Abstract
Many marketers design their product packaging so that when individual units are positioned together, they form a coordinated and often larger image that spans multiple package faces. The authors coin the term “billboarding” to refer to this practice that blends product packaging and retail display and whose effectiveness remains unexplored in the marketing literature. They document that billboarding improves consumer responses and operates through a combination of heightened artistic perceptions of the brand display and consumer feelings of serendipity. Using an empirical approach that incorporates field data and experiments, the authors present eight studies that support this perspective. Because marketers are concerned that the improper implementation of billboarding can backfire, the authors further explore several moderators related to in-store (disorganized and incomplete billboarding) and design (image type) factors to understand how to maximize its utility. They further examine conceptual fluency as a moderator and show that the positive effects of billboarding are significantly weaker when the product category is conceptually less fluent with the inclusion of artistic qualities. This research offers the first examination of an important marketing tool that may help brand managers circumvent uncooperative retailers and advance actionable insights that are likely to boost consumer responses.
In the retail arena, competition is fierce. Consumer packaged goods (CPG) brands spend over $16.3 billion annually on in-store displays such as endcaps, floor stands, and pallets (Credence Research 2025), yet even strong brands struggle to stand out. James Sommerville, then vice president of global design at Coca-Cola, remarked that the company's brands have become diluted in retail spaces and struggle for differentiation (Gilliland 2017). Beyond brick-and-mortar retailers, these same competitive dynamics now play out on the digital shelf, requiring new insights on how to better engage consumers both online and offline.
To attract customers, one company response has been to switch from a perspective focused on individual packages to one contemplating how groups of packages collectively appear on the shelf. We use the term “billboarding” to refer to the practice of displaying a product or brand image that is coordinated across multiple units to depict an integrated and usually larger image across packages (Figure 1). For example, in 2021, PepsiCo redesigned the packaging of its Rockstar Energy drink to span individual cans, effectively increasing the surface area displaying the brand logo. By infusing the brand's visual identity with “larger-than-life glamour,” the company hoped the multican graphic would help it “transcend touchpoints the way only a Rockstar can” (Sanchez 2021).
Examples of Billboarding.
Billboarding is used in many retail environments and is common in many categories. We uncovered examples while exploring local retailers (Figure 1; see also the Web Appendix), with the most prevalent uses appearing in the juice, crackers, cookies, cereal, and granola categories. Thus, it is not surprising that consumers are generally familiar with the practice: We surveyed 100 consumers (Mage = 38.6 years; 49% female, 51% male), and 78% reported having encountered billboarding in stores (see the Web Appendix for details). Yet no scholarship has addressed the practice. Additionally, though we found dozens of examples in over 50 categories as varied as electronics, toys, detergents, books, deodorants, and plant food, few or no examples exist in many other categories, such as medicine or hardware. To better comprehend this highly varied pattern of billboard use, we interviewed the business unit director of Cheerios Cereal at General Mills, which uses billboarding at Costco. We learned that General Mills does not have data suggesting the practice improves performance, and it would be difficult to ensure consistent execution at the retail level due to the added complexity. A senior manager from Nestlé also expressed similar reservations about this packaging strategy, citing the need for close retailer collaboration and the potential for suboptimal execution to negatively affect brand performance. Overall, there is a tension: Some marketers are using billboarding enthusiastically, but many are not, and our conversations with managers suggest that the benefit of using billboarding over traditional packaging is poorly understood. Perhaps this is why many brands use billboarding only intermittently (Figure 2).
Brands Switch Between Traditional (Panel A) and Billboard (Panel B) Displays.
In response, we address three main research questions. First, is billboarding effective, and if so, why? Second, will brands be harmed if retailers are uncooperative (i.e., improperly execute billboarding or fail to quickly replenish shelves)? Third, does billboarding have a consistent effect across product categories?
Our empirical investigation suggests that billboarding is well received by consumers. We explain these positive effects through artistic perceptions and feelings of serendipity. We also identify several managerially relevant moderators: We examine the scenario of uncooperative retailers who fail to display billboarding properly and find that consumer brand responses remain on par with traditional packages, suggesting the practice can withstand poor execution. We show that the positive effects of billboarding persist even as package units are removed from the shelf, suggesting the practice is robust to everyday shopping behavior. We investigate different billboard designs and show that the benefits are mitigated but still better than traditional packaging when the billboarded image comprises text (vs. objects). Finally, we show that, compared with products where artistic qualities align with consumer expectations (e.g., cookies), products that are conceptually disfluent with artistic qualities (e.g., medication) perform worse when billboarded.
Our research contributes to marketing theory and practice in several ways. To date, there are primarily two separate research streams on in-store marketing. The first focuses on package design and elements such as shape (Sevilla and Kahn 2014), texture (Deng and Srinivasan 2013), and imagery (Deng and Kahn 2009). The second focuses on shelf display and investigates effects such as lateral and vertical attention biases (Chen et al. 2021), space-to-product ratio (Sevilla and Townsend 2016), horizontal versus vertical assortment orientation (Deng et al. 2016), and disorganized shelf displays (Castro, Morales, and Nowlis 2013). Our research bridges these literatures by examining billboarding, a practice that marries package design and shelf display. By documenting how the underresearched billboarding practice works, we go beyond examination of the traditional design of individual packages and make theoretical contributions to research on in-store marketing through the introduction of a novel perspective of groups of packages.
Managerially, our article offers brands an inexpensive yet effective way to gain influence over retail display. In contemporary retail spaces, brands have limited control over how their products are displayed, and slotting fees are the major way to secure premium shelf presence. Our research suggests brands can leverage design to improve their impact with less reliance on retailers. Next, we present our theoretical framework and report eight studies that test our hypotheses, concluding with implications and future research.
Theory and Hypotheses
In online and offline shopping environments cluttered with “scrambled merchandising practices” (Wilkinson, Mason, and Paksoy 1982, p. 73), brands must stand out and engage consumers (Chandon et al. 2009). To do so, companies use design to differentiate their brands (Reimann and Schilke 2011), making changes to exterior packaging in a manner that is likened to a person changing their appearance to shape impressions and interactions (Krishna, Cian, and Aydinoglu 2017). For example, studies highlight techniques such as using brighter, more colorful, or more dramatic elements (Clement, Aastrup, and Forsberg 2015; Keh, Wang, and Yan 2021).
We propose that through package design, companies can outperform competitors by creating emotional value for consumers, thereby improving consumer responses. We argue that this occurs because billboarding is perceived by consumers to have artistic qualities, characterized by elements that are creative, interesting, cohesive, and/or attractive (Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick 2008), which evoke feelings of serendipity and improve consumer responses (Figure 3). We develop these ideas next.
Theoretical Model.
Artistic Perceptions
Within research on aesthetics, scholars have investigated the application and understanding of art in marketing contexts. Most influentially, Hagtvedt and colleagues (Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008; Hagtvedt and Vohs 2022) suggest that a variety of marketing-relevant targets can be categorized as art, including “low art,” in which familiar and mundane objects possess artistic qualities. For example, Hagtvedt (2022) suggests that objects of “any modality” (p. 426), such as brands and products, can be imbued with artistic qualities, a view that is consistent with the process of artification, whereby aesthetic qualities are transferred to and manifested in nonart targets (Gupta and Joshi 2023). We propose that when consumers are exposed to billboard packages, they will assess the multiple coordinated packages as having greater artistic qualities than traditional packages. This view aligns with art scholarship due to parallels between billboards and a type of design made famous by artists such as Francis Bacon called polyptychs, in which a single theme or image is presented across multiple panels, an approach that tends to be viewed as interesting and compelling (Garnet 2015, 2017; Tabulo 2014).
