Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Phase 1 Focus Groups
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Phase 1 Focus Groups
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
United States Department of Transportation
Prepared for EPA by
PRR, Inc.
EPA Contract No. GS-23F-0364P
Task Order 0001
United States z^D^^^ EPA-420-R-10-903
Environmental Protection ^^r ^R § A 4.imn
Agency ^\^S ^ August 2010
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Vehicle Choice Process and Curren t Label Use 7
Factors influencing vehicle choice 7
Current fuel economy label use 10
Fuel Consumption Metric 13
Perceptions about fuel consumption 13
Fuel consumption rating understanding 14
Understanding the MPG Illusion 16
Use of fuel consumption metric in vehicle choice 17
Fuel Cost Metric 19
Most useful framing of fuel cost 19
Fuel cost rating understanding 20
Use of fuel cost metric in vehicle purchase 22
Environment Metric 25
Environment rating understanding 25
Use of terms 'environment' and C02 28
Use of en vironmen tal impact in vehicle choice 29
Overall Findings 31
Appendices 37
Appendix A: Moderator Guide 37
Appendix B-. Participant Profiles 46
Appendix C: Current Fuel Economy Label 54
Appendix D: Fuel Consumption Tally Sheet 55
Appendix £.- Fuel Cost Tally 59
Appendix F: Environment Metric Tally 63
Phase 1 Focus Groups
-------
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
ntroduction
Background
In 2006, EPA updated how the city and highway fuel economy
values are calculated to better reflect typical real-world driving
patterns and provide more realistic fuel economy estimates. In
addition, EPA redesigned the fuel economy label to make it more
informative for consumers. The redesigned label more prominently
featured annual fuel cost information, provided contemporary and
easy-to-use graphics for comparing the fuel economy of different
vehicles, used clearer text, and included a Web site reference to
www.fueleconomy.gov which provided additional information.
EPA is now initiating a new rulemaking to ensure that American
consumers continue to have the most accurate, meaningful and
useful information, as well as an understanding of how the labeled
vehicle impacts the environment. In 2006 EPA did not include a
consumption-based metric in the new label design, however EPA did
recognize at that time that a distance-based metric such as MPG can
be misleading and that a fuel consumption metric might be more
meaningful to consumers. In this rulemaking, EPA wants to explore
'gallons per 100 miles' as a potential fuel consumption metric on the
label. Additionally, EPA must provide metrics that are relevant and
useful for advanced technology vehicles, such as Electric Vehicles
and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (EVs and PHEVs).
Phase 1 Focus Groups
-------
To help inform the creation of the new label, EPA engaged PRR
Inc. to work with them in the design and implementation of several
information gathering protocols including:
• Literature review
• Focus groups (in 3 phases, including pre-group
online surveys)
• Online survey of new vehicle buyers
• Expert panel
It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups
in order to accommodate the sheer amount of information required
to be covered in the focus groups, as well as to use each phase to
inform the next phase on overall label design in regard to both
content and look. The three phases were designed to address the
following issues:
• Phase I - Use of the current label and design of the label for
internal combustion engine vehicles
• Phase II - Understandability of metrics for advanced
technology vehicle labels
• Phase III - Assessment of full label designs and messaging
testing for educational/marketing campaign
This document provides a preliminary overview of the Phase I
focus groups and is designed specifically to inform the next phases
of focus groups. It is not intended as a comprehensive report of
results from the Phase I focus groups; that will come at the end of
all three phases of focus groups in the form of a full, comprehensive
report. It should be noted that all results reported here refer to
the focus group discussions, except when specifically identified as
results from the pre-group online survey.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Methodology
Focus groups are the optimum approach to use when the task calls
for qualitative, in-depth understanding of consumer's understanding
of fuel economy labels. Focus groups allow for probing around
such issues as why some label designs are more understandable,
how such label designs would be used in the vehicle purchase
process, and which label metrics are most important to consumers.
The focus group discussion can also provide insights about how a
label design may nudge consumers toward greater use of the fuel
economy label, as well as nudging them toward the purchase of
more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Eight focus groups were convened between February 25th and March
9th, 2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte.
In each city, two groups (one male, one female) were conducted in
English and each lasted for two hours. A moderator guide was used
to structure the focus group discussions (see Appendix A).
Participants were recruited from within panels developed and
maintained by the focus group facility used in each city. Twelve
persons were recruited for each group, with the assumption that eight
to ten would show. Each of the groups consisted of eight participants
(with the exception of one group that had 6 participants). In order
to screen out 'professional focus group participants,' only those
who had not participated in a focus group in the last six months
were included. In addition, participants were screened for having
purchased a new vehicle (not a used or pre-owned vehicle; not a
motorcycle; not a 'Cash for Clunkers' purchase) in the last 12 months
and being the sole or primary decision maker with regard to this new
vehicle purchased to ensure that the groups included only those who
had been intimately involved in the new vehicle purchase process.
Having internet access was also a requirement so that they could
complete the pre-group online survey. To ensure a good cross-section
of participants each focus group included a mix of participants based
on the following variables: type of new vehicle, price range of new
vehicle, distance they typically travelled daily in this new vehicle, if
they had seriously considered an advanced technology vehicle before
purchasing their vehicle, and a variety of demographic variables (see
Appendix B for participant profiles).
Phase 1 Focus Groups
-------
The participants were also asked to complete an online survey
before they took part in the focus group discussions. The purpose
of the online survey was to obtain more information about their
vehicle purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase
decision, and how they used the current fuel economy label; three
important issues for which there was insufficient time in the focus
groups to discuss in great depth. The pre-group online survey did
not present new label designs (these were covered exclusively in the
focus groups). It should be noted that the pre-group online surveys
are not meant to be representative of new vehicle buyers in general
(since focus group participants are in many ways unique), but rather
to provide additional information about these specific participants.
The online survey was approximately 12 to 15 minutes in length
and was completed by all of the 114 recruited participants. Only
those who had completed the online survey were accepted into the
focus groups.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Vehicle Choice Process
and Current Label Use
Factors influencing vehicle choice
Participants across all the groups were asked about the top two
things that influenced their vehicle choice, whether they had
considered the impact of driving the type of vehicle they had
purchased on the environment, whether they had a specific vehicle
in mind when they started shopping for a vehicle, if so, whether
it was the vehicle they ended up purchasing, and what "class of
vehicle" they purchased. Further, they were asked what they
thought of when they heard "class of vehicle" and whether there
was a better term to express that concept.
Top two factors in vehicle choice
From the participants' point of view, most across all the groups
thought the term 'vehicle class' was a good term to use to describe
the group of vehicles in which they were interested, although they
used this term interchangeably with 'vehicle type.' How participants
grouped vehicles by type or class varied. Although they generally
described it in relatively broad terms such as SUVs, minivans, sport
cars, trucks, economy cars, and midsize cars, some participants
suggested other classifications such as luxury vehicles or hybrids.
Based on participant responses on how to group vehicles by class
or type, it was clear that they did not necessarily match the typical
EPA vehicle classes. When asked if there was a better term for "class
of vehicle", a few participants said that the terms "vehicle type" or
"type of vehicle" could be used to replace it.
"There was a time when
compact car meant something,
but now there's sub-compact,
mid-sized compact; everyone
has different categories for the
same thing. You're really talking
about a small, mid-sized or
luxury car." -Seattle Male
"Fifty years ago I think vehicle
class meant something, now, I
think it's a marketing tool."
-Seattle Male
"Class could go in many
directions, is it more of
luxury or utilitarian vehicle?"
-Seattle Female
"[In terms of vehicle class] I
was thinking coupe, sedan,
truck, hybrid, etc."
-Seattle Female
Phase 1 Focus Groups
-------
"/ had requirements about
type/make."-Seattle Male
"We looked for a certain safety
rating within a certain budget...
safety was really big for us we
had a nasty accident in our
family a few years ago"
-Seattle Female
"I went into it thinking price
and reliability, but then
reliability went out the window,
I went for price and style." -
Houston Male
Participants explained that their vehicle choice was primarily
governed by their individual needs and priorities and that they had
a general vehicle type in mind before they started searching. They
searched for information that was pertinent to that vehicle type, and
used the information to narrow down their choices to a vehicle that
they subsequently purchased. Further, the online survey revealed
that about 70% had a specific type of vehicle in mind when they
started looking for a new vehicle and the majority of those (81%)
said they ended up purchasing that vehicle type. Yet, when asked
on the online survey what vehicles they seriously considered before
making their final purchase decisions, most participants selected
vehicles that crossed traditional EPA vehicle classes. For example,
participants that considered purchasing a minivan were also likely
to consider an SUV.
According to the online survey, after vehicle type, the next most
important factor that influenced their vehicle choice was vehicle
price. .Seventy-seven percent of the participants across all groups
indicated that price/affordability was one of the top five factors
that influenced their vehicle choice. The other key factors that
influenced participants' vehicle choice included gas mileage/fuel
economy (60%), safety (52%), reliability (48%), size (46%),
interior and exterior appearance (43%), comfort (41%), brand
name (38%) and performance (31%). Only 9% of the participants
considered low emissions as key factor when they were making a
vehicle purchase decision.
These findings were further validated and explained in the focus
group discussions. Across all the cities, most participants said that
once shopping within their chosen vehicles, vehicle price was the
next factor considered when making a vehicle-purchase decision.
