Phil Eastwood: Data can guide your OOH plan, but it can’t make it memorable
By Phil Eastwood, Executive General Manager, JCDecaux New Zealand
We’re in a golden age for Out‑of‑Home where it’s never been more measurable or accountable. One year into the life of knOOH – New Zealand’s unified audience measurement system – we have finally given the industry shared definitions, shared reach and evolving tools that are embracing automation and AI. For a medium that once relied on gut feel and grainy photos, that’s real progress.
But with better tools has come a quiet shift in behaviour. Not because the platforms are flawed, but because of how they’re being used.
Reach is the foundation, not the finish line
Unified reach systems give us a solid base:
• How many people have an opportunity to see
• How often, over what period
• Across which networks or locations
JCDecaux supports this evolution. It’s good for the sector and good for planning.
But reach alone doesn’t tell the full story.
Two campaigns can deliver identical reach and produce completely different outcomes:
• One uses large, high‑impact sites in strong environments
• The other spreads smaller, low‑attention frames wherever the CPM happens to be lowest
Same reach on paper. Very different impact in the real world.
Where data‑only planning gets blunt
The industry is starting to drift into patterns that look efficient on paper but flatten the craft in practice – buying whatever the tool ranks highest, optimising only to CPM, running programmatic buys without anyone checking the actual site quality, and approving “set and forget” schedules built entirely by machines. These choices create neat spreadsheets, but they rarely create campaigns people notice.
Data can tell you who you can reach, but human judgement decides whether that reach will actually matter. It’s the human layer that asks the real‑world questions the tools can’t: will people genuinely notice this, does the environment strengthen or weaken the creative, is this a quality audience in a quality context, and will anyone remember where they saw it? These aren’t anti‑data questions, they’re what stop plans from becoming generic and interchangeable.
AI is helpful, but it can’t think for you
AI can optimise CPMs, allocate budgets and generate reports. But it optimises to what you feed it: impressions, curves, cost.
It doesn’t understand attention, stature, cultural relevance or fame. If we step back entirely, we shouldn’t be surprised when outputs look efficient but unremarkable.
A better way to use the tools
Data should start the conversation, not finish it.
A few guardrails:
• Build reach and frequency, then interrogate how that reach is delivered
• Use CPM as a lens, not a ruler
• Mix CPM levels and give each a role
• Link frequency to messaging – does the repetition make sense?
• Protect space for human review: “Would I notice this?”
In every plan, identify the sites doing the heavy lifting for attention, fame, trust and brand stature. If that list is thin, the schedule is probably relying too much on data and not enough on judgment.
The quiet question every brand should ask
Once the tools have done their work and the plan looks neat, ask: “If this campaign works brilliantly, what will people remember about where they saw it?”
If the answer is vague – nothing in particular – the plan probably leans too hard on data and not enough on judgement.
If the answer includes that huge site on the commute, that spectacular near the stadium, or that beautiful digital in the airport, then you’re closer to the balance where data and intuition work together.
Our job is to make sure the campaigns themselves still feel human, distinctive and worth talking about – not just neatly optimised.
This isn’t nostalgia for a pre‑data era. It’s recognising that the future of Out‑of‑Home is strongest when technology and human insight sit side by side. Success is when people look up, notice, remember and act on your campaign.