While lively conversations abound in the design and aesthetics literature around the definition of art (Naletelich and Paswan 2018), within marketing those discussions have converged on artistic perceptions comprising four complementary inputs (Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick 2008). The first is creativity, which pertains to perceptions that the target is original and novel (Blijlevens et al. 2014; Kozbelt 2004). Terms like “creativity” and “innovativeness” are commonly used by people to describe their aesthetic impressions of visual art (Augustin, Wagemans, and Carbon 2012). In industrial design, perceptions of novelty determine aesthetic preferences across various consumer products (Hekkert, Snelders, and van Wieringen 2003). Second, Hagtvedt and colleagues (Hagtvedt 2022; Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick 2008) suggest that aesthetic appeal is central to artistic perceptions and is reflected by terms such as “attractive,” “elegant,” and “beautiful,” a view that is consistent with other work (Blijlevens et al. 2014; Kozbelt 2004; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998). The third is formal execution (Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick 2008), meaning the extent to which a target has a sense of form (Kozbelt 2004) and contains elements that are connected in a meaningful way (Blijlevens et al. 2014). For example, in the context of new products, Veryzer and Hutchinson (1998, p. 377) suggest that this feature is a “relational property” that “requires that parts match in some way.” This attribute can be captured by terms such as “cohesive,” “orderly,” and “balanced.” Fourth, Hagtvedt and colleagues (Hagtvedt 2022; Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick 2008) suggest curiosity appeal as a component of art reflecting whether a target is intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking. This view aligns with prior work proposing art as interesting and producing meaning tied to viewers’ curiosity (Kozbelt 2004; Nikulina et al. 2024). We expect that by combining and coordinating individual pieces to form a whole, billboarding reflects a way of improving shelf display that manifests as greater artistic perceptions, a perspective supported by qualitative evidence described in the Web Appendix.
Feelings of Serendipity
We propose that when consumers encounter billboarded packages in retail spaces, they will perceive them as having artistic qualities much less prevalent in traditional packaging. This perception will elicit a positive emotional response in the form of serendipitous feelings, reflecting consumers’ reactions to experiencing serendipity, or what is often described as “the art of making an unsought finding” (Van Andel 1994, p. 631). While much of the existing scholarship on serendipity has focused on processes of scientific discovery and technological innovation, it is also relevant to more mundane events and objects in daily life (Kim et al. 2021; McCay-Peet and Toms 2015; Van Andel 1994). Serendipity has two key elements: First, it involves an unexpected encounter—an unanticipated or unplanned event or outcome (Brown 2005; Busch 2022). Second, it is associated with receiving something of value—a benefit, utility, or windfall (Busch 2022). This is why serendipitous experiences have been described as “happy accidents” that consumers appreciate (Liang 2012, p. 42). In the strongest instances, they evoke descriptions of wonder and magic (Leong et al. 2010, p. 257), but more commonly, they are associated with emotions such as surprise, joy, and gratitude (Guo, Dong, and Palmatier 2024; Kwon and Lee 2024; McCay-Peet and Toms 2015; Rubin, Burkell, and Quan-Haase 2011).
In the retail context, we suggest that when scanning a group of packages on display and recognizing the artistic qualities in billboarded packaging, consumers will experience serendipitous feelings (McCay-Peet and Toms 2015). In effect, we surmise that consumers typically do not expect to view artistic content while undertaking the normally mundane task of scanning products while shopping, so that when they do encounter it, as with billboarded products, they will undergo a positive emotional experience tied to serendipity (e.g., surprise, joy). Importantly, what distinguishes billboarding is not the use of any particular artistic attribute but its collective composition. By integrating multiple packages in a manner reminiscent of the polyptych art format, billboarding transforms an otherwise routine shopping task into an experience of unexpected artistic discovery. Consumers perceive the display as attractive, interesting, cohesive, and creative, which elicits positive emotions associated with serendipity. Thus, billboarding's uniqueness lies in generating higher-order artistic perceptions through integration rather than merely enhancing individual packages.
This view that artistic perceptions may lead to serendipity aligns with existing research. For example, interacting with aesthetic objects and experiences (e.g., art installations in a business school's entrance hall) has been shown to increase joy and pleasure (Cuny et al. 2020; Cupchik and Gebotys 1990; Leder et al. 2004). In the case of computer-based triptychs, Thomas et al. (2018) find that serendipitous experiences are linked to feelings of surprise and delight. Engaging with aesthetic stimuli also results in emotional rewards such as heightened pleasure and gratitude (Reimann et al. 2010). Research on auditory aesthetic experiences (e.g., concerts; Ball and Barnes 2017) suggests consumers often experience emotions like surprise, joy, and gratitude. Taken as a whole, these previous findings lead us to anticipate that when consumers perceive a brand's shelf display to have artistic qualities unexpected but valued in a retail context, they will experience feelings of serendipity.
Prior studies show a strong connection between feelings of serendipity and positive consumer behaviors, such as increased choice and preference (Fulmer and Reich 2023), stronger loyalty (Eggert, Steinhoff, and Garnefeld 2015), and repeat purchases and word of mouth (Guo, Dong, and Palmatier 2024). When consumers experience serendipity with a product or brand, they are more likely to engage with it favorably, leading to superior consumer responses.
Our discussion thus far suggests that billboarding can serve as an effective in-store strategy for enhancing consumer responses. However, several important questions remain: Can billboarding withstand dynamic and often chaotic retail environments? Should all types of products embrace this approach? In the following sections, we examine three categories of factors that may influence the effectiveness of billboarding: in-store factors, design factors, and product-related factors (Figure 3).
The Moderating Role of In-Store Factors
We have argued that the positive effects of billboarding come from artistic perceptions and serendipity, rooted in the act of coordinating multiple packages to create a readily interpretable image. However, the retail environment can be chaotic, with brands sometimes having little control over display integrity. For instance, some retailers may display packages improperly, resulting in a disorganized billboard. Additionally, in everyday shopping, consumers will inadvertently cause billboard displays to deteriorate as they remove packages. In our conversations with managers at General Mills and Nestlé, both expressed concerns that imperfect implementation or incomplete displays could potentially undermine consumer responses.
In response, we examine two important managerial moderators. We contemplate what happens if retailers place packages in a disorganized fashion (Study 3a). We expect that a disorganized billboard display, compared with a properly executed version, will reduce the practice's effectiveness, as a disorganized arrangement will likely be viewed as possessing fewer artistic qualities (e.g., less cohesive and attractive). However, a critical comparison is whether a disorganized billboard display performs worse than an organized traditional design. If a billboard shelf, when disorganized, performs on par with or better than a traditional design, it would provide reassurance to brand managers that billboarding is no worse than the status quo. The effect of a disorganized billboard display is unclear: It could be perceived as worse than a traditional display because the latter reflects self-contained units that each make sense on their own, whereas a disorganized billboard design may be more confusing. Alternatively, it may be that a disorganized display appears unremarkable in a context normally filled with disorder and “visual noise.” We examine this issue empirically in Study 3a.
Second, we examine what happens when packages are removed from an initially well-executed billboard shelf. While solutions such as pusher shelves can automatically replace packages selected by customers, these technologies are not universally available, and retailers that do not use pusher shelves do not normally replenish shelves often enough to remove concern about the issue. Theoretically, we expect that incomplete billboard displays will still reap some benefits compared with traditional packaging due to visual completion (Ramachandran 1992), referring to a psychological process whereby a person's visual system attempts to complete an image when sensory information is missing (Pessoa, Thompson, and Noë 1998). The process generally occurs automatically and rapidly: Through a person's expectations, prior experience, or contextual cues, visual completion helps create an intelligible and meaningful experience (Rensink and Enns 1998) that may confer a feasible interpretation (Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1994) of the incomplete billboard. Consumers may mentally complete the image upon viewing an incomplete billboard display, which helps retain some of the benefits of billboarding compared with a standard display. We thus hypothesize:
The Moderating Role of Design Factors: Text Versus Object
Another key managerial decision in implementing billboarding concerns the design elements themselves, specifically whether brands should deploy billboarded objects, text, or both simultaneously. All such approaches exist in the marketplace: Figure 1 provides many examples in which only objects are billboarded, while Figure 4 provides examples with only text (Carlsberg) or both (e.g., Coca-Cola).
