ENERGYSTAR
NATIONAL AWARENESS
OF ENERGY STAR* FOR 2010
ANALYSIS OF CEE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Executive Summary ES-1
Introduction 1
Methodology Overview 2
Key Findings 5
Recognition 5
Understanding 12
Influence 17
Information Sources 23
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology A-1
1 Questionnaire Design A-1
2 Sampling A-6
3 Data Collection A-13
4 National Analysis A-14
Appendix B: Demographics B-1
Appendix C: Additional Questions From 2010 Survey C-1
1 ENERGY STAR Designation C-1
3 ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction C-2
4 Consumer Perceptions C-4
5 Purchasing Decisions C-12
6 CFL Purchaser Questions C-13
Appendix D: 2010 Survey Questions and Flow Chart* D-1
Appendix E: Large and non-large DMAs Compared E-1
1 Purpose of Comparison E-1
2 Recognition E-3
3 Understanding E-3
4 Influence E-7
5 Demographics E-11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to thank the
Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE) and its members for making its survey data
available for this analysis. The following GEE member organizations sponsored the
2010 survey:
• Cape Light Compact
• Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Edison)
• Long Island Power Authority
• National Grid
• New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
• Northeast Utilities
• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
• NSTAR Electric
• Southern California Edison
• The United Illuminating Company
• Unitil
• We Energies
• Wisconsin Focus on Energy
• Xcel Energy
In addition, EPA would like to acknowledge Monica Nevius and Julie Caracino for
their oversight of GEE data collection efforts; and Miriam Goldberg, Ryan Barry,
Karen Rothkin, and Aaron Schneider of KEMA Inc.; and Jocelyn Turkel, Grant
Halloran, and Sarah Duffy of The Cadmus Group, Inc. for data analysis and report
preparation.
Recommended citation:
EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Climate Protection Partnerships Division.
National Awareness of ENERGY STAR® for 2010: Analysis of 2010 CEE
Household Survey. U.S. EPA, 2011.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2010, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE) sponsored
the eleventh national household survey of consumer awareness of ENERGY STAR.
Each year, the survey objectives have largely been the same: to collect national data on
consumer recognition, understanding, and purchasing influence of the ENERGY STAR
label, as well as data on messaging and product purchases. GEE members may choose
to supplement the national sample by adding additional data points in order to assess
label awareness in their local service territories. In 2010, additional surveys were
conducted in the states of Massachusetts and New York (except Long Island), and the
metropolitan areas of Denver and Minneapolis/St. Paul. As in all previous years, GEE
and sponsoring members made the survey data publicly available to the EPA ENERGY
STAR program for analysis.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2010 ENERGY STAR Household Survey,
building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which consumers
recognize the ENERGY STAR label, understand its intended messages, and utilize (or
are influenced by) the label in their energy-related purchase decisions. Research
questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity affect recognition, understanding, and influence of the
ENERGY STAR label?
• Which key messages about the ENERGY STAR label are consumers retaining?
• Do consumers demonstrate loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label?
Key Findings at the National Level
• Eighty-three percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label. This is a statistically significant increase from the 77 percent finding
in 2009.
• Eighty-four percent of households had a high or general understanding of the label's
purpose. Furthermore, the proportion of households that demonstrated a general
understanding was small compared with the proportion that demonstrated a high
understanding (11 percent versus 73 percent).
• Sixty-four percent of households associated the ENERGY STAR label with
"efficiency or energy savings."
• Of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) and purchased a
product in a relevant product category within the past 12 months, 77 percent
ES-1
-------
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product. This result is 15 percentage points
higher than in 2009, a statistically significant increase.
Among all households, 43 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product in the past 12 months.
For 74 percent of the households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided),
and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product, the label influenced
at least one of their purchase decisions "very much" or "somewhat." For another 11
percent of these households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly."
Twenty-four percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product received a financial incentive for doing so in 2010, compared to
twelve percent in 2009. Seventy-five percent of these households report they would
have been "very likely" (50 percent) or "somewhat likely" (25 percent) to purchase
the labeled product without the financial incentive.
Seventy-nine percent of households that recognized the label and purchased a
product in a category where ENERGY STAR-labeled products are an option were
likely to recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend; 29 percent of
these households reported that they were "extremely likely" to recommend ENERGY
STAR-labeled products.
Key Findings from Publicity-Level Analyses
• Without a visual aid, 76 percent of households in high-publicity areas recognized the
label versus 68 percent in non-high-publicity areas; this difference is statistically
significant (p-value = 0.019). About the same proportion of households in high- and
non-high-publicity areas recognized the ENERGY STAR label, when it was shown to
them, 85 percent high publicity and 82 percent non-high publicity (p-value > 0.10).
(High-publicity areas are defined as having a locally sponsored energy efficiency
program [sponsored by a utility, state agency, or other organization] that has actively
and continuously promoted ENERGY STAR for two or more years.)
• Sixty-seven percent of the households in high-publicity areas associated the
ENERGY STAR label with "efficiency or energy savings," compared with 61 percent
of households in non-high-publicity areas. This difference is statistically significant at
the 10 percent level (p-value = 0.094).
• Considering only households that recognized the label (with a visual aid), a larger
proportion of households in high- than in non-high-publicity areas heard or saw
something about ENERGY STAR via TV and radio commercials, TV news feature
stories, utility mailings or bill inserts, and print advertisements.
• Among households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) and purchased
a product in a relevant product category within the past 12 months, a larger
ES-2
-------
proportion of households in non-high- than in high-publicity areas purchased a
labeled product (81 percent vs. 73 percent, p-value = 0.089).
Conclusions
This eleventh national study of household awareness of the ENERGY STAR label
confirms key findings from the previous years' surveys:
• Substantial portions of U.S. households in the surveyed population recognize,
understand, and are influenced by the ENERGY STAR label.
• The proportion of households that exhibit only a general understanding of the label is
small (11 percent) compared with the proportion of households that exhibit a high
understanding (73 percent).
• This study found ENERGY STAR label aided recognition in non-high-publicity areas
to be quite similar to recognition in high-publicity areas. It should be noted that
during 2010, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the
U.S. Department of Energy made funding available to U.S. states and territories to
support consumer rebates for ENERGY STAR qualified appliances.
• Publicity efforts of active regional/local energy efficiency program sponsors increase
unaided recognition of the label. These efforts also appear to have an effect on the
understanding of the label, with a larger proportion of households in high- than non-
high-publicity areas associating the label with "energy efficiency/savings."
ES-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2010, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE)
sponsored the eleventh national household survey of consumer awareness of
ENERGY STAR. Each year, the survey objectives have largely been the same: to
collect national data on consumer recognition, understanding, and purchasing
influence of the ENERGY STAR label, as well as data on messaging and product
purchases. GEE members may choose to supplement the national sample in order
to assess label awareness in their local service territories. To this end, in 2010
additional surveys were conducted in two states—Massachusetts, and New York
(except Long Island)—and two Nielsen Designated Market Areas® (DMA)—Denver
and Minneapolis-St. Paul. As in the ten previous years, GEE and sponsoring
members made the survey data publicly available for this analysis.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2010 ENERGY STAR Household
Survey, building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which
consumers recognize the ENERGY STAR label, understand its intended messages,
and utilize (or are influenced by) the label in their energy-related purchase decisions.
Research questions of interest included the following:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity affect recognition, understanding, and influence of
the ENERGY STAR label?
• Which key messages about the ENERGY STAR label are consumers retaining?
• Do consumers demonstrate loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label?
The remainder of this report summarizes the survey and analysis methodology;
provides key findings regarding ENERGY STAR label recognition, understanding,
influence, and information sources. It also contains appendices presenting detailed
survey methodology (Appendix A), demographic information (Appendix B), additional
questions from the 2010 survey (Appendix C), a copy of the 2010 questionnaire
(Appendix D), and analysis of responses from additional households not currently
included in the national analysis (i.e., Non-Top-57 DMAs) (Appendix E). In all cases,
the results presented in this report were weighted to obtain results applicable at the
national level (please refer to Appendix A for details on the weighting methodology).
-------
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
During September 2010, GEE fielded a questionnaire to obtain information at the
national level on consumer awareness of the ENERGY STAR label (please refer to
Appendix A for a more detailed outline of the survey methodology). A random
sample of households that are members of an internet panel was surveyed. Both the
internet panel as a whole and the sample of households completing the survey were
selected by address-based sampling and recruited by telephone.1 The panel is
designed to be representative of the U.S. population.
This year's questionnaire was similar to the ones GEE fielded in 2000-2009. As in
previous years, GEE and its sponsoring members made the survey data available to
EPA for analysis.
The survey was a national survey. The sampling frame for this national survey
included all households in the largest DMAs that together accounted for about 70
percent of U.S. television households (the largest 57 DMAs). In addition, some GEE
members chose to sponsor more intensive sampling (i.e., an oversample) in
selected localities, referred to here as sponsor areas. In 2010, there were four
sponsor areas:
• Massachusetts
• New York state (with the exception of Long Island)
• Denver DMA
• Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA
Sponsor areas are not limited to the 57 largest DMAs. Prior to 2010, the national
sample covered only the 57 largest DMAs and any portion of the sponsor areas that
fell outside the 57 largest DMAs. In 2010, the national sample added a stratum
grouping the remaining 153 DMAs.2 Thus, the complete frame for the study was all
210 DMAs. However, to facilitate comparisons across years, the national results
were based only on data collected from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data
collected from respondents not in the 57 largest DMAs, but in a sponsor area or in
the national Non-Top-57 sample, are not included in the main body of the report but
are provided in Appendix E. Some of the 57 largest DMAs are also included in the
sponsor areas and therefore were oversampled. The data from these respondents
(as well as from the other respondents in the 57 largest DMAs) received an
appropriate weight in the analysis in order to generate valid national results and
facilitate comparison with data from other years.
1 In previous years, the panel was recruited via random-digit dial. Knowledge Networks, the firm that conducts
the survey each year, believes that address-based sampling (ABS) offers advantages, including coverage of cell-
phone-only households, and analysis of non-response bias. More information is available at
http://www.knowledqenetworks.com/accuracv/fall-winter2010/abs-fall2010.html.
The addition 153 non-large DMAs are not included in the national analysis results presented in the body of this
report.
-------
As in previous years' studies, the Top-57 DMAs in the sampling frame were
classified by publicity category. The original intent of the classification was to be able
to assess the effect of local energy efficiency program publicity on awareness. The
majority of these local efficiency programs historically have been supported by utility
rate-payer funded energy efficiency programming. However, during 2010, as part of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the U.S. Department
of Energy also made funding available to U.S. states and territories to support
consumer rebates for ENERGY STAR qualified appliances. A decision was made to
retain the same publicity classification procedure used in the past 9 years and to
retain the prior year's publicity classification of the 57 largest DMAs—in essence
preserving the historical classification for future study years, which was based on the
following criteria:
• High publicity: Active local ENERGY STAR promotion recently sponsored by a
utility, state agency, or other organization for two or more continuous years. The
activities must include sustained promotions and publicity from non-federal
sources.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional
program sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
The key working definitions are below:
• Recent: The 2 years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• Sustained: The 2 years of activity must be continuous.
• Significant: In addition to any direct federal publicity efforts, a DMA's publicity
efforts must include a deliberate and multifaceted regional program sponsor
investment in ENERGY STAR programming, such as direct marketing efforts or
the creation and distribution of promotional material.
Although the sample design was based on the 2010 publicity classifications, given
the significant short-term publicity and funding associated with ARRA, for the
purpose of this report, low publicity and other publicity are combined in the analysis
and referenced as non-high publicity areas. Another reason to combine these
categories in the analysis is that over time, the population of low-publicity DMAs has
dropped to about 15 percent, while high-publicity DMAs now account for about half
of U.S. television households.
The sample was stratified by area and within an area by publicity category. Each
sponsor area is also further stratified by large versus non-large DMA. The GEE
members who fund the oversample for a sponsor area determine the total number of
sampling points allocated to the sponsor area as a whole. This total number of
-------
sampling points is then allocated across sponsor area strata proportional to
population.
While the dataset has always been appropriately weighted in the national analysis,
in 2010, for the first time, the number of respondents in each stratum was chosen in
proportion to that stratum's share of the U.S. population living in DMAs. As in the
past for the national sample, the three publicity categories (the top 57 DMAs)
comprise 1,000 respondents.
This report presents the 2010 survey results at the national level and by publicity
category. Results are presented on consumer recognition and understanding, and
purchasing influence of the ENERGY STAR label, as well as on messaging, product
purchases, and information sources that consumers use in their purchasing
decisions.
In this report, the following terminology is used in comparing results across years or
sub-categories. (1) The term "significant" implies statistical significance. In other
words, differences between proportions that are described as "significant" are at
least statistically different at the 10-percent level of significance. In some cases, the
p-values are given to provide the exact level of statistical significance. (2) Unless
stated otherwise, terms such as "smaller," "larger," "increase," or "decrease" refer to
changes that are statistically significant at the 10-percent level or better. (3) The
term "similar" implies that there is no statistical difference between the results being
compared at the 10-percent level of significance. In other words, the difference
between the results is within the bounds that would be expected from chance
variation in a random sample.
-------
KEY FINDINGS
RECOGNITION
In 2010, 83 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label (i.e., aided recognition). Seventy-two percent of households recalled
having seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label without first being shown the label
(i.e., unaided recognition).
