Regulations of Outdoor Advertising

Billboard Advertising: "Litter on a Stick?"

This paper examines the issue of billboard advertising from the premise that it is a feature of modern American life that needs to be regulated by the federal government. It examines the history of such regulation as has already been enacted. It examines the effects of those regulations. It also examines the attitude of the public toward outdoor advertising, particularly billboards. And it gives some supporting case histories regarding the effect of billboards on citizens' lives.

And it makes comments on the possible adjuncts to billboard advertising such as hot-air balloons. The sources used included federal government websites, websites of organizations working in the field of billboard regulation, a large West Coast newspaper, and an international magazine published in the U.K. about France, as well as a U.S. media publication.

Billboard Advertising: "Litter on a Stick?"

Without the automobile, there would have been no need for advertising billboards, although they might have given people walking to visit a friend or trotting a 12-mph-horse to town something to do. Plus, they could have looked at those 'messages' a lot longer than can people speeding by at 60-plus miles per hour.

Still, advertising depends on a lot of people seeing the advertiser's message so that the expense of broadcasting that message to potential buyers will be repaid, and profit made as well. So, it took not only the invention of the automobile and roads, but achieving a critical mass of people owning and traveling in automobiles to make billboards a reasonable means of advertising products and services.

Although it could hardly be said that every family had a car in the 1920s, there were enough cars on enough roads to start the outdoor advertising industry. Among the early users of billboards was Burma Shave.

Burma Shave used relatively small billboards, placed sequentially next to a roadway, to deliver its message a phrase at a time. According the Web site The Third Age, it became one of the "greatest marketing campaigns in history."

Here's an example of a typical Burma Shave sequential ad: (Third Age Web site.) bearded lady

Tried a jar

She's now famous

Movie star

Burma Shave.

The signs themselves were nowhere near the building-size displays of today, and they had the dual charms of being both short and amusing. In other words, it might be fair to say that most people would consider them memorable without being obnoxious.

Another early form of outdoor advertising depended on painting the advertiser's message on the sides of already standing barns. An example of this still exists. A barn on the interstate between Knoxville and Chattanooga, Tenn., still advises travelers to "See Rock City." Not everyone wanted his or her barn painted, even for a bit of cash, so it was unlikely such signs would become ubiquitous, leaving those, too, more firmly in the 'charming' category than the repellent one.

American Safety Razor, Inc., which is once again selling Burma Shave creams, lotions and razors -- this time in Wal-Mart stores, which didn't exist in the 1920s -- has not so far reinstated the little roadside signs. That may be wise; billboards have come under attack in the press, and by government for more than four decades, as blight on the landscape.

Research reveals more distaste for billboards among the public than appreciation of them.

This was revealed in the 1990s by several opinion polls conducted by: EPIC MRA; Fleming and Associates; Institute for Public Opinion Research, Florida International University; University of New Hampshire, and; Telesurveys Research Associates. All were reported by Scenic America, an organization "dedicated solely to protecting natural beauty and distinctive community character." (Scenic.org home page.)

Here are some of those findings:

By a 10 to 1 margin, Floridians prefer reducing the number of billboards.

64% of the citizens in New Hampshire oppose to billboard advertising on highways.

62% of Rhode Islanders state that billboards make state roads less attractive; 31% felt it made no difference.

79% of Houstonians support maintaining or strengthening the city's ordinance removing ALL billboards by 2013.

69% of Missourians believe that fewer billboards would make their state more attractive to tourists: just 26% disagreed. (Scenic America Web site, Fact 5-page)

Despite the fact that it is clear from these surveys that a majority of Americans don't like billboards, advertisers would argue that that is beside the point; whether they like the signs or not, the billboards deliver useful, desired information, the advertisers say.

Not so counters Scenic America: "72% of those surveyed in a Rhode Island study responded that they received either very little or no useful information about products and services from billboards."

