CHANGE FOR THE
BETTER WITH
ENERGYSTAR
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 2005
ANALYSIS OF CEE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
Executive Summary ES-1
Introduction 1
Methodology Overview 2
Key Findings 4
Recognition 4
Understanding 9
Influence 14
Information Sources 18
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology A-1
Appendix B: Demographics B-1
Appendix C: 2005 Survey Questions and Flow Chart C-1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this study, Miriam Goldberg (KEMA Inc.), Valy Goepfrich (KEMA
Inc.), Jocelyn Spielman (The Cadmus Group, Inc.), and Kendra Johnston (The
Cadmus Group, Inc.), 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 2005 survey:
• Bonneville Power Administration
• Cape Light Compact
• Connecticut Light & Power
• KeySpan Energy Delivery
• National Grid USA
• New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
• Northeast Utilities
• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
• NSTAR Electric
• Pacific Gas & Electric
• Sacramento Municipal Utility District
• San Diego Gas & Electric
• Southern California Edison
• Unitil
• Wisconsin Department 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 (GEE),
and Monica Nevius, CEE's Research and Evaluation Manager, for making the
study data available to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the
national analysis
• Maureen McNamara of the EPA ENERGY STAR Program for project
management of the data analysis and oversight of this report
Recommended citation:
EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Climate Protection Partnerships Division.
National Awareness of ENERGY STAR® for 2005: Analysis of 2005 CEE
Household Survey. U.S. EPA, 2006.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2005, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE)
sponsored the sixth 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 chose to supplement the national sample in order to assess
label awareness in their local service territories. In 2005, additional surveys were
conducted in New Jersey. As in the five previous years, GEE and sponsoring
members made the survey data publicly available.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2005 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 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?
Key Findings at the National Level
• Sixty-three percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label.
• Seventy 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 (13 percent versus 57 percent).
• Of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label and purchased a
product in a relevant product category within the past twelve months, 57 percent
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
• Among households that recognized the label and those that did not (i.e., all
households), 24 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product in the past twelve months.
ES-1
-------
• For 63 percent of the households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product the label influenced at least one of their purchase decisions "very
much" or "somewhat." For another 12 percent of these households the label
influenced their purchase decisions "slightly."
• Twelve percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product received a financial incentive for doing so. Ninety-two percent of
these households would have been "very likely" (43 percent) or "somewhat likely"
(49 percent) to purchase the labeled product without the financial incentive.
• Seventy-six percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR-labeled product would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to recommend
ENGERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend, and another 19 percent would be
"slightly likely."
Key Findings from Publicity-level Analyses
• A larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas recognized
the ENERGY STAR label, both with and without being shown the label. With a
visual aid, 71 percent of households in high-publicity areas recognized the label
versus 53 percent in low-publicity areas. (High-publicity areas are areas with an
active local ENERGY STAR program that has been sponsored by a utility, state
agency, or other organization for two or more continuous years.)
• Among households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (with a visual aid),
a larger proportion in high- than in low-publicity areas associated the label with
appliances, which are heavily promoted by regional program sponsors.
• A larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas had at least
a general understanding of the label.
• A larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas associated
the following messages with the ENERGY STAR label: "efficiency or energy
savings" and "associating specific products with the ENERGY STAR label."
• Among households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product, the purchase decisions of a larger proportion in high- than in low-
publicity areas was influenced by the label. At all levels of influence—"very
much," "at least somewhat," and "at least slightly"—the proportion of households
in high-publicity areas was larger than in low-publicity areas.
• Considering only households that recognized the label (with a visual aid), a larger
proportion of these households in high- than in low-publicity areas heard or saw
something about ENERGY STAR via store displays, TV commercials, utility
mailings or bill inserts, salespersons, or radio commercials.
ES-2
-------
Conclusions and Future Directions
This sixth 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 (13 percent) compared with the proportion of households that
exhibit a high understanding (57 percent).
• Publicity emanating from active regional/local energy efficiency program
sponsors increases recognition, understanding, and influence of the label.
The analyses of the GEE ENERGY STAR survey fielded in 2005 indicate that
activities to promote the ENERGY STAR label carried out by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), survey sponsors,
and ENERGY STAR partners in 2005 were effective.
ES-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2005, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE)
sponsored the sixth 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 chose to supplement the national sample in order to assess
label awareness in their local service territories. To this end, in 2005 additional
surveys were conducted in New Jersey. As in the five previous years, GEE and
sponsoring members made the survey data publicly available.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2005 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 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 remainder of this report summarizes the survey and analysis methodology;
provides key findings regarding ENERGY STAR label recognition, understanding,
influence, and information sources; and contains appendices presenting detailed
survey methodology (Appendix A), demographic information (Appendix B), and a
copy of the 2005 questionnaire (Appendix C). Tables presenting the 2005 survey
results by publicity category are available separately from EPA. The results
presented in this report were in all cases weighted to obtain results applicable at the
national level (please refer to Appendix A for details on the weighting methodology).
