Infighting bogs down digital billboards

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County is an untapped market for digital billboards despite years of lobbying by sign companies, and it’s not because of political opposition to the large, lighted signs.

What’s holding back changes to the city code is industry feuding over the form of regulations that could determine their future market share.

Several Indianapolis city-county councilors are willing to lift the ban on digital billboards because they don’t find them objectionable and because the industry is willing to reduce the total number of billboards in the city. Billboard companies have also argued that digital technology allows them to run public-service announcements that would benefit law enforcement and tourism.

Simpson Councilor Joe Simpson wants the billboard companies to work out their differences.

Mayor Greg Ballard has hinted at a desire for public discussion of the issue, but council members are waiting for industry players to settle their differences.

“Three relatives can’t get along,” Democrat Joe Simpson said. “It is not our job to get in the middle of this.”

The major local players—Clear Channel Outdoor, Lamar Advertising and CBS Outdoor—are at odds over how to revise the city ordinance because each company is concerned about preserving or improving its market position, councilors said.

As the market leader, Clear Channel is holding out for regulations that would preserve its share while Lamar and CBS Outdoor want the city to provide them a way to catch up. The companies have been jockeying behind the scenes for two years, lobbying both Democrats and Republicans on the council, Ballard’s office, and the Department of Metropolitan Development.

Lamar and CBS Outdoor pushed the issue into public view in August, when Democrat Mary Moriarty Adams introduced a proposal drafted by the companies’ lobbyist, Bose Public Affairs Group.

rop-billboard-090114-15col.jpg The Indiana State Fairgrounds can host a digital billboard because it’s on state property. Outdoor advertising firms want to lift a ban on digital billboards elsewhere in the city. (IBJ photo/Eric Learned)

The proposal came as a surprise to Simpson and Republican Aaron Freeman, who’d been working with Clear Channel. Simpson said he immediately spoke with Adams, who agreed to have it tabled in committee. The proposal, No. 250, is assigned to the Rules and Public Policy Committee.

Adams didn’t respond to multiple messages.

“I don’t see this going anywhere … until everybody gets in a room and figures out, what does the plan look like?” Freeman said.

Marion County effectively shuts out digital billboards through zoning ordinances that ban “flashing, intermittent or moving light” and “animation” on advertising signs. There are exceptions, including a digital billboard at the Indiana State Fairgrounds on Fall Creek Parkway, which was allowed because it’s on state property.

Digital billboards are common along Indiana interstates, and the industry wants more of them because they can hold multiple advertising messages. The digital format is lucrative enough that the industry commonly agrees to remove a number of traditional billboards for each one that’s converted to digital, so that there’s a net reduction in billboard space within the city.

“We’ve seen the swap deal being offered a lot,” said Max Ashburn, spokesman for Washington, D.C.-based Scenic America. “Most cities want to take down billboards.”

Industry underdogs put the brakes on digital billboards in Los Angeles, which now has an industry group trying to come up with a way to make digital palatable to the public, Ashburn said.

Initially, Clear Channel and Lamar worked out a deal with Los Angeles city officials that would have allowed them to convert hundreds of their existing billboards to digital, Ashburn said. About 100 billboards were converted before smaller companies sued. The digital boards have been dark since a judge’s ruling in 2011, he said.

The billboard companies support a net reduction of advertising space in Indianapolis, but Simpson and Freeman said Clear Channel opposes caps on digital billboards, which would diminish its opportunities in that arena.

The proposal introduced by Adams would cap the number of billboards each company could convert to digital in a year, as well as the total number of conversions.

In the first year, no company could convert more than six sign faces, and the city would permit no more than 20 total conversions, according to the language drafted by Bose. The cap would be set at 18 in the second year and six in the third year. At the end of a 36-month period, the council could review the ordinance and cancel the conversion provisions.

billboard-factbox.gifBose lobbyist Trent Hahn declined to be interviewed but offered a statement on behalf of his clients. The proposal “allows for a slow introduction of this technology into Marion County,” he said. “All billboard companies would be treated equally.”

Clear Channel is working toward a change that “balances the interests of the community and our industry and meets the goals and objectives of the neighborhood groups and members of the City-County Council which our company’s representatives have met with over the past two-plus years,” Indianapolis branch President Brett Beshore said in an email.

Billboard-related zoning cases have generated fierce neighborhood opposition, but the idea of lifting the ban on digital is yet to be aired in a public forum.

Ballard’s administration appears to favor moving a proposal forward.

“There are many people, including councilors, who want to see this issue discussed publicly,” spokesman Marc Lotter said in an email. “The mayor will review any proposal that reaches his desk.”

Under the proposal Adams introduced, the council would ask the Metropolitan Development Commission, a nine-member appointed board, to initiate changes to the zoning code allowing for digital billboards.

The preamble to the proposal extols the virtues of digital billboards, saying light-emitting diode (LED) technology has evolved and represents the “type of new technology other world-class cities have allowed,” and that digital advertising can be used by law enforcement to alert the public about missing children or wanted criminals and to promote tourism and welcome groups.

