- Email: [email protected]
Billboard advertising: A comparison of vice products across ethnic groups
Billboard Advertising: A Comparison of Vice Products across Ethnic Groups Wei-Na Lee UNIVERSITY
Margaret UNIVERSITY
OF
TEXAS AT AUSTIN
F. Callcott OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN
The controversy surrounding alcohol and tobacco billboard advertising has caused a continuous decline in outdoor spending in these two categories during the past ten years. Angry minority community groups haveforced the outdoor industry to self-regulate alcohol and tobacco advertising. The ongoing debate on the advertising ofso-called“vice”products toward ethnic minorities will no doubt continue. A content analysis was carried out to examine the types ofproducts advertised in ethnic minority versus Anglo
Beer, Wine & Liquor , $80,ooo,ooo
I
neighborhoods in Detroit and San Antonio. Results indicate that both neighborhoods appear to be receiving similar amounts of tobacco and alcohol advertising. Furthermore, the
amount of tobaccoand alcohol billboards appears to be related to income level.
II 1985
Introduction
T
he advertising of alcohol and tobacco products has long been the subject of criticism and debate. Consumer activists argue that tobacco and alcohol advertising tactics usually affect minority and low income individuals who are more vulnerable to influence. Meanwhile, advertisers defend their rights to advertise legal products. Recently, this debate has escalated due to certain minority community efforts to whitewash alcohol and tobacco ads in their neighborhoods. The ongoing controversy surrounding alcohol and tobacco billboards has caused a steady decline in outdoor advertising spending in these two categories over the past decade (Figures 1 and 2). Angry consumers and the resulting loss of revenue have forced the outdoor advertising industry to submit to stricter regulation concerning alcohol and tobacco billboards, while working to attract new business from less controversial products and services. In 1981, tobacco advertising accounted for 43% of total outdoor expenditures, while liquor accounted for 20%. By 1988, tobacco accounted for only 23% of outdoor revenues and liquor was responsible for only 10% (Kalish, 1988). In 1990, cigarettes/tobacco/accessories was still the number one outdoor advertiser, spending $182.6 million, 3% less than in 1989. Retail was the second biggest spender at $68.9 million, while beer/wine/liquor came in fourth at $56.5 million, 2% Address correspondence to Wei-Na Lee, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Advertising, CMA 7.142, Austin, TX 78712-1092. Journal of Business Research 30,85-94 (1994) 0 1994 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
50,ooo.cJoo 1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Figure 1. Yearly outdoor expenditures by beer, wine, and liquor. Sources: Multimedia Reports 1985-1990, Leading National Advertiser.
less than in 1989 (Fahey, 1991). However, Institute of Outdoor Advertising president Don Byer predicted that the tobacco category would lose its perennial number one standing in outdoor expenditures sometime in 1991. “Local retail advertisers now make up the second-largest outdoor category, and will soon be first,” says Byer. “Tobacco is declining even faster than retail is increasing” (Feuer, 1990). The current controversy and its impact on the outdoor advertising industry inspired a study, conducted in Detroit
Cigarettes, Tobacco & Accessories ~$220,000.000 210400.000 200.ooo.000
180.000.000 170,ooo.ooo
I I . I . I . I . ! 16O,m,OOO 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Figure 2. Yearly outdoor expenditures accessories. Sources as in Figure 1.
by cigarettes, tobacco, and
0148-2%3/94/$7.00
86
J Busn Res
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1994:30:85-94
Table 1 Crgarette Consumptton (Number of Packs in Last 7 Days) All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speakit % income 75,000+ 60-74999 50-59,999 40-49,999 30-39,999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 under 10,000
Heavy/9 + Packs
Pop (000)
%U
%P
index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
51094 9348 3532
83 15 6
32 45 32
96 135 95
17508 2660 910
86 13 4
11 13 8
99 116 74
4092 3718 4318 6948 9929 10804 12700 9350
7 6 7 11 16 18 21 15
24 26 28 31 34 35 39 43
71 78 83 93 101 103 117 126
6 6 8 10 14 19 21 17
7 9 10 10 10 13 13 16
66 76 88 85 85 112 120 140
1261 1195 1530 2106 2757 3877 4307 3433
and San Antonio between January and March of 1991, to determine the amount of tobacco and alcohol billboard advertising-as well as advertising for other products and services-in different neighborhoods. Photographs were taken in designated Anglo and ethnic minority neighborhoods (i.e., African-American neighborhoods in Detroit and MexicanAmerican neighborhoods in San Antonio) for content analysts.
Much of the current controversy stems from activists who claim that alcohol and tobacco advertising is aimed at minorities and/or low income populations. The Reverend Calvin Butts, an anti-tobacco crusader from Harlem, initiated billboard whitewashing campaigns against tobacco advertising in hts neighborhood in January 1990. Similar campaigns soon
Table 2. Domesttc Beer Consumptton
Pop (000)
Packs
Light/<6
%U
%P
Index
18132 2981 1257
84 14 6
12 15 11
97 123 96
1387 1063 1542 2592 3953 3678 4466 2936
6 5 7 12 18 17 21 14
8 8 10 12 14 12 14 13
69 64 84 99 115 101 117 113
Packs
%U
%P
Index
15454 3706 1366
78 19 7
10 18 12
91 167 114
1444 1461 1245 2250 3219 3248 3926 2982
7 7 6 11 16 16 20 15
8 10 8 10 11 11 12 14
78 96 74 94 103 97 113 126
Pop (000)
followed in several other metropolitan areas, including Houston, Baltimore and Chicago. A subsequent Advertising Age poll revealed that while most consumers felt that defacing local billboards should not be tolerated, the majority also felt there should be some means of local control over community billboard advertising (Hume, 1990). Admittedly, the controversy has erupted as the market for so-called “sin” or “vice” products, especially tobacco, has evolved. The Director of the Federal Office on Smoking and Health once noted, “Smoking is becoming more and more a behavior of racial and ethnic minorities, blue-collar workers and the unemployed-in general, the people with less affluence.” According to a recent Progressive Grocer (1990) report, “The upscale market is shrinking faster because it is becoming socially unacceptable to smoke. Upscale smokers are more socially sensitive.” About ten years ago, as a response to state taxes that drove up the cost of cigarettes to consumers, the price-value or savings segment came into being. Price-value cigarettes, which
The Controversy and Its Consequences
(Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) Heavy/7 + Glasses
All Users
Populatton White Black Spanish-speaki] ‘g lncomc 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59.999 40-49,999 30-39.999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 under 10.000
Mediumf6-8
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
54682 7627 4283
85 12 7
35 37 39
99 106 110
6999 5358 5852 8486 10595 10183 10394 6460
11 8 9 13 17 16 16 10
41 38 38 38 37 33 32 29
116 108 108 109 104 94 92 84
Pop (000)
Medium/Z-6
Light/<2
Glasses
Glasses
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
15804 2805 1713
82 15 9
10 14 16
96 130 148
118122 3033 1307
83 14 6
12 15 12
96 124 99
20756 1789 1263
89 8 5
13 9 11
103 68 90
1468 1263 1572 2378 2843 3860 3542 2250
8 7 8 12 15 20 19 12
9 9 10 11 10 13 11 10
82 86 97 102 94 119 105 98
2337 1692 1833 2656 3706 3246 3979 2357
11 8 8 12 17 15 18 11
14 12 12 12 13 11 12 11
114 101 99 100 107 88 104 90
3192 2403 2447 3451 4046 3077 2873 1852
14 10 11 15 17 13 12 8
19 17 16 16 14 10 9 8
146 134 124 122 109 78 70 66
Billboard Advertising
retail lower than the full-price brands, have more nicotine than regular cigarettes, making them a better value for low income smokers, and at the same time more highly addictive. Price-value cigarettes accounted for 15% of the cigarette market in 1989, up from 11% in 1988 and 3% in 1983. Joe Mayeux, a tobacco buyer for Rice Food Markets in Houston, says that “If there’s any growth at all, it’s in the value brands aimed at young females” (Progressive Grocer, 1990). R. J. Reynolds’ Dora1 and Philip Morris’ Cambridge are the two leading brands in this segment. Meanwhile, Philip Morris was the largest advertiser in Hispanic media in 1988 and the second largest in 1989 (Assael, 1990). This sort of information prompts critics to claim that the tobacco industry is trying to exploit the most vulnerable population segments. However, R. J. Reynolds points out that no one complained when Virginia Slims targeted well-educated, high income women, Alcohol and tobacco advertisers defend their right to target minority and low income groups on the basis of high consumption rates for these populations and the fact that their products are legal. According to many companies, advertising to these populations is intended to promote brand switching among current users who make their own choices, and represents nothing more than an effort to target potential consumers of tobacco and alcohol products. However, these arguments have not dammed the tide of criticism that forced the cancellation of R. J. Reynolds’ Uptown cigarettes and modified promotion of G. Heileman’s PowerMaster malt liquor, both aimed at African-American consumers. Protesters have also attacked R. J. Reynolds for the planned introduction of Dakota cigarettes, aimed at lowincome young females, and the current use of the Camel character, which they claim is targeted toward children (Gallagher, 1990). The tobacco industry’s response to recent criticism has been largely cooperative. Philip Morris USA joined Outdoor Advertising Initiative (OAI), an ad hoc committee formed in response to Rev. Butts’ whitewashing campaigns, The OAI committee hopes to gamer support for public service messages on community billboards. Philip Morris also has plans to limit the number of tobacco billboards placed in certain areas (Fahey, 1990). Some outdoor companies began taking their own steps to reduce activist furor. In March 1990, Metropolitan Outdoor in New York City began removing tobacco and liquor billboards within 500 feet of schools in Harlem. By June 1990, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) had introduced new guidelines for its member companies. The new policy recommended that outdoor companies voluntarily limit “the number of billboards in a market that may carry messages about products that cannot be sold to minors” and “prohibit advertisements of all products illegal for sale to minors that are either intended to be read from, or within 500 feet of, established places of worship, primary and secondary schools, and hospitals.” Although the OAAA has no power to enforce its guidelines, many outdoor executives feel that the
J Busn Res 1994:30:85-94
87
amount of informed community interest in the issue will force companies to comply. In addition to local guidelines and industry goodwill measures, Senator John Chafee (R., Rhode Island) and Representative John Lewis (D., Georgia) introduced bills that would prohibit construction of new billboards on federal highways. In spite of all these measures, community protests continued. In July 1990, Rev. Michael Pfleger led a group that whitewashed forty billboards in Chicago, prompting Alderman Edward Burke to respond with a proposed ordinance that would prohibit all outdoor advertising of tobacco products in the city of Chicago. Amidst arguments that an outright ban on tobacco advertising would violate freedom of speech, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly proposed an alternative ordinance that would ban the location of tobacco and alcohol billboards near schools, parks, and playgrounds (Allen, 1990-1991).
Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption Spring 1991 figures from Mediamark Research Inc. show that 45% of the black population smokes cigarettes, compared to 32% of the white population and 32% of the Spanish-speaking population. In addition to percentages, index numbers were used to assess alcohol and consumption rates. Index numbers are valuable in that they allow comparison of product usage within specific demographic segments against usage within the population as a whole. An index number of 100 represents average potential for usage in the total population. An index number above 100 represents above average usage potential, whereas a number below 100 represents below average usage potential (Martin and Coons, 1991; Sissors and Bumba, 1989). A closer look at their respective consumption rates reveals that black smokers have an above average consumption rate (Index = 135), whereas whites (Index = 96) and Spanish-speaking consumers (Index = 95) have below average consumption rates. This consumption pattern is consistent for heavy, medium, and light smokers. Overall, cigarette smoking is more prevalent at income levels of $39,999 or below, with the consumption rate generally increasing as income decreases (see Table 1). Table 2 shows domestic beer consumption patterns. Black (37%) and Spanish-speaking (39%) adults drink more domestic beer than white adults (35%). Whereas black and Spanish-speaking adults have above average heavy (6+ per week) and medium (2 to 6 per week) consumption rates, white adults have above average light consumption (2 or less per week) rates. The largest percentages of heavy beer drinkers are in low income brackets, whereas the highest percentages of medium and light beer drinkers are in high income brackets. Overall, however, domestic beer consumption is slightly below average for consumers making less than $30,000. From Table 3, we can observe that there is above average consumption of imported beer by Spanish-speaking consumers (13%, Index = 106), compared with white consumers (12%, Index = 99>, and black consumers (12%, Index = 92).
88
J Busn Res
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1994:30:85-94
Table 3. Imported Beer Consumption
(Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days)
All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speak :ing Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59,999 40-49,999 30-39,999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 Under 10,000
Heavy/4+
Glasses
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
19664 2379 1465
86 10 6
13 12 13
99 92 106
3998 804 *442
79 16 9
3 4 4
92 142 145
4403 2795 2648 3194 3294 2859 2566 1193
19 12 12 14 14 13 11 5
26 20 17 14 11 9 8 5
205 158 136 115 91 74 64 43
915 475 503 682 541 734 773 *433
18 9 10 14 11 15 15 9
5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
193 122 118 111 68 86 87 71
*Projectton based on small sample Source and abbreviatmns as ,n Table
Pop (000)
Glasses
Light/<2
Glasses
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
3695 *533 *252
84 12 6
2 3 2
97 107 94
11972 1042 771
89 8 6
8 5 7
103 69 95
843 532 503 683 690 686 *295 *189
19 12 11 15 16 16 7 4
5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
204 156 135 127 99 92 38 36
2645 1788 1643 1829 2062 1440 1497 570
20 13 12 14 15 11 11 4
15 13 11 8 7 5 5 3
210 172 144 112 97 63 63 35
1
A far greater percentage of heavy imported beer drinkers are Spanish-speaking (4%, Index = 145) or black (496, Index = 142), whereas most medium consumers are black and most light consumers are white. All levels of imported beer consumption are much higher for populations with household incomes of $40,000 or more. The malt liquor category (Table 4) shows extremely high consumption figures for the black population: eleven percent (Index = 422) drink malt liquor, 8% (Index = 532) drink two or more glasses a month, and 3% (Index = 268) drink less than two glasses per month. The highest consumption of malt liquor is by those making less than $10,000 (Index = 209). In addition, domestic wine consumers tend to be white with incomes of $40,000 or more (Table 5), whereas imported wine consumers tend to be Spanish-speaking, again with incomes of $40,000 or more (Table 6). As income increases, wine consumption also increases, Although alcohol and cigarette companies can point to the
Table 4. Malt Liquor Consumption
higher consumption rates among minority and low-income populations as a reason for targeting them, protesters can point to a higher incidence of health problems among these same populations as a reason for leaving them alone. According to Time (Quinn, 1990), blacks suffer a lung-cancer rate 58% higher than whites, and incidences of throat cancer are reportedly much higher in poor communities than in wealthy ones (Koeppel, 1990). Government statistics also reveal higher rates of cancer of the esophagus, liver cirrhosis, and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome among blacks than among the general population. In addition, Mexican-Americans suffer twice the rate of alcohol-related deaths as whites. Finally, Time (Gallagher, 1990) reported that lung cancer has increased five-fold among young females 18- to 20-years-old (the population supposedly targeted by Dakota cigarettes), now surpassing breast cancer as the leading cause of death in this age group. Although poor nutrition, inferior living conditions and other factors may also contribute to higher incidences of these diseases among low
(Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speaking Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59.999 40-49.999 30-39,999 20-29.999 lo-19,999 under 10,000
Medium/Z-3
Heavy and Medium/2+
Light/<2
Glasses
Glasses
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
2467 2275 *266
52 48 6
2 11 2
60 422 92
1111 1677 *126
40 60 5
1 8 1
46 532 74
1356 598 *140
68 30 7
1 3 1
79 268 117
*211 *183 *272 584 *625 805 913 1200
4 4 6 12 13 17 19 25
1 1 2 3 2 3 3 6
47 50 67 100 82 99 108 209
*125 +67 *178 *346 *287 *378 *508 917
5 2 6 12 10 14 18 33
1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4
48 31 75 102 65 80 103 272
*86 *116 *94 *238 *338 *427 *406 *283
4 6 5 12 17 22 20 14
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
46 76 56 99 107 127 116 119
‘Projectmn based on small sample. Source and abbreviations as in Table 1.
J Busn Res
Billboard Advertising
89
1994:30:85-94
Table 5. Domestic Table Wine Consumption (Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) Heavy/4+
All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speaking Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59.999 40-49.999 30-39,999 20-29.999 10-19.999 under 10,000
Medium/2-3
Glasses
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
37938 2625 2293
91
24
106
8810
90
6 6
13 21
56 91
715 588
7 6
7187 5033 4853 5801 6025 5945 4864 2011
17 12 12 14 14 14 12 5
42 36 31 26 21 19 15 9
184 157 138 115 91 84 66 40
1736 1239 1106 1337 1397 1287 1179 544
18 13 11 14 14 13 12 6
10 9 7 6 5 4 4 3
Glasses
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
6
104
8591
92
4 5
65 99
497 *317
5 3
189 164 133 112 90 78 68 46
1784 1140 1038 1185 1451 1228 1080 434
19 12 11 13 16 13 12 5
10 8 7 5 5 4 3 2
Light/<2
Glasses
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
5
107
20537
91
13
106
2 3
47 56
1412 1388
6 6
7 13
56 102
204 159 131 105 98 78 66 39
3667 2654 2710 3279 3177 3431 2605 1033
16 12 12 15 14 15 12 5
21 19 18 15 11 11 8 5
174 153 142 120 89 90 66 38
*Projectmn based on small sample. abbreviations as in Table 1
Sourceand
income populations, protesters tend to use them as evidence in an attempt to eliminate alcohol and tobacco advertising. Fueling contentions of unfair targeting are community statistics concerning alcohol and tobacco advertising. In Baltimore, a survey revealed that 20% of the billboards in white communities advertised tobacco and alcohol products, whereas 76% of the billboards in black neighborhoods advertised these products (Quinn, 1990). A similar study by the Detroit Planning committee found that 58% of the billboards in poor neighborhoods advertised alcohol and tobacco products, compared to only 34% to 43% in high-income neighborhoods (Mabry, 1990). To date, these studies provide the only comparisons available on community tobacco and alcohol billboard advertising.
content analysis was carried out to determine if the amount of alcohoI/tobacco billboard advertising is related to ethnicity of the neighborhood. Content analysis has proven to be an effective method of assessing the advertising content of both print advertising and television commercials (e.g., Gross and Sheth, 1989; Resnik and Stem, 1977, 1991; Tansey, Hyman, and Zinkhan, 1990). Billboard ads from two major metropolitan cities with significant ethnic minority populations (Detroit with African-Americans and San Antonio with MexicanAmericans) were collected between January and March of 199 1. For each city, photographs of billboards located in predominantly Anglo and predominantly ethnic neighborhoods were collected for subsequent content analysis.
The Study
Sampling and Data Collection To obtain billboard advertisements necessary for the content
With respect to these controversies surrounding the advertising of alcohol and tobacco products to ethnic minorities, a
analysis, two metropolitan cities with significant ethnic minority populations were selected: Detroit, which has a large
Table 6. Imported Table Wine Consumption (Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speaki w Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59,999 40-49,999 30-39,999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 under 10,000
Heavy/4+
Pop (000)
%U
%P
14092 1132 1037
90 7 7
3145 1895 1956 2001 1974 2144 1628 929
20 12 13 13 13 14 10 6
*Pro~ecuon based on small sample Source and abbrewtions as I” Table 1
Glasses
Medium/Z-3
Glasses
Light/<2
Glasses
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
9 6 9
104 64 110
1521 *159 *143
85 9 8
1 1 1
98 79 132
2645 *239 *161
90 8 6
2 1 2
105 73 91
9926 734 733
90 7 7
6 4 7
105 60 111
18 13 13 9 7 7 5 4
214 157 148 105 80 81 59 49
345 *107 *172 *179 *308 +299 *237 *152
19 6 10 10 17 17 13 9
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
205 77 113 82 108 98 75 70
552 328 *331 458 *374 *253 *368 *257
19 11 11 16 13 9 13 9
3 2 2 2 1 1 1
202 146 134 129 81 51 72 73
2248 1461 1453 1365 1292 1592 1022 520
21 13 13 13 12 15 9 5
13 10 9 6 5 5 3 2
219 173 157 103 74 86 53 40
90
J Bum Res 1994:30:85-94
African-American population, and San Antonio, which has a large Mexican-American population. Survey of Buying Power (1990) was used to clearly identify each zip code area and its ethnic composition in each city. Each zip code area was then rank ordered according to its percentage of ethnic population (African-American vs. Anglo in Detroit; Mexican-American vs. Anglo in San Antonio). The top ten zip code areas for each of the two groups in Detroit and San Antonio were chosen for this sample. There were 183,712 total area households in the Detroit sample: 117,650 African-American and 66,062 Anglo households. In the San Antonio sample, there were 208,399 total area households: 106,117 Mexican-American and 102,282 Anglo households. Photography was used in data collection so that coding of the billboards could take place at a later time. Two teams of trained student fieldworkers were assigned to each city. Each team (composed of a driver, a photographer, and a map reader/recorder) was responsible for data collection in the ten designated zip code areas (either minority or white). A detailed street map of the city, along with instructions, were given to each team. In order to come as close as possible to a random sample (Dillon, Madden, and Firtle, 1987), fieldworkers were instructed to take pictures of the first 20 billboards they saw in each zip code area. The number of photographs was set at 20 in an attempt to create an even distribution across selected zip code areas, thus providing a balanced sample. Fieldworkers were instructed to avoid billboards facing interstate highways because of the likelihood that they targeted interstate travelers instead of neighborhood residents. In addition, they were instructed to concentrate on standardized outdoor structures, specifically 30-sheet posters and bulletin boards. Posters are the most common and least expensive form of standardized outdoor advertising. The 30sheet poster consists of a 9’7” X 2 1’7” printed area surrounded by a margin of blank paper. Advertising messages are printed on large sheets of paper, which are later mounted on the poster panel. The bulletin is a painted display, built to last, and generally placed in premium outdoor locations with heavy traffic and high visibihty. Bulletins are generally larger than posters, typically 14’ X 48’ or larger (Bovee and Arens, 1986).