Billboard Text Only (“Carlsberg”) or Both Objects and Text (Truck and “Orange Grove”; Football and “Coca-Cola”).
Compared with traditional packages, all forms of billboards should be preferred because of their artistic qualities. Even billboard images containing only text, which could conceivably be less aesthetically pleasing than objects, are still likely to be perceived as having elevated artistic qualities such as being more interesting (i.e., curiosity), cohesive (i.e., formality), and original (i.e., creative) than traditional packaging.
However, within billboarding executions, certain images may be preferred. Generally, object-only billboarding should outperform both text and combined billboarding. According to the visual preference heuristic (Townsend and Kahn 2014), consumers tend to favor visual over verbal depiction of information. This occurs because text is processed sequentially and piecemeal, whereas images are treated in a holistic and gestalt manner (Hart 1997), making them easier and faster for consumers to process. For instance, with familiar brands, consumers prefer logos deploying imagery instead of text because of the improved processing fluency (Morgan, Fajardo, and Townsend 2021). Similarly, the pictorial superiority effect (Nelson, Reed, and Walling 1976) suggests that people exhibit superior recognition of pictures relative to verbal labels. Extending this logic, we thus expect that object-only billboards will be evaluated more favorably than text-only billboards. These arguments also imply that billboards combining text and objects will mix processing modalities, disrupting consumers and causing them to undertake more cognitive effort than object-only billboards. In other words, combined billboards will be relatively more demanding and less enjoyable than object-only versions. Taking these factors together, we hypothesize:
The Moderating Role of Conceptual Fluency
Over time and with experience, consumers learn to associate product categories with certain features, organized in their minds as knowledge structures (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Lee 2002; Loken, Barsalou, and Joiner 2008; Winkielman et al. 2003). Consumers thus develop expectations that govern their responses to product information based on how well it matches their category concept (Veryzer 1999). For example, consumers consider the attribute “vitamin” more typical of the juice category than the vodka category (Gao, De Hooge, and Fischer 2022), while the use of a sleek glass bottle with gold accents aligns with luxury perfume but not with laundry detergent (Lee and Labroo 2004). In other words, as consumers encounter information about a product, they examine it through a conceptual filter to determine how well its features align with expectations.
When the features encountered are consistent with an existing knowledge structure, they are conceptually fluent, in which case consumers will experience a feeling of familiarity and have more positive dispositions (Loken, Barsalou, and Joiner 2008; Whittlesea 1993). However, when features are incongruous with or poorly aligned with expectations (referred to as a global mismatch signal; Winkielman et al. 2003), the consumer will experience conceptual disfluency, meaning that feature information will be uncomfortable to process (Reber, Schwarz, and Winkielman 2004) and produce relatively worse outcomes (Aggarwal and McGill 2007; Parker et al. 2021). 1
This is important in the context of billboarding because just as greater conceptual fluency can produce elevated aesthetic evaluations (e.g., Reber, Schwarz, and Winkielman 2004; Reimann and Cao 2016), the opposite is also true. We have argued that billboarding imbues a product with artistic qualities, but the effectiveness of this action may vary as a function of consumers’ existing conceptualization of the category. In other words, the degree to which artistic qualities align with a product category—and thus generate conceptual fluency—should influence the effectiveness of billboarding. With some categories such as fashion, artistry is likely to be perceived as a meaningful, consistent part and conceptually fluent with consumer expectations (Veryzer 1999; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998). However, with other categories such as pharmaceuticals, artistic qualities are likely to feel out of place and conflict with expectations (Patrick and Hagtvedt 2011), in which case the artistic qualities themselves will be degraded.
This view is supported by literature suggesting that some products (e.g., Caterpillar Backhoe) are ill-suited to being aesthetically enhanced because such activities would stand in the way of core characteristics (e.g., “technical goodness”; Reimann and Cao 2016, p. 594) prioritized by consumers. In such cases, art perceptions would feel inappropriate and be harder to process, meaning conceptual disfluency will weaken the consumer's aesthetic response (Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998). Consistent with this idea, respondents asked to evaluate the same painting (e.g., Picasso's Five Women) after reading a matching or nonmatching title liked it more in the conceptually consistent condition (Belke et al. 2010), reinforcing that aesthetic appreciation is “partly grounded in a perceivers’ higher-order processing dynamics” (p. 219) and conceptual disfluency can constrain interpretation of artistic elements. As Reber, Schwarz, and Winkielman (2004, p. 366) summarize, “the more fluently the perceiver can process an object, the more positive is his or her aesthetic response.” Therefore, we expect that in certain product categories where artistic qualities are conceptually less fluent, billboarding may be associated with lowered artistic perceptions, leading to a weakening of consumer responses.
Empirical Investigation
We conducted eight studies to test our theoretical framework. Table 1 provides an overview: Study 1 explores the effectiveness of billboarding, showing that it improves various consumer response indicators such as sales (Study 1a), click-through rates (CTRs) (Study 1b), and brand choice (Study 1c). Study 2 focuses on assessing the proposed serial mediation mechanism of artistic perceptions and serendipity. Studies 3, 4, and 5 investigate managerially and theoretically relevant moderators: Study 3 investigates two in-store factors: whether inappropriate implementation of billboarding (Study 3a) and consumers removing package units from the shelf (Study 3b) hurt consumer responses. Study 4 examines different kinds of billboarding through the design factor of image type. Study 5 looks at a product factor, showing that the benefits of billboarding are weaker for products with which the inclusion of artistic qualities is less conceptually fluent.
Summary of Studies.
Notes: For all experiments, we report manipulation checks in the Web Appendix. We made this decision to save space. All billboarding manipulations in all studies were successful.
Study 1: The Effectiveness of Billboarding
Study 1a: Billboarding Increases Sales in the Field
Design and participants
The study was conducted in an open-air farmers market and featured a two-cell (billboard vs. control) between-subjects design (preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/Z4D_B7Z). We collaborated with a local bakery and set up a table at the market to sell the bakery’s products for four Saturdays (8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.).
Manipulation and measures
We packed cookies priced at $2 into cardboard boxes that displayed a cookie image on single boxes (control) or across two boxes (billboard; see the Web Appendix for details). Over four Saturdays, we brought 40 boxes each day to sell (20 in each condition). We counterbalanced the conditions by rotating them by the hour and counterbalanced which condition was displayed first across the four selling days. A bakery employee replenished the display when a cookie was sold, ensuring that the number of boxes displayed remained constant across conditions. At the end of each selling day, the bakery provided us with the total number of cookies sold in each condition.
Results and discussion
A total of 42 cookies were sold, with more sold in the billboard condition than in the control condition (Nbillboard = 29 vs. Ncontrol = 13; χ2(1) = 8.27, p = .004, φ = .23). Figure 5 shows the number of cookies sold in each condition across four Saturdays. These results provide preliminary support for H1: Patrons of a farmers market purchased more cookies when the brand was displayed with billboarding.
The Number of Cookies Sold at the Farmers Market Across Four Saturdays.