For purposes of this analysis, respondents were said to recognize the ENERGY
STAR label if they had seen or heard of the label before the survey. Recognition of
the label was explored in two ways. Unaided recognition was measured by asking if
the respondent had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label without showing the
label. Delivery of the survey by internet made it possible to measure unaided
recognition. Aided recognition was measured by showing respondents the ENERGY
STAR label and then asking if they had seen or heard of the label. Both methods are
useful measurements of label recognition, although unaided recognition is the more
conservative of the two.
Recognition results for both the 2010 and 2009 surveys are summarized in the
following table. The 2010 and 2009 aided and unaided recognition of the ENERGY
STAR label results are statistically different at the 1-percent level (aided p=0.008,
unaided p=0.005).
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize
ENERGY
STAR Label
Yes
Standard error
2010
Aided
(n=1,641)
83%
1 .3%
Unaided
(n=1,521)
72%
1 .7%
2009
Aided
(n=1,034)
77%
2.0%
Unaided
(n=917)
64%
2.4%
Note: The unaided recognition results for both years were based on the question
ES1: "Have you ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label?" The aided
recognition results were based on five questions. (1) ES3A and (2) ES3B were
asked if ES1 = "yes." ES3A: "Is this the label you have seen or heard of
before?"—whether the old or new label was shown was randomly determined.
ES3B: "Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label?" —
where the label shown was the one not shown previously. (3) ES3C and (4)
ES3D were asked if ES1 = "no." ES3C: "Please look at the ENERGY STAR label
on the left. Have you ever seen or heard of this label?"—whether the old or new
label was shown was randomly determined. ES3D: "Have you seen or heard of
this version of the ENERGY STAR label?"—where the label shown was the one
not shown previously. (5) ES6 was asked if either ES1 = "no" or both ES3A and
ES3B = "no." ES6: "Now that you have had the opportunity to see the ENERGY
STAR label, do you recall seeing or hearing anything about it before this
survey?"— where both the old and new labels were shown.
-------
Recognition by Publicity Category
In 2010, aided and unaided recognition were similar in high- and non-high-publicity
areas. After being shown the ENERGY STAR label, 85 percent of households in
high-publicity areas, and 82 percent in non-high-publicity areas recognized the label;
this difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.348). Unaided recognition
was 76 percent in high-publicity areas and 68 percent in non-high-publicity areas;
this difference was statistically significant at the 5-percent level for unaided
recognition (p-value = 0.019).
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100% n
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
OCA _
85%
82%
• High Publicity
n Non-High Publicity
76%
68%
Aided (n=1,641)
'Unaided (n=1,521)
High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent
level of significance (p-value<0.05).
-------
Product Associations
Households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) indicate strong
association between products historically supported by regional energy efficiency
programs (refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, compact fluorescent light
bulbs, etc.,) and the ENERGY STAR label.
Survey respondents that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were asked,
"What types of products, goods, and services do you think of when you think of the
ENERGY STAR label?" (survey question QA). The figure on the next page presents
the results for this question, which indicate unprompted product associations.
Unprompted, appliances, refrigerators, and washing machines showed the strongest
associations with the label at 43, 37, and 34 percent, respectively. Though it does
not have an ENERGY STAR specification, clothes dryers showed the fourth
strongest association with the label at 30 percent. The next most strongly associated
products (unprompted) were dishwashers, stoves/ovens, and air conditioners, at 16,
13, and 13 percent, respectively. Of the top eight product associations, only
televisions are significantly different from the 2009 results—five percentage points
higher. The list of products mentioned by households without prompting also
includes two products, in addition to clothes dryers, that do not have an ENERGY
STAR specification: microwave ovens and stoves/ovens. One product showed a
significant decrease in unprompted association: windows. The other product to show
a significant change, stereo/radio was mentioned slightly more frequently than in
2009; however, stereo/radio was mentioned by one percent or less of the
respondents.
When prompted, eighty-six percent of households had seen the label on
refrigerators. Washing machines (77 percent) and dishwashers (73 percent) were
the next products most commonly associated with the ENERGY STAR label.
Windows, gas water heaters, room air conditioners, central A/C, microwave ovens,
and televisions, followed next in a range of 45 to 51 percent. While 46 percent of
households associated microwave ovens with the ENERGY STAR label, as
mentioned above, they are not an ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
Thirteen out of 28 products show a significant increase in prompted product
association. No products show a significant decrease in prompted association
compared to 2009.
-------
Unprompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,237]
Appliance
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Clothes Dryer
Dishwasher
Stove/oven
Air conditioner
***Television
Other
Water heater
Lighting
Computer or monitor
Electronics
No product
Freezer
Microwave oven
Furnace
Heater
*Wndow
**Stereo/radio
VCR/DVD
Dehumidifier
Fan
Computer printer
Insulation
Boiler
Vacuum cleaner
Thermostat
] 37%
] 43%
Note: QA: "What types of products,
Please write your answers below."
*** 2010 and 2009 proportions are
(p-value<0.01). The proportion
** 2010 and 2009 proportions are
(p-value<0.05). The proportion
* 2010 and 2009 proportions are
(p-value<0.10). The proportion
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
goods, or services do you think of when you think of the ENERGY STAR label?
statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance
of households in 2010 is larger than 2009 for television.
statistically different from each other at the 15-percent level of significance
of households in 2010 is larger than 2009 for stereo/radio.
statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
of households in 2010 is smaller than 2009 for window.
-------
Prompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided)3]
***Refrigerator
Washing machine
**Dishwasher
Window
Gas water heater
*Room air conditioner
Central A/C
***Microwave oven
***Television
Computer or monitor
Furnace/boiler
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Door
Insulation
**Newly built home
Lighting fixture
**DVD
**AII-in-one printer
Heat pump
**Thermostat
**Computer printer
*Copying machine
Roofing material
Dehumidifier
*Skylight
**Audio product
Fax machine
Scanner
H 86%
H 77%
H 73%
H 51%
H 48%
D 48%
H 47%
H 46%
H 45%
37%
D 32%
H 31%
H 26%
H 26%
I 24%
H 21%
H 21%
I 20%
H 20%
] 18%
] 16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Note: Q5 (a, b, and c): "Now we're going to ask you about several groups of products. As you review the list, please
select each of the products, product literature, or packaging on which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label."
*** 2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.01). The proportion of households in 2010 is larger than 2009 for all starred values.
** 2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05).The proportion of households in 2010 is larger than 2009 for all starred values.
* 2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). The proportion of households in 2010 is larger than 2009 for all starred values.
Respondents were asked about three sets of product groupings: (1)(a) Heating and Cooling
Products and Home Office Equipment, (2)(b) Home Appliances/Lighting and Home Electronics, and
(3)(c) Building Materials and Buildings. The sample sizes, n, for these sets of product groupings are
1,268, 1,269, and 1,230 respectively.
-------
Product Associations by Publicity Category
Regional energy efficiency program sponsors have traditionally focused on
promoting ENERGY STAR qualified lighting, refrigerators, room air conditioners,
washing machines, dishwashers, programmable thermostats4, and new homes.
More recently, program sponsors have begun to promote ENERGY STAR qualified
water heaters and TVs in some parts of the country. In addition, some programs that
have traditionally promoted ENERGY STAR appliances might have begun promoting
higher levels of efficiency due to local market conditions, or discontinued other
promotions in anticipation of state-run ENERGY STAR appliance rebate programs
coming online in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Key
findings from this year's analysis of product association by publicity category include
the following.
• A significantly larger proportion of households in high- than non-high-publicity
areas associated the following products with the ENERGY STAR label when
prompted: dishwashers, TVs, furnaces and boilers, and thermostats (which no
longer qualify for ENERGY STAR labeling).5
• A significantly smaller proportion of households in high- than in non-high-publicity
areas associated heat pumps with the label when prompted.
Furnaces and boilers were mentioned more often in high-publicity areas than low in
the three previous reports, which is consistent with the 2010 difference between
high- and non-high-publicity groups. The significant result for heat pumps was also
found in each of the previous 4 and 6 years, respectively. Heat pump technology is
better suited to, and more prevalent in warmer climates, which are more likely to be
non-high-publicity areas.
4 EPA suspended the use of the ENERGY STAR label for programmable thermostats December 31,
2009. While EPA recognizes the potential for programmable thermostats to save significant amounts
of energy, there continue to be questions regarding the net savings and environmental benefits
achieved due to variations in consumer understanding and usage of programmable thermostats. EPA
is working to develop a related Residential Climate Control specification. For more information visit
energystar.gov/productdevelopment.
5 Ibid.
10
-------
Prompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided)6]7
Refrigerator
Washing machine
*Dishwasher
Window
Gas water heater
Television
Microwave oven
Room air conditioner
Central A/C
Computer or monitor
**Furnace/boiler
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Insulation
Door
Lighting fixture
Newly built home
DVD
All-in-one printer
Thermostat
*Heatpump
Computer printer
Copying machine
Skylight
Dehumidifier
Roofing material
Audio product
Scanner
Fax machine
• 87%
~85%
79%
T69%
D 76%
52%
J 41%
• 48%
H 49%
• 48%
48%
45%
_47%
49%
47%
47%
• 40%
• 36%
28%
3 31%
J 31%
27%
325%
H
I 24%
• 19°/
• High Publicity
Q Non-High Publicity
• 23%
] 27%
ins
21%
16%
17%
23%
i 17%
' 16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
*High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.10).
As discussed in footnote 3, respondents were asked about three sets of product groupings. In
Heating and Cooling Products and Home Office Equipment, the sample sizes for high- and non-high -
publicity areas are 759 and 509, respectively. For Home Appliances/Lighting and Home Electronics
they are 761 and 508, and for Building Materials and Buildings they are 738 and 492.
7 The percent labels on the bars are rounded to nearest whole number. Therefore bars with the same
label may not appear to be the same length.
11
-------
UNDERSTANDING
In 2010, 84 percent of households had at least a general understanding of the
ENERGY STAR label. Furthermore, the proportion of households that exhibited only
a general understanding (11 percent) was small compared with the proportion that
exhibited a high understanding (73 percent). The level of understanding was
investigated by asking respondents what messages came to mind when they saw
the ENERGY STAR label. Based on the reported messages, a respondent's
understanding was classified as high, general, or no understanding.
The 2010 and 2009 survey results on the level of understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label are provided in the following table. There are no statistical differences
between 2010 and 2009.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Level of Understanding
of the Label
High understanding
General understanding
No understanding
Total
2010
(n=1,707)
73%
11%
16%
1 00%
2009
(n=1,091)
70%
11%
19%
100%
2008
(n=1,881)
68%
10%
22%
100%
Note: The level of understanding of the ENERGY STAR label is
determined using the open-ended responses to two questions (1) ES2:
"What does the ENERGY STAR label mean to you?", and (2) ES4A1:
"Please look at the ENERGY STAR labels on the left. Type the
messages that come to mind when you see the ENERGY STAR label."
In all years except 2006, all respondents were asked either ES2 or
ES4A1, depending on their answers to ES1. Respondents that
answered "Yes" to ES1 were then asked ES2, while all other
respondents were asked ES4A1.
12
-------
Understanding by Publicity Category
The level of understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was similar in high- and non-
high-publicity areas. Eighty-three percent of households in high-publicity areas had
at least a general understanding of the label compared with 85 percent of
households in non-high-publicity areas. The difference between the publicity areas is
not statistically significant at the 10-percent level. Among those households with at
least a general understanding of the ENERGY STAR label, more households
exhibited a high degree of understanding in both publicity categories.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
Publicity Category
High
Non-high
Difference (High minus
Non-High)
p-value
At Least General
Understanding of Label
83%
85%
-1%
0.622
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100% -,
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
DHigh Understanding D General Understanding
74%
71%
High Publicity
Non-High Publicity
For General Understanding, high- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
13
-------
Understanding of Label Messaging
Open-ended responses to the questions on the level of understanding of the
ENERGY STAR label are an indicator of how effectively EPA communicates its
messages through the label. These responses are used in the analysis of
understanding in the previous section. By far, the most common message
associated with the label was "energy efficiency or energy savings," which is
considered high understanding of the label. Sixty-four percent of households
surveyed associated the ENERGY STAR label with this message. The second most
common response was "environmental benefit" offered by 13 percent of households,
which is also considered high understanding of the label.
Between 2009 and 2010 there was an increase in the proportion of respondents
saying "save money on operation," "energy/environmental product standards,"
"quality," "electricity," "product standards, no environmental link," and "confuses with
EnergyGuide." There was a decrease in "environmental benefit," and "mentions
specific products."
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
"Environmental benefit
*"Save money on operation
"Energy/environmental product standards
Savings (not linked to operation)
Energy conservation
Energy no link to efficiency
"Electricity
"Confuses with EnergyGuide
Government backing
• 8%
• 7%
• 4%
a 3%
cn 9%
H 5%
S 3%
a 2%
tr
High
Understanding
Genera
•^
Understanding
H
Environmental no link to benefit ] 2%
*"Mentions specific products ] 2%
*Quality p 1%
*"Product standards no environmental link
Save money on purchase
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.01).
2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.05).
2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10).
