CHANGE FORTHE
BETTER WITH
ENERGY STAR
Products that earn the ENERGY STAR prevent
greenhouse gas emissions by meeting strict energy
efficiency guidelines set by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.
www.energystar.gov
NATIONAL AWARENESS OF
ENERGY STAR® FOR 2004
ANALYSIS OF CEE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
-------
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODOLOGY 1
KEY FINDINGS 4
RECOGNITION 4
UNDERSTANDING 8
INFLUENCE 12
INFORMATION SOURCES 16
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY A-l
APPENDIXB: DEMOGRAPHICS B-l
APPENDIX C: 2004 CEE WebTV/Internet QUESTIONNAIRE C-l
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this study, Miriam Goldberg (KEMA Inc.), Valy Goepfrich (KEMA Inc.), and
Jocelyn Spielman (The Cadmus Group, Inc.) would like to thank the Consortium for Energy
Efficiency (CEE) and its members for making its survey data available for this analysis. The
following CEE member organizations sponsored the 2004 survey:
• Bonneville Power Administration
• Cape Light Compact
• KeySpan Energy Delivery New England
• Long Island Power Authority
• National Grid USA
• New Hampshire Electric Co-op
• New York State Energy Research & Development Authority
• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
• NSTAR Electric
• Pacific Gas & Electric
• Sacramento Municipal Utility District
• San Diego Gas & Electric
• Southern California Edison
• Unitil Corporation
• Western Massachusetts Electric Company
• Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
In addition, we would like to extend special thanks to the following individuals for their
contributions:
• Marc Hoffman, Executive Director of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), and
Monica Nevius, CEE's Research and Evaluation Manager, for making the study data
available to EPA for the national analysis.
• Maureen McNamara of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR
Program for project management of the data analysis and oversight of this report.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2004, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) sponsored the fifth
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, product purchases, and information sources used by consumers in their purchasing
decisions. Some CEE members also chose to supplement the national sample in order to better
gauge awareness in their local service territories. Additional survey cases were collected in
Massachusetts, New York state (with the exception of Long Island), and New Hampshire. As in
the four previous years, CEE and the sponsoring members made survey data publicly available.
This report discusses the results of the CEE 2004 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 use (or are influenced by) the
label in their energy-related purchasing decisions. Research questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity impact 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?
Key Findings at the National Level
• Sixty-four percent of households recognize the ENERGY STAR label (with a visual aid).
• Sixty-eight percent of households have a "high" or "general" understanding of the label.
Furthermore, the proportion of households that demonstrate a general understanding is small
compared with the proportion that demonstrate a high understanding, 13 percent versus 55
percent.
• Of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label and purchased a product in the past
twelve months, 67 percent purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
• Considering households that recognized the label and those that did not (i.e., all households),
30 percent of households knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product in the
past twelve months.
• For 54 percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product,
the presence of the label influenced their purchasing decision "very much" or "somewhat."D
ES-1
-------
For another 20 percent of households, the presence of the label influenced their purchasing
decision "slightly."D
Twenty percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product received a financial incentive. Eighty-two percent of these households would have
been "very likely" (53 percent) or "somewhat likely" (29 percent) to purchase the labeled
product without the financial incentive.
Seventy-three percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to recommend labeled products to a
friend, and another 18 percent would be "slightly likely."D
Key Findings from Publicity-level Analyses
• A larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas recognize the
ENERGY STAR label, both with and without a visual aid. With a visual aid, households in
high-publicity areas recognized the ENERGY STAR label at 74 percent versus 54 percent in
low-publicity areas. (High-publicity areas are areas with an active local ENERGY STAR
program sponsored by a utility, state agency, or other organization for two or more
continuous years.)
• Considering households that recognized the label (with a visual aid), a larger proportion of
these households in high- than in low-publicity areas associate the ENERGY STAR label
with appliances heavily promoted by regional program sponsors.
• A larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas have at least a general
understanding of the ENERGY STAR label.
•DA larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas associate the following
messages with the ENERGY STAR label: "efficiency or energy savings," "saving money on
operation," and "associating specific products with the ENERGY STAR label."D
• Considering households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product, the
purchasing decisions of larger proportions of these households in high- than in low-publicity
areas were very much influenced and at least somewhat influenced by the ENERGY STAR
label.
• Considering only households that recognized the label (with a visual aid), a larger proportion
of these households in high- than in low-publicity areas have seen or heard something about
ENERGY STAR via utility mailings or bill inserts, TV commercials, radio commercials,
newspaper or magazine advertisements, and personal acquaintances.
ES-2
-------
Conclusions and Future Directions
This fifth national study of household awareness of the ENERGY STAR label confirms key
findings from the previous years' surveys:
• Substantial portions of the 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
(13 percent) compared with the proportion that exhibit a high understanding (55 percent).
• Publicity from active regional/local energy efficiency program sponsors increases
recognition, understanding, and influence of the label.
Furthermore, between 2003 and 2004, household recognition of the ENERGY STAR label
increased 8 percentage points, from 56 to 64 percent.
The results of the CEE 2004 ENERGY STAR survey indicate that activities to promote the
ENERGY STAR label carried out by EPA, DOE, survey sponsors, and ENERGY STAR partners
in 2004 were effective. In addition, a comparison of the sources that households recognizing the
ENERGY STAR label consult for product information against the venues in which they reported
seeing or hearing something about ENERGY STAR, suggests future ENERGY STAR activities
should aim to:
• Increase positive exposure of ENERGY STAR in product-orientated magazines.
• Enhance efforts to train salespersons and contractors to actively and accurately deliver
information about ENERGY STAR.
• Improve the availability and accessibility of ENERGY STAR information on the Internet.
• Continue cooperative efforts to include ENERGY STAR materials in utility mailings or bill
inserts.
• Encourage consumers to recommend ENERGY STAR to friends, family, and colleagues.
ES-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2004, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) sponsored the fifth
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, product purchases, and information sources used by consumers in their purchasing
decisions. Some CEE members also chose to supplement the national sample in order to better
gauge label awareness in their local service territories. Additional survey cases were collected in
Massachusetts, New York state (with the exception of Long Island), and New Hampshire. As in
the four previous years, CEE and sponsoring members made the survey data publicly available.
This report discusses the results of the CEE 2004 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 use (or are influenced by) the
label in their energy-related purchasing decisions. Research questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity impact 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?
This report includes an Executive Summary, this introduction, a summary of methods, key
findings in four sections, and three appendices. Appendix A is the detailed methodology,
Appendix B considers demographic information from the 2004 WebTV/Internet survey, and
Appendix C provides a copy of the 2004 WebTV/Internet questionnaire. Available separately are
tables presenting the 2004 WebTV/Internet survey results by publicity category. In all cases, the
results presented are properly weighted to obtain national estimates.
METHODOLOGY
From September through October 2004, CEE fielded a household survey to obtain information at
the national level on consumer awareness of the ENERGY STAR label. The survey was fielded
to a random sample of households that are part of a WebTV/Internet panel that is selected by
random digit dial and recruited by telephone. The WebTV/Internet panel is designed to be
representative of the U.S. population.