Once they found that the vehicle was affordable, they then
considered other factors such as fuel economy, safety, reliability,
size, appearance, etc. Some of the factors that were not included in
the online survey, but came up in discussions in some of the groups,
included past experience with the brand, brand loyalty, service and
resale value of the vehicle.
In about half of the focus groups, participants were asked if the
vehicle they selected met their two highest needs, whether they
would still buy it if it was in their opinion an ugly vehicle. Without
exception, participants said they would not.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
b. The part played by fuel economy
When it came to fuel economy, most (64% in the online survey
rated it 8 or higher on a 10 point scale) thought it was an important
consideration when choosing a new vehicle and two-thirds (67% in
the online survey) reported that they had searched for fuel economy
information before buying their most recent new vehicle. Their top
sources of fuel economy information (in the order as mentioned
most frequently in the online survey) included manufacturers'
Web sites (67%), Consumer Reports (58%), fuel economy label
on vehicles (58%), consulted others with similar vehicles (32%),
Edmunds.com (30%), auto magazines (30%), and auto dealers
(25%). With few exceptions focus group participants indicated
that the environmental impact of the vehicle did not affect the
type of vehicle they purchased. Even those who indicated they had
considered a hybrid vehicle discounted it for other factors such as
vehicle price and fuel economy when purchasing their new vehicle.
No major differences were found in the priority of factors that
influenced people's vehicle choice based on city or gender.
Eased on the above findings, it may be said that people start
with specific vehicles and/or vehicle types in mind and search for
information relevant to those particular vehicles or types. They
then start narrowing their choices with vehicle price being the next
most important factor in influencing one's vehicle choice regardless
of one's gender or geographic location. While fuel economy also
figures high on the consideration list, other factors such as safety,
size, brand loyalty, past experience with the brand, etc. also
have a strong influence on the purchase decision. At this time,
environmental impact does not impact one's vehicle preference
considerably. Eased on the online survey and focus group results,
it is also clear that participant's definitions of vehicle type and/or
vehicle class vary based on personal perceptions and do not match
EPA's typical vehicle type classifications.
Phase 1 Focus Groups
-------
"/ used the label more to
confirm, I already had an idea
when shopping for cars."
-Charlotte Female
"I knew that my prior car had also
been a Toyota and I had gotten
very good gas mileage, so when
it came time to get a new car,
I really didn't look too closely. I
don't recall what the numbers
were but they were in line with
what I was accustomed to."
- Houston Female
"If you're comfortable with
the car, you don't have to
pay attention to those kinds
of specifics, especially since
I owned a Honda Accord
previously." -Charlotte Male
"The economy is important. If
you looked at this two years ago,
it would be a lot more accurate.
But a year ago, gas was closer to
$4.1 thought this on the lot, at
$2.80- a gallon, the information
wasn't accurate."-Seattle Female
Current fuel economy label use
Participants across all the groups were asked if they had used
the fuel economy label (see Appendix C) when deciding on their
new vehicle purchase and whether they had noticed and/or used
the average annual fuel cost information on the label when they
purchased their most recent vehicle.
While the online survey found that the vast majority (91%)
reported using the fuel economy label when deciding on their new
vehicle, the focus group discussions revealed that some of these
participants had only briefly glanced at the label and did not really
use it when deciding on their new vehicle purchase. Most of the
participants explained that they mainly used the label to get city
and highway gas mileage estimates and used the information to
compare different vehicles within the same vehicle type.
While some used the 'comparison to other vehicles in class' slider
bar information to subsequently make a purchase decision, most
did not.
Online survey respondents considered the average annual fuel
cost information on the label to be less important information as
compared to the fuel economy information contained on the label.
Sixty-five percent rated 'estimated annual fuel cost' as one of the
top four pieces of information on the label compared to the fuel
economy information where 83% voted 'city mpg' as one of the
top four pieces of information and 80% voted 'highway mpg' as
one of the top four pieces of information.
The focus group discussions helped to explain this finding further.
According to most participants across all groups, the average annual
fuel cost estimate was not a useful piece of information. They
critiqued it for being an inaccurate measure of the actual fuel cost of
the vehicle because it did not take into consideration the fluctuating
price of gas. In addition, others mentioned that it did not reflect
their typical annual mileage or their typical city vs. highway driving
ratios. On the other hand, most thought that the fuel economy
information on the label (i.e., city/highway MPGs) provided them
with useful information for the accurate estimate of fuel cost, which
they could use to make a purchase decision based on their driving
style - whether they do more city versus highway driving.
10
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Of the few who used the average annual fuel cost information
on the label when they purchased their most recent vehicle, they
explained that they used this metric to compare different vehicles,
because the estimate was helpful in figuring how a vehicle fared
compared to other vehicles at a particular gas price. Some also said
that the use of a dollar amount to express fuel cost made it easy
for them to equate it with dollar savings without doing any math.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
people's use of the fuel economy label or the average annual fuel cost
information on the label when they were deciding on their new vehicle.
Based on the above findings, it may be said that participants currently
use the fuel economy label to compare different vehicles within the
vehicle type category and are more interested in information on city
and highway gas mileage estimates as compared to fuel cost estimates.
"I used fuel economy as
a criterion, but it wasn't a
decision factor. I used the
blended, combined fuel
economy, since that's the
majority of the driving I do...it
was the most realistic number
in our opinion." -Seattle Male
"I used the city mileage; I was
calculating how it would work
for me." -Chicago Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
11
-------
12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Fuel Consumption Metric
Perceptions about fuel consumption
Participants across all groups were asked what they thought of
when thinking about "fuel consumption." Based on focus group
discussions, it was found that when participants heard the terms
"fuel consumption" the following came to mind (in the order as
mentioned most frequently across all the focus groups):
• Gas mileage of the vehicle ("miles per gallon;" "how far
can one go on a full tank")
• Fuel cost ("cost of fuel per gallon;" "how much it would
cost to fill up a tank of gas")
• Frequency of filling gas ("how often they had to fill the tank")
A few participants also said that they thought about gasoline grades
("what type of gas does one fill - regular, mid grade, premium
grade"; "the fuel that one put into the vehicle").
When asked what MPG meant to them the vast majority of
participants across all the groups used the term 'MPG' to describe
fuel efficiency. All the participants were clear about what MPG meant
("how many miles one can drive on a gallon of gas") and thought
that the city and highway MPG information on the label was very
useful. When asked why the MPG information was useful to them,
they explained these estimates helped them to compare vehicles during
the vehicle purchasing process, and that it was easy to apply these to
their personal driving styles - whether they were going to do more city
versus highway driving, how far they drove to work, etc.
No major gender or city differences were found with regard to what
participants thought of when thinking about fuel consumption,
what MPG meant to them and whether they found the city and
highway MPG information useful or not.
Phase 1 Focus Groups 13
-------
Fuel Consumption
City Highway
BA CT 93llons Per ~7 ~7 gallons per
*~T. O 100 miles O. O 100 miles
(equal to 22 mpg) (equal to 30 mpg)
Rating
****
4 out of 5 stars (S being best)
Option 1A
Option IB
Option 1C
Basedon the above findings, itmay be saidthatmostoftenparticipants
think in terms of distance covered per gallon and 'miles per gallon'
estimates when they think about fuel consumption. People also find
the city and highway MPG information on the label to be useful in
comparing vehicles during the vehicle purchase process.
Fuel consumption rating understanding
This part of the discussion involved presenting the participants with
four fuel consumption design options and asking them to rate which
options they found to be most understandable and least understandable,
as well as which they thought had the most and least potential to
influence their consideration of a more fuel efficient vehicle.1 (See the
fuel consumption design options to the left and below. )2
Subsequently, the participants' ratings were tallied and a discussion
followed regarding the reasons behind their ratings. (See Appendix
D for participant tally scores for each group.)
The table below reflects the participants' ratings (across all the
groups) for the most understandable and least understandable
design options. In order to test if participants actually understood
the fuel consumption metrics they were probed on city vs. highway
gals/100 miles and on how this vehicle compares to others based
on the comparison information on the label designs. Routinely,
participants displayed understanding of this fuel consumption
information based on these tests.
Fuel Consumption
*
Option ID
i Although participants were asked about both the
'understandability of ' and the 'influence on purchasing
a fuel efficient vehicle' of each design option, it was
found that after discussing 'understandability' not
much was gained from the discussion of how design
options might influence their purchase of a fuel efficient
vehicle. Consequently, we focus our reporting on the
understandability of the design options.
It should be noted that the light gray stars on the Option 1
designs did not show up when copies were made for each
participant, although they did show on the large size of
the design shown on boards in each group. Consequently,
participants could readily see how many stars a vehicle was
rated, but not necessarily that it was out of a scale of 5 stars.
