Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Final Report
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Label
Final Report
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
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
€1
%\ft7
EPA-420-R-10-909
September 2010
-------
Topics
Background 3
Steps Involved 5
Critical Themes 9
Keep it Simple 10
Provide Ability to Compare Vehicles 15
Role of the Label in Purchase Process has Changed 22
Label Designs for Public Comment 25
Appendix A - Detailed Research Methodology 31
Final Report
-------
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are conducting
a joint process to redesign the fuel economy label that is posted
on the window sticker of all new cars and light-duty trucks
sold in the U.S. These changes are proposed to impact vehicles
beginning with model year 2012. The redesigned label will provide
information to help American consumers choose more efficient
and environmentally friendly vehicles. The changes are needed to
respond to the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of
2007, introduction of advanced technology vehicles such as plug-
in hybrid electric vehicles and electric vehicles, and changes in how
vehicles are purchased by Americans.
A thoughtful and thorough process is underway to ensure the
public is provided the best possible tool to help inform a decision
that impacts their lives, their community and their environment.
Both the research process and the design process are continuums
involving many staff in multiple agencies and hundreds of research
participants. Even though research participants were provided
several options to review throughout this process, literally
hundreds of options were created, modified, and discarded prior
to ever reaching the research participants. Designs were influenced
and directed by staff and managers from each agency involved in
the review process, as well as dictated by statutory requirements.
This report presents the key findings from the label redesign
research process that informed the resulting label designs proposed
for public comment. This report is intended to provide the
reader with a top line summary of significant findings from the
multifaceted information gathering process described in the next
section. Detailed information is provided in the reports generated
following each research phase.
Final Report
-------
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Steps Involved
To help inform the redesign of the fuel economy label and increase the
value of and preference for more fuel efficient vehicles, EPA engaged
PRR Inc. to work with them in the development and implementation
of several information gathering tasks. The following tasks were
included and, as can be seen in Figure 1, each task informed the next
task ultimately resulting in the redesigned labels.
• Literature review
• Focus groups (including pre-focus group online
surveys with participants)
• Expert panel
Internet survey of new vehicle buyers and intenders
See Appendix A for a more detailed description of these research
methodologies and their limitations.
Literature Review
PRR assembled and reviewed eighty articles. The primary focus of
the review was to understand how consumers decide which vehicles
to purchase and the factors that influence their decisions.
— T —
Expert Panel
1
Refine 2 Existing Label
Designs, Create 1 New
Label Design
Final Report
-------
Focus Groups
Focus group participants completed an online survey before they
took part in the discussions. The purpose of the pre-group online
survey was to obtain information regarding their vehicle purchase
process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase decision, how
they used the current fuel economy label, and motivators and
barriers to purchasing advanced technology vehicles. By gathering
this information before the focus groups we were able to use the
focus group time most efficiently.
Three phases of focus groups were conducted to acquire the desired
information. The three phases and their in-depth discussions
addressed the following issues:
• Phase I - Use of the current fuel economy label, as well as
metrics and design of the label for conventional internal
combustion engine vehicles.
• Phase II - Understandability of and preference for metrics
on advanced technology vehicle labels.
Phase III - Assessment of full label designs for conventional
and advanced technology vehicles in regard to both content
and look.
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Expert Panel
A group of individuals with demonstrated experience in changing
social norms was recruited to participate in a daylong consultation.
Panel members came from a variety of fields in advertising, national
educational campaigns and product introduction. Feedback received
from this group was critical because of their unique history of creating
dramatic shifts in social change and influencing product preference
over short periods of time. In addition to providing feedback on
prototype label designs as constructed following the three phases of
focus groups, panelists were asked to provide guidance on increasing
the value of and preference for more efficient vehicles. Counsel
provided by the Expert Panel was significant and compelling because
of the exceptional credentials of each panel member, the conviction
of their recommendations and the strong consensus of the group.
The very purpose of assembling this group was to receive comments
and recommendations from an independent group of exceptional
individuals and bring an outside perspective.
Final Report
-------
Internet Survey of New Vehicle Buyers and Intenders
While the focus groups and expert panel were used to develop
new label designs, the internet survey will be used to examine
how understandable the new label designs are, and whether the
proposed new labels will improve consumers' knowledge about
more efficient vehicles. The survey is scheduled to begin sometime
in September 2010 and will ask these types of questions for both
conventional and advanced technology vehicle labels.
29. Please rank order the top five things that would motivate you to seriously consider buying an advanced
technology vehicle (such as an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle)? Do this by checking your #1
motivator in the #1 column, checking your #2 motivator in the #2 column, etc.
#1 motivator #2 motivator #3 motivator #4 motivator #5 motivator
Lower fuel costs
Vehicle and parts are reliable
Good maintenance costs
Good vehicle range
Lower cost of vehicle
Better fuel efficiency
Reduce the number of trips to the gas station
Environmental benefits
Reduce our dependence on gasoline
Other things in your top five that would motivate
J
>
J
J
J
J
sJ
J
you (please specify
J
J
J
^
J
^
J
here)
J
J
J
J
J
V
J
-/
^
>
^»
J
J
J
s
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Critical Themes
Developing an effective label - one that conveys the required and
desired information to consumers so that they can understand
and use it to make decisions - involves some inherent subjectivity.
By this we mean that it involves the careful interpretation of the
research results since some results are contradictory, as well as the
fact that what is understandable and useful for one consumer may
be confusing or unhelpful to another. Furthermore, research results
must be assessed in regard to which results are more important
than others relative to the ultimate goal of the label. Finally, the
label metrics and designs are also 'negotiated' so as to meet the
specific requirements of the various federal agencies involved.
In looking at all of the research results through the filters mentioned
above we found that three key themes emerged which guided the
label metrics used and the designs of the labels themselves. These
three critical themes are:
1. Keep it simple -Without exception, consumers and experts
stressed simplicity of content and design.
2. Provide the ability to compare vehicles - Consumers cast
a wide net when selecting a vehicle and want the ability to
easily compare the features and benefits of multiple vehicles.
3. The role of the label in the purchase process has changed -
With the rise of internet and social media services, a
significant and growing portion of the buying process is
now happening before buyers even visit a lot.
