Acquisition Expert Describes Price Trends for Billboards

Vic Root has been involved in billboard acquisition for more than 50 years. After working with an international public accounting firm in the 1950s, he went to work for Naegele Advertising in Minneapolis and has been deeply involved in the industry ever since. His work for Naegele consisted mainly of purchases and sales of outdoor advertising operations around the United States. He was involved in the accounting, tax analysis and financing of more than 36 purchases from Harrisburg to Oakland, California. In 1969, Mr. Root became an independent consultant specializing in the merger and acquisition of billboard companies. In the past 33 years he has been involved in more than 68 transactions spanning the nation. In addition to putting together transactions, Mr. Root has prepared valuations for others and has been called upon many times as an expert witness.

While he has helped the nation’s largest billboard companies make acquisitions, he has been particularly active in working with small and medium-sized companies in cities and towns of all sizes. He has seen the prices for billboards soar to unprecedented heights during the late 1990s and then ease back to more reasonable levels in the past year.

According to Mr. Root, sign companies often sold for a price equal to two-times annual sales revenue in the 1950s and 1960s. A sign plant generating $2 million in yearly advertising revenue would typically be worth $4 million. Buyers often made a down payment of 25% and signed an installment Promissory Note for the balance at 8% or 9% interest. Prices rose irregularly in the 1970s and 1980s before slipping back at the time of the recession in 1991. Prices began rising again and peaked in the late 1990s before leveling off in 2001. Mr. Root reports that there are fewer billboard plants on the market in the first half of 2002, partly because sellers sometimes cannot get their asking price. He has seen prices decline slightly from a rule of thumb at 55 months revenue (4.6X annual sales) in 2000 to a level closer to 48 months (4X annual sales) in early 2002. This softening is partly the result of lower advertising spending that has affected billboard companies throughout the United States.

Mr. Root believes that prices will firm up again as soon as ad spending rebounds from the current recession. With a limited supply of existing signs and permits difficult to obtain in most areas, prices should continue to move higher in the future.

Having been directly involved in many sales of billboard plants, Mr. Root has a clear understanding of the issues that buyers and sellers find most important. He has identified eight elements that are considered carefully in sign acquisitions.

1. Population of the market

   Advertisers usually pay the highest prices for signs in densely populated areas where the most prospective customers will see a message. Billboard revenue tends to be highest in highly populated areas. The largest billboard companies in the U.S., Viacom and Clear Channel, have concentrated their acquisition efforts on larger markets in recent years. This often leads to high prices for billboards.

2. Concentration of structures

   A billboard company can minimize its costs of operation per sign if many units are located closely together. Messages can be posted faster and cheaper on 10 signs close together in a metropolitan area than 10 signs scattered along distant stretches of highway.

   The concentration of structures by one company also can provide good coverage of the entire market for advertisers.

3. Zoning restrictions

   Local zoning regulations are very important to the value of billboards, but they can be a two-edged sword. Existing signs are very valuable if new signs are prohibited because competition can be kept out. On the other hand, very restrictive zoning may prevent a billboard company from adding new locations to expand the company. Careful analysis is necessary for buyers to understand and assess the importance of zoning restrictions.

4. Cost of operations

   In addition to a thorough review of expenses such as personnel, vehicles, and so forth, most buyers examine the land lease portfolio very carefully. High-cost leases that will remain in force well into the future can sap the profitability of a billboard plant. On the other hand, too many locations that are rented only month-to-month can raise the risk that sharp increases in rental rates may be demanded by landowners. Buyers prefer billboards located on land with low lease rates locked in for long terms.

5. Condition of the structures, and illumination

   Most buyers seek billboard plants that have modern well-built structures illuminated for night viewing. Older billboards, usually made of wood, raise the incidence of repairs and even the possibility that a sign could be lost forever. Many jurisdictions have regulations stating that damage to a sign that exceeds some percentage of cost, say 50%, prevents the sign from being repaired. It must be taken down permanently instead of being repaired. Older wooden signs may also be unsightly and draw more criticism by the public. Illumination allows billboard messages to be seen at night as well as the daytime. This means more exposure time to potential customers, and more demand by advertisers. The condition of structures and illumination are important factors to many buyers.