14
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Option Option Option Option
^1 1A IB 1C ID
All groups
combined
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall *
36
3
33
10
17
-7
10
25
-15
6
17
-11
*0verall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' minus
Number of times rated 'least understandable'
Based on the table above, it can be inferred that Option 1A was
perceived as the most understandable design option as compared
to the other designs. Interestingly, with the exception of female
participants in Seattle, Option 1A received the highest number of
votes across all groups. The reasons mentioned for why participants
preferred Option 1A include: it was simple, straightforward and to-
the-point; the star ratings used in Option 1A was a familiar system
that was clear, concise, readily understandable and catches people's
attention; the black and white format used in the design was easy to
read; and the image of the gas pump was helpful in associating the
design with fuel economy. The few participants who disliked Option
1A said that the star ratings did not give them information regarding
the 'best' and 'worst' vehicles in regard to fuel consumption (as in
Option 1C) and therefore was not as informative.
Those participants who thought Option IB was the most
understandable design said that it was eye-catching and clearly
conveyed the rating of the vehicle. On the contrary, female
participants in Houston and Charlotte voted Option IB as the
least understandable design more often than participants in the
other groups. The reasons why participants disliked Option IB
included: it was confusing and looked too busy and distracting;
the '8' was too big and the rest of the information was too small
which made it difficult to follow; and the graphics and the use of red
were unappealing. Some also mentioned that because IB was more
elaborate than the basic black and white design of option 1A, that
they disliked it because it was perceived as being too 'sales' oriented.
The few participants who thought Option ID was the most
understandable said that it looked clean and they could easily
understand the information presented in this option. Participants
in Charlotte, female participants in Seattle and male participants
"The rating with the stars is
something we can understand
better because we're used to
seeing it in other ratings."
-Charlotte Female
"There was no confusion. Even
if one doesn't understand the
numbers, they can relate to the
star rating." -Chicago Male
"The eight, if you just look at it
quickly, you wouldn't know what
it was." -Houston Female
"To me, in IB, the graphics
overwhelm, it's too colorful,
the font is too small."
-Houston Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
15
-------
Option 1C- vertical
It should be noted that as
we moved from city to city
conducting the focus groups
we tried to improve how we
presented and illustrated he
'mpg illusion' information. By
the time we concluded the focus
groups in Seattle the approach
used seemed to work fairly
well, but still required a lot of
explanation by the moderator.
in Chicago voted Option ID as the least understandable design
more often than participants in other groups. The reasons why
participants disliked Option ID included: it was confusing, difficult
to follow and understand, seemed to include "too many numbers";
and the design format was unappealing and did not appear to be
representing fuel consumption at first glance.
Option 1C was perceived as the least understandable design.
Participants in Chicago, male participants in Houston and Seattle
voted Option 1C as the least understandable design more often
than participants in other groups. The reasons why participants
disliked Option 1C included: the 'gallons per 100 miles' as the
metric for fuel consumption was difficult to grasp (especially
when presented in the slider scale format unique to this design),
the slider scale was confusing and hard to understand with '10'
representing 'worst' and 2 representing 'best' (although this was
somewhat more understandable when the slider was presented in a
vertical orientation); the black and orange color format was "too
colorful" and appeared like a warning sign. Those participants
who liked Option 1C and chose it as their most understandable
design explained that they preferred the sliding scale over the star
rating (in Option 1 A) because it provided them a frame of reference
regarding the best and worst vehicles on the market. A few also
said that they liked the background used in Option 1C and thought
it was catchy.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option 1A was
perceived as the most understandable fuel consumption design and
Option 1C was perceived as the least understandable design. In essence,
participants preferred a design that they thought was informative and
presented information in a simple and familiar format.
Understanding the MPG Illusion
Participants were reminded of the example of the 'MPG Illusion'
from the pre-group online survey. The moderator then used several
approaches3 to explain the MPG Illusion and probed on the
participants' understanding of why 'gallons per 100 miles' was a
superior metric of fuel consumption compared to MPG. Further,
they were asked if gallons per 100 miles (instead of MPG) would
get them to switch to a different class of vehicle and whether they
preferred gallons per 100 miles or MPG.
16
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Regardless of how it was explained, most participants initially
had difficulty understanding the MPG Illusion and why 'gallons
per 100 miles' may be a superior measure of fuel consumption.
However, even those who eventually did understand still preferred
MPG. According to them, they were used to thinking in terms of
MPG and were therefore more comfortable using it.
Subsequently, only a few said 'yes' when asked if gallons per 100
miles (instead of MPG) would get them to switch to a different type
of vehicle. Those who said 'no' explained that their vehicle choice
was greatly governed by the type vehicle they were looking to
purchase and most vehicles in that grouping gave similar mileage.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' preference for using MPG over gallons per 100 miles
in spite of understanding the MPG Illusion.
Based on the above findings, it may be said that understanding
the MPG illusion is extremely difficult to achieve and does not
necessarily lead people to switch to a different type of vehicle
nor does it make them prefer gallons per 100 miles over MPG. In
essence, people prefer familiarity over facts.
Use of fuel consumption metric in vehicle
choice
Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/
why not) they would use the information on fuel consumption
(presented in terms of 'gallons per 100 miles) on the label in their
vehicle purchase decision.
While some participants said that they would use the fuel
consumption information on the label to learn about the vehicle's
city and highway gas consumption and use these estimates to
compare different vehicles in order to make a purchase decision,
there were others who did not show much enthusiasm about using
this information on the label.
Phase 1 Focus Groups 17
-------
"/ already know this information
before I go to the dealer."
-Seattle Female
"I was actively looking for a fuel
efficient vehicle, so it would
sway me, but if you're looking
for a sports car or truck, it's
almost something you don't
want to see." - Charlotte Male
Of those who said that they were less likely to use the fuel
consumption information on the label, some said that fuel
consumption was not really important to them because they drove
infrequently and/or drove short distances. Others said that they
were more likely to research about the fuel consumption of vehicles
on the Internet before they visited the dealers' showroom and
looked at actual fuel economy labels.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' likelihood to use the information on fuel consumption
on the label in their vehicle purchase decision.
In conclusion, it may be said that people vary with regard to their
likelihood to use the fuel consumption information on the label in
making purchase decisions.
18
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Fuel Cost Metric
Most useful framing of fuel cost
Participants were told that the current label showed fuel cost in
terms of annual costs and asked if there were other ways to express
fuel cost that they thought would be more useful to them. When
asked in this open-ended fashion, participants across all groups
said they thought about 'how much it cost to fill up the vehicle's
tank.' In addition, some participants said they thought about cost
over time ("how much is it going to cost daily/each week/each
month") and cost over distance travelled ("cost per mile"; "cost
per 100 miles"; "cost per every 5000 miles").
However, after being shown the following options on the rating sheet
it was found that close to one-third (30%) preferred annual costs.
Over one-fourth (26%) said that they preferred a monthly estimate
for fuel cost. Fifteen percent reported that they preferred cost per
100 miles and another 13% said that they liked weekly and per
mile (each). Only 4% said that they liked a 5-year fuel cost estimate.
However, across all the groups, there was skepticism around the fuel
cost metric. Many participants said the fuel cost estimate was an
inaccurate measure of the actual fuel cost of the vehicle because it
did not take into consideration the fluctuating price of gas.
While those who preferred annual cost said that they were used
to looking at cost from a yearly perspective, those who preferred
monthly costs said that it was in line with their other monthly
household payments (such as monthly rent payment) and helped
them in planning their monthly budgets. According to participants
who preferred 'per mile' and 'per 100 miles,' these estimates gave
them cost information in terms of the distance travelled which in
turn was easy to understand and did not require them to perform
mathematical conversions to calculate fuel costs, as did the cost
metrics based on time (per month, per year, etc.). Those who
"Cosf ;'s irrelevant, because of
the way gas prices are. Cost per
tank helps me figure out my
budget, because I fill up every
two weeks." - Charlotte Female
"Monthly works, because
that's how I think of rent."
- Chicago Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
19
-------
Fuel Cost
Annual
$1
Q f~\ f^. Estimated fuel cost based on 15.000
, O Vj U miles per year at $3.00 per gallon.
Rating
***
3 out of 5 stars (5 being best)
Option 3A
$1800^
Based on 15.000 miles per year
at $3 00 per gallon
Option 3B
Option 3C
Option 3D
preferred cost per 100 miles also added that the metric was in line
with 'gallons per 100 miles' and helped in attaining uniformity
across the fuel consumption and fuel cost metrics.
No major gender or city differences were found with regard to
participants' preference for the unit of analysis for expressing the
cost-metric.
In summary, it may be said that although participants tend to think
of fuel costs in terms of 'cost to fill my tank,' they recognize that
this is not a good comparison metric when shopping for a new
vehicle since tank sizes vary by vehicle. For comparison purposes,
participants preferred annual and monthly estimates of fuel cost
over other cost metrics because they were used to looking at cost
from these perspectives. However, there is general skepticism about
the fuel cost metric and few considered it to be an accurate measure.
Fuel cost rating understanding
This part of the discussion involved presenting the participants with
four fuel cost design options and asking them to rate which options
they found to be most understandable and least understandable. (See
the fuel cost design options to the left). Subsequently, the participants'
ratings were tallied and a discussion followed regarding the reasons
behind their ratings. (See Appendix E for participant tally scores per
group). In order to test if participants actually understood the fuel
cost metrics, they were probed on the cost per year and on how this
vehicle compares to others based on the comparison information on
the label designs. Routinely, participants displayed understanding of
this fuel cost information based on these tests.
