Outdoor Advertising Recall

This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]On: 21 February 2013, At: 07:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Current Issues & Research in AdvertisingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

Outdoor Advertising Recall: A Comparison of NewerTechnology and Traditional BillboardsAnne C. Osborne Ph.D. a c & Renita Coleman Ph.D. b da Sponsored Research & Programs at the Manship School of Mass Communication, LouisianaState University, USAb University of Texas-Austin's School of Journalism, USAc University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USAd University of Missouri, USAVersion of record first published: 07 May 2012.

To cite this article: Anne C. Osborne Ph.D. & Renita Coleman Ph.D. (2008): Outdoor Advertising Recall: A Comparison ofNewer Technology and Traditional Billboards, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 30:1, 13-30

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2008.10505235

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2008.10505235

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Outdoor Advertising Recall: A Comparison of Newer Technology and Traditional Billboards

Anne C. Osborne and Renita CoZeman

Much of the research on outdoor advertising predates recent technological advances. This study updates past research and adds to our understanding of how new technology such as "smartboards "afecfs consumers' recall of outdoor messages. This studyfinds that smartboards produced the lowest level of aided recall. Two related factors, message consistency and repetition, may accountfor thesefindings. Recall may be related to repetition insofar as the smartboard rotated multiple advertisers at eight-second intervals, meaning each advertiser likely failed to achieve wear-in. The tri-vision board repeated multiple messages for one advertiser, adding to wear-in while reducing the chance of early wear-out.

Today's outdoor media have come a long way since the days of hand-painted, two-dimensional signs. Bill- boards now feature three-dimensional figures such as the Chik-fil-a cows and can cover entire buildings such as the Godzilla board that covered one entire side of the Hyatt Hotel on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles (Jensen 1998). Signs designed as a set of tri- angular columns have replaced many static boards, allowing three messages to rotate. Taking the technology further, "smartboards," which look almost like giant flat-screen televisions, can upload images via telephone lines, allowing outdoor companies to change billboard images from second to second. And while the term outdoor generally still means billboards, it also includes a diversity of alternate formats such as street furniture and transit advertising (OAAA 2003). Transit advertising "can now talk to you (via short wave radio links), download data into your Palm Pi- lot (through a patented Street Beam device), connect you to the internet (via souped up taxi tops), and change as you pass by (through motion detectors)" (OAAA, "Ten Ways Outdoor ..." 2003). While the term outdoor (also called out-of-home) has expanded to cover a number of advertising formats, billboards still account for 62% of all outdoor advertising spending (OAAA, "Facts and Figures" 2006).

Anne C. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Tennessee -Knoxville) is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean For Sponsored Research & Programs at the Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisi- ana State University. (email: [email protected]) Renita Coleman (Ph.D., University of Missouri) is an Assistant Professor in the University of Texas-Austin's School of Journalism. (email: [email protected]) Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Lamar Out- door Advertising for its financial support of this research and for providing details about the billboards under investigation.

As the number of outdoor advertising formats has grown, so has spending in this medium. According to Adverfising Age's "2006 Fact Pack," annual spending on outdoor advertising by the U.S. increased by 6% to $5.77 billion in 2004 (2006, p. 10). Top spenders in outdoor advertising included Time Warner, Anheuser/Busch, General Motors and Verizon (p. 10). According to the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, spending in out of home advertising increased another 8.0% in 2005 (OAAA, "Outdoor Ad- vertising Expenditures" 2006). Outdoor's percent increase in 2005 was bested only to Internet (13.3%) and cable television (1 1.4%). Network television ex- perienced a 3.5% decline while national newspapers spending sank 2.1%. Magazines saw a modest increase of 4.9%. (Advertising Age, "Ad Spending . . ." 2006).

The facts and figures attest to the importance of outdoor as an advertising medium; yet marketers have little knowledge of who views outdoor advertising or how effectively audiences recall outdoor messages. Advertisers currently base audience measurement figures on the number of vehicles that drive by a board, as reported by the Traffic Audit Bureau. Arbitron and AC Nielsen spent several years racing to develop a more specific ratings system that will make demographic segmentation easier (Yin 2003). In 2004 Nielsen announced that it would launch a global ratings system that would use GPS technology to track audiences and correlate their movements to known outdoor advertising sites (Sass 2005). Yet the new ratings will tell us nothing about message recall. The academic research on outdoor advertising recall pre-

lournnl of Cztrrent lsstles nnd Research in Advertising, Volume 30, Number 1 (Spring 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

14 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

dates the industry‘s many technological advances. This study extends the literature on outdoor advertising to include new technology such as the “smartboards.” Thereby, this study offers an initial investigation of outdoor advertising’s current effectiveness given recent advance in technology that have changed how we experience the medium. The findings also will help the industry assess the added value of new outdoor technology.

Literature Review

Outdoor Advertising EfSectiveness Advertising studies abound but have tended to fo-

cus on television advertising. There exist two likely reasons for the lack of outdoor advertising research. First, the dominance of television as an advertising medium has pushed it to the front of research agen- das. Another reason for the dearth of outdoor research may be that the experimental methods used to study advertising effectiveness in other media simply do not work for outdoor advertising. It is much more difficult to create a realistic outdoor viewing experience in a research lab (Donthu et al. 1993).

Despite the lack of recent research on outdoor advertising, there are noteworthy studies. The Institute of Outdoor Advertising (IOA) conducted two of the earliest studies, one in 1975 that used the name of the newly crowned Miss America as the advertised billboard message and another in 1982 that advertised Clark candy bars. Both studies found significant increases in message awareness and recall. King and Tinkham (1990) conducted an experiment to measure people’s ability to name the 30th U.S. president both before and after placing billboards generating a 100 GRP monthly showing in the Athens, GA market. They found a significant increase in survey respondents’ learning of the advertised message as well as significant retention of the message for up to two months after the billboards were removed.

These studies suggest the effectiveness of outdoor as an advertising medium and have identified several factors that contribute to consumers’ recall of billboards. Our study extends knowledge of outdoor advertising by testing aided recall of newer, more innovative outdoor formats, specifically the new com- puterized smartboards.

Advertising and Repetition Most research on repetition in advertising has fo-

cused on television. More than 30 years ago, Krugman

(1965) first proposed the idea that mere repetition of a message may be sufficient to induce a change in consumers’ beliefs about a product or product category. He explained that the “public lets down its guard to repetitive commercial use of the television medium” (p. 354). Similarly Zajonc (1968) suggests that a person’s attitudes toward non-persuasive stimuli are positively associated with exposure. He attributes this correlation to our desire for the familiar. Subsequent research has shown this effect to be more pronounced for low-involvement persuasion (see, e.g., Hawkins and Hoch 1992). In other words, repetition has greater effects when consumers lack the motivation to scruti- nize the validity of a persuasive message.

While repetition can have positive effects, others (Petty and Cacioppo 1979; Calder and Sternthall980; Belch 1982) have found that repeated messages reach a point of wear-out. Belch found that consumers’ attitudes and intent to purchase were not affected by repeated exposures but that the number of negative thoughts did increase after three to five exposures in a one-hour period. These findings suggest that consumers become bored and somewhat irritated with advertising messages after a certain point.

