We have a concrete and useful research study that makes several important points about the value of signage, courtesy of the third National Signage Research and Education Conference (NSREC) held in Cincinnati in October. The University of Cincinnati is a conference co-sponsor.

 

Details follow, but U.S. research from a consumer panel based on a survey sample of more than 63,000 consumers included these three conclusions:

 

• 29 percent were drawn to a store with which they were not familiar based on the quality of that store’ signage;

 

• 34.5 percent have made assumptions about the quality of a business based on that business’s “clear and attractive” signage; and

 

• 49.7 percent have driven by a business, or failed to find a business they wanted to visit, because the signs for that business were “too small or unclear.”

 

Use Findings in Your Community

These three “bullet points” are compelling, and I offer more research information on the facing page to encourage you to use these findings in communications you have with regulators and customers.

 

The research itself came from a larger annual survey, the Better Homes and Gardens Shopper Study, conducted in conjunction with the market research firm, BrandSpark. The research sample included 100,218 North American households, and 63,664 U.S. consumers ages 18 to over 65 years. Survey results were weighted to account for gender, age, and Census region.

 

UC Business School Mined Data

The University of Cincinnati School of Business derived insights from this data through work with a consumer panel session, reported to NSREC attendees by James J. Kellaris, Ph.D., the James S. Womack/Gemini Corporation Chair of Signage and Visual Marketing.

 

Researchers posed three scenarios to the panel:

 

1.) “I have been drawn into unfamiliar stores based on the quality of their signs;

 

2.) “I have made quality assumptions based on a store having clear and attractive signage; and

 

3.) “I have driven by and failed to find a business because the signage was too small or unclear.”

 

The finding of the first question, as noted, was 29 percent of the respondents were drawn to a particular store (or “store traffic”) based on the quality of that store’s signage. Dr. Kellaris said there were no differences in results due to gender, but there were large differences based on age.

 

Younger Shoppers Need Signs

In particular, the younger the respondent, the higher the “sign quality sensitivity.” About 55 percent of respondents aged 18-24 were influenced by the quality of a store’s signs to decide to shop in that store. 

 

The second question related to the first, of course. Respondents were asked if the presence of “clear and attractive” signs at a store influenced their assumption about the quality of the store. As noted, 34.5 percent of respondents said yes, with no differences for gender or geography.

 

However, Dr. Kellaris reported that respondents in the18-24 age group were “3 times more likely than any other age group to use signage to draw quality inferences.” He asked, if “younger, less experienced shoppers use signage information differently, why?” 

 

Dr. Kellaris referenced three academic theories to help answer his question, to reinforce his conclusion from the research that “shoppers with less experience must rely more on heuristic cues.”  By the way, heuristic means “helping to discover or learn; guiding or furthering investigation.” So, in effect, those of us in the signage field are also neck-deep in providing heuristic cues to the world.

 

Small Signs: Not Just for Seniors

The finding about younger shoppers depending more on signs to offer insights into the quality of a store is major, I believe. I am pessimistic about how the value of signage translates to a younger generation that obviously takes much of its information from a phone-sized screen. Proof that tangible signs influence these same younger shoppers can be used effectively both with regulators at code and variance hearings, and with customers.

 

The final scenario explored the prevalence of a “drive by” or failure of a shopper to find a particular business due to small or unclear signage. That almost half of the respondents noted such a failure is striking on its own, but a further cut into the data revealed something of equal importance: the “drive by” or failure syndrome was not just a “senior citizen” problem.

 

Indeed, Dr. Kellaris reported that 64 percent of females in the 18-24 age group had a failure to find a business due to small or unclear signage, slightly higher than respondents in the 65 or older age group, and higher than all the other age groups. 

 

The research also delved into what is called psychographic segments, and cut the data by identifying respondents as being environmentally conscious, health conscious and on their level of “self-construal.” That was defined as “how we view ourselves in relation to the external world affects perception and judgment.”

 

Lastly, the research findings brought a ranking by respondents of the usefulness of various advertising media as an information source. The rankings were:

 

1. Television ads 

2. Interior signage tied with magazine ads 

3. Outdoor signage 

4. Radio ads 

5. Internet ads and 

6. Newspaper ads. 

 

Ordinarily, I would have focused more on this set of findings but the other questions were proportionately much more important.