On tallying, the participants' ratings (across all the groups) reflected
the following as most understandable and least understandable:
20
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Option Option Option Option
^1 3A 3B 3C 3D
All groups
combined
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall *
34
1
33
9
17
-8
17
20
-3
2
23
-21
*0verall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' minus
Number of times rated 'least understandable'
Based on the table above, it can be inferred that Option 3A (star
system) was perceived as the most understandable design option as
compared to the other designs. Interestingly, with the exception of
participants in Seattle and male participants in Charlotte, Option 3A
received the highest number of votes across all the other groups. The
reasons why participants across all the groups thought Option 3A
was the most understandable included: it was simple, straightforward
and to-the-point; the star ratings used in Option 3A was a familiar
system that was clear, concise, readily understandable, and caught
people's attention; and the black and white format was easy to
read. The one participant who disliked Option 3 A said that the star
ratings did not give them information on the range of best and worst
vehicles in regard to fuel costs (as in Option 3C).
Those participants who thought Option 3C was the most
understandable design explained that they liked the sliding scale
used in this option (it provided them a frame of reference in regard
to the 'worst' and 'best' vehicles for fuel cost). They also thought
it was concise, clear, informative and easy to understand. In
addition, some said that they liked the "$" sign, graphics and color
format used in Option 3C and thought it caught their attention.
On the contrary, participants in Chicago and female participants
in Charlotte voted Option 3C as the least understandable design
more often than participants in the other groups. The reasons why
participants disliked Option 3 C included: it was complicated relative
to the simpler star design, distracting and was difficult to grasp at
a glance; the sliding scale was confusing and hard to understand
with '$4,500' representing 'worst' and '$500' representing 'best';
and the graphics and the color format were "too dark," cluttered
and "too busy". Several participants suggested reversing the sliding
scale so that 'worst' was on the right and 'best' on the left' to make
it less confusing.
"3A is black and white, clear. I
get nervous when there's a lot
of information." -Chicago Male
"3A is standard, easy. Nothing
difficult to understand."
-Chicago Female
"3C is the best indication of
how much it will cost me. Could
see it right away what the worst
was."-Seattle Male
"3C is not reader friendly -
there's too much stuff. The
scale, the lower number on right
was strange."-Charlotte Female
"I hate the graph [3C], how
it goes backwards, with the
largest number on the left. The
graph should be reversed."
-Houston Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
21
-------
"3B gave the range. I knew
what the $1800 meant." -
Seattle Male
"It took me some time to figure
it out [3B]. If I have to take the
time, I won't figure it out." -
Houston Female
"3D is overly simplistic, empty."
- Seattle Male
"The weird sliding scale is not
attractive and hard to decipher
[3D]. People want to read it
quickly and this takes too much
time and effort to figure it out."
- Houston Female
The few participants who thought Option 3B was the most
understandable said that it was concise, straightforward and easy
to understand. They also said that they liked the graphics (the
"dollar bills" background) used in this option and thought it was
attention-grabbing. As for those who thought Option 3B was
least understandable, male participants in Charlotte and Houston
voted Option 3B as the least understandable design more often
than participants in other groups. Their reasons included: it was
vague, confusing, "too busy", difficult to follow and understand;
and the design format was "too colorful," cluttered, unappealing
and did not appear to be representing fuel cost at first glance.
Option 3D emerged to be the least understandable design.
Participants in Seattle, male participants in Charlotte and Chicago,
and female participants in Houston voted Option 3D as the least
understandable design more often than participants in other
groups. The reasons why participants disliked Option 3D included:
the scale was confusing and hard to understand (the '$' sign in
front of the scale made it seem like the scale was measuring dollar
amount); the font was too small, the format was "too simple", and
had lots of empty space and was unappealing.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option 3A was
perceived to be the most understandable fuel cost design and
Option 3D was perceived as the least understandable design.
However, there was some support for the sliding scale from the
3C design and several participants suggested including it on the
3A design in some way. The most understandable design was
simple, straight forward, concise, and clearly pertained to cost. The
least understandable were designs people found to be confusing,
distracting, and complicated. In essence, participants preferred a
design that they thought was informative and that presented the
information in a simple and familiar format.
Use of fuel cost metric in vehicle purchase
Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/
why not) they would use the information on fuel cost in their
vehicle purchase decision if it were available on the label.
22
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Many participants across all groups said that they would use the
fuel cost information on the label to learn about the vehicle's fuel
efficiency in terms of dollars and use these numbers to compare
different vehicles in order to make a purchase decision.
However, there were others who did not show much enthusiasm
for using this information on the label. Of these, some said that
they considered the fuel cost estimate to be an inaccurate measure
(because it did not take into consideration the fluctuating cost of
gas) and hence were skeptical of using it. Others said that they
were more likely to research fuel cost estimates of vehicles on the
Internet before they visited the dealers' showroom and looked at
the actual fuel economy labels.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' likelihood to use the information on fuel cost on the
label in their vehicle purchase decision.
In summary, it may be said that some people are likely to use the
fuel cost information on the label in comparing vehicles during
the vehicle purchase process. However, in general, the fuel cost
information was suspect because of fluctuating fuel prices.
"I would use the label to verify
what I looked at online."
- Seattle Male
"The label by itself won't
influence me, but it is one
piece of information."
-Chicago Male
"This type of information at the
dealer does me no good; I go
online to do the comparison.
So the pretty picture means
nothing to me." - Seattle Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
23
-------
24 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Environment Metric
Environment rating understanding
Participants were asked if the environmental impact of a vehicle in any
way impacted their purchasing decision. Some participants indicated
it did, with a sub-section of these indicating they had considered
hybrid vehicles for this reason. Even for those who indicated
concern for the environment, it seemed that economic considerations
were more important than concerns about environmental impact.
However, the vast majority of participants did not use environmental
impact as a part of their purchasing decision.
Participants were then presented with four environment metric design
options and asked to rate which options they found to be most
understandable and least understandable. (See the environment metric
design options on the next page). Subsequently, the participants' ratings
were tallied and a discussion followed regarding the reasons behind
their ratings. (See Appendix F for participant tally scores per group).
In order to test if participants actually understood the environmental
metrics they were probed on how many grams of CO2 and on how
this vehicle compares to others based on the comparison information
on the label designs. Routinely, participants displayed understanding
of how this vehicle compared to others, but did not understand what
grams of CO referred to.
"For me it goes hand in hand
with fuel economy, if it saves fuel
costs, it's probably better for the
environment."-Seattle Male
"I own a hybrid. Even though the
Prius cost a little more, it came
down to the numbers, how much
I would save. The environmental
aspect was as bonus."
-Charlotte Male
"If cost was same, if the car was
affordable, I would consider the
one that had less impact."
- Charlotte Male
"I care about the environment,
but when it comes to money, I
have to put my pocket book first.
The environment isn't going to
pay my bills." - Charlotte Female
Phase 1 Focus Groups
25
-------
Option 4C
On tallying, the participants' ratings (across all the groups) reflected
the following, as most understandable and least understandable:
Option Option Option Option
^H 4A 4B 4C 4D
All groups
combined
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall *
24
3
21
12
10
2
22
16
6
4
31
-27
*0verall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' minus
Number of times rated 'least understandable'
As reflected in the table above, it can be inferred that Option 4A
(star system) was perceived to be the most understandable design
option, closely followed by Option 4C. Interestingly, with the
exception of participants in Seattle, female participants in Chicago
and male participants in Charlotte, Option 4A received the highest
number of votes across the other four groups. The reasons why
participants across all the groups liked Option 4A included: it
was simple, concise and easy to read; and the star ratings used in
Option 4A was a familiar system that was clear, straightforward,
readily understandable, and caught people's attention. The few
participants who disliked Option 4A said that the star ratings did
not give them the range of CO2 information (as in Option 4C)
and was not informative enough. Suggestions for improving 4A
included using green as the star color.
Environment
OO^L grams/mile
4 out of 5 stars (5 being best)
USlPAClrtlfinl
>SmartWay
Option 4A
Option 4D
26
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Overall Option 4C was tallied as the second most understandable,
with male participants in Charlotte, and female participants in Seattle
voted Option 4C as the most understandable design more often than
participants in other groups. The reasons why participants liked
Option 4C included: it was clear, to-the-point, readily understandable
and attractive; the sliding scale was easy to read and provided the
reader a frame of reference in addition to range of CO2 information
for an environment metric; the green and black color format with the
picture of a leaf was appealing and was symbolic of the environment.
On the contrary, participants in Chicago and male participants in
Houston voted Option 4C as the least understandable design more
often than participants in other groups. The reasons why participants
disliked Option 4C included: it was complicated and difficult to grasp
at a glance; the sliding scale was confusing and hard to understand
with '888' representing 'worst' and '178' representing 'best' since
higher is usually associated with better; the concept of CO2 grams was
in and of itself difficult to understand; and the graphics and the color
format were "too dark" (some suggested it reminded them of smog),
cluttered and unappealing. Suggestions for improving 4C included
using a different background color and not using black as the leaf
color. Some participants suggested that including a rating on the label
(such as the star rating in 4A or the number rating in 4B) would be
helpful since the concept of CO2 grams was not well understood.