The survey was similar to the WebTV/Internet surveys fielded in the three previous years. As in
the four previous years, CEE and its sponsoring members made the survey data publicly
available.
-------
The survey was a national survey. The sampling frame for the survey includes all households in
the largest Nielsen Designated Market Areas® (DMAs) that account for about 70 percent of U.S.
television households. In 2004, the 57 largest DMAs accounted for this proportion. In addition,
some CEE members sponsored more intensive sampling (i.e., an oversample) for various states,
which are referred to here as "sponsor areas." The sponsor areas were:
• Massachusetts
• New York state (with the exception of Long Island)
• New Hampshire
For each of the sponsor areas, the frame was not limited to the large DMAs, but included the
entire sponsor area. Thus, the complete frame for the study was the combination of the largest
DMAs and any portion of the sponsor areas that fell outside these DMAs.
To facilitate comparisons across years, the national results are based only on data collected from
all respondents in the top 57 DMAs. Data collected from respondents not in the top 57 DMAs,
but in a sponsor area, are not included in the analysis. Some of the top 57 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 top 57 DMAs, received the appropriate weight in the
analysis to generate valid national results and comparisons against data from other years.
As in previous years' studies, to consider the effect of publicity on national awareness, the
DMAs in the complete frame were classified by publicity category. The same publicity
classification procedure used the past three years was used this year.1 A DMA was classified as
high publicity, low publicity, or other using the following criteria:
• High publicity: Active local ENERGY STAR program 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 activities.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional program
sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
Between September 2003 and 2004, none of the top 57 DMAs changed publicity category
-------
This classification provides clear and verifiable definitions. The key working definitions are:
• Recent: The two years of activity must include the time of the survey fielding.
• Sustained: The two 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 and promotional efforts.
These definitions are sufficiently operational to be applicable to future survey efforts, and can be
modified by simply increasing the duration of sustained high publicity.
The sample is stratified by area and within an area by publicity category. Each sponsor area is
also further stratified by large versus non-large DMA as well as any stratification requested by
the CEE member funding the oversample. There are four areas, three sponsor areas and a single
area consisting of the largest or parts of the largest DMAs that were not in a sponsor area. The
CEE members who funded the oversample for a sponsor area determined the number of
sampling points allocated to the area as a whole. This total number of sampling points was then
allocated across publicity categories present in a sponsor area proportional to population. In the
single area consisting of the largest or parts of the largest DMAs that were not in a sponsor area,
each publicity category was allocated approximately 333 sampling points.
This report presents the 2004 survey results at the national level and often by publicity category.
The publicity category results provide evidence on the effectiveness of EPA's model to increase
awareness of ENERGY STAR by supporting regional energy efficiency program sponsors.
Results are presented on consumer recognition, understanding, and purchasing influence of the
ENERGY STAR label, as well as on messaging, product purchases, and information sources
used by consumers in their purchasing decisions.
-------
KEY FINDINGS
RECOGNITION
In 2004, 64 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR mark when shown the label
(i.e., aided recognition). Forty-one percent of households correctly assessed whether or not they
had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label without first being shown the label (i.e., unaided
recognition).
For purposes of this analysis, respondents are said to recognize the ENERGY STAR label if they
have seen or heard of the label before the survey. Recognition of the ENERGY STAR label was
explored two ways. "Aided" recognition was measured by showing the label and asking if the
respondent had heard of or seen it before. Delivering the survey by WebTV/Internet also made it
possible to measure "unaided" recognition. Unaided recognition was measured by asking this
same question, but without showing the label. Both methods are useful measurements of label
recognition, although unaided recognition is more conservative.
Recognition results for both this year's and last year's surveys are summarized in the next table.
Aided recognition of the ENERGY STAR label is clearly higher this year than last year (the
difference is statistically significant at the 1-percent level, p-value = 0.0006). Between 2003 and
2004, aided recognition increased 8 percentage points, from 56 to 64 percent. Unaided
recognition is 8 percentage points higher this year than last year, 41 versus 33 percent (the
difference is statistically significant at the 1-percent level, p-value = 0.0015).
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = All respondents)
Recognize
ENERGY STAR
Label
Estimate (Yes)
Standard error
2004
Aided
(n=1,515)
64%
1.7%
Unaided
(n=1,359)
41%
1.8%
2003
Aided
(n=2,098)
56%
1.7%
Unaided
(n=1,853)
33%
1 .7%
Note: The unaided recognition results for both years are based on the question ESI:
"Have you ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label?" The aided recognition
results are based on five questions. (1) ES3A and (2) ES3B are asked if ESI = "yes."
ES3A: "Is this the label you have seen or heard of before?," whether the old or new
label is shown is randomly determined. ES3B: "Have you seen or heard of this
version of the ENERGY STAR label?," where the label shown is the one not shown
previously. (3) ES3C and (4) ES3D are asked if ESI = "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 is shown is randomly determined. ES3D: "Have you
seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label?," where the label shown
is the one not shown previously. (5) ES6 is asked if either ESI = "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 are shown.
-------
Recognition by Publicity Category
Both aided and unaided recognition were higher in high-publicity areas (areas with an active
local ENERGY STAR program sponsored by a utility, state agency, or other organization for
two or more continuous years) than in low-publicity areas. Aided households in high-publicity
areas recognized the ENERGY STAR label at 74 percent versus 54 percent in low-publicity
areas. Unaided recognition was 55 percent in high-publicity areas compared with 31 percent in
low-publicity areas.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
(Base = All respondents)
80% n
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
no/.
74%
54%
55%
D High Publicity
D Low Publicity
31%
'Aided (n= 1,515)
"Unaided (n=1,359)
*** High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-
value<=0.01).
-------
Product Associations
Products supported by regional energy efficiency programs, such as refrigerators, dishwashers, washing
machines, and room air conditioners show strong association with the ENERGY STAR label. Sixty-
three percent of households have seen the ENERGY STAR label on refrigerators. At about 50
percent, dishwashers and washing machines were the next most commonly associated products with
the label. Room and central air conditioners as well as computers were in the 35- to 40-percent range.
The strong association of the label with computers is probably the combined effect of manufacturing
labeling and the prevalence of these products in daily life. Twenty-nine percent of households associate
the ENERGY STAR label with microwave ovens, which do not in fact have an ENERGY STAR
specification. However, microwave ovens were the least recognized of all the appliances. Products
that showed an increase in association with the ENERGY STAR label from 2003 to 2004 were central
air conditioners, thermostats, and scanners.
Product Association With the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = Recognize label aided, n=819)
Refrigerator
Dishwasher
Washing machine
Computer or monitor
Room air conditioner
•Central A/C
Window
Microwave oven
Television
Furnace/boiler
Newly built home
Compact fluorescent light bulb
VCR
Computer printer
Door
***Thermostat
Lighting fixture
Copying machine
Insulation
*Scanner
Audio product
Heat pump
Fax machine
Roofing material
Skylight
I 63%
I fiO%
1 49%
1 3R%
1 36%
1 30%
I 99%
I 9R%
I 94%
| 90%
1 1 /%
1 1 h%
|1fi%
114%
1 1 4%
1 13%
1 13%
1 19%
lfi%
^5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70C
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.