6. Competition for advertisers

   Nearly every business owner would like to have as little competition as possible. Billboard companies are no different. A sign plant that dominates a market where new permits are difficult to obtain will have a more dependable occupancy level. Advertisers will need to use existing signs to get their message out.

7. Economic conditions in the market

   When the economy is weak, advertisers usually pull back ad spending. This happens both nationally and locally. Some communities that are dependent on a particular industry can suffer serious economic declines for extended periods if the main employer in town has financial problems. Communities with strong and well-balanced economies are more attractive to billboard buyers because the risk of losing advertisers is reduced.

8. Growth potential

   Buyers of billboard plants can achieve growth in two primary ways. First, increased revenue can be achieved by raising rates and increasing occupancy levels if a plant is underutilized. Some billboard companies do not keep their rates up to market levels and they do not maximize their sales efforts. This can cause under utilized plants and can present a growth opportunity for a buyer. Second, growth can be achieved by finding new sites and erecting more signs. While this has become more difficult in recent years as local restrictions have spread, it is still possible to find new sites in many areas. Growth in the number of signs can also come from purchasing small billboard companies or Mom & Pop signs in the same area. Buyers tend to pay higher prices for billboard plants that have growth potential.

Billboards Continue To Be Taxed As Personal Property

The Arizona Court of Appeals handed down a decision on March 7, 2001 that throws out a test used by American courts for 150 years to distinguish personal property from fixtures. Known as the Teaff test from a case in 1853, case law since that time has relied on certain criteria to determine when and if personal property become fixtures to real property. This is important in billboard cases because of differences in taxes on the two types of property, and because personal property is not compensable in some eminent domain cases.

Other courts do not have to follow the decision or reasoning of this case known as Arizona Outdoor Advertisers, but it will not be ignored entirely in other jurisdictions. We have reproduced excerpts from the decision below. For a full understanding of the opinion and the full text see Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Outdoor Advertisers, Inc., Court of Appeals, Division One, March 7, 2002.

Related reading: My Commercial Lease is Going to Expire… What Happens Next?

Excerpts

In this (sales) tax case, the Arizona Department of Revenue appeals from a judgment adverse to its attempt to treat Arizona Outdoor Advertisers’ income from the rental of billboard space as income from the commercial leasing of real property. Arizona Outdoor claims that its billboards, erected on real property owned by and leased from others, are personal property and should be classified as such. The resolution of this dispute depends on whether the billboards, after they are erected, become “fixtures” and part of the realty or remain personalty. The Tax Court found that the billboards remained personalty and, because we agree with this result, we affirm. In doing so, however, we depart from the traditional fixtures analysis used by the Tax Court and employ a modified approach that does away with some confusing legal fictions and unnecessary evidentiary restrictions imposed by traditional analysis.

Arizona Outdoor had twelve billboards in place.

Arizona Outdoor leased land for a fifteen-year term. The lease agreements provide in pertinent part:

8. Lessee shall have the right to permit others to place signs owned by them on the [billboard], and such signs shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease. It is agreed between the parties that Lessee, or such other person, as the case may be, shall remain the owner of all of said advertising signs, structures and improvements, and that, notwithstanding the fact that the same constitute real estate fixtures, the Lessee or such other person, as the case may be, shall have the right to remove said signs, structures and improvements at any time during the term of this Lease, or after the expiration of this Lease.

The affidavit of William Pearson, Sr., Arizona Outdoor’s corporate president, states: “Any language in the lease agreements relating to the billboards being real estate fixtures is inadvertent, having come from boilerplate in another contract.” The Department does not controvert this assertion.

Arizona Outdoor can terminate a lease at the end of any monthly period merely on thirty days’ advance notice. The Lessor can terminate on thirty days’ advance notice before the end of a lease term, or by notifying Arizona Outdoor that it intends to improve its land by building a permanent commercial or residential building. Upon termination, Arizona Outdoor has the right to remove the billboard structure from the realty.

Arizona Outdoor has consistently removed its billboards over the years as billboard locations ceased satisfying their intended purpose or lessors decided upon another use for their property.

The Department audited Arizona Outdoor for the period August 1988 through July 1992 and determined that its gross income from sign rentals was income from the commercial lease of real property under Arizona Revised Statutes . . . . on appeal, the Arizona Board of Tax Appeals sustained Arizona Outdoor’s position and concluded that Arizona Outdoor was not liable for an assessment under the real property commercial leasing classification.