As for those who thought Option 4B was most understandable, male
participants in Seattle and female participants in Chicago voted it
as the most understandable design more often than participants
in other groups. The reasons why participants liked Option 4B
included: it was clear and easy to read; the rating "8" was attention
grabbing and easily understood; and the green color format was
symbolic of the environment. On the contrary, the participants who
disliked Option 4B said that it was vague, confusing, "too busy",
and difficult to follow and understand. They also found the design
format to be unappealing.
Option 4D emerged to be the least understandable design as
compared to the other designs. Participants in Seattle and Charlotte,
and female participants in Houston voted Option 4D as the least
understandable design more often than other groups. The reasons
why participants disliked Option 4D included: it was confusing,
not reader-friendly and "poorly-laid out"; the scale was hard to
understand; and the format was "too plain" and unappealing.
"[4A] I wasn't sure about the
information it's measuring, but
the stars make sense."
-Seattle Male
"[4C] I don't understand the
numbers. Its unfamiliar to me,
so to have a graph of it doesn't
make sense."-Chicago Male
"[4B] This is a new kind of thing
people are measuring. I don't
really know what it is, so the 8 is
helpful."- Seattle Female
"4B puts the emphasis on the
wrong thing. The 352 is the
important number."
- Charlotte Female
"I don't know what these
numbers mean. There needs to
be something to indicate what
is good or bad, such as 'most
efficient or least efficient,' 'most
polluting or least polluting. Use
the ends of the scale to explain
it."- Charlotte Female
Phase 1 Focus Groups
27
-------
"C02 is the one you hear most
about, I wouldn't add anything
else."- Charlotte Female
"C02 is the basic one, no others
needed." - Chicago Female
"Would need to know more what
it's about - it's meaningful if you
know that only a few vehicles get
the ranking."-Seattle Female
"If I knew what the threshold was
for the SmartWay certification it
would mean something more to
me." - Houston Female
Use of terms 'environment' and C02
Participants across all the groups were asked what the term
environment meant to them, whether there was a better word to
use, if the label needed to include information on pollutants other
than CO2 and whether they would use that information in making
their vehicle choice.
Many participants across all the groups said that they thought
about air quality, air pollution and global warming when they
thought of the word 'environment' relative to vehicle emissions. A
few participants also said that they thought about carbon footprint.
The majority of participants said that the word 'environment' on
the label worked for them. When asked to identify other terms,
suggestions included: 'emissions', 'eco-friendly', 'environmental
rating', 'green', and 'air quality'. A few suggested 'clean air',
'energy-efficient', 'green footprint' and 'longevity'. However, none
of these suggestions were considered by participants to be better
than 'environment'.
Most participants across all groups indicated that they did not
understand CO2 and having other pollutants listed would not have
greater influence on their purchasing decision. They also indicated
that they did not need to know the 'science' behind environmental
ratings - "just give us a rating." In addition, some participants
expressed that they trusted the EPA to make sure that vehicles met
environmental requirements.
Participants were also asked if they knew what the 'SmartWay' logo
stood for and whether it would influence their buying decision.
None of the participants recognized the logo. When asked what
they thought it meant, some participants made the assumption
that 'SmartWay' was an EPA certification and was similar to
'EnergyStar.' They further expressed that it probably represented
an EPA certified environmentally friendly car. Some participants
indicated the logo had the potential of drawing credibility toward
a vehicle. Interestingly, none of the participants indicated that they
would be less likely to choose a vehicle if the logo was not on the
label. They stated that they attached more importance to other
factors such as vehicle class, price, fuel economy, etc. and could
discount the "environmental impact" factor relative to these other
factors. Importantly, several participants suggested that the absence
28
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
of the 'SmartWay' logo on a vehicle would have little impact until
consumers became aware of its meaning and actively looked for
the logo. Some even suggested a statement on the fuel economy
label designating a vehicle as 'not SmartWay certified' so that its
designation was clear.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to what
participants thought of when thinking about environment, whether
the label needed to include information on pollutants other than
CO2, and what they thought about the 'SmartWay' logo.
Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option 4A was the
most understandable environment rating design. However, 4C might
easily become more preferred with the suggested modifications.
Option 4D emerged as the least understandable design. Participants
preferred a design that was informative and presented information
in a simple and familiar format. Further, participants stated that
the use of the term 'environment' and reporting just the CO2 count
on the label worked for them as they wanted the label to be easy to
read and understand. As participants struggle with understanding
the meaning of CO2, they stated that having additional information
on other pollutants included on the label would not influence their
vehicle purchasing decision. Finally, participants felt an overall
environmental impact designation was of most value and liked the
idea of the 'SmartWay' logo, but suggested that significant public
education will be needed to inform the public of its meaning.
Use of environmental impact in vehicle
choice
Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/
why not) they would use the environment information on the label
in their vehicle purchase decision. They were also asked if they
would go to a website (if so directed on the label) and use this
information in their vehicle choice if it was not on the label.
While some participants said that they would use environmental
impact information on the label to compare different vehicles, the
majority of individuals did not show much enthusiasm about using
this information on the label. According to the latter, environmental
impact of driving a vehicle was not really important to them because
"How much the number means
depends on how much you care
about the environment."
- Seattle Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
29
-------
"It would all depend on price
and style. It's part of the bigger
package you consider when you're
shopping." - Seattle Female
"It's a nice to have, not a need to
have."- Chicago Male
"It wouldn't sway me, if I wanted
that car, it wouldn't change my
mind."- Chicago Female
they gave more precedence to other factors such as vehicle class,
cost, fuel economy, appearance, brand loyalty, etc. Consequently,
participants across all groups indicated they were not likely to visit
a website for environmental information. In fact, when asked if
they could only have two of the three discussed metrics on the
label, the vast majority of participants chose fuel consumption and
fuel cost over environmental impact.
No major city or gender differences were found with regard to
participants' likelihood to use the environmental impact information
on the label in their vehicle purchase decision, and whether they
would go to a website for this information if it was not on the label.
In summary, it may be said that most people said they will not
be very likely to use the environmental impact information on the
label, although they were open to the presence of such information
on the label, and indicated they would not visit a website for this
information in making their vehicle purchase decisions.
30
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Overall Findings
Gender and Location Affects
Based on the results of these Phase 1 focus groups, no systematic
gender or city location differences were found. Those reported here
appear to be random, but will be further tracked and reviewed as
Phases 2 and 3 of the focus groups are completed.
Vehicle Choice Process and Current Label Use
People actively begin the vehicle purchasing process with specific
vehicles and/or vehicle types in mind that fit their individual
need and preferences. They then search for relevant information
to help narrow their vehicle choices. Participants stated that the
next important factor they considered when determining which
vehicle they ultimately purchased was vehicle price followed by
fuel economy regardless of one's gender or geographic location. .
Based on the online survey and focus group results, it is also clear
that participant's used the terms vehicle type and vehicle class
interchangeably and defined vehicle type and/or vehicle class based
on personal perceptions. Participant's vehicle type classifications
were typically broad and did not coincide with EPA's typical vehicle
type classifications.
When participants used the fuel economy label to compare different
vehicles they primarily relied on city and highway gas mileage estimates.
While fuel economy figured high on the consideration list, there were
other factors such as safety, reliability, size, comfort, performance,
brand name, brand loyalty, past experience with the brand, etc. that
also influenced vehicle purchase decisions. Environmental impact did
not seem to significantly impact vehicle choice.
Phase 1 Focus Groups 31
-------
Fuel Consumption Metric
Most often participants thought in terms of distance covered per
gallon and 'miles per gallon' estimates when they thought about
fuel consumption. They also recognized that this reliance is in-part
due to this being the only metric they have ever used.
Option 1A (star system) was perceived as the most understandable
design for communicating fuel consumption, with Option 1C
being the least understandable. Participants preferred the Option
1A design because it was informative and presented information
in a simple and familiar format. Part of the reason they found
Option 1C least understandable was because of the difficulty
of understanding 'gallons per 100 miles' as a measure of fuel
consumption especially when presented in the slider scale design of
Option 1C. However, when shown the 1C slider scale in a vertical
orientation (with best at the top and worst at the bottom; see
Appendix K) understandability increased. Nonetheless, even those
who understood the MPG Illusion preferred 'MPG' over 'gallons
per 100 miles' in large part because it was so familiar to them.
However, most participants were open to including 'gallons per 100
miles' as long as the font to display it and MPG were of the same
size (as opposed to having MPG in small font and in parentheses
underneath the 'gallons per 100 miles' metric).
Fuel Cost Metric
Participants preferred annual and monthly estimates of fuel cost
over other "time" cost metrics because they were used to looking at
cost from these perspectives. However, there is general skepticism
around the fuel cost metric due to the fluctuating cost of gasoline.
Option 3A (star system) was perceived as the most understandable
fuel cost design and Option 3D was the least understandable
design. In essence, participants preferred a design that they thought
was informative and that presented the information in a simple
and familiar format. It should be noted that compared to the fuel
consumption design option that showed a scale with best and worst
fuel consumption based on 'gallons per 100 miles', there was more
support for Option 3C (scale showing best and worst fuel cost
vehicles) because participants had an easier time understanding
'dollars' compared to 'gallons per 100 miles.'