*** 2004 and 2003 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.01). Proportion of households in 2004 is larger than in 2003.
* 2004 and 2003 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.10). Proportion of households in 2004 is larger than in 2003.
-------
Product Associations by Publicity Category
For refrigerators and washing machines, a larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity
areas associated the product with the ENERGY STAR label. Regional energy efficiency program
sponsors promoted these products heavily. On the other hand, for several products, a smaller
proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas associated the product with the ENERGY
STAR label. This was the case for computers, newly built homes, doors, and heat pumps. This result
has been seen for computers in two of the three previous years.
Product Association With the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label aided, n=819)
"Refrigerator
"Washing machine
Dishwasher
Room air conditioner
'"Computer or monitor
Central A/C
Microwave oven
Window
Television
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Furnace/boiler
"Newly built home
VCR
Thermostat
Lighting fixture
Computer printer
Copying machine
Insulation
*Door
Scanner
Audio product
Fax machine
"Heat pump
Roofing material
Skylight
351%
-I 37%
D 46%
D 53%
IL 34%
3 35%
127%
_ 31%
H 40%
jm 30%
I27%
HI 20%
16%
• 20%
H 30%
14%
14%
• 14%
High Publicity
Low Publicity
U18%
D 20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
*** High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent
level of significance (p-value<0.01).
** High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent
level of significance (p-value<0.05).
* High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent
level of significance (p-value<0.10).
-------
UNDERSTANDING
In 2004, 68 percent of households have at least a general understanding of the ENERGY STAR
label. Furthermore, the proportion of households that exhibit only a general understanding is small
compared with the proportion that exhibit a high understanding, 13 versus 55 percent.
Understanding was probed by asking respondents what messages came to mind when they saw the
ENERGY STAR label. Based on these messages, a respondent's understanding was classified as
high, general, or no understanding.
The results on understanding of the ENERGY STAR label for both this year's and last year's
surveys are provided in the next table. The proportion of households with at least a general
understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was higher in 2004 than in 2003, 68 versus 62 percent
(the difference is statistically significant at the 5-percent level, p-value=0.027).
Level of Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = All respondents)
Level of Understanding
of the Label
High understanding
General understanding
No understanding
Total
2004
(n=1,579)
55%
13%
32%
100%
2003
(n=2,206)
50%
12%
38%
100%
Note: The level of understanding of the label is based on two questions. (1) If
respondent recognized the label unaided, ES2: "What does the ENERGY STAR label
mean to you?" (2) If respondent did not recognize the label unaided, ES4A1: "Please
look at the ENERGY STAR labels on the left. Type the messages that come to mind
when you see the ENERGY STAR labels."
-------
Understanding by Publicity Category
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was greater in high- than in low-publicity areas.
Seventy-three percent of households in high-publicity areas had at least a general understanding of
the label compared with 64 percent of households in low-publicity areas. (The difference is
statistically significant at the 5-percent level, p-value = 0.022.)
In both publicity categories, among those households with at least a general understanding of the
ENERGY STAR label, more respondents exhibited a high degree of understanding.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
(Base = All respondents)
80% n
70% -
60%
50%
40% -
30%
20%
10% -
0%
I High Understanding
I General Understanding
J65%l
High
17%
Low
-------
Label Messaging
Open-ended responses used to measure understanding are also an indicator of how effectively EPA
communicates its messages through the ENERGY STAR label. By far, the most common message
associated with the label is "energy efficiency or energy savings," which is considered high
understanding of the label. Fifty-one percent of households associate the ENERGY STAR label
with this message. The second most common message is "associating specific products with the
ENERGY STAR label," at 16 percent of households. "Associating specific products with the
ENERGY STAR label" is considered general understanding of the label.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = All respondents)
Energy efficient/savings
"Energy conservation
Environmental benefit
Save moneyon operation
Energy/environmental product standards
Savings (not linked to operation)
Mentions specific products
Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
'Confuses with Energy Guide
Product standards no environmental link
Government backing
Environmental no link to benefit
Quality
Save moneyon purchase
] 51%
High Understanding
ID 16%
General Understanding
16%
0%
10%
20%
30% 40% 50% 60%
** 2004 and 2003 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.05). Proportion of households in 2004 is larger than in 2003.
* 2004 and 2003 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). Proportion of households in 2004 is smaller than in 2003.
10
-------
Messaging by Publicity Category
For most messages, the proportion of households that associated the message with the ENERGY
STAR label was similar for high- and low-publicity areas. For three messages, however, a larger
proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas associated the messages with the
label. These messages are "energy efficiency or energy savings," "save money on operation", and
"associating specific products with the ENERGY STAR label." In addition, a smaller proportion
of households in high- than in low-publicity areas associated the message "energy no link to
efficiency" with the ENERGY STAR label. Associating either "energy efficiency or energy
savings" or "save money on operation" with the ENERGY STAR label is considered high
understanding of the label. Associating either specific products or "energy no link to efficiency"
with the ENERGY STAR label is considered general understanding of the label.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
(Base = All respondents)
***Energy efficient/savings
***Save money on operation
Energy conservation
Environmental benefit
Energy/environmental product standards
Savings (not linked to operation)
] 56%
' 44%
14%
13%
High Understanding
11%
"Mentions specific products
Electricity
""Energy no link to efficiency
Confuses w ith Energy Guide
| 21 %
1
| 5%
1 4%
14%
|12%
General Understanding
Roduct standards no environmental link
Save money on purchase P.
Environmental no link to benefit
Government backing
Quality
• High Publicity
nLow Publicity
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
*** High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.01).
* High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.10).
11
-------
Understanding by Aided Recognition
Households that recognize the ENERGY STAR label with a visual aid are more likely to have at
least a general understanding of the label than those who do not recognize the label. Among
households that recognize the label, 76 percent have at least a general understanding of the label,
compared with households that do not recognize the label at 52 percent.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
by Aided Recognition of the Label
(Base = All respondents)
Recognize ENERGY
STAR Label Aided
Yes
No
Yes-No
p-value
At Least General
Understanding of Label
76%
52%
24%
<0.0001
INFLUENCE
The survey provided some information on consumers' decisions to purchase ENERGY STAR-
labeled products, including the following:
The proportion of households, nationally, that recognize the ENERGY STAR label and
knowingly purchased a labeled product.
• The influence of the label on purchasing decisions.
• The role of rebates or financing in decisions to buy ENERGY STAR products.
• The loyalty of ENERGY STAR purchasers.
Purchases of ENERGY STAR
In order to estimate the proportion 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, the proportion that purchased a product.
• Of the households that recognized the label and purchased a product, the proportion that
knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product.
12
-------
The result is that 30 percent of all households knowingly purchased at least one qualifying
ENERGY STAR product in the past twelve months. This proportion is 8 percentage points larger
than it was last year, 30 versus 22 percent (the difference is statistically significant at the 1-percent
level, p-value=0.006).
In 2004, considering only households that recognized the label and purchased a product, 67
percent purchased at least one qualifying ENERGY STAR product in the past twelve months.
This proportion is 9 percentage points larger than it was last year, 67 versus 58 percent (the
difference is statistically significant at the 5-percent level, p-value=0.034).