The Department brought this action in the Arizona Tax Court challenging the Board’s ruling. The court applied traditional fixtures analysis and found that notwithstanding the affixation of the billboards to the land and their adaptation to use with real property, they never became part of the realty because “[t]he record supports Defendant’s contention that the billboard structures were intended, and did in fact remain the Defendant’s personal property.”

The Department contends that the billboards constitute improvements to real property within the meaning of subsection (f) (2), whereas Arizona Outdoor contends the billboards are personalty and fall under A.R.S. 42-5071 (Supp. 2001), which imposes a transaction privilege tax on income from the leasing of personal property. We must determine which assertion is correct.

To resolve the issue, the court adopted a test from a South Dakota case involving the same company engaged in the same activity, and applied the following criteria to decide that the substation was an improvement to real property:

1) its actual or constructive annexation to the realty;
2) its adaptability to the use and purpose for which the realty is used; and
3) the intention of the party making the annexation.

This three-part test to determine an “improvement to real property” is in fact the traditional test for determining whether an item of personal property has become a “fixture.” The test originated in Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 (1853), and is designed to ascertain whether and when goods lose their identity as personalty and become part of the realty, thereby becoming subject to the laws governing realty.

“[I]mprovement” is a broader category of things than “fixture” and encompasses everything that permanently enhances the value of premises for general use. Improvement certainly includes fixtures, but the term also includes such things as roads or ditches that usually are not classified as fixtures. [B]ecause fixture is a narrower category of things than improvement, it is important to acknowledge that while it is sometimes appropriate to employ fixtures criteria to test for realty improvements, sometimes it is not.

[I]f the billboards are fixtures, they necessarily are improvements. Conversely, if they are personalty they cannot be improvements because the temporary nature of their occupancy means that they do not permanently enhance the value of the realty. [T]he bulk of the reported cases concerning billboards employ some variation of fixture analysis. See, e.g., Aquafine Corporation v. Fendig Outdoor Advertising Co., 272 S.E. 2nd 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980) (billboards were personalty or removable trade fixtures); City of Cleveland v. Zimmerman, 253 N.E. 2d 327 (Ohio Prob. 1969) (billboards were personalty, not fixtures); Creative Displays, Inc. v. South Carolina Highway Department, 248 S.E. 2d 916 (S.C. 1978) (billboards were not fixtures and were therefore not compensable as realty).

[T]eaff ” put forth a formula, which has been almost slavishly repeated by the American courts ever since.” Walter B. Raushenbush, Brown on Personal Property, §16.1 at 516 (3d ed. 1975) (hereinafter “Brown”).

[I]t continues to be almost universally applied by American courts even though it injects an irrelevancy into the decision-making process, creates an awkward fiction that misdirects the inquiry, and requires contorting the language to achieve just and consistent results.

[B]ecause the test rests on the annexor’s intent as of the time the personalty is physically affixed, it illogically makes that point in time the only relevant focus for a fixtures inquiry. This temporal limitation results because Teaff uses the physical act of annexation both as its starting point and its ending point. The test directs that if the affixation consists of an actual physical connection of the personalty to the realty, the personalty becomes a permanent part of the realty at the instant of affixation so long as it complements the use to which the land is put and the annexor, at that particular moment, intends the personalty to permanently join the realty.

Professor Polston illustrates the absurdity of focusing on intent at affixation to create such important consequences. He notes that when annexation is accomplished by the owner of the realty, the owner’s intent is irrelevant because, in actuality, no enforceable legal consequences attach at that point. The owner can remove the personalty at will and without penalty, and if he does, those “forever” consequences suddenly evaporate. Id., §46.02(b) (3) at 521-22. Thus, ascertaining the intent of the annexor at affixation often yields only an irrelevancy, yet the Teaff test treats it as controlling.

Intent as a test element should be measured as of a time when it is probative of something material. For example, the status of the purported fixture may be brought into question when the owner decides to sell the land. Click here to learn how to sell house fast. Professor Polston notes that if the parties in their sales agreement fail to account for the item and its character becomes an issue

To the extent that intention is a factor in making such a determination, it must be an intention that is common to the parties to the relationship.

Id. §46.02(b) (3) at 522.