-------
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
During September 2005, 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/WebTV panel was surveyed.
Both the Internet/WebTV panel as a whole and the sample of households
completing the survey were selected by random digit dial and recruited by
telephone. The panel is designed to be representative of the U.S. population.
The questionnaire was similar to the questionnaires GEE fielded in previous years (a
paper survey only was fielded in the first year). As in previous years, GEE and its
sponsoring members made the survey data publicly available.
The survey was a national survey. The sampling frame for the survey included all
households in the largest Nielsen Designated Market Areas® (DMAs) that together
accounted for about 70 percent of U.S. television households, which in 2005
encompassed the 57 largest DMAs. In addition, GEE members may sponsor more
intensive sampling (i.e., an over sample) in selected localities, referred to here as
sponsor areas. In 2005, the state of New Jersey was a sponsor area.
To facilitate comparisons across years, the national results were based only on data
collected from respondents from the top 57 DMAs. In 2005, all respondents resided
in the top 57 DMAs. The only sponsor area, the state of New Jersey, contained only
large DMAs. All of the top 57 DMAs that are located in the state of New Jersey were
over sampled.1 The data from these respondents, as well as from the other
respondents in the top 57 DMAs, received an appropriate weight in the analysis in
order to generate valid national results and comparisons against data from other
years.
As in previous years' studies, the DMAs in the sampling frame were classified by
publicity category so as to be able to consider the effect of publicity on national
awareness. The same publicity classification procedure used in the past four years
was used this year.2 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
1 For a sponsor area, the sampling frame is not limited to the largest DMAs; it includes the entire
sponsor area. However, the state of New Jersey contained only large DMAs.
2 Between September 2004 and 2005, four of the top 57 DMAs changed publicity category:
Albuquerque-Santa Fe, Austin, Las Vegas, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. In September 2005,
Albuquerque-Santa Fe was classified as other and the remaining three DMAs were classified as high
publicity. In September 2004, Albuquerque-Santa Fe was classified as low publicity and the
remaining three DMAs were classified as other.
-------
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
This classification was designed to provide clear and verifiable definitions. The key
working definitions are:
• Recent: The two years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• 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 efforts or the creation
and distribution of promotional material.
These definitions were constructed to be sufficiently operational to be applicable to
future survey efforts; they can be modified by simply increasing the duration of
sustained high publicity.
The sample was stratified by area and within an area by publicity category.3 There
were two areas: the sponsor area (the state of New Jersey) and the area consisting
of those among the top 57 DMAs located outside the sponsor area. The GEE
members who fund the over sample 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 publicity categories present in a sponsor
area proportional to population. In the area consisting of those among the top 57
DMAs located outside the sponsor area each publicity category was allocated
approximately 333 sampling points.
This report presents the 2005 survey results at the national level and often by
publicity category. The publicity category results provide evidence of the
effectiveness of EPA's model for increasing 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.
3 A sponsor area is also further stratified by large versus small DMA as well as any stratification
requested by the GEE member funding the over sample. In 2005, the only sponsor area (the state of
New Jersey) contained only large DMAs and no additional stratification was requested.
-------
KEY FINDINGS
RECOGNITION
In 2005, 63 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label (i.e., aided recognition). Forty-three percent of households correctly
assessed 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 were said to recognize the ENERGY
STAR label if they have seen or heard of the label before the survey. Recognition of
the label was explored 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/WebTV 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 2005 and 2004 surveys are summarized in the
following table. Both aided and unaided recognition of the ENERGY STAR label
were similar in 2005 and 2004.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = All respondents)
Recognize
ENERGY
STAR Label
Yes
Standard error
2005
Aided
(n=1,181)
63%
1 .9%
Unaided
(n=1,017)
43%
2.1%
2004
Aided
(n=1,515)
64%
1 .7%
Unaided
(n=1,359)
41%
1 .8%
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.
4
-------
Recognition by Publicity Category
Both aided and unaided recognition were higher in high-publicity areas than in low-
publicity areas. After being shown the ENERGY STAR label, 71 percent of
households in high-publicity areas recognized the label versus 53 percent in low-
publicity areas. Unaided recognition was 56 percent in high-publicity areas
compared with 27 percent in low-publicity areas.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
(Base = All respondents)
100% n
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/.