The repetition research has focused on testing persuasive or cognitive effects rather than mere recall. However, Law et al. (1998) found that positive effects of repetition on belief were more pronounced among the elderly. They suggest this is because elderly consumers are more likely to make certain types of memory errors. Hawkins et al. (2001) write, ”this research confirmed the mediating role of memory in repetition-induced belief” (p. 2). In other words, one can assume that repetition, in order to have other positive attitude effects, also must positively correlate with memory of the message. Based on the literature showing repetition generally increases recall, we make the following prediction about regular and tri-vision boards, which receive the most repetition, and smartboards, which receive the least.

H1: Regular and lri-vision boards will be recalled sigruficantly better than smartboards

Clutter and Advertising Recall As previously noted, the past research on outdoor

advertising predates the widespread use of technological advances such as the smartboards. It also predates additional splintering of consumers’ media usage, which increases potential distractions - many drivers now have cell phones, DVD players and satel- lite radios in their cars. Much has been made of consumers’ overexposure to advertising and media.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 15

Marketers are concerned that such saturation may impede consumers’ attention to and attitudes toward advertising. Brown and Rothschild (1993), for example, conducted experiments to examine the impact of television clutter on brand recall. They found, contrary to earlier findings, that there was no significant correlation between higher levels of clutter and reduced aided and unaided recall. While the findings of research on advertising clutter have been mixed, a recent study of radio advertising recall found that listeners exposed to a low-clutter environment recalled a significantly higher portion of advertisements than did those exposed to high clutter. Low-clutter listeners also had greater recognition of the advertising (Riebe and Dawes 2006). None of the advertising clutter studies have incorporated cell phone use into their measures, yet research shows that using a cell phone while driving increases the risk of automobile accidents and decreases visual attention, including recognition of billboards (Strayer, Drews and Johnston 2003). There- fore, this study will retest earlier findings and build on them by examining the concurrent use of cell phones and other entertainment media. The first hypothesis refers to the dependent variable of aided recall, and the second refers to attention:

H2a: Distractions such as cell phone use, listening to radio, and having other passengers in the car will be significantly associated with lower levels of aided recall of billboards.

H2b: Distractions such as cell phone use, listening to radio, and having other passengers in the car will be significantly associated with lower attention to these boards.

Word of Mouth The King and Tinkham study (1990) found signifi-

cant word-of-mouth activity, i.e., consumers talked with friends and, particularly, family about the billboards. The researchers did not, however, test for correlation between word-of-mouth and their dependent variable, learning. While there is no research on the effects of word-of-mouth regarding advertisements themselves, researchers have examined the power of word-of-mouth marketing to drive sales of products. For example, Liu (2006) found that online word-of- mouth about movies significantly correlates to box office sales. Similarly, Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006) found that customer reviews of books significantly correlate to higher online book sales. These studies suggest the power of peer-to-peer communication as

a marketing tool but do not address whether such engagement with the product message affects recall. Other research has demonstrated that greater interaction or involvement with the advertising medium may increase recall of the advertisement (see, e.g., Nelson 2002), though extreme arousal by the medium, particularly television programming, may distract the viewer from the advertisements (Newell, Henderson and Wu 2001). Outdoor is unique in that the medium is the advertisement; there is no other content to distract the viewer. Given the literature on both word-of- mouth and how involvement with a medium affects advertising recall we make the following prediction.

H3: Talking with others about the ads will be significantly associated with im- proved aided recall.

Attitudes Toward Advertising Those respondents who tend to have positive feel-

ings toward advertising and who claim to pay more attention to outdoor boards showed higher recall levels (Donthu et al., 1993). Findings were based on telephone respondents’ recall of 10 newly placed billboards. Bhargava and Donthu (1994) expanded on these earlier findings, testing similar executional and respondent variables’ effects on aided recall using a database of 282 outdoor advertising campaigns span- ning from 1978 to 1991. Our study retests the influ- ence of self-reported general attitudes toward advertising and self-reported attention to outdoor advertising on respondents’ aided recall.

Speck and Elliott (1997) examined advertising avoidance across four media: newspaper, magazines, television and radio. They found attitudes toward advertising accounted for the most variance in ad avoidance for all media though there were differences among print and broadcast. As they explain, ”people who view print ads as interesting and useful are not likely to avoid them. People who view television commercials as annoy- ing or not credible are likely to avoid them” (p. 72). Demographic factors are less predictive of ad avoidance than are attitudes toward advertising. Still age and income were significantly correlated to ad avoidance. Interestingly, older consumers tend to avoid newspaper advertising, while younger view- ers avoid television advertising. Higher levels of income were significantly related to ad avoidance for all media. Based on Speck and Elliott’s research, our study will examine how demographic characteristics as well as attitudes toward and attention to advertising affect aided recall of billboards.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3


Because we wish to compare findings of more than a decade ago to today, we ask a research question rather than make a prediction:

RQl: What respondent variables-attitudes toward and attention to advertising as well as demographics-best predict higher aided recall of these billboards?

Structural Features of Billboards Donthu and colleagues (1993) examined structural

factors influencing aided and unaided recall of outdoor advertising messages. They found that "black and white ads located on the right-hand side of the highway and that had few words were more effective than color ads on the left-hand side of surface streets and that had many words" (p. 71). In addition to the survey designed to answer the above hypotheses and research questions, we conducted a content analysis to examine what structural features of the boards were influential in improving recall. Because we added previously un- tested structural variables, we ask an exploratory question:

RQ2: What structural features of the billboards show significant differences in aided recall?

Method This study was conducted in two parts: a telephone

survey of randomly sampled adult residents of a mid- size Southern city who drive along a one-mile stretch of the city's maininterstate at least once a week; and a content analysis of the s t r u w a l features of the billboards on this part of the interstate in order to explore the impact of structural features on aided recall. A local outdoor advertising company interested in the effectiveness of newer billboard technologies paid for the survey portion of the study. This same company provided data used for the content analysis portion of the study.

Study 1, the survey, tested the three hypotheses and answered the first research question; the content analysis answered the second research question. Given the difficulty of creating realistic test environments for outdoor advertising, the researchers chose to use existing billboards on a particular stretch of highway and to rely on statistical analysis to control for factors such as length of campaign and GRP level of advertising in the market. This stretch of interstate was cho- sen because it carries standard boards (20 boards), a tri-vision board (1 board rotating 3 sides for 1 advertiser) and a smartboard (1 board rotating 13 ads). Therefore one who drives this stretch would neces- sarily be exposed to all three formats allowing us to

compare recall across outdoor format. Given relative newness of smartboards, there are few section of interstate that include all three formats in close proxim- ity that would allow such comparison. See Appendix A for a list of advertisers.