Coding After the photographs were developed, an initial inspection was conducted to insure clarity for coding. Because the goal of the study was to investigate the amount of certain types of advertising, as well as the range of product types advertised in each neighborhood, duplicated photographs were not removed from the sample. In Detroit, a total of 417 photographs were taken: 193 (46%) from Anglo neighborhoods and 224 (54%) from African-American neighborhoods. A total of 379 photographs was taken in the city of San Antonio: 193 (51%) from Mexican-American neighborhoods and 186 (49%) from Anglo neighborhoods. According to the 1990 Survey ofBuying Poivcr, the average income percentile for Detroit’s Anglo
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
neighborhoods was 54% (median = 49%), compared to 37% (median = 23%) for the African-American neighborhoods. In San Antonio, the Anglo neighborhoods had an average income percentile of 80% (median = 85%>, whereas the average for the Mexican-American neighborhoods was 31% (median = 23%). The income level in each neighborhood was later classified as high, middle, or low (high income = 67% or higher; middle income = 34%-66%; low income = 33% or lower). Each billboard photograph was coded accordmg to city (Detroit or San Antonio), zone (Anglo, African-American, Mexican-American), board type (bulletin or poster), product/ brand, product class (specified as durable, nondurable, service, public service, political, and others), product type (adopted from secondary sources-Simmons Market Research Bureau, 1990), and language (English, Spanish, combination). Standard marketing definitions of product class were used in this study. Durable goods are defined as “tangible products which are long lasting andinfrequently replaced” (e.g., cars, kitchen appliances, furniture). Nondurable goods are “tangible products which may be consumed in one or a few uses and usually need to be replaced at regular intervals” (e.g., food, soap, gasoline). Finally, services are defined as “activities, benefits, or satisfactions offered for sale” (e.g., travel, haircuts, legal and medical services) (Bovee and Arens, 1986). The coding sheet for this analysis is provided in Appendix 1. The entire sample was coded independently by two coders who spoke Spanish fluently. A judge was used to resolve coder disagreements, and corrections were made before further analysis was conducted. Intercoder reliability ranged from acceptable to excellent (Kassarjian, 1977): 100% for city, zone, board type, and language; 81% for product class; and 96% for product type.
Results
and Discussion
A total of 796 billboard ads were analyzed in this study. In Detroit, well over half of the billboards (324 or 78%) were 30.sheet posters, and the majority of them were in English (409 or 98%). None of the billboards in Detroit contained any political advertising. The majority of the ads there were for nondurables (191 or 46%), followed by service (126 or 30%), public service (75 or 18%), and durables (25 or 6%). In San Antonio, a somewhat similar pattern is observed. Seventythree percent (276) of the billboards were 30-sheet posters, and 27% (103) were bulletms. Again, no political advertising was recorded. Forty-nine percent (187) of the ads were for service, followed by 29% (110) for nondurables, 12% (44) for durables, and 10% (37) for public service. Only 18% (68) of the ads used Spanish or a combination of Enghsh and Spanish. The remaining billboards were in English. A comparison of product types in billboard ads by neighborhood is presented in Table 7. Photography and rental did not appear in Detroit’s sample, whereas accessories, health/ beauty aids and memberships did not show up in the San Antonio sample.
91
J Busn Res
Billboard Advertising
1994:30:85-94
Table 7. Product Types in Billboard Advertising by Neighborhood Ethnicity San Antonio
Detroit African-American
Anglo Product Type
#
(o/o)
Transportation Entertainment Financial Sending and spending Elec. and appliances Home furnishing and improvement Food and shopping Accessories Adult apparel Alcohol Household Items Health and beauty Medical service Public service Memberships Communication Tobacco Photo Rental Other
39 16 7 1 4
(20.2)’ ( 8.3) ( 3.6) ( 0.5) ( 2.1)
TOTAL
-
10
( 5.2)
4 2 27
( 2.1) ( 1.0) (14.0)3
-
2
4
( 2.1) ( 1.0)
15 1 1
( 7.8) ( 0.5) ( 0.5)
59
(30.6)’
#
21 19 2 1
193
(
0.5)
(100)
(%)
(%I
(9.4) ( 8.5) ( 0.9) ( 0.4)
17 30 21
( 9.1) (16.1)’ (11.3)
2 8 30
( 0.5) ( 1.1) ( 4.3) (16.1)’
1 11 1
( 0.4) ( 4.9) ( 0.4)
5 30 2 5 4 59
( 2.2) (13.413 ( 0.9) ( 2.2)
3 2
( 1.8)
10
(26.3)’
4
2
( 0.9)
51
(22.8Y
5 30 2 1 20
-
-
#
10 224
-
( 4.5) (100)
186
(%)
7 19
( 3.6) ( 9.8)’
13 2 3 7 9
( ( ( ( (
-
6.7) 1.0) 1.6) 3.6) 4.7)
( 1.6) ( 1.1)
2 12 5
( 5.4) ( 2.2)
4
33
( 2.7) (16.1)’
7 44
( 3.6) (22.8)’
( 1.1) ( 0.5) (10.8)
8 2 16
( 4.1) ( 1.0) ( 8.3)
-
1
-
Mexican-American
Anglo #
(100)
193
-
-
( 1.0) ( 6.2) ( 2.6) ( 2.1) (17.1)I
(100)
1, 2, and 3 are rankmgs
In Detroit’s Anglo neighborhoods, tobacco ads appeared most often (59 or 31%), followed by transportation (39 or 20%), and alcohol (27 or 14%) ads. In African-American neighborhoods, public service ads appeared most often (59 or 26%), followed by tobacco (51 or 23%), and alcohol (30 or 13%) ads. It appears that Anglo neighborhoods actually have a higher percentage of tobacco ads than African-American neighborhoods (31% vs. 23%), although both percentages are high. African-American neighborhoods have approximately the same proportion of alcohol ads as the Anglo neighborhoods (13% vs. 14%). Comparatively speaking, billboards in African-American neighborhoods have a higher percentage of public service messages dealing with issues such as drunken driving and school drop-out (26%). Only 8% of the billboards in Anglo neighborhoods contain public service messages. In Anglo neighborhoods, 20% of the billboard ads were transportation-related (car dealers and airlines) compared to 9% in African-American neighborhoods. This difference may reflect the different needs of the two neighborhoods. In San Antonio, the pattern of billboard advertising is somewhat different. The majority of the billboards in Anglo neighborhoods featured food and shopping (30 or 16%), entertainment (30 or 16%), and tobacco (30 or 16%). In Mexican-American neighborhoods, tobacco advertising is most prevalent (44 or 23%), followed by public service ads (33 or 17%), and entertainment (19 or 10%). Comparing the two neighborhoods, we observe that both appear to be seeing some entertainment ads (e.g., the rodeo, special events, and
music stations). However, Mexican-American neighborhoods are more likely to have public service billboards, whereas Anglo neighborhoods are more likely to have food and shopping and tobacco billboards. One thing in common between the two neighborhoods is the prevalence of tobacco ads. However, Mexican-American neighborhoods tend to have more tobacco ads on billboards than Anglo neighborhoods. Detroit and San Antonio’s Anglo neighborhoods are different in that except for tobacco, they have two very different highly advertised products: transportation (20% in Detroit vs. 9% in San Antonio) and entertainment (8% in Detroit vs. 16% in San Antonio). This could be due to certain geographic differences, e.g., Detroit is the center of the U.S. automobile industry and San Antonio is a popular tourist attraction. Both cities’ ethnic minority neighborhoods appear to have a large proportion of public service ads on billboards. This could be due to community-wide efforts to call attention to issues of public concern. It may also be due to a larger number of billboards available in low-income neighborhoods to carry public service advertising. Both ethnic minority neighborhoods also have a large proportion of tobacco ads (23% in Detroit vs. 23% in San Antonio). In contrast, the Detroit African-American neighborhoods have far more alcohol ads than the San Antonio MexicanAmerican neighborhoods (13% in Detroit vs. 6% in San Antonio). It appears that alcohol ads are almost twice as likely to appear in Detroit’s African-American neighborhoods than in San Antonio’s Mexican-American neighborhoods. Overall, it appears that tobacco advertising on billboards was preva-
J Busn Res
92
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1994:30:85-94
Table 8. Product Tvoe by Neighborhood-Overall
Table 10. Product Type by Neighborhood-San
Neighborhood Product
Type
Anglo
Tobacco Alcohol Public service TOTAL
Afro-American
89 29 19 137
Mex-American
51 30 59 140
44 12 33 89
Total
184 71 111 366
Product
= 33 38,
p<
Type
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL df= x’
df = 4 x’
Anglo
Table 9. Product Twe bv Neighborhood-Detroit
32 134 166
56 121 177
Type
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL 1.
x2 = 2 01, NS
Total
88 255 343
1 = 6.86,
pi
01
An analysis of language used on billboards with regard to product type was conducted for San Antonio to further understand the targeting effort made by alcohol and tobacco advertisers. As can be seen from Table 11, a significant result is obtained. It appears that product type is related to language used on billboards. Interestingly, for alcohol and tobacco products, equal amounts of Spanish and English boards exist. For all other products, more English billboards than Spanish billboards are found. In terms of boards using English, almost three times as many are for products other than alcohol/tobacco products. However, there were approximately the same number of billboards in Spanish for alcohol/tobacco and all other products. Tables 12 and 13 exhibit the relationship between income level and product type. For both Detroit and San Antonio, income level is very much related to the advertising of alcohol/ tobacco products on billboards. It appears that income level is more relevant than ethnicity to the type of product advertised in a given neighborhood. Therefore, attempts to make vice product advertising purely a racial issue may not be warranted. Because the size of the billboards may have an indirect impact on audience impression (i.e., the larger the board size the greater the impression), a chi-square analysis between board type (bulletin vs. poster) and product type (alcohol/ tobacco vs. all other products) was carried out. Significant results were obtained (Table 14). It appears that there are overall more posters than bulletins. Because posters are smaller than bulletins, there is no evidence to suggest that alcohol/ tobacco advertisers use larger boards to make their message more prominent in ethnic minority neighborhoods.
