The most sustainable screen is probably the one you don't replace
The most sustainable screen is probably the one you don't replace.
Throughout my career, I have thought a lot about the tension between commercial growth and my deep appreciation for the natural world, and the resources we consume in pursuit of that growth. Much of my career has been spent helping clients commercialise media networks and justify further investment. At the same time, I have questioned whether that work was contributing enough beyond the next commercial result. It was one reason I stepped away from media for a period, and why I recently completed a Master of Sustainable Leadership.
Interestingly, that same tension helped bring me back to an industry I am passionate about and to people I know genuinely care about doing things better. At TechMedia, I can pursue strong commercial outcomes while thinking seriously about the broader impact of the infrastructure we deploy.
I believe those interests do not need to compete. One question illustrates the point. Does the client need to replace or refresh their existing hardware and network technology?
The thinking I encourage at TechMedia is to start by asking what value remains in the technology already deployed. On several occasions, we have recommended retaining infrastructure because it remains fit for purpose. New hardware and installations generate revenue, while extending the life of assets the client already owns may not. Replacing serviceable infrastructure simply because a contract has changed or newer technology is available is difficult to justify without first understanding its remaining value.
The price is easy to see. The value is harder to measure.
Procurement teams focus on project cost, while capital approval processes assess investments as depreciable assets over an assumed useful life. Both are necessary disciplines, but accounting life, technical life and economic life are different things. A fully depreciated screen that remains reliable and fit for purpose has not stopped creating value.
The cheapest compliant screen is not necessarily the lowest-cost asset. If it consumes more electricity, requires more maintenance and needs replacing sooner, its purchase price tells us little about its lifetime cost. Price is immediate. Value is realised over the life of the asset.
A better investment may reduce energy use, maintenance, downtime and future replacement costs. Those benefits emerge over different timeframes, making them harder to compare with an upfront capital price.
The environmental investment has already started
A digital display creates an environmental impact before anybody switches it on. Materials are processed, components manufactured and equipment transported and installed. Australian research into embodied carbon found steel and aluminium accounted for approximately 85 to 90 per cent of cradle-to-site emissions in the signage systems studied.
The carbon embodied in existing infrastructure has already been spent. Removing a functioning asset does not recover it. Extending its useful life lets that investment of capital and carbon keep creating value.
Sometimes replacement is the sustainable choice
While completing my Master of Sustainable Leadership, several papers I submitted examined the environmental impact of digital Out-of-Home and its increasing energy demand. In one, I looked at large-format digital displays. Electricity represented the largest component of the emissions footprint reported by some Australian OOH operators, while research suggested a large roadside digital billboard could consume many times the annual electricity of an average home.
My argument was not that we should stop digitising OOH. Continued growth should come with greater attention to energy efficiency.
Daktronics, one of TechMedia's display technology partners, provides a useful example. Its EcoSmart outdoor technology can produce the same brightness as a comparable conventional Daktronics product while consuming approximately half the power. At that level of improvement, retaining significantly less efficient technology indefinitely does not necessarily make environmental or commercial sense.
We understand this concept financially. We compare upfront investment with future value and calculate a payback period. The same discipline can be applied to carbon. Replacement creates an immediate impact, while greater efficiency creates savings over time. The question is how long those savings take to outweigh it.
Replacement isn't necessarily binary
There is a third option between keeping an ageing asset and replacing it. We can upgrade the parts that actually need upgrading.
TechMedia has recently been looking at exactly this question across existing hardware deployed in supermarkets and shopping centres. Rather than assuming an ageing network needs to be replaced, we have been looking at what can be retained, refurbished or redeployed. Where the underlying asset remains reliable and fit for purpose, we firmly believe in letting the asset sweat.
That does not mean keeping old technology for the sake of it. A screen, player, cabinet, structure and power supply do not reach the end of their useful lives at the same time. Replacing the entire asset because one component needs attention can waste capital and embodied carbon.
Daktronics' approach to display refurbishment demonstrates the same principle. Existing structures and cabinets can remain while LED modules, power supplies, receiver cards and cabling are refreshed. This reduces new material and can avoid structural works, freight, cranes and road closures while delivering newer technology.
The same thinking informs our manufacturing decisions at TechMedia. We use Australian manufacturing capability, including suppliers with recognised quality and ethical-sourcing credentials, locally sourced materials and an approach to repair, reuse and redeployment. Australian-made does not automatically mean sustainable. The value lies in provenance, local support and designing for a longer useful life.
Procurement can change the market
Through our work at TechMedia, I have been interested in the attention now given to energy consumption and ethical provenance in tenders from ASX-listed property groups. I cannot discuss individual processes, but the questions are broader than purchase price and technical compliance. The published positions of QIC, GPT, Mirvac and Scentre Group point in the same direction.
Procurement criteria influence what manufacturers and technology partners compete on. If buyers reward lower capital cost, the market will deliver lower capital cost. If buyers also value efficiency, longevity, repairability, ethical sourcing and support, those attributes acquire commercial value.
One argument I made in my Masters papers was that procurement could catalyse change. Without buyers specifying energy efficiency, manufacturers had limited commercial incentive to prioritise it. Working on the commercial side now, I am seeing those questions appear in real investment decisions.
The investment continues after installation
How we operate and maintain infrastructure determines its cost and useful life.
TechMedia manages digital assets across nearly every postcode in Australia, from Bondi to Broome and Weipa to Bridport. Around nine out of every ten alerts are resolved without anyone travelling to site. Some are resolved automatically, while our team handles others remotely. Avoiding unnecessary visits reduces cost and travel emissions while keeping equipment operating effectively for longer.
Energy consumption can also be reduced without replacing the asset. oOh!media has trialled remotely switching large-format digital displays off between 1am and 4am. Those three hours represented only around 1 to 2 per cent of audience reach but potentially around 6 per cent of the displays' energy consumption.
That raises a bigger question for the OOH industry. If a simple operating change can materially reduce energy consumption with little impact on audience delivery, why would we not apply it more broadly? There is an opportunity for the industry and its representative bodies to establish a voluntary standard for overnight operation of digital displays. Done well, it could reduce sector-wide energy use while giving sustainability-conscious brands another reason to choose OOH.
Perhaps we need to change the question
I started thinking about this as a sustainability problem. I now think it is an investment problem.
Procurement is very good at determining what an asset will cost today. The harder question is what benefit it will create over its useful life. Efficiency, reliability, repairability, upgradeability and provenance matter. The commercial purpose matters most.
Sustainable procurement should identify the better overall investment, whether that means retaining, upgrading or replacing the network.
The most sustainable screen is probably the one you don't replace. The important word is probably. The challenge is knowing when that is true.
For asset owners contemplating a network refresh, perhaps the first question should not be “What will the replacement cost?” It should be “What are we trying to improve, and how much do we actually need to replace?”
If you're considering refreshing an existing digital network, reach out to me. I'm happy to look at what you have and whether replacement is the best investment. Sometimes it will be. Sometimes an upgrade will make more sense. Sometimes the most valuable recommendation will be to keep what you've already got.