Study 1. The survey was conducted by a non-profit, university-associated polling center. Interviewers were professionals trained by the polling center. Random- digit dialing yielded 517 completed responses over the course of one week in June 2003. Taking into consid- eration those who did not fit the criteria of driving along the designated area or were not at least 18 years old, this represents a 48.14% qualified cooperation rate.

Aided recall was measured by prompting participants with a list of advertisers. The question of how to measure advertising effectiveness has beleaguered the industry and researchers for decades. Two methods commonly used and hotly debated are recall and recognition. Recall is measured when a respondent is asked to remember the ads seen while reading a maga- zine or watching a television program. Recognition, on the other hand, is measured by showing participants sample ads and asking if they remember any. Although no definitive answer to the debate has been reached, a look at current research regarding advertising in a variety of media suggests that recall is the most effective measure.

Wells (2000) explains, with regard to print advertising research, "recognition scores have little if anything to do with memory. Instead, they represent the respondent's subjective estimate of the probability that he looked at the ad when he went through the issue before" (p. 20). According to Wells recognition tends to measure the attractiveness/likeability of the ad. While likeability may relate to an ad's ability to convey the desired message, it does not guarantee that the message or brand name is remembered. Therefore, Wells con- tends, "Recall scores reflect the advertisement's ability to register the sponsor's name, and to deliver a mean- ingful message to the consumer" (p. 20).

This study, therefore, focused on measuring recall, specifically aided recall, of billboards. Aided recall is measured not by showing examples of the ad as in recognition measures, but by prompting respondents with the name of the advertiser. Aided recall has been used in past outdoor advertising research (see, e.g., Bhargava and Donthu 1994) and therefore would allow us to make the greatest comparison to past research. In addition, we felt aided recall would be the more accurate measure given the number of boards tested and that, in an effort to test a more realistic set- ting, we relied on boards already present in the market rather than erecting boards specifically for this study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 17

Participants’ attitudes toward the advertisements were measured using a series of 5-point Likert scaled statements (Cronbach‘s alpha=.69; see Appendix B for question wording). Our Cronbach‘s alpha is 1/ looh of a point below the recommended cutoff of .70 for the lower range (Streiner and Norman 2003; DeVellis 2003); however, these questions have been used in numerous other studies with higher reliability coefficients. Alpha values are a function of the number of items in the scale; it may take 14 items to show acceptable reliability (Streiner 1996); the scale as origi- nally developed only includes 10 items, and we used all 10. Because these questions have been shown to have alpha levels of .88 in other studies (Donthus et al. 1993; Deshpande, Hoyer, and Donthu 1986), we have confi- dence in the internal consistency of the scale and de- cided to accept the slightly lower alpha value.

Respondents rated their level of agreement with 10 attitude statements previously used and validated in a number of other studies (see, e.g., Donthu et al. 1993). To further evaluate involvement with the advertising format or product, respondents were asked four questions about how much attention they paid to advertising in newspapers, magazines, television and billboards in general (Cronbach’s alpha=.77), one question about how much they talked about the advertisements with others (King and Tinkham 1990), and one question about how much attention they paid to these specific boards. Responses were measured with 7-point Likert scales ranging from ”little to none” to ”a great deal.” In addition, to determine if other distractions may affect recall of outdoor advertising, respondents were asked about their driving habits. Specifically, they were asked how often they use a cell phone, listen to the radio, or have other passengers in the car while driving along the designated area. Finally, data were gathered on respondents’ media use including how often they read newspapers, magazines, and watched TV, using the same 7-point scales. The survey concluded with basic demographic and lifestyle information about each respondent. (See Appendix B for the complete survey.)

Study 2. In the content analysis portion of the study, one undergraduate and one graduate student were extensively trained by the researchers. Intercoder reliability ranged from .80 to 1.0. The two coders independently coded the structural features of all 20 regular boards on this stretch of highway. The smartboards’ structural features were not coded because visuals of the actual boards were not available. The variables that were coded were drawn from the literature on previous studies that showed these structural features made a difference in recall (Donthu et al. 1993; Bhargava and Donthu 1994).

The variables and their operational definitions included type of item advertised, with four levels including product, service, entertainment or media, and other. A product was defined as something tangible. Restaurants were coded as ”service.” Entertainment and media included TV and radio stations, plays or musical performances. Number of words was counted, excluding words on a logo. Addresses, phone numbers, or web site URLs were counted as one word. Text size had four levels; large was defined as more than one-third the height of the board, medium was between one-fourth and one-third the height of the board, small was less than one-fourth the board’s height. There was a category for mixed type sizes. Typeface had three levels, standard was defined as any typical serif or san serif font that might be found in print or on a word processing program; decorative was any typeface that appeared to have been created for that particular advertiser; handwriting, spray paint- ing, cursive, etc. There was also a mixed category. Clean or Cluttered was defined by the number of elements such as headlines, visuals, taglines, and logos; cluttered had more than three elements, and clean had fewer. Readability was defined as readable if the type could be easily processed from a distance with six to eight seconds to examine the board. Unreadable type required more than eight seconds of scrutinizing or was not clear from a distance. Dominant visual was categorized as either text, image, or mixed.

Coders also coded variables that related to percep- tions of the advertised product or service. Perceived price was defined as the cost of an average, one-time use of the product or service. A subscription service such as cell phone was coded for the average billing unit, for example, one month of service. Price was coded as inexpensive if it was under $100; moderate if it was between $101 and $1,000, and expensive if it was over $1,000. Product awareness was defined by the history of the advertising campaign. Coding was based on the perception of how widely the product or service was advertised and known in the market and whether it was a well-recognized brand. High was defined as very well known, a household name, one that anyone who had lived in the community for a year or more would easily recognize. Medium was defined as a well-established business, service, or product, one that most people would recognize but others would not. Low was defined as a new or not widely recognized name, one that would require some expla- nation for most people in the market.

Finally, boards were coded based on the type of selling message employed. Number of concepts, ideas, and information points communicated was counted.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3


An address, web address, phone number or exit number was each counted as one information point. The main selling message, generally communicated in the headline, was another information point or concept. Overall appeal was coded as either emotional or informational. If it played more upon a rational appeal to the consumer such as reasonable price, convenient location, wide selection, it was informational. It was coded emotional if it appealed to the consumer’s feelings, such as feeling happier, safer, more accepted if you use this product or service. Humor is generally an emotional appeal as are pure image campaigns. The main purpose of the billboard was categorized as either directional, which emphasized location, particularly exits, price or value, or image, which included the personality of the product or service. “Other” was also a category. The boards also were coded for whether they had a brand differentiating strategy, which was defined as the board trying to distinguish the advertised brand from competitors either through an overt reference to another brand or by implying a more general difference. For example, low(er) prices, better quality, greater selection. Image advertising often employs brand differentiation by implying a unique personality for the brand such as Dodge is the tough truck; for communication of product benefit, defined as the sat- isfaction of a need including Maslow’s hierarchy of needs such as food, safety, shelter, acceptance, love, self-actualization, and esteem of friends and colleagues; and communication of product performance, defined as whether the ad claimed that a product or service was the best, better, cheaper, easy, or fast.

