The campaign, created by ATM advertising specialist ATM:ad and bought by Posterscope, will enable Directgov to show onscreen advertising, including tax credit advice and money saving tips. Directgov will also provide a printed reminder on the front of every customer receipt.
The campaign is running for four weeks and is expected to deliver more than 5 million one-to-one transactions and 1.25 million take away receipts.
Maxine Mackenzie, head of marketing at Directgov, said the COI had recommended ATM advertising as a way to tap into a huge audience.
Jack Vincent, business development director at ATM:ad, said Government departments were increasingly turning to ATMs as an advertising channel.
ATM:ad enables ATM network owners, such as retail banks, to run internal third party advertising campaigns across their ATM estates. Existing clients include British Airways, Easyjet, Orange and Nivea.
Comments
Directgov are advertising on ATMs. This involves using public money to pay banks, and the agent, for time/space on the ATMs. Both the banks and the agent are providing a commercial service which means that profit can be taken from the arrangement. It is not a public service. I would question whether or not this is an effective use of public money, as a campaign on traditional media would statistically reach more people.
Also, it appears that Directgov have waded into a possible problematic area, since it is not clear that banks have the right to use their ATMs as platforms for advertising. When a person uses an ATM they are in a special contractual relationship with the host ATM provider and their own bank, via the LINK system. This is a private transaction covered by The Banking Code which states that the situation must be a confidential one and is not to be exploited. It is also possible that banks are not strictly permitted to transmit direct marketing messages, of whatever type, that do not relate to their core function i.e. the provision of financial services. A customer does not go to an ATM expecting to receive anything other than cash or a cash related service, certainly not to be advertised or preached to. ATMs are special environments; they are not intended as advertising spaces or soap boxes.
The question is, whether banks should be profiting from the special hold they have over a captive audience at the ATM, and whether or not a third party commercial enterprise, or a public body including the government, is inadvertently benefiting from what is arguably an abuse of the privileged bank-customer relationship.
My advice to Directgov is to check the facts about the use of ATMs as public message platforms, and not take the current situation of ATMs being used as advertising spaces at face value.
Comments
Michael Allan - 10/03/2008
Directgov are advertising on ATMs. This involves using public money to pay banks, and the agent, for time/space on the ATMs. Both the banks and the agent are providing a commercial service which means that profit can be taken from the arrangement. It is not a public service. I would question whether or not this is an effective use of public money, as a campaign on traditional media would statistically reach more people. Also, it appears that Directgov have waded into a possible problematic area, since it is not clear that banks have the right to use their ATMs as platforms for advertising. When a person uses an ATM they are in a special contractual relationship with the host ATM provider and their own bank, via the LINK system. This is a private transaction covered by The Banking Code which states that the situation must be a confidential one and is not to be exploited. It is also possible that banks are not strictly permitted to transmit direct marketing messages, of whatever type, that do not relate to their core function i.e. the provision of financial services. A customer does not go to an ATM expecting to receive anything other than cash or a cash related service, certainly not to be advertised or preached to. ATMs are special environments; they are not intended as advertising spaces or soap boxes. The question is, whether banks should be profiting from the special hold they have over a captive audience at the ATM, and whether or not a third party commercial enterprise, or a public body including the government, is inadvertently benefiting from what is arguably an abuse of the privileged bank-customer relationship. My advice to Directgov is to check the facts about the use of ATMs as public message platforms, and not take the current situation of ATMs being used as advertising spaces at face value.