Thus, in a two-party relationship, when intent factors into the characterization of an item, it should be the present, mutual intent of the parties to the agreement. Id. It borders on the irrational to resolve a problem arising from a present transaction by harking back to a time before the parties’ agreement, and resting the resolution on the intention of the original annexor, who may not even be a party to the present transaction. Id. At 522-24.

[S]ome courts have construed the search for objective intent as precluding evidence of the subjective intent of the annexor, whether he is the owner of the realty or one of the parties to the transaction giving rise to the present dispute.

We nevertheless believe that a reasonable person test, if property constructed, is a preferable alternative to Teaff. Such a test would permit the hypothetical reasonable person to consider all the circumstances that might be relevant to the particular case, and he would have the flexibility to consider those circumstances as of a point in time when they are material, not just as of the time when the item was originally affixed. Thus, the test for whether an item of personalty has become part of the realty would be stated as: Would a reasonable person, after considering all the relevant circumstances, assume that the item in question belongs to and is a part of the real estate on which it is located?

However, we do not extend the reasonable person test beyond the taxation context because the question whether such a test would have the same beneficial effect in other legal contexts is too large to be answered here.

The agreements unequivocally declare that Arizona Outdoor would remain the owner of the billboards, and the agreements grant Arizona Outdoor the right to remove the billboards.

As to how this right of removal should be viewed, we note that when an item of personalty truly transmutes into a fixture, it becomes a part of the realty and ownership normally passes to the person holding title to the land. Powell, §57.04(4) at 57-19 to 57-20. But a continuing right by a non-landowning annexor to remove the item would be inconsistent with ownership passing to the landowner. Thus, if there is a right of removal, the reasonable person would conclude that ownership of the item did not pass to the landowner and the item is therefore not a fixture.
Statistics Sourced: 3cre.com

Related post: Real Estate Seminars in Canada.

Spending on outdoor advertising did not fall nearly as much as spending on other forms of media during 2001. The outdoor segment reported revenue was down 0.8% for the year while overall ad spending dropped 9.8%. Most analysts attribute the industry-wide decline to general economic weakness compounded by the shock of the terrorist attacks on September 11. The most devastating drop in advertising was suffered by national newspapers, which saw their ad revenue plunge by an amazing 23%. This segment of the media market accounted for $2.94 billion in ads in 2001. National advertising spots on radio were off 20.5% and television spots were off 18.2%.

Most experts believe that outdoor advertising held up better than other media for two reasons. First, a large percentage of outdoor ads are purchased by local businesses instead of national corporations. At some billboard companies, more than 75% of advertising comes from local accounts. Small local businesses such as restaurants and motels tend to rely heavily on highway signs that direct customers to their location. These businesses need to keep advertising in good times and in bad. If the economy is weak, that is often an even greater incentive to maintain advertising in hopes of sustaining sales. The second reason for stronger performance in outdoor ads is the relatively low cost. Outdoor advertising tends to be less expensive than media such as radio, television and newspapers. Companies cutting back on ad spending can achieve quicker and greater savings by cutting out the expensive media first.

The decline in ad revenue for the outdoor industry is the first since the end of the last recession. Income to billboard companies was down in 1992 following the national economic recession that ended in the spring of 1991. Growth resumed the following year and continued until 2001.

Billboard companies are using various methods to mitigate the impact of lower ad spending. One of the most effective methods is the use of “preemptive advertising contracts” where low prices are offered to advertisers that will take space “as available.” These advertisers agree that in return for the lower price, the billboard company can take the ad down if another customer is willing to pay regular rates. This is similar to the television industry where tapes of advertisements are kept on the shelf and put on the air if time spots are not sold to regular customers. The advertiser does not know in advance how many times the message will air, and in return is awarded with a deeply discounted price. For media companies, low revenue is better than no revenue. This will change. As the economy recovers and ad spending begins to rise, the ads at discount rates will be gradually replaced with customers paying regular prices.

In the near term, forecasts of ad spending in 2002 are not bright. Jessica Reif Cohen, a securities analyst at Merrill Lynch, expects total ad spending to be down again this year by 1%. Jack Myers of the research firm bearing his name is forecasting even worse conditions with a 5.7% decline. A decline of some magnitude is a likely scenario. After the last recession in 1991, ad spending had a lagging effect and actually bottomed out in 1992. While the national economy seems to be doing better than expected in the first two months of 2002, most economists believe that economic weakness is not entirely gone. Most outdoor advertising companies are hoping for some improvement in revenue for the year and would be willing to accept at least another flat year.