The billboard company supplied information about the boards’ location on the left or right side of the road; format including standard, smartboard or tri-vision rotating; length of campaign, and relative weight of the campaign measured in gross rating points.

The two independent coders were trained on photographs of billboards not located on this highway. Intercoder reliability was calculated using Scott’s Pi for nominal variables because it corrects for chance agreement, and Pearson’s correlation for the interval and ratio level variables. Reliability calculations using Scott’s Pi were: Type of product/service etc.=.93; Text size= .SO; Type face=.95; Cluttered / clean=.80; Readability=.80; Dominant visual=.85; Perceived price=l.O; Product awareness=.92; Overall appeal=.80; Main purpose=.87; Brand differentiating strategy=l.O; Product benefit=l.O; Product performance=.71. Number of words, r=.95; Number of concepts, r=.92.

Results

Study I. Of the 517 survey respondents, 60% were female. The average age was 40 with ages ranging from 18 to 99. Eighteen percent were age 18-24; 21% were 25-34; 43% were 35-54, and 18% were 55 or older. The respondents were fairly well educated: 32% held college degrees and 27% had some college, 19% had graduate education, which is not surprising since the city is home to two universities. Sixty-seven percent were white and 27% were African American, which also is reflective of this Southern city’s racial makeup. The respondents were nearly evenly split on marital status (58% were currently married) and on children who lived with them (52% had no children at home).

Respondents had fairly low self-reported attitudes toward advertising and attention levels to these billboards and advertising in general. Using the scale where 1 was “little to none” and 7 was ”a great deal,” respondents’ mean attention level to these boards was 2.9 (sd=1.7), to ads in general was 2.9 (sd=1.4), and the mean attitude toward advertising was 2.4 (sd=.53).

In general, these boards garnered fairly high aided recall. When prompted by the name of the advertiser, 66% of respondents recalled the tri-vision board. Two other boards received 60% or greater aided recall rates. Four more boards were remembered by more than 50% of respondents, and another four boards were recalled by more than 40% of respondents. All the boards were recalled by at least some of the respondents, with the lowest rate of aided recall at 6% (see Appendix A for aided recall rates of each board).

Regular and tri-vision boards will be recalled significantly better than smartboards.

H1:

This hypothesis was supported. The tri-vision board received the highest aided recall rate, with 66% of the respondents remembering it. The smartboard ads, however, were among the worst in aided recalled, ranging from 6%-the worst aided recall rate of all the boards-to 35% at the highest. When indices were created, one for all regular boards and one for all smartboards, there was a statistically significant difference in aided recall, with respondents remembering significantly more regular boards (f=45.23, df=554, p<.OOl). Respondents recalled nearly twice as many regular boards as smartboards (Regular M=.41, sd=.21; Smartboard M=.19, sd=.20). This relationship remained even when we controlled for various factors, including the number of times a person drives that stretch of highway (F=303.82, df=l, 1097, pc.001). The covariate of driving by the boards more often was significant (F=10.05, df=l, 1097, p<.Ol), but it explained less of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 19

variance (etu2=.009) than whether the board was a regular board or a smartboard (eta2=.217).

H2a: Distractions such as cell phone use, listening to radio, and having other passengers in the car will be significantly associated with lower levels of aided recall of these billboards.

This hypothesis was partly supported. Using a regression equation that controlled for demographic variables such as gender, age, education, marital status, children, income and race, data indicate that having passengers in the car and talking on a cell phone are significantly related to lower aided recall of billboards, but listening to music or talk radio are not (Passengers B=-.032, s.e.=.013, p<.05; Cell phone B=- .039, s.e.=.015, p<.Ol). (See Table 1.) Most of the respondents had something to distract them from the boards when they drove this stretch of highway; 91% said they always, frequently or sometimes listened to the radio; 71% always, frequently or sometimes had passengers; and 57% always, frequently, or sometimes talked on a cell phone.

H2b: Distractions such as cell phone use, listening to radio, and having other passengers in the car will be signhcantly associated with lower attention to these boards.

Not only was this hypothesis not supported, there was a significant relationship in the direction oppo- site of that predicted for one variable. Listening to music or talk radio was significantly and positively correlated with higher self-reported attention paid to these boards (B=.231, s.e.=.098, p<.05), after control- ling for demographics including gender, age, education, marital status, children, race, and income. Cell phone use and having passengers in the car showed no significant correlation to attention to these boards.

H3: Talking with others about the ads will be significantly associated with im- proved aided recall.

This hypothesis was supported. Talking with others about these billboards was significantly and positively correlated with recall (r=.317, pc.001). There were some other interesting relationships between talking with others and various variables. For instance, people who talked frequently with others about the boards paid more attention to ads in general (u=.259, p<.OOl), and had better attitudes toward advertising (r=.241, pc.001). These people who discussed billboards with others were also more likely to have passengers in the car when they drove this stretch of highway (rz.19, p<.OOl).

RQ1: What respondent variables best predict higher aided recall of these billboards?

To answer this question, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis. In the first model, we entered demographics including gender, age, education, income, marital status, children and race. In the second model, we included situational variables including how often participants drove that stretch of highway, if they had passengers in the car, listen to music or talk on cell phones. In the third model, we entered attitudinal variables including how much attention they paid to these boards, how much attention they paid to ads in general, the index of their attitude towards advertising, whether they talked with people about these boards, and an index of their media use. All three mod- els were significant, but the final model was significantly better than the first two (R’ change=.21, p<.OOl). It was highly significant (F=13.86, df=16, 623, p<.OOl) and explained 24% of the variance in participants’ aided recall of these billboards (R2=.244).

Individual variables that were significant in the model included gender, income, having passengers in the car, talking on a cell phone, paying attention to these boards, and talking about these boards with other people.

Men were significantly more likely to have better aided recall of these boards than women (B=.078, t=2.75, p<.OOl). People with lower incomes also were significantly more likely to recall these boards when prompted (B=-.014, t=-2.02, p<.05). People who have passengers in the car showed significantly less aided recall of the boards (B=-.032, t=-2.41, p<.05), as did people who talked on a cell phone (B=-.039, t=-2.6, p<.Ol). Those who said they paid more attention to these boards had significantly better aided recall (B=.084, t=8.65, p<.OOl) as did people who said they talked about these boards with other people (B=.137, t=4.11, pe.001). (See Table 1.)

RQ2: What structural features of the billboards show sigruficant differences in recall?