Study 1b: Billboarding Increases CTR for TikTok Ads
We conducted a field study using the A/B test function in TikTok Ads to examine if consumers respond more favorably to marketing communications using billboarding, an approach that mirrors how brands are displayed on digital platforms. Specifically, we assessed CTR, a well-established consumer engagement metric (e.g., Paharia and Swaminathan 2019). Two ad versions (Web Appendix) were created, featuring a fictional brand of corn dogs using either a standard or billboard package design. Apart from which design was used, other variables were held constant (e.g., launch timing, campaign goal [awareness], call to action [“shop now”], budget [$25/condition]). The outcome, CTR, was measured as the percentage of ad clicks from the total number of users who viewed the ad.
The results reveal a total of 29,933 impressions, with a CTR in the billboard condition (.51%) that was significantly higher than that in the nonbillboard condition (.33%; χ2(1) = 5.42, p = .020, φ = .01), supporting H1. The CTRs reported in this experiment are in line with prior research reporting rates from .001% to 5.01% (Orazi and Johnson 2020; Wu et al. 2023). Notably, Braun and Schwartz (2025) find that divergent delivery on online advertising platforms may lead to nonrandom exposure. Thus, the results from our A/B testing should be interpreted with caution. To strengthen the robustness of the findings, we next replicate the billboarding effect in a more controlled experiment.
Study 1c: Billboarding Increases Brand Choice
Study 1c examines the impact of billboarding on consumer brand choice in a simulated online retail environment. We recruited 199 U.S. participants from Prolific (Mage = 42.0 years; 55.8% female, 43.7% male, .5% nonbinary). They were randomly assigned to one of two between-subjects conditions (billboard vs. control). Participants were informed that they were shopping in an online store and presented with a store web page displaying two brands: SUMMERY and BEACHTIME, both featuring a value pack of fruit punch that was priced at $15.99 (see the Web Appendix). Our key manipulation involved whether BEACHTIME, the focal brand in this study, used a billboard display. In the billboard condition, BEACHTIME combined three individual packages to form a single image of a watermelon slice that spanned packages, while in the control condition, the image was encapsulated on single packages. SUMMERY used a standard display in both conditions.
We captured participants’ brand preferences by asking them to click the “ADD TO CART” button located below each brand to indicate which they would like to purchase. Our dependent measure was the percentage of participants who chose BEACHTIME in each condition.
A chi-square test revealed that billboarding significantly increased the proportion of participants who chose the focal brand, BEACHTIME (χ2(1) = 16.33, p < .001, φ = .29). Specifically, when BEACHTIME used the billboard display, 59.2% of the participants chose this brand over SUMMERY, whereas in the control condition, only 30.7% of the participants chose BEACHTIME, supporting H1.
Studies 1a–1c examine the effectiveness of billboarding through different consumer response indicators. These studies provide converging evidence that billboarding helps brands in both online and offline contexts. In the remaining studies, we replicate this effect and address the mechanism and various moderators.
Study 2: The Mechanism of Artistic Perception and Serendipity
Design and Participants
The study utilized a two-cell (billboard vs. control) between-subjects design (preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/mr4s-5fm6.pdf). A total of 298 U.S. participants recruited from Prolific (Mage = 46.8 years; 63.4% female, 36.2% male, .4% invalid response [e.g., respondents entered nongender identifiers]) were randomly assigned to a condition. They were presented with an image of a shelf displaying a fictional brand of olive oil (modeled after a real brand, MED; Figure 2). In the control condition, each bottle depicted an image of an olive tree. In the billboard condition, the image spanned sets of three bottles (see the Web Appendix). The same bottle number and size appeared in both conditions.
Measures
We first assessed the dependent variable of purchase intention (“If you need to buy some olive oil, how likely are you to purchase this brand?”; 1 = “not at all,” and 7 = “very likely”). 2 Next, we measured the two mediators (see evidence of construct validity in the Web Appendix). Consistent with prior literature (Hagtvedt, Hagtvedt, and Patrick 2008), we assessed artistic perception (M1) by asking participants to evaluate the display (“The brand's shelf display is”) along four dimensions: (1) curiosity (interesting, intellectually stimulating, thought-provoking; composite reliability [CR] = .91); (2) formality (unified, cohesive, purposeful; CR = .86); (3) aesthetic appeal (attractive, elegant, aesthetically pleasing; CR = .94); and (4) creativity (novel, creative, imaginative, original; CR = .96; all anchored by 1 = “strongly disagree,” and 7 = “strongly agree”). We measured serendipity (M2) with six items adapted from prior literature (Ball and Barnes 2017; Kwon and Lee 2024; McCay-Peet and Toms 2015) that assessed feelings when looking at the display (“To what extent do the following words describe how you feel when looking at this display”: lucky, grateful, amazed, joyous, excited, surprised; 1 = “describes poorly,” and 7 = “describes well”; CR = .94). For both mediators, the presentation orders of blocks and items within blocks were randomized.
Effect on the Dependent Variable
Participants in the billboard condition had significantly higher purchase intention (Mbillboard = 4.53, SD = 1.50 vs. Mcontrol = 3.88, SD = 1.64; F(1, 296) = 12.91, p < .001, η2 = .04) than those in the control condition. These results replicate Study 1 and support H1.
Effect on Mediators
ANOVAs revealed that billboard displays were associated with significantly higher scores on all dimensions of artistic perception (see Table 2). We conducted a factor analysis of the dimension scores, which revealed a single second-order factor (γs ranging from .53 to .88). We carry this factor score forward as the measure of artistic perception, M1, which is significantly higher in the billboard condition than in the control condition (Mbillboard = .48, SD = .70 vs. Mcontrol = −.46, SD = .93; F(1, 296) = 95.29, p < .001, η2 = .24). 3 Finally, billboard displays are associated with significantly greater serendipity (Mbillboard = 3.69, SD = 1.50 vs. Mcontrol = 2.89, SD = 1.55; F(1, 296) = 20.75, p < .001, η2 = .07).
The Effect of Billboarding on Artistic Perceptions (Study 2, Olive Oil).
Mediation Analysis
We tested H2 by conducting a bias-corrected bootstrap procedure (Model 6, n = 5,000; Hayes 2017) with billboarding (0 = control, 1 = billboard) as the independent variable, artistic perception (M1) and serendipity (M2) as serial mediators, and purchase intention as the dependent variable (Figure 6). Consistent with H2, the serial indirect effect of billboarding on purchase intention was positive and significant (b = .32, SE = .08; 95% CI = [.1863, .4872]). We also report the indirect effects through only M1 and M2 and explore different mediation models in the Web Appendix. In addition, we report another preregistered replication that uses a different product (paper towels) in the Web Appendix, which reflects the robustness of the effects.
Study 2 Serial Mediation Results.
Study 3: In-Store Factors: Is Billboarding Riskier Than Traditional Display?
Study 3 examines the in-store factors associated with billboarding. Specifically, Study 3a focuses on the role of retailer cooperation and explores whether a disorganized billboard can hurt consumer responses. Then, Study 3b examines incomplete billboard displays—that is, how consumer responses change when packages are removed from an initially well-executed billboard shelf (H3).
Study 3a: Does a Disorganized Billboard Hurt Consumer Responses?
Design and participants
Study 3a used a three-cell (control vs. organized billboard vs. disorganized billboard) between-subjects design 4 (preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/jpr5-qb8s.pdf). We recruited 300 U.S. participants (Mage = 39.0 years; 53.0% female, 45.3% male, 1.7% nonbinary) from Prolific, and each was randomly assigned to a condition. The control condition featured a display with traditional packages. In the organized billboard condition, every three packages were arranged to create a corn dog image. In the disorganized billboard condition, the packages were scrambled (see the Web Appendix for details). The measures were identical to Study 2 (CRs > .89).
