The document discusses the opportunities and challenges of pervasive advertising, particularly focusing on context-sensitive advertising through interactive displays. It emphasizes the need for public display systems to provide social benefits while being engaging and unobtrusive, and outlines research methodologies employed to study audience behavior and interaction techniques. Key takeaways include the significance of user representation, interactivity cues, and the development of public display networks that prioritize user experience and content engagement.

1. PERVASIVE ADVERTISING –
CHANCEN UND HERAUSFORDERUNGEN KONTEXT-SENSITIVER WERBUNG
AM BEISPIEL INTERAKTIVER GROßBILDSCHIRME
Dr. Florian Alt
4. Shopper Marketing Kongress
Mainz, 11. Juni 2013

2. 3
The Lightning Man

3. 7
State-of-the-Art Displays

4. 7

5. Pervasive Advertising

6. • The Long Tail
• Audience Measurement
• Context Adaptivity and Personalization
• User Feedback
• Engaging Experiences
Opportunities of Pervasive Advertising
9

7. “For advertising-based public display
networks to become truly pervasive,
they must provide a tangible social
benefit and be engaging without being
obtrusive, blending advertisements
with informative content.” (Alt et al. 2012)
The Future of Pervasive Advertising
10

8. Design Space

9. Research Overview
13
Design
Space
Design
Space

10. Research Overview
14
Design
Space
Research Question:
How to design public display systems that cater to all
stakeholders‘ needs?
Approach:
• Investigating traditional public notice areas
• Building/deploying digital prototype
• Long-term evaluation
Methodology:
Ethnography (photo logs, interviews), deployment-
based research (logging, observations, questionnaires)
• Alt et al. Interaction Techniques for Creating, Posting, and Retrieving Content from Public Displays CHI 2013.
• Alt et al. Designing Shared Public Display Networks: Implications from Today’s Paper-based Notice Areas.
Pervasive 2011.
• Memarovic, Langheinrich, Cheverst, Taylor, Alt. P-LAYERS - A layered framework addressing the multi-
faceted issues facing community-supporting public display deployments. ToCHI 2013.

11. Research Overview
14
Design
Space
Research Question:
How to design public display systems that cater to all
stakeholders‘ needs?
Approach:
• Investigating traditional public notice areas
• Building/deploying digital prototype
• Long-term evaluation
Methodology:
Ethnography (photo logs, interviews), deployment-
based research (logging, observations, questionnaires)
• Alt et al. Interaction Techniques for Creating, Posting, and Retrieving Content from Public Displays CHI 2013.
• Alt et al. Designing Shared Public Display Networks: Implications from Today’s Paper-based Notice Areas.
Pervasive 2011.
• Memarovic, Langheinrich, Cheverst, Taylor, Alt. P-LAYERS - A layered framework addressing the multi-
faceted issues facing community-supporting public display deployments. ToCHI 2013.

12. Research Overview
15
Design
Space

13. Research Overview
15
Design
Space
• Müller, Alt, Michelis, Schmidt. Requirements and Design Space for Large Interactive Displays.
ACM Multimedia 2010.
• Alt et al. Interaction Techniques for Creating, Posting, and Retrieving Content from Public Displays CHI 2013.
• Alt, Kubitza, Bial, Zaidan, Ortel, Zurmaar, Lewen, Sahami, Schmidt. Digifieds: Evaluating Suitable Interaction
Techniques for Shared Public Notice Areas. MUM 2011.
Research Question:
How to design suitable interaction techniques for public displays?
Approach:
• Requirements analysis and design space
• Building an interactive prototypes
• Investigate different interaction techniques (mobile phones,
gestures, touch, gaze)
Methodology:
Literature review, lab and field study (observations, logging,
questionnaires)

14. Research Overview
16
Design
Space

15. Research Overview
16
Design
Space
• Beyer, Alt, Müller, Schmidt, Isakovic, Klose, Schiewe, Haulsen. Audience Behavior Around Large
Interactive Cylindrical Screens. CHI 2011.
• Müller, Walter, Bailly, Nischt, Alt. Looking Glass: A Field Study on Noticing Interactivity of Shop Windows.
CHI 2012.
Research Question:
How does the audience behave around interactive
public displays?
Approach:
• Building /deploying interactive prototypes
• Comparison of
• display shapes
• interactivity cues and techniques
• content
Methodology:
Lab study (logging / manual coding, semi-structured
interviews), field study (observations)