To test this research question, we used the same procedures as Donthu and colleagues (1993). Using the survey data, we first calculated a recall score for each billboard based on the number of survey respondents who remembered it; this became the interval level dependent variable, which we added to the content data. We used the coding data as our nominal- or ordinal-level independent variables. For example, product awareness was coded as high, medium, or low; technology was coded as regular or smartboard; interval data for length of the ad campaign was col- lapsed into three categories-5 or more years, 1 to 5 years, less than 1 year. Analysis of Variance was used to determine if significant differences in recall were related to different structural features.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3


Table 1 Hierarchical Regression of Demographic, Situational, and Attitudinal Variables on Aided Recall of Billboards

Mode/ 7 Mode/P Made/ 3 B S.E. Befa B SE Befa B S.E. Befa

Constant .718 .067 .733 .lo2 .528 .I06

Demographics Gender .021 .032 .027 .012 .032 .025 .078 .028 .099** Men=l Age -.0005 .001 -.019 -.0007 .001 -.027 -.012 .001 -.046 Education -.017 .013 -.056 -.018 .013 -.058 -.006 .Oil -.019 Marital Status .021 .038 .027 .033 .039 .042 .046 .035 .059 Married=l Children .017 .012 .059 .024 .012 .085* .001 .Oil .004

Race -.027 .016 .071 .023 .016 .058 .023 .033 .028 White=l

income -.017 .007 -.114* -.017 .008 -.114* -.014 .007 -.09*

Sifuafiona/ Variables Driving Times Passengers Radio Cell Phone

.014 .005 .115** .006 .004 .046 -.017 .015 -.047 -.032 .013 -.09* .0096 .016 .025 -.018 .014 -.046

-.042 .017 -.104* -.039 .015 -.097**

Atfifude Variab/es Attention to these Boards Talk about Boards Attitude toward Ads Attention to Ads Media use Index

.084 .01 .369***

.137 .033 .156***

.007 .031 .01

.023 .012 .087 -.013 .009 -.053

Of the 19 different structural features of the boards, there were only three that showed significant differences in their effect on aided recall - awareness of the product or service, length of the campaign, and technology, that is, whether it was a regular board or smartboard. High awareness of the product or service was significantly more likely to result in aided recall of the board (F=14.14, d e l , 32, p<.OOl; High M=3.8, sd=.15, Low M=.17, sd=.12) than low awareness. There was a significant difference in aided recall based on length of the campaign (F=16.37, dFl , 32, p<.OOl; 5+ years M=.50, sd=.09; 1 to 5 years M=.29, sd=.18; Less than 1 year M=.197, sd=.09), with longer campaigns showing greater recall, and there was a significant difference in aided recall of regular boards than smartboards (F=17.06, dFl , 32, p<.OOl; Regular board M=.40, sd=.16; Smartboard M=.19, sd=.lO).

We used the two significant variables of length and awareness as controls in Analysis of Covari-

ance to see if these explained some of the effects of technology. Technology remained significant (F=8.38, df=l, 32, p<.Ol) even when length and awareness were controlled; however, the amount of variance that technology explained as measured by e fd was reduced from 35% to 22%.

Discussion and Suggestions

Repetition

Of greatest interest and importance to scholars and the outdoor industry is the finding that the newest technology, the smartboard, produced the lowest level of aided recall. Because there was only one tri-vision board in the study, we are unable to say whether the higher level of recall for this format is statistically significant, yet it did generate considerably higher recall than any other billboard in the study. Two re-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 21

lated factors, consistency and repetition of the message, can account for these findings. As discussed in the literature review, research on repetition of advertising indicates the need to establish a satisfactory level of wear-in of an advertisement without reaching wear-out, at which point advertising may become counter productive (Krugman 1965; Petty and Cacioppo 1979; Calder and Sternthall980; Belch 1982). The findings of this study extend the repetition literature to another medium, outdoor. The high level of rotation on the smartboard accounts for the low level of recall. When driving down the interstate, consumers have only seconds to look at a fixed billboard. If the message is also rotating this time is reduced even further. The smartboard, during under investigation, rotated different advertisers at eight-second intervals. Therefore, when consumers passed the rotating billboard, they were exposed to only one or two of the numerous advertisers sharing that board; this lower repetition undoubtedly had an impact on aided recall.

The results also show the length of campaign positively correlated with aided recall. This also supports earlier studies of repetition and wear-in in other media. Traditional boards generally stay up for at least 30 days and some may remain for 12 months or more. Several of the standard boards in this study had been up for years. Because the smartboard technology al- lows for quick and easy uplink of new messages, advertisers often run messages for shorter periods of time, perhaps only weeks. Our findings suggest that the smartboard may fail to achieve the level of wear- in generally needed for consumers to process the boards. Additional research is needed to test the sig- nificance of the higher level of recall for the tri-vision format. Our initial findings suggest that this format may produce the needed wear-in because the advertiser remains consistent without generating wear-out, given that the design rotates. This study provides a starting point for additional research to better understand where the wear-in and wear-out levels may be for outdoor advertising.

Billboard Characteristics and Aided Recall Product awareness also positively correlated to re-

call. Given the limitation of this study, further research is needed to determine if advertising recall drives product awareness or vice versa. Somewhat surprising is that no other executional factor correlated with recall. Past research has shown side of the road, color and number of words significantly affect recall (Donthu et al. 1993). In particular, black and white ads were found to be more effective. None of the ads tested in this study

were black and white; therefore, we are unable to test the validity of this earlier finding.

Attitude and Attention Many of our findings confirm earlier results (King

and Tinkham 1990; Donthu et al. 1993; Speck and Elliott 1997). For example, those who say they pay attention to these boards were better able to recall the billboards. In addition, word-of-mouth interaction with others regarding the billboards positively predicted aided recall of the boards. It is not surprising that these respondents would have higher levels of recall. Simply put, those who engage with advertising messages tend to better recall those messages.

While this and past research has found a positive correlation between attention and recall, future research may want to consider the role of the attentional blink in reducing aided recall of the smartboard. Raymond (2003) explains, ”The attentional blink dem- onstrates that there is a significant temporal bottle- neck in processing interesting or attended images. This limits the speed of information uptake to about two ’chunks’ per second when scenes are brief and changing” (p. 67). In other words, when we encounter something of visual interest, our attention is focused on processing it. We, therefore, may fail to notice subsequent information. Raymond goes on to state that familiarity with a message may offset the effects of the attentional blink. Because smartboard messages tend to rotate more frequently, lack of familiarity may result in less attention paid to the board. Experimen- tal research would be needed to test whether attention to one message negatively affects the ability recall the next message displayed on the smartboard.

Clutter Other earlier findings supported here include that

message clutter caused by the uses of multiple media at one time may impede recall of messages (Brown and Rothschild 1993). Our study found use of cell phones and having passengers in the car did result in lower levels of aided billboard recall. However, our findings also indicate that those who listen to the radio while driving are not distracted by the radio but actually tend to pay greater attention to billboards. At first glance these findings appear somewhat contra- dictory and possibly confusing. In an effort to better understand the findings related to word-of-mouth and clutter as they relate to outdoor, we suggest that future research consider Cacioppo and Petty’s (1982) theory of need for cognition as one possible explana-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3


tion for these results. Need for cognition is defined as the “tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking” (p. 116). Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) elaboration likelihood model suggests that high-NFC individuals tend to follow the central route to persuasion, thereby more thoroughly processing the merits of persuasive messages. Petty et al. (1993) also found that a positive mood tends to correlate with greater persuasive effects, particularly for high-NFC individuals. This would help explain why talking about the billboards with others predicted higher aided recall of these billboards. Perhaps those who are interacting with others are more relaxed and thus more receptive to advertising messages. They also may be searching for topics of interaction, which the billboards are able to provide. Listening to the radio may also mean that they are more relaxed and receptive to outdoor messages. Of course, this is mere speculation at this point; additional research is needed to further investigate this relationship. Inclusion of an NFC scale in subsequent surveys will allow researchers to test whether those with higher NFC use outdoor advertising to provide mental stimulation.