14
-------
Understanding of Label Messaging by Publicity Category
More respondents (67 percent) in high-publicity regions were likely to volunteer
"energy efficiency/savings" than in non-high-publicity regions (61 percent), which is
significant at the 10-percent level. For other messages, the proportion of households
that associated the message with the ENERGY STAR label was similar for high- and
non-high-publicity areas.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
*Energy efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
Save money on operation
Energy/environmental product standards
Savings (not linked to operation)
Energy conservation
Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses with EnergyGuide
Government backing
i 12%
1 13%
— ] 9Q%
— ] 7%°
=Te%
94%
4%
,4% HighU
19%
Er^/010% General
=l 6%
-I 3%
3 3%
• 2%
" 3% ^=d
61
.-
67%
%
--~^.
iderstanding
Understanding
^
^=^
Environmental no link to benefit
Mentions specific products
Product standards no environmental link
Quality
Save money on purchase
2%
2%
2%
L 1o%
i 1%
1%
iHigh Publicity n Non-High Publicity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
*High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.10).
15
-------
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
Households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label when shown the label were
more likely to have at least a general understanding of the label than those that did
not recognize the label. In 2010, 87 percent of households that recognized the
ENERGY STAR label had at least a general understanding of it, while among
households that did not recognize the label, 74 percent had at least a general
understanding of it. The 13 percentage point difference in understanding between
households that recognized the label and those that did not is statistically significant
at the 1-percent level.
The proportion of households who did not recognize the label but had at least a
general understanding of it rose to 74 percent in 2010, up from 63 percent in 2009;
this increase is statistically significant at the 10-percent level.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize ENERGY STAR
Label Aided
Yes
No
Difference (Yes minus No)
p-value
At Least General Understanding
of Label
2010
87%
74%
13%
0.002
2009
87%
63%
24%
<0.0001
16
-------
INFLUENCE
The survey provided some insight into consumers' decisions to purchase ENERGY
STAR-labeled products, including the following:
• The proportion of households nationwide that recognized the ENERGY STAR
label and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product
• The influence of the ENERGY STAR label on purchase decisions
• The role of rebates or financing in decisions to buy ENERGY STAR-labeled
products
• The loyalty of purchasers to ENERGY STAR-labeled products
Purchases of ENERGY STAR-labeled Products
In order to estimate the percent of all households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR product, the following three proportions were multiplied:
• The proportion of all households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label
(aided)
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided), the proportion that
purchased a product in a product category that has an ENERGY STAR
specification
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided) and purchased a product in a
relevant category, the proportion that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product
The result is that 43 percent of all households knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR product in the past twelve months. This result is statistically different (higher),
at the 1-percent level, from the 2009 result. It is not significantly different from the
2008 estimate (40 percent), suggesting that the 2009 result was not part of a
downward trend.
Purchased ENERGY STAR
(Base = All respondents)
Purchased ENERGY STAR product
Estimate (yes)
Standard Error
2010
(n=1,641)
43%
2.2%
2009
(n=1,034)
33%
2.6%
2008
(n=1,805)
40%
2.3%
2010 and 2009 results are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.01). 2010 and 2008 results are statistically similar (p-value >0.10).
17
-------
An increase or decrease in the percent of all households that knowingly purchased
an ENERGY STAR product could be due to changes in any of the three proportions
listed above between 2009 and 2010. Aided recognition increased from 77 percent
to 83 percent and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product increased from
62 percent to 77 percent; both increases were statistically significant at the 1-percent
level. There was no significant change (at the 10-percent level) for the proportion
that purchased a product.
Purchases of ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
The proportion of all households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product in high- versus non-high-publicity areas is 43 and 44 percent, respectively.
This difference is not significant at the 10-percent level (p-value = 0.757). The
market penetration of ENERGY STAR products increased in high-publicity
categories from 32 percent in 2009 to 43 percent in 2010. This difference is
significant at the 5-percent level (p-value = 0.023).
National Household Market Penetration of ENERGY STAR
Products by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
Publicity Category
High
Non-High
Difference (High minus Non-High)
p-value
% Households
43%
44%
-1 .4%
0.757
18
-------
Three proportions are used to calculate the proportion of all households that
knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product: aided recognition of the program
label, purchase of a relevant product, and the proportion of those purchasers that
bought ENERGY STAR products. In 2010, the differences between high- and non-
high-publicity areas are not statistically significant for aided recognition and
purchase of a relevant product. However the proportion of purchasers that knowingly
purchased an ENERGY STAR product is 81 percent in non-high-publicity areas,
while in high-publicity areas it is 73 percent.
National Household Market Penetration of ENERGY STAR
Products by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
High
Non-High
Difference
p-value
Aided
Recognition
85%
82%
2.5%
0.349
Purchased
Product
69%
66%
2.7%
0.463
Knowingly
Purchased
ENERGY STAR
product
73%
81%
-7.9%
0.089
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
In 2010, for 74 percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product, the label influenced at least one of their purchase decisions "very
much" or "somewhat." This is not statistically different from the 2009 result of 80
percent (p-value = 0.164).
Nearly half of the households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product, reported having been influenced "very much" by the label. For 11 percent of
households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly." Fifteen percent
of households reported the presence of the ENERGY STAR label had no influence
on their purchase. These findings are not significantly different from those of 2009.
19
-------
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers]
Influence of the Label
on Purchasing
Decisions
Very much
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at all
Total
2010
(n=556)
Maximum
48%
26%
11%
15%
100%
2009
(n=277)
Maximum
47%
33%
7%
13%
1 00%
Note: Q8: "For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you
purchased, how much did the ENERGY STAR label influence
your purchase decision?"
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
The purchase decisions of 54 percent of households in high-publicity areas were
influenced "very much" by the ENERGY STAR label, compared to 42 percent in non-
high-publicity areas; this difference is significant at the 10-percent level. When these
proportions are added to the proportions of households for which the ENERGY
STAR label was "somewhat" influential in their purchasing decisions, the high- to
non-high-publicity area comparison is 76 to 71 percent, respectively, which is not
statistically different at the 10-percent level of significance. The combined "very
much, somewhat, or slightly" proportion is 89 percent in high-publicity areas, and 80
percent in non-high-publicity areas. This difference is significant at the 10 percent
level.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers, n = 556]
Publicity Category
High
Non-High
Difference (High minus Non-High )
p-value
Very much
54%
42%
12%
0.054
Very much
or somewhat
76%
71%
5%
0.357
Very much,
somewhat,
or slightly
89%
80%
8%
0.080
Respondents that recognize the label (aided) and purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product
are asked Q8 ("For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you purchased, how much did the
ENERGY STAR label influence your purchase decision?") for each ENERGY STAR-labeled product
they purchased. The results presented in this table use the highest influence rating provided by
respondents that purchased more than one ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
20
-------
Rebate and Financing Influence
From 2009 to 2010, the percentage of households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR-labeled product and received rebates or reduced-rate financing
increased from 12 percent to 24 percent. This difference is statistically significant at
the 1-percent level (p-value =0.002). Of these households in 2010, 50 percent would
have been "very likely" to purchase the ENERGY STAR product if financial
incentives had not been available. This increase of 13 percentage points from the
previous year is not statistically significant.
Another 25 percent would have been "somewhat likely" to purchase without a rebate
in 2010. This leaves 20 percent that would have been "slightly likely" and 5 percent
"not at all likely." None of these are significantly different from 2009.
Received Financial Incentive for an ENERGY STAR Product Purchased
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchaser]
Received Financial
Incentive for an ENERGY
STAR Product Purchased
Yes***
No
Total
% Households
2010
(n=521)
24%
76%
100%
2009
(n=261)
12%
88%
100%
Note: Q9: "Did you receive rebates or reduced-rate financing for any ENERGY
STAR-labeled product(s) you purchased?"
*** 2010 and 2009 results are statistically different from each other at
the 1-percent level of significance (p-value<0.01).
Influence of Rebates and Financing on Purchasing Decisions
[Base = Recognize label (aided), ENERGY STAR purchaser, and received an incentive]
Likelihood Purchase
ENERGY STAR Product
Without Financial
Incentive
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Total
% Households
2010
(n=133)
50%
25%
20%
5%
100%
2009
(n=45)
37%
25%
19%
18%
100%
Note: Q10: "If rebates or reduced-rate financing had not been available, how likely is it that
you would have purchased the ENERGY STAR-labeled product?"
21
-------
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR is investigated by asking respondents who knowingly
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product how likely they would be to
recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend. Respondents were asked to report
this likelihood on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means "extremely unlikely" and 10
means "extremely likely". As can be seen in the table below, 29 percent of
households who knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product reported
they would be "extremely likely" to recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend.
This proportion is similar to the 2009 value.
The likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR products to a friend is greater than
"6" for 79 percent of these households. This is consistent with the previous year's
result of 79 percent.
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchasers]
Likelihood
Recommend
ENERGY STAR
Products
10 - Extremely likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 - Extremely unlikely
Total
% Households
2010
(n=577)
29%
24%
16%
10%
7%
8%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
100%
2009
(n=202)
28%
22%
15%
13%
14%
2%
3%
1%
1%
2%
0%
1 00%
Notes: Q11: "How likely are you to recommend ENERGY STAR-
labeled products to a friend?"] is measured on an 11-point scale,
where 0 ="Extremely unlikely" and 10 ="Extremely likely."
22
-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
Sources Seen
Sixty-nine percent of households have seen something about ENERGY STAR on
appliance or electronics labels, and 68 percent of households have seen something
about ENERGY STAR in store displays. Forty-eight percent of households heard or
saw something about ENERGY STAR on TV commercials. Between 20 and 28
percent of households saw something about ENERGY STAR on or in utility mailings
or bill inserts, EnergyGuide labels, or in newspaper or magazine advertisements.
Significantly more households in 2010 than in 2009 saw something about ENERGY
STAR in direct mail or circular advertisements (13 percent compared to 8 percent).
The proportion informed by their lender rose from less than one percent (0.002) in
2009 to one percent in 2010. All other responses were statistically similar to the
proportions from the 2009 survey.
23
-------
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,219]
"Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Displays in stores
TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Internet
Salesperson
Newspaper or magazine article
**Direct mail or circular advertisement
Radio commercial
TV news feature story
Homebuilder
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Billboard
Contractor
Realtor
Other
"Lender
I 69%
68%
] 48%
D 28%
] 25%
D 21%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: SO1: "Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY STAR? Please mark all that apply."
** 2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05). Proportion of households in 2010 is larger than in 2009 for Direct mail or circular advertisement
and Lender.
* 2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). Proportion of households in 2010 is larger than in 2009 for labels on appliances or electronic
equipment.
Sources Seen by Publicity Category
For several information sources, the proportion of households that heard or saw
something about ENERGY STAR was significantly larger in high- than in non-high-
publicity areas. This was the case for TV commercials, utility mailings and bill
inserts, newspaper or magazine advertisements, radio commercials, and TV news
feature stories. Other sources of information are not significantly different between
high- and non-high-publicity areas.
24
-------
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,219]
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Displays in stores
***TV commercial
***Utility mailing or bill insert
"Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Internet
Newspaper or magazine article
Salesperson
Direct mail or circular advertisement
***Radio commercial
*TV news feature story
Homebuilder
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Billboard
Contractor
Realtor
Other
Lender
P 70%
• 70%
J 42%
-I 21%
• 29%
121%
21%
21%
I 16%
• High Publicity
D Non-High Publicity
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.01). Proportion of households in high-publicity areas are higher than in non-high.
High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.05). Proportion of households in high-publicity areas are higher than in non-high.
High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.10). Proportion of households in high-publicity areas are higher than in non-high.
25
-------
APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY
During September 2010, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE) fielded a
questionnaire to obtain information at the national level on consumer awareness and
understanding of the ENERGY STAR label, the value accrued to the label in the
eyes of consumers, satisfaction with labeled products, and other ENERGY STAR-
related information. The questionnaire was similar to the Internet/WebTV-based
questionnaires fielded in previous years (2001 through 2009). As in the 10 previous
years, GEE and its members sponsoring the survey made the survey data available
to EPA for analysis. In 2001, a rigorous comparative analysis of the results obtained
via a mail survey versus an internet survey was conducted. The results from the two
survey methods were comparable for most major indicators.9 Results from that time-
frame were also analogous to telephone surveys for aided recognition.10
This report discusses the results of the 2010 GEE ENERGY STAR Household
Survey, building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which
consumers recognized the ENERGY STAR label, understood its intended
messages, and utilized (or were influenced by) the label in their energy-related
purchase decisions. Research questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity impact consumer ENERGY STAR label
recognition, understanding, and influence?
• Which key messages about the ENERGY STAR label are consumers retaining?
• Do consumers demonstrate loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label?
The survey was fielded from September 16 through September 30, 2010.
The remainder of Appendix A discusses the questionnaire design, sampling and
weighting methodologies, data collection, and the national analysis. See Appendix D
for survey questions.
1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
In 2010, GEE conducted the ENERGY STAR survey using a questionnaire designed
to be delivered by Internet/WebTV. The survey was conducted via an interactive
internet format with a random sample of households that are members of an
internet-based panel. Both the panel as a whole and the sample of households
completing the survey were selected by address-based sampling and recruited by
9 National Analysis of GEE 2001 ENERGY STAR Household Surveys. U.S. EPA, 2002.
10Tannenbaum, Bobbi and Shel Feldman. "ENERGY STAR Awareness as a Function of Survey
Method." IEPEC, 2001.
A-1
-------
telephone.11 Participants in this survey were then randomly selected from the panel.
Only one member per household in the random sample was contacted. Households
selected for previous years' surveys were not eligible to participate in the 2010
survey.
The panel is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Panel members
without their own internet access are provided with a laptop and an Internet service
connection. Households that already have Internet service receive other incentives
to participate in the panel. Panel members respond to questionnaires administered
to them via the internet. They receive no more than three to four short
questionnaires each month, and are expected to respond to a certain percentage of
them.