Final Report
-------
Keep It Simple
Consumers currently receive an
estimated 3,000 to 5,000
marketing messages each day. It
has been said that "Data is like
food. A good meal is served in
reasonably-sized portions from
several food groups. It leaves you
satisfied but not stuffed. Likewise
with information, we're best
served when we can partake of
reasonable, useful portions,
exercising discretion in what data
we digest and how often we seek
it out." This is true in the vehicle
purchasing process as well.
^
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/
business/media/15everywhere.html
"What you put on the sticker
needs to be simple, basic,
because it's going to scare a lot
of people away from the car if
there are too many figures."
- Chicago 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
Without exception, consumers and experts stressed extreme
simplicity for both content and design.
Many factors such as the aesthetics of the vehicle, reliability, safety,
price, and fuel economy can influence a consumer decision. In
addition, and addressed in greater detail later in this document,
the buying process is an ever evolving continuum that includes
consumer reliance on multiple sources to acquire information and
make their purchasing decision. The fuel economy label is just one
piece in this continuum and should be considered in that context.
Throughout each phase of the focus group process, and even more
pronounced with the expert panel, was the cry for simplicity. When
asked to select understandable designs participants described
their selections as simple, straight forward, and concise. The least
understandable designs were described as confusing, distracting,
and complicated. In essence, participants preferred designs that
they thought of as informative and that presented the information
in a simple format.
The desire for simplicity became evident immediately, especially
when focus group and expert panel participants were shown the
existing Monroney label as a reminder of the space available for
fuel economy information as well as the context in which this
information is provided.
Phase 1 focus group participants were provided four approaches to
represent individual metrics outside of the context of a full label. They
were asked to indicate which approach was most understandable.
Even in this sterile environment of looking at a single metric without
other information competing for their attention, simplicity was the
primary reason individuals gave for selecting their choice as most
understandable. Statements used included:
Easy. Nothing difficult to understand
Could see it right away
10
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Simplicity was again reinforced when participants were asked
why they specifically rejected other options. Comments included
statements such as:
Cluttered and too busy
• Not reader friendly - there's too much stuff
I get nervous when there's a lot of information
This takes too much time and effort to figure it out
"Familiarity" was another significant theme that emerged related
to simplicity. Throughout the research process participants raised
the desirability and usefulness of having information provided in
a "familiar" manner. The term "familiar" was used by participants
when explaining their preferred choices across metrics for fuel
economy, fuel consumption and environmental impacts.
When focus group participants were provided various metrics
intended to help them compare one vehicle to another they again
used the terms "simple" and "familiar" to describe why they selected
a specific metric approach over the others. This was after viewing
rating scales represented numerically, with stars and with leaves (in
the case of environmental impacts), as well as slider scales similar
to the bar that exists on the current fuel economy label.
In Phase 2 focus groups (where they were presented with a variety
of metrics that could potentially be included on labels for advanced
technology vehicles) and Phase 3 focus groups (where they were
presented with full labels), participants were overwhelmed with
the amount of information and therefore favored designs that
emphasized some values/metrics with larger font sizes and more
prominence (so they knew what to look at and what to compare).
The two strongest recommendations provided by the Expert Panel
echoed these comments as well—keep it simple and present it in a
way that is familiar.
Final Report 11
-------
The Expert Panel was provided label designs for review that were
the most current at the time. (See samples below). They understood
that these designs reflected legal requirements, directives of staff
from multiple agencies and feedback from focus group participants.
Their initial response summarized the feelings of the group: "This
label is the result of negotiation, not design."
Expert Panel members recognized that focus group participants
had requested specific information and in some cases wanted it
provided in great detail (such as wanting city and highway miles per
gallon estimates for both electric and gas use on dual fuel vehicles).
However, they rejected the need for this information to be provided
in detail and in full on the label.
Fuel Economy Environment
o f\ ^™i ^—" """"""
f \j! UJJfilUr •_,.mi!,B,tf
3 . 9 0-HI..TM n* ™ *-.."""»•
347 £b.
r^'PPAF"*IEoor»mV8<
vf. t r f~\ Efrvironnwntal Information
Fua! Economy Cons-umptbn \
Rating «.^*.«i..
***
MPG
B586 si 641
Environment
Rating SS."
&&&&
RK-| E(.:-n«Tn- ton •.umpkvi ft Co-.l
_JS!S9 ***** 5SSKSSS.
o
ft 3 8
"
v ,.-,»,..
12
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
The guiding principles they used to support their recommendations
were that consumers don't act on details, so information must be
kept simple without the use of jargon, and that purchasing a car is
an emotional decision so communications must appeal to emotions.
The Expert Panel then offered specific recommendations regarding
design and content that, given their experience, would effectively
engage the public. They referenced other successful labels when
strongly recommending that the top portion, and the greatest
amount of space on the label, contain only one element - a "grade."
They suggested combining as many of the desired and required
metrics as possible into a single grading scale (A, A-, B+, B, etc.).
The rationale is that in a simple and familiar way, this design
provides useful comparative information to the consumer who
may only glance at it, while also providing the necessary details to
those who want more in-depth information.
To help demonstrate the benefits of one vehicle over another they
also suggested prominently displaying "savings" (over five years to
express a larger and more realistic impact) rather than "cost." They
went on to suggest that a website, similarly reflecting the desire
for simplicity, could be created to provide additional detailed
information for those who desired it. It was suggested that an
easily remembered URL (such as "itsimple.com") be provided to
help reinforce the educational messages and be easy to remember.
Recognizing the current and quickly evolving level of information
available using mobile devices such as Smart Phones, the Expert
Panel echoed the recommendations of each focus group phase, to
include a QR type scan code which would provide the consumer
with multiple functions such as storing specific vehicle information,
seeking additional information, and the ability to undertake side-
by-side vehicle comparisons.
In the space under the grade they suggested placing the URL,
which would inform the consumer that additional information was
available and easily accessible while providing a natural design
element. The remaining space below the grade and the URL could
be used for any remaining information required by law.
Final Report 13
-------
For the Expert Panel it came down to these points:
• It is difficult for consumers to sway from routine
It is critical to use only a few messages that are relevant
and empower individuals to understand how their choices
will make a difference
Messages must address "What's in it for me?" and how
making this decision will improve "my" life
Keep it simple; we all yearn for simplicity
Consumers don't act on details
Remember the reality of very short label viewing time -
roll ratings and metrics up into a single score
Instead of focusing on costs, use savings information -
a very strong consumer motivator
Develop a website to be launched in conjunction with
the new label
Expert Panel recommendations provided clarity and refinement, as
well as specific tactical suggestions consistent with the findings of the
literature review, pre-focus group online surveys, and focus groups.