Purchased ENERGY STAR
(Base = Recognize label aided and purchaser)
Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
Estimate (yes)
Standard error
2004
(n=448)
67%
3.2%
2003
(n=565)
58%
3.3%
Note: Q7: "For any of the products you purchased, did you see the ENERGY STAR
label (on the product itself, on the packaging, or on the instructions)?"
Purchases of ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
A similar proportion of all households knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product in high-
as in low-publicity areas, 31 and 28 percent, respectively.
National Household Market Penetration
of ENERGY STAR Products by Publicity Category
(Base = All respondents)
Publicity Category
High
Low
High-Low
p-value
% Households
31%
28%
3%
0.623
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
In 2004, for 54 percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product, the presence of the label influenced their purchasing decision "very much" or
"somewhat." For another 20 percent of households, the presence of the label influenced their
purchasing decision "slightly."
13
-------
The results on influence of the ENERGY STAR label for this year's and last year's surveys are
provided in the following table. The proportions of households for which the ENERGY STAR
label was at least somewhat influential in their purchasing decision were similar between 2004
and 2003, 54 and 52 percent, respectively.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchasing Decisions
(Base = Recognize label aided and ENERGY STAR purchasers)
Influence of the Label on
Purchasing Decisions
Very much
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at all
Total
2004
(n=300)
27%
27%
20%
26%
100%
2003
(n=319)
22%
30%
14%
33%
100%
Note: Q8: "For any ENERGY STAR-labeled product(s) you purchased, how much did
the presence or absence of the ENERGY STAR label influence your purchasing
decision?"
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
The purchasing decisions of larger proportions of households in high- than in low-publicity areas
were very much influenced and at least somewhat influenced by the ENERGY STAR label. The
purchasing decisions of 35 percent of households in high-publicity areas were very much
influenced by the ENERGY STAR label, compared to 12 percent in low-publicity areas. Adding
to these proportions the proportions of households for which the ENERGY STAR label was
somewhat influential in their purchasing decisions, the proportion of households is still larger in
high- than in low-publicity areas, 65 versus 49 percent. It is not until the proportions of
households for which the ENERGY STAR label was slightly influential in their purchasing
decisions are also included, that the proportions of households in high- and low-publicity areas are
similar, 82 versus 78 percent.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchasing Decisions by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label aided and ENERGY STAR purchasers, n=300)
Publicity Category
High
Low
High -Low
p-value
Very much
35%
12%
23%
< 0.001
Very much
or somewhat
65%
49%
17%
0.087
Very much,
somewhat, or
slightly
82%
78%
4%
0.627
14
-------
Rebate and Financing Influence
Twenty percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product
received rebates or reduced-rate financing. The majority of these households (53 percent) would
have been "very likely" to purchase the labeled product if financial incentives had not been
available. Twenty-nine percent would have been "somewhat likely." This leaves only 18 percent
that would have been "slightly likely" or "not at all likely," and it appears more would have been
"slightly likely," 14 percent versus 4 percent.
Influence of Rebates and Financing on Purchasing Decisions
(Base = Recognize label aided, ENERGY STAR purchaser, and received an incentive, n=60)
Likelihood Purchase ENERGY
STAR Product Without
Financial Incentive
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Total
% Households
53%
29%
14%
4%
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?"
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
In 2004, 73 percent of households that knowingly purchasing an ENERGY STAR-labeled product
would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to recommend labeled products to a friend.
Furthermore, only 9 percent would be "not at all likely."
The results on loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label for both this year's and last year's surveys are
shown in the next table. The proportions of households at least somewhat likely to recommend
labeled products to a friend were similar between 2004 and 2003, 73 and 66 percent, respectively
(the difference is not statistically significant).2
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
(Base = Recognize label aided and ENERGY STAR purchasers)
Likelihood Recommend
ENERGY STAR Products
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Total
2004
(n=268)
41%
32%
18%
9%
100%
2003
(n=292)
35%
31%
16%
18%
100%
Note: Ql 1: "How likely are you to recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a
friend?"
Throughout this report, "not statistically significant" refers to not significant at the 10-percent level.
-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
Sources Seen
Sixty-five percent of households have seen something about ENERGY STAR on appliance or
electronic equipment labels, followed by store displays at 50 percent. Next, 31 percent of
households have heard or seen something about ENERGY STAR on TV commercials. After these
3 sources, between 17 and 25 percent of households have seen something about ENERGY STAR
on utility mailings or bill inserts, EnergyGuide labels, or in newspaper or magazine
advertisements. A larger proportion of households in 2004 than in 2003 saw something about
ENERGY STAR on store displays or heard something about ENERGY STAR in radio
commercials.
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR
(Base = Recognize label aided, n=772)
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
""Displays in stores
TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Internet
Newspaper or magazine article
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Salesperson
"Radio commercial
Homebuilder
TV news feature story
Billboard
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
J 65%
J 50%
J 25%
J 20%
11%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Note: SOI : "Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY STAR? Please mark all that apply."
*** 2004 and 2003 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1 -percent level of significance
(p-value<0.01). Proportion of households in 2004 is larger than in 2003.
* 2004 and 2003 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). Proportion of households in 2004 is larger than in 2003.
16
-------
Sources seen by Publicity Category
For several sources, the proportion of households that have heard or seen something about
ENERGY STAR was larger in high- than in low-publicity areas. This was the case for utility
mailings or bill inserts; TV commercials; radio commercials; newspapers or magazine
advertisements; and personal acquaintances. With the exception of personal acquaintances, these
sources are means of mass communication. On the other hand, a smaller proportion of households
in high- than in low-publicity areas have heard or seen something about ENERGY STAR from the
Internet, homebuilders, and contractors. The popularity of homebuilders and contractors as
sources of information about ENERGY STAR in low-publicity areas relative to high-publicity
areas may explain the greater tendency in low-publicity areas to associate newly built homes,
doors, and heat pumps with the ENERGY STAR label.
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label aided, n=772)
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Displays in stores
*TV commercial
'"Utility mailing or bill insert
Yellow EnergyGuide label
'Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Newspaper or magazine article
***Radio commercial
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Salesperson
'Internet
"Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Billboard
"Homebuilder
TV news feature story
Realtor
'Contractor
Lender
J 70%
I 55%
I 37%
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
1%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
*** High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.01).
** High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.05).
* High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.10).
17
-------
Sources Consumers Consult for Product Information
The survey asked about the sources consumers are most likely to use to obtain information about
products covered by the ENERGY STAR program. The question was asked separately for two
product groups: (1) heating and cooling products, and (2) home appliances, lighting, and home
electronics. The results for the two product groups are similar. The top source was personal
acquaintances at around 60 percent, followed by consumer magazines, retailers, and the Internet.
On the other hand, households appear more likely to use contractors and utility programs as an
information source for heating and cooling products than for home appliances, lighting, and home
electronics.
Product Information Sources Consulted
(Base = All respondents)
Friend/neighbor/etc.
Consumer magazines
Retailer
Internet
Contractor
Utility program
Television
Newspapers
Other magazines
Radio
~|57%
147%
~|42%
T33%
37%
J 18%
J 17%
J26%
"| 20%
| 16%
D Heating and Cooling
P rod ucts(n= 1358)
D Home Appliances,
Lighting, Home
Electronics (n= 1396)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Q13a: "Now, please think only about Heating and Cooling Products. Please select the source(s) of information
you are most likely to use to obtain information about this product type. Please mark all that apply."