Scenic America Web site, Fact 5-page)

Organizations such as Scenic America have been founded to encourage the federal and state and local governments to do more to restrict billboards -- and even to tear existing billboards down -- than has been done in federal legislation beginning in the late 1950s. Other anti-billboard organizations include the 'green organizations' nationwide, and others such as badads.com. Scenic America is, however, one of the most active organizations. It not only lobbies against billboard use; it has complied significant statistics to support its claims.

Researchers also give billboards low marks for effectiveness. (No research has been done as yet on the effects of interactive billboards that have popped up in the past few years.)

And so, with typical ingenuity, U.S. advertising has come up with other ways to advertise to people out and about and going about their business. Today, outdoor advertising includes hot air balloons high in the sky, small planes trailing banners above beaches, and inflatable 'logo' objects placed where they are supposed to have the greatest effect (and, being removable, they come under different ordinances and laws than billboards). So far, there is not much being said, reported or studied about the alternatives. Billboards, on the other hand, are a fit subject for discussion, with disparate voices, from the 'greens' to William F. Buckley, lending voice to their concerns.

Billboards on the hot seat

Billboards are the oldest modern form of outdoor advertising, and, despite legislation limiting them, the most prevalent.

Scenic America keeps statistics on U.S. billboards, some of which are surprising. According to the group, between 5,000 and 15,000 new billboards are added to the landscape nationally each year, despite the fact that four states and a couple of localities prohibit billboards completely. Those are: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont, plus Boulder, Colo., and Fairfax County, Va. In addition, more than 100 communities in Texas, and more than 200 communities in Florida have 'grandfathered' existing billboards but prohibit new construction. (Scenic America Web site, Fact 12 screen.)

And that, according to Scenic America, is the good news for a public that Scenic America says doesn't like billboards. Here's the bad news for the industry that would like to keep those house-size signs a-building:

There are more than 500,000 billboards on major highways (estimated).

The industry is worth only an estimated $1.8 billion a year.

The industry, nationwide, employs fewer than 15,000, so it provides little employment in any given community.

Communities with tough billboard controls have suffered NO economic consequences.

Scenic America says that the U.S. has a billboard problem today because The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (HBA), which expanded the 1958 legislation, doesn't work. Scenic America also points out that the act adds insult to injury. The act is, the group says, "the only federal environmental regulation that requires taxpayers to pay the polluter to stop polluting. Loopholes have made the HBA little more than a Billboard Protection and Proliferation Act."

Scenic America says the act fails in two ways:

The HBA allows billboards to be erected virtually everywhere -- in any commercial/industrial area adjacent to interstate and federal-aid primary highways.

The HBA makes it virtually impossible to remove nonconforming billboards.

A further problem arises in defining just what is commercial/industrial activity. The group says a single general store could generate six 1,200-foot-square billboards. (The group also points out, elsewhere on its Web site, that most single-family homes in the U.S. are not much more than 1,200 square feet.)

The group says it has heard reports that sign companies have built bogus business just to get the right to build the big bunch of big signs.

As far as getting non-conforming signs removed, the group says the idea of amortization -- in short, to let the signs live out a 5-8-year useful life so the sign company could recoup its investment -- was fairly sound, and fairly fair. But the sign companies wanted more, and convinced Congress, in 1978, to prohibit amortization along interstates and primary federal-aid supported highways. This meant, in effect, that the HBA would protect the very signs it was meant to remove eventually. Scenic America says that:

According to the Federal Highway Administration, the prohibition of amortization has kept over 38,000 billboards standing despite local ordinances seeking to remove them. No one knows how much removal would cost. So far the federal government has spent $250 million in compensation to billboard companies with virtually no impact.

That certainly supports the group's contention that the HBA is the only act that would require the victims of the 'crime' to pay for its remediation. (Scenic America Web site, Fact 1 page) brief look at the legislation

The first attempt to regulate outdoor advertising was the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958. It offered states that would voluntarily agree to control outdoor advertising adjacent to interstate highways a bonus of one-half of one percent of the highway's cost of construction. That would seem to have been a pretty good inducement, even in 1958 dollars.

Twenty-three states participated, including:

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Under the law, localities could remove non-compliant signs through zoning ordinances or even eminent domain to purchase sites that it otherwise could not control.