The implications of these recommendations for the label design are
significant and might seem at first glance to contradict the focus
group findings. However, there is consistency in striving to provide
the ability to compare within and across vehicle technologies in a
simple way.
14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Provide Ability to Compare Vehicles
Consumers cast a wide net when selecting a vehicle and want the
ability to easily compare the features and benefits of multiple vehicles.
Consumers shop within and across vehicle classes
Consumers cast a fairly wide net when selecting a vehicle, possibly
wider than they consciously realize and report. When asked in the
focus groups and in the pre-group online surveys if they had a specific
vehicle in mind when they started shopping, the vast majority said
yes. However, more than three-fifths (63%) of respondents to the
pre-group online survey reported that they seriously considered
more than one vehicle class, with about a third of these considering
both cars and trucks.1 It is also important to note that participants
thought of vehicle classes in fairly broad terms that are not necessarily
parallel to those used by EPA. Class or type of vehicle is considered
in terms such as SUVs, sedans, mini-vans, etc. This is probably why,
when focus group participants were given the choice of having the
comparison information on the label be displayed as 'within class',
'among all classes', or both, that most preferred both.
The fact that consumers shop across multiple vehicle classes
throughout the buying process indicates that the label has the
potential to influence consumers to choose vehicles that are more
fuel efficient. As a trusted source of fuel economy information
(according to 72% of pre-focus group online survey respondents),
the EPA is in a strong position to use the redesigned fuel economy
labels and its planned educational campaigns to aid consumers in
selecting more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Consumers want the ability to easily compare
across multiple vehicles
Based on the above, it is no surprise that throughout the focus groups,
participants consistently and strongly indicated the need to be able to
compare across vehicles. As reflected earlier in this document, they also
demanded simplicity. But, what factors allow them to compare in the
simplest way? The literature review made clear that the top four factors
that buyers report as influencing their vehicle choice include reliability,
safety, price, and fuel economy (in that order). In addition, one can't
discount the importance of vehicle aesthetics. Put simply - the most
reliable, safe, affordable, and fuel efficient vehicle will not be purchased
if doesn't also, as one focus group participant said, "Speak to me!"
"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
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 distinct
EPA vehicle classes.
Final Report
15
-------
"/ wasn't sure about the
information it's measuring,
but the stars make sense."
-Seattle Male
"I liked that it identified the
worst case scenario, you know
where the 347 falls in relation
to the scale." - Houston Male
It is worth restating that the buying process is a continuum
that includes consumer reliance on multiple sources to acquire
information and make their purchasing decision. The fuel economy
label is just one piece in this continuum and should be considered
in that context. To be effective it needs to provide relevant
information, be understood in a very short amount of time, be
compelling enough to generate the desired impact, and be presented
in such a way that it draws the attention and interest of the buyer in
the stressful, cluttered and confusing car lot environment.
Comparisons across vehicles can be made using a variety of metrics.
The following three metrics were selected for further research
exploration. Each is discussed in greater detail in this section:
Fuel economy/fuel consumption
• Fuel costs
Environmental impacts
In Phases 1 and 3, focus group participants were shown rating scales
including numerical, iconic (such as five star systems), and slider
scales similar to the bar that exists on the current fuel economy label
for within-class comparisons. Participants were split into two camps:
those that preferred the analytic detail of the absolute slider scales,
and those that prefer the simplicity of a star-type rating scale.
A major challenge to providing a useful comparison tool is the
complexity of advanced technology vehicles. If consumers first
encounter advanced technology vehicles on the dealer's lot, and are
not predisposed to buy one, a label that effectively conveys the
benefits of such vehicles would be helpful in informing consumers
and could potentially influence them to purchase such vehicles.
Three advanced technologies were covered in the Phase 2 and Phase
3 pre-group online surveys, and were a particular focus of the Phase
2 focus groups. These advanced technology vehicles included:
Electric Vehicles (EV)
Extended Range Electric Vehicles (EREV)
• Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV)
16
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
When considering the implications of this research, it is important
to remember that research participants had their first exposure to
two of these technologies (EREV and PHEV) during the research
process. In the 'real' shopping experience manufacturers, news
organizations, websites, and a host of other resources will all be
active in increasing awareness, understanding and preference for
these emerging technologies.
The combination of confusion over new technology and a
proclivity for people to want any information offered, makes it
easy to understand why, even in spite of their call for 'simplicity'
in label designs, Phase 2 focus group participants sought as much
detailed information as possible.
As such, the overwhelmed participants indicated a thirst for
more information. This however, did not mean that they would
necessarily use all the information sought in comparing vehicles,
but somehow having it provided them with a greater sense of
control. Nonetheless, when asked what the two most important
metrics were for comparison purposes they chose consumption
and cost. This was further supported by the fact that 60% of pre-
group online survey respondents rated fuel economy a '9' or above
on a 10-point importance scale. On another survey question, 40%
indicated that 'gas mileage/fuel economy' was the second most
common factor they used to compare across the vehicles they were
considering (second only to 'size/seating capacity/cargo capacity').
As important as fuel consumption and fuel costs are to consumers,
their unfamiliarity and discomfort with advanced technology
vehicles caused focus group participants to insist that labels for
vehicles with electric power include both range (the distance a
vehicle could travel on one charge) and charging time information.
For that reason, even though we believe such information will be
provided by other sources (such as manufacturers) or in other
mediums (such as websites), both range and charge time appear
on two of the three label designs for vehicles using electric power.
Currently consumers compare across vehicles using city and
highway MPG figures. When participants were probed in the
Phase 3 focus groups about why they liked certain label designs,
the familiarity of city and highway values was often cited. The
lack of this information was also cited for not liking those labels
"It's not really like any other
car, its miles per charge, not
MPG, it's a complete paradigm
shift. This range is probably
important, how far you go on
a charge. There isn't room
for error; it has to be awfully
accurate." - Chicago Male
"What happens if I'm driving
somewhere and I only have a
limited time to recharge? How
long will it take to recharge is
important." - Chicago Male
"I usually look at city and
highway, and then compare to
other vehicles in class."
- Seattle Female
Final Report
17
-------
"I'm used to MPG, Using
gallons per 100 miles is like
teaching us the metric system."
