Have you ever been to one of those dinner parties where the host and hostess announce it far in advance and a diverse guest list is assembled? Word passes that the specially prepared main course is going to be worth all the effort. Then you get to the party and find out there was a slight problem in the kitchen: no main course, after all. Have some stale potato chips. Enjoy!

 

The dinner party, in this case, was the EMC research session at the 90th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in Washington, D.C., in late January. For those individuals and groups aligned either for or against the use of digital displays as billboards or as on-premise signs, the promised presentation was eagerly anticipated. The title alone encompassed so much: “Roadside Advertising: International Policies, Recent Research, and Public Opinion.”

 

Presided over by Jerry Wachtel (the individual whose career has included federally-funded research reviews on changeable copy signs since the 1980s) the session’s main speaker was Christopher A. Monk of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

 

Monk was there—or so attendees thought—to deliver the results from the eagerly anticipated (now nearly two-year-old) “Phase II” research on what the federal government calls CEVMS, or commercial electronic variable message signs. As noted in my November 2010 column, the main goal of this study was to analyze (via real-time eye-glance tracking technology) the connection between a driver looking at a digital billboard, and any related distraction that might cause traffic-safety concerns.

 

EMC DATA STILL ‘UNDER INTERNAL REVIEW’

Thus, Monk delivered what has to be considered fairly dramatic news when he announced that he would not be presenting research results after all, the data being still “under internal review.” Last October, when I asked federal officials when the research would be released, it was then also under internal review, with results expected to be released in one to two months. 

 

Now, in January, FHWA officials said they would release results, “hopefully, in upcoming months.” When asked to be more specific, one official said he meant, in the next one to two months. And why the further delay? Because there are “a lot of sensitivities involved.” Data, meet politics. 

 

But the real measure of this data, even while not yet released, can begin to come into focus. After all the effort, all the expense, and particularly all the anticipation, the research looking at the connection between digital billboards and driver distraction will be deemed inconclusive. And that will be that. 

 

ONE RESULT – MAYBE A LITTLE LESS EMC HYSTERIA

The eventual winners out of this process will be those who steadfastly presented EMCs as a technology-savvy sign option for businesses, with no measurable impact on traffic safety. And the losers will be those groups and individuals who use hysteria and a selective reading of what little actual adverse research exists to advocate severe restrictions or outright bans on EMCs. 

 

Anti-billboard groups such as Scenic America came to this TRB session with a great hope—that this new research would be the beginning of the end for EMCs, based on what they would be eager to showcase as new “federally-funded” and conclusive driver distraction research. Those hopes crashed at TRB in January.

 

There is little reason to believe that the FHWA will suddenly be able to report some stunning connection between digital billboards and driver distraction. Remember that the field tests for this research ended last June. If there was even a hint that this kind of result was percolating out of the raw data, Monk likely would have said so in January, just to keep interest high. Instead, we find the FHWA stalling, focused on the “sensitivities” involved instead of just reporting out whatever the research shows.

 

Monk ended his presentation with a reference to an “inside joke” at FHWA that possibly “more research is needed.” It was at this point that I realized the Phase II survey would be inconclusive—just the result needed to justify another round of federal funding. 

 

The TRB session was highlighted by Monk, but his presentation was only one of three—the other two have their own lessons independent of the CEVMS Phase II study.

 

18-DAY WORLD TOUR OF BILLBOARDS

The opening presentation was mostly a “travelogue” with a report of an 18-day world tour of billboards by federal and state transportation officials, along with representations from the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) and the American Planning Association. (The group also included an official of Scenic America.) The group visited Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK, with the goal of better understanding controls on outdoor advertising displays. 

 

The second of the three presentations was given by Jerry Wachtel, and purported to be an update of public opinion about billboards. Wachtel termed it “40 years of surveys, interviews and unsolicited opinions.” There was just one problem; he found only three surveys focused on measuring attitudes about outdoor advertising—one from 1967 conducted in northeast Ohio by the University of Akron, and two conducted by Arbitron in 2008 and 2009 in Cleveland and Los Angeles, respectively, for the OAAA.

 

‘FRESH’ RESEARCH ON BILLBOARDS—FROM 1967

Wachtel detailed the University of Akron study, attempting to suggest that it proved that “the more people drove, the less they liked billboards.” But are we supposed to have policy set by a single study that was conducted 44 years ago? Wachtel dismissed the two much more recent Arbitron studies as being “done to support marketing efforts, and use in potential litigation.” 

 

(For the unfamiliar, Arbitron is a publicly-listed media and marketing research company serving radio, television, cable and out of home, and advertisers and ad agencies using these media. Along with the Nielsen organization, Arbitron is considered the gold standard in the U.S. for media research.)

 

Next, Wachtel cited three studies that included some data on opinions toward billboards. Research must be more credible when it is done outside the United States, since the studies were from Canada, Sweden and the UK.

 

Lastly, Wachtel presented his “own” research, consisting of counting the number of “pro” billboard and “anti” billboard comments published online after publication of articles on digital billboards in three newspapers last year: the Sacramento Bee, the New York Times and USA Today. Guess what he found? There were lots more negative comments than positive comments regarding billboards. 

 

And this proves… exactly nothing.