My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-26-2005 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
10-26-2005 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2012 1:38:27 PM
Creation date
4/23/2012 1:21:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
fig <br />040.pmd <br />visibility conditions, and. not least of all, demographics <br />of the audience. As the profile on the street changes, <br />the content of the message displayed also can change. <br />When message content on an electronic message center <br />is unduly limited by sequencing restrictions, it interferes <br />with the sign user's ability to effectively communicate <br />with the identifiable demographic on the street at a <br />particula '.° - of day <br />In 1980, following the 1978 amendment, the Federal <br />Highway Administration commissioned researchers <br />Ross Netherton and Jerry Wachtel to undertake one more <br />study of variable electronic messaging. The researchers <br />set out to prove electronic variable message signs were <br />unsafe. They concluded, however, that no credible <br />statistical evidence existed to support the assumption that <br />electronic or variable message centers negatively <br />impacted road safety. <br />Their report also said that roadside signs provided a <br />stimulus that helped maintain driver alertness, and <br />increased safety by combating "highway hypnosis." <br />During the subsequent 22 years, no research has emerged <br />at contradicts the 1980 finding. <br />612111111M111 I <br />Several states have conducted studies on the safety of <br />roadside signs, including EMCs, and none have found <br />an increase in traffic accidents — and in some cases have <br />found a significant decrease in accidents — related to the <br />signs. Furthermore, nine leading insurance companies <br />were surveyed, and all indicated that they had never <br />received an accident claim involving an advertising sign. <br />Richard Schwab, former Federal Highway <br />Administration program manager for research on <br />highway visibility and night driving safety and Fellow <br />of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North <br />America, conducted an extensive study that concluded <br />EMCs could not be linked to traffic accidents or to any <br />reduction in traffic safety. <br />1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court struck down a <br />state statute that prohibited signs near highways if they <br />contained or included "flashing, moving or intermittent <br />lights except those displaying time, date, temperature or <br />weather ...." See Flying J. Travel Plaza v. <br />Commomvealth, 928 SW 2d 344 (Ky.1996). The court <br />said the state had failed to demonstrate that a legitimate <br />government interest was advanced by the prohibitior, <br />Businesses o en select t eir advertising medium, and messages, based upon the cost per thousand exposures of <br />their message to the public. On this basis, no other form of advertising comes close to matching the efficiency and <br />cost- effectiveness, dollar for dollar, of an electronic message display. Compare the figures below: <br />• Newspaper advertising - the cost on average is about $7.39 for 1000 exposures within a 10 -mile radius of <br />the business location. <br />• Television advertising - The cost on average is approximately $6.26 per 1000 exposures. <br />• Radio advertising - The cost is about $5.47 per 1000 exposures. <br />• New LED electronic message center display - The cost is less than $0.15 per 1000 exposures. How? <br />Assume, for example, that you spend $30,000.00 on this type of system, and that its useful life is about ten <br />years. The amortized daily cost of the message center would equal about $8.22. Add to this the daily cost <br />of electricity for this new LED unit ( approximately $0.20), thus giving your business a daily message <br />center expense total of $8.42. With a daily traffic count of 20,000 vehicles passing your business, you <br />would have a cost of less than $0.43 per thousand exposures (counting drivers only)! <br />Best of all, with a changeable copy sign, a business does not have to worry about missing its target audience, <br />becoming "yesterday's news," or facing expensive production costs for changing its message, as happens frequently <br />with the other forms of advertising mentioned. <br />With a changeable copy sign: <br />• The business owns the form of advertising. <br />• The advertising works for the business 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with minimal cost. <br />• The sign acts as the "salesman on the sheet attracting customers into the business. <br />• The advertising speaks directly to the potential customers as they drive past the business location. <br />• The EMC can display information pertaining specifically to products available on the premises. <br />• The EMC makes the business a landmark in its community. <br />• The business can select its own market and direct its message to that market at any given time. <br />3/13/2003, 12'45 PM <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.