- Chicago Female
2. MPG Illusion
http ://www. efficient-mileage .com/
mpg-illusion.html.
that did not include it. This was further supported by results of
the pre-group online surveys where 'highway MPG', 'city MPG'
and 'combined fuel economy compared to other vehicles' were
rated by survey respondents as the top three most helpful pieces of
information on the current fuel economy label. Consequently, the
redesigned labels include city and highway breakouts.
Finally, the Expert Panel (without knowledge that the agencies
had already planned to introduce QR codes on the fuel economy
label due in part to the enthusiasm for such an approach evidenced
in the focus groups) recommended that the agencies include this
technology and perhaps launch it by hosting a competition to
create a Smart Phone application (App) that would directly provide
users with additional vehicle information and expand consumers'
ability to compare vehicles.
Fuel economy and fuel consumption
As discussed above, MPG information (in many cases to the
exclusion of all other label information) is currently used for
comparison purposes. Interestingly, participants admit that this
might be because they have been trained to do so since they first
started buying vehicles because it is by far the most prominent
information displayed on the current label.
However, MPG is not linear and can therefore be misleading. When
people compare vehicles with different MPG values they are apt to
incorrectly estimate the fuel savings of one vehicle over another. For
example, switching from a 15 MPG vehicle to a 20 MPG vehicle
will save more fuel than switching from a 30 MPG vehicle to a 35
MPG vehicle (see MPG Illusion2). Consequently, we introduced the
option to use 'gallons per 100 miles' in the Phase 1 focus groups as
a more useful metric for fuel consumption.
The reaction from focus group participants to 'gallons per 100
miles' was immediate, clear and intense - they did not understand
it and they did not like it. However, once they understood the
concept, many participants saw the value of the information, but
still did not want to see it at the cost of losing the familiar MPG
information. Consumers like and are attached to MPG. It became
clear that if 'gallons per 100 miles' was to make it to the label, it
would need to be through a slow transition process, occurring over
time and in conjunction with retaining the MPG information in a
more prominent position.
18
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Advanced technology vehicles further complicate this issue with the
need to express the consumption of electricity rather than gallons
of any petroleum based fuel. In the Phase 2 focus groups, it became
clear that participants did not understand the concept of a kilowatt
hour as a measure of electric energy use in spite of the fact that they
all receive monthly electric bills using this metric.
For electric-only vehicles, focus group participants favored an
MPG equivalent, 'MPGe.' This was in spite of the fact that they
did not understand, nor did they feel the need to understand how
an MPGe metric was calculated. This again suggests that the desire
for simplicity and familiarity outweighs the desire for accurate
information.
"/ think by the time these cars get
out we'll be more used to this,
but this (kW-hr) doesn't mean
anything to me right now. Keep it
simple."- Charlotte Male
"To me, this 2.9 miles per kW-hr,
if I'm comparing it to a gasoline
car, that doesn't help me, where
as the 98 MPGe, my brain knows
MPG."-Houston Female
As the complexity of the technology increased, so too did the
complexity and number of metrics that consumers' desired. Given
the options presented to them, focus group participants wanted an
MPGe that combined the MPGe of electric operation and the MPG
of gas operation in any vehicle that could operate in more than one
mode of operation, such as an EREV or PHEV. In general, the more
they were shown, the more they wanted. However, in order to stay
true to consumers' greater desire for label simplicity, a decision
was made to use the following fuel economy and fuel consumption
metrics on the redesigned labels:
• MPG (city and highway, and combined)
MPGe (city and highway, and combined)
Gallons per 100 miles
kW-hrs per 100 miles3
Fuel costs
Focus group participants reported (on the pre-group online survey,
as well as in the group discussions) that after the use of city MPG
and highway MPG, they turned to annual fuel costs when comparing
vehicles. The use of annual fuel cost is not surprising given that cost
is a major decision point for individuals and a metric (dollars) they
easily understand. It should be noted that research took place during
a period of record unemployment and immediately following one of
the worst economic crises faced by this country.
It should be noted that the 'kW-
hrs per 100 miles' metric was
more confusing to focus group
participants compared to a 'miles
per kW-hr' metric since the
former metric results in a lower
number being better (that is,
fewer kW-hrs is more efficient).
This issue of 'the lower the
number the better' is confusing
because consumers think in
terms of higher being better, as in
MPG. The same can be said of
'gallons per 100 miles', but when
kW-hrs are involved the issue
becomes even more confusing.
However, in order to have an
electricity consumption measure
that would be equivalent to
'gallons per 100 miles', it was
decided to stick with 'kW-hrs per
100 miles'.
Final Report
19
-------
"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. I thought
this on the lot, at $2.80- a
gallon, the information wasn't
accurate."- Seattle Female
"If you're doing your budget, you
need to know how much more
your electric bill is and how
much less your gas bill is."
- Charlotte Female
However, participants made it clear that annual fuel cost is a metric
surrounded by skepticism because they question the assumptions
upon which the cost figure is based. The current label clearly states
that the cost figure assumes 15,000 annual miles at $2.80 a gallon.
And yet, many focus group participants could not get beyond the fact
that - "I don't drive 15,000 miles a year and gas costs a lot more than
$2.80 where I live." In other words, participants really struggled with
the idea that the annual cost figure needs to be based on some set of
assumptions and that, regardless of which assumptions were chosen,
it could still be used to compare one vehicle to another. Consequently,
at least in regard to use of the current label, this skepticism drove
consumers to rely even more on city and highway MPG.
The exact same skepticism was expressed for electricity costs,
impacting metrics used for advanced technology vehicles - "Where
I live electricity costs a lot more than 12 cents a kilowatt hour."
The implication of this for the redesigned label is that consumers
will continue to look for metrics with which they are familiar and
which they trust, even if they do not understand the details.
In spite of the skepticism, in the Phase 2 focus groups, where
participants were asked to create labels from scratch, most groups
placed a cost value on the label. When probed about expressions
of a cost value, many participants expressed interest in cost per
mile figures, monthly figures and annual cost figures. Monthly
figures were appealing since that is how they are used to seeing
electricity costs (on their monthly electricity bill) and it is also how
they budget their money (i.e., monthly). However, in Phase 3, when
presented with labels that displayed both a monthly cost and an
annual cost, participants suggested that the monthly cost value
could be dropped, since they could do the math (divide by 12).
