%@ Language=VBScript %> <% CheckState() CheckSub() %>
World Association of | June 2003 |
Debbie
Solomon
MindShare USA
Out-of-home (OOH) advertising is ubiquitous. Everyone is
exposed to billboards and transit advertising. There are many other forms of
OOH. Wild postings, ads in airports, bathroom stalls, locker rooms, on
postcards, taxi cabs, coffee cups, the backs of tickets, even on the sides
of dogs being walked. Ads inside fortune cookies. There are few places
people go where they are not exposed to commercial messages. And new
opportunities are coming into existence every day. But do these vehicles
work?
MEASURING OOH EFFECTIVENESS
Out-of-home advertising must be working or it wouldn't be proliferating the
way it is. It can be a useful advertising tool. However, as is the case with
any medium, problems exist with measuring its effectiveness. There are a
number of issues. First of all, many OOH vehicles are seen by consumers when
they are on the go, making it difficult to know what they are actually
exposed to. And since much of OOH is seen from a vehicle, pedestrian viewing
often goes unmeasured.
OOH generally exists with other forms of advertising, making it difficult to
isolate its effects in recall and awareness studies. And people can
misidentify where they have seen the advertising (even when outdoor is the
only medium used). Continuing presence, a strength of OOH, makes it harder
to measure. The U.S. industry standard lease time for billboards and many
other forms of OOH is a minimum of four weeks so they generally run at
consistent levels over a lengthy time period. This makes it difficult to
isolate OOH effects in modeling.
Despite these caveats, there have been a number of studies that examine
out-of-home's effectiveness and they have found that this medium does indeed
work. Billboards traditionally have been the only type of OOH measured,
although studies of other vehicles are starting to appear.
This paper discusses the effectiveness research for OOH. It is up to the
media planner to determine if OOH is appropriate for a brand's communication
efforts. Factors such as target reach and cost efficiencies must also be
considered.
RESEARCH STUDIES
Unfamiliar Information Studies
Some of the most compelling studies on out-of-home effectiveness are those
that take an unknown or little-known fact (or fiction) and test the ability
of OOH to teach this information to a group of people.
Who is Miss America?
One of the classic OOH studies in the United States, conducted
by the Institute of Outdoor Advertising (1975), used an American icon, Miss
America. People were interviewed on their knowledge of the reigning beauty
queen. Only a small percent were able to name her. After billboards were
erected with her name and picture, awareness shot up. The results were very
compelling that outdoor advertising can create awareness and stimulate
recall.
This study was replicated by the Institute for Outdoor Advertising in 1985.
Miss America 1984, Sharlene Wells, appeared on four major TV shows, was
featured in national magazines and newspapers, and was interviewed on local
radio and TV programs throughout the country. However, when respondents were
asked to name the current Miss America, less than 2% could do so. After the
Outdoor advertising ran, 12% could answer that same question, and aided
awareness increased to 45%.
Who was the 23rd President? The 30th?
There have also been studies using U.S. Presidents to examine OOH
effectiveness. Hewett (1972) used a 100 showing (the number of boards it
takes to reach 100% of the population of a market) with the copy 'Who was
the 23rd President?' Before the billboards went up, only two respondents
could identify the 23rd President. One week after the billboards went up,
there was a second wave of interviewing and 8% correctly identified Benjamin
Harrison. When asked why they knew this, some respondents replied, 'I saw
the billboard and went home and looked up the answer.' Shortly after the
second wave was completed, the billboard copy was changed to 'Who was the
23rd President? Benjamin Harrison.' Correct identification in the third wave
of interviewing went up to 36%.