Limitations and Conclusions This study is the first attempt at content analyzing billboard advertising in Anglo versus minority neighborhoods. Al-
Table 11. Product Type by Language-San
Neighborhood
df=
Mexican-American
01
lent among all neighborhoods compared, whereas alcohol ads were more prevalent in Detroit than in San Antonio, regardless of the neighborhood’s ethnicity. Chi-square analysis was conducted to first explore the relationship between neighborhood ethnicity and tobacco, alcohol and public service billboard advertising. As can be seen from Table 8, a significant relationship was found (x2 = 33.38, p < .Ol). It appears that in Anglo neighborhoods (San Antonio and Detroit combined), more billboards contain tobacco advertising (65%). A large proportion of tobacco billboards are also evident in San Antonio’s Mexican-American neighborhood (49%). Interestingly, public service billboards also have a strong presence in this analysis (37%). In Detroit’s African-American neighborhood, public service billboards are most prevalent (42%), followed by tobacco billboards (36%). When comparing tobacco billboards across neighborhoods, Anglo neighborhoods have the highest proportion. However, when comparing alcohol billboards, both Anglo and AfricanAmerican neighborhoods have a similar amount. Public service billboards tend to appear more in ethnic minority neighborhoods (African-American and Mexican-American) than in Anglo neighborhoods. In order to further examine the relationship between neighborhoods and the advertising of alcohol and tobacco products, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted for Detroit and San Antonio respectively. Table 9 shows the result of chisquare analysis between neighborhood ethnicity and product type in Detroit, It appears that the ethnicity of the neighborhood is not related to the advertising of alcohol/tobacco versus other products (x2 = 2.0 1, NS). A similar analysis for San Antonio, however, shows a different picture (see Table JO). In San Antonio, Mexican-American neighborhoods are more likely to have alcohol/tobacco billboards than Anglo neighborhoods (x2 = 6.86, p < .Ol).
Product
Antonio
Neighborhood
Anglo
86 106 192
African-American
81 133 214
Antonio
Language Product
Total
167 239 406
Type
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL df=
1.
,$ =
10.80; p < .Ol
English
28 90 118
Spanish
Total
28 30 58
56 120 17h
J Busn Res 1994:30:85-94
allmoara AdVertking
Table 14. Product Type by Board Type-Detroit and San Antonio
Table 12. Product Type by Income Level-Detroit
Board Type
Income Level Product Type Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL
Low
Middle
High
Total
Product Type
Bulletin
Poster
Total
74 96 170
44 47 91
49 107 156
167 250 417
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL
20 24 44
173 341 514
193 558 751
df= 1. x’ = 26 06; p < .Ol
df=2. x’
= 8.31; p < .05.
though current controversy surrounding the advertising of vice products (typically alcohol and tobacco) to underprivileged or minority consumers may not be resolved any time soon, this study provides an initial attempt to understand these complex issues by systematically examining empirical evidence. In Detroit, the African-American neighborhoods do not appear to be receiving disproportionately larger amounts of billboard advertising for alcohol or tobacco products than Anglo neighborhoods. In fact, the Anglo neighborhoods had a higher percentage of tobacco ads, whereas both Anglo and AfricanAmerican neighborhoods had about equal proportion of alcohol ads (14% and 13%, respectively). In San Antonio, however, the findings are almost the opposite. Although the two neighborhoods in San Antonio had a small proportion of alcohol ads (1% for Anglo and 6% for Mexican-American) and slightly higher proportion of tobacco ads (16% for Anglo and 23% for Mexican-American), Mexican-American neighborhoods appear to be getting the larger share of the two. It appears that, based on this study, two very different outcomes are observed. Another interesting observation is the large amount of public service ads in ethnic minority neighborhoods. In addition, there appear to be regional differences in the billboard advertising as evidenced by the large amount of transportation ads in Detroit and entertainment ads in San Antonio. A second set of analyses focused on relationships between neighborhood ethnicity, board size, income, and alcoholkobacco advertising. It appears that neighborhood ethnicity is related to alcohol/tobacco advertising only for the city of San Antonio. In addition, income is highly related to alcohol/tobacco advertising for both cities. Although board size is related to alcohol/tobacco advertising in both cities, the majority of the billboards are posters (smaller in size) rather than bulletins.
Because this study is only an initial attempt to examine the controversy from an empirical angle, many more efforts need to be made in the future to gain better understanding of all the elements involved. From our experience in conducting this study, we determined several issues that should be considered in future studies. First of all, similar studies should be conducted in other metropolitan cities where a diverse group of minorities can be sampled. Cities such as Chicago, Houston, and even Los Angeles can and should be considered. This way, we may be able to better understand if the phenomenon is city- or ethnicitydependent. More sample points will undoubtedly provide for better comparisons. Second, secondary data concerning board locations and related audience impression scores from local outdoor advertising companies, if obtainable, will give the most complete statistics for use in sample planning and better analysis. Because the content of each billboard will still need to be coded, photography appears to be a viable method. Third, other ethnic minority neighborhoods, although not included in this study, may need to be included in future studies to provide a more complete picture. If, as critics have argued, manufacturers of vice products exploit socially, economically, and/or underprivileged consumers, we need to include all such groups in future studies. The authors acknowledge Robert Hall for his help m data collection.
Appendix Appendix
1. Code Sheet
1. Coder #
3. City:
1. Detroit
Table 13. Product Type by Income Level-San
6. Board Type: Antonio
Income Level Low
Middle
High
Total
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL
39 88 127
30 82 112
19 120 139
88 290 318
<
01
2. San Antonio
2. African-American 1. Bulletin
3. Mexican-American 2. Poster
7. Product/Brand:
Product Type
)p = 11.87,p
2. Board #
4. Income Percentile: 5. Zone: 1. Anglo
df=2.
93
8. Product Classification: 1. Durable 2. Nondurable 4. Public Service (Sponsor: 5. Political 6. Other:
3. Service
9. Product Type: (Circle one only) 1. Transportation (Autos, Cycles, Trucks, Vans, Auto Products, and Services)
)
J Busn Res 1994: 130:85-94
94
Appendix 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15 16. 17. 18 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 10.
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1. (continued)
Cost-Cutting,
Entertainment (Travel, Sports, Leisure, Books, Records, Tapes, CDs, Games, Toys, Radio Stations, Events) Financial (Non-health related Insurance, Banking, Investments, Credit Cards, Real Estate) Sending and Spending Services (Direct Mail and Other InHome Shopping, Florists, Telegrams, Greeting Cards) Electronics and Appliances (Stereo, Telephones, Computers, Dryers) Home (Furnishings, Improvements) Food and Shopping (Restaurants, Stores and Malls, Grocery ShoDping, Food Items, Soft Drinks, Snacks) Accessories &weyry, Watches, Luggage) ADDare (Men’s. Women’s) ApEare (Children’s) Alcohol (DIstilled Spirits, Mixed Drinks, Beer and Wme) Household Items (Cleaners and Pet Care, Soap, Deodorizers, Kitchen, Wraps, Pest Control) Health and Beauty Aids (Remedies, Oral Care, Skin Care, Hair Care, Shaving, Cosmetics) Medical Service (Hospital, HMO, Nursing Home) Public Service Memberships Communication (Phones, Pagers) Sewing, Garden Care Photography Pens, Pencils, Stationary Tobacco Products Rentals Other: 1. English
Language:
2. Spanish
3. Combination
Protests.
References
Assael, Shaun, 31 (Januav
Outrage: Billboards Under Pamt, 6 (Winter 1990-91): 10-12.
Why Big Tobacco 29, 1990): 20-22.
Woos
Minorities.
Under
Feuer, Jack, Outdoor 25 (August 1990):
Week
Bovee, Courtland L., and Arens, William F., Conlrmporary Advertising, 2nd Edition, Richard D. Irwm, Inc., Homewood. 1986. Dillon, William
R., Madden,
Thomas
J., and Flrtle, Nell H., Marketing St.
Research m a Marketing Environment, Mosby College Publishmg, LOUIS. 1987.
Fahey, Ahson, and Dagnoh, Judann, PM Ready to Deal with Outdoor Ad Foes. Advertising Age 61 (June 18, 1990): 3, 88. Fahey, Ahson, Outdoor (April 1, 1991): 6. Fahey,
Ahson,
Outdoor
Spending
Shps
Feels Drought:
in ‘90. Advertising Spending
Drops
Age 62
15% Amid
6, 1990):
Show and Tell. Marketing 62-63.
Gallagher. 1990):
John 41.
E.. Under
Fire From
3, 38.
Plan Sparks
and Media Decisions
Freedman, Ahx M., Heileman Will Be Asked to Change Potent Name. Wall Streetj. Eastern Editlon @me 20, 1991): 81. All Sides.
Brew’s
Time 135 (March
5,
Gross, Barbara L., and Sheth, Jagdish N., Time-Oriented Advertising: A Content Analysis of United States Magazine Advertising, 18901988. /. Marketing 53 (October 1989): 76-83. Hume, Scott, Regulate 13, 1990): 20. Kalish, gust
David, 1988):
Outdoor
Local Heroes. 95-99.
Ads: Poll. Advertising Marketing
Age 61 (August
and Media Decisions
Kassarjian, Harold H., Content Analysis in Consumer Consumer Research 4 (June, 1977): 8-18. Koeppel, Dan, An Ethical Plan for Tobacco Week 31 (May 28, 1990). 18-22. Mabry, Marcus, Fighting ruary 5, 1990): 46.
Ads in the Inner
23 (Au-
Research.
Marketers.
J.
Marketing
City. Newsweek
115 (Feb-
Martin. Denms G., and Coons, Robert D., hledm Flight Plan Plus, 2nd Edltlon, Deer Creek Publishing. 1991. Mediamark
Research
Progressive p. 100.
Grocer
Inc., P-Volumes,
report:
Sprmg
1991.
Non-edibles/Tobacco
products,
July
Don’t Aim that Pack aaat Us. Time 135 (January
1990, 29,
Resmk, Alan, and Stern, Bruce L., An Analysis of Information Content m Television Advertising. J. Marketing 41 (January 1977): 50-53. Simmons
Marketing
Age 61 (August
Fahey, Alison, Outdoor Sets Limits: Group’s Voluntary New Furor. Advertising Age 61 (June 25, 1990): 57.
Quinn. Michael, 1990): 60. Allen, Peter, Outdoor and Pressure. Am. Advertising
Advertising
Market
Research
Bureau,
P-Volumes,
Spring
1991.
Sissors, Jack Z., and Bumba, Lincoln, Advertising Media Planning, Ed&on, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood. 1989. Stern, Bruce L., and Resnik, Alan J., Information sion Advertising: A Replication and Extension. 30 (June-July 1991): 36-46. Stewart, Qmck
3rd
Content in TeleviI. Advertising Res.
Robert L., Outdoor Advertising, You Say? Sometimes the Answer Is “Si! ” Rough Notes 133 (September 1990): 40-41.
Survey of Buying Power, Sales and Marketing New York. 1990.
Management
Magazine,
Tansey, Richard, Hyman, Michael R., and Zinkhan, George M., Cultural Themes m Brazilian and U.S. Auto Ads: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. J. Advertising 19 (Volume 2, 1990): 30-39.