In most cases, the value of billboards declines along with reduced spending on ads. This occurs because the value of signs is dependent on the income that is generated. Unless cap rates decline, lower income will result in lower value.

Most people understand what is meant by the word “billboard”: a wood or metal structure with an advertising message on the face or faces, usually located next to a roadway. In the last several years two new terms in this industry have become popular, but they are less well understood. These terms are “outdoor” and “out-of-home” advertising. Both terms probably conjure up the image of billboards to many people. However, they have much broader meaning than just billboards and the out-of-home advertising industry has been refining definitions and encouraging standardized terminology.

The term “outdoor” advertising is not favored by most of the industry because it is not sufficiently broad. It obviously implies that an ad is outside of a home or building. Instead, the term “out-of-home” is favored because it captures advertisements that are outside of the home, but not outdoors. If you visit their website, you’ll learn that a new taxonomy has been developed that breaks down out-of-home into four major categories: Billboards, Street Furniture, Transit, and Alternative Outdoor.

Billboards include three main categories of standardized signs. Bulletins are the largest at 14×48 feet, 30-Sheet Posters are next largest at 12×25, and 8-Sheet Posters are the smallest at 6×12 feet. Billboards are seen in many locations, usually along higher traffic roadways. Billboards are estimated to generate about 60% of all out-of-home ad spending.

Street Furniture is a much newer advertising medium that spread quickly in the 1990s. This may be the most diverse category that includes much more than the title implies. The most obvious segment is bus shelters and benches, shelter-size displays on sidewalks, and telephone or street kiosks. This is intuitively street furniture. But the other segments get further from the concept implied by the title. This category of out-of-home advertising includes an estimated 1,200 displays in shopping malls. While not technically on the street, or furniture, these ads are viewed by potential customers out of their homes. The category Street Furniture also includes displays at convenience stores and some 34,000 faces inside of other stores. Due to the nature of the store displays (as contrasted with bus shelters), the industry may need to move to a fifth category of out-of-home advertising possibly called Retail Sites or something similar. Most store ads do not fit easily into the category of Street Furniture. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) estimates that Street Furniture generates about 17% of all out-of-home ad dollars.

Transit is a category that includes busses, commuter rail, subways, and airports. The bus segment covers advertisements inside the bus and outside the bus. Bus “sides” are print ads usually held in frames on the side of the bus. Bus “wraps” are a relatively new type of advertising that grew out of the variety of uses created for vinyl mesh material used as a substrate. The vinyl is literally wrapped around the entire bus. Commuter rail and subways are the ads displayed inside the transit cars. Airport ads include a variety of displays, but they are primarily back-lit posters on walls and kiosks. The market for Transit is about the same size as Street Furniture, generating some 17% of total out-of-home spending.

Alternative Outdoor is a very broad category that includes everything not specifically covered in the other three areas. Also referred to as Supplemental Outdoor, this segment includes ads in restrooms, air-banner towing, ski advertising, gas pumps, shopping carts, and on-plane advertising. This segment also includes the rapidly growing medium of advertising at sports stadiums and arenas. One look at major new facilities like Bank One Ballpark in Phoenix, home of the 2001 World Champion Diamondbacks, indicates the growing use of this type of media. Some ads are even inserted electronically on surfaces at stadiums by television technology. These messages are not actually at the sports facility, but appear to be on the walls when viewed on television.

Three of the four main category titles of out-of-home advertising are likely to go through additional stages of refinement. While the category of Billboards does not have much room for improvement, the other categories could certainly use some help. As mentioned, Street Furniture does not logically include segments such as convenience stores. Additional questions arise in the Alternative Outdoor category. Truck-side advertising has grown rapidly in just the past few years and it might be categorized best in the Transit category rather than Alternative. The same could be true for mobile displays, which are billboards pulled around town on trailers. Further refinement is likely since the categories have only come into being in the past several years.