There was, very early on, a problem with this approach. The very fact that no signs of what was then an ordinary size were permitted within 660 feet of the highway meant that (ingenuity again) sign companies erected jumbo signs farther back. (FHWA Web site)

The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 increased the scope of sign control and applied it to all states.

It did this by assessing a ten percent penalty of a state's annual highway apportionment monies if the state failed to provide effective signage control. Despite the loss of funds, only 75% of states complied, according to statistics from the Federal Highway Administration itself.

To make all this more palatable, the federal government had even provided for information centers in highway rest areas. Theoretically, stopping to grab a handful of brochures would be more effective and less unsightly than the billboards.

The law also required control of junkyards adjacent to interstates and primary highways. And it provided funds for landscaping and scenic enhancement.

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1974 and onward

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1974 extended control beyond 660 feet of the right-of-way outside urban areas. It added landmark signs as a permitted category; in 1965, certain other signs had been permitted, including:

Directional and official signs.

On-premises signs for sale, lease or an activity or event.

Signs within 12 miles of an otherwise advertised activity.

Signs in the interest of the traveling public, such as historic site signs, natural phenomena signs, and signs for camping, lodging, eating and vehicle service/repair.

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) had another try at billboard limitation. This act (one hesitates to say 'like all the others'):

Required removal of illegal signs.

Prohibited new signs on designated scenic byways.

Redefined the 'primary highway' system for purposes of sign control.

For the subsequent two years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued memoranda threatening loss of funds to states not conforming to the law. (FHWA Web site, History and overview page)

Exceptions are the rule

Despite all these attempts to regulate what Scenic America calls 'litter on a stick', the National Standards for Directional and Official Signs alone creates numerous exceptions. Some can be considered exceptions of necessity; one or two are simply amusing. Here's how the Federal Highway Administration sees those exceptions:

Sale or Lease Signs: No size, lighting or spacing limitations when located on the property for sale, or in the Bonus States (those excepted for other reasons.)

On-Property Signs: No size or spacing limitations when advertising goods or services provided on property where sign in located.

Public Utility Signs: No size, lighting or spacing limitations.

Signs providing a warning or certain information essential to the operation of publicly or privately owned utilities.

Service Club Notices: These are limited to eight square feet, but have no lighting or spacing limitations.

Religious Notices: These are limited to eight square feet, but have no lighting or spacing limitations.

Public Service Signs on School Bus Stop Shelters: Signs identifying the donor or sponsor of school bus stop shelters may not exceed 32 square feet, and the public service portion must occupy at least 50% of the sign.

Public Service Information Signs: Public service information such as time, date, temperature, weather or similar information but only on electronic variable message signs in commercial/industrial areas.

Landmark Signs: No size or spacing limitations. (The law says this includes signs painted on farm structures or natural surfaces, and thus includes the "See Rock City" sign.

Free Coffee Signs:

No size, lighting or spacing limitations.

And one might sarcastically assume the intent is to keep drivers awake, not least to be able to see the jumbo signs sitting 700 feet off the highway. (FHWA Web site: History and Overview)

Putting one and one together

The Scenic America organization has put together the results of surveys both of signage and people's attitudes toward billboards. The Federal Highway Administration and Congress have attempted to regulate billboards, with some monkey wrenches thrown into their attempts by the courts deciding in favor of the billboard-owner plaintiffs concerning various 'teeth' in the law. In short, the laws seem to have been rendered fairly in effective at a federal level.

What's the harm? Free enterprise proponents would, of course, hold the opinion that erecting signs on land one owns or leases is no more than exercising the right of free speech in a democracy. Or would they? Conservative columnist William F. Buckley has come down against that sort of in-your-face advertising via billboard. Buckley said:

If a homeowner desires to construct a huge Coca-Cola sign facing his own homestead rather than the public highway, in order to remind him, every time he looks out his window, that the time has come to pause and be refreshed, he certainly should be left free to do so. But if he wants to face the sign toward us, that is something else. (Scenic America, Web site Fact 14-page)

Still, Buckley's 'free speech' take on it doesn't imply any actual harm. Is there any? Many say there is.

