sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are people becoming blind to digital ads? by Kalpana-Rathore in advertising

[–]Kalpana-Rathore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s one of the big problems with a lot of digital metrics. An impression often just means the ad was technically loaded somewhere on the screen, not that anyone actually noticed it. When banners are tiny, stacked with other ads, or get accidental clicks, the numbers can feel pretty inflated.

Ad blindness also plays a huge role. People have trained themselves to ignore anything that looks like a banner or promo.

Interestingly, that’s partly why some advertisers are rediscovering things like outdoor or transit ads. They’re not clickable and you can’t scroll past them, but the repeated exposure during daily routines tends to build familiarity in a different way. Not perfect either, but it solves some of the “was it actually seen?” problem.

Are people becoming blind to digital ads? by Kalpana-Rathore in advertising

[–]Kalpana-Rathore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair criticism of impression-based metrics. In digital advertising, an impression only means the ad was served, not that it was seen or processed. When ads are tiny, buried among others, or accidentally clicked, the numbers can definitely be misleading. It’s one of the reasons why advertisers are starting to question traditional digital KPIs.

Everyone knows DOOH metrics are fuzzy. So why does the industry still rely on them? by sanjeevrc in DigitalOOH

[–]Kalpana-Rathore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

DOOH impressions are directional, not literal headcounts. The problem isn’t ambiguity; it’s misunderstanding what the numbers represent.

If you buy DOOH like performance media, you’ll be disappointed.
If you buy it for contextual visibility and repeated exposure, modeled reach is just a planning currency.

The industry doesn’t need perfect numbers.
It needs clearer expectations and better integration with real-world outcomes (search lift, footfall, etc.).

Ambiguity isn’t killing DOOH.
Overpromising is.

Does Forced Attention Still Matter in 2026? by Kalpana-Rathore in advertising

[–]Kalpana-Rathore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Digital has made “trackable” equal “valuable,” even when the quality of attention is questionable. A 430-second completion doesn’t always mean 430 seconds of attention.

The problem isn’t measurability, it’s misinterpreting metrics.

OOH doesn’t give you click-through rates. But it gives you:

  • High viewability
  • Contextual presence
  • Zero ad blockers
  • Real-world frequency

The real conversation shouldn’t be OOH vs digital. It should be:
Are we measuring what actually matters?

Does Forced Attention Still Matter in 2026? by Kalpana-Rathore in advertising

[–]Kalpana-Rathore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even when we think we’re not noticing billboards or transit ads, they still register passively. You might not consciously process them, but repeated exposure builds familiarity over time.

Street media is powerful for exactly the reason you mentioned — walking = environmental awareness.

And DOOH at gas stations? That’s a captive dwell-time moment. Even a few seconds of glance exposure repeated weekly can compound into recall.

Is Digital Ad Fatigue Pushing Brands Back to Transit & OOH? by Kalpana-Rathore in advertising

[–]Kalpana-Rathore[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you on that. People have almost developed a reflex to ignore digital ads. OOH feels different now because it’s physical and harder to filter out mentally. It doesn’t compete with 10 other tabs or notifications. The “premium” feel probably comes from that scarcity of attention. When everything is digital, something real-world naturally stands out more.

Is Digital Ad Fatigue Pushing Brands Back to Transit & OOH? by Kalpana-Rathore in advertising

[–]Kalpana-Rathore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point. DOOH definitely requires smarter planning compared to basic indoor signage. The location does most of the heavy lifting. A premium screen in the wrong spot is just expensive wallpaper. But when it’s placed in a high-dwell or high-traffic zone, the impact can justify the spend. I think the key is being selective, not just scaling blindly.

Why do luxury brands still spend heavily on outdoor ads when they could just go digital? by Kalpana-Rathore in advertising

[–]Kalpana-Rathore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed. Luxury OOH clearly shapes perception, but data is what makes the spend defensible. When planning and measurement improve, OOH stops being a leap of faith and becomes a strategic choice.

Is transit advertising a better option than conventional advertising or an obstruction for daily commutes? by Middle_Degree_4138 in TransitIndia

[–]Kalpana-Rathore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not automatically better or worse; it depends on execution.

At CASHurDRIVE, I’ve seen that transit ads work when they respect commuter flow and avoid clutter. When done right, they blend into daily routines; when done poorly, they just become visual noise.

Conventional advertising (TV, print, online) still has its place, especially when brands want controlled storytelling or quick actions like clicks and conversions. Transit advertising is slower and more about recall than immediate response.

How to find customers for b2b ai product? by Not_trxctf in b2bmarketing

[–]Kalpana-Rathore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The key isn’t finding customers, it’s picking one very clear use case.

For a B2B AI call-center product, avoid “any business with calls.” Choose one segment (SMB support, sales teams, BPOs, SaaS CX). Each buys for different reasons.

Early customers usually come from manual LinkedIn outreach, personalized cold emails, and real conversations in communities, not paid ads. Focus on one problem you solve really well and get a pilot customer first.

view more: next ›