Advanced technology vehicle labels are even more complex in that some
run on both gasoline and electricity, or on a blend of both fuels. Most
participants in the Phase 2 focus groups preferred to see costs separated
by fuel type. However, when presented with full label designs during
the Phase 3 focus groups, many saw the utility of a fuel cost figure that
merged all fuels. Such a dollar figure could easily be compared across
vehicles, across different vehicle technologies, and even to a PHEV
(which runs at times on a blend of gasoline and electricity). As a result
of the research, two of the designs presented here for public comment
show fuel costs expressed in annual dollars with all fuels combined,
while the third design presents separate costs by fuel type.
20
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Understanding that cost is a significant influencer for vehicle
purchasers and that demonstrating the benefits of more efficient
vehicles is critical to the EPA, the Expert Panel suggested expressing
financial information in terms of 'savings' and expressing it over a
five year period in order to demonstrate a larger and more realistic
impact. It was also thought that the introduction of the five year
savings information would help consumers in overcoming the
effects of the MPG Illusion. This use of a 'savings' metric made
particular sense since focus group participants reported on the pre-
group online surveys that the most compelling factor for purchasing
fuel efficient vehicles was 'to save money.'
The second most compelling factor for purchasing a fuel efficient
vehicle was because such vehicles are 'better for the environment,'
which brings us to the third major metric category on the redesigned
labels which can be used to compare vehicles: environmental impact.
Environmental impact
Most of the research included in the literature review and echoed
in the focus groups indicated that consumers place much less
importance on the environmental impact of vehicles, compared to
other factors such as safety, price and fuel economy. Nonetheless,
consumers are not opposed to, and some may welcome, an eco-label
on their vehicle, although they say that it is unlikely to impact their
purchase decision. Most focus group participants indicated that if
such information was not on the label they were not likely to seek it
out elsewhere. However, when presented with whole label designs in
Phase 3 many participants indicated that the environmental metric
should be on the label to accommodate those who were interested.
"/ 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
Participants were shown multiple options for the presentation of
environmental information; some separated CO2 from other pollutants,
while some combined all pollutants; some used relative rating scales,
while others showed actual grams of CO2. Rating scales examined
included those based on relative values, such as a "5 leaf" rating
system, as well as a linear scale that had the vehicle's absolute CO2
value identified on a scale also showing the highest and lowest emitting
vehicles available. As with all other information, the participants
indicated that environmental information must be simple in order for
consumers to pay any attention to it. An overall environmental rating
was favorably received because as participants stated- "I don't need to
know the science behind the rating," and "I trust the EPA to know how
to come up with these ratings."
Final Report
21
-------
"/ don't need to know the actual
grams per mile, I just need to
know how it compares with
other cars [i.e. the 1-10 scale]."
- Houston Male
Awareness
One Make/
Model Intention
Shopping
The Expert Panel suggested that environmental metrics be included
as part of the overall rating or as a stand-alone rating in a less
prominent position for those consumers interested in more detailed
environmental information. Consequently, the label designs include
CO2 grams (separate from other pollutants), as well as absolute
and relative scales of environmental impact.
Additionally, such a 'rating' could include the use of an
environmental certification such as the SmartWay™ logo that
appeared on label designs shown to focus groups. Although none
of the participants recognized and knew what the SmartWay™
logo meant, they assumed that it was an EPA designation similar
to the Energy Star™ rating found on electric appliances. However,
while some participants indicated the logo may confer credibility
to an environmentally friendly vehicle, it was obvious that for an
environmental metric to have influence, it would either need to be
incorporated into an overall rating system, or consumers would
need to be educated as to why environmental ratings should be
more important to them.
Role of the Label in the
Purchase Process Has Changed
With the rise of internet and social media services, a significant and
growing portion of the buying process is now happening before buyers
even visit a lot.
The Vehicle Buying Cycle
The vehicle buying cycle is that period of time between consumers'
first contemplation of purchasing a new vehicle and when they actually
purchase the vehicle. The vehicle buying cycle is a seven step process:
awareness, familiarity, opinion/imagery, consideration, one make/model
intention, shopping, and purchase.
Unlike in the past, consumers increasingly seek out fuel economy
information prior to, and beyond, simply viewing the fuel economy
label on vehicles during dealership visits. They are taking advantage
of the many opportunities available to become informed about
the benefits they are seeking, which can include fuel economy
and environmental impact. Two-thirds of the respondents to the
pre-focus group online surveys reported they had researched fuel
economy prior to buying their vehicle. Of these, about half (52%)
22
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
reported that they started researching vehicle information about
one to three months prior to final purchase. Consequently, the
length of the vehicle buying cycle is contracting as consumers
obtain more information sooner.
The literature review, as well as the results of the pre-focus group
online surveys, demonstrated a significant portion of the buying
process takes place prior to consumers visiting a dealership.
What this means for the fuel economy label is that through their
own information gathering, many consumers now rely less on
the fuel economy label as a source of initial fuel economy, fuel
consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact information.
Rather, the label is more likely to be used to confirm what they have
already learned. By the time the consumer enters the dealership to
test drive a vehicle s/he is closer to a final purchasing decision than
was true in the past. This might suggest that the label now has less
influence over purchase decisions. However, if properly designed,
the label has the potential to expand consumers' vehicle options in
the direction of more fuel efficient vehicles. The label can do this by
providing useful comparison metrics in a usable format.
Sources of Information
For many consumers, purchasing a big-ticket item like a vehicle
happens only occasionally and tends to be related to other major
changes in their lives. This increases the anxiety level of the
consumer and increases the need for good information to drive the
decision process.4 Traditionally, information has come from vehicle
manufacturers and dealers, word of mouth, personal experience,
and family and friends, but much has changed with the advent of
the Internet and the ability of consumers to search for information
on specific types of vehicles and brands. Pre-focus group online
survey respondents reported gathering fuel economy information
from manufacturer websites, Consumer Reports, Edmunds, auto
dealers, vehicle search websites, automobile magazines, others with
similar vehicles, government websites, television advertisements, and
the fuel economy label itself. However, for some buyers, viewing the
label is simply too late in the purchase process to greatly influence
their decision. Therefore, to be effective it becomes increasingly
important for EPA to be where the consumer is, with the information
they are seeking, delivered in a format that is relevant, and using the
mediums they prefer throughout the buying cycle.
The Internet has emerged as one of the most important sources of
"/ used the label more to
confirm, I already had an idea
when shopping for cars."
