This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] On: 21 February 2013, At: 07:53 Publisher: Routledge

Informa 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 Advertising

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

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

Anne C. Osborne Ph.D.
a a c

& Renita Coleman Ph.D.

b d

Sponsored Research & Programs at the Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University, USA
b c d

University of Texas-Austin's School of Journalism, USA University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA

University of Missouri, USA Version 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 of Newer 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 systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be 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 in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

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

Anne C . Osborne and Renita CoZeman

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

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 "afecfsconsumers' 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-dimensionalsigns. Billboards now feature three-dimensionalfigures 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 triangular 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 Pilot (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 o f Tennessee -Knoxville) is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean For Sponsored Research & Programs at the Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University. (email: osbome@lsu.edu) Renita Coleman (Ph.D., University of Missouri) is an Assistant Professor in the University of Texas-Austin's School of Journalism. (email: renitac@mail.utexas.edu) Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Lamar Outdoor 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 Advertising Expenditures" 2006). Outdoor's percent increase in 2005 was bested only to Internet (13.3%) and cable television (11.4%).Network television experienced 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 demographicsegmentationeasier (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 prelournnl of Cztrrent lsstles nnd Research in Advertising, Volume 30, Number 1 (Spring 2008).

14

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

dates the industrys many technologicaladvances. 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 advertisings 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

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

Advertising studies abound but have tended to focus 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 agendas. 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 peoples ability to name the 30thU.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, specificallythe new computerized smartboards.

(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 persons 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 scrutinize 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 sigruficantlybetter 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 satellite radios in their cars. Much has been made of consumers overexposure to advertising and media.

Advertising and Repetition

Most research on repetition in advertising has focused on television. More than 30 years ago, Krugman

Spring 2008

15

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

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). Therefore, 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.

a marketing tool but do not address whether such engagement with the product message affects recall. Other research has demonstrated that greater interaction or involvementwith 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-ofmouth 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 improved aided recall.

Attitudes Toward Advertising

Those respondents who tend to have positive feelings 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 spanning from 1978 to 1991. Our study retests the influence 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 annoying 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 viewers avoid television advertising. Higher levels of income were significantly related to ad avoidance for all media. Based on Speck and Elliotts research, our study will examine how demographic characteristics as well as attitudes toward and attention to advertising affect aided recall of billboards.

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

16

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

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 influencingaided and unaided recall of outdoor advertisingmessages.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 untested structuralvariables, we ask an exploratoryquestion: 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 midsize Southerncity who drive along a one-mile stretch of the city's maininterstate at least once a week; and a content h i s analysis of the s t r u w a l features of the billboards on t 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 chosen because it carries standard boards (20 boards), a tri-vision board (1board rotating 3 sides for 1 advertiser) and a smartboard (1 board rotating 13 ads). Therefore one who drives this stretch would necessarily 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 proximity that would allow such comparison. See Appendix A for a list of advertisers. Study 1. The survey was conducted by a non-profit, university-associatedpolling center. Interviewers were professionals trained by the polling center. Randomdigit dialing yielded 517 completed responses over the course of one week in June 2003. Taking into consideration 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 effectivenesshas 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 magazine 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 subjectiveestimateof 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 contends, "Recall scores reflect the advertisement's ability to register the sponsor's name, and to deliver a meaningful 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 setting, we relied on boards already present in the market rather than erectingboards specifically for this study.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

Spring 2008

17

Participants attitudes toward the advertisements were measured using a series of 5-point Likert scaled statements (Cronbachs alpha=.69; see Appendix B for question wording). Our Cronbachs 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 originally developed only includes 10items, and we used all 10. Because these questions have been shown to have alpha levels of .88 in other studies (Donthuset al. 1993; Deshpande, Hoyer, and Donthu 1986), we have confidence in the internal consistency of the scale and decided 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, televisionand billboards in general (Cronbachs alpha=.77), one question about how much they talked about the advertisements with others (Kingand Tinkham 1990),and one question about how much attention they paid to these specificboards. 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 boards 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 painting, 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 perceptions 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 explanation 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.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

18

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

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 consumers 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 satisfaction of a need including Maslows hierarchy of needs such as food, safety, shelter, acceptance, love, self-actualization, and esteem of friends and colleagues; and communicationof 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 Scotts Pi for nominal variables because it corrects for chance agreement, and Pearsons correlation for the interval and ratio level variables. Reliability calculations using Scotts 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 citys 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 1was 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). H1: Regular and tri-vision boards will be recalled significantly better than smartboards. 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 (RegularM=.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

