Rate This Board allows a billboard designer to rate a random piece of billboard artwork using the following scale: 1 (not good), 2 (below average), 3 (average), 4 (very good), 5 (great). Then the designer talks about what they may have done differently for outdoor advertising. This week’s rating is provided by Greg Callaham (www.gregcallaham.com) who has 30 years of experience in outdoor advertising design. Insider uses and endorses Callaham’s services.

Sign: Muck Foving    

Rating: 1 (not good)

• There is a certain school of thought that states “Any publicity is good publicity.” This billboard is an excellent example of why that is simply not true. Yes, there are those who will visit the web site to find out what this is about. The advertiser and web master will pat themselves on the back for the number of hits they generated. But this sort of publicity affects more than the advertiser. It negatively affects our industry by making most passers-by, at least, uncomfortable or, at worst, angry. They blame billboard companies, not just the advertiser, because they expect us to govern this sort of thing. Maybe the target audience thought it was cute, but most people outside those demographics, and some within them, probably found it offensive.

• When driving past this with your young child in the car, do you want to explain what this means when they read it and ask? Is this something you would be proud to show your parents as your work? Will this make you fidget when you encounter one of your peers in your profession? Frankly, I see this as a public relations net loss for the advertiser, the outdoor advertising company, and the OOH industry.

• The design is simple and easy to read, so the designer did a nice job. But the decision to print and post this gets a 1 (not good) only because zero is not on my scale to use.

Paid Ad