Data collected using the 2010 internet questionnaire may in most cases be
compared with data collected using the internet questionnaires fielded in previous
years, for which GEE was also responsible.
1.1 Survey Objectives
GEE had several broad objectives in designing the 2010 questionnaire, including:
• To maintain consistency with the GEE 2000 and 2001 mail questionnaires and
the internet questionnaires fielded in 2001 and subsequent years
• To fine-tune the questionnaire based on lessons learned from prior years'
analyses of the GEE survey while maintaining the ability to analyze the results of
the 2010 survey against those from the 2009 GEE survey
The 2010 internet questionnaire addressed the following:
• Respondent recognition and understanding of the ENERGY STAR label
• Key messages communicated by the ENERGY STAR label
• Products on which respondents have seen the ENERGY STAR label
• Products that respondents have shopped for or purchased in the past year
• Products that respondents have purchased that displayed the ENERGY STAR
label on the product, packaging, or instructions
• Influence of the presence or absence of the ENERGY STAR label on the
purchase decision
11 In previous years, the panel was recruited via random-digit dial. Knowledge Networks believes that ABS offers
advantages, including coverage of cell-phone-only households, and analysis of non-response bias. More
information is available at http://www.knowledqenetworks.com/accuracv/fall-winter2010/abs-fall2010.html.
A-2
-------
• Whether purchases of ENERGY STAR-labeled products involved rebates or
reduced-rate financing
• Likelihood of having purchased ENERGY STAR-labeled products in the absence
of rebates or reduced-rate financing
• Likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend and
other measures of loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label
• Satisfaction with ENERGY STAR-labeled products versus products without the
ENERGY STAR label
• Demographic questions (most of the demographic questions were not asked in
the internet survey as the demographic characteristics of the respondents were
already on file)
• Recognition and understanding of the yellow EnergyGuide labels
1.2 Internet Questionnaire
The interactive format of an internet questionnaire allows questions to be asked in a
way that is not possible with a printed questionnaire. On printed questionnaires
respondents can see questions in advance and may be tempted to read the entire
questionnaire before completing it, potentially educating themselves in a limited way
about the subject and affecting their responses.
The internet questionnaires (after questions about the yellow EnergyGuide label) ask
respondents—without showing the ENERGY STAR label—whether they have ever
seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label. Responses to this question should thus
be comparable to those obtained through a telephone survey. The internet
questionnaires then show the ENERGY STAR label(s) (which is not possible with a
telephone survey) and ask again about recognition and understanding. As a result,
responses to these questions should be comparable to those obtained through a
mail survey where respondents are shown the label.
Another difference between a mail questionnaire and an internet questionnaire is
that the latter—like a telephone questionnaire using computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI)—can program lines of questions based on responses to earlier
questions. For example, respondents to an internet questionnaire who say they have
bought a given product in the past year can then be asked whether that specific
product (or its packaging or instructions) had the ENERGY STAR label.
Thus, the internet survey is able to combine some of the attributes of both print and
telephone surveys.
A-3
-------
1.3 Changes to the Questionnaire
The 2010 questionnaire was very similar to the 2009 questionnaire. Respondents
were asked about the same list of products as in the 2009 survey.
The product lists are used for the following survey questions:
Q5(b): Please select each of the products, product literature, or packaging on which
you have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
Q6A: Have you or someone else in your household been shopping in a store in the
last 12 months for any of the products listed below?
Q7A: On which products did you see the ENERGY STAR label?
Q8: How much did the ENERGY STAR label influence your purchase decision?
Q12(b): Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12 months?
QC: In general, how satisfied are you with each of the following products you
purchased?
The logic of one of those questions, Q6A, changed slightly in 2010. Prior to this year,
the question asked for a single yes or no response if anyone in the household had
been shopping for any of the list of 26 products. In 2010, nine items on that list were
asked about individually, as Q6A1_1 through Q6A1_9; the remainder of the list are
asked about in a new question, Q6A2 which, as in previous years, records one
answer for all 17.
Q6A2: Have you or someone else in your household been shopping in a store in the
last 12 months for any of the products listed below?
For every product mentioned in Q6A1_1-Q6A1_9, a follow-up Q6B1_1-Q6B1_9 is
asked:
Q6B1: When you shopped for , did you look for the ENERGY STAR label?
Question Q16 asks how strongly respondents agree or disagree with a list of
statements about ENERGY STAR. In 2010, three new statements were added to the
list.
• Q16q. ENERGY STAR-labeled products are no different from other products.
• Q16r. In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR-labeled products save me
money.
• Q16s. I don't trust that ENERGY STAR-labeled products save the energy they're
supposed to.
A-4
-------
1.4 Determination of Aided Recognition
In the 2010 analysis, the determination of aided recognition was based on the
responses to five questions. This is the same sequence and numbering used in the
2009 survey. Specifically:
ES3A: Is this the label you have seen or heard of before? (Respondents were
randomly shown either the old or new ENERGY STAR label. This question was
asked to respondents who said they had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR
label.)
ES3B: Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label? (In this
question, asked after ES3A, respondents were shown the label not shown in the
previous question.)
ES3C: Please look at the ENERGY STAR label on the left. Have you ever seen or
heard of this label? (Respondents were randomly shown either the old or new
ENERGY STAR label. This question was asked to respondents who said they had
not seen or heard of or didn't know whether they had seen or heard of ENERGY
STAR.)
ES3D: Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label? (In this
question, asked after ES3C, respondents were shown the label not shown in the
previous question.)
ESS: Now that you had the opportunity to see the ENERGY STAR label, do you
recall seeing or hearing anything about it before this survey? (This question was
asked to respondents who answered "no" or "don't know" to ES3A and ES3B. It was
also asked to all respondents who answered ES3C and ES3D.)
• Respondents who answered ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, ES3D, or ESS "yes" were
categorized as recognizing the ENERGY STAR label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ESS "no," were categorized as not recognizing the label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ESS "don't know" or refused to answer ESS were not included in the
analysis of aided recognition. (Their data were set to missing.)
A-5
-------
2 SAMPLING
2.1 Designated Marketing Areas' Publicity Categories
The same publicity classification procedure used in the past 9 years was used in
2010. The original intent of the classification was to be able to assess the effect of
local energy efficiency program publicity on awareness. The majority of these local
efficiency programs historically have been supported by utility rate-payer funded
energy efficiency programming. However, during 2010, as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy
also made funding available to U.S. states and territories to support consumer
rebates for ENERGY STAR qualified appliances. A decision was made to retain the
same publicity classification procedure to retain the prior years' publicity
classification of the 57 largest DMAs—in essence preserving the historical
classification for future study years, which was based on the following criteria:
• High publicity: Active local ENERGY STAR program recently sponsored by a
utility, state agency, or other organization for 2 or more continuous years. The
activities must include sustained promotions and publicity from non-federal
sources.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional
program sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
The key working definitions are:
• Recent: The 2 years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• Sustained: The 2 years of activity must be continuous.
• Significant: In addition to any direct federal publicity efforts, publicity efforts
must include a deliberate and multifaceted regional program sponsor investment
in ENERGY STAR programming, such as direct marketing efforts or the creation
and distribution of promotional material.
A-6
-------
Each of the Top 57 DMAs was classified according to these three criteria, and
sampled based on that classification. Non-top-57 DMAs were not classified.
Although the sample frame was based on the 2009 publicity classifications, given
the significant short-term publicity and funding associated with ARRA, for the
purpose of this report, low publicity and other publicity are combined in the analysis
and referenced as non-high publicity areas. Another contributing factor to combine
these categories in the analysis is that over time, the population of low-publicity
DMAs has dropped to about 15 percent, while high-publicity DMAs now account for
about half of U.S. television households.
2.2 Sample Design
The survey was a national survey. The sampling frame for this national survey
included all households in any DMAs that together accounted for about 70 percent of
U.S. television households. Prior to 2010, the sample covered only the 57 largest
DMAs. In 2010, the national sample added a stratum grouping the remaining 153
DMAs. In addition, GEE members may choose to sponsor more intensive sampling
(i.e., an oversample) in selected localities, referred to here as sponsor areas. In
2010, there were four sponsor areas:
• Massachusetts
• New York state (with the exception of Long Island)
• Denver DMA
• Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA
The complete frame for the study was all 210 DMAs. However, to facilitate
comparisons across years, the national results were based only on data collected
from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data collected from respondents not in
the 57 largest DMAs, are discussed separately, in Appendix E. Some of the 57
largest DMAs are also included in the four sponsor areas and therefore were
oversampled. The data from these respondents (as well as from the other
respondents in the 57 largest DMAs) received an appropriate weight in the analysis
in order to generate valid national results and facilitate comparison with data from
other years.
As in previous years' studies, the DMAs in the sampling frame were classified by
publicity category, so the effect of local energy efficiency program publicity on
national awareness could be considered. The same publicity classification procedure
used in the past 9 years was used this year.12 Each sponsor area is also further
stratified by large versus non-large DMA. The GEE members who fund the
oversample for a sponsor area determine the total number of sampling points
allocated to the sponsor area as a whole. This total number of sampling points is
then allocated across sponsor area strata proportional to population.
12 None of the 57 largest DMAs changed publicity category between 2009 and 2010.
A-7
-------
Program publicity has expanded over the past ten years. Originally, high-publicity,
low-publicity, and other groups had similar numbers of households, and so the
sample was allocated equally among the three groups. In 2010, for the first time, the
number of respondents in each stratum was chosen in proportion to that stratum's
share of the U.S. population living in DMAs. As in the past for the national sample,
the three publicity categories (the top 57 DMAs) comprise 1,000 respondents. This
year, the national sample includes another 430 respondents from the Non-Top-57
DMAs.13
A list of the large DMAs and their publicity category assignments is provided in the
table below. A list of the DMAs included in the sponsor area and their publicity
category assignments follows. Lastly, the large DMAs and the DMAs in the sponsor
areas are shown on a map along with their publicity categories.
13 These are not included in the main body of the paper. Their potential influence on national analysis is
discussed in Appendix E.
A-8
-------
Large (Top 57
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Designated Market Area (DMA)
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas-Ft. Worth
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose
Boston (Manchester)
Atlanta
Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)
Houston
Detroit
Phoenix (Prescott)
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)
Seattle-Tacoma
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
Denver
Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn
Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto
St. Louis
Portland, OR
Pittsburgh
Charlotte
Indianapolis
Baltimore
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)
San Diego
Nashville
Hartford & New Haven
Kansas City
Columbus, OH
Salt Lake City
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And
San Antonio
West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk
Birmingham (Ann, Tusc)
Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York
Las Vegas
Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws
DMAs14
TV Households
2009-2010
Number
7,493,530
5,659,170
3,501,010
2,955,190
2,544,410
2,503,400
2,410,180
2,387,520
2,335,040
2,123,460
1,890,220
1,873,930
1,833,990
1,805,810
1,732,050
1,539,380
1,538,090
1,520,750
1,455,620
1,404,580
1,249,450
1,188,770
1,154,950
1,147,910
1,119,760
1,107,820
1,093,170
1,073,390
1,019,010
1,010,630
944,060
941,360
918,670
904,030
901,790
865,810
830,000
776,080
743,420
742,140
740,430
721,780
709,880
% of US
6.524
4.927
3.048
2.573
2.215
2.179
2.098
2.079
2.033
1.849
1.646
1.631
1.597
1.572
1.508
1.340
1.339
1.324
1.267
1.223
1.088
1.035
1.005
0.999
0.975
0.964
0.952
0.934
0.887
0.880
0.822
0.820
0.800
0.787
0.785
0.754
0.723
0.676
0.647
0.646
0.645
0.628
0.618
Publicity
Category
High
High
High
Other
Other
High
High
High
High
Other
Other
High
Other
High
High
Other
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
High
Other
Other
Other
Other
Low
High
Low
High
Other
Other
High
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Other
Low
Other
High
Low
14
Publicity categories are the same as 2009.
A-9
-------
Rank
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Designated Market Area (DMA)
Albuquerque-Santa Fe
Oklahoma City
Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem
Jacksonville
Memphis
Austin
Louisville
Buffalo
Pro vide nee- New Bedford
New Orleans
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
Fresno- Visalia
Little Rock-Pine Bluff
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Total
TV Households
2009-2010
Number
694,040
694,030
691,380
679,120
678,730
668,310
667,660
633,930
633,220
619,610
593,480
579,180
564,490
554,070
81,362,890
% of US
0.604
0.604
0.602
0.591
0.591
0.582
0.581
0.552
0.551
0.539
0.517
0.504
0.491
0.482
70.833
Publicity
Category
Other
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
Other
Low
High
Low
High
Sponsor Areas
Sponsor Area
Massachusetts
New York(with the
exception of Long
Island)
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Denver
Publicity
Category
High
High
High
Other
DMA (Large and Small)
Large: all
Small: all
* Springfield-Holyoke (rank 1 11)
Large: partial
* Boston (Manchester) (rank 7)
* Pro vide nee- New Bedford (rank 53)
* Albany-Schenectady-Troy (rank 57)
Large: all
Small: all
Large: partial
* New York (rank 1)
* Buffalo (rank 52)
* Albany-Schenectady-Troy (rank 57)
Small: partial
* Syracuse (rank 83)
* Rochester (rank (80)
* Burlington-Plattsburgh (rank 94)
* Binghamton (rank 157)
*Utica (rank 170)
* Elmira (Corning) (rank 176)
* Watertown (rank 1 77)
Large: all
* Minneapolis-St. Paul (rank 15)
Large: all
*Denver(rank16)
A-10
-------
Large (Top 57) DMAs and Sponsor Areas by Publicity Category
2010
15
H "High" publicity category
L "Low" publicity category
O "Other" publicity category
JCEE sponsorarea ranking in Top 57 DMAs
ICEE sponsorarea not ranking in Top 57 DMAs
2.3 Weighting Procedures
Knowledge Networks, the company that provided the internet survey service,
developed the weights used in the analysis. Knowledge Networks first adjusted its
panel members for known disproportions due to the panel's original selection and
recruitment design and then proceeded with a post-stratification weighting that
accounted for differences between the panel and the U.S. population. The
adjustment to this typical sampling weight approach was based on geographic and
demographic characteristics known for both the panel and the population (refer to
Appendix B). It effectively scales up under-represented population dimensions in the
panel and scales down dimensions that are over-represented in the panel. This
more closely aligned the panel with the basic demographic characteristics of the
U.S. population.
