger of Show + Tell said it's less critical -- more important is to establish a process that can accommodate a number of creative products (which, frankly, sounds like standardization). My prediction: some happy medium will be established based on balancing creativity and convenience at the optimal cost-point. Not exactly controversial.

Simply re-purposing TV ads isn't the savvy way to approach digital out-of-home, with its myriad formats and contexts, according to Philip Lenger of Show + Tell. Instead, agencies need to figure out how to create literally thousands (he threw out the figure 3,000) of different pieces of content, crafted for individual formats and contexts. This isn't quite as daunting as it might sound at first, however, because "we're not talking about Superbowl production" for each ad -- "You can make a beautiful ad with just some moving text on a static background."

Okay, so that was a stretch, but it was the mixed metaphor that Everywell's Rick North used to set up his message during the "showcase" section of the Digital Out-of-Home Media Forum. North, or course, was talking about the paradox surrounding sales of digital OOH media. When a new network is starting off, he says, marketers complain that they don't have enough reach. When they get enough reach, marketers complain that they're too expensive to buy. "It's the chicken and the egg," North said, adding that he has finally answered the long-standing question of which one came first: …

Neat-o: Megaphone is scaling up its mobile-mediated, digital out-of-home games from relatively small screens to the big ones -- much, much bigger ones: the jumbotron screens at sporting events. Of course that's a great environment for playing sports-themed Megaphone games (we saw a tennis game, but there are others).

Slightly scary: a whole roomful of media execs shouting "GRAB!" into their phones as part of a public, digital out-of-home game staged by Megaphone at the DOOH forum. Even scarier: the clip they played of a theater full of 5-year-olds playing the game, unencumbered by the self-conscious reserve of adults. Whoa nelly. But if you want engagement... there it is.

Dr. Marci recounted an example of the same car ad in two different contexts. The first was a traditional "cold open" -- appearing following content that's not related to cars or anything. The second was an integration with the show "Glee," following a scene in which cheerleaders were washing cars. Guess which car ad received substantially higher emotional engagement from the get-go?

A very interesting comparison of TV and online video engagement from Dr. Marci using eye-tracking technology. A eye-catching, highly produced Blackberry ad featuring a U2 concert was super-engaging on TV -- but in the context of an Internet environment (Web page) eye-tracking data showed shockingly few even looked at the video ad until about half-way through, when it was impossible to ignore.

Remember how everyone was debating the meaning of engagement a few years ago, and then kind of just dropped it? Dr. Carl Marci actually has a quantitative, empirical definition of engagement. Conscious brain operations take up only 5%-25% of total brain activity, says Dr. Marci. Innerscope uses biometric approaches (skin response, etc.) to try to understand consumer responses to advertising by plumbing the depths of those other 75%-95% -- ultimately producing a measure of engagement based on physiological and emotional responses.