An alert EMUTalk.org reader emailed me today about an article in the New York Times, “Digital Billboards, Diversions Drivers Can’t Escape,” which, as the headline suggests, is about these new digital billboards and if they are (or aren’t) dangerous. But by coincidence (I presume), this article features prominently an EMU “Explore Eastern” ad on an electronic billboard on I-75:
Go figure. It’s news in Michigan because the state legislature is considering a moratorium on the building of new digital billboards in the state.
Frankly, I think the “dangers” of these billboards are over-stated, certainly compared to texting while driving, but that’s perhaps another discussion….
The inside page of the article says these billboards cost $250,000 to $300,000. Wonder how many we have? Financial exigency, anyone?
Well, they cost that much to build, not that much to lease the space for the ad.
There is one near the Ypsi exit on I-94 where the city and EMU used to have a billboard– now there’s one of these digital billboards. there was some talk about this in July 2008 here, btw.
When the digital billboard at the Huron/Hamilton exit from I-94 went up, or was in the planning stages, there was much discussion about the energy consumption that such billboards entail. I can’t recall the figure, but it is an astonishingly high sum of energy consumed per billboard. This was one issue discussed by Ypsilanti council members when the deal was struck that allowed EMU to sponsor this billboard, with the billboard company, on land that the city (not EMU) owns. One southside resident I know is still angry, and outspoken, about this needless contribution to global warming made in her neighborhood by the university she attended…..
The Ypsilanti Courier has an article about the NYTimes article with the photo of the EMU digital billboard. Here’s a clip from the Courier piece – which quotes EMU asst. VP for marketing Ted Coutilish (or “Mr. Billboards,” as he’s known)….
“Coutilish also mentioned that being spotlighted in a world-wide publication came with a bitter-sweet reaction.
“It was sweet because having our photo in the Times is awesome,” he said. “It gets our name out to potentially billions of people in a publication seen around the world. But at the same time it was bitter because the article was focused on something that could be conceived as negative.”
Yes, one could say that using a form of expensive advertising, that consumes vast quantities of energy, and that may distract drivers in ways that increase the risks of highway accidents, “could be conceived as negative”. Significantly, there’s no reliable evidence that billboard advertising affects students’ choices about what university to attend (Ted has been able to provide none when asked for it).
Just as significantly, each of the disadvantages of digitial billboards – costs, energy waste, and traffic safety – was brought up as “Mr. Billboards” launched EMU into this billboard campaign, and dismissed without serious dialogue. Good deal for the billboard industry, bad deal for EMU.
There’s no upside for EMU in having this picture in the New York Times, despite Ted’s optimistic spin on it.
I hear additional research underway is finding that to really read the messages on digitial billboards, drivers must look at the quickly changing ads on the sign longer than previously assumed – and looking away from the road is ill advised in all driver education classes, isn’t it? They are clearly distracting. What’s not yet entirely proven is how dangerous these distractions are. As bad as cellphones? Not likely – except for the drivers who really really want to see what the sign is saying….The more effective the sign is a getting attention, the more distracting the sign is to the driver and hence more dangerous. Danger will likely be closely associated with effectiveness as a medium, or so I hear from scholars studying these issues.
Education First!
I know of at least 7 EMU faculty members who, after the NYTimes photo appeared, were contacted by colleagues from across the country who saw EMU’s name in the picture illustrating the risks of digital billboards. None of these communications were in the form of “congratulations”, to say the least.
This might be a bit of a tangent, but I wonder about the risk of these things, really. I will grant you that they are probably a waste of energy, but I am not convinced they are that more dangerous than other billboards and signs when it comes to good driving.
But really, I think that there’s a lot of exaggeration when it comes to the whole “distracted driver” thing. Talking on your cell phone might mean that you are splitting your attention between that and driving and that might not be as safe as ideal. But I think the same can also be said about talking with other passengers, listening to the radio, eating food, etc. Heck, I have no research on this, but I’ll bed you the number of accidents caused by spilled coffee is pretty high. What are we going to do, ban drinking coffee while driving? Ban cup-holders?
Though I do think the texting while driving is dangerous, and when I do talk on the phone while driving, I try as often as possible to use my headset.