15
There were no large DMAs or sponsor areas in either Alaska or Hawaii.
A-11
-------
After the field data are collected, Knowledge Networks further adjusted the sampling
weight to account for survey non-response. The correction for survey non-response
is analogous to the adjustment for differences between the panel members and the
U.S. population. It was based on geographic and demographic characteristics known
for both the sample of panel survey completes and the entire sampling frame for the
study. The weighting scaled up under-represented population dimensions and
scaled down over-represented dimensions in the sample of survey completes. This
more closely aligned the sample of survey completes with the basic demographic
characteristics of the entire sampling frame for the study.
A-12
-------
3 DATA COLLECTION
3.1 Survey Fielding Period
The survey began on September 16 and closed on September 30, 2010.
3.2 Response Rate
The overall response rate was 10 percent for the GEE 2010 ENERGY STAR
Household Survey. This level of response is typical for Knowledge Networks'
surveys.
For an internet survey, the response rate is defined as the product of the return rate,
which is survey-specific, and the recruitment rate. The return rate is the ratio of the
number of questionnaires completed to the number of panel members asked to
complete the questionnaire. For the GEE 2010 ENERGY STAR Household Survey,
the return rate was 61 percent. While this number is quite high, it must be adjusted
by the recruitment rate, which is the number of households that agreed to participate
in the Knowledge Networks panel as a proportion of the number of households
asked to participate. The recruitment rate was 16 percent. Thus, the response rate
for the GEE 2010 ENERGY STAR Household survey was the product of the survey-
specific return rate of 61 percent and the recruitment rate of 16 percent. This product
is equivalent to the ratio of the number of questionnaires completed to the number of
households that were offered the opportunity to be in the study.
CEE 2010 ENERGY STAR Household Survey Response Rate
16
Sendout/requested
Completed
Return rate
Recruitment rate
Response rate
2,791
1,707
61%
16%
10%
16
Only respondents from Top-57 DMAs are included in this table.
A-13
-------
4 NATIONAL ANALYSIS
4.1 DMAs Included
To facilitate comparisons across years, the national results were based only on data
collected from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data collected from
respondents not in the 57 largest DMAs are not included in this analysis. Some of
the 57 largest DMAs are also included in the sponsor areas and therefore were
oversampled. The data from these respondents, as well as from the other
respondents in the 57 largest DMAs, received an appropriate weight in the analysis
in order to generate valid national results and comparison with data from other
years.
In Appendix E key analysis from the report (based on the 57 largest DMAs) is
replicated for the Non-Top-57 DMAs and for All DMAs (large and non-large).
4.2 Treatment of "Don't Know" Responses and Refusals
For most questions, how "don't know" responses or refusals are handled has a
negligible effect on the results. Still, it is necessary to make a decision as to how
they should be handled. The results presented in this report for a given question do
not include "don't know" responses or refusal to answer (i.e., the results for a given
question were calculated after any "don't know" responses to that question or
refusals to answer that question were set to missing).
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS
This appendix presents the relationship between the demographic characteristics
found in the weighted survey data and the corresponding characteristics in the study
population of all U.S. households. Professional survey and data collection firms
make significant efforts to ensure the rigor of their methods and to produce the
highest quality results. Each year, Knowledge Networks—the company that
maintains the internet-based survey panel used in this analysis—strives to create a
panel that is representative of the U.S. population. However, as in any survey effort,
those who respond to surveys tend to be different from those who do not. In this
case, the panel used for this survey may contain subjects that are receptive to the
incentive-for-service tradeoff and introduce associated biases.
Weighting used in the analyses of this report is applied to account for differences
between the internet-based panel and the U.S. population. If weighting was
accomplished perfectly, the distribution of various demographic characteristics in the
weighted survey data would be the same as the distribution of those characteristics
in national Census data. For most demographic characteristics, the two distributions
are quite similar. This suggests the weighted survey results are a reasonable
representation of the study population. A summary of the comparisons of
demographic characteristics is provided in the table below. Detailed comparisons
are provided in tables presented at the end of this appendix.
Summary of Distribution Comparisons
Demographic Characteristic
Number of persons in household
Householder/respondent age
Householder/respondent gender
Dwelling type
Own/rent
Household annual income
Largest Difference (Absolute Value):
Survey Estimate Less Census %
One
65 or older
Gender
Single-family, attached
Own/rent
$15,000-$24,999
7.0%
5.9%
+/- 1 .4%
3.9%
+/- 0.2%
3.2%
The largest differences (in absolute value) between the weighted survey data and
national Census data, at between six and seven percentage points, are the number
of persons in the household, and the proportion of householder/respondent age that
are 65 years of age or older. The difference in the number of single-family, attached
residences is the next largest, at almost four percentage points, and the difference in
proportion of households in the $15,000-$24,999 income category is the next largest
at 3.2 percentage points. The combined under-representation of 65 years of age or
older households and under-representation of single-person households are not
expected to bias the survey results in any particular direction. Differences between
the weighted survey data and Census data for other demographic characteristics of
the population—own/rent, and gender—are all quite small, at less than two
percentage points.
B-1
-------
Household Size Distribution
Number of Persons
in Household 2010
One
Two
Three
Four
Five or more
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Dwelling
Units3
27%
33%
16%
14%
10%
100%
111,806
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Dwelling Units
-7.0%
-0.1%
2.5%
1 .7%
2.8%
'U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-9.
Age Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Age 2010
18-24b
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or older
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
%
Householders3
5%
17%
20%
21%
17%
21%
100%
111,806
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
%
Householders
5.6%
1 .9%
-0.7%
-2.3%
1 .4%
-5.9%
|
U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-9.
Gender Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Gender 2009
Female
Male
Total (%)
Census
%
Population3
51%
49%
100%
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Population
1 .4%
-1 .4%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates
B-2
-------
Dwelling Type Distribution
Dwelling Type 2010
Single-family, detached
Single-family, attached
Bldg. (>=2 units)
Mobile home
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Dwelling
Units3
65%
5%
23%
6%
100%
111,806
Survey
Estimate Minus
Census
% Dwelling
Units
0.4%
3.4%
-2.2%
-1 .7%
U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-1.
Own/Rent Distribution
Own/Rent
2010
Own
Rent
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
%
Households3
68%
32%
100%
111,806
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
0.2%
-0.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-1.
Income Distribution
Total Household Annual
Income (before taxes) 2010
Less than $15,000
$15,000-$24,999
$25,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000 and over
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Households3
13%
12%
25%
18%
32%
100%
117,538
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
2.6%
-3.2%
1 .6%
1 .6%
-2.6%
3 U.S. Census Bureau, CPS Annual Demographic Survey March Supplement in 2010,
Table HINC-01 Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income (2009 data)
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM 2010 SURVEY
This appendix presents the results of additional ENERGY STAR related questions in
the 2010 survey that were added by GEE since 2005; and were not discussed in the
main body of the report. Topics included in this appendix include:
• ENERGY STAR Designation
• ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction
• Consumer Perceptions
• Purchasing Decisions
• CFL Purchaser Questions
1 ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION
Forty-three percent of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided)
thought that the U.S. government decides if a product deserves the label. This is
statistically similar to the 2009 result. Twenty-two percent of households thought the
product manufacturers make this decision, up from 17 percent in 2009
(p-value = 0.058). Eighteen percent thought the Underwriters Laboratories make the
decision.
Designates ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=856)
U.S. government
*Product manufacturer
Underwriters Laboratories
Electric and gas utility
Retailer/store
Other
43%
22%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 30% 100%
Note: QB: "As far as you know, who decides if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label?"
* 2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent
level of significance (p-value<0.10).
C-1
-------
2 ENERGY STAR Designation by Publicity Category
In 2010, high-publicity areas and non-high-publicity areas identified the entity that
designates the ENERGY STAR label in similar proportions in all categories.
Designates ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=856)
U.S. government
Product manufacturer i 1 24%
Underwriters Laboratories
44%
120%
19%
Electricand gas utility | 11407
1% iHigh Publicity
1% n Non-High Publicity
Other ^
Retailer/store
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3 ENERGY STAR PRODUCT SATISFACTION
For most products, household satisfaction with a given product in a product category
that has an ENERGY STAR specification does not appear to vary based on whether
or not the product had an ENERGY STAR label. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1
means "very dissatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied," products with and without the
ENERGY STAR label had the same average satisfaction rating of 4.1.
ENERGY STAR-labeled insulation received higher satisfaction ratings compared
with unlabeled insulation (4.6 and 3.9 respectively, p-value = 0.001). The satisfaction
rating of dehumidifiers, room air-conditioners, heat pumps, furnace/boilers, and
microwave ovens17 was lower for ENERGY STAR-labeled models than for non-
ENERGY STAR-labeled models.
Overall, customer satisfaction with ENERGY STAR products showed a statistically
significant decrease from 4.3 in 2009 to 4.1 in 2010. Five ENERGY STAR-labeled
products showed a statistically significant decrease in customer satisfaction between
2009 and 2010. These products were heat pump, all-in-one printer, insulation, gas
water heater, and computer printer. However, except for all-in-one printers, the
number of respondents who purchased these in 2009 was small, so large variation
There is no ENERGY STAR specification for microwave ovens.
C-2
-------
in opinion might be expected. No ENERGY STAR-labeled products showed an
increase in customer satisfaction over the same period.
ENERGY STAR vs. Non-ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product Satisfaction
18
(Bases = Recognize label (aided) and purchased specified product )
Average Satisfaction (1=very dissatisfied. 5=verv satisfied)
Overall (ne=574, nO=400)
Audio product (ne=41, nO=31)
Newly built home (ne=13, nO=7)
Roofing materials (ne=35, nO=19)
"""Insulation (ne=42, nO=11)
Thermostat (ne=30, nO=19)
Window(ne=86, nO=18)
**Furnace/boiler(ne=19, nO=9)
Lighting fixture (ne=102, nO=61)
Skylight (ne=11, nO=4)
Computer or monitor (ne=159, nO=98)
Copying machine (ne=7, nO=3)
Central A/C (ne=23, nO=10)
Gas water heater (ne=42, nO=11)
Television (ne=171, nO=98)
Compact fluorescent light bulb (ne=210, nO=133)
Door(ne=64, nO=12)
DVD (ne=96, nO=69)
Scanner(ne=10, nO=11)
Refrigerator(ne=132, nO=29)
All-in-one printer (ne=108, nO=50)
Fax Machine (ne=9, nO=1)
**Room air conditioner (ne=75, nO=25)
Washing machine (ne=98, nO=24)
Dishwasher (ne=94, nO=19)
**Microwaveoven (ne=68, nO=21)
**Dehumidifier(ne=23, nO=9)
Computer printer (ne=46, nO=32)
*Heat pump (ne=8, nO=7)
4.1
4.1
4.8
^5«
4.2
14.6
3.9
t^fff\ 4.5
5^
4.0
14.4
4.3
|4g
14.3
3.9
~*3 4.2
3.4
4.2
4.0
34.2
Q4.2
4.2
all
rfffffff\'\Q
4.1
b44°1
4°,-
^ 4.^
5
3.6
33.9
tjjfjji 3.9
'3.4
i 3.7
I o Q
i 3.6 r
3.5
3.3
2.7
13.9
4.3
15.0
012345
n ENERGY STAR-labeled product n Non-ENERGY STAR-labeled product
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-value<0.01).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 10-percent level of significance (p-value<0.10).
18
ne = number of respondents that recognized the label (aided) and purchased this product with an ENERGY STAR label
nO = number of respondents that recognized the label (aided) and purchased this product without an ENERGY STAR label
C-3
-------
4 CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS
Survey respondents that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were asked to
indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with a number of attitudinal statements
about ENERGY STAR-labeled products.19 The statements were shown to
respondents in random order.
For purposes of discussion, the statements are grouped into three categories:
• Environmental and social responsibility messaging
• Purchasing preference
• Product attributes and performance
The 2010 survey results indicate that households generally agree with positive
statements about the ENERGY STAR label and disagree with negative statements
about the label.20 Similar to 2009 results, few statements elicit strong agreement or
strong disagreement among substantial proportions of households; in contrast, a
number of statements generated neutral responses from a sizeable proportion of
households. A more detailed discussion of the findings regarding the attitudinal
statements is provided on the following pages.
19 These statements are numbered Q16a through Q16s in the survey.
20 In this discussion, the term "agree" is used to correspond to survey responses of "strongly agree" or
"somewhat agree." Similarly, the term "disagree" corresponds to survey responses of "strongly
disagree" or "somewhat disagree."
