98% of marketers fold OOH into the purchase path

The interesting number in the latest OAAA research isn’t growth — it’s proximity. The Power of Proximity: OOH Media and Its Evolving Role in Connected Commerce, run by the OAAA with Winterberry Group, finds that 98% of marketers now incorporate out-of-home into purchase-driven initiatives, and that the formats they reach for are increasingly the ones near the shelf: digital in-store screens rank second (63%), just behind digital billboards (65%). OOH is no longer being planned as a top-of-funnel awareness play and left there — it’s being slotted into the part of the journey where a purchase actually happens. For a channel like beauty, whose entire case rests on being at the point of decision, that’s the survey worth reading.

What the study found

98% of marketers incorporate OOH into purchase-driven initiatives; 86% expect OOH investment to rise over two years, 37% projecting growth of 15% or more (OAAA / Winterberry Group — primary, US marketer survey).
Formats skew to proximity: digital billboards 65%, digital in-store screens 63%, digital promotional displays 57% — the near-the-shelf surfaces lead (OAAA / Winterberry — primary).
The journey holds up: 68% of adults notice OOH ads en route to stores; 42% say OOH significantly impacts in-person purchase decisions (OAAA / Winterberry — directional, consumer-attitudinal).
Why marketers use it: cost-effective reach 52%, driving retail traffic 51%, reinforcing consistent messaging 51% — all positioned inside a $112B connected-commerce market (OAAA / Winterberry — primary, directional).

”Connected commerce” is just the funnel, closed

Strip the label and “connected commerce” means one thing: the same media plan now has to carry a shopper from notice to store to shelf to purchase, online and off, without a seam. OOH’s claim in that stack is physical proximity — it’s the medium you literally pass on the way in. The study quantifies the obvious version of that (68% notice OOH heading to stores) and the harder version (42% say it moves an in-person purchase). Both are self-reported and directional, but the direction is the point: marketers are funding OOH because it sits between intent and aisle, not because it wins a brand-awareness chart. That’s the same argument we make structurally in why OOH amplifies digital and retail media vs place-based DOOH — the channel’s edge is where it is, not what it costs.

The beauty read: the in-store screen is the proximity play

The 63% for in-store digital screens is the line a beauty operator should sit with. Beauty’s whole thesis is captive proximity — a screen in a salon, a spa, a mirror, a store aisle, in front of someone who is already in a beauty mindset. When 98% of marketers say they buy OOH for purchase outcomes and they reach first for the screens nearest the shelf, that’s demand pointed straight at the inventory beauty networks are building. The catch is the same one we never stop flagging: this study measures all OOH, and it publishes no beauty rate. None of these percentages tell you what a salon impression clears at, because no beauty CPM is published anywhere — the demand signal is real, the price still has to be modelled bottom-up.

What the study does usefully reframe is why a brand would fund the screen, and that maps onto how an operator should sell it. “Drives retail traffic” and “reinforces consistent messaging” are exactly the outcomes a beauty network should be packaging and proving — which is the work in how to add beauty DOOH to your media mix and QR & O2O attribution for beauty screens, so the proximity claim comes with a measured path from screen to purchase rather than a vibe.

The caveat that keeps us honest

This is a US marketer-sentiment survey — attitudinal, self-reported, all-OOH. It says what marketers say they do and believe, not what audited campaigns delivered, and it asserts nothing beauty-specific: no salon CPM, no spa benchmark, no category split. Treat the percentages as a demand-side temperature read — useful for why budgets are moving toward proximity, not as a performance figure. The honest dating: this dropped in March 2026 and remains the freshest authoritative read on OOH’s connected-commerce role; we’re reviewing it now against a quarter of deals (in-store screens being absorbed into retail media) that all point the same way. Beauty economics stay modelled in the Research.

Sources

OAAA / Winterberry Group — The Power of Proximity: OOH Media and Its Evolving Role in Connected Commerce, published March 12, 2026 (supported by Perion, Moving Walls, Midnight Oil), reported via OAAA: 98% of marketers incorporate OOH into purchase-driven initiatives; 86% expect investment to rise over two years (37% by 15%+); format use led by digital billboards (65%), digital in-store screens (63%), digital promotional displays (57%); 68% of adults notice OOH en route to stores, 42% say it impacts in-person purchase; positioned within a $112B connected-commerce market; quote from Patrick Dolan, OAAA COO. Primary but US, all-OOH, attitudinal — no beauty-specific rate, venue, or benchmark is asserted; consumer figures are self-reported and directional. Beauty place-based economics are modelled bottom-up in the Research.