In 1987, this study was replicated using the 30th President, Calvin
Coolidge, with similar results (King and Tinkham, 1998/90). Pre-testing
found that only 7% of respondents could name the 30th President. After the
boards were up for 30 days, 36% of respondents correctly identified Calvin
Coolidge. This study also evaluated message retention. While awareness
increased in the first month of the campaign, it began to decline in the
second month while some boards were still up. The decline continued at a
slower rate in the month following the campaign. However, for at least two
months after the billboards came down, response to the campaign was
maintained at a substantial level. The authors of this study hypothesized
that the test campaign's novelty may have contributed to the increased
recall levels and lowered wear out over time. Tucker (1999) examined the
effectiveness of 30-sheet posters (the smaller size outdoor unit in the
United States), also using boards that identified the 30th President. In her
study, the boards included the website address, www.calvincoolidge.com.
Again, few respondents could correctly name the 30th President in the
pre-wave, but after the boards were up for 60 days, 16% could name him. A
few weeks after the test, 20% could still correctly identify the 30th
President, demonstrating that the message was retained. When asked if they
had seen the billboards, 60% said, 'yes.' The boards were also effective in
driving website traffic. Over 36,000 unique visitors (5% of the population
of the market where the test was conducted) visited the site.
I Like that Beer!
A 1992 study in Australia analyzed the effectiveness of outdoor advertising
using a fictitious beer brand, Haka Bitter. Two waves of 300 respondents
were interviewed at four-week intervals. In Wave 1, 45% of respondents
recalled seeing the billboard while 76% correctly identified the brand.
Comparatively, in Wave 2, 49% recalled seeing the billboard while 67%
correctly identified the brand. This study corroborated King and Tinkham's
finding that an outdoor ad can start to wear out in the second month its
running. This study also showed that consumers are aware of seeing OOH
advertising. Of all respondents who could correctly identify a billboard,
87% could correctly identify where they had seen the board. In addition, 56%
went past those particular billboards at least three times per week,
suggesting that frequency is important. Furthermore, illuminated sites
(those that are lit up at night) proved to be about three times more
effective than non-illuminated sites. In a testimony to the impact of this
campaign, a beer company licensed the name Haka Bitter after the study so
they could brew and distribute the beer.
Other Recall/Awareness Studies
Another way to measure the impact of OOH is through recall and awareness
studies of existing campaigns. These studies generally use a pre-post
methodology to see what kind of lift occurs after OOH is used.
Perception Research Services (1997) conducted a recall and awareness study
for Kellogg's Rice Krispies Treats. Billboard advertising increased unaided
brand awareness by 25% and ad awareness by 20% (which was stable across all
four studied markets). Six out of ten commuters accurately described the
campaign theme. Purchase intent increased from 48% (Pre-test) to 54% (Posttest).
A MediaEdge study (1999) for the launch of a personal care product examined
the awareness of OOH, TV and magazine ads. Unaided awareness was measured
and respondents were asked where they saw advertising for the brand. In the
three markets using outdoor, the outdoor ads were second to TV as a source
where the advertising had been seen/heard. Through sharing creative
executions across all media, a communication synergy was created. This study
concluded that outdoor can operate as a support mechanism for a variety of
combinations of media which may have a weaker local market presence. In
addition, individual market characteristics appeared to have an effect on
results.
Butler Gum dental products were the subject of a 2000 Perception Research
study. Based on unaided recall, Butler GUM awareness rose from 3% (Pretest)
to 18% (Post-test). Aided recall rose from 13% to 37%. The level of purchase
intent also increased.
Case studies from JCDecaux Review (JCDecaux is a leading OOH company in
Europe) revealed that the average prompted awareness increased 23% (though
this can vary for different audiences) McEvoy (2001).
There are a number of variables that can effect recall scores. Donthu et al
(1993) questioned which elements in an outdoor ad made it effective. They
found that unaided recall was affected by ad location and ad simplicity. The
ads on the right-hand side were found to be more effective than those on the
left-hand side. Outdoor ads on the highway were more often recalled than
those on surface streets. Black and white ads were recalled more often than
color ads (possibly because they are seen less often than colored ads). Ads
with fewer words were recalled more than ads with many words.
