How we work

BDOOH publishes original research, market data, benchmarks and practical guides on one category: advertising on digital screens inside beauty venues — salons, barbershops, nail bars and spas. The audience is operators building networks, agencies and advertisers evaluating the channel, and venues weighing a screen deal. This page sets out how we source what we publish, what we won't invent, how we handle mistakes, and — separately, in full — who pays for it.

How we source a figure

Every number on this site carries a source and a tag, printed next to the figure rather than buried in a footnote:

• primary — published directly by the originating body: an association, a JIC, a standards organisation, a research firm's own report. We cite it and use it as given.
• directional — single-vendor data, survey intent, or a figure used outside its native scope (a cross-venue average applied as a beauty proxy, for example). Useful for direction, not precision.

Where a figure is ours rather than a citation — our own estimate or calculation built from stated assumptions — we label it as such inline, for example "BDOOH analysis," "BDOOH estimate" or "BDOOH calculation from the published figures," and lay out the working in a methodology callout. It's not an observation; it's arithmetic we show, so a reader can check it or substitute their own numbers.

We check each figure against the original before it runs. Research and long-form pieces close with a methodology callout that lists every source and its tag; if a number is the only one of its kind, we say so instead of dressing it up as consensus.

No fabricated beauty benchmarks

The rule we hold hardest: we do not invent a beauty-specific number because a clean one would be convenient. Beauty in-venue DOOH is a young, under-measured category — there is no audited beauty CPM, no beauty screen-penetration benchmark, no beauty OOH currency published anywhere. When advertisers and operators ask for one, the honest answer is that it doesn't exist yet, not a confident guess dressed as fact. We wrote up the reasoning in full in The 'no beauty CPM' problem: where a cross-category figure can serve as a labelled proxy, we use it as one; where it can't, we either build a bottom-up model and mark it as ours, or we say plainly that the number doesn't exist.

Our own models

Part of what we publish under Research isn't an observed figure at all — it's a model: a bottom-up calculation built from stated assumptions, for questions the industry hasn't measured yet (network payback, net yield, impression multipliers). We label these as our own — "BDOOH analysis," "BDOOH estimate," or similar, spelled out next to the figure — and lay out the assumptions in a methodology section, so a reader can check our arithmetic or plug in their own numbers instead of ours.

Corrections

If you find an error — a stale figure, a misread source, a broken citation — write to hello@bdooh.com. We verify against the original source and, where a correction is warranted, fix the piece and note what changed in the sources or methodology section. We take the same care with a correction that we do with the original figure: checked before it's published as fixed.

Our relationship with adveles

BDOOH was founded and is funded by adveles, a commercial beauty DOOH technology company — hardware, cloud platform and network operations for anyone launching or running a screen network in a beauty venue. That funding is what makes this research possible, and we're not going to pretend otherwise.

Two things follow from that, and both are visible rather than hidden:

• Data access. adveles gives us access to anonymised, aggregated data from its own network — the kind of operational reality (fill rates, dwell patterns, venue mix) that an outside researcher can't easily get. Where a figure in our work comes from that access, it's tagged like any other source.
• The bridge. Every article on this site ends with a call-to-action block for adveles — you'll have seen it if you've read one. It's visually separated from the article body, not disguised as editorial content, and its link carries a UTM parameter so it's identifiable as a marketing link rather than a citation. What it doesn't do is state the funding relationship inline — that disclosure lives here, on this page, not inside the block itself.

The line: editorial decisions — what we research, what a figure means, when a benchmark doesn't exist — are ours, not adveles's, and we don't source a number from adveles and publish it as if it were independent of that relationship. What we won't claim is a dispassion we don't have; adveles built this site to be useful enough that people read it, and a credible, honest publication is the only version of that which works. Read more about who we are on About, and about how we handle your data on Privacy.

What we don't publish

Not everything we know goes on the site. The clearest example: the physical spec of a two-way-mirror display (brightness, glass) is public industry knowledge and we've written about it; the actual mount-and-assembly method for building one is not — it's proprietary operational know-how, and we've made the deliberate call to leave it out rather than publish a how-to. Where we hold something back like this, it's a narrow, specific exclusion, not a general policy of withholding — the rest of our Research and Glossary is written to be used, not teased.

Questions

If something on this site reads as unclear about a source, a model, or the adveles relationship, tell us — hello@bdooh.com. We'd rather answer the question than have you infer the worst version of it. For the latest sourced coverage, see News.