PCLM-D-25-00165

How Advertising Matters: Outdoor Media Strategies for Increased Engagement with Creative Climate Change Messages

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Boykoff,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two external reviewers have commented on your submission. We ask that you respond carefully to all the points they have raised, in particular the methodological concerns raised by Reviewer 2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jamie Males

Executive Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

2. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data is available on request.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either

a. In a public repository,

b. Within the manuscript itself, or

c. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

3. We have amended your Competing Interest statement to comply with journal style. We kindly ask that you double check the statement and let us know if anything is incorrect.

4. Figures 1 to 12: Please confirm (a) that you are the photographer; or (b) provide written permission from the photographer to publish the photo(s) under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

5. Figure 11 and 12 includes an image of an identifiable person. Please provide written confirmation or release forms, signed by the subject(s) (or their parent/legally authorized guardian), giving permission to be photographed and to have their images published under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Otherwise, we kindly request that you remove the photograph.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This paper makes a valuable contribution to the growing but still under-explored field of climate advertising effectiveness, particularly in the context of public space media. Its key strength lies in the innovative use of real-world field experiments and QR code tracking to empirically evaluate how various factors—such as ad size, placement, and content—influence audience engagement with climate messages, offering practical insights for both researchers and practitioners. However, several concerns remain:

Key points:

1. The authors acknowledge the geographic limitation of conducting the study in only one region, which is not trivial given the sharply differing views on climate issues across various U.S. states. Expanding the study to include more diverse geographic and demographic contexts would enhance the robustness and credibility of the results.

2. The paper leans on interactive advertising theory, a deeper theoretical framing incorporating concepts such as framing theory, affective engagement, and behavioral science would strengthen the study by providing a more nuanced understanding of how and why different climate messages resonate with audiences.

3. The paper could further explore whether ad engagement (measured by QR code scans) led to sustained actions, such as behavioral pledges, which is crucial given the long-term impacts of climate change in the decades ahead.

Minor points:

1. There are some minor typos and formatting inconsistencies in the tables and figure captions.

2. All five variables tested in the study could be consolidated into a single summary table to improve clarity and provide a more accessible comparison of their relative effects on ad engagement.

Reviewer #2: The article presents an experimental study of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising (OOH/OM) in the context of climate communication. This area of research has been poorly studied to date, especially in the context of environmental communication. Therefore, the authors correctly identify a research gap. The literature review covers classic works on advertising effectiveness (Lasswell, 1948; Lucas & Britt, 1963) and includes contemporary theories of interactive communication (Pavlou and Stewart, 2000). However, overall, the literature review is superficial. There is a lack of deeper analysis of the psychological mechanisms influencing the effectiveness of outdoor advertising, references to persuasive communication theory, and attitude change models. This needs to be supplemented, especially with more recent publications.

Methodology

At first glance, the use of real data from an advertising campaign (data from QR codes) ensures high external validity, while confounding variables are controlled through random bus rotation.

But on closer inspection, I see problems. There is no randomization of participants—the study is based on a self-selecting sample of people scanning QR codes. The authors do not control the time and frequency of exposure to advertisements. There is no control group—there is no comparison with areas without an advertising campaign.

In addition, the samples are very small (too small, e.g., N=22).

We know nothing about the target population. There are no demographic characteristics of the sample. There is no information about the representativeness of the sample. Individual differences (age, gender, attitudes towards climate) were not taken into account. The self-selection of the sample may lead to systematic errors (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

In the statistical analysis itself, there is no control for Type I error in multiple comparisons, no statistical power analysis was performed, and no analysis of interaction effects between variables was performed.

Overinterpretation of results - conclusions about the “effectiveness” of advertisements are based only on the number of QR scans, which does not directly translate into changes in attitudes or behaviors.

Final conclusion: The work has the potential to be published, but only after significant revisions, as described above.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

How Advertising Matters: Outdoor Media Strategies for Increased Engagement with Creative Climate Change Messages

PCLM-D-25-00165R1

Dear Dr Boykoff,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'How Advertising Matters: Outdoor Media Strategies for Increased Engagement with Creative Climate Change Messages' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Jamie Males

Staff Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: All reviewer comments have been satisfactorily addressed. I have no additional questions and support the paper’s publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********