Bhargava et al (1994) analyzed the results of 282 outdoor campaigns. While
the median recall score for these campaigns was 33%, there were variations:
Recall scores differed by product category.
Recall scores were significantly higher for lower priced products.
New products had significantly higher recall scores (most likely due to novelty).
The use of humor and intrigue was positively related to recall scores.
Simpler is better. Recall was highest with one focused concept.
As number of concepts increased, recall scores went down.
Increasing copy length decreased recall scores.
Artwork yielded higher recall scores than photographs.
Outdoor Advertising and Children
Most of the studies examine the effectiveness of OOH among adults. Many
would question whether OOH would be a viable medium for non-adult targets.
MindShare conducted a study for Fox Kids Network evaluating this
proposition. Billboards for Fox Kids programs were placed in strategic
locations in two markets and we found that outdoor does have an impact on
children. Sixty-eight percent of children in the test markets said they saw
a Fox billboard compared with only 41% in the control markets.
Interestingly, a number of children mentioned specific board locations. We
concluded that children are more responsive to outdoor advertising for
familiar brands. We also felt that, for children at least, outdoor was best
used as a complimentary medium to a more traditional campaign. In addition,
it is especially important to place out-of-home media for children in
locations where the target will see them (e.g. near schools, malls, parks,
etc.)
Misidentification
Recall scores can underestimate the impact of outdoor advertising. A seminal
study in media research (Bucci, 1973) demonstrated that people can
misidentify where they saw or heard an advertising message. A campaign for a
utility company used outdoor advertising to introduce 'sunshine people.'
Over half of respondents recalled the campaign. However, many of them
incorrectly attributed the advertising to TV. Based on this and the recall
studies, we also concluded that, as a reminder medium, outdoor is more
effectively measured by aided awareness rather than unaided awareness.
Eye Tracking Studies
There have been numerous eye-tracking studies of OOH. Perception Research
Services (PRS) has been conducting evaluations of the medium since the
1970s. A 1983 study utilized the PRS eye movement recorder to examine
respondents' viewing patterns of a TV screen showing a driving sequence.
They found that on average, a billboard is seen by 53% of drivers and 75% of
those drivers see the advertiser's name on the billboard. Billboards
positioned on the right-hand side of the road generated 65% more visibility
and painted spectaculars created 28% more attention compared to a 30-sheet
poster.
In a separate 1983 study, PRS looked at 200 drivers and analyzed, through
eye movements, the stopping power and attention generated by outdoor
advertising. This study also included a follow-up questionnaire to assess
respondent recall. They concluded that recall scores understate outdoor's
effectiveness because outdoor generated nearly two and a half times as much
attention as recall scores indicated (53% noticed an average board while
only 19% recalled a billboard). This study also examined other factors. Some
of the findings included:
three-fourths of individuals who see an outdoor board are likely to direct their eyes right to the advertiser's name;
individuals are likely to look at a board more than once as he or she approached and passed the ad;
outdoor advertising located near highway signs often attract greater attention;
boards with cutout extensions generated greater attention, as individuals tended to examine the board and read copy more often.
Two more Perception Research Studies (1999) examined the attention level from a passenger's perspective using PRS ShopperVision eyeglasses. These corroborated the earlier studies:
Levels of visibility of billboards are three times higher than aided recall scores indicate.
65% of boards were noted, while 7% were recalled (unaided), and 22% were recalled (aided)
In one study, 65% of the billboards in the passenger's field of vision were noted while 39% were read.
On average, passengers were likely to see 23% of billboards passed in a 30-minute drive.
Hispanic respondents were more likely to be influenced by outdoor advertising (76%) vs. non-Hispanics (41%).
Another 1999 PRS survey conducted in New York, Los Angeles, and
Minneapolis found:
70% of boards within a driver's field of vision were examined while 63%
were likely to be read.
Younger riders (age 18-34) were more likely to take in the visuals, while adults 35-49 were more likely to read outdoor copy.
26% of respondents indicated that outdoor advertising would influence their purchase decision.