Margaret UNIVERSITY
OF
TEXAS AT AUSTIN
F. Callcott OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN
The controversy surrounding alcohol and tobacco billboard advertising has caused a continuous decline in outdoor spending in these two categories during the past ten years. Angry minority community groups haveforced the outdoor industry to self-regulate alcohol and tobacco advertising. The ongoing debate on the advertising ofso-called“vice”products toward ethnic minorities will no doubt continue. A content analysis was carried out to examine the types ofproducts advertised in ethnic minority versus Anglo
Beer, Wine & Liquor , $80,ooo,ooo
I
neighborhoods in Detroit and San Antonio. Results indicate that both neighborhoods appear to be receiving similar amounts of tobacco and alcohol advertising. Furthermore, the
amount of tobaccoand alcohol billboards appears to be related to income level.
II 1985
Introduction
T
he advertising of alcohol and tobacco products has long been the subject of criticism and debate. Consumer activists argue that tobacco and alcohol advertising tactics usually affect minority and low income individuals who are more vulnerable to influence. Meanwhile, advertisers defend their rights to advertise legal products. Recently, this debate has escalated due to certain minority community efforts to whitewash alcohol and tobacco ads in their neighborhoods. The ongoing controversy surrounding alcohol and tobacco billboards has caused a steady decline in outdoor advertising spending in these two categories over the past decade (Figures 1 and 2). Angry consumers and the resulting loss of revenue have forced the outdoor advertising industry to submit to stricter regulation concerning alcohol and tobacco billboards, while working to attract new business from less controversial products and services. In 1981, tobacco advertising accounted for 43% of total outdoor expenditures, while liquor accounted for 20%. By 1988, tobacco accounted for only 23% of outdoor revenues and liquor was responsible for only 10% (Kalish, 1988). In 1990, cigarettes/tobacco/accessories was still the number one outdoor advertiser, spending $182.6 million, 3% less than in 1989. Retail was the second biggest spender at $68.9 million, while beer/wine/liquor came in fourth at $56.5 million, 2% Address correspondence to Wei-Na Lee, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Advertising, CMA 7.142, Austin, TX 78712-1092. Journal of Business Research 30,85-94 (1994) 0 1994 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
50,ooo.cJoo 1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Figure 1. Yearly outdoor expenditures by beer, wine, and liquor. Sources: Multimedia Reports 1985-1990, Leading National Advertiser.
less than in 1989 (Fahey, 1991). However, Institute of Outdoor Advertising president Don Byer predicted that the tobacco category would lose its perennial number one standing in outdoor expenditures sometime in 1991. “Local retail advertisers now make up the second-largest outdoor category, and will soon be first,” says Byer. “Tobacco is declining even faster than retail is increasing” (Feuer, 1990). The current controversy and its impact on the outdoor advertising industry inspired a study, conducted in Detroit
Cigarettes, Tobacco & Accessories ~$220,000.000 210400.000 200.ooo.000
180.000.000 170,ooo.ooo
I I . I . I . I . ! 16O,m,OOO 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Figure 2. Yearly outdoor expenditures accessories. Sources as in Figure 1.
by cigarettes, tobacco, and
0148-2%3/94/$7.00
86
J Busn Res
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1994:30:85-94
Table 1 Crgarette Consumptton (Number of Packs in Last 7 Days) All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speakit % income 75,000+ 60-74999 50-59,999 40-49,999 30-39,999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 under 10,000
Heavy/9 + Packs
Pop (000)
%U
%P
index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
51094 9348 3532
83 15 6
32 45 32
96 135 95
17508 2660 910
86 13 4
11 13 8
99 116 74
4092 3718 4318 6948 9929 10804 12700 9350
7 6 7 11 16 18 21 15
24 26 28 31 34 35 39 43
71 78 83 93 101 103 117 126
6 6 8 10 14 19 21 17
7 9 10 10 10 13 13 16
66 76 88 85 85 112 120 140
1261 1195 1530 2106 2757 3877 4307 3433
and San Antonio between January and March of 1991, to determine the amount of tobacco and alcohol billboard advertising-as well as advertising for other products and services-in different neighborhoods. Photographs were taken in designated Anglo and ethnic minority neighborhoods (i.e., African-American neighborhoods in Detroit and MexicanAmerican neighborhoods in San Antonio) for content analysts.
Much of the current controversy stems from activists who claim that alcohol and tobacco advertising is aimed at minorities and/or low income populations. The Reverend Calvin Butts, an anti-tobacco crusader from Harlem, initiated billboard whitewashing campaigns against tobacco advertising in hts neighborhood in January 1990. Similar campaigns soon
Table 2. Domesttc Beer Consumptton
Pop (000)
Packs
Light/<6
%U
%P
Index
18132 2981 1257
84 14 6
12 15 11
97 123 96
1387 1063 1542 2592 3953 3678 4466 2936
6 5 7 12 18 17 21 14
8 8 10 12 14 12 14 13
69 64 84 99 115 101 117 113
Packs
%U
%P
Index
15454 3706 1366
78 19 7
10 18 12
91 167 114
1444 1461 1245 2250 3219 3248 3926 2982
7 7 6 11 16 16 20 15
8 10 8 10 11 11 12 14
78 96 74 94 103 97 113 126
Pop (000)
followed in several other metropolitan areas, including Houston, Baltimore and Chicago. A subsequent Advertising Age poll revealed that while most consumers felt that defacing local billboards should not be tolerated, the majority also felt there should be some means of local control over community billboard advertising (Hume, 1990). Admittedly, the controversy has erupted as the market for so-called “sin” or “vice” products, especially tobacco, has evolved. The Director of the Federal Office on Smoking and Health once noted, “Smoking is becoming more and more a behavior of racial and ethnic minorities, blue-collar workers and the unemployed-in general, the people with less affluence.” According to a recent Progressive Grocer (1990) report, “The upscale market is shrinking faster because it is becoming socially unacceptable to smoke. Upscale smokers are more socially sensitive.” About ten years ago, as a response to state taxes that drove up the cost of cigarettes to consumers, the price-value or savings segment came into being. Price-value cigarettes, which
The Controversy and Its Consequences
(Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) Heavy/7 + Glasses
All Users
Populatton White Black Spanish-speaki] ‘g lncomc 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59.999 40-49,999 30-39.999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 under 10.000
Mediumf6-8
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
54682 7627 4283
85 12 7
35 37 39
99 106 110
6999 5358 5852 8486 10595 10183 10394 6460
11 8 9 13 17 16 16 10
41 38 38 38 37 33 32 29
116 108 108 109 104 94 92 84
Pop (000)
Medium/Z-6
Light/<2
Glasses
Glasses
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
15804 2805 1713
82 15 9
10 14 16
96 130 148
118122 3033 1307
83 14 6
12 15 12
96 124 99
20756 1789 1263
89 8 5
13 9 11
103 68 90
1468 1263 1572 2378 2843 3860 3542 2250
8 7 8 12 15 20 19 12
9 9 10 11 10 13 11 10
82 86 97 102 94 119 105 98
2337 1692 1833 2656 3706 3246 3979 2357
11 8 8 12 17 15 18 11
14 12 12 12 13 11 12 11
114 101 99 100 107 88 104 90
3192 2403 2447 3451 4046 3077 2873 1852
14 10 11 15 17 13 12 8
19 17 16 16 14 10 9 8
146 134 124 122 109 78 70 66
Billboard Advertising
retail lower than the full-price brands, have more nicotine than regular cigarettes, making them a better value for low income smokers, and at the same time more highly addictive. Price-value cigarettes accounted for 15% of the cigarette market in 1989, up from 11% in 1988 and 3% in 1983. Joe Mayeux, a tobacco buyer for Rice Food Markets in Houston, says that “If there’s any growth at all, it’s in the value brands aimed at young females” (Progressive Grocer, 1990). R. J. Reynolds’ Dora1 and Philip Morris’ Cambridge are the two leading brands in this segment. Meanwhile, Philip Morris was the largest advertiser in Hispanic media in 1988 and the second largest in 1989 (Assael, 1990). This sort of information prompts critics to claim that the tobacco industry is trying to exploit the most vulnerable population segments. However, R. J. Reynolds points out that no one complained when Virginia Slims targeted well-educated, high income women, Alcohol and tobacco advertisers defend their right to target minority and low income groups on the basis of high consumption rates for these populations and the fact that their products are legal. According to many companies, advertising to these populations is intended to promote brand switching among current users who make their own choices, and represents nothing more than an effort to target potential consumers of tobacco and alcohol products. However, these arguments have not dammed the tide of criticism that forced the cancellation of R. J. Reynolds’ Uptown cigarettes and modified promotion of G. Heileman’s PowerMaster malt liquor, both aimed at African-American consumers. Protesters have also attacked R. J. Reynolds for the planned introduction of Dakota cigarettes, aimed at lowincome young females, and the current use of the Camel character, which they claim is targeted toward children (Gallagher, 1990). The tobacco industry’s response to recent criticism has been largely cooperative. Philip Morris USA joined Outdoor Advertising Initiative (OAI), an ad hoc committee formed in response to Rev. Butts’ whitewashing campaigns, The OAI committee hopes to gamer support for public service messages on community billboards. Philip Morris also has plans to limit the number of tobacco billboards placed in certain areas (Fahey, 1990). Some outdoor companies began taking their own steps to reduce activist furor. In March 1990, Metropolitan Outdoor in New York City began removing tobacco and liquor billboards within 500 feet of schools in Harlem. By June 1990, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) had introduced new guidelines for its member companies. The new policy recommended that outdoor companies voluntarily limit “the number of billboards in a market that may carry messages about products that cannot be sold to minors” and “prohibit advertisements of all products illegal for sale to minors that are either intended to be read from, or within 500 feet of, established places of worship, primary and secondary schools, and hospitals.” Although the OAAA has no power to enforce its guidelines, many outdoor executives feel that the
J Busn Res 1994:30:85-94
87
amount of informed community interest in the issue will force companies to comply. In addition to local guidelines and industry goodwill measures, Senator John Chafee (R., Rhode Island) and Representative John Lewis (D., Georgia) introduced bills that would prohibit construction of new billboards on federal highways. In spite of all these measures, community protests continued. In July 1990, Rev. Michael Pfleger led a group that whitewashed forty billboards in Chicago, prompting Alderman Edward Burke to respond with a proposed ordinance that would prohibit all outdoor advertising of tobacco products in the city of Chicago. Amidst arguments that an outright ban on tobacco advertising would violate freedom of speech, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly proposed an alternative ordinance that would ban the location of tobacco and alcohol billboards near schools, parks, and playgrounds (Allen, 1990-1991).
Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption Spring 1991 figures from Mediamark Research Inc. show that 45% of the black population smokes cigarettes, compared to 32% of the white population and 32% of the Spanish-speaking population. In addition to percentages, index numbers were used to assess alcohol and consumption rates. Index numbers are valuable in that they allow comparison of product usage within specific demographic segments against usage within the population as a whole. An index number of 100 represents average potential for usage in the total population. An index number above 100 represents above average usage potential, whereas a number below 100 represents below average usage potential (Martin and Coons, 1991; Sissors and Bumba, 1989). A closer look at their respective consumption rates reveals that black smokers have an above average consumption rate (Index = 135), whereas whites (Index = 96) and Spanish-speaking consumers (Index = 95) have below average consumption rates. This consumption pattern is consistent for heavy, medium, and light smokers. Overall, cigarette smoking is more prevalent at income levels of $39,999 or below, with the consumption rate generally increasing as income decreases (see Table 1). Table 2 shows domestic beer consumption patterns. Black (37%) and Spanish-speaking (39%) adults drink more domestic beer than white adults (35%). Whereas black and Spanish-speaking adults have above average heavy (6+ per week) and medium (2 to 6 per week) consumption rates, white adults have above average light consumption (2 or less per week) rates. The largest percentages of heavy beer drinkers are in low income brackets, whereas the highest percentages of medium and light beer drinkers are in high income brackets. Overall, however, domestic beer consumption is slightly below average for consumers making less than $30,000. From Table 3, we can observe that there is above average consumption of imported beer by Spanish-speaking consumers (13%, Index = 106), compared with white consumers (12%, Index = 99>, and black consumers (12%, Index = 92).
88
J Busn Res
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1994:30:85-94
Table 3. Imported Beer Consumption
(Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days)
All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speak :ing Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59,999 40-49,999 30-39,999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 Under 10,000
Heavy/4+
Glasses
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
19664 2379 1465
86 10 6
13 12 13
99 92 106
3998 804 *442
79 16 9
3 4 4
92 142 145
4403 2795 2648 3194 3294 2859 2566 1193
19 12 12 14 14 13 11 5
26 20 17 14 11 9 8 5
205 158 136 115 91 74 64 43
915 475 503 682 541 734 773 *433
18 9 10 14 11 15 15 9
5 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
193 122 118 111 68 86 87 71
*Projectton based on small sample Source and abbreviatmns as ,n Table
Pop (000)
Glasses
Light/<2
Glasses
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
3695 *533 *252
84 12 6
2 3 2
97 107 94
11972 1042 771
89 8 6
8 5 7
103 69 95
843 532 503 683 690 686 *295 *189
19 12 11 15 16 16 7 4
5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
204 156 135 127 99 92 38 36
2645 1788 1643 1829 2062 1440 1497 570
20 13 12 14 15 11 11 4
15 13 11 8 7 5 5 3
210 172 144 112 97 63 63 35
1
A far greater percentage of heavy imported beer drinkers are Spanish-speaking (4%, Index = 145) or black (496, Index = 142), whereas most medium consumers are black and most light consumers are white. All levels of imported beer consumption are much higher for populations with household incomes of $40,000 or more. The malt liquor category (Table 4) shows extremely high consumption figures for the black population: eleven percent (Index = 422) drink malt liquor, 8% (Index = 532) drink two or more glasses a month, and 3% (Index = 268) drink less than two glasses per month. The highest consumption of malt liquor is by those making less than $10,000 (Index = 209). In addition, domestic wine consumers tend to be white with incomes of $40,000 or more (Table 5), whereas imported wine consumers tend to be Spanish-speaking, again with incomes of $40,000 or more (Table 6). As income increases, wine consumption also increases, Although alcohol and cigarette companies can point to the
Table 4. Malt Liquor Consumption
higher consumption rates among minority and low-income populations as a reason for targeting them, protesters can point to a higher incidence of health problems among these same populations as a reason for leaving them alone. According to Time (Quinn, 1990), blacks suffer a lung-cancer rate 58% higher than whites, and incidences of throat cancer are reportedly much higher in poor communities than in wealthy ones (Koeppel, 1990). Government statistics also reveal higher rates of cancer of the esophagus, liver cirrhosis, and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome among blacks than among the general population. In addition, Mexican-Americans suffer twice the rate of alcohol-related deaths as whites. Finally, Time (Gallagher, 1990) reported that lung cancer has increased five-fold among young females 18- to 20-years-old (the population supposedly targeted by Dakota cigarettes), now surpassing breast cancer as the leading cause of death in this age group. Although poor nutrition, inferior living conditions and other factors may also contribute to higher incidences of these diseases among low
(Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speaking Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59.999 40-49.999 30-39,999 20-29.999 lo-19,999 under 10,000
Medium/Z-3
Heavy and Medium/2+
Light/<2
Glasses
Glasses
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
2467 2275 *266
52 48 6
2 11 2
60 422 92
1111 1677 *126
40 60 5
1 8 1
46 532 74
1356 598 *140
68 30 7
1 3 1
79 268 117
*211 *183 *272 584 *625 805 913 1200
4 4 6 12 13 17 19 25
1 1 2 3 2 3 3 6
47 50 67 100 82 99 108 209
*125 +67 *178 *346 *287 *378 *508 917
5 2 6 12 10 14 18 33
1 1 1 2 1 1 2 4
48 31 75 102 65 80 103 272
*86 *116 *94 *238 *338 *427 *406 *283
4 6 5 12 17 22 20 14
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
46 76 56 99 107 127 116 119
‘Projectmn based on small sample. Source and abbreviations as in Table 1.
J Busn Res
Billboard Advertising
89
1994:30:85-94
Table 5. Domestic Table Wine Consumption (Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) Heavy/4+
All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speaking Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59.999 40-49.999 30-39,999 20-29.999 10-19.999 under 10,000
Medium/2-3
Glasses
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
37938 2625 2293
91
24
106
8810
90
6 6
13 21
56 91
715 588
7 6
7187 5033 4853 5801 6025 5945 4864 2011
17 12 12 14 14 14 12 5
42 36 31 26 21 19 15 9
184 157 138 115 91 84 66 40
1736 1239 1106 1337 1397 1287 1179 544
18 13 11 14 14 13 12 6
10 9 7 6 5 4 4 3
Glasses
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
6
104
8591
92
4 5
65 99
497 *317
5 3
189 164 133 112 90 78 68 46
1784 1140 1038 1185 1451 1228 1080 434
19 12 11 13 16 13 12 5
10 8 7 5 5 4 3 2
Light/<2
Glasses
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
5
107
20537
91
13
106
2 3
47 56
1412 1388
6 6
7 13
56 102
204 159 131 105 98 78 66 39
3667 2654 2710 3279 3177 3431 2605 1033
16 12 12 15 14 15 12 5
21 19 18 15 11 11 8 5
174 153 142 120 89 90 66 38
*Projectmn based on small sample. abbreviations as in Table 1
Sourceand
income populations, protesters tend to use them as evidence in an attempt to eliminate alcohol and tobacco advertising. Fueling contentions of unfair targeting are community statistics concerning alcohol and tobacco advertising. In Baltimore, a survey revealed that 20% of the billboards in white communities advertised tobacco and alcohol products, whereas 76% of the billboards in black neighborhoods advertised these products (Quinn, 1990). A similar study by the Detroit Planning committee found that 58% of the billboards in poor neighborhoods advertised alcohol and tobacco products, compared to only 34% to 43% in high-income neighborhoods (Mabry, 1990). To date, these studies provide the only comparisons available on community tobacco and alcohol billboard advertising.
content analysis was carried out to determine if the amount of alcohoI/tobacco billboard advertising is related to ethnicity of the neighborhood. Content analysis has proven to be an effective method of assessing the advertising content of both print advertising and television commercials (e.g., Gross and Sheth, 1989; Resnik and Stem, 1977, 1991; Tansey, Hyman, and Zinkhan, 1990). Billboard ads from two major metropolitan cities with significant ethnic minority populations (Detroit with African-Americans and San Antonio with MexicanAmericans) were collected between January and March of 199 1. For each city, photographs of billboards located in predominantly Anglo and predominantly ethnic neighborhoods were collected for subsequent content analysis.
The Study
Sampling and Data Collection To obtain billboard advertisements necessary for the content
With respect to these controversies surrounding the advertising of alcohol and tobacco products to ethnic minorities, a
analysis, two metropolitan cities with significant ethnic minority populations were selected: Detroit, which has a large
Table 6. Imported Table Wine Consumption (Number of Glasses in Last 7 Days) All Users
Population White Black Spanish-speaki w Income 75,000+ 60-74,999 50-59,999 40-49,999 30-39,999 20-29,999 lo-19,999 under 10,000
Heavy/4+
Pop (000)
%U
%P
14092 1132 1037
90 7 7
3145 1895 1956 2001 1974 2144 1628 929
20 12 13 13 13 14 10 6
*Pro~ecuon based on small sample Source and abbrewtions as I” Table 1
Glasses
Medium/Z-3
Glasses
Light/<2
Glasses
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
Pop (000)
%U
%P
Index
9 6 9
104 64 110
1521 *159 *143
85 9 8
1 1 1
98 79 132
2645 *239 *161
90 8 6
2 1 2
105 73 91
9926 734 733
90 7 7
6 4 7
105 60 111
18 13 13 9 7 7 5 4
214 157 148 105 80 81 59 49
345 *107 *172 *179 *308 +299 *237 *152
19 6 10 10 17 17 13 9
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
205 77 113 82 108 98 75 70
552 328 *331 458 *374 *253 *368 *257
19 11 11 16 13 9 13 9
3 2 2 2 1 1 1
202 146 134 129 81 51 72 73
2248 1461 1453 1365 1292 1592 1022 520
21 13 13 13 12 15 9 5
13 10 9 6 5 5 3 2
219 173 157 103 74 86 53 40
90
J Bum Res 1994:30:85-94
African-American population, and San Antonio, which has a large Mexican-American population. Survey of Buying Power (1990) was used to clearly identify each zip code area and its ethnic composition in each city. Each zip code area was then rank ordered according to its percentage of ethnic population (African-American vs. Anglo in Detroit; Mexican-American vs. Anglo in San Antonio). The top ten zip code areas for each of the two groups in Detroit and San Antonio were chosen for this sample. There were 183,712 total area households in the Detroit sample: 117,650 African-American and 66,062 Anglo households. In the San Antonio sample, there were 208,399 total area households: 106,117 Mexican-American and 102,282 Anglo households. Photography was used in data collection so that coding of the billboards could take place at a later time. Two teams of trained student fieldworkers were assigned to each city. Each team (composed of a driver, a photographer, and a map reader/recorder) was responsible for data collection in the ten designated zip code areas (either minority or white). A detailed street map of the city, along with instructions, were given to each team. In order to come as close as possible to a random sample (Dillon, Madden, and Firtle, 1987), fieldworkers were instructed to take pictures of the first 20 billboards they saw in each zip code area. The number of photographs was set at 20 in an attempt to create an even distribution across selected zip code areas, thus providing a balanced sample. Fieldworkers were instructed to avoid billboards facing interstate highways because of the likelihood that they targeted interstate travelers instead of neighborhood residents. In addition, they were instructed to concentrate on standardized outdoor structures, specifically 30-sheet posters and bulletin boards. Posters are the most common and least expensive form of standardized outdoor advertising. The 30sheet poster consists of a 9’7” X 2 1’7” printed area surrounded by a margin of blank paper. Advertising messages are printed on large sheets of paper, which are later mounted on the poster panel. The bulletin is a painted display, built to last, and generally placed in premium outdoor locations with heavy traffic and high visibihty. Bulletins are generally larger than posters, typically 14’ X 48’ or larger (Bovee and Arens, 1986).