Managerial Implications Finally, this study offers a contribution to industry

in that it tests a new and somewhat costly technology. To scholarship it offers a starting point for examining how consumers process messages based on format. We have already suggested additional avenues of research but there are others that would be of particular interest to the outdoor industry. One possibility, which would require significant cooperation from the outdoor industry, would be an experiment that tests recall by placing the same billboard in three different formats (standard, tri-vision, and smartboard) in com- parable markets. Additional research also may want to examine consumers’ attitudes toward the new technology of the smartboard. Anecdotal evidence suggests that drivers may find the illuminated boards distracting and even dangerous. This may relate to their ability to recall messages.

References Advertising Age (2006), “2006 Fact Pack,” [On-line], Available: http:/

/adage.com/images/bin/pdf/FactPack06.pdf [April 15,20061. (2006), “Ad Spending Totals by Media: 2006 Edi-

tion,” [On-line], Available: http:/ /adage.com/datacenter/ article?article-id=llOl24 [February 21,2007].

Belch, George (1982), ”The Effects of Television Commercial Rep- etition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance,” Jour- nal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 56-65.

Bhargava, Mukesh and Naveen Donthu (1994), ”Improving the Effec- tiveness of Outdoor Advertising: Lessons from a Study of 282 Campaigns,“ Journal of Advertising &arch, 34 (March), 46-56.

Brown, Tom and Michael Rothschild (1993), “Reassessing the Im- pact of Television Advertising Clutter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (June), 138-146.

Cacioppo, John and Richard Petty (1982), “The Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (January), 116-131.

Calder, Bobby and Brian Sternthal, (1980), ”Television Commercial Wearout: An Information Processing View,” Journal of Mar- keting Research, 17 (May), 173-186.

Chevalier, Judith and Dina Mayzlin (2006), ”The Effects of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews,“ Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (August), 345-354.

Deshpande, Rohit, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Naveen Donthu (1986), “The Intensity of Ethnic Affiliation: A Study of the Sociology of Hispanic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 214-20.

DeVellis, Robert (2003), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.

DiPasquale, Cara (2002), “Outdoor Ad Group to Craft New Rating System,” AdAge.com, [On-line], Available: www.adage.com/ news.cms?newsId=35121 [March 27,20071.

Donthu, Naveen, Josephe Cherian, and Mukesh Bhargava (1993), “Factors Influencing Recall of Outdoor Advertising,” Iournal of Advertising Research, 33 (May), 64-72.

Du Plessis, Erik (1994), “Recognition Versus Recall,” Journal of Ad- vertising Research, 34 (May), 75-92.

Hawkins, Scott and Stephen Hoch (1992), “Low-Involvement Learn- ing: Memory Without Evaluation,“ Journal of Consumer Re- search, 19 (September) 212-225.

, and Joan Meyers-Levy (2001), ”Low- Involvement Learning: Repetition and Coherence in Familiarity and Belief,” Journal ofconsumer Psychology, 11 (January), 1-11.

Jensen, Jeff (1998), “Monstor-size Outdoor Ads Presage Arrival of ‘Godzilla,”’ AdAge.com, [On-line], Available: www.adage. com/news.~ms?newsId=31257 Duly 20,20021.

King Whitehall, Karen Tinkham, and Spencer F. Tinkham (1990), “The Learning and Retention of Outdoor Advertising,” Jour- nal of Advertising Research, 29 (January), 47-51.

Krosnick, Jon (1991), “Response Strategies for Coping With the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys,” Ap- plied Cognitive Psychology, 5 (May), 213-236.

Krugman, Herbert (1965), ”The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning Without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (September), 349-356.

Law, Sharmistha, Scott Hawkins, and Fergus Craik (1998), “Repetition- Induced Belief in the Elderly: Rehabilitating Age-Related Memory Deficits,” Journal ofconsumer Research, 25 (September), 91-107.

Liu, Yong (2006), ‘Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (July), 74-89.

Nelson, Michelle (2002), “Recall of Brand Placements in Computer/ Video Games,” Journal ofAdvertising Research, 42 (March), @92.

Newell, Stephen, Kenneth Henderson, and Bob Wu (2001), “The Effects of Pleasure and Arousal on Recall of Advertisements During the Super Bowl,” Psychology and Marketing, 18 (November), 11351153.

Outddoor Advertising Association of America (2006), ’‘Fads and Fig- ures,” [On-line], Available: http:/ /www.oaaa.org/outdoor/fads/ [April 15,20061.

(2006), ”Outdoor Advertising Expenditures: 1970- 2005,” [On-line], Available: http:/ /www.oaaa.org/outdoor/ facts/Historical- Expenditures.pdf [April 15,20061.

Petty, Richard and John Cacioppo (1979), ”Issue Involvement Can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-Rel- evant Cognitive Responses,“ Iournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (October) 97-109.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 23

and ___ (1986), "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion," in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Leonard Berkowik, ed., Orlando, n: Academic Press: 123-205.

, David Schumann, Steven Richman, and Alan Strathman (1993), "Positive Mood and Persuasion: Different Roles for Affect Under High and Low Elaboration Conditions," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (January), 5-20.

Raymond, Jane E. (2003), "When the Mind Blinks: Attentional Limita- tions to the Perception of Sequential Visual Images," in Persuasive lmngey: A Consumer Response Perspective, Linda M. Scottand Rajeev Batra, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum M a t e s , 59-74.

Riebe, Erica and John Dawes (2006), "Recall of Radio Advertising in High and Low Clutter Formats," International Journal of Advertising, 25 (January), 70-86.

Sass, Erik (2005), "Nielsen Claims Outdoor Ratings Breakthrough, Launches System As Industry Eyes Others, [On-line], Avail- able: http:/ /www.everyonecounts.tv/press/120705~ medpost-outdoor.htm [November 5,20061.

Speck, Paul and Michael Elliott (1997), "Predictors of Advertising Avoidance in Print and Broadcast Media," Journal ofddvertis- ing, 26 (September), 61-76.

Strayer, David, Frank Drews, and William Johnston (2003), "Cell Phone-Induced Failures of Visual Attention During Simulated Driving," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9 (March), 23-32.

Streiner, David L. and Geoffrey R. Norman (2003), Health Measure- ment Scales, 3d ed., New York, NY Oxford University Press.

(2003), "Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency," Journal of Per- sonality Assessment, 80 (February), 99-103.

Wells, William (2000), "Recognition, Recall and Rating Scores," Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (November), 14-21.

Yin, Sandra (2003), "Media Channels: Counting Eyes on Billboards, American Demographics (January 1).