71%
53%
56%
• High Publicifr
D Low Publicity
27%
'Aided (n= 1,181)
"Unaided (n=1,017)
High- and low-publicity area 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 (refrigerators, washing
machines, dishwashers, etc.), showed strong association with the ENERGY STAR
label. Seventy-two percent of households have seen the label on refrigerators. At
about 60 percent, washing machines and dishwashers were the products next most
commonly associated with the ENERGY STAR label. Room and central air
conditioners followed with percentages in the low 40s. Thirty-one percent of
households associated microwave ovens with the ENERGY STAR label, which do
not in fact have an ENERGY STAR specification (although of all appliances
microwave ovens were the least often associated with the label). Products that
showed an increase in association with the ENERGY STAR label from 2004 to 2005
were refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, furnace/boilers, insulation, heat
pumps, and skylights.
Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=592)
***Washing machine
*Dishwasher
Room air conditioner
Central A/C
Computer or monftor
Window
**Furnace/boiler
Mcrowave oven
Television
New ly built home
insulation
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Door
VCR
**Heat pump
Thermostat
Copying machine
Computer printer
Lighting fixture
Audio product
**Skylight
Scanner
Fax machine
Roofing material
1 60%
1 57%
I 44%
1 42%
1 37%
1 33%
I 33%
131%
I 26%
I 20%
117%
• 16%
• 16%
• 16%
114%
I 13%
112%
111%
111%
110%
I 9%
1 9%
1 8%
1 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10
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."
*** 2005 and 2004 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.01). The proportion of households in 2005 is larger than in 2004.
** 2005 and 2004 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05). The proportion of households in 2005 is larger than in 2004.
* 2005 and 2004 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). The proportion of households in 2005 is larger than in 2004.
-------
Product Associations by Publicity Category
For refrigerators, washing machines, room air conditioners, furnace/boilers, and
audio products, a larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas
associated a given product with the ENERGY STAR label. Regional energy
efficiency program sponsors promoted refrigerators, washing machines, and room
air conditioners heavily. Only for heat pumps did a smaller proportion of households
in high- than in low-publicity areas associate the product with the ENERGY STAR
label (p-value<0.10).4 This result was seen for heat pumps last year (2004) as well.
Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=592)
***Refrigerator
***Washing machine
Dishwasher
*Room air conditioner
Central A/C
**F urn ace/boiler
Window
Microwave oven
Computer or monitor
Television
Newly built home
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Thermostat
Door
Copying machine
Insulation
VCR
Lighting fixture
Skylight
*Audio product
Fax machine
Computer printer
Scanner
***Heat pump
Roofing material
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
I 11
I »%
I 1 1
1 O'ita
| 1
| b%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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).
4 If the difference between the proportions of households in high- and low- publicity areas is not
statistically significant at the 10 percent level (p-value<0.10), we conclude the proportions are similar.
That is, the difference between the two proportions is within the bounds that would be expected from
chance variation in a random sample. Considering products for which the estimated proportion of
households in high-publicity areas was smaller than in low-publicity areas, only for heat pumps was
the difference between the two proportions statistically significant at the 10 percent level.
-------
Product Associations Unprompted
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?" (QA). The figure below presents the results for this question
(unprompted) as well as for the question that asked survey respondents to indicate
whether or not they have seen the ENERGY STAR label on specific products
(prompted). Unprompted, refrigerators showed the strongest association with the
label at 35 percent, followed by "appliances" at 27 percent. The next most strongly
associated unprompted products were washing machines, dryers, computers or
monitors, and air conditioners, ranging between 17 and 22 percent. Most products
that showed a strong association with the ENERGY STAR label unprompted also
showed a strong associated with the label prompted. However, the list of
unprompted products includes several products that do not have an ENERGY STAR
specification: dryers, water heaters, and stoves or ovens. In addition, when
unprompted, dishwashers did not show a strong association with the ENERGY
STAR label, but when prompted they were the third most commonly associated
product.
Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label Unprompted
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=574)
Appliance
Washing machine
Dryer
Computer or monitor
~
Air conditioner
Water heater
Dishwasher
Stove/oven
Television
Electronics
Lighting
No product
Dont know
1 Jb%
| 27%
1 22%
' Prompted: Central A/C
1 1 1 %
1 10%
1 10% D Unprompted
H Prompted
'mmmmmmsmmmmmmm n Prompted
=17%
Prompted: CFL
1 Prompted: Lighting fixture
110%
— 15%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8
-------
UNDERSTANDING
In 2005, 70 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 was small compared with the proportion that exhibited a
high understanding, 13 versus 57 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 the 2005 and
2004 surveys are provided in the following table. The proportion of households with
at least a general understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was similar in 2005
and 2004 (70 percent compared with 68 percent).