59% of bus shelters were examined by a passenger traveling past the shelter, while 38% of these were likely to be read.
Sales Effect Studies
Another way to look at effectiveness is by examining sales response. Patrick
Media Group (1991), a leading OOH company in the United States, conducted
two studies analyzing the effect of outdoor advertising on sales via scanner
information at retail registers. In the first study, Hormel placed 75 panels
(25 showing) in Los Angeles for 30 days. In that period of time, 12,605
units were sold in locations with posters compared to 10,636 units sold in
areas without outdoor advertising (an 18.5% difference).
In the second study, Gatorade added a 50 showing (50 GRPs) of billboards to
their existing media mix in five major markets in hopes of defending their
market share. Results varied by market, but analysis revealed that in three
of four tested markets, sales of Gatorade increased during the period when
outdoor advertising was used. In this study, outdoor was determined to have
a definite impact on point-of-purchase decisions.
Bhargava and Donthu (1999) also looked at sales response to outdoor
advertising. One study utilized 30 billboards for a museum in various
locations for a four-week period. Some billboards contained a promotional
message offering a free cappuccino as an incentive to visit the museum. The
average daily attendance increased 58%, while a month after the campaign,
the average attendance increased 64%. The sales response to the campaign was
immediate and did not decline over the testing period. More than 70% of the
traffic was found to be from the same zip codes as the billboard locations.
The second study, for a sports center company, divided a market into four
zones: one zone with only outdoor advertising, another with only newspapers,
a third with both, and the fourth with no advertising acting as the control.
Attendance increased five times for the facilities in the advertised zones
vs. the control facilities. Both outdoor and newspaper advertising were
found to be statistically significant in contributing to this increase.
MindShare Canada examined the effect a multimedia approach would have on
sales. In a test for an FCMG, various combinations of TV and transit shelter
advertising were used in three markets, with a fourth control market
receiving no media support. This study showed an increase in sales of 11%
for transit alone, 27% for TV alone and a 52% increase for TV plus outdoor,
demonstrating that the synergistic effect of two media is stronger than one
medium alone.
Taxi Advertising
Phillips (1998) analyzed a selection of ongoing campaigns from the United
Kingdom's leading taxi advertising company. Respondents were interviewed for
unaided and aided campaign recall and opinions about the advertising. When
given a brand prompt, unaided campaign awareness was generally low, but
levels up to 15% were recorded. Brands with the longest association with the
medium were most likely to be cited spontaneously. Awareness levels were on
par with other forms of traditional media (many brands achieved a 50%
awareness level). Opinions varied by brand. The most eye-catching executions
were not necessarily the best recalled. Taxi advertising did prove to be an
awareness building medium. One of the brands studied, Elonex, was known by
only a handful of respondents, yet 39% of all respondents could recognize
the ad campaign.
In-Store Media
There are a variety of vehicles in stores (on-shelf, end aisle displays,
hanging ads, floor ads, in-store radio, etc.) and their contribution is
getting a message to the consumer at the point of purchase. Point of
Purchase Advertising International (POPAI) has been involved in several
studies on the effectiveness of in-store vehicles in the United States. The
POPAI studies looked at sales lifts related to different types of instore
media. In convenience stores (POPAI, 2002), in-store vehicles lifted sales
an average of 9%. This varied by product category and type of vehicle. The
more unusual vehicles, such as inflatables and other props tended to
generate larger lifts. In the POPAI Study of Supermarkets (2001), half of
the measured brands experienced a sales lift when in-store vehicles were
used. There were variations by category with hair care, beer and laundry
products more likely to be impacted and cereal less likely. In addition, the
vehicles were not equally effective for all brands within a category. For
example, the Upper Respiratory category saw sales lifts ranging from 2% to
19%, depending on the brand and the vehicle.