C-4
-------
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging, Purchasing, and Product
Attributes - Agreement with Positive Statements
(Base = Recognize label (aided))
QStrongly disagree • Somewhat disagree n Somewhat agree D Strongly agree
ENVIRONMENTAL/ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
MESSAGING
-100%80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
I
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes 33% Neutral K
mefell like I'm helpingto protect the environment ••>
forfuture generations (n = 1 397) I §
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes 42% Neutral B;
me feel like I'm contributing to society (n = 1 396) | R
PURCHASING PREFERENCE
If I cannotfind the kind of product I am looking for 47% Neutral 'n
with an ENERGY STAR label, I will shop ^
elsewhere ratherthan buy a productthat does not 7
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
i-Mi-r^w o-r«r, j * • ., -^ 46%Neutral f
ENERGY STAR products provide me with more \
benefitsthanproductswithoutthe ENERGY-STAR [
label (n-1395) Li
1
ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value 49/o Neutral K
than products withoutthe label (n=1 396) I E
28% Neutral [
If I seethe ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm \
getting a more energy-efficient product(n=1 397) Li
51% Neutral I £
When I buy a productwith the ENERGY STAR K
label, I can always be sure it's high quality H>
(n=1395) I E
I
J
Lvwwv
W
I
!
1
1
-100%80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
For each attitudinal statement, respondents were asked whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither
agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. The response of "neither agree nor disagree" is
described as "Neutral" in the chart above and the discussion that follows. In the chart, the results for the "Neutral"
response category are shown in text and not depicted in the bar graph. The results for the other four response
categories are depicted in the bar graph.
C-5
-------
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging, Purchasing, and Product
Attributes - Disagreement with Negative Statements
(Base = Recognize label (aided))
nStrongly disagree • Somewhat disagree n Somewhat agree 0 Strongly agree
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes 40% Neutral
me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing
(n=1396)
-100%-80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
36% Neutral
ENERGY STAR labeled products are no different
from other products. (n=1395)
In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR 36% Neutral
labeled products save me money. (n=1396)
I don'ttrust that ENERGY STAR labeled products 39% Neutral
save the energy they're supposed to. (n=1398)
-100%-80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
For each attitudinal statement, respondents were asked whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither
agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. The response of "neither agree nor disagree" is
described as "Neutral" in the chart above and the discussion that follows. In the chart, the results for the "Neutral"
response category are shown in text and not depicted in the bar graph. The results for the other four response
categories are depicted in the bar graph.
C-6
-------
4.1 Environmental and Social Responsibility Messaging
The development of the environmental and social responsibility messaging of the
ENERGY STAR label has been a strong focus of the national ENERGY STAR
education campaign. In the 2010 survey, two statements addressed the label's
messaging in these areas: "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel
like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations" and "Buying
ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society."
Of the thirteen statements that explore consumer attitudes toward the ENERGY
STAR label and products, these two ranked second and third in terms of the
proportion of households who strongly agree with the statements. These two
statements had the same ranking in the four previous years. The proportion strongly
agreeing with each statement decreased slightly, from 22 percent to 16 percent, and
from 17 percent to 12 percent, respectively (both p-values < 0.05). Most of the
change was picked up by their neutral responses.
Of households that recognize the ENERGY STAR label, 56 percent either strongly
or somewhat agree with the statement that by buying ENERGY STAR-labeled
products they feel they are helping protect the environment, 6 percentage points less
than in 2009. Forty-five percent of ENERGY STAR aware households strongly or
somewhat agree that by purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products they feel they
are contributing to society, eight percentage points less than in 2009. Both of these
decreases are significant at the 5-percent level, and were reflected in increased
neutral values.
4.2 Purchasing Preferences
Increasing consumers' preferences for purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products
is also an intended outcome of the national education campaign. In the 2010 survey,
two separate statements were included to investigate households' views of their
purchasing preferences with respect to ENERGY STAR-labeled products. In 2010,
twenty-one percent of households either strongly or somewhat agree with the
statement, "If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking for with an ENERGY
STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather than buy a product that does not qualify for
the label." This is the same proportion as in 2009. More households (31 percent)
either strongly or somewhat disagree, as in 2009. However, the largest proportion of
households—47 percent—are neutral in their level of agreement or disagreement
with this statement of their purchasing behavior.
Similar to 2009, twenty-seven percent of households agree with the second
statement addressing households' views of their purchasing preferences: "I consider
myself loyal to ENERGY STAR products." Disagreement with this statement was 24
percent, also similar to 2009.
c-7
-------
4.3 Product Attributes and Performance
A third goal of the national ENERGY STAR education campaign has been to inform
consumers that ENERGY STAR-labeled products are more energy efficient than
non-labeled products. The degree to which this goal is being accomplished is
addressed in the 2010 survey by asking respondents their level of agreement or
disagreement with the statement "If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm
getting a much more energy-efficient product." Sixty-four percent of respondents
either strongly or somewhat agree with this statement. This indicates a high
perception among consumers that the ENERGY STAR label indicates superior
performance with respect to energy efficiency relative to products without the label.
Additionally, the statement "It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR
label these days" show 48%percent of respondents either somewhat or strongly
agree with this statement. Only 11 % percent disagreed with the statement. This
suggests people are recognizing the label on many products.
The survey addressed perceptions of product quality. Survey respondents were
asked the level at which they agreed or disagreed with the statement "When I buy a
product with the ENERGY STAR label, I can always be sure it's high quality." The
results show that 31 percent of households either strongly or somewhat agree with
this statement—almost twice as many as those who strongly or somewhat
disagree—51 percent are neutral. The proportion strongly disagreeing in 2010 rose
slightly, from three to five percent (p-value=0.057). Otherwise, household agreement
and disagreement with this statement is similar to last year's results.
A number of attitudinal statements were included in the survey to measure
consumers' perceptions of ENERGY STAR-labeled product value. One of these
statements is "ENERGY STAR products provide me with more benefits than
products without the ENERGY STAR label." The results show that nearly half of
households (46 percent) either strongly or somewhat agree with the statement, while
only nine percent of households disagreed. However, on another statement
"ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value than products without the label."
The proportion that either strongly or somewhat agrees in 2010 was 39 percent, up
from 35 percent in 2009; this is mostly due to a six percentage point increase in the
proportion that "agree" (p-value = 0.035). A similar proportion disagreed (12 percent
in 2010, 10 percent in 2009). Six percent fewer were neutral in 2010 (49 percent)
than in 2009 (55 percent, p-value = 0.073).
The results related to the statement "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products
makes me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing" provide additional
information on perceptions of product value. Here, nearly half (48 percent) of all
households who recognize the ENERGY STAR label strongly or somewhat disagree
with the statement, while 40 percent of households are neutral. Only 12 percent
agree with this statement. The proportions of households that agree and disagree
with this statement in 2010 are similar to the 2009 results.
c-8
-------
In 2010, the following new statements about product performance were added; all
three are negative statements.
• The statement, "I don't trust that ENERGY STAR-labeled products save the
energy they're supposed to" had only 15 percent agreement, and over three
times as much disagreement (46 percent).
• The statement, "In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR-labeled
products save me money" had only twelve percent agreement, and over four
times as much disagreement (52 percent).
• Finally, the statement, "I don't trust that ENERGY STAR-labeled products save
the energy they're supposed to" received only nine percent agreement, and 56
percent disagreement.
c-9
-------
4.4 Consumer Perceptions by Publicity Category
The 2010 results also suggest that local and regional efforts to publicize ENERGY
STAR have been successful in affecting consumer perception of the label. There are
statistically significant differences between high- and non-high-publicity areas for
three of the thirteen attitudinal statements.
A larger proportion of people in high-publicity areas (51 percent) than non-high-
publicity areas (45 percent) disagree with the statement, "Buying ENERGY STAR-
labeled products makes me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing," (p-value
= 0.068). Similar proportions in high-publicity and non-high publicity regions are
neutral on the statement.
The proportion agreeing with the statement, "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled
products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society" is larger in high-publicity
areas than in non-high areas, 49 percent to 41 percent (p-value = 0.041). Six of
those eight percentage points are found in the "neutral" category (which falls short of
statistical significance, p-value=0.103). Similar proportions in high and non-high
areas disagree with the statement (12 and 13 percent).
In high-publicity areas, 30 percent of respondents agree with the statement, "I
consider myself loyal to ENERGY STAR-labeled products", compared to 24 percent
of respondents in non-high publicity areas (p-value = 0.099). The proportion that is
neutral is larger in non-high publicity areas (52 percent) than in high-publicity areas
(45 percent, p-value = 0.089). The remaining population disagrees with the
statement with similar frequency in both groups.
The level of consumers' agreement, disagreement, and neutrality is similar in high-
and non-high-publicity areas for the following statements:
• "ENERGY STAR products provide me with more benefits than products
without the ENERGY-STAR label."
• "ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value than products without the
label." "If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking for with an ENERGY
STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather than buy a product that does not
qualify for the label." "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel
like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations."
• "It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these days."
• "If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a more energy-efficient
product."
• "When I buy a product with the ENERGY STAR label, I can always be sure it's
high quality."
C-10
-------
• "ENERGY STAR-labeled products are no different from other products."
• "In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR-labeled products save me
money."
• "I don't trust that ENERGY STAR-labeled products save the energy they're
supposed to."
C-11
-------
5 PURCHASING DECISIONS
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to characterize their role in the
household purchasing decisions. The results indicate that the vast majority of those
represented are primary decision makers, meaning they usually make household
purchasing decisions alone or share equally in these decisions. As can be seen
below, this varies little across product categories. Seventy-seven percent of
individuals were primary decision makers for their household's home electronics
purchases, whereas this was true for 60 percent of purchases of building materials.
Role in Household Purchasing Decisions
(Base = All respondents)
Building Materials
(n=1,632)
Home Electronics
(n=1,668)
Home Appliances /
Lighting (n=1,666)
Home Office
Equipment (n=1,649)
Heating & Cooling
Products (n=1,658)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
• Usually make decisions or share decisions equally
QGive input to decisions
DHave no input in decisions
C-12
-------
6 CFL PURCHASER QUESTIONS
Similar to previous years, all respondents are asked what products they have
purchased in the last 12 months, with additional questions being asked of those who
purchased CFLs and fixtures. Twenty percent and ten percent of households
purchased compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and fixtures, respectively.
Respondents that purchased compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) were asked the
following questions:
• "Did you install the compact fluorescent light bulb(s) you purchased in a light
fixture?"
o If yes, then ask "Which type of bulb(s) did you replace?"
An overwhelming majority (96 percent) of CFL purchasers indicated they installed
the purchased CFL. This result did not vary significantly by publicity category.
Respondents that installed CFLs were then asked if the purchased CFL was used to
replace a CFL or an incandescent light bulb. In 2010, 64 percent of households
replaced an incandescent light bulb with the purchased CFL compared to 74 percent
in 2009. This result is statistically significant at the 10-percent level. However, in
2010, 36 percent of households replaced a CFL with a purchased CFL compared to
26 percent in 2009. This result was statistically significant at the 10-percent level.
Similar to last year, the difference between proportions of households in high- and
non-high-publicity areas that replaced incandescent bulbs is not significant at the 10-
percent level.
C-13
-------
Type of Light Bulb Replaced with a CFL
(Base = Installers of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs, n=387)
Incandescent
CFL
32%
40%
68%
60%
• High Publicity
nNon-High Publicity
0% 20% 40% 60%
Note: Q12(e) "Which type of bulb(s) did you replace?"
80%
100%
C-14
-------
Consistent with previous years, purchasers that recognize the ENERGY STAR label
are asked if they saw the label on the product(s) they purchased. Respondents that
reported purchasing an ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture were asked:
• "Which kind of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture did you purchase?"
Fifty-three percent of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture purchasers report
purchasing a compact fluorescent-based lighting fixture. These results do not vary
significantly by publicity category.
Type of ENERGY STAR-Labeled Lighting Fixture Purchased
(Base = Purchasers of ENERGY STAR Lighting Fixture, n=48)
Com pact fluorescent-based
lighting fixture
lED-based lighting fixture
Othertype of lighting fixture
53%
20%
29%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: Q8A 1-4. Which kind of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture did you purchase?
** 2010 and 2009 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.05). Proportion of households in 2010 is larger than in 2009.
C-15
-------
APPENDIX D: 2010 SURVEY QUESTIONS AND FLOW CHART*
*Questions that are new to the 2010 survey are presented in bold and italic font.
EG1 , Have you ever seen
or heara of yellow Hickers
labels?
Wha! information does the Energy
G-ude label provide-?
E31. Have you ever
seen or heard of the
ENERGY STAR label7
ES2,
What does the ENERGY STAR label
mean to you?
ES3A
Is ins tie label you haws seen or
heara of before? [SHOW OLD OR
hEW LABEL. IN RANDOM
ORDER]
ES3CfddES4a1)
Please took at the ENERGY
STAR late) on the left Have
•you ewer seen or heard of this
IsfceP fSHOW OLD OR NEW
LABEL IN RANDOM ORDER]
Yes
No
Don't know
D-1
-------
ES3B.
Have you seen at heard of
this version of tie
ENERGY STAR tabeP
;'SBOW LABEL NOT
•PREVIOUSLY SEEN]
ES3D,
Have you seen or heard of this
version of tie ENERGY STAR
label? [SHOW LABEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEN!