Several forms of harm

Many claim that billboards have an adverse affect on the health of citizens subjected to them; others claim they foster addictive behavior; still others say they constitute safety hazards. Here is some evidence supporting such claims.

Bad signs equals bad vibes study by Texas A & M. University determined that the urban/suburban sprawl caused by strip malls, billboards and garish on-premises signs contributes to commuter stress. In a controlled study, stress levels declined for those commuting on unspoiled rural roads vs. those on the strip-malled highways. (Scenic America Web site)

Alcohol and Tobacco Abuse

Billboards can't be turned off as a radio or the television can; they cannot even be regulated by parents as Internet information can, to some extent. City after city has found most billboards are located in low-income, minority neighborhoods. A study in Baltimore, Md., revealed there of four billboards were in the inner city: 3 of four of those advertised alcohol or tobacco products. Studies in Chicago, Detroit, Louisville and Atlanta revealed similar trends.

Indeed, Advertising Age magazine found that, at least in 1995, tobacco was the leading category of products advertised on billboards. (Scenic America Web site)

Driving into danger

Billboards are, in their very concept, safety hazards. They are meant to distract motorists from watching the road and other vehicles and pedestrians. A 1980 FHWA study found a positive correlation between billboards and accident rates. (Scenic America Web site)

Anecdotal evidence

While surveys and studies may be fine to prove a point, they often don't force action. Real-life stories, however, sometimes do.

Little houses with little hope

In 1995, the Paine and McNeely families of Pax, W.Va., called county officials when a huge billboard appeared beside their homes. The sign, lit 24 hours a day, remains. The county said it could do nothing; it has no sign ordinance. They families had to install heavy draperies just to get some sleep; sitting out on the porch gives them only a view of ads for a local restaurant/gas station. In winter, chunks of ice form on the sign, break off, and break windshields.

Worse still, they probably cannot afford to move out, if indeed anyone wanted to move in. The presence of the sign has reduced their property value by an estimated 30%. The families know this because of home appraisals they had done when they went to court to have the sign removed. They lost. With neither home now worth more than $20,000, the families spent that much on the losing lawsuit.

Big houses with big problems

Jeff Wallis hoped to begin a trend in housing with a 'sustainable urban village' in St. Paul, Mn. Clear Channel Outdoor Advertising, however, wanted to sustain its to a billboard leas in the middle of Wallis' site, a site where he planned 350 housing units in three buildings that use geo-thermal heat, wind and solar power.

Luckily, the terms of Wallis' warranty deed to the property said Clear Channel was out of luck because no lease, the one Clear Channel claimed it had, had appeared in the title search.

But it wasn't over yet. St. Paul seemingly actually did something to make sure it -- and lots more -- was over, but it backfired. The city imposed a moratorium on new billboards. Fearing this, Clear Channel and other outdoor advertising companies put in applications before it was to take effect. The city, knowing it would take effect, simply didn't act on the applications. The applicants sued. Fearing the big outdoor advertising companies -- or something -- the city rubber-stamped them all, including the new one for the old billboard site in Wallis' domain.

Wallis has started a lawsuit of his own, naturally. A trial will cost thousands, but it's cheaper -- if he wins -- than having a billboard on his site. Scenic America quoted Wallis: "What [Clear Channel] is trying to do is the exact antithesis of what we are trying to accomplish [with sustainable development]."

And then there's YOW!

The Sacramento Bee reported in 2002 that suddenly, billboards -- that venerable old advertising medium hated by most -- was about to enter a new era, and one hardly likely to endear it to many. In fact, it smacks a bit of Big Brother, who is now not only watching you, but also trying to change your behavior. Suddenly, a sign has become The Borg.

Overstatement? Here's the story:

In Sacramento, two freeway billboards will contain listening devices and sensors and will be able to tell which radio station passing cars are listening to, and then change the image on the sign to best appeal to the listener's preferences. Writer Matthew Barrows quoted John Henry Parker, a member of the 'smart sign' team. "We'll be able to shift the advertisement to suit the people driving by."