16. Audience Behavior

17. 23
1. Passing-By
2. Viewing and
Reacting
3. Subtle
Interaction
4. Direct
Interaction
5. Multiple
Interaction
6. Follow-up
Actions
The Audience Funnel

18. Conversion Rates

19. Making the User Interact
Audience
Provider(s)
25

20. Looking Glass

21. • Call-to-action
• Attract sequence
• Analog signage
• Honeypot effect
• Persons inviting passersby
User Representation
Interactivity Cues
Other
people
27
Cognitive
Processing

22. Lab Study: User Representation

23. Interactive
Non-
Interactive
31
Conditions
realisticabstract

24. 36
Significant effect for representation on
• selection time (ANOVA): F3,45 = 80.76, p<.0001
• accuracy (ANOVA): F3,45 = 43.09, p<.0001
Time to Understand Interactivity
Interactive 2.8s 2.8s 1.6s 1.2s
Non-
Interactive
2.8s 2.1s 1.7s 1.2s

25. Field Study

26. Call-to-Action
Inadvertent
Interaction
Conditions
38

27. • Measurement for 11 days
• 1500h video
• Semi-manual coding
(cohen’s kappa = .75)
• Observations and interviews
Method
39

28. no representation silhouette mirror
call-to-action 67 59 79
inadvertent 60 87 150
Number of Interactions
40
Significant effect for
• interactivity cue (call-to-action vs. inadvertent interaction) (ANOVA): F1,11 = 12.6, p<.001
• user representation (ANOVA): F2,22 = 13.1, p<.005
• user representation * interactivity cue (ANOVA): F2,22 = 6.8, p<.005

29. The Landing Effect

30. • Image representation is a powerful cue to
communicate interactivity.
• Developers of public display applications should
design for the landing effect.
• Attract many people to interact (honeypot effect).
• Almost all people interact in groups.
Looking Glass - Summary
44

31. Why should we install interactive displays?Why to install interactive public displays?

32. Hypothesis
Interaction influences cognition
by increasing involvement.

33. Involvement
Attention ElaborationComprehension
Interaction LongtermRecall & Recognition
Anthony G. Greenwald
47

34. Design Space for Cognitive Effects
48
• Alt et al. Cognitive Effects of Interactive Public Display Applications. PerDis 2013.
• Alt and Schneegaß. Towards Understanding the Cognitive Effects of Interactivity. EIPS 2013.
User occupation
Expressiveness
Interactivity of
Content
Interaction Type
Integration of
the Message
Prior Knowledge
Design
Space

35. Apparatus
Interactive soap bubble game
• Interaction modalities:
gestures, touch
• Interaction cues:
silhouette, audio feedback
• Content:
interactive, non-interactive

36. Experiment
Waiting Room Experiment
37 participants (18-29 years old)
Conditions:
• Non-interactive
Video of a user interacting
17 participants
• Interactive:
Kinect-based interaction
15 participants

37. Results
Recall:
t-test: t(30) = -2.242, p < .05
Recognition:
t-test: t(30) = 0.719, n. s.
None of the participants realized that it
was an experiment!
Interactivity increases awareness of the content and
fosters a positive perception of public displays.

38. Take-Home Messages

39. • Interaction Techniques
How to create the iPhone experience?
• Value Proposition
There is more than the economic value!
What is the benefit of personalization?
• User Experience
How to measure user experience?
• Content
Who has the content / time to produce content that users would engage with?
Challenges
53

40. • Towards an infrastructure for public display networks
app stores, frameworks, architectures
• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
attention, motivation, recall, recognition, involvement
• Payment models
”pay-per-touch” / “pay-per-gesture”
• New technologies
large displays, 3D displays, eye tracking
Trends
54

41. 4. Shopper Marketing Kongress
Mainz, 11. Juni 2013
Dr. Florian Alt
Web: www.florian-alt.de
Email: florian.alt@vis.uni-stuttgart.de
Questions?
Discussion?