Yes
No
Don't Know
Mew Qft: Wat types of products,
goods, or services do you think of
when you think of the ENERGY
STAR label? Please wrte your
answers be tow.
SOI.
Where did you see or tear something about ENERGY
STAR? Please mark ail that apply.
[checkbox]
Newspaper or magazine adwertsemera
Newspaper or magazine artote
TV commercial
TV news feature story
Radio commercial
Utility maftng cr tell inserts
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Labels on apphances or electronic equipment
Yellow EneigyGuiae label
Dismays in stores
Internet
Salesperson
Corrtracsor
Realtor
Lenoer
Hornebuikser
Friend, neigrisor, relative, or co-wofker
Other (please specify) pert box]
Don's know
I
ES4a1.
Ftease ksok at the ENERGY STAR
labels on trie left. Type ihe messages
that come to mind when ycu see fie
ENERGY STAR labels.
[SHOW LABEL]
ESS,
Now that you have had the opportunity
to see the ENERGY STAR label, do
•you recall seeing or hearing anything
about it before this survey?
D-2
-------
SO2.
V*at did you see or hear atout
ENERGY STAR? Reasebe
specific.
New QB: As far as you know, who deo'oes
if a product oeserves fce ENERGY STAR
label? Select one answer only.
Product manufacturers
Retailers/stores
US Government
Underwriters Laboratories
BedPC & gas utilities
Other
Dent know
Q5t». Now we're gong to ask you about several cjoups of products.
As you review the list, please setect each erf the proiucs, product
iteratyre, or packaging on which you have seen the ENERGY STAR
label.
Heatha and Ceding ProAnas
Central air eoraiticner
Fimace or tafer
Heat pump
Rocrn air ccrettbnef
Gas »«ater heater
None c# these preducts
Home Offise Equcment
Computer or monitor
Computer pnnter
Cepyirifl machine
Fax machne
Scanner
AII-irHme printer
(includes copen'scamerfiaiij
Q5jb). Hease continue reviewing the i'sts of products below, and
select each of Hie products, product lieratune, or packaging on
which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
Home Applig
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Limiting fixture
Washing machine
Compact increscent ligh! buib
Honne Hearnnics
Television
CVD proajct (induing
TWDVD)
Auda product
Dehymidifier
None of these fsioduots
QSj'c). Finaly, please review the last of the product lists below
and select each of the products, product Herature, or padiagng
en wtiich you ham seen She ENERGY STAR label.
Materals
Window
Door
Buldinos
bull hor?»
Insulation
Roofng material
D-3
-------
QiS.il
Have you or someone else m your household been shopping in a score in the
last i2 months for any of the products listed beiow?
Healing and Cooling Produces
Room air conditioner
Home Appiianees.'Lighiing
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Don't know
Home Electronics
Television
DVD product ^including TVDVDJ
Audio product
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(fa
Nb
Mb
Mi
Mi
Yes
Mi
No
','.:<
Don't know
Don't know
Don't know
Don't know
Don't know
Ho
Don't know
Don't know
Don't know
Have yet, or someone efee in your
household beer shopo "Q n a store in the
last 12 months, for any of rf»se other
productsisled below?
Yes
No
Con'tk-cw
Heating and Cooling Products
Thernostat
Gas water "-eater
Home Office Equio-neft
Con-ifniter or monitor
Corrputer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
.rt-in-one printer
(
Home Appl i"oes»lJgrting
Bulding Materials
Window
Dow
Skylight
Insulation
Roofing material
Qfifa
Have yni or someone else in yoir
house-"cld bee" =riopc' -g for a central ar
t "ifne \- the last 12 montrs?
Yes
No
Don'tkj'ew
For each product for which Yes was checked in the QSa 1 series, ask:
Wnen you shopped for . did you look for the Et-IERGY STAR label?
Yes Ho Dort'rre.Tiernber J did nor shop for this product myseif
When you shopped for _
_, did you ask a salesperson for a product
with tne ENERGY STAR label?
Yes Ho Don't remember J did nor shop for this product mysetf
a room air eondirioner
a dishwasher
a refrigerator
a lighting fixture
a washing nracnine
compact fluorescent iK
a [e.'ewsio."
a DVD product
an audio product
D-4
-------
Q 12fa). Bease todk at each of the groups of products again. Which trf
trsse products have you purehasea in the last 12 mentis? Ptease
dree*. 3! that apply.
Heabng and Coolirw Products
Central air conditioner
Furnace or boiler
Heat purrp
TherraastaJ
Room air conditioner
Gas wafer healer
None of these products
Home Office Eguipmera
Computer or monior
Computer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
All-in-one printer
(hdudes eepter.'scanneofaa)
7
G12{b), Rease eortinue reviewing the lists of prodyets betow.
Which of these products haire you purchased in the last 12
months'? Please eheck all that apply.
Home Bectrmics
Telewsion
DVD product ("inducing
TV/CNO)
Auoio Product
Oshwasher
RefHgerator
VteshJng machine
Compact fcoreseent li^il bulb
Dehuiridifier
Mctne of these pcxiducts
Q12{c), finally, please review the last of the product lists Mow,
liVhieh of these products haw you purchased in fee last 12
months? Please cheek all shat apply.
Biikiing Materals
Window
Door
Skylight
Insulator!
Rorffig material
Hone of these products
Ne«*y bo* home
Did you rESall tne compact fluaiesoent light buSWs) yoy
purcfiasea n a lipji; rotyre?
Yes
No
Don^know
No,'
Don't Know
Yes
If Yes checked to this question, ask:
What khd a? buibfs) did you replace? (Check the
answer that best describes rros» of Ihe replacements
you made.)
Geopact fluorescent light bulb
Incandescent lig^it ijdb
Don't know
D-5
-------
Go to Q13a series (pg 7)
Q/: For any of the products you
purchased, aid you see the EMERGY
STAR label (on the product teeii, on
the packaging, or on the instructions)?
Skip to New QC, aid thai
gotoQU.
Q7a_1 thru Q?a_3: On which products
did you see the ErtRGY STAR label?
(shorn1 only the products they checked
off in Q12, in grid pattern, wiHi the
following options to checls for each:
"Saw label" "Do net see label' 'Oont
knew")
tfew QC. In general, Now satisfied are you witi each of the foflowrig produas -you
purchased''
{Show each product they purch^eti—both ES and nrt-in gnti format m rari'ttom order.)
Response scale:
Very DissaSislied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Nether Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Don'I Know
D-6
-------
OB. For each ENERGY STAR4abefeci producfe) you
purchased, how much did the EttRGY STAR label influence
your purchase detisen?
(Shew each ES product they purchased in a gid patJem.
Response seate is below, and is unchanged from previous
years.)
Very much I Somewhat / Slightly / ttot. at al / Dont know
If "Lighting fixture* checked in Q7a_1-Q7a_3 seres (i.e.,
they reported purchasing an EfJESGY STAR-bfaeled
lighting fixture), ask:
VKiieh kind of ENERGY ST/«-(abe)ed lighling ftrture did
you pyreJiase? {Cheek all thai apply).
Compact fluorescent-based lighting fixture
LED-baseo kghting fixture
tSher Type of fighting fixture
Don'tlncw
OS. Did you receive retsates or
reduced-rate financing for any
ENERGY STAR-labeled prodyrt{sj you
purchasesi?1
f Skip to Q11 J
Q10. If rebates or redueed^ate financing had not been arailaele,
how tkety s it that you would have purchased the ENERGY
STAR4abeled product?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
SfcghlSy likely
Not al all likely
Donlknow
Q11. How I «cefy are you to recommend JEWER?SY STAR-labeled
products to a frend?
Stoing 11-point herawital scale, wilh only endpoints marked.
EndpoinS:
0=Cxlrewely LMtkeiy
1Q=Extremets' Likely
D-7
-------
Note. Tnese two
or "v diarrores are
or jr the same as on
page 5.
F
E33A not= 1 and
E33B not= 1 and
ES3Cnot=1 and
ES3D not=J aid
0- the s-:3l= by sac- stateTe'-t. dease ndicate -ow strongly you agj-Ee o'c sag-ee wth fe statement.
(Node ID programmer present Q16a through 016s in random order nor each respondent)
Disagree
Disagree
Nehhe'
Agree nor
Disagree
£cm=wat
.Agree
Agree
Q16a_ ENERGY STAR-labeled products prowte me wrth more benefits than products without the ENERGY STAR label.
12345
Q16c. ENERGY STAR-labetec p'odutts (rfer better vaLe than piooucts without the label-
12345
Q16d. If I cannot find the Ithd of product I am toolong for wHfi at ENERGY STAR label, I wil shop elsewhere rather than buy a product
that does not qualify for Che label
12345
Q16T. Buyng ENERGY STAR-labeied oroducts mafces me feei like Tm helping to protect the environment -y fu^re •jene'alicrs.
12345
Q16h. Buying ENERGY STAR-laSeled products makes Tie feel like I'm eontrbubng to society.
12345
Q1S Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled prDC'j^s rrakes Tie feel Ike I'm spending extra money for nettling.
12345
Q16I. I consider myself Soyd to ENERGY STAR-labeed products.
12345
Ql&i- It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR labe t-ese days.
12345
Q16o. If I seethe ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a more energy-efficient product.
12 45
Q'5p Whe- I b-y a product with the ENERGY STAR label. I can always be sure it's Ngh quafity.
12345
Qltiq. ENERGYSTAR-labeledproducts are no diffe.ienrrrom orfwrproducts.
1 2 3 4 5
01 fr-. In rfie i'ong run. t don't believe ENERGY STAR-labeted products save .Tie money.
I 2 3 4 S
016s. ( do/iT iijst rftar EHERSY STAR-iabeted products save rfi* energy they're supposed 10.
1 2 34 5
Qt6a. Please tell is about your role in yosr household's purehasng decisions. For each of Che pradua groups listed below, do you usually
make Ate purchasing decisions, do you share the decision-making equaty wtfi another household member, does someone e>se usually make
the decisions but you have some input, or do you have no input h the decision-making?
I usually make
the decisions
I snare the
oecsiof-mak ng
equally
Someone else
..s^ally makes
the decisions, but
I have some input
have no
input -
decisan-
rm not sure
Heating ana Coo) ig Products
Home Otfce Equpmert
Home App jnces-'Lighting
Home Bectcnics
Balding Materials
Go to csmograp*«c \
questions and closing j
D-8
-------
APPENDIX E: LARGE AND NON-LARGE DMAS COMPARED
1 PURPOSE OF COMPARISON
In 2010, GEE members sponsored the collection of additional households not
currently included in the national analysis (i.e., Non-Top-57 DMAs). GEE extended
the data collection to the 30 percent of television households not covered by the 57
most populous Nielsen DMAs to provide sample coverage for GEE members outside
the Top-57 DMAs.
This appendix compares key metrics of awareness for the following three groups:
1. Top-57 DMAs: The 57 most populous DMAs. These DMAs account for 70
percent of U.S. television households. These are the data used for the
national report.
2. Non-Top-57 DMAs: The remaining 153 DMAs (ranked 58 through 210) that
account for the remaining 30 percent of U.S. television households. These
DMAs have historically been excluded from the national analysis. The Non-
Top-57 DMAs is comprised of 430 households, plus 76 households from the
non-Large DMAs of the sponsored oversamples, in Massachusetts and New
York states.
3. All DMAs: The Top-57 and the Non-Top-57 DMAs combined. These 210
DMAs account for the entire population of U.S. television households.
Key metrics covered in this appendix are:
• Aided and unaided recognition of the ENERGY STAR label
• Understanding of the label message
• Influence of the ENERGY STAR label on product purchase choices
• Loyalty and recommendation of labeled products
• Demographic differences of the Non-Top-57 from the Top-57
Summary of Findings
Responses from Top-57 DMAs are statistically similar to responses from All DMAs in
the following analysis variables:
• Aided and unaided recognition
• High and general understanding of the ENERGY STAR label
E-1
-------
• Messages of the ENERGY STAR label
• The proportion of all households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR product
• Influence of label on purchase
• Receipt of, and influence of, an incentive for purchase of labeled product
• Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
Households in Non-Top-57 DMAs give statistically different responses than
households in the Top-57 in the following analysis variables:
• General Understanding
• Influence of incentive on purchase
• Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
The Top-57 and All DMA groups are similarly distributed among demographic
variables including income, gender, age, household composition, race/ethnicity,
marital status, education, employment, and internet access.
All DMAs are statistically different from Top-57 DMAs in three correlated
demographic variables:
• Geographic region
• Resident lives in a metropolitan statistical area or not
• Housing type
E-2
-------
2 RECOGNITION
In 2010, 82 percent of households in All DMAs recognized the ENERGY STAR label
when shown the label (i.e., aided recognition). The Top-57 and Non-Top-57 were
statistically similar, 83 percent and 81 percent recognized the label when shown it,
respectively. Seventy-one percent of All DMA households recalled seeing or hearing
of the ENERGY STAR label without first being shown the label (i.e., unaided
recognition). This was also similar in the Top-57 (72 percent) and Non-Top-57 (69
percent) households.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize
ENERGY STAR
Label
Yes
Standard error
All DMAs
Aided
(n=2,127)
82%
1 .2%
Unaided
(n=1,944)
71%
1 .5%
Top 57 DMAs
Aided
(n=1,641)
83%
1 .3%
Unaided
(n=1,521)
72%
1 .7%
Non-Top-57 DMAs
Aided
(n=486)
81%
2.2%
Unaided
(n=423)
69%
2.9%
Note: The unaided recognition results were based on the question ES1: "Have you ever seen or heard
of the ENERGY STAR label?" The aided recognition results were based on five questions. (1) ES3A
and (2) ES3B were asked if ES1 = "yes." ES3A: "Is this the label you have seen or heard of
before?"—whether the old or new label was shown was randomly determined. ES3B: "Have you seen
or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label?" —where the label shown was the one not
shown previously. (3) ES3C and (4) ES3D were asked if ES1 = "no." ES3C: "Please look at the
ENERGY STAR label on the left. Have you ever seen or heard of this label?"—whether the old or new
label was shown was randomly determined. ES3D: "Have you seen or heard of this version of the
ENERGY STAR label?"—where the label shown was the one not shown previously. (5) ES6 was
asked if either ES1 = "no" or both ES3A and ES3B = "no." ES6: "Now that you have had the
opportunity to see the ENERGY STAR label, do you recall seeing or hearing anything about it before
this survey?"— where both the old and new labels were shown.