32 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Environment Metric
Option 4A (star system) emerged as the most understandable
environment metric design and Option 4D was the least understandable
design. Again, participants preferred a design that they thought was
informative and that presented the information in a simple and
familiar format. Option 4C was a very close second choice. Adopting
the suggestions provided by participants for improving 4C might
make this a preferred choice. However, many participants were less
interested in a scale (such as in Option 4C) that showed the best and
worst vehicles in regard to CO2 emissions. This was, in part, because
grams of CO2 has little meaning to them and because environmental
impact is of much less importance in their vehicle choice process
(compared to fuel consumption and fuel cost).
Although participants did not know what 'SmartWay' was, they
eventually figured out as the discussion progressed, that inclusion
of the 'SmartWay' logo was an important EPA certification to
designate environmentally friendly vehicles, but significant public
education will be needed to inform the public of its meaning.
Overall Label Design
The one thing that participants across all groups said that they
wanted to see on a full label was the fuel consumption information
expressed in terms of MPG. They explained that they were used to
the MPG system and that it would take time for them to adopt other
metrics, including 'gallons per 100 miles.' Further, they added that
the city and highway gas mileage estimates were important pieces
of information that helped them to compare vehicles based on their
driving styles, and was something that needed to be prominent on
the label. When asked to determine which of the three metrics (fuel
consumption, fuel cost, environmental impact) they would include
on a label if they could only have two of them, participants across
all groups chose fuel consumption and fuel cost. With regard to
the use of graphics and color, many participants said that the black
and white format (in design Option A) was appealing for the fuel
consumption and cost part of the label. According to them, such
a format made the information appear "clean" and "informative,"
and did not make it look like someone was trying to "sell" them
something. Several mentioned that it was also similar in look to
the current label. Across all the groups, participants liked the gas
Phase 1 Focus Groups 33
-------
pump icon, the "$" sign, and the green leaf and said that they could
easily associate each of these with fuel consumption, fuel cost, and
environmental impact respectively. However, across the groups there
was also a minority who thought that the star system did not give
them enough information and recommended including the scale
from the C design options (showing best and worst vehicles in regard
to fuel consumption and cost, and possibly environmental impact).
While some participants said that the statement about the
availability of the Fuel Economy Guide was useful, many others
did not show much enthusiasm toward it. The latter said that they
would do their research about the vehicles before they visit the
dealer's showroom and having this information on the label would
not affect their decision.
The issue of comparison to 'all vehicles' and/or comparison
'within class' was discussed in all groups. It should be noted
that participants used the terms 'vehicle class' and 'vehicle type'
interchangeably and how they grouped vehicles by type or class
varied and did not necessarily match the typical EPA vehicle
classes. Nonetheless, when shown the label design options, most
assumed that the comparison metrics referred to 'within class'
(when in fact they referred to 'all vehicles'). With the exception of
female participants in Chicago and male participants in Houston,
participants in the all groups preferred seeing both 'within class'
and 'all vehicles' information for fuel consumption and fuel cost on
the label. They explained that including both sets of information for
fuel consumption and cost gave them more and better information
to make vehicle comparisons. The remaining participants said that
they preferred only 'within class' information for fuel consumption
and fuel cost metrics on the label. According to these participants,
the standard of comparison was fair when comparison was done
within class ("comparing within class means comparing apples to
apples"). However, this comparison is complicated by participant's
varied definitions of what constitutes a 'vehicle type' or 'vehicle
class' and that those definitions are not consistent with EPA vehicle
type classifications. When probed whether they would feel guilty
if the vehicle they recently purchased had ratings that showed
that it rated better 'within class,' but worse when compared to
'all vehicles,' almost all disagreed. Participants explained that
vehicle type played a crucial role in their vehicle choice process and
vehicles within a particular type had similar range estimates for
fuel consumption and fuel cost.
34 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Recommendations regarding metrics
and label design
The following recommendations are based on the overall results
of the Phase 1 focus groups and reflect findings regarding metric
and label design understanding, preferences, as well as metric and
design options to which participants are open.
• Give prominence to fuel consumption, followed by fuel
cost and environment metric.
• Retain the black and white format for the fuel consumption
and fuel cost metric, and use the color green in communicating
the environment part of the label.
• For the fuel consumption part of the label:
• Use MPG estimates as the primary metric for fuel
consumption. If there is a desire to introduce 'gallons
per 100 miles' estimates, do so in a way that positions
it as additional information and use the same font size
for presenting the MPG and gallons per 100 miles
information.
• Utilize external marketing and education activities to
help consumers understand the value and benefit of
using gallons per 100 miles.
• Provide both city and highway gas mileage estimates.
• Provide both "within class" and "all vehicles" comparison
scales for fuel consumption.
• Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as
well) for easy comparison:
• To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring
of stars.
• Make the sliding scale into a vertical scale with the
worst at the bottom and best at top.
• Use better descriptors (such as "best fuel consumption",
"worst fuel consumption") to explain the tail ends
of the scale.
Phase 1 Focus Groups 35
-------
• Mention EPA as the source for the fuel consumption ratings.
For the fuel cost part of the label:
• Use bigger and bolder font compare to that used on some
of the labels to describe annual fuel cost.
• Provide both "within class" and "all vehicles" comparison
scales for fuel consumption.
• Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as well)
for easy comparison:
• To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring of
stars.
• Make the sliding scale into a vertical scale with the
worst at the bottom of the scale and best at the top
• Use better descriptors (such as "most cost efficient",
"least cost efficient") to explain the tail ends of the
scale.
• Mention EPA as the source for the fuel cost ratings.
For the environment part of the label:
• Use green for this part of the label and change the color of
the stars to green.
• Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as well)
for easy comparison:
• To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring of
stars.
• Make the sliding scale into a vertical scale with the
worst at the bottom of the scale and best at the top.
• Use better descriptors (such as "most polluting", "least
polluting") to explain the tail ends of the scale.
• Mention EPA as the source for the environment ratings.
• Include the Smart Way logo for those vehicles that are certified.
• Conduct an education/marketing campaign to increase
awareness and value in the SmartWay logo.
36 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendices
Appendix A: Moderator Guide
Introduction (8 minutes)
Moderator introduces herself/himself.
• [Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we can learn
more in-depth about peoples' ideas and opinions (compared to
telephone or written surveys).
• My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everyone
has an opportunity to speak and to make sure that no one
dominates the conversation.
• Mention observers in separate room.
• Housekeeping - Toilets and refreshments.
• Mention ground rules:
• There is no right or wrong answer; we're interested in your
honest and candid opinions and ideas.
• Our discussion is totally confidential. We will not use your
name or contact information in any report.
• Our discussion today is being recorded. These recordings
allow us to write a more complete report, and to make sure
we accurately reflect your opinions. However, please only
speak one at a time, so that the recorder can pick up all
your comments.
• It is important to tell YOUR thoughts, not what you think
others will think, or what you think others want to hear.
• Please turn off cell phones
• Your stipend will be provided as you leave.
• Relax and enjoy
Thank you all for participating in the survey we sent to you in
advance. Today we will continue the discussion talking about new
car purchases. Any questions before we begin?
Phase 1 Focus Groups 37
-------
Let's start off by getting to know a little more about each other.
I'd like us to go around the room with each person answering the
following questions:
• Your first name
• When did you buy your last new vehicle?
• What type of vehicle did you buy recently (make and
model)?
• Did you consider buying a hybrid, or clean diesel, or some
other alternative fuel vehicle?
Current Label Use (8 minutes)
1. What were the top two things that influenced your vehicle
choice?
2. Did you have a specific vehicle in mind when you started
shopping for a vehicle? Is that the vehicle you ended up
purchasing? Why or why not?
3. In what 'class' of vehicles is the vehicle you ended up
purchasing? What do we mean by 'class of vehicle'? Is there a
better term to use to get at this issue? What better terms?
4. Did you use the fuel economy label when deciding on your
new vehicle purchase? Why or why not? How did you use it?
Then show participants a large size example of the current
label (as well as 8 xll copy for each participant) and ask
what information on the label most influenced their purchasing
decision. Probe briefly on why.
Fuel Consumption Metric (37 minutes)
SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS
COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC. THEN EXPLAIN THAT
WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR A NEW LABEL
SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE PART OF A TOTAL
LABEL.
5. When you think of fuel consumption, how do you think
about it? (Listen for mpg, miles per tank full, gallons to go a
particular distance, how often they have to fill the tank.)
6. The current label includes mpg for both city and highway. What
does mpg mean to you? Is this useful information? Why or why not?
38 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
7. (Hand out the fuel consumption metric work sheets and the
individual copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on
large boards.)
a. Would any of the four options make you more likely to
purchase a fuel efficient vehicle? (Have them indicate
which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT discuss yet.)
LISTEN FOR CONCERNS ABOUT MPG BEING DE-
EMPHASIZED. ASSURE THEM THAT IT IS HERE TO
STAY AND THAT THE LABEL COULD SHOW MPG AND
GAL/100 Ml IN THE SAME SIZE FONT (SHOW LABEL
EXAMPLE OF THIS.)
b. Then instruct them to "indicate on your worksheet
which option is most understandable and which is least
understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points
explaining why."
c. Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion
regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which of
the 4 options explains fuel consumption most effectively?
Test correct interpretation of metrics by asking what the
metrics mean, if they are 'easy to understand'. Test to
include probing on: city vs. highway gals/100 miles, how
does this vehicle compare to others?)
d. Then tally from 7a above and ask which of the 4 options,
if any, would make you more likely to purchase a fuel
efficient vehicle. (Probe on why)
8. If the label had a sentence that said:
• In the city, this vehicle would use approximately 4.5
gallons of gasoline to travel 100 miles.