Coding After the photographs were developed, an initial inspection was conducted to insure clarity for coding. Because the goal of the study was to investigate the amount of certain types of advertising, as well as the range of product types advertised in each neighborhood, duplicated photographs were not removed from the sample. In Detroit, a total of 417 photographs were taken: 193 (46%) from Anglo neighborhoods and 224 (54%) from African-American neighborhoods. A total of 379 photographs was taken in the city of San Antonio: 193 (51%) from Mexican-American neighborhoods and 186 (49%) from Anglo neighborhoods. According to the 1990 Survey ofBuying Poivcr, the average income percentile for Detroit’s Anglo
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
neighborhoods was 54% (median = 49%), compared to 37% (median = 23%) for the African-American neighborhoods. In San Antonio, the Anglo neighborhoods had an average income percentile of 80% (median = 85%>, whereas the average for the Mexican-American neighborhoods was 31% (median = 23%). The income level in each neighborhood was later classified as high, middle, or low (high income = 67% or higher; middle income = 34%-66%; low income = 33% or lower). Each billboard photograph was coded accordmg to city (Detroit or San Antonio), zone (Anglo, African-American, Mexican-American), board type (bulletin or poster), product/ brand, product class (specified as durable, nondurable, service, public service, political, and others), product type (adopted from secondary sources-Simmons Market Research Bureau, 1990), and language (English, Spanish, combination). Standard marketing definitions of product class were used in this study. Durable goods are defined as “tangible products which are long lasting andinfrequently replaced” (e.g., cars, kitchen appliances, furniture). Nondurable goods are “tangible products which may be consumed in one or a few uses and usually need to be replaced at regular intervals” (e.g., food, soap, gasoline). Finally, services are defined as “activities, benefits, or satisfactions offered for sale” (e.g., travel, haircuts, legal and medical services) (Bovee and Arens, 1986). The coding sheet for this analysis is provided in Appendix 1. The entire sample was coded independently by two coders who spoke Spanish fluently. A judge was used to resolve coder disagreements, and corrections were made before further analysis was conducted. Intercoder reliability ranged from acceptable to excellent (Kassarjian, 1977): 100% for city, zone, board type, and language; 81% for product class; and 96% for product type.
Results
and Discussion
A total of 796 billboard ads were analyzed in this study. In Detroit, well over half of the billboards (324 or 78%) were 30.sheet posters, and the majority of them were in English (409 or 98%). None of the billboards in Detroit contained any political advertising. The majority of the ads there were for nondurables (191 or 46%), followed by service (126 or 30%), public service (75 or 18%), and durables (25 or 6%). In San Antonio, a somewhat similar pattern is observed. Seventythree percent (276) of the billboards were 30-sheet posters, and 27% (103) were bulletms. Again, no political advertising was recorded. Forty-nine percent (187) of the ads were for service, followed by 29% (110) for nondurables, 12% (44) for durables, and 10% (37) for public service. Only 18% (68) of the ads used Spanish or a combination of Enghsh and Spanish. The remaining billboards were in English. A comparison of product types in billboard ads by neighborhood is presented in Table 7. Photography and rental did not appear in Detroit’s sample, whereas accessories, health/ beauty aids and memberships did not show up in the San Antonio sample.
91
J Busn Res
Billboard Advertising
1994:30:85-94
Table 7. Product Types in Billboard Advertising by Neighborhood Ethnicity San Antonio
Detroit African-American
Anglo Product Type
#
(o/o)
Transportation Entertainment Financial Sending and spending Elec. and appliances Home furnishing and improvement Food and shopping Accessories Adult apparel Alcohol Household Items Health and beauty Medical service Public service Memberships Communication Tobacco Photo Rental Other
39 16 7 1 4
(20.2)’ ( 8.3) ( 3.6) ( 0.5) ( 2.1)
TOTAL
-
10
( 5.2)
4 2 27
( 2.1) ( 1.0) (14.0)3
-
2
4
( 2.1) ( 1.0)
15 1 1
( 7.8) ( 0.5) ( 0.5)
59
(30.6)’
#
21 19 2 1
193
(
0.5)
(100)
(%)
(%I
(9.4) ( 8.5) ( 0.9) ( 0.4)
17 30 21
( 9.1) (16.1)’ (11.3)
2 8 30
( 0.5) ( 1.1) ( 4.3) (16.1)’
1 11 1
( 0.4) ( 4.9) ( 0.4)
5 30 2 5 4 59
( 2.2) (13.413 ( 0.9) ( 2.2)
3 2
( 1.8)
10
(26.3)’
4
2
( 0.9)
51
(22.8Y
5 30 2 1 20
-
-
#
10 224
-
( 4.5) (100)
186
(%)
7 19
( 3.6) ( 9.8)’
13 2 3 7 9
( ( ( ( (
-
6.7) 1.0) 1.6) 3.6) 4.7)
( 1.6) ( 1.1)
2 12 5
( 5.4) ( 2.2)
4
33
( 2.7) (16.1)’
7 44
( 3.6) (22.8)’
( 1.1) ( 0.5) (10.8)
8 2 16
( 4.1) ( 1.0) ( 8.3)
-
1
-
Mexican-American
Anglo #
(100)
193
-
-
( 1.0) ( 6.2) ( 2.6) ( 2.1) (17.1)I
(100)
1, 2, and 3 are rankmgs
In Detroit’s Anglo neighborhoods, tobacco ads appeared most often (59 or 31%), followed by transportation (39 or 20%), and alcohol (27 or 14%) ads. In African-American neighborhoods, public service ads appeared most often (59 or 26%), followed by tobacco (51 or 23%), and alcohol (30 or 13%) ads. It appears that Anglo neighborhoods actually have a higher percentage of tobacco ads than African-American neighborhoods (31% vs. 23%), although both percentages are high. African-American neighborhoods have approximately the same proportion of alcohol ads as the Anglo neighborhoods (13% vs. 14%). Comparatively speaking, billboards in African-American neighborhoods have a higher percentage of public service messages dealing with issues such as drunken driving and school drop-out (26%). Only 8% of the billboards in Anglo neighborhoods contain public service messages. In Anglo neighborhoods, 20% of the billboard ads were transportation-related (car dealers and airlines) compared to 9% in African-American neighborhoods. This difference may reflect the different needs of the two neighborhoods. In San Antonio, the pattern of billboard advertising is somewhat different. The majority of the billboards in Anglo neighborhoods featured food and shopping (30 or 16%), entertainment (30 or 16%), and tobacco (30 or 16%). In Mexican-American neighborhoods, tobacco advertising is most prevalent (44 or 23%), followed by public service ads (33 or 17%), and entertainment (19 or 10%). Comparing the two neighborhoods, we observe that both appear to be seeing some entertainment ads (e.g., the rodeo, special events, and
music stations). However, Mexican-American neighborhoods are more likely to have public service billboards, whereas Anglo neighborhoods are more likely to have food and shopping and tobacco billboards. One thing in common between the two neighborhoods is the prevalence of tobacco ads. However, Mexican-American neighborhoods tend to have more tobacco ads on billboards than Anglo neighborhoods. Detroit and San Antonio’s Anglo neighborhoods are different in that except for tobacco, they have two very different highly advertised products: transportation (20% in Detroit vs. 9% in San Antonio) and entertainment (8% in Detroit vs. 16% in San Antonio). This could be due to certain geographic differences, e.g., Detroit is the center of the U.S. automobile industry and San Antonio is a popular tourist attraction. Both cities’ ethnic minority neighborhoods appear to have a large proportion of public service ads on billboards. This could be due to community-wide efforts to call attention to issues of public concern. It may also be due to a larger number of billboards available in low-income neighborhoods to carry public service advertising. Both ethnic minority neighborhoods also have a large proportion of tobacco ads (23% in Detroit vs. 23% in San Antonio). In contrast, the Detroit African-American neighborhoods have far more alcohol ads than the San Antonio MexicanAmerican neighborhoods (13% in Detroit vs. 6% in San Antonio). It appears that alcohol ads are almost twice as likely to appear in Detroit’s African-American neighborhoods than in San Antonio’s Mexican-American neighborhoods. Overall, it appears that tobacco advertising on billboards was preva-
J Busn Res
92
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1994:30:85-94
Table 8. Product Tvoe by Neighborhood-Overall
Table 10. Product Type by Neighborhood-San
Neighborhood Product
Type
Anglo
Tobacco Alcohol Public service TOTAL
Afro-American
89 29 19 137
Mex-American
51 30 59 140
44 12 33 89
Total
184 71 111 366
Product
= 33 38,
p<
Type
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL df= x’
df = 4 x’
Anglo
Table 9. Product Twe bv Neighborhood-Detroit
32 134 166
56 121 177
Type
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL 1.
x2 = 2 01, NS
Total
88 255 343
1 = 6.86,
pi
01
An analysis of language used on billboards with regard to product type was conducted for San Antonio to further understand the targeting effort made by alcohol and tobacco advertisers. As can be seen from Table 11, a significant result is obtained. It appears that product type is related to language used on billboards. Interestingly, for alcohol and tobacco products, equal amounts of Spanish and English boards exist. For all other products, more English billboards than Spanish billboards are found. In terms of boards using English, almost three times as many are for products other than alcohol/tobacco products. However, there were approximately the same number of billboards in Spanish for alcohol/tobacco and all other products. Tables 12 and 13 exhibit the relationship between income level and product type. For both Detroit and San Antonio, income level is very much related to the advertising of alcohol/ tobacco products on billboards. It appears that income level is more relevant than ethnicity to the type of product advertised in a given neighborhood. Therefore, attempts to make vice product advertising purely a racial issue may not be warranted. Because the size of the billboards may have an indirect impact on audience impression (i.e., the larger the board size the greater the impression), a chi-square analysis between board type (bulletin vs. poster) and product type (alcohol/ tobacco vs. all other products) was carried out. Significant results were obtained (Table 14). It appears that there are overall more posters than bulletins. Because posters are smaller than bulletins, there is no evidence to suggest that alcohol/ tobacco advertisers use larger boards to make their message more prominent in ethnic minority neighborhoods.