3 UNDERSTANDING
In 2010, 83 percent of households in all DMAs had at least a general understanding
of the ENERGY STAR label. In Top-57 DMAs this proportion was 84 percent, and in
non-top 57 DMAs it was 81 percent. Differences among the three groups are not
statistically significant.
E-3
-------
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
AIIDMAs(n=2,213)
Top 57 DMAs (n=1, 707)
Difference
p-value
At Least
General
Understanding
of Label
83%
84%
-1%
0.592
Top 57 DMAs (n=1, 707)
Non-Top 57 DMAs (n=506)
Difference
p-value
At Least
General
Understanding
of Label
84%
81%
3%
0.240
Note: The level of understanding of the ENERGY STAR label is determined using the open-ended
responses to two questions (1) ES2: "What does the ENERGY STAR label mean to you?", and (2)
ES4A1: "Please look at the ENERGY STAR labels on the left. Type the messages that come to
mind when you see the ENERGY STAR label."
The proportion of households that exhibited a high understanding was consistent
across Top-57 and Non- Top-57 DMAs (73 and 74 percent respectively). The
proportion of households that exhibit only a general understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label in Non-Top-57 DMAs is significantly smaller than in Top-57 DMAs (7
and 11 percent respectively, p-value<0.05).
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
High Understanding
General Understanding
No Understanding
All DMAs
(n=2213)
73%
*10%
17%
Top 57 DMAs
(n=1707)
73%
**11%
16%
Non-Top 57
DMAs (n=506)
74%
7%
19%
For "General Understanding", Top 57 and Non-Top 57 proportions are statistically different from
each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
For "General Understanding", All DMAs and Non-Top 57 proportions are statistically different
from each other at the 10-percent level of significance (p-value<0.10).
E-4
-------
3.1 Understanding of Label Messaging
Open-ended responses to the questions on the level of understanding of the
ENERGY STAR label are an indicator of how effectively EPA communicates its
messages through the label. These responses are used in the analysis of
understanding in the previous section. By far, the most common message
associated with the label was "energy efficiency or energy savings," which is
considered high understanding of the label. Sixty-six percent of households in All
DMAs surveyed associated the ENERGY STAR label with this message (64 percent
in Top-57 DMAs and 68 percent in Non-Top-57 DMAs). The second most common
response was "environmental benefit" offered by 13 percent of households, which is
also considered high understanding of the label.
There are no significant differences between All DMAs and Top-57 DMAs.Top-57
and Non-Top-57 DMAs are quite similar to one another: no difference is bigger than
four percentage points. Top-57 DMA respondents are less likely to mention energy
with no link to efficiency than their Non-Top-57 DMA counterparts (five versus nine
percent, p-value < 0.05), and slightly more likely to say that labeled products save
money on the purchase price (both values less than 1 percent, p-value < 0.05).
E-5
-------
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Energy efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
Save money on operation
Energy/environmental product standards
Savings (not linked to operation)
Energy conservation
64%
=1 68%
8%
'7%
7%
8%
1.4%
15%
I 3%
14%
High Understanding
**Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses with EnergyGuide
Government backing
Environmental no link to benefit
Mentions specific products
Quality
Product standards no environmental link
**Save money on purchase
9%
1%
5%
5%
3%
'2%
| 2%
1%
2%
'1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
=1%
1%
.1%
=1%
General Understanding
• Top-57 DMAs
DNon-Top-57 DMAs
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Top-57 and Non-Top-57 DMA proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
E-6
-------
3.2 Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
Households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label when shown the label were
more likely to have at least a general understanding of the label than those that did
not recognize the label. In 2010, 87 percent of households that recognized the
ENERGY STAR label had at least a general understanding of it. This result is
statistically the same for all DMAs, Top-57 DMAs, and Non-Top 57 DMAs. Among
households that did not recognize the label, 71 percent from All DMAs had at least a
general understanding of it. Differences between Top-57 and Non-Top-57 DMAs are
not statistically significant at the 10-percent level.
The difference between respondents that recognized the label when shown, and
those that did not, is statistically significant for all three samples (p-value < 0.0001).
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize ENERGY STAR
Label Aided
Yes
No
Difference (Yes minus No)
p-value
At Least General Understanding of Label
All DMAs
87%
71%
16%
<0.0001
Top 57
DMAs
87%
74%
13%
<0.0001
Non-Top 57
DMAs
86%
66%
20%
<0.0001
All DMAs, Top-57, and Non-Top-57 are statistically similar whether or not they recognized the label.
4 INFLUENCE
The survey provided some insight into consumers' decisions to purchase ENERGY
STAR-labeled products, including the following:
• The proportion of households nationwide that recognized the ENERGY STAR
label and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product
• The influence of the ENERGY STAR label on purchase decisions
• The role of rebates or financing in decisions to buy ENERGY STAR-labeled
products
• The loyalty of purchasers to ENERGY STAR-labeled products
E-7
-------
4.1 Purchases of ENERGY STAR-labeled Products
In order to estimate the percent of all households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR product, the following three proportions were multiplied:
• The proportion of all households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label
(aided)
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided), the proportion that
purchased a product in a product category that has an ENERGY STAR
specification
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided) and purchased a product in a
relevant category, the proportion that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product
The result is that 41 percent of all households knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR product in the past twelve months. This result is statistically similar to the
results in Top-57 DMAs and in Non-Top-57 DMAs at the 10-percent level.
Purchased ENERGY STAR
(Base = All respondents)
Estimate
Standard Error
Knowingly Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
All DMAs
(n=906)
41%
2%
Top 57
(n=733)
43%
2%
Non-Top-57
(n=173)
36%
4%
All DMAs, Top-57, and Non-Top-57 are statistically similar (p>0.10).
There were no differences in any of the three component proportions between the
Top-57 and All DMAs. Respondents in the Top-57 were more likely (67 percent) to
have purchased a product than respondents in the Non-Top-57 DMAs (61 percent),
but purchasers in either region were equally likely to have bought an ENERGY
STAR product.
Purchased ENERGY STAR
Top 57
Non-Top-57
Difference
p-value
Aided
Recognition
83%
81%
2.8%
0.276
Purchased
Product
67%
61%
6.2%
0.094
Knowingly
Purchased ENERGY
STAR product
77%
74%
3.3%
0.535
E-8
-------
4.2 Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
In 2010, for 74 percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product, the label influenced at least one of their purchase decisions "very
much" or "somewhat." This is not statistically different from the results in Top-57
DMAs or Non-Top-57 DMAs.
For eleven percent of households, the label influenced their purchase decisions
"slightly." Fifteen percent of households reported the presence of the ENERGY
STAR label had no influence on their purchase. These findings are not significantly
different from the results in Top-57 DMAs or Non-Top-57 DMAs.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers]
Influence of the Label
on Purchasing
Decisions
Very much
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at all
Total
All DMAs
(n=687)
Maximum
48%
26%
11%
15%
100%
Top 57
DMAs
(n=556)
Maximum
47%
26%
11%
15%
1 00%
Non-Top-
57 DMAs
(n=131)
Maximum
46%
28%
13%
14%
100%
Note: Q8: "For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you purchased, how much did
the ENERGY STAR label influence your purchase decision?"
All DMAs, Top-57, and Non-Top-57 are statistically similar (p>0.10).
E-9
-------
4.3 Rebate and Financing Influence
In 2010, the percentage of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR-labeled product and received rebates or reduced-rate financing was 23
percent. This result is statistically similar in Top-57 and Non-Top-57 DMAs.
Received Financial Incentive for an ENERGY STAR Product Purchased
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchaser]
Received Financial
Incentive for an ENERGY
STAR Product Purchased
Yes
No
Total
% Households
All
DMAs
(n=645)
23%
77%
100%
Top 57
DMAs
(n=521)
24%
76%
100%
Non-Top-57
DMAs
(n=124)
18%
82%
1 00%
Note: Q9: "Did you receive rebates or reduced-rate financing for any ENERGY
STAR-labeled product(s) you purchased?"
All DMAs, Top-57, and Non-Top-57 are statistically similar (p>0.10).
Respondents that received rebates or financing were then asked about their
likelihood of purchasing an ENERGY STAR product had there been no incentive.
Top-57 and Non-Top-57 DMAs were significantly different, though the Top-57 DMAs
were statistically similar to the All DMAs group, for all four possible responses. Half
of the respondents in the Top-57 said it was "very likely" they would have purchased
ENERGY STAR without an incentive, but only 23 percent of respondents in Non-
Top-57 agreed. Seventy-one percent of Non-Top-57 respondents replied that the
purchase would have been "somewhat likely" compared to only 25 percent of
respondents in Top-57 DMAs. Due to small sample sizes, the reader should use
caution when interpreting the results for the Non-Top-57.
Influence of Rebates and Financing on Purchasing Decisions
[Base = Recognize label (aided), ENERGY STAR purchaser, and received an incentive]
Likelihood Purchase
ENERGY STAR Product
Without Financial Incentive
**Very likely
***Somewhat likely
"Slightly likely
**Not at all likely
Total
% Households
Top 57
DMAs
(n=133)
50%
25%
19%
5%
100%
Non-Top-57
DMAs
(n=24)
23%
71%
6%
0%
100%
Note: Q10: "If rebates or reduced-rate financing had not been available, how likely is it that you would have
purchased the ENERGY STAR-labeled product?"
*** Top 57 and Non-Top 57 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.01).
** Top 57 and Non-Top 57 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
E-10
-------
4.4 Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR is investigated by asking respondents who knowingly
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product how likely they would be to
recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend. Respondents were asked to report
this likelihood on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means "extremely unlikely" and 10
means "extremely likely." As can be seen in the table below, 30 percent of
households who knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product reported
they would be "extremely likely" to recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend.
This proportion was statistically similar in Top-57 and Non-Top-57 DMAs.
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchasers]
Likelihood
Recommend ENERGY
STAR Products
10 - Extremely likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 - Extremely unlikely
Total
% Households
All DMAs
(n=711)
30%
24%
15%
11%
8%
7%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
100%
Top 57
DMAs
(n=577)
29%
24%
16%
10%
7%
8%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
100%
Non-Top-57
DMAs
(n=530)
31%
24%
13%
14%
9%
** 3%
1%
1%
0%
1%
2%
100%
Notes: q11: "How likely are you to recommend energy star-labeled products to a
friend?"] Is measured on an 11-point scale, where 0 ="extremely unlikely" and 10
="extremely likely.
**Top 57 and Non-Top 57 proportions are statistically different from each other at the
5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05). Top-57 responses were statistically
similar to All DMAs responses in all cases.
5 DEMOGRAPHICS
The Top-57 and All DMA groups are similarly distributed among demographic
variables including income, gender, age, household composition, race/ethnicity,
marital status, education, employment, and internet access.
There are differences in the geographic distribution of the Top-57 and All DMA
groups. Non-Top-57 areas are more likely to be located in the South and Midwest.
Differences are within four percentage points.
E-11
-------
Respondent Geographic Region
[Base = All respondents]
"Northeast
"South
*M id west
*West
All DMAs
18%
21%
38%
23%
Top-57 DMAs
22%
17%
34%
26%
**Top 57 and All DMA proportions are statistically different from
each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
* Top 57 and All DMA proportions are statistically different from
each other at the 10-percent level of significance (p-value<0.10).
Respondents from Top-57 DMAs are more likely to live in metropolitan areas than
those from All DMAs. That correlation is not surprising, as both DMA ranking and the
census bureau MSA designation are measures of population density, but are not
equivalent.
Respondent Residential Location
[Base = All respondents]
***Metro
***Non-Metro
All DMAs
83%
17%
Top-57 DMAs
91%
9%
**Top 57 and All DMA proportions are statistically different from
each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-value<0.01).
The survey also shows that respondents in Top-57 DMAs are more likely to live in
apartment buildings (23 percent) than those in All DMAs (19 percent, p-value =
0.028). Conversely, in the country overall, people are slightly more likely to live in
single family detached houses (67 percent) than Top-57 DMA residents (64
percent), statistically significant (p-value = 0.088), though the difference is small.
E-12
-------
Respondent Housing Type
[Base = All respondents]
* Single Family - Detached
Single Family - Attached
**Building with 2+ Apartments
Mobile Home
Boat/RV/Van
All DMAs
67%
8%
19%
6%
0%
Top-57
DMAs
64%
9%
23%
4%
0%
**Top 57 and All DMA proportions are statistically different from
each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
* Top 57 and All DMA proportions are statistically different from
each other at the 10-percent level of significance (p-value<0.10).
E-13
------- |