• On the highway, this vehicle would use approximately 3.3
gallons of gasoline to travel 100 miles.
Would that be more helpful or less helpful compared to the
metric that appears on the label? Why?
9. Can you suggest other ways to express this information
visually?
10. If this information was available on the label, would you use it
in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why
not? If so, at what point?
Phase 1 Focus Groups 39
-------
11. All of the options we've shown you include a comparison to
all other vehicles. Does having this assist you in choosing the
most fuel efficient new vehicle? Why or why not? Is it useful
to also have such a fuel consumption comparison in regard
to vehicles in your class? Why or why not? Is it too much
information?
12. Remind them of the example of the "mpg illusion" from the
pre-group survey.
a. Show them the front of the handout that includes annual
gallons used and annual cost. Ask them what do they see
that is different than the current label?
b. Then have them look at the top two examples on the back
of the form and ask them to indicate what is different
between the two. (Probe on how 5 mpg translates into
fewer gallons and lower costs.)
c. Then have them look at the bottom two examples on the
back of the form and ask them to indicate what is different
between the two (Probe on how 5 mpg translates into
fewer gallons and lower costs.)
d. Ask them to then compare the difference between the
top two labels and bottom two labels. What is the lesson
learned? (Probe on fact that although both indicate a 5
mpg increase, that 5 mpg increase has different gallons
and cost implications depending on whether vehicle is a
gas guzzler or not.)
e. Ask them if gals/100 mi (instead of mpg) would get them
to switch to a different class of vehicle. Why or why not?
(Probe on whether the gallons used and cost is important
to them. Why or why not?)
Ask: If you had the choice of 'gallons per hundred miles' or
mpg, which would you use? Why?
13. Range of comparable vehicles. (Show 4 examples of the same
design - one with 'within class' and one 'within class' and 'for
all vehicles'. 2 will emphasize 'gallons per 100 miles' and the
other 2 will emphasize 'mpg'.) Hand out the 4 comparable
designs sheet. Tell them that some vehicles will compare well
to other vehicles in their class and to all vehicles. But other
vehicles may compare well within class, but not well when
compared to all vehicles.
• Which of the 4 labels would be most useful to them?
Why?
• Discuss where the same vehicle falls on scale in regard to
'gallons per 100 miles' vs. 'mpg'.
• If the vehicle you recently purchased had ratings that
40 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
showed it was better 'within class' compared to 'all
vehicles' how would you feel about your choice? Use
choice 5B1 as an example. (Probe on whether they feel
guilty or not.)
14. Then probe on comparison bars in regard to: (IF THIS COMES
UP EARLIER THEN DISCUSS EARLIER.)
• How do we best visually tell a story when in some cases a
big number is good and in other cases a big number is bad?
(Show them the example where the lower fuel consumption
number is better and where the higher mpg is better.)
Ask client if they have any questions at this time.
Fuel Cost Metric (25 minutes)
SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS
COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC. THEN EXPLAIN THAT
WE ARE NOW GOING TO LOOK AT FUEL COST FOR A NEW LABEL
SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE PART OF A TOTAL
LABEL.
15. Did you notice the average annual fuel cost information on the
current label when you purchased your most recent vehicle?
(Show current label.) How do you think about this fuel cost
information on the current label? Did you use this information
in making your decision? Why or why not?
We would now like to explore talking about cost. The cost per
year depends greatly on variables such as fuel price, driving
patterns and mix of city and highway driving. For the label,
we rely on basic assumptions such as a person drives 15,000
miles a year and gas costs $3.00 a gallon.
16. The current label shows annual costs. Are there other ways to
express cost that would be more useful (salient) to you? (Write
their suggestions on flip chart and probe on the why behind
their suggestions. If they don't mention monthly, 5-year, weekly,
cost per 100 miles, cost per mile, add these to the list and
get their reactions to these.) Show them actual numbers (on a
handout sheet) for each of the following metrics and ask which
of these is most useful to them.
• Annual
• Monthly
• 5-year
• Weekly
• Cost per mile (BE SURE TO PROBE ON .12 OR 12 CENTS)
• Cost per 100 miles
Phase 1 Focus Groups 41
-------
Then show board with the combinations and ask what
combination of these, if any, would be the most powerful? Why?
17. (Hand out the fuel cost metric work sheet and the individual
copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on large
boards.)
a. Would any of the four options make you more likely to
purchase a vehicle with lower fuel costs? (Have them indicate
which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT discuss yet.)
b. Then instruct them to "indicate on your worksheet
which option is most understandable and which is least
understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points
explaining why."
c. Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion
regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which
of the 4 options explains fuel costs most effectively? Test
correct interpretation of metrics by asking what the metrics
mean, if they are 'easy to understand'. Test to include
probing on: cost per year, how does this vehicle compare
to others?)
d. Then tally from 17a above and ask which of the 4 options,
if any, would make you more likely to purchase a vehicle
with lower fuel costs. (Probe on why)
18. Can you suggest other ways to express this information
visually?
19. If this information was available on the label, would you use it
in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why
not? If so, at what point?
20. All of the options we've shown you include a comparison to all
other vehicles. Does having this assist you in choosing which
vehicle to purchase? Why or why not? Is it useful to also have
such a fuel cost comparison in regard to vehicles in your class?
Why or why not? Is it too much information?
Ask client if they have any questions at this time.
Environmental Metric (20 minutes)
SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS
COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC. THEN EXPLAIN THAT
WE ARE NOW GOING TO LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR A
NEW LABEL SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT MAY EVENTUALLY BE PART
OF A TOTAL LABEL.
42 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
21. Does the impact of driving on the environment affect the type
of vehicle you purchase? Why or why not?
22. (Hand out the environmental metric work sheet and the
individual copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on
large boards)
a. Would any of the four options make you more likely to
purchase a more environmentally friendly vehicle? (Have
them indicate which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT
discuss yet.)
b. Then instruct them to "indicate on your worksheet
which option is most understandable and which is least
understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points
explaining why."
c. Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion
regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which
of the 4 options explains environmental impact most
effectively? Test correct interpretation of metrics by asking
what the metrics mean, if they are 'easy to understand'.
Test to include probing on: how many grams per mile, how
does this vehicle compare to others?)
d. Then tally from 22a above and ask which of the 4 options,
if any, would make you more likely to purchase a more
environmentally friendly vehicle. (Probe on why)
23. Can you suggest other ways to express this information visually?
24. If this information was available on the label, would you use it
in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why
not? If so, at what point?
25. If it wasn't on the label, but you were directed to a web site for
it, would you go to the website and use this information? Why
or why not?
26. All of the options we showed you used the term "Environment".
What does that mean to you? Do you think there is a better word
to use? (Moderator to write suggestions on flip chart. Then open
up to discussion regarding reasons behind their suggestions.)
27. All of the options also report on C02, but not on other
pollutants. Does the label need to include information on these
other pollutants? Would you use that information in making
your vehicle choice? Why or why not?
28. Moderator to point to the 'SmartWay' logo and ask them 'what
is this?' (Probe on what they think it means.) Ask- 'if it was
not on the label would that make you less likely to choose that
vehicle.' Why or why not? (Note to moderator: SmartWay label
refers to more than C02.)
Phase 1 Focus Groups 43
-------
Range Metric (10 minutes IF TIME PERMITS)
29. What do we mean by a vehicles range? When you think about
your vehicle, do you think about its range?
30. Show them the 1 option on large board. Then ask if range
affects their purchase decision. What if one vehicle had a range
of 600 miles and another had a range of 300 miles, would that
affect your choice of vehicle? Why or why not?
31. Can you suggest other ways to express this information
visually?
32. If it wasn't on the label, but you were directed to a web site for
it, would you go to the website and use this information? Why
or why not?
Overall Label Design Issues (15 minutes)
33. How should we present the information we just discussed on
a full label? Should some information be emphasized over
other information? Moderator to use consumption, cost, and
environment design choices most favored by the group to lead
this discussion. Probe on:
• relative importance of each metric
• prominence
• placement of information
• use of graphical elements
• use of color
• importance of including the statement about the
availability of the Fuel Economy Guide (show from
current label).
34. If you could only have TWO items on the label what would they
be? Why? (Probe on how those would influence their choice of
the most fuel efficient vehicle.)
35. We have discussed a number of elements that could be on the
label. Are there any other elements that we have not discussed
that would influence you to buy a fuel efficient vehicle?
44 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
36. Other than the label, are there other methods that would be
useful in providing the information we have been discussing?
For example (show label code), if a code such as this were on
every label and you could scan it with your phone camera and
it could tell you about this vehicle, or you could scan multiple
vehicle and compare them, would that be useful? Any others
ideas that would be useful to assist you in choosing the most
fuel efficient vehicle?
37. For those of you who chose a vehicle with a partner, how did
that process work? (Probe on who was involved in the decision
making process, what input did each person have, who made
the final choice, etc.)
Wrap-Up (5 minutes)
• Summarize findings from focus group and ask for confirmation
of summarized findings.