- Charlotte Female
"I already know this information
before I go to the dealer."
- Seattle Female
Center for Advancing Health.
(2009). Consumer Reports: Car
Buying Guide. A Case Report for
Getting Tools Used. Retrieved from
http://www.cfah.org/activities/
Getting Tools Used/consumer.pdf
Final Report
23
-------
"/ would use the label to verify
what I looked at online."
- Seattle Male
5 Greene, D.L., Gibson, R., and
Hopson, J., "Reducing Oil Use
and CO2 Emissions by Informing
Consumers' Fuel Economy
Decisions: The Role for Clean
Cities," prepared by Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN, August 2009, p.l. Available at
http://wwwl .eere.energy.gov/
cleancities/pdfs/fuel economy
strat paper.pdf
6 Capgemini. (2009a). Cars Online
09/10: Understanding Consumer
Buying Behavior in a Volatile
Market. Retrieved from
http://www.capgemini.com/
services-and-solutions/by-
industrv/automotive/carsonline/
information for consumers interested in purchasing a vehicle. For
example, traffic on the DOE and EPA website www.fueleconomy.gov
increased from 400,000 user sessions in 1999 to more than
30 million in 2008.5 Nearly half of consumers visit a vehicle
manufacturer's website6 in search of product and price information.
Consequently, information on the redesigned fuel economy label
that is intended to inform consumers about a vehicle's performance
in regard to several metrics (such as fuel economy, consumption,
cost, and environmental impact) should also be available online in
the same format as it appears on the label so that consumers can
easily recognize it and use it when they visit auto dealerships. The
Internet also provides the opportunity for consumers to purchase
vehicles online (annual growth rate of 14.6% in the United States
over the past five years, although this still represents a small
percentage of total car sales), which is very attractive to consumers
who do not want to negotiate with vehicle dealerships.
Our research also validated the increasing importance third party
reviews of vehicles and social networks play in informing the vehicle
purchase process. The Expert Panel strongly recommended that
outreach activities include crowdsourcing, the use of Smart Phone
applications, creation of tools for car dealers, and collaboration
with other organizations.
Consequently, influencing consumer purchase decisions increasingly
needs to occur prior to consumers visiting dealer showrooms, and
to highlight the value of educational tools beyond the label to
provide consumers with information on a vehicle's fuel economy,
fuel consumption, fuel costs, and environmental impact. EPA will
need to be a content provider and use the fuel economy label, the
web, emerging technologies such as QR codes and Smart Phones,
and social networks - including third party trusted advocates - to
get information out to the consumers.
24
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Label Designs for
Public Comment
Label Version 1
EPA Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
Grading system ranges from A+to D.
Smart phone
H^H
website, here
Over five years, this vehicle
saves $1,900
Gasoline Vehicle
compared to the
average vehicle.
Gallons/ MPG MPG C02 g/mile Annual
100 Miles City Highway (tailpipe only) fuel cost
3.8 22 32 347 $1,617
Combined MPGe
Other Air Pollutants
Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
Grading system ranges from A+to D.
website, here
Over five years, this vehicle
saves $6,900<
fuel costs
compared to the
•ehicle.
Range kW-hrs/ MPGe MPGe C02g/mile Annual
(miles) 100 Miles City Highway (tailpipe only) fuel cost
99 34 102 94
$618
Combined MPGe
Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
economy and greenhouse gases.
Grading system ranges from A+ to D.
website, here
Over five years, this vehicle
saves $5,700
in fuel costs
compared to the
average vehicle.
Blended Electric+Gas
(first 50 miles only)
1.5
65
2.7
38
137
$855
CO, g/mi
Other A
Combined MPGe
MPGequivaient. MPGequivaient: 33.7 kW-hrs = 1 gallon gasoline energ
• Annual fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at $2.80 per gallon
and 12 cents per kW-hr.
personalized for your driving, and to
download the Fuel Economy Guide (also
available at dealers).
Final Report
25
-------
Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
economy and greenhouse gases.
Grading system ranges from A+to D.
website, here
Over five years, you will
spend$3,100
more in fuel costs
compared to the
average vehicle.
Gasoline Vehicle
Gallons/
100 Miles
6.2
MPG
City
14
MPG
Highway
C02 g/mil
(tailpipe only)
18
572
$2,625
Combined MPGe
• Fuel economy for all SUVs ranges from 12 to 32 MPG.
• Annual fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at $2.80 per gallon.
Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
economy and greenhouse gases.
Grading system ranges from A+to D.
website, here
Over five years, this vehicle
saves $5,700^
in fuel costs
compared to the
Dual Fuel Vehicle: Plug-in Hybrid Electric
11
1.5
2.7
66
36
64
40
90
236
$737
$1,105
iti ffi lil HP
Combined MPGe COsg/mile Other Air Pollutants
• Fuel economy for all midsize station wagons ranges from 18 to 75
MPGequivalent. MPGequivalent: 33.7 kW-hrs = 1 gallon gasoline energy.
• Annual fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at $2 80 per gallon
and12centsperkW-hr
Visit wete/te/7ereto calculate estimates
personalized for your driving, and to /S*^ jtilfe /'T'N
download
aide;
rs).
Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
economy and greenhouse gases.
Grading system ranges from A+ to D
website, he
26
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
economy and greenhouse gases.
Grading system ranges from A+ to D.
website, here
Over five years, this vehicle
Cfr^ *t/\/\ in fuel costs
saves *O,1UU %ss$x&
<3E» Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle
Range eGallons/ MPGe MPGe C02 g/mile An
(miles) 100 Miles City Highway (tailpipeonly) fuel cost
170 3.6 24 36 220 $777
ml:
• Fuel economy for all midsize cars ranges from 12 to 103 MPGequivaien
MPGeqmvaient: 121.5 cubic feet CNG = 1 gallon of gasoline energy.
> Annual fuel cost based on 15,000 miles per year at $1.45 per gasoline
gallon equivalent.
tocalci
Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparison
The above grade reflects fuel
economy and greenhouse gases.
Grading system ranges from A+ to D.
website, here
Over five years, this vehicle
saves $1,600
n fuel costs
;ompared to the
iverage vehicle.