MORe Results
People are aware of advertising in grocery stores. Members of MindShare's
Online Research (MORe) Panel were interviewed about their awareness of two
in-store vehicles, floor ads and shelf ads. Nearly 75% of respondents said
they noticed shelf ads while a little less than half noticed floor ads. Of
those who noticed the ads, about 32% felt that the shelf ads were
influential in their decision to buy the product advertised while 15% felt
the floor ads were influential.
Cinema Advertising
In the United States, Cinema is considered a form of OOH advertising. It
runs the gamut from on-screen rolling stock (commercials) to ads in the
lobby to messages on popcorn bags. The rolling stock has obvious impact.
Several studies show varying recall levels for rolling stock. In 20 studies
conducted by the Cinema Advertising Association in the United Kingdom
(1997), aided day after recall averaged 60%. Screenvision (2002) reported an
average 46% unaided recall for their U.S. tests in 2002. Regal CineMedia(2002)
tested the brand and found 51% aided and 13% unaided recall.
A 2001 South African study (Ewing et al) analyzing cinema and TV commercials
found that recall rates are higher for commercials that appeared
concurrently in cinema and on television across all demographics. This is
most pronounced among the younger group (age 16 - 24). Based on their work,
they concluded that cinema advertising can help support lesser levels of TV
advertising. In this study, a campaign of 201-300 TV GRPs along with cinema
advertising resulted in 28% recall. To reach that with TV alone, Ewing et al
determined that an additional 220 GRPs for TV would be required.
National Cinema Network (2001) in the United States has found recall scores
for various types of in-theater advertising ranging from 78% for brands
advertising in the pre-show countdown to 30% for those on popcorn buckets.
Arbitron (2003) examined awareness of advertising media at movie houses
during the 2002 holiday season. On average, last month movie goers reported
that they arrived at the theater 19 minutes in advance of the movie's start
time, giving them ample time to be exposed to the media in the theater. This
study investigated moviegoers' exposure to each advertising opportunity in
the theater including the ticket line, lobby, concession area and
auditorium. In the lobby, 83% of last month movie-goers remembered looking
at posters, 40% remembered hearing music programming, 24% remembered seeing
or using a kiosk and 18% remembered seeing video programming in the lobby.
Keep in mind that not all theaters have these media elements. Sixty percent
reported consuming concessions, indicating that the exposure to concession
advertising is high. In the auditorium, 76% remembered hearing music
programming and 86% remembered seeing on-screen advertising before the movie
began.
Cinema advertising is unique in that it provides an opportunity to reach a
captive audience of consumers while they are fully engaged with the medium.
Because of the nature of movie, cinema audiences have uninterrupted, forced
time with both the advertising and the movie.
WHY DOES OUTDOOR WORK?
OOH advertising provides an opportunity to make a connection
with consumers after they leave their homes. It can reach consumers all day
where they work, shop and play. It is also unique among the media, being
strictly advertising and not content. Thus, processing by the viewer may be
much more direct.
OOH can reach people at appropriate locations for the brand and the message.
Billboards and other forms of OOH can provide information when people are on
their way to purchase a product. In other words, it reaches people 'at the
'moment when they might' carry out a particular action or be in a particular
frame of mind '(Jonas, 2001).
Outdoor may maintain awareness levels because of its high frequency. It can
also create an immediate response based on high coverage levels.
The nature of the medium requires simple, concise messages. This may also
help message processing.
More unusual ads have more impact, probably because they are less familiar
and less often seen. Also, many outdoor vehicles are large and size can
drive memorability as well.
Some forms of outdoor deliver a captive audience (especially transit and
cinema).
Outdoor works synergistically with other media. Results from the JCDecaux
Review suggest that once a brand establishes visibility through outdoor
advertising, when a similar creative is run, the similarity will act as a
visual trigger.
The Fraser et al 1999 study, conducted in both the United Kingdom and
Madrid, revealed:
Younger people and women were more likely to look at outdoor advertising.
Consumers are more likely to look at posters for products they either already consume or are interested in consuming.
