I was waiting for the bus to go to work today when I finally took note of something: the advertisements on SBS buses advertising SBS Transit. I have seen them before but only today did it provoke a question in my mind - does SBS Transit really need advertisements?
The reason I ask this is because there are only two major public bus companies in Singapore - SBS and TIBS. And it is not like they are really competiting. They would be competing if a passenger made a conscious choice whether to take a TIBS bus or a SBS bus. An example of this would be if a passenger decided to take 66 (a SBS bus) over 67(a TIBS bus) to little India from the bus stop opposite King Albert Park even if 67 came first. But as we know, that would not be the case - we Singaporeans take any bus which come first if we can get on it which often is not possible during peak hours because of the ghosts haunting the back of the buses.
These two companies have few overlapping routes. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that having the two companies serve similar routes would be a waste of resources so that has been minimised. These companies have similar prices. These two companies could merge and Singaporeans won’t really notice a difference in the public transportation habits. In fact, it has even been argued before whether it is even necessary to have two companies.
Back to my first question: why the need for advertisements? To build brand awareness? In the current landscape, that wouldn’t be necessary. There is no way we can fail to notice the existence of SBS. Or is it to build brand image by trying to convince us that SBS is doing the job it is supposed to do as a public transport company. That would be useless if the experience of using SBS is otherwise (and I would prefer they use the money for such campaigns to improve the service instead of telling us the service is great) and if it isn’t (i.e. the experience is as great as it is said in the advertisements) then the advertisements would be superfluous.
Is this such a big deal? Well yes in a way. Advertisements cost money and even though the advertisements are on SBS Buses and SBS Transit might not need to pay for putting it on their own buses (I say might not because I am unsure how they would do the accounting here), there is the cost of creating the ad campaign, putting it on the buses and the opportunity cost of that ad space if it had been sold to another advertiser. Or if there really is excess inventory for ad space, maybe the space could be given for free to charities?
I guess what bothers me is that when I am waiting 45 minutes for a bus I don’t really want to see an advertisement telling me how great the bus company which is keeping me waiting is. No matter how little it might cost them (i.e. the bus company) to run that ad.
(Updated: This page shows the cost of running ads on SBS buses for advertisers. $3400 as cost to put the ad on the bus and a maximum of $5500 per month for ad space on a double decker bus does not seem a lot but still it is money which could be used somewhere else.)
Molly | 15-Jan-07 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Self-advertising could be free for them? Anyway, there aren’t advertising themselves to commuters, I think. They are just advertising themselves to advertisers. E.g. when they make claims about how many people they transport everyday, they are telling potential advertisers how big their audience is. Nonetheless, it’s pretty senseless…
iantimothy | 16-Jan-07 at 1:01 am | Permalink
Hello Molly! Firstly, I just discovered your blog and I really enjoy reading your entries. Hmm… Actually, I really think they are advertising to commuters because of the stuff they are saying on their ads. For example, one of the ads (which was the one I saw yesterday) was trying to explain why two buses for the same route would come one after another. I will try to get pictures of these ads.
elaine | 16-Jan-07 at 1:28 am | Permalink
Trains are one area in which SMRT and SBST do compete with each other. For example, if I’m at Plaza Singapura and I live in Tiong Bahru, I can choose to take either the NEL or SMRT back home. Or if I’m going to Chinatown or Little India, I can alight at Outram Park or Dhoby Ghaut to catch the SMRT shuttle, instead of changing over to the NEL.
Besides, having an SBST ad on an SBST bus is better than having no ad at all. It can trigger potential advertisers to consider buses as another form of advertising. It’s like how the Straits Times, up till recently, only advertised for itself within its own pages. An ad in an empty space is better than no ad at all.
iantimothy | 16-Jan-07 at 3:38 am | Permalink
Hello Elaine… Hmmm..I’m thinking about some of your points and I would like to clarify something. Did you mean from Plaza Singapura to Outram Park? Because there is no Tiong Bahru station on the NEL.
I went to theTibs Website and SBS transit and checked the fares for the journey from Dhoby Ghaut to Outram Park jus to confirm the fares were the same. Yup. They are.
Your example given is only one route which is that between Outram Park and Dhoby Ghaut. So maybe only for people using this route, there is a choice to choose which train service they would like to use. Incidentally, I am curious now about which of the two train services a person would actually choose for this route. Hmm..And why.
With your example, about going to Chinatown or Little India, I can’t comment on it cos I’ve never used that service.
About having ads better than no ads, I agree with you but one needs to consider that not all ads are created equal. Also, from the many buses that you see that do not have ads on them, one can see that SBS does not actually see it necessary to plaster all its buses with ads especially its own just because there is excess inventory of ad spaces.
One can infer some things about this. SBS can live without all its buses having ads. Secondly, there must be a cost to putting its own ads on that adspace beyond opportunity cost.
When I wrote the post, I was coming from three angles. One is that the ad space could have been given to organisations who could not afford it. Second, I was riled by the nature of the ad campaign whose message was target at commuters; I can possibly understand if the ads were targeted at advertisers but in my opinion they were not. Lastly, the cost of putting up the ads could have been used elsewhere no matter how small the amount might seem.
I really shall try to get the pictures of these ads for you guys.
elaine | 16-Jan-07 at 6:09 am | Permalink
I did mean Tiong Bahru. I can take the NEL and switch to SMRT at Outram, or I can just take SMRT all the way. The distance is about the same, so this scenario is about as close to ceteris paribus as can be. As you pointed out, my choice doesn’t make a difference to the fares collected, but it adds to my overall experience with each of the transport service providers and may influence my future decisions.
In reality, I would make my decision based on which station entrance I’m nearest to. If I’m at Carrefour, I will head to SBST, since the gantry is nearest. If I’m at atrium@Orchard or HSBC, I will head to the SMRT entrance.
Regarding your point about giving the ad space away to more deserving organisations, I must say that I am in agreement with you on this issue. About a year or so ago, I noticed that Clear Channel, which manages a portion of the bus stops and their ad space (I think JCDecaux is another such operator), gives away unsold ad space to nonprofit organisations such as MINDS, SPD and SADeaf. I was totally impressed with that and thought it was a really good gesture by Clear Channel.