Lately, I’ve been thinking about billboards — one billboard campaign in particular. Here’s how it went down:
First, Reagan Advertising used a survey company to ask 300 people two questions:
(1) Who is the lieutenant governor of Utah?
(2) What was the first word spoken on the moon?
(5% and 1% respectively answered the question right)
Then they put around a dozen billboards (just like the one shown) saying “Houston: First Word Spoken On The Moon” and left them up for a month in some high traffic locations around the Salt Lake Valley, after which they sampled another 300 people using the same two questions. At that point, 6% of the respondents answered the first question correctly and 37% of the respondents were able to answer the question about “Houston” as depicted in the billboards.
So what?
Was the test:
(a) Brilliant?
(b) Rubbish?
(c) Inconclusive?
(d) Completely self-promotional?
(e) Manipulative?
I’m honestly leaning multiple ways on this one, which is why it’s so fascinating to me. It definitely has me thinking about billboard advertising.
What do you think? Does it prove anything about billboard effectiveness or is it just junk statistics?
(photo credit: Nicholas Draney)
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Not sure that the test says anything. Too many other variables that are not considered. I say inconclusive because of poor testing. Just my 2 cents :)
Outdoor advertising will always have its place. Although many variables exist, the statistics do provide at least some insight.
I agree with Rick. What if people were supposed to remember a 3 digit number vs. one word? would the response increase?
And how about the emotional tie that one phrase has, compared to a product placement, for example ‘hot pockets’?
I’ve seen those billboards and been extremely curious to know why they were there, but never remembered to look up the Web site. I think it’s a reasonable test — not brilliant, exactly, but more than anything else it says that our society does better with tiny bits of information spoonfed to us in our cars, which is unfortunate. Perhaps this is the new wave of advertising for politicians — just a billboard with “Honest — That’s what So and So is.”
I would have to say inconclusive too but man, I sucked at statistics so I have no idea. :)
At a minimum we now know what the &*%$ the billboard means, and that is worth something…
I don’t know, maybe it proves the process of “osmosis”- you know where I used to sit on a text book (or sleep with it on my face) and absorb that info from the text book. Mayeb it’s the same with this…the info on this billboard is absorb by osmosis by passer-bys. Yeah…that’s the ticket!
Great post and questions. I think a billboard’s effectiveness is dependent upon what your goals are. If you are shooting for impressions and building top of mind awareness among consumers, then the study is somewhat interesting (depending upon their research methods). But what about actual purchase rates?
I have seen several similar studies from local newspaper agencies suggesting that readership is doing quite well (upwards of 60%). I’d be skeptical of any of these studies.
Like David (post above) said, there is a place for outdoor advertising. It all comes down to what your goals are and which customers you are chasing.