Q13b: "Now, please think only about Home AppliancesYLightingYHome Electronics. Please select the source(s)
of information you are most likely to use to obtain information about this product type. Please mark all that
apply."
18
-------
Considering only households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label, there was some overlap
as well as some differences between where they saw or heard something about ENERGY STAR
and the sources they consult for product information. These households saw or heard something
about ENERGY STAR primarily on TV commercials, utility mailings or bill inserts, in newspaper
or magazine advertisements, or on the Internet. Each of these sources was among the primary
sources these same households consult for product information. Other primary sources these
households consult for product information were personal acquaintances, salespersons, and
contractors. The overlap as well as the differences between where households saw or heard
something about ENERGY STAR and the sources the consult for product information suggest
future ENERGY STAR activities should aim to:
• Increase positive exposure of ENERGY STAR in product-orientated magazines.
• Enhance efforts to train salespersons and contractors to actively and accurately deliver
information about ENERGY STAR.
• Improve the availability and accessibility of ENERGY STAR information on the Internet.
Continue cooperative efforts to include ENERGY STAR materials in utility mailings or bill
inserts.
• Encourage consumers to recommend ENERGY STAR to friends, family, and colleagues.
ENERGY STAR Sources Compared With Sources Consulted
(Base = Recognized aided)
Sources
Newspaper or magazine
advertisement
Newspaper or magazine article
TV commercial
TV news feature story
Radio commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Internet
Salesperson
Contractor
Friend, neighbor.relative, or co-
worker
ENERGY
STAR
Sources
(n=772)
17%
8%
31%
3%
5%
25%
11%
7%
2%
3%
Sources Consulted
Heating and Cooling
Products
(n=904)
Consumer Reports,
other product-oriented 51%
magazines
Newspaper 13%
Other magazines 9%
19%
6%
29%
42%
43%
29%
56%
Home Appliance/Lighting/
Home Electronics
(n=926)
Consumer Reports,
other product-oriented
magazines
Newspaper
Other magazines
54%
15%
14%
24%
6%
18%
38%
50%
19%
62%
19
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILED METHODOLOGY
From September through October 2004, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE)
fielded a household survey to obtain information on consumer awareness of the
ENERGY STAR label. The survey was fielded to a random sample of households that
are part of a WebTV/Internet panel that is selected by random digit dial and recruited by
telephone. The survey was similar to the WebTV/Internet surveys fielded in previous
years (2001, 2002, 2003). As in the previous four years, CEE and its sponsoring members
made the survey data publicly available. In 2001, a rigorous comparative analysis of mail
survey and WebTV/Internet survey results was conducted. The results from both
techniques were comparable for most major indicators.1 Results in that time frame were
also analogous to telephone surveys with aided recognition.
This report discusses the results of the CEE 2004 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 used (or
were influenced by) the label in their energy-related purchasing decisions. Research
questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity impact 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 15 through October 12, 2004.
The remainder of Appendix A discusses the questionnaire design, sampling and
weighting methodologies, data collection, and the national analysis.
1 Questionnaire Design
In 2004, CEE conducted the ENERGY STAR survey using a questionnaire designed to
be delivered by WebTV/Internet. The 2004 WebTV/Internet questionnaire was used in a
survey conducted via an interactive WebTV/Internet format in the homes of members of
a WebTV/Internet panel. People on the panel were originally selected to participate in the
panel by random digit dial and recruited by telephone. The panel is designed to be
representative of the U.S. population. Panel members are provided with an Internet
1 National Analysis of CEE 2001 ENERGY STAR Household Surveys.
A-l
-------
appliance (WebTV) and Internet service connection, and surveys are fielded to them via
Internet and WebTV. Panel members who already have Internet service receive other
incentives to participate in the panel. Panel members receive three to four short surveys
each month, and are expected to respond to a percentage of these.
Data collected using the 2004 WebTV/Internet questionnaire may be compared with data
collected using any of the WebTV internet questionnaires fielded in previous years, for
which CEE was also responsible. Sampling for the survey is discussed in Section 2, data
collection is discussed in Section 3, and the national analysis is discussed in Section 4.
The committee had several broad objectives in designing the 2004 questionnaire
including:
• To maintain consistency with the CEE 2000 and 2001 mail questionnaires and the
WebTV/Internet questionnaires fielded in previous years.
• To fine-tune the questionnaire based on lessons learned from prior years' analyses of
the CEE survey, focusing on achieving the greatest value from the analysis of the
CEE 2003 survey.
The 2004 WebTV/Internet questionnaire addressed the following:
• Respondent recognition of the ENERGY STAR label.
• Understanding of, and key messages communicated by, the ENERGY STAR label.
• Sources of information consulted about ENERGY STAR.
• Products on which respondents have seen the label.
• Products that respondents have purchased in the past year.
• Products that respondents have purchased on which they have seen the label (or on
whose packaging or instructions they have seen the label).
• Influence of the presence or absence of the label on the purchase decision.
• 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.
A-2
-------
• Likely sources of information about product categories.
• Demographic questions. (Most of the demographic questions were not asked in the
WebTV/Internet survey, because demographic characteristics of the respondents were
already on file.)
• Likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend.
• Recognition and understanding of the yellow EnergyGuide labels.
The 2004 WebTV/Internet questionnaire is very similar to the 2003 questionnaire. In
2004, respondents who said they used the Internet to obtain information about products
were asked about the type of Internet sources they were most likely to rely on for product
information. An experimental question about consumer perceptions of ENERGY STAR-
labeled products was also added. The results of these new questions are discussed later.
The interactive format of a WebTV/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. For example, while the 2000 and 2001 mail
questionnaires begin by showing the ENERGY STAR label and asking about
understanding and whether they recognize it before asking other questions, respondents
can still potentially educate themselves in a limited way about the ENERGY STAR label
by reading the survey before completing it, affecting their responses. The
WebTV/Internet questionnaires (after questions about the yellow EnergyGuide label),
however, ask respondents—without showing the 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 WebTV/Internet questionnaires then show the ENERGY STAR label(s) (which is
obviously not possible with the telephone questionnaire) and ask again about recognition
and understanding. Responses to these questions should thus be comparable to those
obtained through the mail survey where respondents are shown the label. Other
differences between the mail questionnaires and the WebTV/Internet questionnaires are
that the latter—much like a telephone questionnaire using computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI)—can program lines of questions based on responses to earlier
questions. For example, WebTV/Internet respondents 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.
A-3
-------
Internet Sources
In 2004, respondents who said they used the Internet to obtain information about products
covered by the ENERGY STAR program were asked about the type of Internet sources
they were most likely to rely on for product information. This question was asked
separately for two product groups: (1) heating and cooling products (Q13al) and (2)
home appliances, lighting, and home electronics (Q13a2). For both product groups the
top two sources are manufacturer Web sites and consumer organization Web sites, each
at about 70 percent. On the other hand, it appears more households rely on utility Web
sites or state or federal government Web sites to obtain information about heating and
cooling products than about home appliances, lighting, and home electronics. Also, it
appears more households rely on retailer Web sites to obtain information about home
appliances, lighting, and home electronics than about heating and cooling products.