In addition to the caps, the proposal suggests language that would require the removal of traditional billboards in historic districts and 500-foot setbacks from schools and residential areas.

Scenic America opposes billboards in general and digital billboards especially because of their brightness. A 500-foot setback, Ashburn said, is “nothing when you’re talking about a digital billboard.”

He said he photographed from six miles away one digital billboard that stands at the foot of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

“It sticks out like the North Star,” Ashburn said. “They become the brightest objects in the streetscape.”

Republican Councilor Ginny Cain said she doesn’t object to digital billboards, which she thinks look more “professional,” and she supports allowing them in appropriate areas. She said she’s been talking with Clear Channel lobbyist John Kisiel about requiring a plan agreement for each digital sign, so neighborhoods could have input on details such as the type of messaging and whether the billboard would be lighted at night.

Cain said she’d also like to change the ordinance so there could be no more billboards of any kind in the C-3 commercial zone. Her district includes the Geist neighborhood that won its battle against a 40-foot-tall billboard at East 79th Street and Fall Creek Road. A city zoning board revoked the sign permit, and now the billboard’s owner, Geft Outdoor LLC, is suing the city.

“There’s a lot of anti-billboard sentiment,” Cain said. “It’s all about location and purpose to me.”•


  • For shame!
    Shame on the councilors who let ANY business write the public policy, especially when the councilors back just one company. Makes one wonder what is going on behind the scenes...
  • A dying old school marketing approach
    At best, the marketing success of billboards are untraceable and like TV and radio, companies like clearchannel rely on traffic counts to 'sell' the spot.
  • Cain
    Let's not forget that Councilor Cain, who helped lead the charge against the billboard at 79th and Fall Creek, is also a lawyer and lobbyist for billboard companies....... I bet we get a lovely law, created by business, that hurts residents of the city. Cain's main arguement was the impact to motorists and that the traditional billboard at 79th and Fall Creek needed to be removed as a safety hazard, but flashing images and bright lights are ok?
  • "Not our job..."???
    I disagree Councilor Joe Simpson. It is exactly your job. It is not in the interest of the people of Indianapolis to have billboard companies writing our sign ordinance. Please do your job and get this finished so that we can begin having this technology on the billboards that already exist while ensuring that the ordinance specifically mandates the actual elimination of a number of other billboards as a precondition of upgrading others. Fewer, better billboards is a no-brainer, that I would love to have put to public comment, or better still, voter referendum.
  • Let's not forget billboards are good for many businesses
    No one seems to be talking about the benefits of billboards for those who buy the advertising on them....the value to many businesses (both large and small) is highly important. Whether it is promoting a brand, a product, or events....the bottom line is that billboard advertising just plain works. It would be a shame to see it limited or taken away, as those of us who buy billboard advertising would be quite challenged to find another advertising medium that produces the same or similar results.
  • Write Your Own Indiana Law
    The open "secret" is that Indiana delegates lawmaking from "elected" officials to business like some frozen banana republic. At least the blinding halogen billboards will distract drivers from Indy urban blight as they make their way to better suburbs/destinations. Good that the legislators can be paid both by the business that performs their lawmaking duties AND the unwitting public.
  • What About Good Policy
    Does it ever occur to these councilors that whatever the digital billboard folks agree to among themselves might not be good public policy? If they don't want to make public policy, why to they want to hold public policy positions? For the prestige of being a City-County Councilor?

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. I never thought I'd see the day when a Republican Mayor would lead the charge in attempting to raise every tax we have to pay. Now it's income taxes and property taxes that Ballard wants to increase. And to pay for a pre-K program? Many studies have shown that pre-K offer no long-term educational benefits whatsoever. And Ballard is pitching it as a way of fighting crime? Who is he kidding? It's about government provided day care. It's a shame that we elected a Republican who has turned out to be a huge big spending, big taxing, big borrowing liberal Democrat.

    2. Why do we blame the unions? They did not create the 11 different school districts that are the root of the problem.

    3. I was just watching an AOW race from cleveland in 1997...in addition to the 65K for the race, there were more people in boats watching that race from the lake than were IndyCar fans watching the 2014 IndyCar season finale in the Fontana grandstands. Just sayin...That's some resurgence modern IndyCar has going. Almost profitable, nobody in the grandstands and TV ratings dropping 61% at some tracks in the series. Business model..."CRAZY" as said by a NASCAR track general manager. Yup, this thing is purring like a cat! Sponsors...send them your cash, pronto!!! LOL, not a chance.

    4. I'm sure Indiana is paradise for the wealthy and affluent, but what about the rest of us? Over the last 40 years, conservatives and the business elite have run this country (and state)into the ground. The pendulum will swing back as more moderate voters get tired of Reaganomics and regressive social policies. Add to that the wave of minority voters coming up in the next 10 to 15 years and things will get better. unfortunately we have to suffer through 10 more years of gerrymandered districts and dispropionate representation.

    5. Funny thing....rich people telling poor people how bad the other rich people are wanting to cut benefits/school etc and that they should vote for those rich people that just did it. Just saying..............