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

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 opposite 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 controlling 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 improved 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 models 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 explained24%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 structuralfeaturesof 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 collapsed into three categories-5 or more years, 1 to 5 years, less than 1year. Analysis of Variance was used to determine if significant differences in recall were related to different structural features.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

20

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

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

Mode/ 7 S.E. Befa

Mode/P SE Befa

Made/ 3 S.E. Befa

Constant
Demographics Gender Men=l Age Education Marital Status Married=l Children income Race White=l Sifuafiona/ Variables Driving Times Passengers Radio Cell Phone Atfifude Variab/es Attention to these Boards Talk about Boards Attitude toward Ads Attention to Ads Media use Index

.718 .021
-.0005

.067 .032
.001

.733 .027 -.019 -.056 .027 .059 -.114* .071 .012

.lo2 .032 .025 -.027 -.058 .042 .085* -.114* .058

.528 .078 -.012 -.006 .046

.001 -.014

.I06 .028
.001

.099** -.046 -.019 .059 .004 -.09* .028

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

-.017 .021
.017

.013 .038 .012 .007 .016

-.0007 .001 -.018 .013 .033 .039 .024 -.017 .023 .012 .008 .016

.Oil
.035

.Oil
.007 .033

-.017 -.027

.023

.014 -.017 .0096 -.042

.005 .015

.016 .017

.115** -.047 .025

-.104*

.006 -.032 -.018 -.039 .084 .137 .007 .023 -.013

.004 .013 .014 .015

.01

.046 -.09* -.046 -.097** .369*** .156***

.01

.033 .031 .012 .009

.087 -.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, d F l , 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, d F l , 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 f d 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-

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 allows 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 wearin generally needed for consumers to process the boards. Additional research is needed to test the significance 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.

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 demonstrates that there is a significant temporal bottleneck 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. Experimental research would be needed to test whether attention to one message negatively affects the ability recall the next message displayed on the smartboard.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

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 contradictory 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 Pettys (1982) theory of need for cognition as one possible explana-

Billboard Characteristics and Aided Recall

Product awareness also positively correlated to recall. Given the limitation of this study, further research is needed to determine if advertisingrecall 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

22

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

tion for these results. Need for cognition is defined as the tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking (p. 116). Petty and Cacioppos (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 comparable 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 Edition, [On-line], Available: http:/ /adage.com/datacenter/ article?article-id=llOl24 [February 21,2007]. Belch, George (1982), The Effects of Television Commercial Repetition on Cognitive Response and Message Acceptance, Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June), 56-65.

Bhargava, Mukesh and Naveen Donthu (1994), Improving the Effectiveness of Outdoor Advertising: Lessons from a Study of 282 Campaigns, Journal ofAdvertising &arch, 34 (March), 46-56. Brown, Tom and Michael Rothschild (1993), Reassessing the Impact of Television Advertising Clutter, Journal o f Consumer Research, 20 (June), 138-146. Cacioppo, John and Richard Petty (1982), The Need for Cognition, Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (January),116-131. Calder, Bobby and Brian Sternthal, (1980), Television Commercial f MarWearout: An Information Processing View, Journal o keting Research, 17 (May), 173-186. Chevalier, Judith and Dina Mayzlin (2006), The Effects of Word of f Marketing Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews, Journal o Research, 43 (August), 345-354. Deshpande, Rohit, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Naveen Donthu (1986), The Intensity of Ethnic Affiliation: A Study of the Sociology f Consumer Research, 13 of Hispanic Consumption, Journal o (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. f AdDu Plessis, Erik (1994), Recognition Versus Recall, Journal o vertising Research, 34 (May), 75-92. Hawkins, Scott and Stephen Hoch (1992), Low-InvolvementLearning: Memory Without Evaluation, Journal o f Consumer Research, 19 (September) 212-225. ,and Joan Meyers-Levy (2001), LowInvolvement Learning: Repetition and Coherence in Familiarity and Belief, Journal ofconsumer Psychology, 1 1(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=31257Duly 20,20021. King Whitehall, Karen Tinkham, and Spencer F. Tinkham (1990), The Learning and Retention of Outdoor Advertising, Journal o f Advertising Research, 29 (January), 47-51. Krosnick, Jon (1991), Response Strategies for Coping With the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys, Applied 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), RepetitionInduced 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 O f f i c e 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 AdvertisementsDuring the Super Bowl, Psychology and Marketing, 18 (November), 11351153. Outddoor Advertising Association of America (2006), Fads and Figures, [On-line],Available: http:/ /www.oaaa.org/outdoor/fads/ [April 15,20061. (2006), Outdoor Advertising Expenditures: 19702005, [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-Relevant Cognitive Responses, Iournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (October) 97-109.