Internet Sources for Product Information
(Base = Internet a source for product information)
Manufacturer
Consumer
Organization
Retailer
Utility
State/Federal
Government
Other
J68%
I 67%
168%
38%
_|46*
J26%
J34%
• For Heating and Cooling Products (n=493)
D For Home Appliances, Lighting, and Home
Electronics (n=461)
M7%
J25%
4%
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
A-4
-------
Perceived Characteristics of ENERGY STAR-labeled Products
In 2004, an experimental question (Q15) about consumers' perceptions of ENERGY
STAR-labeled products was asked as follows: "On the scale by each statement, please
indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the statement." The response scale was
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 =
somewhat agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The order in which the statements were
presented was random. The statements were:
• Products with the ENERGY STAR label are better for the environment than products
without the lab el.
• Products with the ENERGY STAR label cost less to use than products without the
label.
• The U.S. government gives the ENERGY STAR label to products that meet energy
efficiency guidelines.
• Products with the ENERGY STAR label are higher quality products than those
without the label.
• Products with the ENERGY STAR label don't save any more energy than other new
products.
• Products with the ENERGY STAR label have fewer features than products without
the label.
Four of the statements address messages of the ENERGY STAR label: better for the
environment, cost less to use, meets U.S. government energy efficiency guidelines, and
save more energy. Each of these statements received a positive rating from between 49
and 56 percent of households that recognize the label. (The positive rating is the
percentage of households that agreed—either somewhat or strongly—with a positive
message or the percentage of households that disagreed—either somewhat or strongly—
with a negative message.) At the same time, each of the statements that address a
message of the ENERGY STAR label received a negative rating from between only 6
and 13 percent of households that recognized the label. Still, these negative ratings as
well as the relatively large percentages of households that recognized the label and
neither agree nor disagree with these statements, between 36 and 41 percent, suggest
work remains to get the ENERGY STAR message across.
Two of the statements do not address specific messages of the ENERGY STAR label:
higher quality and more features. Compared with the statements that clearly address
messages of the ENERGY STAR label, these statements appear to receive smaller
positive ratings and larger neutral ratings (neither agree nor disagree). The two
statements that address more features and higher quality received positive ratings of 31
and 35 percent, respectively, and neutral ratings of about 60 percent.
A-5
-------
Perceptions of ENERGY STAR Products
(Base = Recognize label aided, n=1007)
Have Fewer Features
Are of Higher Quality
Don't Save More Energy
Cost Less to Use
Meet US Government Energy Efficiency Guidelines
Are Better for the Environment
4%
61%
35%
31%
60%
9%
I 6%
\ 37%
J 56%
49%
13%
J 38%
D Strongly Disagree
• Somewhat Disagree
D Neither Agree Nor Disagree
D Somewhat Agree
D Strongly Agree
49%
10%
J41%
55%
36%
\9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
2 Sampling
2.1 Designated Marketing Areas Publicity Categories
The same publicity classification procedure used the past three years was used this year.
A Nielsen Designated Marketing Area® (DMA) was classified as high publicity, low
publicity, or other using the following criteria:
• High publicity: Active local ENERGY STAR program 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
activities..
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional program
sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
A-6
-------
This classification procedure identifies three publicity categories and provides clear and
verifiable definitions. The key working definitions are:
• Recent: The two years of activity must include the time of the survey fielding.
• Sustained: The two 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 and promotional efforts.
These definitions are sufficiently operational to be applicable to future survey efforts, and
can be modified by simply increasing the duration of sustained high publicity. The
publicity-level assignments are detailed in the table below, followed by a table of
supplemental CEE member sponsor areas.
A- 7
-------
Top 57 Designated Market Areas
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
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Designated Market Area
(DMA)
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose
Boston (Manchester)
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)
Atlanta
Detroit
Houston
Seattle-Tacoma
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Phoenix
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
Denver
Sacramnto-Stktn-Modesto
Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn
St. Louis
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Portland, OR
Indianapolis
San Diego
Hartford & New Haven
Charlotte
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)
Nashville
Kansas City
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
Columbus, OH
Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk
West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
Birmingham (Ann and Tusc)
Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws
New Orleans
Memphis
Buffalo
Oklahoma City
Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem
Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York
Providence-New Bedford
Albuquerque-Santa Fe
Louisville
Las Vegas
Jacksonville, Brunswick
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
Austin
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Little Rock-Pine Bluff
Fresno-Visalia
Tota
# TV Households
2003-2004
7,376,330
5,402,260
3,399,460
2,874,330
2,440,920
2,391,830
2,255,970
2,224,070
2,035,060
1,923,230
1,848,770
1,685,480
1,644,270
1,635,650
1,561,760
1,542,970
1,510,740
1,399,100
1,278,430
1,263,900
1,202,170
1,175,410
1,083,030
1,073,210
1,038,370
1,029,210
1,001,320
986,830
947,750
904,380
875,090
872,330
871 ,490
854,040
806,930
786,030
736,240
724,290
709,290
697,570
693,660
665,190
662,280
647,920
647,390
645,430
637,240
635,610
633,500
624,470
601 ,700
598,070
590,100
577,740
542,670
524,090
521,160
76,517,730
% of US TV
Households
680.4%
498.3%
313.6%
265.1%
225.2%
220.6%
208.1%
205.2%
187.7%
177.4%
170.5%
155.5%
151.7%
150.9%
144.1%
142.3%
139.4%
129.1%
117.9%
116.6%
110.9%
108.4%
99.9%
99.0%
95.8%
94.9%
92.4%
91 .0%
87.4%
83.4%
80.7%
80.5%
80.4%
78.8%
74.4%
72.5%
67.9%
66.8%
65.4%
64.3%
64.0%
61.4%
61.1%
59.8%
59.7%
59.5%
58.8%
58.6%
58.4%
57.6%
55.5%
55.2%
54.4%
53.3%
50.1%
48.3%
48.1%
70.4%
Publicity
Category
High
High
Other
Other
High
High
Other
Other
Low
Other
Other
High
Low
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Other
Low
High
Other
Low
Other
Low
Other
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Other
High
Low
Other
Other
Low
Low
Other
High
Low
High
A-8
-------
Sponsor Areas
Sponsor Area
New York (with the
exception of Long
Island)
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Publicity
Category
High
High
High
Top 57/Other DMAs
Top 57: parts of
*New York DMA (Rank 1)
'Buffalo DMA (Rank 44)
*Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA (Rank 55)
Other: all of
*Rochester(Rank75)
'Syracuse (Rank 79)
*Binghamton (Rank 154)
*Utica (Rank 167)
*Watertown (Rank 177)
Other: parts of
*Burlington-Plattsburgh (Rank 89)
*Elmira (Rank 173)
Top 57: parts of
*Boston DMA (Rank 6)
*Providence-New Bedford (Rank 48)
*Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA (Rank 55)
Other: all of Springfield-Holyoke DMA (Rank 106)
Top 57: parts of
*Boston DMA (Rank 6)
Other: parts of
Portland-Auburn (Rank 74)
Burlington-Plattsburgh (Rank 89)
A-9
-------
Map of Top 57 DMAs by Publicity Category and Sponsor Areas
H "High" publicity category
L "Low" publicity category
O "Other" publicity category
D CEE sponsor area (ranking in Top 57DMAs)
D CEE sponsor area (not ranking in Top 57 DMAs)
Neither Alaska nor Hawaii contained DMAs ranking in the Top 57 DMAs.