Zajonc, Robert (1968), "Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure," Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9 (June), 1-28.

Appendix A List of Advertisers

Aided Recall Campaign East/ LeW A dveti'iser 1% of Responses) Length * DEC West Right Size Height

TRlVlSlON BOARDS

Casino Rouae 66 4 121000 w R Standard Standard

STANDARD BOARDS

Our Lady of the Lake Hospital 64 Hooters 60 Eagle 98.1 59 LA Lottery 55 Paragon Casino 53 Mall of Louisiana 53 Ninfa/Ruffinos/Ribbs (restaurants) 51 WJBO 11 50 RADIO 49 Prevent Child Abuse 47 Baton Rouge General Hospital 45 Gapnanger Outlets 42 Cracker Barrel 38 Ralph and Kakoos (restaurant) 37 Baton Rouge Airport 36 Volunteers of America 23 Reba on WB 20

Waterfront Homesites 17 Love Conference 16 Persistence (Abe Lincoln) 15

WRKF RADIO 18

4 1 4 4 4 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

111000 121 000 121 000 121 000 121 000

111000 121 000 111000 111000 121 000 121 000 111000 111000 111000 111000 121 000 121 000 111000 111000

98000

E L W R E L W R W R E R E R E L W R W R E R E L E L E L E L W L W L E L W R W L

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

SMARTBOARDS

Budweiser Riverside Centroplex TJ Moran (restaurant) Community Coffee

35 30 28 28

2 150000 W R Standard Standard 2 150000 W R Standard Standard 3 150000 W R Standard Standard 1 150000 W R Standard Standard

(continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3


Appendix A(continued) List of Advertisers

Aided Recal Campaign East/ Left/ A dvediser PA of Responses) Length * DEC West Right Size Height

SMARTBOARDS BR Symphony (Red Stick Thunder) 25 Harb’s Oasis 21 American Wetlands 19 Serrano’s (restaurant) 15 Coastal Truck Driving 13 Swine Palace Theater 12 Citadel Radio 11 Deer Management 7 Bits ComDuters 6

150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000

W W W W W W W W W

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

* Less than 1 year = 1 1-2 years = 2 +2-5 years = 3 + 5 years = 4

Appendix B Phone Survey

/ntroduction Hi, I’m (name) calling from Louisiana State University’s Public Policy Research Lab. I’m not trying to sell you anything. We’re conducting a study on outdoor advertising. I want to assure you that all the information you provide will be kept completely anonymous, so you can’t be identified. Your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any question you don’t feel comfortable with. The survey only takes about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Is this a good time to talk? Before we go on, first I need to ask you a few questions about your interstate driving. (€xposure frequency) 1.

2.

How many times a month do you drive on 1-1 0 between Acadian Thruway and Essen Lane? (0) Less than once a week - Thank them and go to next call (1) Once a week (2) Twice a week (3) Three to four times a week (4) Five times a week (5) More than five times a week (888) DWNS (999) Refused Is that one way or round-trip, that is, both coming and going? (1) One way (2) Both ways (888) DWNS (999) Refused

(A ffenton) 3. What time of day do you usually drive 1-1 0 between Acadian Thruway and Essen?

(Record response) 4. When you drive this road, how often do you have passengers in the car?

(1) Never (4) Always (2) Sometimes (888) DWNS (3) Frequently (999) Refused

(conhnueedj

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 25

Appendix B (continued) Phone Survey

5. When you drive this road, how often do you listen to music or talk radio? (1) Never (4) Always (2) Sometimes (888) DWNS (3) Frequently (999) Refused

6. How often do you talk on a cell phone? (1) Never (4) Always (2) Sometimes (888) DUNS (3) Frequently (999) Refused

OK, thanks so much. Now I want to ask you about the billboards on this road. (Unaided Reca//l 7. Can you recall any billboards you’ve seen on this part of 1-1 O?

(Record open-ended response) Coding: (1 =recalled/O=not recalled or wrong) 8a. Tell me about (first one recalled) in as much detail as possible? For example, what did it say? What did it

show a picture of? What colors were in it? (Record open-ended response)

8b. Second one recalled. 8c. Third one recalled. 8d. Fourth one recalled. 8e. Fifth one recalled. Etc. Let me see if I can help jog your memory. Aided Reca//j 9. Do you recall seeing the billboard for

a. Casino Rouge? O=No l=Yes (888) DUNS (999) Refused b. Y107 Radio? O=No l=Yes (888) DUNS (999) Refused c. ? Etc. (Include confederates)

(Atfen Don) 10. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means little or none and 5 means a great deal, about how much attention do you

pay to the billboards on 1-1 0 between Acadian Thruway and Essen Lane? Little to none 1 2 3 4 5 A great deal

(Word of Mouth Activip) 11. Did you talk about these billboards with other people?

(0) No (1) Yes (888) DUNS (999) Refused 12. Which billboards?

(Record open-ended response) (888) DUNS (999) Refused 13. With whom?

(Record open-ended response) (888) DUNS (999) Refused (/nvo/vemeng 14. Have you ever purchased any of the following:

14. a-j (Read list) O=No, l=Yes (88) DUNS (999) Refused

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3



(Intent to purchase) 15. Do you intend to purchase any of the following:

Thanks so much. Now, I want to ask you a few questions about how you feel about advertising in general. (A ftifudes toward Advertisg) For each of the following statements, please tell if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree:

15 a-j.(Read list) O=No, 1 =Yes (888) DWNS (999) Refused

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Ads help me learn about products. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused Most ads are true. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused I think most ads are irritating. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused I often try a new product because of an ad. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DUNS (999) Refused I find ads entertaining. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused I buy mostly well-known products. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused I often switch brands because of an ad. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused

Ads are a necessary part of our society. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused There are too many ads on radio and TV. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused There are too many outdoor billboards. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused

Thanks so much. We're almost finished. I just have a few questions about your use of different media. (Use of Ofher Meda)

26. About how many days a week do you usually read a newspaper?

27. About how many hours a day do you watch TV? (0) None (1-7) days a week (888) DWNS (999) Refused

(0) None (1 -7) days a week (888) DWNS (999) Refused

fconfhueed/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 27

Appendix B (continued) Phone Survev

28. About how many magazines do you read in a week?

(Affenfion to Ads)

29. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means little or none and 5 means a great deal, about how much attention do you

(0) None (1-87) magazines a week (888) DWNS (999) Refused

pay to ads in newspapers? Little to none 1 2 3 4 5 A great deal (888) DWNS (999) Refused

Little to none 1 2 3 4 5 A great deal (888) DWNS (999) Refused

31 . . . about how much attention do you pay to ads in magazines? Little to none 1 2 3 4 5 A great deal (888) DWNS (999) Refused

Little to none 1 2 3 4 5 A great deal (888) DWNS (999) Refused

30. Using that same scale, about how much attention do you pay to TV commercials?

32. ... about how much attention do you pay to billboards?

