I would be in support of any of the following:

1. Anonymous (unidentified) path tracking

2. Anonymous (unidentified) gaze tracking without demographic profiling

3. Opt-in id-based path/gaze tracking as long as there is an easily-accessible opt-out method and frequent renewal notification.

However, I personally would never select option #3 for myself or my family, because I wouldn't trust the retailer with that depth of information about my habits (even though I'm ok with most -- but not all -- loyalty programs that actually track purchases).

How do you sell ads in a completely dynamic environment like this? That's a problem. Isn't it hard enough to convince media buyers to buy into digital signage? This can not be an easier sell. :-) I really only see this technology used for pilots to study traffic patterns in store to gather a statistically relevant sample size, for the demographic makeup of the audience. No personal invasion here. The information is used to improve your message, but not to the point of invading personal privacy. One exception is of course a kiosk application, which by definition is "opt in". No problems there.

From the content development point of view, this type of data can be very valuable and could lead to improved engagement. I am skeptical, however; that this data will be used properly or at all. I think there are many companies out there struggling to segment the data they already have gathered. So, I agree in saying that shopper gaze tracking works best for pilot studies and research. Either way, most people will agree that individual identities should remain completely anonymous.

I think tracking will be endorsed by consumers if it becomes a value to them and makes them save time and get the information they need faster. From the consumer's perspective, what value would tracking bring me? Time is the new currency and anything that allows me to save time will be a huge benefit. I believe this is the case for most people out there. Here is what I would like as a consumer: 1. Have the option to opt in or not to the system. 2. By opting in, I accept to be "tracked" but I also want the store to recognize my profile and offer me specials about things of interest to me. All this information would be stored in the system. I can be therefore be informed about products that I need, where to find them, and if they are available now. 3. As a consumer, I will feel safe if I know that there is some strict regulations about the use of tracking systems. This would require some kind of tracking police to make sure that information is used properly. In order to be successful, I think this has to be a 2-way deal. If consumers gain a lot by using such system, they will adhere to it. If stores use it according to strict regulations and do not abuse privacy, it will be successful.

I think I'd be able to count with my elbows the number of people who'd bother to opt in. Why is a camera and PC that's counting but not caching images, doing some demographic parsing, more sinister than some poor slobs with clipboards standing around in a store doing pretty much the same thing, but far less efficiently? Would shoppers get freaked out and accost these people, saying, "Hey, you can't note that I looked at a screen and that I am male and, well, heading over the hill!!!"

If gaze capture can cost-justifiably help to increase ad rates (through better measurement), while even helping advertisers to present more relevant objectives-achieving ads/content, then "gas peddle to the metal" on eye gaze. My review of several products is that they can do just that. Now are network operators (ad-based or internal) prepared to live to the reality of their viewership as they transition to a different media model? I think the transition is do-able. Everybody wins.

Funny...

We actually started doing this in field last Friday for a major brand.

It is anonymous. There is no profiling. We will build that for our clients...

Look for more news about this soon.

As previously stated by of the cometators, this type of system normally operate without storing any footage while in operation. In addition most of the known automated in-store audience measurement vendors automatically mask the shoppers faces (even the entire scene can be masked, but with colour shapes to denote the position of male/ female viewer faces). "Most" camera based traffic counters look straight down also providing reasonable anonymity (again no data stored. There is a move however for CCTV Security companies to move into this area by adding this type of feature to CCTV systems that do record and are full intended to track, identify and record for later retrieval. This is where the opt in will be impossible, therefore it may be better that these solutions are limited to the single task if legislation is called for? Notwithstanding security cameras are pervasive already and any footage required could already be retrieved from security camera footage for review. By the way the next level is recognising the same face in different locations in the store (face matching) to see if the person that saw the add visited and interacted with the brand.

cameras, prying, intelligence gathering, privacy, video surveillance, anonymous, mask the shoppers faces......some of the words used frequently in the previous responses. What makes us think that consumers want to be subject to secret measuring gadgets that tap into their personal habits when all they want to do is buy a roll of toilet paper and get out of the store. One would think that measuring and increasing the "shoppers experience" can we done minus the violation.

A couple of additional points:
(1) Companies paying for ads say that measuring eyes-on-screen is better than measuring feet-passing-by. Correlating with sales-uplift is even better (and some methods for uplift correlation don't require gaze-tracking).
(2) Demographic tracking can improve the viewer experience (if done well) and without compromising anyone's privacy. This goes beyond the oft-told example of playing 'Centrum Silver' ads only to audiences with grey hair. Average demographics shift by day-of-week and time-of-day. Eventually, in-store advertising content will track the shifting demographics (e.g. fewer young people buying groceries in the middle of the day - but many in the store during evenings). Additionally, keeping track of which people-attributes correlate with attention paid to particular ads can also provide valuable feedback for ad-content improvement, particularly within already-identified demographic shifts.

Cameras everywhere are now a fact of life, driven primarily by safety, security and lawbreaking. So, I don't believe that we will see rampant objections to the technology as long as those who do raise the red flag are given a rational logic supporting their use.

I do, however, have more than a few doubts as to the efficacy of this technology on a standalone basis. It can certainly become a useful data point among others in the quest to develop the "currency" that digital signage will eventually trade in, but a lot of supporting and correlational data will also have to be generated as well to complete the picture. And, as Harry Nielsen wrote, it may actually generate the greatest value by providing information supporting audience day parting, creative testing and content management.

Its funny to see so many people pass judgement on a technology they have really never used...and I mean REALLY use, not ust a "demo" they got a a trade show. You have to really entrench this kind of technology in your business model and in your philosophical way of thinking about marketing,.

The fact is that any, and I mean ANY network today that is being built today that enables marketers to place media for a fee has to be built on the premise that data can be generated.

The days of people standing around with clipboards and a pen are finished.

Thats about it. There are way too many platforms out there that invites marketers to allocate funds to. The platforms that can demonstrate data will win.

Yes the technology is anonymous and yes it provides network operators with a clear metric on the effectiveness of campaigns.

Think positive...not negative.