Effect on the dependent variable
An ANOVA with purchase intention revealed a significant billboarding effect (F(2, 297) = 7.93, p < .001, η2 = .05) with planned contrasts showing higher scores in the organized condition relative to the control (Morganized = 4.52, SD = 1.55 vs. Mcontrol = 3.68, SD = 1.56; t(297) = −3.94, p < .001, d = −.56) and disorganized billboard (Mdisorganized = 4.00, SD = 1.41; t(297) = 2.48, p = .014, d = .35) conditions. The difference between the latter two conditions was not significant (p = .136, d = −.21). See Figure 7 for the results.
The Effects of a Disorganized Billboard.
Effect on mediators
An ANOVA on artistic perception revealed a significant effect of billboarding (F(2, 297) = 43.55, p < .001, η2 = .23), with the organized billboard showing higher scores than either the control (Morganized = .63, SD = .76 vs. Mcontrol = −.39, SD = .87; t(297) = −8.53, p < .001, d = −1.21) or disorganized billboard (Mdisorganized = −.26, SD = .89; t(297) = 7.51, p < .001, d = 1.06) conditions. There was no difference between the latter two conditions (p = .264, d = −.16).
The same pattern was obtained with serendipity (F(2, 297) = 10.74, p = .001, η2 = .07). Participants in the organized billboard condition reported greater serendipity than those in the control (Morganized = 3.37, SD = 1.54 vs. Mcontrol = 2.42, SD = 1.46; t(297) = −4.46, p < .001, d = −.63) and disorganized billboard (Mdisorganized = 2.67, SD = 1.51; t(297) = 3.32, p = .001, d = .47) conditions, with no difference between the latter two conditions (p = .238, d = −.17).
Mediation analysis
We carried out a multicategorical bias-corrected bootstrap procedure (Model 6, n = 5,000; Hayes 2017) with billboarding (0 = disorganized billboard,1 = organized billboard, 2 = control) as the independent variable, purchase intention as the dependent variable, and artistic perception (M1) and serendipity (M2) as serial mediators. Evaluating the serial indirect effect comparing the disorganized and organized billboard conditions revealed the latter to be superior (b = .30, SE = .11; 95% CI = [.0693, .5305]). When the control and disorganized billboard conditions were compared, there were no differences in the serial indirect effect (b = −.04, SE = .05; 95% CI = [−.1431, .0378]).
Study 3b: Incomplete Billboards Still Help
Design and participants
Study 3b employed a 2 (billboard vs. control) × 2 (complete vs. incomplete shelf display) between-subjects design (preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/wchw-wrvh.pdf). We recruited 398 U.S. participants (Mage = 38.7 years; 51.0% female, 48.2% male, .5% nonbinary, .3% preferred not to disclose) from Prolific and randomly assigned them to a condition.
In the complete conditions, participants saw a fully stocked shelf that deployed either billboard or traditional packages. In the incomplete conditions, participants saw the same displays but with three missing units (removed from the same position on the shelf; see the Web Appendix for details). All measures were identical to the previous study (CRs > .90).
Effect on the dependent variable
There was a main effect of billboarding on purchase intention (F(1, 394) = 11.14, p < .001, η2 = .03), but neither the main effect of completeness (F(1, 394) = 2.65, p = .104, η2 = .007) nor the interaction (F(1, 394) = .15, p = .699, η2 < .001) was significant. When the display was complete, billboarding significantly increased purchase intention (Mbillboard = 4.60, SD = 1.60 vs. Mcontrol = 3.98, SD = 1.80; F(1, 394) = 6.87, p = .009, η2 = .017), replicating previous studies. Importantly, when the shelf display was incomplete, billboarding also significantly increased purchase intention (Mbillboard = 4.26, SD = 1.53 vs. Mcontrol = 3.77, SD = 1.65; F(1, 394) = 4.40, p = .037, η2 = .011).
Effect on mediators
Analysis revealed significant main effects of billboarding (F(1, 394) = 77.78, p < .001, η2 = .17) and shelf completeness (F(1, 394) = 9.39, p = .002, η2 = .02) on artistic perceptions, while the interaction was not significant (F(1, 394) = .04, p = .837, η2 < .001). With complete displays, billboarding significantly increased artistic perception (Mbillboard = .51, SD = .81 vs. Mcontrol = −.27, SD = .92; F(1, 394) = 40.32, p < .001, η2 = .093), a similar result to incomplete displays (Mbillboard = .23, SD = .88 vs. Mcontrol = −.52, SD = .85; F(1, 394) = 37.47, p < .001, η2 = .087).
The pattern of effects for serendipity was similar: a main effect of billboarding (F(1, 394) = 13.04, p < .001, η2 = .03) and completeness (F(1, 394) = 6.20, p = .013, η2 = .02) with no interaction (F(1, 394) = .07, p = .799, η2 < .001). Billboarding is associated with significantly more serendipity both when the display was complete (Mbillboard = 3.37, SD = 1.57 vs. Mcontrol = 2.85, SD = 1.66; F(1, 394) = 5.58, p = .019, η2 = .01) and when it was incomplete (Mbillboard = 3.02, SD = 1.56 vs. Mcontrol = 2.42, SD = 1.36; F(1, 394) = 7.55, p = .006, η2 = .02). See Figure 8 for the results.
The Effects of an Incomplete Billboard.
Moderated-mediation analysis
We examined whether completeness moderated the mediated pathways (Model 84, n = 5,000; Hayes 2017; independent variable [IV] = billboarding, M1 = artistic perception, M2 = serendipity, dependent variable [DV] = purchase intention). In reference to the M1 pathway, the analysis reveals nonsignificant indexes of moderated mediation (IMM = .01, SE = .07, 95% CI = [−.1194, .1499]). This means that compared with control, billboarding had a positive and significant indirect effect with both complete (b = .28, 95% CI = [.1233, .4812]) and incomplete (b = .27, 95% CI = [.1194, .4551]) displays. In reference to the M2 pathway, the results were similar: Completeness does not moderate the relationship between billboarding and serendipity (IMM = −.03, SE = .06, 95% CI = [−.1591, .0871].
Discussion
Study 3 explores two factors—disorganized and incomplete billboards—both of which are beyond a brand's control and represent serious managerial concerns. We found that a poorly executed billboard does not harm consumer responses relative to a traditional display (Study 3a) and an incomplete billboard still outperforms an incomplete traditional display (Study 3b). Together, these results suggest that brands may still benefit from billboarding in real-world situations, representing a lack of retailer cooperation and actual shopping behavior. At the same time, there are practical limits to the robustness of the billboarding effect. For example, if a product shelf is sufficiently chaotic (e.g., consumers cannot mentally reconstruct the intended billboard image) or sparse (e.g., only one package is displayed), it is unlikely that billboarding will have any effect. In short, although the results reported previously suggest that billboarding is sometimes better and never worse than traditional packaging, proper execution is still likely to contribute to the effectiveness of billboarding in real environments.
Study 4: The Design Factor: The Influence of Billboard Image Type
Study 4 explores a design choice: whether, in the course of billboarding, brands should deploy billboarded objects, text, or both (H4).
Design and Participants
We employed four conditions (control vs. billboard object-only vs. billboard text-only vs. billboard object and text [combined]) in a between-subjects design (preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/ntnm-k7jd.pdf). We recruited 397 U.S. participants (Mage = 37.7 years; 48.6% female, 49.6% male, 1.5% nonbinary, .3% agender) from Prolific and randomly assigned each to a condition. We created four versions of a package for a fictional brand of car wax (see the Web Appendix for details). The control condition depicted a traditional design, while the remaining conditions incorporated either text, an object, or both as part of the billboard imagery. The measures were identical to those in the previous study (CRs > .88).