Finally, if you’ll tell me a little bit about yourself, we’ll be done. (Demographics)

33. (Determine from voice, calling them ma’am or sir):

34. How old were you on your last birthday? (18-120) years old (888) DWNS (999)Refused

35. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (1) High school graduate or less (2) Some college (3) College degree (4) Some graduate school (5) Graduate degree (888) DWNS (999) Refused

(1) Male (0) Female

36. Are you: (1) Currently married (2) Not married (888) DUNS (999) Refused 37. If you have any children living with you, how many?

(1 -1 20) children living with you 38. What race do you consider yourself? Interviewer, If Necessary Read Choices.

(888) DUNS (999) Refused

(1) White (2) Black (3) Hispanic (4) Asian or Pacific Islander (5) American Indian (6) Other (7) Multi-racial or mixed race (888) Don’t Know/Not Sure (999) Refused

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3



39. Now consider your family’s household income from all sources. As I read a list, please stop me when I get to the income level that best describes your household income in 2001. (Before Taxes) (1) less than $10,000

(3) $20,000 to $29,999 (4) $30,000 to $39,999 (5) $40,000 to $49,999 (6) $50,000 to $59,999 (7) $60,000 to $79,999 (8) $80,000 to $99,999 (9) $100,000 to 150,000 (1 0) Over 150,000 (888) Don’t Know/NS (999) Refused

(2) $1 0,000 to $1 9,999

Standard thank you and good-bye.

Appendix C Billboard Characteristics (Independent Variables)

Advertiser:

Lisf the brand name of the advenkng. /f there are mu/t/;o/e brands hsf a1 for examp/e, Reba on fhe WB ne fwork or mu/f/;o/e resfaurnfs on one board

A product 13 any fangHe producf you can hold in your hand Near& anflhing eke wou/d be a sewice. Res fauran fs and bars wou/d be considered a sewice. 3. product 2. service 1. entertainment/media 0. other:

Type (check one):

Number of Words: Count the total number of words on the board. Phone numbers and web addresses should be counted as one word. Do not include logos.

3. Large=more than 1/3 the height of the board 2. Medium=between 114 and 1/3 the height of the board 1. Small=less than 1/4 the height of the board 0. Other/Mixed

Typeface (circle one): 2. Standard=any standard serif or san serif font you might see in print or find on a word processing

program 1. Decorative=any typeface that appears to have been created for that particular advertiser; handwriting,

spraypainting, cursive 0. Other/Mixed

Text Size (circle one):

fconf/huec$

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Spring 2008 29

Appendix C(continued) Billboard Characteristics (Independent Variables)

Clutter (circle one) 0. Cluttered=more than three elements. Headline, visual, tagline, and logo each would count as an

individual item. There may be more than one visual if the board uses a montage design in which visual elements do not comprise a single unified picture.

1. Clean=three or fewer elements

0. Unreadable=type requires greater than 8 seconds of scrutinizing before you can read it. Would not be

1. Readable=type would be easily processed from a distance and with little time (6-8 seconds) to examine

Readability (circle one)

clear from a distance.

the board Dominant Visual (circle one):

Code on& whaf you consider to be the mosf impotfanf wsua/ e/ement / f may be the /ages& bo/desf or bngh test 2. Text 1. Picture(arVphot0) 0. MixedKannot decide

Bleed (circle one) Does the visual bleed all the way off the board. If it does not, if there is a border, it is NOT a bleed. 0. No 1. Yes

Color (circle one) 0. No=black and white or greyscale. There is no color on the board 1. Yes, mixed=There is color on the board but there is no dominant color 2. Dominant color=There is one color that stands out more than any other. List color

List dominant color Perceived productlservice price (circle one):

Code for the perceivedprice of an average, one- fime use of fheproducf orservice. /fif is a subscnp fion service such as a cetpbone, code for fhe average bi#ng unif fie., one month of service). 1. Less than $50 2. $51-100 3. $100-500 4. $501-1000 5. over $1000

Product awareness (based on history of advertising campaigns) (circle one): Code yourpercepfion of how wide& thk producf is adven'isedandknown in the Bafon Rouge market fs if a we// recognized brand name? 3. H ig h = very we// kno wn, housebofd name. Thi3 wou/d be a name fhaf anyone who has Lived here for a

year or more wou/d easiw recognize and requike no exp/ana fion of 2. M edi u m = a we// esfabbshed business/service. Most peop/e wou/d recognize the name buf some may

not This may be a hi?& new business/sewice fhaf peope know LiMe about 1. Low = a new ornof wide& recognizedbrandname. This brand wou/drequire some explanafion for

mosf peop/e in fhe market (con finue fl

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3


Appendix C(continued) Billboard Characteristics (Independent Variables)

Number of concepts/ideas/information communicated Count fhe number of indvidua/ concepfs, ideas or informaftion poinfs. An address, web address, phone number or exif number wou/deach be counfedas one informaafnpoint The main sekng message, generaly communica fed in the headhne wou/d be anofher in forma fion poinVconcep f

Advetiising messages can be p/offeda/ong a confinuum befween ihformafiona/and emohonal Think about the overal appeaL Does if p/ay more upon a rafional appeal to the consumer such as reasonable pnce, convenienf /ocafioon, wide se/ecfion. Ordoes if appeal fo fhe consumer's emofions. You wiVfee/happiec safer; more accepfedifyou use fhis producf or sewice. Humor isgeneray an emot/bna/appea/as are pure image campaigns. 0. Emotional 1. Informational

Main Purpose (circle one) focusing on what you consider fo be fhe h?A/Nse/hng idea of fhe biX5oard choose one of fhe fo//owing: 3. Directional= emphasizes /ocafion, pa/icu/ar& fhe infersfafe exif 2. Price = emphasizesptke, value 1 . I mag e = emphasizes an image or persona@ of the producf or sewice 0. Other

Does the bi//board f y to ds finguish the adverfised brand from compe fifors either through an overf reference to an0 fherbrandorbyimp&ihg a moregenera/dflerence ? Forexamp/e, /ow/er/pncees, beLferqua~?& greaer se/ecfion. Image advetiiskig often emp/oys branddfferenha fion byhp&ihg a unique persona^^ for fhe brand such as Dodge is fhe fough fruck. 0. No 1. Yes

Does the bilboard communcafe a benefit such as fhe safishchon of a need? Mas/ov's hierarchy of needs suggest fhaf peop/e need such fhags as food safe& she/fer, accepfance, /ove, se/f-acfuahzafion, and esfeem of friends and coleagues. Does fhe producf c/aim to fu/W such a need? 0. No 7 . Yes

Does the biZboardcommunicafe a /eve/ofproducusen//i7epen'ormance such as fhe best, beffer, cheap, easy, fast?

0. No 1. Yes

Overall appeal (circle one)

Brand differentiating strategy? (circle one)

Communication of product benefit? (circle one)

Communication of product performance? (circle one)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

INA

SP -

Pak

ista

n (P

ER

I)]

at 0

7:53

21

Febr

uary

201

3

Documents

Outdoor Advertising Recall