Dual Fuel (Gas & ESS) Vehicle
Gallons/ Gasoline Gasoline MPG C02 g/mi
100 Miles MPG City | Highway [(tailpipeonlyi| fuel cost
4.0
22
30 355 $1,680
Final Report
27
-------
Label Version 2
EPA Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparisons
• N Dual FuelVehicle:
Gasoline-Electricity
Electric + Gas
MPG«qui.,l«n,
$737
Gas Only
MPG
Charge & Range \ \
.Fu" B3aj| |har9e tlme Blended Electric + Gas Range (battery)
1r
Extended Range (gas)
28
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
EPA Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparisons
•N Dual Fuel Vehicle:
Gasoline-Electricity
All Electric
"W
£~g.
MPG.qui.,l.nt
^4. lW-h,,p,r
W^ 100 miles
Gas Only
MPG
$1,105
Charge & Range ] p ] p
FUN Battery charge tme All Electric Range (battery) Extended Range (gas)
Final Report
29
-------
Label Version 3
EPA Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparisons
Gasoline Vehicle
Environment Rating
(among all vehicles)
C02
Fuel Economy Consumption
^%^% MPG
262232 $1,617 347
combined city highway annual fuel cost
3Q gallons USed Other Air Pollutants
• O every 100 mil
Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating
***
Visit www.fueleconomy.gov
* Download the Fuel Economy Guide
(also available at dealers)
Smartphone
Interactive
Scan code formore
vehideortocompare'
it with others. rj]j
EPA Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparisons
Dual Fuel Vehicle:
Plug-in Hybrid Electric
Blended Electric+Ga:
^% ^™ MPGequivalent
D01.5 Ssi,,s
Chargetakes Range
r^TIR SO^.esbefore^
Gas Only *-^^^~
MPG
O 7 ga
£../ pe
38
Annual Fuel Cost
$855
Blended and
Gas Only combined
Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating
(among all vehicles)
Environment Rating
(among all vehicles)
****
Visit www.fueleconomy.gov
* Calculate personalized driving estimat
* Download the Fuel Economy Guide
(also available at dealers)
Scan code formore
vehideortocompare
it with others.
EPA Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparisons
$618
Fuel Economy Consumption
^\ ^J MPGequivalent
iJ O 102 94
combined city highway annual fuel cost
O^ kW-hrs per
O** 100 miles
Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating
(among all vehicles)
is from 12to103MPGequiv
Environment Rating
(among all vehicles)
*****
Charge & Range
'iSra 99""
. ii7 W v mi
Visit www.fueleconomy.gov
* Download the Fuel Economy Guide
(also available at dealers)
I vehicle on
EPA Fuel Economy and
DOT Environmental Comparisons
Gas Only »-^^
38
MPG
2.7 peMOO n
Annual Fuel Cost
$847
All Electric and
Gas Only combined
Fuel Economy & Greenhouse Gas Rating
(among all vehicles)
Environment Rating
(among all vehicles)
111 ^3.
****
Visit www.fueleconomy.gov
* Calculate personalized driving estimat
* Download the Fuel Economy Guide
:'1 ealers)
Scan code for more
itwithothers.
30
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Appendix A- Detailed
Research Methodology
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) embarked on a
comprehensive and innovative research program beginning in the fall
of 2009. The research helped inform the development of the new labels
being proposed and included a review of available literature, three
phases of consumer focus groups (including pre-group online surveys),
and a day-long consultation with an expert panel of individuals
who have introduced new products or have spearheaded national
educational campaigns. In addition, an online survey of vehicle buyers
and intenders is planned to take place in September of 2010.
Such a multi-method approach has many benefits, perhaps the
most important of which is that the limitations of one method can
be potentially compensated for by the methodological strengths of
another. For example, while focus groups are the preferred method
to obtain in-depth reactions to potential label metrics and designs
and to generate new ideas, they are not meant to be representative
of new vehicle buyers nationwide in general. The focus groups for
this research were held in four specific locations and the type of
individuals who agree to participate in a focus group may be unique
in some ways. In addition, group dynamics can influence the resulting
discussion in ways that are not present during individual interviews.
Pre-group online surveys compensated for some of these limitations by
gathering information from participants before they were influenced
by the group discussion. Another technique we used during the groups
themselves was to have participants record on paper their individual
answers to discussion topics before opening the issue up to group
discussion. Having conducted thirty-two focus groups, it was also
beneficial to have another group, the Expert Panel, not involved with the
project come in with a fresh set of eyes to provide another perspective.
Final Report 31
-------
To address the issue of the lack of representativeness of focus
group participants, we plan to supplement the research process
with a much broader sample of new vehicle buyers and prospective
new vehicle buyers ("intenders") through a large sample online
survey. This approach also has its limitations since such surveys
do not allow for in-depth probing. Furthermore, the samples are
self-selected to be contacted by email and there is no guarantee that
those who choose to complete the survey are representative even of
this self-selected group.
Literature Review
We began the research process with a review of existing literature on
the vehicle buying process, information sources used by consumers
as they shop for vehicles, the factors (such as price, fuel economy,
and safety, as well as demographics and psychographics) that
influence consumer vehicle purchasing decisions, and the impact of
the increasing availability of "greener" vehicles. This allowed us to
establish a foundation upon which subsequent research tasks were
based and supplement (instead of repeat) existing research. A total
of eighty studies/articles were reviewed and the sources spanned
a broad range of books, articles, papers, and secondary research
reports. Data presented were primarily taken from business,
marketing, and academic journals and magazines; websites;
newspapers; conference proceedings; and published government
guidelines, standards, and documents. The literature review report
provides a summary of the reviewed information.
Pre-Focus Group Online Surveys
The next research step involved gaining initial insights from
individuals who would be participating in the focus groups. The
online surveys had several objectives including validation of some
key findings from the literature review (especially in regard to the
vehicle purchase process and factors that influence the vehicle buying
process). Using an online survey tool provided the opportunity to also
acquire some information without the impact of peer influence in the
focus groups. It also exposed participants to discussion topics raised
later in the focus groups (such as the MPG Illusion and descriptions
of advanced technology vehicles) to allow more time for discussion
of priority topics when the focus groups met face-to-face.
32 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
A main purpose of the survey was to obtain additional information
regarding participants' vehicle purchase process, the role of fuel
economy in their purchase decision, how they used the current
fuel economy label, and motivators and barriers to purchasing
advanced technology vehicles. The survey questions were developed
by PRR, with input from the EPA, NHTSA and OMB (Office of
Management and Budget).
Those recruited were sent a link to the pre-group online survey
approximately one week in advance of the scheduled focus groups.
