Welcome to the world of Fake OOH, CGI OOH or Faux Out Of Home, which sounds much more elegant.
This new digital/CGI/faux OOH phenomenon is having its big moment on social media: you've certainly caught FOOH in the form of giant Barbie, NIKE, Versace, Louis Vuiton, Jacquemus, British Airways, Maybelline and more - and the numbers are growing.
The FOOH trend raises several questions: what does it actually mean for media agencies? Who benefits from this advertising?
Some voices that take a puritanical approach to OOH argue that it is not OOH in the true sense of the word. Aside from the huge loss of profit, the consumer really doesn't care whether or not this advertising is real. The Maybelline ad (the subway train with the giant eyelashes and mascara) generated big headlines and a fairly decent increase in brand awareness, and the media didn't see a dime? A possible answer to this question is that (media) agencies may need to start applying a digital publishing rights policy to the use of images online. What constitutes actual use in this case? It seems that the only real winners here are the law firms who will be hotly litigating all these new cases.
This leads to the further question of whether advertising and communications need to be real to be truly effective?
Fernando Febres, Maybelline's vice president of marketing, says the idea is to keep people guessing whether an ad is genuine or not: but that's just one dimension of creating "fake" ads. Does it have a real impact on the target audience if it's not real? I think that question is fairly easy to answer: yes, creative effectiveness, reach and impact are amplified online where there are more eyes and visible comments. Realness doesn't matter; if it makes OOH more exciting, if it breaks from convention and brings it to more viewers.
And then there is the question of who actually benefits from this trend.
For any technological advancement is a) inevitable and b) should be embraced wholeheartedly and enthusiastically by the creative industries. Technology is always another dimension for creativity and should be exploited. It doesn't mean the death of the brutally simple and intelligent OOH, it just means another format for creatives to play with.
So the consumer can look at something really nice and interesting and interact with brands in a kind of Alice in Wonderland world, which is a hugely exciting experience.
Finally, brands can explore a new dimension of bringing their values to life in a world that not only has no physics, but also no limits to creative vision.
The only current losers are the buyers of OOH media, whose profits are rapidly diminishing as the digital space grows.
In conclusion, this trend is nothing more than the 2023 version of what it was when lenticular printing was invented. It's just a way for creatives and brands to do bigger and more dynamic work. The most interesting aspect is the creative that can be done for organisations with a requirement to make a major push on a target, such as Greenpeace's campaign where oil flooded the Stade de France ahead of the kickoff of the 2023 Rugby World Cup. This is an exciting example of how this 'big deception' can be used for big things and make a powerful impact and influence.
source: lbbonline.com, Dom Radcliffe, Here Be Dragons creative director
Back to blog