I would have thought they'd be one of the most expensive form of advertising if your goal is to get traffic to a website.
You've got to do ALL the following to get one visitor:
- Make an impression when somebody's driving by (not every driver will even look at a billboard, not by a long way)
- Have a message simple enough for them to read in a couple of seconds AND compelling enough to hold their interest
- Have them memorise a URL from a moving vehicle
- Have them remember it later (after they get to destination)
- Have them type it into a browser (a lot of people don't know how to do this)
That's why billboards tend to be "branding" ads for lifestyle products.
I think a very simple ad using a short and memorable EMD where the URL is the brand would achieve most of those things.
If someone doesn't know how to type a web address in a browser I can't imagine they would buy much online.
You're probably right. Certainly 'proper' billboards in cities seem to be mostly 'branding' - less so motorway ads though.
I've been noticing a lot of website ads recently - the M62 has loads - speckyfoureyes.com, ebuyer.com, laptopsdirect.co.uk, just-eat.co.uk, insureandgo.com etc.
I notice and remember them, but then I have an interest, so maybe others don't.
Apparently prices work out somewhere between 25-50p per 1,000 passing vehicles.
Let's say 25p, and let's say average customer value is £25.
We need to convert 1 in 100,000 people to break even.
Let's say 25% see and 'take in' the ad - 25,000
10% of them are potential customers - 2,500
10% of them are actively in the market - 250
10% of them visit the site - 25
The site converts at 4% = 1 sale
That seems basically plausible to me... Obviously it would need to be a mass market product
You can't easily attribute those customers to that source which makes it hard to track.
I don't know, maybe it's a bad idea. I think it may be worth a test though - I bet a lot of us here are entirely reliant on Google