Spring 2008

23

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

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 o f Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (January),5-20. Raymond, Jane E. (2003), "When the Mind Blinks: Attentional Limitations to the Perceptionof Sequential Visual Images," in Persuasive lmngey: A Consumer Response Perspective, Linda M. ScottandRajeev Batra, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumM 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], Available: 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 ofddvertising, 26 (September), 61-76. Strayer, David, Frank Drews, and William Johnston (2003), "Cell Phone-Induced Failures of Visual Attention During Simulated f Experimental Psychology, 9 (March), 23-32. Driving," Journal o Streiner, David L. and Geoffrey R. Norman (2003), Health Measurement Scales, 3d ed., New York, NY Oxford University Press. (2003), "Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency," Journal o f Personality 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," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9 (June), 1-28.

Appendix A List of Advertisers

Aided Recall Adveti'iser TRlVlSlONBOARDS Casino Rouae STANDARD BOARDS Our Lady of the Lake Hospital Hooters Eagle 98.1 LA Lottery Paragon Casino Mall of Louisiana Ninfa/Ruffinos/Ribbs (restaurants) WJBO 1150 RADIO Prevent Child Abuse Baton Rouge General Hospital Gapnanger Outlets Cracker Barrel Ralph and Kakoos (restaurant) Baton Rouge Airport Volunteers of America Reba on WB WRKF RADIO Waterfront Homesites Love Conference Persistence (Abe Lincoln) SMARTBOARDS Budweiser Riverside Centroplex TJ Moran (restaurant) Community Coffee 35 30 28 28 2 2 3 1 150000 150000 150000 150000 W W W W
R R R R

1% o f Responses)
66

Campaign Length*

DEC

East/ West

LeW Right

Size

Height

121000

w
E W E W W E E E W W E E E E E W W E W W

Standard

Standard

64 60 59 55 53 53 51 49 47 45 42 38 37 36 23 20 18 17 16 15

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

111000 121000 121000 121000 121000 98000 111000 121000 111000 111000 121000 121000 111000 111000 111000 111000 121000 121000 111000 111000

L R L R

R
R R L R R R L L L

L
L L L

R
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

Standard Standard Standard Standard

Standard Standard Standard Standard (continued)

24

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Appendix A(continued) List o f Advertisers Aided Recal A dvediser

P A of Responses)
25 21 19 15 13 12 11 7 6
2 +2-5 years

Campaign Length*

DEC

East/ Left/ West Right

W W W W W W W W W

Size
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

Height
Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

SMARTBOARDS BR Symphony (Red Stick Thunder) Harbs Oasis American Wetlands Serranos (restaurant) Coastal Truck Driving Swine Palace Theater Citadel Radio Deer Management Bits ComDuters
* Less than 1 year = 1
1-2 years

150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000 150000

=3

+5

years

=4

Appendix B Phone Survey

/ntroduction Hi, Im (name) calling from Louisiana State Universitys Public Policy Research Lab. Im not trying to sell you anything. Were conducting a study on outdoor advertising. I want to assure you that all the information you provide will be kept completely anonymous, so you cant be identified. Your participation is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any question you dont 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. How many times a month do you drive on 1-10 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 2. Is that one way or round-trip, that is, both coming and going? (1) One way (2) Both ways (888) DWNS (999) Refused (Affenton) 3. What time of day do you usually drive 1-10 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

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 youve seen on this part of 1-1O? (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) (AtfenDon) 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 1-10 between Acadian Thruway and Essen Lane? 2 3 4 5 A great deal Little to none 1 (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

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

26

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Appendix B (continued) Phone Survey

(Intent to purchase) 15. Do you intend to purchase any of the following: 15 a-j.(Read list) O=No, 1=Yes (888) DWNS (999) Refused Thanks so much. Now, I want to ask you a few questions about how you feel about advertising in general. (Aftifudes towardAdvertisg) For each of the following statements, please tell if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree: 16. Ads help me learn about products. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused 17. Most ads are true. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused 18. I think most ads are irritating. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused 19. 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 20. I find ads entertaining. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused 21. I buy mostly well-known products. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused 22. I often switch brands because of an ad. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Strongly agree (888) DWNS (999) Refused 23. Ads are a necessary part of our society. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (999) Refused 24. There are too many ads on radio and TV. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (999) Refused 25. There are too many outdoor billboards. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (999) Refused
(3) Somewhat agree

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

(4) Strongly agree

(888) DWNS

(3) Somewhat agree

(4) Strongly agree

(888) DWNS

(3) Somewhat agree

(4) Strongly agree

(888) DWNS

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

Spring 2008

27

Appendix B (continued) Phone Survev

28. About how many magazines do you read in a week? (0) None (1-87) magazines a week (888) DWNS (Affenfionto Ads) (999) Refused