Consumers tend not to look at advertising for products they are not interested in.
The evidence shows that OOH advertising does work. The results are variable, depending on the vehicle, the product and the target.
REFERENCES
Arbitron Inc. (2003). Arbitron Cinema Advertising Study.
Bhargava, Mukesh and Donthu, Naveen (1994). Improving the Effectiveness of
Outdoor Advertising: Lessons From a Study of 282 Campaigns. Journal of
Advertising Research, March/April.
Bhargava, Mukesh and Donthu, Naveen (1999). Sales Response to Outdoor
Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, July/August.
Bucci, Richard P. (1973) Erroneous Recall of Media, Journal of Advertising
Research.
Cinema Advertising Association (1997) Case Studies.
Donthu, Naveen and Cherian, Joseph and Bhargava, Mukesh (1993) Factors
Influencing Recall of Outdoor Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research,
May/June.
Ewing, Michael T. and Du Plessis, Erik and Foster, Charles (2001) Cinema
Advertising Re-Considered, Journal of Advertising Research,
January/February.
Fraser, Karen and Cooper, Simon and Barber, Dr. Paul and Whelan, Mark (1999)
Poster Visibility: Making Outdoor More Accountable, AdMap, March.
General Outdoor Advertising, Australia (1992) Haka Bitter Report.
Hewett, Wendell C. (1972) What One Little Showing Can Do, Journal of
Advertising Research, October.
Institute of Outdoor Advertising (1975). She Was Crowned Miss America 1975
on a Top-Rated TV Special, But Hardly Anybody Knew Her Name.
Institute of Outdoor Advertising. (1985). Miss America Awareness Study,
March Jonas, Ann (2001) Using Outdoor to Find the 'Moment When They Might',
AdMap, December.
McEvoy, David (2001) Outdoor Advertising Effectiveness, AdMap, December.
Media Edge (1999) OAAA Outdoor Advertising Test, November.
MindShare Canada (2001) Media Test.
MindShare/J. Walter Thompson (1998) Fox Kids Outdoor Study, May.
MindShare USA (2002) MORe Panel Omnibus, February.
National Cinema Network (2001) Advertsing Recall Survey, February.
Patrick Media Group (1990) George A. Hormel Company 1990 Outdoor Advertising
Evaluation.
Patrick Media Group (1990) Quaker Oats Gatorade 1990 Outdoor Advertising
Evaluation.
Perception Research Services, Inc. (1983) The Visibility Achieved By Outdoor
Advertising: A Comprehensive Evaluation.Perception Research Services, Inc.
(1997) Kellogg's Rice Krispies Treats Squares Out- Of-Home Advertising
Research (Pre-/Post-Advertising Impact), November.
Perception Research Services, Inc. (1999) Outdoor's Power Entice, November.
Perception Research Services, Inc. (1999-2000) The PRS Eye Tracking Studies:
Validating Outdoor's Impact in the Marketplace.
Perception Research Services, Inc. (2000) Butler GUM Outdoor Campaign
Research, July.
Phillips, Dave (1998) Testing Taxis, AdMap, October.
Point of Purchase Advertising International (2002) In-store Advertising
Becomes a Measured Medium: Convenience Channel Study Report, December.
Point of Purchase Advertising International (2001) Learnings from the
Supermarket Class of Trade.
Regal CineMedia (2002) Advertising Research 'X'.
Scarborough Research Inc. (2003) USA Plus.
Screenvision (2002) 2002 Research Study Overview .
Tucker, PHD, Elizabeth M. (1999) The Power of Posters: Examining the
Effectiveness of 30-Sheet Posters, OAAA Research Reports, September.
Whitehill King, Karen and Tinkham, Spencer F. (1989/1990). The Learning and
Retention of Outdoor Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, December
1989/January 1990.
Young, Elliot (1984) Visibility Achieved by Outdoor Advertising, Journal of
Advertising Research, August/September.
http://www.warc.com | © ESOMAR. All rights reserved |