Limitations and Conclusions This study is the first attempt at content analyzing billboard advertising in Anglo versus minority neighborhoods. Al-
Table 11. Product Type by Language-San
Neighborhood
df=
Mexican-American
01
lent among all neighborhoods compared, whereas alcohol ads were more prevalent in Detroit than in San Antonio, regardless of the neighborhood’s ethnicity. Chi-square analysis was conducted to first explore the relationship between neighborhood ethnicity and tobacco, alcohol and public service billboard advertising. As can be seen from Table 8, a significant relationship was found (x2 = 33.38, p < .Ol). It appears that in Anglo neighborhoods (San Antonio and Detroit combined), more billboards contain tobacco advertising (65%). A large proportion of tobacco billboards are also evident in San Antonio’s Mexican-American neighborhood (49%). Interestingly, public service billboards also have a strong presence in this analysis (37%). In Detroit’s African-American neighborhood, public service billboards are most prevalent (42%), followed by tobacco billboards (36%). When comparing tobacco billboards across neighborhoods, Anglo neighborhoods have the highest proportion. However, when comparing alcohol billboards, both Anglo and AfricanAmerican neighborhoods have a similar amount. Public service billboards tend to appear more in ethnic minority neighborhoods (African-American and Mexican-American) than in Anglo neighborhoods. In order to further examine the relationship between neighborhoods and the advertising of alcohol and tobacco products, a series of chi-square analyses were conducted for Detroit and San Antonio respectively. Table 9 shows the result of chisquare analysis between neighborhood ethnicity and product type in Detroit, It appears that the ethnicity of the neighborhood is not related to the advertising of alcohol/tobacco versus other products (x2 = 2.0 1, NS). A similar analysis for San Antonio, however, shows a different picture (see Table JO). In San Antonio, Mexican-American neighborhoods are more likely to have alcohol/tobacco billboards than Anglo neighborhoods (x2 = 6.86, p < .Ol).
Product
Antonio
Neighborhood
Anglo
86 106 192
African-American
81 133 214
Antonio
Language Product
Total
167 239 406
Type
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL df=
1.
,$ =
10.80; p < .Ol
English
28 90 118
Spanish
Total
28 30 58
56 120 17h
J Busn Res 1994:30:85-94
allmoara AdVertking
Table 14. Product Type by Board Type-Detroit and San Antonio
Table 12. Product Type by Income Level-Detroit
Board Type
Income Level Product Type Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL
Low
Middle
High
Total
Product Type
Bulletin
Poster
Total
74 96 170
44 47 91
49 107 156
167 250 417
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL
20 24 44
173 341 514
193 558 751
df= 1. x’ = 26 06; p < .Ol
df=2. x’
= 8.31; p < .05.
though current controversy surrounding the advertising of vice products (typically alcohol and tobacco) to underprivileged or minority consumers may not be resolved any time soon, this study provides an initial attempt to understand these complex issues by systematically examining empirical evidence. In Detroit, the African-American neighborhoods do not appear to be receiving disproportionately larger amounts of billboard advertising for alcohol or tobacco products than Anglo neighborhoods. In fact, the Anglo neighborhoods had a higher percentage of tobacco ads, whereas both Anglo and AfricanAmerican neighborhoods had about equal proportion of alcohol ads (14% and 13%, respectively). In San Antonio, however, the findings are almost the opposite. Although the two neighborhoods in San Antonio had a small proportion of alcohol ads (1% for Anglo and 6% for Mexican-American) and slightly higher proportion of tobacco ads (16% for Anglo and 23% for Mexican-American), Mexican-American neighborhoods appear to be getting the larger share of the two. It appears that, based on this study, two very different outcomes are observed. Another interesting observation is the large amount of public service ads in ethnic minority neighborhoods. In addition, there appear to be regional differences in the billboard advertising as evidenced by the large amount of transportation ads in Detroit and entertainment ads in San Antonio. A second set of analyses focused on relationships between neighborhood ethnicity, board size, income, and alcoholkobacco advertising. It appears that neighborhood ethnicity is related to alcohol/tobacco advertising only for the city of San Antonio. In addition, income is highly related to alcohol/tobacco advertising for both cities. Although board size is related to alcohol/tobacco advertising in both cities, the majority of the billboards are posters (smaller in size) rather than bulletins.
Because this study is only an initial attempt to examine the controversy from an empirical angle, many more efforts need to be made in the future to gain better understanding of all the elements involved. From our experience in conducting this study, we determined several issues that should be considered in future studies. First of all, similar studies should be conducted in other metropolitan cities where a diverse group of minorities can be sampled. Cities such as Chicago, Houston, and even Los Angeles can and should be considered. This way, we may be able to better understand if the phenomenon is city- or ethnicitydependent. More sample points will undoubtedly provide for better comparisons. Second, secondary data concerning board locations and related audience impression scores from local outdoor advertising companies, if obtainable, will give the most complete statistics for use in sample planning and better analysis. Because the content of each billboard will still need to be coded, photography appears to be a viable method. Third, other ethnic minority neighborhoods, although not included in this study, may need to be included in future studies to provide a more complete picture. If, as critics have argued, manufacturers of vice products exploit socially, economically, and/or underprivileged consumers, we need to include all such groups in future studies. The authors acknowledge Robert Hall for his help m data collection.
Appendix Appendix
1. Code Sheet
1. Coder #
3. City:
1. Detroit
Table 13. Product Type by Income Level-San
6. Board Type: Antonio
Income Level Low
Middle
High
Total
Alcohol and tobacco All other products TOTAL
39 88 127
30 82 112
19 120 139
88 290 318
<
01
2. San Antonio
2. African-American 1. Bulletin
3. Mexican-American 2. Poster
7. Product/Brand:
Product Type
)p = 11.87,p
2. Board #
4. Income Percentile: 5. Zone: 1. Anglo
df=2.
93
8. Product Classification: 1. Durable 2. Nondurable 4. Public Service (Sponsor: 5. Political 6. Other:
3. Service
9. Product Type: (Circle one only) 1. Transportation (Autos, Cycles, Trucks, Vans, Auto Products, and Services)
)
J Busn Res 1994: 130:85-94
94
Appendix 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 15 16. 17. 18 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 10.
W-N Lee and M. F. Callcott
1. (continued)
Cost-Cutting,
Entertainment (Travel, Sports, Leisure, Books, Records, Tapes, CDs, Games, Toys, Radio Stations, Events) Financial (Non-health related Insurance, Banking, Investments, Credit Cards, Real Estate) Sending and Spending Services (Direct Mail and Other InHome Shopping, Florists, Telegrams, Greeting Cards) Electronics and Appliances (Stereo, Telephones, Computers, Dryers) Home (Furnishings, Improvements) Food and Shopping (Restaurants, Stores and Malls, Grocery ShoDping, Food Items, Soft Drinks, Snacks) Accessories &weyry, Watches, Luggage) ADDare (Men’s. Women’s) ApEare (Children’s) Alcohol (DIstilled Spirits, Mixed Drinks, Beer and Wme) Household Items (Cleaners and Pet Care, Soap, Deodorizers, Kitchen, Wraps, Pest Control) Health and Beauty Aids (Remedies, Oral Care, Skin Care, Hair Care, Shaving, Cosmetics) Medical Service (Hospital, HMO, Nursing Home) Public Service Memberships Communication (Phones, Pagers) Sewing, Garden Care Photography Pens, Pencils, Stationary Tobacco Products Rentals Other: 1. English
Language:
2. Spanish
3. Combination
Protests.
References
Assael, Shaun, 31 (Januav
Outrage: Billboards Under Pamt, 6 (Winter 1990-91): 10-12.
Why Big Tobacco 29, 1990): 20-22.
Woos
Minorities.
Under
Feuer, Jack, Outdoor 25 (August 1990):
Week
Bovee, Courtland L., and Arens, William F., Conlrmporary Advertising, 2nd Edition, Richard D. Irwm, Inc., Homewood. 1986. Dillon, William
R., Madden,
Thomas
J., and Flrtle, Nell H., Marketing St.
Research m a Marketing Environment, Mosby College Publishmg, LOUIS. 1987.
Fahey, Ahson, and Dagnoh, Judann, PM Ready to Deal with Outdoor Ad Foes. Advertising Age 61 (June 18, 1990): 3, 88. Fahey, Ahson, Outdoor (April 1, 1991): 6. Fahey,
Ahson,
Outdoor
Spending
Shps
Feels Drought:
in ‘90. Advertising Spending
Drops
Age 62
15% Amid
6, 1990):
Show and Tell. Marketing 62-63.
Gallagher. 1990):
John 41.
E.. Under
Fire From
3, 38.
Plan Sparks
and Media Decisions
Freedman, Ahx M., Heileman Will Be Asked to Change Potent Name. Wall Streetj. Eastern Editlon @me 20, 1991): 81. All Sides.
Brew’s
Time 135 (March
5,
Gross, Barbara L., and Sheth, Jagdish N., Time-Oriented Advertising: A Content Analysis of United States Magazine Advertising, 18901988. /. Marketing 53 (October 1989): 76-83. Hume, Scott, Regulate 13, 1990): 20. Kalish, gust
David, 1988):
Outdoor
Local Heroes. 95-99.
Ads: Poll. Advertising Marketing
Age 61 (August
and Media Decisions
Kassarjian, Harold H., Content Analysis in Consumer Consumer Research 4 (June, 1977): 8-18. Koeppel, Dan, An Ethical Plan for Tobacco Week 31 (May 28, 1990). 18-22. Mabry, Marcus, Fighting ruary 5, 1990): 46.
Ads in the Inner
23 (Au-
Research.
Marketers.
J.
Marketing
City. Newsweek
115 (Feb-
Martin. Denms G., and Coons, Robert D., hledm Flight Plan Plus, 2nd Edltlon, Deer Creek Publishing. 1991. Mediamark
Research
Progressive p. 100.
Grocer
Inc., P-Volumes,
report:
Sprmg
1991.
Non-edibles/Tobacco
products,
July
Don’t Aim that Pack aaat Us. Time 135 (January
1990, 29,
Resmk, Alan, and Stern, Bruce L., An Analysis of Information Content m Television Advertising. J. Marketing 41 (January 1977): 50-53. Simmons
Marketing
Age 61 (August
Fahey, Alison, Outdoor Sets Limits: Group’s Voluntary New Furor. Advertising Age 61 (June 25, 1990): 57.
Quinn. Michael, 1990): 60. Allen, Peter, Outdoor and Pressure. Am. Advertising
Advertising
Market
Research
Bureau,
P-Volumes,
Spring
1991.
Sissors, Jack Z., and Bumba, Lincoln, Advertising Media Planning, Ed&on, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood. 1989. Stern, Bruce L., and Resnik, Alan J., Information sion Advertising: A Replication and Extension. 30 (June-July 1991): 36-46. Stewart, Qmck
3rd
Content in TeleviI. Advertising Res.
Robert L., Outdoor Advertising, You Say? Sometimes the Answer Is “Si! ” Rough Notes 133 (September 1990): 40-41.
Survey of Buying Power, Sales and Marketing New York. 1990.
Management
Magazine,
Tansey, Richard, Hyman, Michael R., and Zinkhan, George M., Cultural Themes m Brazilian and U.S. Auto Ads: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. J. Advertising 19 (Volume 2, 1990): 30-39.