Level of Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = All respondents)
Level of Understanding
of the Label
High understanding
General understanding
No understanding
Total
2005
(n=1,225)
57%
13%
30%
100%
2004
(n=1,579)
55%
13%
32%
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."
9
-------
Understanding by Publicity Category
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was greater in high- than in low-publicity
areas. Seventy-six 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 1-percent level, p-
value = 0.006.) 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)
100% n
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0% -
High Understanding
General Understanding
65%
11%
High Publicity
Low Publicity
10
-------
Label Messaging
Open-ended responses to the questions on which the above analysis of the level of
understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was based are also an indicator of how
effectively EPA communicates its messages through the 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-two percent of households
surveyed associated the ENERGY STAR label with this message. The second most
common message is "associating specific products with the ENERGY STAR label,"
at 15 percent of households. Identification of this message with the label is
considered general understanding of the label.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
(Base = All respondents)
Energy efficiency/savings
Energy conservation
Environmental benefit
"Savings (not linked to operation)
Save money on operation
Energy/environmental product standards
Mentions specific products
Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
"Confuses with EnergyGuide
Environmental no link to benefit
Quality
Save money on purchase
'Product standards no environmental link
Government backing
^ 52%
110%
1 9%
5%
High Understanding
General Understanding
• 3%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005 and 2004 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05). For the messages "savings (not linked to operation)" and "confuses with Energy Guide," the
proportion of households in 2005 is larger than in 2004. For the message "product standards no
environmental link," the proportion of households in 2005 is smaller than in 2004.
11
-------
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 two
messages, however, a larger proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity
areas associated the message with the label. These two messages were "energy
efficiency or energy savings" 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 "environmental no link to benefit" with the
ENERGY STAR label. Associating "energy efficiency or energy savings" with the
ENERGY STAR label is considered high understanding of the label. Associating
either specific products or "environmental no link to benefit" with the ENERGY STAR
label is considered general understanding of the label.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
(Base = All respondents)
***Ehergy efficiency/savings
Energy conservation
Environmental benefit
En ergy/env ironmental
product standards
Save money on operation
Savings (not linked to
operation)
***Mentions specific products
Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses w ith Energy Guide
Quality
Save money on purchase
"Environmental no link to
benefit
Product standards no
environmental link
Government backing
45%
EElMO* /\
35%
f%
H 5%
High Understanding
34%
4%
9% General Understanding
1 11%
3!%%
• 4% '5\ >/"
•3%
1%
1%
Oo/0 • High Publicity
D Low Publicity
Zl 3%
0%
0%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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).
12
-------
Understanding 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 who did
not recognize the label. Seventy-eight percent of households that recognized the
ENERGY STAR label had at least a general understanding of the label, while among
households that did not recognize the label 57 percent had at least a general
understanding of it.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition of the Label
(Base = All respondents)
Recognize ENERGY
Label Aided
STAR
Yes
No
Difference (Yes minus No)
p-value
At Least General
Understanding of Label
78%
57%
22%
<0.0001
13
-------
INFLUENCE
The survey provided some insight into consumers' decisions to purchase ENERGY
STAR-labeled products, including:
• The proportion of households, nationally, that recognized the ENERGY STAR
label and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product
• The influence of the label on purchase decisions
• The role of rebates or financing in decisions to buy ENERGY STAR products
• The loyalty of purchasers to ENERGY STAR products
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 in a product category that has an ENERGY STAR specification
• Of the households that recognized the label and purchased a product in a
relevant category, the proportion that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product
The result is that 24 percent of all households knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR product in the past twelve months. This proportion is 6 percentage points
lower than it was in 2004, at 24 versus 30 percent (the difference is statistically
significant at the 5-percent level, p-value=0.036).
A decrease in the proportion of all households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR product could be due to a decrease in any of the three proportions
listed above between 2004 and 2005. A close look at the survey results shows that
the first two of these proportions were similar in 2005 and 2004. However, the third
proportion was smaller in 2005 than in 2004. In 2005, considering only households
that recognized the label and purchased a product in a relevant category, 57 percent
knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product in the past twelve months. This
proportion is 10 percentage points smaller than the 67 percent proportion noted in
2004 (this 10 percentage point difference is statistically significant at the 5-percent
level, p-value=0.031).
14
-------
Purchased ENERGY STAR
(Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchaser)
Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
Estimate (yes)
Standard error
2005
(n=362)
57%
3.6%
2004
(n=448)
67%
3.2%
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, 28 and 23 percent respectively.
National Household Market Penetration of ENERGY STAR
Products by Publicity Category
(Base = All respondents)
Publicity Category
High
Low
Difference (High
minus Low)
p-value
% Households
28%
23%
5%
0.353
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
In 2005, for 63 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." For another 12 percent of households the label influenced
their purchase decisions at most "slightly."
