I. Systems adjusting for VAI and noticeability underestimate the traditional strengths of outdoor advertising.

Three of the fundamental strengths of outdoor advertising are that it: 1) is a high frequency medium that can generate high levels of repeat exposures; 2) is viewed in a relatively uncluttered environment; and 3) provides locational advantages that are highly advantageous to many businesses. As a result, the value of exposures provided by outdoor advertising should not be underestimated. These unique advantages should have an impact on enterprise value in an era characterized by media fragmentation.

One of outdoor advertising’s key advantages is repeated exposures. High reach and frequency are consistently listed in marketing and advertising textbooks as being among the major advantages of outdoor advertising critical to outdoor advertising’s success (Hewett 1972; King and Tinkham 1990; Young 1984; McGann and Russell 1988; Kelley and Jugenheimer 2004; Belch and Belch 2005; Taylor, Franke and Bang 2006). In fact, Taylor, Franke and Bang (2006) found that media efficiency (ability to achieve high reach and frequency in an area at an efficient cost) was one the primary reasons why advertisers use billboards.

In a review of evidence from academic studies on outdoor advertising, Woodside (1990) found that the primary advantage of outdoor advertising is high frequency in an uncluttered environment. In practical terms, this is important, because it means outdoor advertising has the ability to expose members of a target market to a message numerous times in a relatively short period of time. Many motorists pass by an individual billboard numerous times in a month and, thus, are exposed to the billboard multiple times.

The impact of repeated exposures providing greater impact than individual exposures is well documented. For example, a recent study of recognition and recall of outdoor ads positioned in Laguardia airport indicates that ads that have been displayed in previous months are recalled at a disproportionately high rate.

Another important point is that there is substantial evidence from academic research that passive exposure has an important cumulative effect on consumers. This contributes to an increased value of exposures typical of outdoor advertising. Decades of research resulting in hundreds of studies have shown that prior exposure to a stimulus (e.g. an advertisement) predisposes an individual toward the stimulus when it is encountered at a later time (Bornstein 1989; Fechner 1876; Maslow 1937; Zajonc 1968). For example, prior research has shown incidental exposure to advertising that occurs during newspaper reading can enhance a consumer’s liking for ads, brands and product packages despite the subject’s inability to recognize having previously seen the ads, brands and product packages (Janiszewski 1988). Low involvement processing of information can result in increased brand awareness and incidental ad exposure has been linked to increased accessibility of information in memory (Shapiro, MacInnis and Heckler 1997). Incidental exposure to product information can also increase the chances that a product makes it into a consideration set (the set of available product or service options most likely to be considered in a choice by the consumer) (Shapiro 1999; Shapiro, Macinnis and Heckler 1997). Also, previous research has shown that incidental exposure effects remain even when in the presence of a large amount of competitive interference or after a lengthy time delay (DeSchepper and Treisman 1996).

A criticism of the VAI model is that it potentially limits the effects of outdoor advertising and underestimates the audience reactions to the outdoor ad. A possible alternative to the VAI model that emphasizes the elements of exposure over noticeability is the processing fluency/attribution model (Bornstein and D’Agostino 1992; 1994; Jacoby, Kelley and Dywan 1989); which is the most popular explanation of the incidental or “mere” exposure effect. The processing fluency/attribution model proposes that repeated exposure to a stimulus (e.g. an ad or billboard) will result in a representation of the stimulus in memory. When the stimulus is encountered later, the memory representation will facilitate the processing of the stimulus (e.g. the advertised product on a retail store shelf) and make processing more fluent (Janiszewski and Meyvis 2001; Jacoby, Kelley and Dywan 1989; Mandler, Nakamura and Van Zandt 1987). Mere exposure therefore leads to easier processing of product information.

In situations where consumers have little or no opportunity to elaborate on ad stimuli (e.g. driving a car and passing an outdoor ad), the effects of initial exposures on ad liking are stronger (Bornstein 1989; Nordhielm 2002). Studies on advertising repetition effects have found that ad effectiveness increases at lower levels of repetition (i.e. ad wearin; Cox and Cox 1988) while decreasing in effectiveness when continued repetition results in tedium and boredom with the message (i.e. ad wearout; Anand and Sternthal 1990; Blair and Rabuck 1998; Calder and Sternthal 1980). Nordhielm (2002) found that repetition effects (after 80 exposures) under conditions of “shallow” (short duration) processing do not result in a reported decrease of advertising effectiveness (wearout). Additionally, repetition effects extended beyond affective response (liking the ad) to purchase intentions and perceptions regarding product marketing (Nordhielm 2002). Prior research has also shown that when stimuli are processed in a shallower manner, the effects of prior exposure on affective response can actually last as long as one year (Roediger and McDermott 1992). Outdoor exposures are typically of a short duration and this finding enhances the value of frequent, repeated ad exposures for advertisers. The implications of the previously cited research on prior exposures should not be underestimated in the outdoor advertising arena. Exposure in and of itself is an important measure of advertising effectiveness.