A-10
-------
2.2 Sample Design
The sample is a national sample. The sampling frame includes all households in the
largest DMAs that account for about 70 percent of U.S. television households. In 2004,
the 57 largest DMAs accounted for this proportion. In addition, some CEE members
sponsored more intensive sampling (i.e., oversample) for various states, which are
referred to here as "sponsor areas." For each sponsor area that is a state, the frame was
not limited to the large DMAs, but included the entire sponsor area. Thus, the complete
frame for the study was the combination of the 57 largest DMAs and any portion of the
sponsor areas that fell outside these DMAs.
The sample is stratified by area and within an area by publicity category. Each sponsor
area is also further stratified by large versus non-large DMA as well as any stratification
requested by the CEE member funding the oversample. There are four areas, three
sponsor areas and a single area consisting of the largest or parts of the largest DMAs that
were not in a sponsor area. Further stratifying each sponsor area by publicity category,
large versus non-large DMA as well as any stratification requested by the CEE member
funding the oversample, results in 7 strata. Further stratifying the remaining area by
publicity category results in 3 strata, for a total of 10 strata.
The CEE members who funded the oversample for a sponsor area determined the number
of sampling points allocated to the area as a whole. This total number of sampling points
was then allocated across publicity categories present in a sponsor area proportional to
population. In the single area consisting of the largest or parts of the largest DMAs that
were not in a sponsor area, each publicity category was allocated approximately 333
sampling points. For each stratum, a larger sample was selected to receive the survey to
allow for nonresponse.
2.3 Weighting Procedures
The weights used in the analysis are the weights developed by Knowledge Networks, the
company that provides the WebTV/Internet survey service. Knowledge Networks begins
with a typical sampling weight that also accounts for differences between the
WebTV/Internet panel and the U.S. population of households. This adjustment is based
on geographic and demographic characteristics known for both the panel and the
population. It is designed to scale up the groups that are underrepresented in the panel
and scale down the groups that are over-represented in the panel so that they are more
closely aligned with the basic demographic characteristics of the U.S. population of
households.
The typical sampling weight is then corrected for survey nonresponse. The correction for
survey nonresponse is analogous to the adjustment for differences in the WebTV/Internet
panel from the U.S. population of households. The correction for survey nonresponse is
based on geographic and demographic characteristics known for both the sample of panel
completes and the entire sampling frame for the study. It scales up the under-represented
groups and scales down the over-represented groups in the sample of panel completes.
A-ll
-------
3 Data Collection
3.1 Survey Implementation
The survey began on September 15 and closed on October 12, 2004.
3.2 Response Rates
For WebTV/Internet, the return rate is the ratio of the number of survey questionnaires
completed to the number of panel members who were asked to complete the survey. For
the CEE 2004 ENERGY STAR household survey, the return rate was 79 percent. While
this number is quite high, it must be adjusted by the recruitment rate, that is, the number
of households that agreed to participate in the WebTV/Internet panel as a proportion of
the number of households asked to participate. Thus, the WebTV/Internet response rate is
the product of the survey-specific return rate and the recruitment rate of 30 percent. This
product is equivalent to the ratio of the number of surveys completed to the number of
households that were offered the opportunity to be in the study. For the CEE 2004
ENERGY STAR household survey the response rate was 24 percent. This level of
response is typical for a WebTV/Internet survey fielded to the Knowledge Networks
panel.
Survey Response Rate
Sendout/requested
Completed
Return rate
Recruitment rate
Response rate
1,995
1,579
79%
30%
24%
4 National Analysis
To facilitate comparisons across years, the results presented in this report, which are
national results, are based only on data collected from respondents in the 57 largest
DMAs. Data collected from respondents not in the 57 largest DMAs, but in a sponsor
area, are not included in the national 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 the
appropriate weight in the analysis to generate valid national results.
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B
DEMOGRAPHICS
The analysis presented in this appendix suggests the weighted survey results are a reasonable
representation of the study population, which is 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. However, in any survey effort, the persons who respond to the survey tend
to be different from those who do not respond. While Knowledge Networks, the company that
maintains the WebTV/Internet panel, strives to create a representative panel for its
WebTV/Internet frame, the respondent base will contain subjects and their associated biases that
are receptive to the WebTV/Internet incentive-for-service tradeoff.
The weights used in the analysis attempt to account for differences between the WebTV/Internet
panel and the U.S. population of households and for survey nonresponse. To the extent this effort
is successful, the distribution of various demographic characteristics based on the weighted survey
data will be similar to the distribution based on national Census data. For most demographic
characteristics, the two distributions are similar. This suggests the weighted survey results are a
reasonable representation of the study population. A summary of the demographic characteristics
compared is provided in the table below, and the detailed comparisons are provided in the tables 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
Other
Own/rent
$25,000-$49,000
-9.8%
-6.5%
+1-2.0%
-2.3%
+/-4.8%
4.7%
The largest difference (in absolute value) between the weighted survey data and the national
Census data is about 10 percentage points for one-person households, 17 versus 27 percent. The
next largest difference is about 7 percentage points for householders 65 years or older, 14 versus
21 percent. Neither the under-representation of one-person households or householders 65 years
or older is expected to bias the survey results in a particular direction. For the remaining
demographic characteristics, the largest differences between the weighted survey data and the
national census data range between 1 and 5 percentage points.
B-l
-------
Household Size Distribution
Number of Persons in
Household
One
Two
Three
Four
Five or more
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Dwelling Units3
27%
33%
16%
14%
10%
100%
105,842
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Dwelling Units
-9.8%
2.8%
3.7%
1.8%
1.5%
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2003, Table 2-9.
Age Distribution
Householder/
Respondent Age
18-24b
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or older
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Householders3
6%
17%
21%
21%
15%
21%
100%
112,000
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Householders
5.9%
2.1%
1.5%
-1.5%
-1.5%
-6.5%
1 U.S.Bureaus of Labor Statistics and the Census, Annual
Demographic Survey (or March CPS Supplement), Selected
Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income in 2003,
Table HTNC-01.
B Census, 15-24 years; WebTV/Internet, 18-24 years.
Gender Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Gender
Female
Male
Total (%)
Census
% Population3
51%
49%
100%
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Population
2.0%
-2.0%
1 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
B-2
-------
Dwelling Type Distribution
Dwelling Type
Single-family, unattached
Single-family, attached
Apt. bldg. (>=2 units)b
Mobile home
Other
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Dwelling Units3
61%
6%
22%
6%
5%
100%
111,122
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Dwelling Units
1.3%
1.4%
0.3%
-0.7%
-2.3%
"U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2003, Table 2-1.
B Census, 2 or more units; WebTV/Internet, 4 or more units.
Own/Rent Distribution
Own/Rent
Own
Rent
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Households3
68%
32%
100%
105,842
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
-4.8%
4.8%
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2003,
Table 2-1.