The results on the influence of the ENERGY STAR label on purchasing decisions for
both the 2005 and 2004 surveys are provided in the next table. In 2005, the
questionnaire inquired separately about the influence of the ENERGY STAR label
for each ENERGY STAR-labeled product purchased. On the other hand, in 2004, a
single question was asked: "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?" Given the difference in how the data were
collected in the two years, it is problematic to interpret the differences in the results.
15
-------
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
2005
(n=186)
Maximum
31%
32%
12%
25%
100%
2004
(n=300)
27%
27%
20%
26%
100%
Note: In 2005, Q8: "For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you
purchased, how much did the ENERGY STAR label influence your
purchase decision?" In 2004, 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 ENERGY STAR label influenced the purchase decisions of a larger proportion
of households in high- than in low-publicity areas. The purchase decisions of 39
percent of households in high-publicity areas were influenced "very much "by the
label, compared to 20 percent in low-publicity areas. Adding to these proportions the
proportions of households for which the ENERGY STAR label was somewhat
influential in their purchase decisions, the proportion of households influenced by the
label is still larger in high- than in low-publicity areas (75 versus 52 percent). Lastly,
the proportion of households influenced by the ENERGY STAR label remains larger
in high- than in low-publicity areas after including the proportions of households for
which the label was slightly influential in their purchase decisions (84 versus 63
percent).
Maximum Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions
by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers, n=186)
Publicity Category
High
Low
High -Low
p-value
Very much
39%
20%
19%
0.069
Very much
or somewhat
75%
52%
23%
0.018
Very much,
somewhat, or
slightly
84%
63%
21%
0.060
16
-------
Rebate and Financing Influence
Twelve percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product received rebates or reduced-rate financing. Of these households, 43 percent
would have been "very likely" to purchase the ENERGY STAR product if financial
incentives had not been available. Another 49 percent would have been "somewhat
likely." This leaves only 8 percent that would have been "slightly likely" (6 percent) or
"not at all likely" (2 percent).
Influence of Rebates and Financing on Purchasing Decisions
(Base = Recognize label (aided), ENERGY STAR purchaser, and received an incentive, n=22)
Likelihood Purchase ENERGY
STAR Product Without
Financial Incentive
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Total
% Households
43%
49%
6%
2%
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 2005, 76 percent of households that knowingly purchasing an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to recommend ENERGY
STAR products to a friend.Only 5 percent would be "not at all likely."
The results on loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label for both the 2005 and 2004
surveys are shown in the next table. The proportion of households at least
"somewhat likely" to recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend was similar in
2005 and 2004, 76 and 73 percent, respectively.
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
2005
(n=187)
39%
37%
19%
5%
100%
2004
(n=268)
41%
32%
18%
9%
100%
Note: Q11: "How likely are you to recommend ENERGY STAR-
labeled products to a friend?"
17
-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
Sources Seen
Sixty-eight percent of households have seen something about ENERGY STAR on
appliance or electronic equipment labels, followed by store displays at 58 percent.
Thirty-nine percent of households heard or saw something about ENERGY STAR on
TV commercials. Between 22 and 28 percent of households saw something about
ENERGY STAR on or in utility mailings or bill inserts, Energy Guide labels, or in
newspaper or magazine advertisements. A larger proportion of households in 2005
than in 2004 saw something about ENERGY STAR on store displays or in
newspaper/magazine advertisements, or heard or saw something about ENERGY
STAR on TV commercials.
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=541)
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
"Displays in stores
**TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Yellow EnergyGuide label
"Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Newspaper or magazine article
Internet
Salesperson
Radio commercial
Billboard
J7%
5%
TV news feature story ^ 4%
Homebuilder
Contractor ] 3%
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker ] 2%
Realtor ]2%
Lender
J58%
J39%
H28%
J24%
J22%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Note: SO1: "Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY STAR? Please mark all that apply."
** 2005 and 2004 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05). The proportion of households in 2005 is larger than in 2004.
* 2005 and 2004 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). The proportion of households in 2005 is larger than in 2004.
18
-------
Sources seen by Publicity Category
For several sources, the proportion of households that heard or saw something
about ENERGY STAR was larger in high- than in low-publicity areas. This was the
case for store displays, TV commercials, utility mailings or bill inserts, salespersons,
and radio commercials. Three of these five sources are means of mass
communication, and the remaining two involve stores.
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=541)
'Displays in stores
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
***TV commercial
'Utility mailing or bill insert
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Direct mail or circular advertisement
"Salesperson
Newspaper or magazine article
Internet
"Radio commercial
Billboard
TV news feature story
Homebuilder
Contractor
Realtor
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Lender
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
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).