Effect on the Dependent Variable
An analysis of purchase intention revealed a significant billboarding effect (F(3, 393) = 4.51, p = .004, η2 = .03). Compared with the control condition (Mcontrol = 3.63, SD = 1.56), participants reported greater purchase intention in the billboard object condition (Mimage = 4.45, SD = 1.67; t(393) = 3.63, p < .001, d = .52) but not in the billboard text condition (Mtext = 3.94, SD = 1.53; t(393) = 1.35, p = .176, d = .19) or the combined condition (Mboth = 3.99, SD = 1.57; t(393) = 1.59, p = .112, d = .23). As well, purchase intention was higher in the billboard object condition than in the billboard text (t(393) = 2.27, p = .024, d = .32) and combined (t(393) = 2.06, p = .040, d = .29) conditions, supporting H4. There was no difference between billboard text and combined conditions (t(393) = .23, p = .819, d = .03).
Effect on Mediators
In reference to artistic perception, there was a significant effect of billboarding (F(3, 393) = 30.90, p < .001, η2 = .19). Compared with the control condition (Mcontrol = −.65, SD = .76), artistic perception was significantly higher in the billboard object (Mimage = .47, SD = .90; t(393) = 9.07, p < .001, d = 1.29), the billboard text (Mtext = −.08, SD = .97; t(393) = 4.54, p < .001, d = .65), and the billboard combined (Mboth = .24, SD = .83; t(393) = 7.22, p < .001, d = 1.02) conditions. Artistic perception was significantly higher in the billboard object condition than in the text condition (t(393) = 4.50, p < .001, d = .64) and marginally higher than in the combined condition (t(393) = 1.88, p = .061, d = .27). The difference between the billboard text and combined conditions was also significant (t(393) = 2.64, p = .009, d = .38).
With serendipity, there was a significant billboarding effect (F(3, 393) = 10.17, p < .001, η2 = .07). Compared with the control condition (Mcontrol = 2.18, SD = 1.41), serendipity was significantly higher in the billboard object (Mimage = 3.42, SD = 1.77; t(393) = 5.47, p < .001, d = .78), billboard text (Mtext = 2.80, SD = 1.60; t(393) = 2.74, p = .006, d = .39), and billboard combined (Mboth = 2.94, SD = 1.53; t(393) = 3.36, p < .001, d = .48) conditions. Also, serendipity was significantly higher in the billboard object condition than in the text condition (t(393) = 2.72, p = .007, d = .39) and marginally higher than in the billboard combined condition (t(393) = 2.14, p = .033, d = .30). The difference between the billboard text and combined conditions was not significant (t(393) = .60, p = .550, d = .09). See Figure 9 for the results.
Billboarding Effects for Text, Text and Object, and Object.
Mediation Analysis
First, we examined whether billboard packages outperform traditional packages because of serial changes in artistic perception and serendipity (H1 and H2). We used a bias-corrected bootstrap procedure (Model 6, n = 5,000; Hayes 2017) with a multicategorical IV (0 = control, 1 = billboard object, 2 = billboard text, 3 = billboard combined). The results in Table 3 show that all serial indirect effects are positive and significant for all comparisons with control, meaning every version of billboard packages performs better than traditional packages. To investigate which type of billboard performs best, we recoded the billboard object condition as baseline (i.e., 0) and repeated the analyses.
Mediation with Multicategorical IVs.
The results in Table 3 also show that the billboard object condition is associated with a significantly better indirect effect compared with the billboard text condition. The indirect effect comparing the billboard object and combined conditions was not significant at the 95% confidence interval. However, we reran the analysis and found that the difference was marginally significant (b = −.06, SE = .04, 90% CI = [−.1177, −.0062]). This result aligns with the lower average scores for artistic perceptions, serendipity and purchase intention in the combined condition compared with the billboard object condition (all differences are significant or marginally significant; see Figure 9). Taken together, these results suggest that consumers respond most favorably to object-only billboarding.
Discussion
Study 4 addresses a practically relevant issue of what kind of image to use in billboarding. We find that using text billboarding or combined billboarding is better than using a traditional design, but neither is as effective as using billboard object, which performs the best.
Study 5: Conceptual Fluency Moderates Billboarding Effects
Study 5 examines the moderating role of conceptual fluency. We expected that the positive effect of billboarding would be weaker when the product category is less conceptually fluent with artistic qualities. As a product that is more conceptually fluent with artistry, we selected a cookie (macaron), and for a product that is less conceptually fluent with artistry, we selected a pain reliever pill. A pretest confirmed that, compared with a macaron, the pill was perceived as significantly less conceptually fluent with artistic qualities (p < .001). See the Web Appendix for details.
Design and Participants
This study used a 2 (billboard vs. control) × 2 (conceptual fluency: low vs. high) between-subjects design (preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/grp8-ctgf.pdf). We recruited 596 U.S. participants (Mage = 37.1 years; 54.5% female, 44.5% male, .5% nonbinary, .3% cis woman, .2% preferred not to disclose) from Prolific, and each was randomly assigned to a condition.
In the high conceptual fluency conditions, participants saw packages of a fictional brand of macaron cookies that used either a billboard or traditional design. In the low conceptual fluency conditions, participants saw similar package variants depicting a fictional brand of pain reliever. Each package used images that were similar in size, shape, and color (see the Web Appendix for details). The measures were identical to the previous study (CRs > .88).
Effect on the Dependent Variable
An ANOVA on purchase intention revealed a main effect of billboarding (F(1, 592) = 13.12, p < .001, η2 = .02), no main effect of conceptual fluency (F(1, 592) = 2.14, p = .144, η2 = .004) and a significant interaction (F(1, 592) = 7.49, p = .006, η2 = .012). For high conceptual fluency conditions (Figure 10), billboarding significantly increased purchase intention (Mbillboard = 4.29, SD = 1.66 vs. Mcontrol = 3.39, SD = 1.82; F(1, 592) = 20.22, p < .001, η2 = .033). However, for low conceptual fluency conditions, there was no difference between the billboard and control conditions (Mbillboard = 3.69, SD = 1.63 vs. Mcontrol = 3.57, SD = 1.82; F(1, 592) = .391, p = .532, η2 = .001).
Conceptual Fluency Moderates the Billboarding Effect.
Effect on Mediators
With respect to artistic perception, there was a main effect of billboarding (F(1, 592) = 44.14, p < .001, η2 = .069), a main effect of conceptual fluency (F(1, 592) = 7.26, p = .007, η2 = .012), and a significant interaction (F(1, 592) = 6.08, p = .014, η2 = .01). Planned contrasts showed that in the high conceptual fluency conditions, billboarding is linked to higher artistic perception (Mbillboard = .45, SD = .89 vs. Mcontrol = −.24, SD = 1.00; F(1, 592) = 41.50, p < .001, η2 = .066), a pattern that is repeated, but weakened, in the low conceptual fluency conditions (Mbillboard = .06, SD = .91 vs. Mcontrol = −.26, SD = .89; F(1, 592) = 8.73, p = .003, η2 = .015).
Last, with serendipity, there was a main effect of billboarding (F(1, 592) = 8.55, p = .004, η2 = .014) and a main effect of conceptual fluency (F(1, 592) = 16.99, p < .001., η2 = .028) but no interaction (F(1, 592) = 1.66, p = .198, η2 = .003). In the high conceptual fluency conditions, billboarding significantly increased serendipity (Mbillboard = 3.54, SD = 1.76 vs. Mcontrol = 2.96, SD = 1.79; F(1, 592) = 8.87, p = .003, η2 = .015), but there was no difference in the low conceptual fluency conditions (Mbillboard = 2.80, SD = 1.51 vs. Mcontrol = 2.57, SD = 1.64; F(1, 592) = 1.34, p = .248, η2 = .002).