• Is there information that we have not discussed today that would
influence you to choose a fuel efficient vehicle?
• Anything else you would like our clients to know about you
thoughts about fuel economy labels?
Ask client if they have any last questions.
Phase 1 Focus Groups 45
-------
Appendix B: Participant Profiles
CHARLOTTE MALE Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Station wagon/
minivan
Pickup truck
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
40+
30-39
50
40+
40+
20-29
25
15
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
35-49
20-34
35-49
35-49
50-64
35-49
50-64
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
-------
CHARLOTTE FEMALE Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUV
Mini Van
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
40+
Less then 10
Less then 10
45
40+
40+
20-29
20-29
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$15-$20k
$20-$30k
$20-30k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$15-$20k
20-34
35-49
20-34
20-34
65 +
35-49
50-64
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
White
White
White
White
White
White
African American
African American
-------
HOUSTON FEMALE Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this GUI. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUV
Truck
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
SUV
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
27
50
80
20
30+
50
50
60
$20-30k
$40-50k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$15-20k
$30-40k
$20-30k
35-49
35-49
35-49
50-64
20-34
50-64
50-64
35-43
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Hispanic
African American
White
Asian
White
Asian
White
Asian
-------
HOUSTON MALE Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this GUI. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car:
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
30-39
40+
20-29
40+
40+
40+
40+
20-29
$15-20k
$23k
$20k
$32k
$30-40k
$20-30k
$1 Ik after trade-
in
$20-30k
35-49
20-34
20-34
35-49
35-49
35-49
50-64
35-49
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
White
African American
White
White
White
White
White
Asian
-------
CHICAGO MALE Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this GUI. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
purchase?
Passenger car
Minivan
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid vehicle
Hybrid vehicle
Hybrid vehicle
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
10-19 miles
Less than 10
miles
20-29 miles
40 or more miles
30-39 miles
40 or more miles
10-19 miles
20-29 miles
$20,000 to
$30,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$15, 000 to
$20,000
$20,000 to
$30,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$20,000 to
$30,000
35-49
50-64
20-34
60-64
20-34
20-34
50-64
35-49
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
African American
White
White
White
Asian
White
White
Hispanic
-------
CHICAGO FEMALE Group
Q9. What type of Q10. How is this Qll. What is the Q12. Price range Q13. Age
vehicle did you vehicle powered? distance in miles of new vehicle
purchase? of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
20-29 miles
40 or more miles
10-19 miles
30-39 miles
40 or more miles
$20,000 -
$30,000
$50,000 or more
$40,000 -
$50,000
$50,000 or more
$40,000 -
$50,000
Less than $15, 00
$15,000-
$20,000
$20,000 -
$30,000
20-34
50-64
35-49
35-49
20-34
35-49
20-34
20-34
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
-------
SEATTLE MALE Group
Q9. Type
of vehicle
purchased
Q10. How is
this vehicle
powered?
Qll. Distance
in miles of
typical daily
travel in the
vehicle
Q12. Price
range of new
vehicle
Q13. Age range Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Station Wagon
or Minivan
Pickup Truck
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Pickup Truck
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
powered vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Less than 10
miles
Less than 10
miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
19-Oct
10-19 miles
$20,000-
30,000
$15,000-
20,000
$40,000-
$50,000
$15,000-
$20,000
$30,000-
$40,000
less than
15,000
$30,000-
$40,000
50-64
20-34
50-64
20-34
35-49
35-49
50-64
Graduate Degree
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
White
White
White
White
White
Hispanic
White
SUV
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
10-19 miles
$20,000-
$30,000
50-64
Some College or White
College Graduate
-------
SEATTLE FEMALE Group
Q9. Type
of vehicle
purchased
Q10. How is
this vehicle
powered?
Qll. Distance
in miles of
typical daily
travel in the
vehicle
Q12. Price
range of new
vehicle
Q13. Age range Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
Passeni
SUV
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
let Car
let Car
?er Car
?er Car
let Car
Gasoline
powered
Gasoline
powered
Gasoline
powered
Gasoline
powered
vehicle
vehicle
vehicle
vehicle
Hybrid Vehicle
Gasoline
powered
vehicle
Less than 10
miles
20-29
10-19
20-29
10-19
miles
miles
miles
miles
40+ miles
$15,000-
20,000
$30,000-
40,000
$20,000-
30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$30,000-
40,000
35-49
35-49
35-49
65+
35-49
50-64
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
White
White
White
Asian
Mixed Race
Asian
en
Co
-------
Appendix C: Current Fuel Economy Label
EPA Fuel Economy Estimates
These estimates reflect new EPA methods beginning with 2008 models.
CITY MPG
18
Expected range
for most drivers
15 to 21 MPG
HIGHWAY MPG
Estimated
Annual Fuel Cost
$2,039
based on 15,000 miles
at $2.80 per gallon
Combined Fuel Economy
This Vehicle
21
131
Expected range
for most drivers
21 to 29 MPG
Your actual
mileage will vary
depending on how you
drive and maintain
your vehicle.
All SUVs
See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or www.fueleconomy.gov
54
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix D: Fuel Consumption Tally Sheet
(1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
Overall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' - Number of times rated 'least understandable')
Option 1A Option IB Option 1C Option ID
Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
X
1
X
1
2
-1
X
1
X
1
2
0
X
X
X
X
1
1
4
-3
Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1
1
4
4
X
1
X
X
1
3
-2
1
X
1
X
2
2
-1
X
X
1
X
1
3
-2
Phase 1 Focus Groups
55
-------
Option 1A Option IB Option 1C Option ID
Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1,C
1
X
1
5
1
4
X
i,c
X
X
X
1
4
-3
i,c
C
1
C
2
2
X
X
X
3
-3
Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010
Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
X
C
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
1,C
6
1
5
X
X
2
-2
X
i,c
X
X
X
X
1
5
-4
1
C
1
1
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1,C
2
2
1,C
X
X
1,C
2
2
0
i,c
1
X
2
1
1
X
X
X
3
-3
56
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Option 1A Option IB Option 1C Option ID
Seattle Male Group: 03/08/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1
X
1,C
4
1
3
X
1
1
X
i,c
3
2
1
X
X
C
i,c
X
X
1
4
-3
C
C
X
1
-1
Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1, C
1
1
1
1
1,C
6
6
X
C
C
C
1,C
1
1
0
X
C
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
-7
i,c
1
1
Phase 1 Focus Groups
57
-------
Option 1A Option IB Option 1C Option ID
Chicago
Male Group:
03/04/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
4
4
1,C
X
1
1
0
X,C
X
X
1
X
1
4
-3
i,c
X,C
i,c
X
X
2
3
-1
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
Total Most 36
understandable
Least 3
understandable
Overall
58
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix E: Fuel Cost Tally
(1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
Overall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' - Number of times rated 'least understandable')
Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 3D
Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1
3
3
X
X
1
X
1
3
-2
1
X
X
1
1
1
4
2
2
X
X
X
3
-3
Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
X
1
-1
1
X
X
X
X
1
X
2
5
-3
X
X
2
-2
Phase 1 Focus Groups
59
-------
Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1,C
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
1,C
8
8
X
X
X
3
-3
C
C
C
X
1
-1
X
X
X
X
4
-4
Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
6
6
X
X
X
X
X
5
-5
i,c
X
X
i,c
2
2
0
C
Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
X
1
1
1
0
i,c
X
1
1
0
i,c
X
i,c
i,c
C
i,c
4
1
3
X
X
X
3
-3
60
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Seattle Male Group: 03/08/20104
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
2
2
i,c
i,c
i,c
i,c
4
4
X
i,c
i,c
2
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
-7
Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
C
1,C
i,c
3
3
i,c
X
i,c
X
2
2
0
X
X
X
X
i,c
X
1
5
-4
i,c
1
X
2
1
1
Phase 1 Focus Groups
61
-------
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
5
5
X
i,c
X
1
2
-1
X
C
i,c
i,c
X
X
2
3
-1
X
X
X
3
-3
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
Most 34
understandable
Least 1
understandable
Overall
62
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
X"^ ^"N
Appendix F: Environment Metric Tally
(1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
Overall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' - Number of times rated 'least understandable')
^H Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C Option 4D 1
Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
X
1
1
1
0
X
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
5
-4
Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
X
X
X
3
-3
1
1
1
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
5
-5
Phase 1 Focus Groups
63
-------
Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
4
4
C
i,c
1
1
1
C
i,c
l.C
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
-8
Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010
Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1,C
1
1,C
1,C
6
6
X
X
X
3
-3
X
X
X
i,c
X
1
4
-3
i,c
C
1
1
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
X
1
1
0
C
1,C
C
1
1
C
1
1,C
1,C
1
4
4
X
X
X
X
X
5
-5
64
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Seattle Male Group: 03/08/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
X
1
1
0
1,C
1,C
1,C
1,C
1,C
5
5
X
i,c
1
2
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
-6
Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
2
2
1,C
X
i,c
X
i,c
3
2
1
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
1
6
-5
i,c
C
i,c
2
2
Phase 1 Focus Groups
65
-------
Chicago Male Group: 03/04/2010
Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1,C
C
1,C
4
4
i,c
X
1
1
0
X
X
X
i,c
i,c
X
1
X
3
5
-2
X
X
2
-2
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
Most 2
understandable
Least 3
understandable
66
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
------- |