19
-------
APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY
During September 2005, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE) fielded a
questionnaire to obtain information at the national level on consumer awareness of
the ENERGY STAR label. The questionnaire was similar to the Internet/WebTV
questionnaires fielded in previous years (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). As in the five
previous years, GEE and its sponsoring members made the survey data publicly
available. In 2001, a rigorous comparative analysis of the results obtained via a mail
versus an Internet/WebTV survey was conducted. The results from the two survey
methods were comparable for most major indicators.5 Results from that time frame
were also analogous to telephone surveys with aided recognition.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2005 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 13 through September 27, 2005.
The remainder of Appendix A discusses the questionnaire design, sampling and
weighting methodologies, data collection, and the national analysis.
1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
In 2005, GEE conducted the ENERGY STAR survey using a questionnaire designed
to be delivered by Internet/WebTV. The survey was conducted via an interactive
Internet/WebTV format with a random sample of households that are members of an
Internet/WebTV panel. Households were selected to participate in the panel by
random digit dial and recruited by telephone. Participants in this survey were down-
selected from the entire panel by random digit dial and also recruited by telephone
The panel is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Panel members
are provided with an Internet appliance (WebTV) 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
National Analysis of GEE 2001 ENERGY STAR Household Surveys.
A-1
-------
Internet and WebTV. They receive three to four short questionnaires each month,
and are expected to respond to a certain percentage of them.
Data collected using the 2005 Internet/WebTV questionnaire may be compared with
data collected using the Internet/WebTV questionnaires fielded in previous years, for
which GEE was also responsible. Additional results from questions added to the
survey for 2005 are discussed in Section 2 of this appendix, sampling in Section 3,
data collection in Section 4, and the national analysis in Section 5.
GEE had several broad objectives in designing the 2005 questionnaire including:
• To maintain consistency with the GEE 2000 and 2001 mail questionnaires and
the Internet/WebTV 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 2005 survey against those from the 2004 GEE survey.
The 2005 Internet/WebTV questionnaire addressed the following:
• Respondent recognition of the ENERGY STAR label
• Understanding of and key messages communicated by the ENERGY STAR label
• Products on which respondents have seen the label
• Products that respondents have shopped for or 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
• Demographic questions (Most of the demographic questions were not asked in
the Internet/WebTV survey as the 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 Energy Guide labels
A-2
-------
The 2005 Internet/WebTV questionnaire is very similar to the 2004 questionnaire,
although there were a few changes. In 2005 the questions addressing sources of
heating and cooling product information and sources of information about other
types of energy-using products were dropped. Questions were added that address:
• The types of products and services consumers think of when they think of the
ENERGY STAR label (new QA)
• Who consumers think decides if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label
(new QB)
• Consumer satisfaction with the energy-using products they recently purchased
(new QC)
The phrasing of a number of questions was also changed from previous years. For
example, in 2005 the influence of the ENERGY STAR label on consumers' purchase
decisions was asked separately for each ENERGY STAR-labeled product
purchased (i.e., "For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product(s) you purchased")
versus as a single question (i.e., "For any ENERGY STAR-labeled product(s) you
purchased").
In 2005 there the survey once again contained an experimental section presenting a
series of statements with which respondents were asked how strongly they agree or
disagree. This section is designed to measure consumers' perceptions of ENERGY
STAR-labeled products (Q16a-Q16m). Respondents were asked to rate on a five-
grade scale how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:
• ENERGY STAR-labeled products provide me with more benefits than products
without the ENERGY STAR label.
• All new products use energy just as efficiently whether or not they have the
ENERGY STAR label.
• ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value than products without the
label.
• I prefer to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled products whenever I can.
• I would not go out of my way to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled products.
• Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm helping to
protect the environment for future generations.
• Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm acting
responsibly.
A-3
-------
• Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to
society.
• Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm spending extra
money for nothing.
• ENERGY STAR-labeled products deliver what they promise.
• ENERGY STAR-labeled products do not meet my needs.
• I consider myself loyal to ENERGY STAR-labeled products.
• I don't find any real difference in performance between products with the
ENERGY STAR label and those without the label.
The interactive format of an Internet/WebTV 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, although
the 2000 and 2001 mail questionnaires begin by showing the ENERGY STAR label
and asking about understanding and recognition of the label before asking other
questions, respondents who read the entire questionnaire before completing it can
potentially educate themselves in a limited way about the ENERGY STAR label,
which may affect their responses.
