(according to the EUROMOBILE-international methodology)
Why Mobile Billboard Advertising?
Urban traffic fluctuates simultaneously according to location and time: a given boulevard may be heavily trafficked at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., yet deserted by 10 p.m.
This is the exclusive advantage of mobile billboard advertising: it adapts flexibly to these variations and ensures a presence both where and when traffic is sufficiently relevant. Unlike permanent advertising formats, mobile advertising avoids bulkiness, waste, and visual clutter while targeting peak circulation periods for maximum profitability.
It is worth noting that this economical use of resources is also accompanied by remarkable efficiency: the ẞ (beta) of moving billboards is consistently at least twice as high as that of static billboards.
To support this claim, we have summarized and compiled a dozen effectiveness studies conducted over recent years on Euromobilecampaigns.
Advantages of the Mobile Solution vs Fixed Billboards
| Criterion | Mobile BillboardAdvertising | Fixed 20 m² Billboard |
| Time and Location Flexibility | Very high – real-time adaptability | Unchanging |
| Profitability per GRP/OTS | More cost-effective | Standard |
| Beta (β) – Communication Impact | 0.03 to 0.49 depending on campaign | Approx. 0.004–0.009 |
The Studies
A wide range of studies have been conducted across various European countries, primarily in Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Canada.
The companies behind these studies include: Marketing Unit Cobra and Score, Ipsos, and GfK.
According to the methodology outlined by Francis Huleux for the company Euromobile, all types of products — automotive, food, non-food, restaurant services, and others — have been evaluated.
All conclusions are unanimous: the more creative the visual and strategic concept, the greater the impact. This is because the unique strength of mobile billboard advertising in motion lies in its ability to bring the creative message closer to the targeted audience, with minimal dispersion, precisely where and when it matters most.
As a result, mobile advertising in motion is also the medium best suited to amortize high production costs, which are absorbed into the overall campaign budget given the results that 3D communication optimization can achieve.
All types of budgets — both small and large-scale campaigns — have been measured using the same consistent methodology.
Terminology Used
Coverage × OTS (opportunity to see) = GRP (gross rating point)
Spontaneous recall
Assisted recall
- Recognition
- Correct attribution
- Effective recall score
- Beta (β)
The first measured campaign delivered such strong results that we were compelled to continue investigating to verify their validity.
DELACRE
For its product Délice Fruit, Delacre aimed to cover, in September 1985, the catchment areas of Delhaize, Colruyt, Super GB, and Maxi GB hyper- and supermarkets.
An analysis of their locations allowed us to define 116 zones, each grouping 5 or 6 stores. It was then decided to assign one Euromobile vehicle per zone, for a duration of 6 days. A total of 29 vehicles were required to complete this monomedia campaign within a month.
At that time, the “Score” impact test did not yet exist, so a custom “Cobra” study was conducted by Marketing Unit, immediately after the campaign, to measure its communication value with a sample of 300 women aged 21–44 (PRA):
- 150 French-speaking respondents in Brussels
- 150 Dutch-speaking respondents in Antwerp
Upon being shown a photo of the advertisement (with brand names obscured):
- 64% recognized the poster, and among them,
- 59% correctly identified the brand,
which corresponds to an effective recall score of 38%.
Assuming this score reflects the poster’s memorization, we can calculate the corresponding β, provided the campaign’s performance in the test zone is known.
These were estimated at 2396 GRPs, or 31.4 OTS at 76% target reach. According to Morgensztern, this yields a β of 0.03, an excellent score when compared to the typical β of 0.0045 attributed to static 20 m² billboard advertising.
Another mobile vs. static comparison can be drawn from the same Cobra study, which simultaneously measured the communication value of the Delacre mobile campaign and the recognition level of 15 static 20 m² posters.
That recognition rate averaged 21% (with a range from 9% to 56%), while the mobile campaign achieved three times more — as previously shown.
1. Délice Fruit (Delacre) – September 1985
• Objective: Cover 116 zones around supermarkets using 29 trucks, each for 6 days
• Results:
o Recognition: 64%
o Correct attribution: 59% → Effective recall score: 38%
o Exposure: 2,396 GRPs, 31.4 OTS at 76% of the target audience
o Beta (β): 0.03 (vs. 0.0045 for fixed billboards)
• Direct comparison:Fixed 20 m² billboards = 21% recognition vs
~63% for mobile
From there, we are able to compile an initial synthesis of 16 studies.
The result of the synthesis across 16 measurements effectively removes any suspicion of chance, of an exceptional poster, or of a highly popular brand.
In direct comparisons (including cases where the same creative was used), the outcome strongly favors mobile billboard advertising in motion.
Coca-Cola Light, for example, illustrates the low cost of mobile advertising, even in its simplest form, combined with a strategic, economically optimized targeting approach.
If someone responds, “Of course, it’s Coca-Cola,” simply refer to the Fresh campaign, which had zero brand awareness.
And if they say, “Yes, but that was in 3D,” answer: “Nothing stops you from using 3D communication.”If they reply, “Yes, but I don’t see how 3D would apply to my client,” give a concrete example:
A bank or an insurance company using 3D in motion.
And if someone says, “But 3D in motion is expensive,” reply:
“No — the production cost is part of what leads to a significant increase in memorability, up to 2 to 3 times stronger. Just look at the Beta (β) score.”Moving on:
Omo, a Unilever product, used Euromobile for the second time, for the same campaign.
This time, they allowed us to conduct the first-ever fixed vs. mobile comparison.
A bold media planner agreed to split the display budget between fixed and mobile formats — finally, someone with guts.
THE RESULT IS UNDENIABLE.
Renault:
In the same 24 urban centers, with a budget three times smaller, mobile advertising still outperformed fixed billboards in terms of communication impact.Summary of the 7 direct comparisons
These case studies definitively confirm the superiority of mobile outdoor advertising.
They reinforce its strength not only to inform, but also to demonstrate, and above all, to build message credibility — “the reason why the client invested.”
If you need to go even further, refer to the Mercedes campaign, which was evaluated based on spontaneous recall.
This should eliminateanyremainingdoubts.
How to calculate the Beta (β) scoreTo do this, calculate the effective recall score of the campaign.
The average of all Beta scores across campaigns will yield the media’s average Beta.The effective recall score is calculated by applying the correct attribution rate to the recognition rate:
(e.g. recognition 50% × attribution 10% = 5% effective recall score)
This memorization score, when applied in the A. Morgenstern formula, gives you the campaign’s Beta (β).