Moderated-Mediation Analysis
We examined the moderation of the serial mediation pathway (Model 83, n = 5,000; Hayes 2017). The results support moderation with purchase intention (IMM = .14, SE = .06, 95% CI = [.0285, .2845]). In the case of macarons (high conceptual fluency), the serial indirect effects were positive (b = .26, SE = .06, 95% CI = [.1500, .4040]), but these effects were significantly weakened for pain relief pills (low conceptual fluency) (b = .12, SE = .05, 95% CI = [.0347, .2205]). As in earlier studies, we found that the indirect effect to purchase intention through only artistic perceptions was also significant (macarons: b = .63, SE = .12, 95% CI = [.4018, .8859]; pain relief pills: b = .29, SE = .10, 95% CI = [.0927, .4983]).
Discussion
Consistent with H5, we found that when the product category is less conceptually fluent with artistic qualities, the effect of billboarding becomes weaker. This suggests that while many brands may consider adopting billboarding, its effectiveness depends on strategic fit. Artistic designs should generally be appreciated across a wide range of products (Reimann et al. 2010), but billboarding is likely to be most impactful when the product concept aligns closely with artistic qualities.
General Discussion
This research examines the practice of billboarding and documents its effectiveness. Across eight studies, we find that billboarding effectively enhances consumer responses to brand, including sales (Study 1a), CTR (Study 1b), choice (Study 1c), and purchase intention (Studies 2–5). We show that the effects are explained by artistic perceptions of the brand display and serendipity (Studies 2–5). We also examine moderators including in-store, design, and product factors that may affect successful implementation. We discover that billboarding does not lead to negative consequences when executed improperly (e.g., a disorganized billboard; Study 3a) or when subject to real-world influences (e.g., an incomplete billboard; Study 3b), and its benefits are mitigated but still better than traditional packaging when the embedded image consists of text (vs. objects) (Study 4). We also identify a moderator showing that the positive effects of billboarding are weakened for products that are poorly aligned with the use of artistic tactics (Study 5).
With the first research to address the practice of billboarding, we make several theoretical contributions. The literatures on package design and in-store displays (e.g., Deng and Kahn 2009; Deng et al. 2016; Sevilla and Kahn 2014; Sevilla and Townsend 2016) have largely remained separate. We integrate the two by introducing a novel multipack perspective and demonstrating its positive effects on consumer responses. With this examination of billboarding, which relies on both manufacturer package design and retailer in-store display, we blur the conventional boundary between domains and showcase a marketing tool functioning at their intersection. This expands the theoretical possibilities of design, suggesting that brands can strategically fabricate packages to boost their in-store presence and consumer responses.
Second, we show that through coordination of individual units, billboarding increases the artistic perception of a brand's shelf display and enhances consumer feelings of serendipity. A study reported in the Web Appendix shows that billboarding is not simply about increasing image size. Rather, by invoking artistic perceptions, billboarding offers promise for brands via a fresh theoretical perspective, foreshadowing opportunities for brands to be more effectively displayed in frenetic retail settings. While marketers traditionally try to make their products more conspicuous through brighter and more colorful packages, billboarding capitalizes on smart design to offer another, potentially complementary way to engage consumers. Unlike many manufacturer efforts to gain consumer attention, billboarding is not premised on being “louder,” suggesting that the practice may have potential to reduce retail clutter.
Managerial Implications
Our research offers clear answers to dispel managerial uncertainty about billboarding, evident in our conversation with a brand manager whose company currently uses the practice. Most importantly, marketers question whether billboarding will boost consumer responses. Our results suggest that billboarding is a powerful tool for brands to carve out stronger presence in fiercely contested retail environments, and it is cost-efficient. While other in-store promotional displays may also catch consumers’ attention (e.g., Keh, Wang, and Yan 2021), these typically take up a lot of space, are impractical to deploy on shelves, and require considerable retailer support—all of which increase costs. In contrast, billboarding designs can be implemented with minimal or no extra retailer effort and standard shelving. This is especially practical for less well-resourced brands. In competitive sectors like CPG, category captains and leading brands establish a system to secure shelf presence, leaving latecomers with constrained shelf space. Billboarding offers a straightforward practice for smaller brands to boost their impact and potentially challenge more established competitors. During our investigation, we located many examples of small manufacturers (e.g., Brindle Dog Brewing Co., Helderberg Winery) already deploying billboarding, reinforcing its viability.
Second, one brand manager we spoke with worried that billboarding might hurt consumer response if poorly executed. Our findings imply brands will not be worse off with imperfect execution (Study 3a) and are better off compared with traditional displays when consumers remove packages from the shelf (Study 3b). This suggests that billboarding offers a worry-free way for brands to reduce reliance on retailers. How products are presented in stores is usually determined by retailers (Buchanan, Simmons, and Bickart 1999), but billboarding may alter this power dynamic. Still, the best execution of billboarding depends on retailers, so their role should not be taken for granted. Manufacturers need to communicate how to implement billboarding on-site and provide sufficient incentives for retailers to undertake regular shelf maintenance for orderly arrangement of packages. Alternatively, brands can adopt “self-assembled” designs to reduce additional effort by in-store employees (see the Cheerios and Jimmie Dean examples in Figure 1). Not all billboard executions have this feature (e.g., Campbells in Figure 1) and require staff to position them properly, but solutions exist. Manufacturers can billboard their products on pallets. This can ensure display accuracy and minimize retailer input (already this approach seems popular in club stores such as Costco). In addition, brands can encourage or facilitate technology to support billboarding. Gravity feed systems use angled shelves allowing products to slide forward, spring-loaded pushers keep items neatly stocked by moving products forward, and roller shelf systems employ small tracks or rollers to move products smoothly to the front. These systems preserve an organized shelf appearance with minimal employee effort, reinforcing the feasibility of billboarding.
Furthermore, companies should view billboarding not as a stand-alone practice but as a messaging tool to reinforce brand identity (Figure 11). For example, Coca-Cola used billboarding in its “It's time to eat together” campaign, where the practice reinforced ongoing messaging suggesting that differences due to age, ethnicity, politics, and so forth can disappear when people share food around the table (Geometry 2019). Similarly, the brand's “hugging” cans for the Paris 2024 Olympics are paired with the tagline “It's magic when the world comes together,” effectively using billboarding as a tool to reinforce core brand values (Fear 2024). Cheerios shows billboarding being used to develop its message of “take care of your heart together” by tapping two celebrities (Leslie David Baker and Phyllis Smith from The Office) to promote health messages (Sego 2023). Billboarding can be complementary to other promotional tools (e.g., influencers or celebrity endorsements). When billboarding is well integrated with and complementary to brand messaging, it is likely to remain successful and less imitable as the practice becomes more popular.
Coca-Cola and Cheerios Reinforce Their Brand DNA Through Billboarding.
Lastly, marketers should consider extending the billboarding concept beyond packaging and exploring its utility in other contexts. Figure 12 demonstrates real examples of how something akin to billboarding has been applied to outdoor advertising and social media marketing. As an environmental initiative, Coca-Cola used the billboard concept to direct consumers to nearby recycling bins (Diaz 2019). In addition, brands can coordinate multiple thumbnails to generate a stronger presence on social media. We conducted a pilot study (Web Appendix) showing that a billboard brand profile is associated with 71% increase in consumer willingness to follow the brand on Instagram. These examples suggest that billboarding as a marketing tool may have wider applicability beyond retail environments and there may be additional theoretical mechanisms explaining its utility.
Coca-Cola's Coordinated Outdoor Billboards (Panel A); Using Thumbnails to Create Billboards on Instagram (Panel B).