The list of leading companies in the out-of-home advertising business changed dramatically in the 1990s. Mergers and acquisitions transformed the landscape of the industry. The top out-of-home ad companies in 2001 according to OAAA were:

1. Viacom Outdoor Group (includes the former Outdoor Systems billboard company)
2. Clear Channel Outdoor (includes the former Eller Media)
3. Lamar Advertising Company
4. AK Media (scheduled to be acquired by Clear Channel by June 2002)
5. JCDecaux / Skysites
6. Adams Outdoor Advertising
7. Tri-State Outdoor Media Group
8. Fairway Outdoor Advertising
9. Van Wagner Communications
10. Reagan Outdoor

Lamar Advertising Company announced on February 13, 2002 that revenue was up 6% for 2001 to a record level of $729.1 million. Operating earnings for the same period declined by 2% as fewer advertisers were in the market due to the recession. The results are viewed favorably by management, given the weak economy and the sharp drop in ad spending for other media (radio and TV). Bulletin billboard occupancy is in the mid-70% range and Posters are lower around 65%. Management reported in a conference call with securities analysts that the outlook for 2002 is “slippery”. It is very difficult to predict how much advertising spending will find its way to billboard companies. Lamar expects industry conditions in the first half of 2002 to be like the last half of 2001, characterized by modest demand for outdoor advertising space.

The company also reported in the conference call that the pace of acquisitions slowed as the year progressed. This is consistent with the announcement in the fourth quarter that fewer billboard acquisitions were available at reasonable prices. The total paid for acquisitions dropped each quarter of 2001: $135 million, $120 million, $45 million and $30 million. The low amount of acquisitions in the fourth quarter is typical of previous years. Sellers often defer consummation of deals near the end of the year so that they can plan for taxes. Many transactions are pushed out from the fourth quarter to the first quarter of the following year. Lamar reported that the billboards acquired in 2001 generated $45 million in annual revenue. Applying the price of $330 million for all acquisitions, the overall EGIM was 7.3X. Most of the acquired signs were purchased in small transactions with individual owners and small businesses. The company made most of the acquisitions as “fill ins” for markets where Lamar already has an established market share.

Lamar used a target valuation of 10 times earnings for its 2001 acquisitions. Earnings in this industry is measured as “earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization”, or EBITDA. “Forward EBITDA” is the amount of operating earnings that is expected in the four quarters following the acquisition. Forward earnings are widely used by publicly traded companies. Expected earnings from the acquired companies did not meet expectations primarily because of the national economic recession and the economic shock resulting from the terrorist attacks on September 11. Consequently, with earnings below expectations and the acquisition price fixed, the actual multiple of forward EBITDA turned out to be higher than planned, or about 11X. Lamar’s overall target acquisition multiple for 2002 remains unchanged at 10X forward EBITDA although each purchase is priced individually.

During the first six weeks of 2002 Lamar closed 11 more acquisitions for a total of $72 million. About half of the purchases were paid with cash and about half with the company’s common stock. One transaction alone accounted for approximately one half of the acquisition spending. A billboard company was purchased for “about $38 million to $40 million” and payment was made with Lamar common stock. Management reported that the form of payment (stock versus cash) did not affect prices paid as a multiple of revenue or earnings.

Management stated that it continues to value acquisition targets at revenue multiples in the range of 6.5X to 7X on average. This is a pricing multiple based on the effective gross income of a sign, which is commonly referred to as the EGIM (Effective Gross Income Multiplier). While the general range of EGIMs is 6.5X to 7X, each transaction price is established according to its own set of circumstances. Bulletin billboards generate higher revenue per face, and tend to have higher occupancy and EBITDA margins. Consequently, prices for Bulletins tend to be at or above the upper end of the range. Poster Panels are smaller signs with lower revenue per face and lower occupancy nationwide. Typical EGIMs for Posters are often 5X or lower.

The company is continuing to make acquisitions when prices are right because management expects demand for billboards to come back strong and fast when the economy turns around. Advertisers that use billboards for certain campaigns realize that there is a very limited supply of signs. Based on the company’s experience in 1991 and 1992, after the last recession, occupancy rates can rise rapidly as local and national advertisers return to normal levels of spending. Demand will be converted to cash for billboard companies even more quickly than 10 years ago because of the speed with which messages can be posted today. By sending an image electronically for printing on vinyl material, a new billboard message can be up on a sign face in two or three days. The time frame was at least two or three weeks in 1991 and 1992.

Lamar has kept its debt level largely under control during its acquisitions, and appears well positioned to capitalize on its expanded plant when the economy recovers. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Lamar and management hopes it will be a record year for sales and earnings.