The Internet/WebTV questionnaires (after questions about the yellow Energy Guide
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/WebTV questionnaires then show the ENERGY STAR label(s) (which is
obviously not possible with a telephone survey) and ask again about recognition and
understanding. Responses to these questions should thus be comparable to those
obtained through a mail survey where respondents are shown the label.
Another difference between a mail questionnaire and an Internet/WebTV
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/WebTV
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/Web TV survey is able to combine some of the attributes of both
print and telephone surveys.
A-4
-------
2 ADDITIONAL RESULTS FROM QUESTIONS ADDED TO THE SURVEY FOR
2005
2.1 ENERGY STAR Designation
Thirty percent of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided)
thought that the U.S. Government decides if a product deserves the label. Between
20 percent and 25 percent of households thought Underwriters Laboratories, electric
and gas utilities, or product manufacturers make this decision.
Designates ENERGY STAR Product
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=337)
US government
Underwriters Laboratories
Electric and gas utility
Product manufacturer
Other
Retailer/store
] 30%
] 25%
] 25%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: QB: "As far as you know, who decides if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label?
ENERGY STAR Designation by Publicity Category
A similar proportion of households in high- and low-publicity category areas thought
that the U.S. Government decides if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label,
29 or 23 percent. At the same time, a larger proportion of households in high- than in
low-publicity areas thought that electric and gas utilities make this decision, 30
percent compared with 14 percent. This result is not surprising given the role electric
and gas utilities often play in promoting ENERGY STAR products in high-publicity
areas. On the other hand, a larger proportion of households in low- than in high-
publicity areas thought that Underwriters Laboratories decides if a product deserves
the ENERGY STAR label (42 percent compared with 22 percent).
A-5
-------
Designates ENERGY STAR Product by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=337)
**Electric and gas utility
US government
"Underwriters Laboratories
Product manufacturer
Other
Retailer/store
11%
30%
22%
H 42%
| 19%
] 20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
A-6
-------
2.2 ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction
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 (p-value> 0.10). There was one notable
exception to this general trend: households that knowingly purchased windows with
an ENERGY STAR label were more satisfied than households that purchased
windows without the label. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means "very dissatisfied"
and 5 means "very satisfied," ENERGY STAR-labeled windows had an average
satisfaction rating of 4.7 compared with windows without the label at 3.5. However,
considering products in relevant categories overall, households that knowingly
purchased a product with an ENERGY STAR label were slightly more satisfied than
households that purchased a product without the label, with average ratings of 4.5
and 4.2 respectively.
ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction
(Bases = Recognize label aided and purchased specified product:
ENERGY STAR, ne>10; non-ENERGY STAR,
"Overall (ne=180, nO=406)
"Window (ne=23, nO-=29)
Television (ne=35, nO=88)
Audio product (ne=13, nO=61)
Computer or monitor (ne=45, nO=103)
Central A/C (ne=20, nO=16)
Room air conditioner (ne=39, nO=36)
Refrigerator (ne=36, nO=33)
Computer printer (ne= 14, nO=112)
Washing machine (ne=23, nO=30)
Door (ne=11, nO=33)
Lighting fixture (ne=14, nO=82)
Thermostat (ne=14, nO=32)
Dishwasher (ne=36, nO=22)
H4.7
H4.7
^4.6
^ 4.4
i 4.0
^4.0
H3.9
i3.6
i3.5
3.5
J
012345
Average Satisfaction (1=very dissatisfied, 5=very satisfied)
D Non-ENERGY STAR product D ENERGY STAR product
A-7
-------
2.3 Consumer Perceptions
Survey respondents that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were asked to
indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with various positive and negative
statements about ENERGY STAR-labeled products.6 The statements were shown to
respondents in random order; however, for discussion purposes they can be
grouped into three categories:
• Environmental/social responsibility messaging
• Purchasing preference
• Product attributes/performance
As shown in the figure below, few statements elicited "very" strong agreement or
disagreement with either positive or negative statements. Respondents offered
neutral ("neither agree nor disagree") responses to statements at rates between 39
and 62 percent. However, the figure shows that in general respondents tended to
somewhat agree with positive statements about the ENERGY STAR label and
somewhat disagree with negative statements about the ENERGY STAR label.
' Questions Q16a through Q16m.
A-8
-------
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging, Purchasing, and Product
Attributes (Base = Recognize label (aided), n=706)
O Strongly Negative • Somewhat Negative D Somewhat Positve O Strongly Positive
D)
•el
O (/)
W in
-^
°-
-------
The three statements addressing environmental/social responsibility messaging had
the highest positive ratings, ranging between 47 percent and 56 percent (means
ranging from 3.5 to 3.7 using a five-point scale, with 5 being the most favorable
rating for this series of questions).7 Environmental/social responsibility messaging is
a strong focus and intended message of national ENERGY STAR education
campaign. In addition, high publicity areas showed slightly more positive ratings than
low publicity areas for each of these statements (p-value<.05 in all three cases).