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

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 pay to ads in newspapers? 5 A great deal Little to none 1 2 3 4 (888) DWNS (999) Refused 30. Using that same scale, about how much attention do you pay to TV commercials? 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? 5 A great deal Little to none 1 2 3 4 (888) DWNS (999) Refused 32. ... about how much attention do you pay to billboards? 5 A great deal Little to none 1 2 3 4 (888) DWNS (999) Refused Finally, if youll tell me a little bit about yourself, well be done. (Demographics)

33. (Determine from voice, calling them maam or sir):

(1) Male

(0) Female

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 36. Are you: (1) Currently married (2) Not married (888) DUNS (999) Refused 37. If you have any children living with you, how many? (1-120) children living with you (888) DUNS (999) Refused 38. What race do you consider yourself? Interviewer, If Necessary Read Choices. (1) White (2) Black (3) Hispanic (4) Asian or Pacific Islander (5) American Indian (6) Other (7) Multi-racial or mixed race (888) Dont Know/Not Sure (999) Refused

28

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

Appendix B (continued) Phone Survey 39. Now consider your familys 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 (2) $10,000 to $19,999 (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 (10) Over 150,000 (888) Dont Know/NS (999) Refused Standard thank you and good-bye. Appendix C Billboard Characteristics (Independent Variables) Advertiser:
Lisf the brand name o f the advenkng. /f there are mu/t/;o/e brands hsf a1 for examp/e, Reba on fhe WB nefwork or mu/f/;o/e resfaurnfs on one board

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

Type (check one): A product 13any fangHeproducfyou can hold in your hand Near& anflhing eke wou/dbe a sewice. Resfauranfsand bars wou/dbe considereda sewice. 3. product 2. service 1. entertainment/media 0. other: 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. Text Size (circle one): 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

fconf/huec$

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 Readability (circle one) 0. Unreadable=type requires greater than 8 seconds of scrutinizing before you can read it. Would not be clear from a distance. 1. Readable=type would be easily processed from a distance and with little time (6-8 seconds) to examine 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 bnghtest 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): Codefor theperceivedprice ofan average, one-fime useo ffheproducf orservice. /fif is a subscnpfionservice 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): Codeyourpercepfion of how wide& thk producf is adven'isedandknown in the Bafon Rouge market fs ifa we//recognizedbrand name? 3. High = very we//known, housebofdname. Thi3 wou/dbe a name fhaf anyone who has Lived here for a fion o f year or more wou/deasiw recognize and requike no exp/ana 2. Medium = a we//esfabbshedbusiness/service. Mostpeop/e wou/drecognize the name buf some may i ? & new business/sewice fhaf peope know LiMe about not This may be a h 1. Low = a new ornof wide& recognizedbrandname. Thisbrand wou/drequiresome explanafionfor mosf peop/e in fhe market fl (confinue

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

30

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

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/deachbe counfedasoneinformaafnpoint Themainsekngmessage, generaly communica fed in the headhne wou/dbe anofher informafionpoinVconcepf Overall appeal (circle one) Advetiising messages can bep/offeda/onga confinuumbefween ihformafiona/andemohonal Think about the overal appeaL Does ifp/ay more upon a rafional appeal to the consumer such as reasonable pnce, convenienf/ocafioon,widese/ecfion.Ordoesifappealfofhe consumer'semofions. YouwiVfee/happiecsafer; arepure image more accepfedifyouuse fhisproducf or sewice. Humor isgeneray an emot/bna/appea/as campaigns. 0. Emotional 1. Informational Main Purpose (circle one) focusing on whatyou consider fobe 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. Image = emphasizes an image or persona@ of theproducf or sewice 0. Other Brand differentiating strategy? (circle one) Does the bi//boardf y to dsfinguish the adverfisedbrandfrom compefiforseither throughan overf reference to an0fherbrandorbyimp&ihg a moregenera/dflerence?Forexamp/e,/ow/er/pncees, beLferqua~?& greaer fionbyhp&ihg a unique persona^^ for fhebrand se/ecfion.Imageadvetiiskigoftenemp/oysbranddfferenha such as Dodge is fhe fough fruck. 0. No 1. Yes Communication of product benefit? (circle one) Does the bilboard communcafe a benefit such as fhe safishchon of a need? Mas/ov'shierarchy 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 fheproducf c/aim to fu/W such a need? 0. No 7 . Yes Communication of product performance? (circle one) Does thebiZboardcommunicafea /eve/ofproducusen//i7epen'ormance such as fhebest, beffer, cheap, easy,
fast?

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 07:53 21 February 2013

0. No 1. Yes