Q1: Is TC patent as strong as it appears to be?
A1: The claims do read quite broad – though do not seem to extend to either closed-captioned situations (e.g. DOOH installs at a baseball stadium where only the local baseball game is being shown non-remotely) or to a broadcaster’s ability to integrate squeeze ads into their broadcast stream. But for the vast majority of DOOH applications that most people are thinking about, it is one of two ways to get the job done if you’re trying to get a digital display to serve “double duty” as both regular TV (showing content) and DOOH display (showing ads).

Why one of two ways?

The major limitation to the TC patent is clearly stated in the initial claims: it is for placement of squeeze/ancillary ads alongside broadcast content in a manner that is completely “independent” of the viewer’s choice/control of the primary content.

The other approach is to have the placement of ads be “dependent” upon the viewer’s choice (namely channel selection). This requires media-detection technology to understand what channel is being watched (e.g. a slightly different application of what Nielsen Media Research does to understand channel tuning for audience measurement purposes).

Based on experience from my strategy & technology consulting at Nielsen – with a focus on new approaches to audience measurement – I invented a means of doing the “dependent” approach to DOOH squeeze ads.

For some situations, I believe that my “context dependent” approach will be more valuable, as it permits better targeting of ads (e.g. if bar is watching ESPN then sports ad is shown, but if watching CNN then financial ad is shown).

But, frankly, whether TargetCast’s patented or my patent-pending approach is more valuable/appropriate will vary by specific venue. (For example, a gym may want to show only energy drink ads, regardless of what channel is being watched, such that TargetCast’s approach is preferable).

Q2) Being used outside of North America….where no force of law.
A2) I’m not aware of either the “independent” or “dependent” approaches being used outside US. But I would not assume that TargetCast has not filed for patent coverage in other countries — perhaps they did and simply haven’t disclosed it yet. There can be significant lag times between different countries’ issuance of patents.

Q3) Other patented technologies?
A3) I’m only aware of TargetCast’s and my own (both my original invention and the improvements, including those that I’ve discussed with the CTO of a strategic partner/licensee). However, I believe that some of the larger juke box companies (like TouchTunes and Rowe) have large enough R&D budgets — and are familiar with the role of IP in competitive strategies — that they might have some pending patents up their sleeves. However, my guess is that any such inventions are probably narrower in scope compared to TC’s or my own.

It is my belief that patents will be a huge driver of competitive dynamics in the DOOH space over the next few years – in terms of recruiting venues, satisfying both viewers and advertisers, and obtaining price premiums / economic rents that will make a huge difference as the DOOH industry consolidates.

One of my sources for this piece told me that the new patented technology mentioned in this article is really quite a breakthrough. Obviously, if TargetCast is the only U.S. Digital Out-of-Home network operator that has the technical and legal capability to insert private venue-specific content on to the screens that are already playing standard cable-TV fare at bars and restaurants, that IS a big deal, at least here in the USA

I would like to invite readers of the DailyDOOH to comment on this question. Specifically:

1)
Do you know if this TargetCast patent is is as strong as it appears to be?

2)
Is this type of technology being used outside North America (where this patent apparently has no force of law behind it) by any other Digital Out-of-Home operators?

3)
Are you seeing any other patented technologies being deployed around the world by Digital Out-of-Home network operators that appear to be significant enough to erect barriers to entry that would keep competitors out of specific types of Digital Out-of-Home venues in some national markets?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill Collins
http://www.decisionpointmedia.com
LinkedIn profile: http://tinyurl.com/lgun7y