Income Distribution
Total Household Annual
Income (before taxes)
Less than $15,000
$15,000424,999
$25,000449,999
$50,000474,999
$75,000 and over
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Households
16%
13%
27%
18%
26%
100%
112,000
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
-2.6%
-1.9%
4.7%
3.5%
-3.7%
1 U.S.Bureaus of Labor Statistics and the Census, Annual Demographic
Survey (or March CPS Supplement), Selected Characteristics of
Households, by Total Money Income in 2003, Table fflNC-01.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
2004 CEE WEB TV/INTERNET QUESTIONNAIRE
2004 CEE ENERGY STAR® Survey Flowchart August 20, 2004
EG1. Have you ever seen
or heard of yellow stickers
called EnergyGuide
labels?
EG2.
What information does the Energy
Guide label provide?
ES1. Have you ever
seen or heard of the
Energy Star label?
ES2.
What does the Energy Star label
mean to you?
ES3A.
Is this the label you have seen or
heard of before? [SHOW OLD OR
NEW LABEL, IN RANDOM
ORDER]
ES3C(oldES4a1)
Please look at the ENERGY
STAR label on the left. Have
you ever seen or heard of this
label? [SHOW OLD OR NEW
LABEL, IN RANDOM ORDER]
Yes
No
Don't know
C-l
-------
ES3B.
Have you seen or heard o
this version of the
ENERGY STAR label?
[SHOW LABEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEN]
No/Don't Know
(or combo of the two)
to both ESSAand
ES3B
ES3D.
Have you seen or heard of this
version of the ENERGY STAR
label? [SHOW LABEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEN]
Yes
No
Don't Know
SO1.
Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY
STAR? Please mark all that apply
[checkbox]
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Newspaper or magazine article
TV commercial
TV news feature story
Radio commercial
Billboard
Utility mailing or bill insert
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Yellow EnergyGuide\abe\
Displays in stores
Internet
Salesperson
Contractor
Realtor
Lender
Homebuilder
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Other (please specify; [text box]
Don't know
ES4a1.
Please look at the ENERGY STAR
labels on the left Type the messages
that come to mind when you see the
Energy Star labels
[SHOW LABEL]
ES6.
Now that you have had the opportunity
to see the ENERGY STAR labeldo
you recall seeing or hearing anything
about it before this survey?
SO2.
What did you see or hear about
Energy Star? Please be specific
C-2
-------
Q5(a). 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.
Heating and Cooling Products
Central air conditioner
Furnace or boiler
Heat pump
Thermostat
Room air conditioner
None of these products
Home Office Equipment
Computer or monitor
Computer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
Q5(b). Please continue reviewing the lists of products below, and
select each of the products, product literature, or packaging on
which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
Home Appliances/Lighting
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Microwave oven
None of these products
Home Electronics
Television
VCR
Audio product
Q5(c). Finally, please review the last of the product lists below
and select each of the products, product literature, or packaging
on which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
Building Materials
Window
Door
Skylight
Insulation
Roofing material
Buildings
Newly built home
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?
Yes
No
Don't know
Heating and Cooling Products
Central air conditioner
Furnace or boiler
Heat pump
Thermostat
Room air conditioner
Home Office Equipment
Computer or monitor
Computer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
Home Appliances/Lighting
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Microwave oven
Home Electronics
Television
VCR
Audio product
Building Materials
Window
Door
Skylight
Insulation
Roofing material
Q6b
Have you or someone else in your
household been shopping for a nev\
home in the last 12 months?
Yes
No
Don't know
C-3
-------
Q12(a). Please look at each of the groups of products again.
Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12
months? Please check all that apply.
Heating and Cooling Products
Central air conditioner
Furnace or boiler
Heat pump
Thermostat
Room air conditioner
None of these products
Home Office Equipment
Computer or monitor
Computer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
Q12(b). Please continue reviewing the lists of products below.
Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12
months? Please check all that apply.
Home Appliances/Lighting
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Microwave oven
None of these products
Home Electronics
Television
VCR
Audio product
Q12(c). Finally, please review the last of the product lists below.
Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12
months? Please check all that apply.
Building Materials
Window
Door
Skylight
Insulation
Roofing material
None of these products
Buildings
Newly built home
No Products
Purchased or
ES6="No" or
Don't Know
C-4
-------
Q7: For any of the products you
purchased, did you see the ENERGY
STAR label (on the product itself, on
the packaging, or on the instructions)?
f SkiptoQ13a ]
Q7a_1 thru Q7a_3: On which products
did you see the ENERGY STAR label?
(show only the products they checked
off in Q12, with options to check for
each' "Saw label" "Did not see label"
"Don't know")
Q8. For any ENERGY STAR-labeled
product(s) you purchased, how much
did the presence or absence of the
ENERGY STAR label influence your
purchasing decision?
Very much
Somewhat
Slightly
Not at all
Don't know
Q9. Did you receive rebates or
reduced-rate financing for any
ENERGY STAR-labeled product(s) you
purchased?
SkiptoQH
C-5
-------
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?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Don't know
Q11. How likely are you to recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled
products to a friend?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Don't know
Q13a. Now, please think only about Heating and Cooling
Products. Please select the source(s) of information you are
most likely to use to obtain information about this product type.
Please mark all that apply.
Heating and Cooling Products
Consumer Reports and other product-oriented magazines
Other magazines
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Electric or gas utility
Advice from retailers or salespersons
Advice from contractors
Advice from a friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Internet
Other
Don't know
YES
NO
Q13a1. Please select the type of Internet source(s) you are
most likely to rely on to obtain information about this product
type. Please mark all that apply.
Local utility websites
State or Federal government websites
Product manufacturer websites
Retailer websites
Consumer organization websites (e.g., Consumer Reports)
Other
C-6
-------
Q13b. Now, please think only about Home Appliances/Lighting/
Home Electronics. Please select the source(s) of information you
are most likely to use to obtain information about this product
type. Please mark all that apply.
Home Appliances' Lighting/ Home Electronics
Consumer Reports and other product oriented magazines
Other magazines
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Electric or gas utility
Advice from retailers or salespersons
Advice from contractors
Advice from a friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Internet
Other
Don't know
YES
Q13a2. Please select the type of Internet source(s) you are
most likely to rely on to obtain information about this product
type. Please mark all that apply.
Local utility websites
State or Federal government websites
Product manufacturer websites
Retailer websites
Consumer organization websites (e.g., Consumer Reports)
Other
NO
On the scale by each statement, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the statement.
(Note to programmer present q15 a through f in random order.)
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Q15a. Products with the ENERGY STAR label have fewer features than products without the label.
12345
Q15b. Products with the ENERGY STAR label are higher quality products than those without the label.
12345
Q15c. Products with the ENERGY STAR label don't save any more energy than other new products.
12345
Q15d. Products with the ENERGY STAR label cost less to use than products without the label.
12345
Q15e. The US. government gives the ENERGY STAR label to products that meet energy efficiency guidelines.
12345
Q15f. Products with the ENERGY STAR label are better for the environment than products without the label.
12345
/ Go to demographic \
i questions and closing I
C-7
------- |