They were instructed to complete the online survey at least two
days prior to their group. Follow-up reminder calls were made to
those who had not completed the survey in the specified timeframe.
A total of 404 of those recruited completed the online survey. It
should be noted that the results of these surveys are not intended
to be representative of any larger group of new vehicle buyers
and reflect only the experience of the focus group participants
themselves. Nonetheless, these results provided important insights
when used in conjunction with the other research tasks connected
with this overall project.
Focus Groups
When our research process was at the point of requiring in-depth
consumer feedback on design possibilities the agencies determined that
focus groups would be ideal to gather in-depth, qualitative feedback
about fuel economy labeling, potential new label information, and
ways of displaying the information. Focus groups are the optimum
approach to use when the task calls for qualitative, in-depth insight
into a consumer's understanding of fuel economy labels. Focus groups
allowed us to probe around why some label designs were more
understandable, how different label designs would be used in the
vehicle purchase process, and which label metrics were most important
to consumers. The focus group discussions also provided insights into
how a label design may help consumers choose more fuel efficient
vehicles. The focus groups were not intended to provide quantitative
results, but were instead designed to help EPA and NHTSA discern
the subtleties of consumer understanding and preference as it relates
to the label and the best way to provide numerous and sometimes
complicated pieces of information.
Final Report 33
-------
7 There were as many as fifteen
approaches presented to the
agencies and they selected
three to present to focus
groups. Developing the labels
was iterative and PRR strived
to incorporate all statutory
requirements, findings from
Phase 1 and Phase 2 focus
groups, and agency perspectives
and overarching guidelines.
A total of thirty-two focus groups (256 participants) were conducted
in three phases between February 25th and May 27th, 2010 in the
cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte. The three phases
were designed to address the following issues:
Phase I (8 focus groups) -Use of the current fuel economy
label, as well as metrics and design of the label for
conventional internal combustion engine vehicles.
Phase II (8 focus groups) -Understandability of and preference
for metrics for advanced technology vehicle labels.
Phase III (16 focus groups) - Assessment of full label
designs for conventional and advanced technology vehicles
in regard to content and look.7
Thus, overall, focus groups were used to obtain a qualitative
understanding of consumers' comprehension and reactions to fuel
economy label information.
Participants were recruited from panels developed and maintained
by the focus group facility used in each city. All the groups consisted
of eight participants (with the exception of one group that had
7 participants, two that had 6 participants, and one that had 5
participants). Participants were screened for having purchased a
new vehicle (not a used or pre-owned vehicle; not a motorcycle;
and 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 purchase. 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.
In each city, separate male and female groups were conducted in
English and each group lasted two hours. A moderator guide was
used to structure the focus group discussions.
34
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
-------
Expert Panel
Following the focus group research, we assembled an expert panel
for a one day consultation and asked them to give us feedback
on the draft label designs the focus groups had helped create and
to assist us in identifying opportunities and strategies to increase
consumer preference for energy efficient and environmentally
friendly vehicles. The experts came from a variety of fields in
advertising and product development and were chosen because
they have led successful national efforts to introduce new products
or had spearheaded national educational campaigns. Feedback
received from this elite group was desirable because of their unique
history and experience of creating dramatic social change and
influencing product preference over short periods of time.
An initial list of products and social changes that met the criteria of
being dramatic, impacting a significant percentage of the population,
having demonstrated staying power and having happened quickly
was generated and prioritized. Individuals who were in roles critical
to the success of these efforts were then identified and invited to
participate in the Expert Panel. The panel was limited to no more
than 10 participants in order to ensure full participation.
Nine expert panelists eventually participated in the six hour
discussion. The group was convened on Wednesday, June 9, 2010
at EPA headquarters located in Washington DC. In advance of
the discussion, participants were provided a draft agenda, a brief
overview of the project, and initial research and focus group findings.
Panelists were asked to come prepared to discuss how they would
recommend that the EPA increase the value of, and preference for
more efficient vehicles, as well as identify opportunities to increase
the priority of energy efficiency in the vehicle purchase process, and
finally to provide feedback on fuel economy label design drafts.
Final Report 35
-------
Sources of respondents were
databases owned by Autobytel,
http://www.autobytel.com
(for those intending to buy
new vehicles), and Focus USA
(for those who purchased
a vehicle in the last year),
http://www.focus-usa-l.com.
Respondents are asked which
was better, rather than which
was more fuel-efficient or
less costly, so as to leave the
respondents with the choice
of what information on the
label to use for the comparison.
A later question asks which
information they used in their
response. While this somewhat
ambiguous approach may reduce
the absolute number of correct
answers to the questions, the goal
is to test the relative effects of the
labels, not the absolute effects.
Online Survey of New Vehicle Buyers
and Intenders
The online survey of vehicle buyers and intenders is meant to
examine how understandable the new label designs are, and
whether the proposed new labels will improve consumers'
knowledge about more efficient vehicles. This survey will use two
samples: self-selected new vehicle purchasers, and people who
expressed an intention to purchase a new vehicle by requesting a
price quote from a dealer8 within the past 12 months (excluding
the 'Cash for Clunkers' 2009 period). Each sample will be divided
into three separate groups and see surveys identical in every way
except for the label design, each of the groups will see only one of
the label designs.
The survey tests respondents' understanding of the labels by
showing each respondent a series of label pairs. In each pair, all
vehicle characteristics are held constant except the information on
the vehicle label. For instance, the fuel economy of the vehicles may
differ, or one may be for a conventional vehicle and one an electric
vehicle. Respondents are then asked to identify which vehicle is
better to use for trips of specified distances.9 The key question is
whether the different label designs produce statistically significant
different results. If one label produces more correct responses than
other labels, then it can be considered more understandable. If the
labels do not produce statistically different results, then the labels
can be considered equivalently understandable.
To test the potential influence of the labels on vehicle purchases,
respondents will see pairs of labels for vehicles with all vehicle
attributes constant except those varied on the label, such as the
technologies of the vehicles, their efficiencies, and their energy
costs. Instead of using the label to identify the better vehicle for
a trip distance scenario, the respondents are asked which of these
vehicles they would prefer to buy, based on their individual driving
patterns. Because the survey asks respondents about their typical
daily driving distances, it is possible to see whether respondents
chose the vehicle better suited for their habits. The key variable is
whether the responses differ for different label designs.
36
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
------- |