Limitations and Future Research
Our research has limitations representing opportunities for future scholarship. First, while some brands use billboarding seasonally (e.g., Coca-Cola), others have adopted it more permanently (e.g., many Whole Foods house brands). Our studies document robust short-term effects, but future research could explore long-term effects of repetitive exposure to billboarding from the same brand. As with any promotional tool, consumer emotional responses may, over time, become muted. For billboarding, this suggests that feelings of serendipity may fade as consumers experience less surprise upon perceiving the artistic qualities of billboards. However, billboarding is versatile with different ways to operationalize the practice, attested to by the various examples from Coca-Cola throughout this article. A consumer may get used to any single operationalization of a billboard package, but companies can renew and refresh the concept by applying designs that avoid being boring or repetitive. Also, we consistently find positive indirect effects through only M1 (artistic perceptions; see the Web Appendix for details), which suggests even if consumers get used to billboarding, they may still have a general preference for it (e.g., Celhay and Trinquecoste 2015; Christensen, Kristensen, and Reber 2009; Grinstein, Hagtvedt, and Kronrod 2019; Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008) because artistic perceptions are not merely a function of novelty but also include three other dimensions. This means billboarding may still boost serendipity because such packages are comparatively more attractive, interesting, and cohesive than traditional packages, thereby feeding other emotions embedded within the experience of serendipity such as feelings of pleasure and gratitude. Importantly, we think billboarding's usefulness is not premised on a simple novelty effect. The first time a consumer encounters billboarding, perceptions of novelty will be elevated. However, artistic perceptions are not just about novelty. By analogy, people still take joy in gazing at Monet's Water Lilies despite having seen the painting countless times.
To offer initial empirical support for this view, we collected a posttest modeled on Study 2 in which we also asked respondents (n = 353 students; Mage = 20.1 years; 44% female, 56% male) their frequency of prior exposure to billboard packages (1 = “I never see them,” 4 = “I see them occasionally,” and 7 = “I see them all the time”; M = 4.85, SD = 1.54). We replicated the same serial indirect effect as in earlier studies (Model 6: b = .08, SE = .03, 95% CI = [.0231, .1448]). However, we found no moderation by frequency of exposure (Model 83: IMM = −.01, SE = .02, 95% CI = [−.0551, .0256]). Likewise, we found no significant correlation between frequency of exposure and artistic perception (r = .02, p = .71) or serendipity (r = .03, p = .53). In other words, though many respondents see billboard designs regularly, this initial evidence suggests their effectiveness may deteriorate slowly. However, if billboarding becomes more commonplace in the marketplace, its effectiveness may shift over time, and it would be useful for scholars to monitor these potential dynamics over the long term.
Future research should also explore how different visual elements (e.g., logo types, color, types of images) and brand characteristics (e.g., brand personality, campaign theme) work best with billboarding. For instance, object-based billboarding may be different for visual logos (e.g., Apple; Morgan, Fajardo, and Townsend 2021) than for other types of more generic objects (e.g., an apple image) due to potential differences in how billboarding interacts with memory. Similarly, text-based billboards may perform differently depending on the length and other characteristics of the wordmark (e.g., eBay vs. the New York Times). In digital contexts, the benefits of object-based billboarding likely intensify because objects remain legible at thumbnail sizes, whereas text often becomes indecipherable in dense grids. Related, in Study 4, we did not find strong evidence distinguishing the effectiveness of text-only versus combined (text and object) billboarding. This may be a complex issue, as their relative effectiveness could also depend on the specific types of text and images used. For instance, if the text becomes more artistic (e.g., a more decorative typeface) or is designed as an integrated component of the object (e.g., an engraving on an object), combined billboards might be perceived more favorably. Future research could explore the interplay between the two types of design.
Moreover, all the billboards we examined had a static quality to them, but in art, polyptychs (multipaneled artworks) are sometimes organized more dynamically with a story being told through imagery as the viewer scans from left to right. This seems consistent with Coke-Cola's outdoor billboard (Figure 11). Theoretically, this may be more complicated, introducing aspects of narration, and research that examines the depiction of time or the use of directionality in the billboard imagery might prove useful.
Future research may investigate other moderators that may impact the billboarding effect. Our empirical findings suggest that this effect is robust across both more hedonic (e.g., fruit punch in Study 1) and more utilitarian (e.g., car wax in Study 4) products. On an exploratory basis, we also undertook additional studies to examine whether other product-type moderators would alter consumer reactions to billboarding. First, we ran a study (n = 418) comparing an artisanal product (corn dog made with organic beef) to a higher-tech version of the same product (corn dog made with lab-grown beef) and found no interaction (IMM = −.01, 95% CI = [−.24, .27]). Second, we ran a study (n = 396) looking at luxury as a moderator (everyday olive oil vs. high-end, luxury olive oil) and again found no interaction (IMM = −.02, 95% CI = [−.21, .17]). These results suggest that for a variety of product types—and consistent with prior research (Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008)—the billboarding tactic may provide benefits. Indeed, research has shown that aesthetics influence consumer preferences for utilitarian products (Hoegg and Alba 2011), everyday consumer goods (Patrick 2016), and even financial investment decisions (Townsend and Shu 2010), findings that suggest artistic qualities may be appreciated across a wide range of products (Reimann et al. 2010). Future research could identify boundary conditions or contextual factors that weaken or strengthen the billboarding effect.
Consumer traits are also likely to matter. Research suggests that the interpretation of product design has a subjective element (see Heitmann et al. 2020) and that consumers differ in their product category familiarity and the extent to which they prioritize aesthetic benefits (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Bloch, Brunel, and Arnold 2003), both of which are likely to impact the utility of billboarding as a tactic. Consumers also have stable differences in how they tend to process information (e.g., holistic vs. analytic processing; Nisbett et al. 2001) which may impact what kinds of artistic qualities they respond best to. Similar to how people have different artistic tastes—some patrons prefer the art of Wassily Kandinsky and Jackson Pollock to that of Henri Matisse and Claude Monet—certain consumers may prefer more chaotic or incoherent designs. Finally, some consumer preferences may be reflected systematically in target markets associated with specific brands or products. While many luxury brands gain prominence from being loud (e.g., Han, Nunes, and Drèze 2010), others rely on being inconspicuous (Bellezza 2023) or ugly (Cesareo, Townsend, and Pavlov 2023), inviting the question of how high-end or luxury brands should deploy billboarding.
Situational factors may also impact billboarding. Many products are often purchased in bulk (e.g., canned food, paper towels), lending themselves to larger shelf space likely benefiting billboarding. Conversely, for products taking up less space or in retail channels with reduced shelf space (e.g., convenience stores), billboarding may be less practical. Accordingly, many billboarding examples we discovered are located in grocery and club stores where space is at less of a premium. It is curious that we were unable to locate many examples of billboards in categories that would seem to be well-aligned with their use, such as home improvement and electronics, perhaps pointing to stores or categories that may profit from their use in the future.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-jmx-10.1177_00222429261417970 - Supplemental material for E Pluribus Unum: Exploring the Effects of Billboarding on Consumer Brand Responses
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jmx-10.1177_00222429261417970 for E Pluribus Unum: Exploring the Effects of Billboarding on Consumer Brand Responses by Zhe Zhang, Xiaoyan Deng, Matthew Thomson and Ning Ye in Journal of Marketing
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the JM review team as well as June Cotte, Hean Tat Keh, Kevin Nanakdewa, Ruth-Anne Hunsberger, Rita N. To, and seminar participants at the Lazaridis School of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University, the Ivey Business School at Western University, Fisher College of Business at the Ohio State University, the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, the Carroll School of Management at Boston College, and the University of Connecticut's Voya Financial Colloquium for feedback.
Coeditor
Jan-Benedict Steenkamp
Associate Editor
Claudia Townsend
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author received an Insight Development Grant (#430-2025-00742) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for this research project.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this article are publicly available in the JM Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ONULM3).
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