In statements regarding ENERGY STAR as a purchasing preference, the statement
"I prefer to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled products whenever I can" had a high
positive rating at 50 percent (with a mean of 3.6 on the five-point scale, with 5 being
the most favorable rating for this question). Increasing consumer purchasing
preference for ENERGY STAR is an intended outcome of the national campaign.
High publicity areas showed stronger positive ratings than low publicity areas for this
statement (p-value<.05). Respondents were more neutral in their response to a
statement about their loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label; respondents were also
split in their willingness to go out of their way to purchase ENERGY STAR qualifying
products, possibly indicating that product features, convenience, and availability
remain important purchasing considerations.
Of the statements regarding product attributes and performance, the statement "All
new products use energy just as efficiently whether or not they have the ENERGY
STAR label" is of most direct relevance to the national campaign (one goal of which
is to show that ENERGY STAR qualifying products are more efficient than non
qualifying models). Respondents disagreed with this statement 39% of the time and
agreed with the statement 12% of time (50% neither agreed nor disagreed),
indicating that more respondents than not consider that ENERGY STAR qualifying
products use energy more efficiently than non-qualifying models.
It is difficult to categorize responses to the statement "I don't find any real difference
in performance between products with the ENERGY STAR label and those with out
the label" as the statement itself is somewhat ambiguous. Lack of a difference in
performance could be considered positively or negatively (i.e., could be interpreted
that efficient features are not hampering overall product performance or could be
interpreted that the difference in energy performance is not observed by the
respondent). As such, this statement is not included in the figure below. If this
question is used in future surveys, its intent could be made less ambiguous by
wording it as follows: "I don't find any real difference in energy performance
between products with the ENERGY STAR label and those with out the label."
Respondents' reactions to other questions may be more dependent on the specific
products purchased and manufacturer and/or other third-party market positioning
7 The positive rating is the proportion of households that recognize the ENERGY STAR label that
agreed—either somewhat or strongly—with a positive statement, or the proportion of households that
recognize the ENERGY STAR label that disagreed—either somewhat or strongly—with a negative
statement.
A-10
-------
and claims. For example, it is difficult to know whether the statement "ENERGY
STAR-labeled products deliver what they promise" would be interpreted by
respondents to mean energy performance claims or broader product claims by the
manufacturer. Similarly, whether or not a respondent paid a price premium in
purchasing an ENERGY STAR qualifying product is a factor of both the product
purchased and whether the manufacturer bundled energy saving features with other
premium features.
A forthcoming paper by Nevius (2006) discusses in greater detail the intended
purpose and findings of this series of questions.8
3 SAMPLING
3.1 Designated Marketing Areas' Publicity Categories
The same publicity classification procedure used in the past four years was used this
year. A Nielsen Designated Marketing Area® (DMA) was classified as high publicity,
low publicity, or overusing 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
sources.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional
program sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
This classification procedure was designed to identify three publicity categories and
provide clear and verifiable definitions. The key working definitions are:
• Recent: The two years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• 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 efforts or the creation
and distribution of promotional material.
Nevius, Monica J. 2006. "Steps on the Path to Loyalty: An Assessment of ENERGY STAR Brand Equity
Indicators." ^Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study, (forthcoming). Washington, D.C.: American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
A-11
-------
These definitions were constructed to be sufficiently operational to be applicable to
future survey efforts; they can be modified by simply increasing the duration of
sustained high publicity.
3.2 Sample Design
The sample was a national sample. The sampling frame included all households in
the largest DMAs that together accounted for about 70 percent of U.S. television
households, which in 2005 encompassed the 57 largest DMAs. In addition, GEE
members may sponsor more intensive sampling (i.e., an over sample) in selected
localities, which are referred to here as sponsor areas. In 2005, the state of New
Jersey was a sponsor area.9
The sample was stratified by area and within an area by publicity category.10 There
were two areas: the sponsor area (the state of New Jersey) and the area consisting
of those among the top 57 DMAs outside the sponsor area. This sample design
resulted in five strata.
The GEE members who fund the over sample 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 publicity categories present in a
sponsor area proportional to population. In the area consisting of the top 57 DMAs
outside the 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 non-response.
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
area are shown on a map along with their publicity category assignment.
9 For a sponsor area, the sampling frame is not limited to the large DMAs, but includes the entire
sponsor area. However, the state of New Jersey contained only large DMAs.
1 A sponsor area is also further stratified by large versus small DMA as well as any stratification
requested by the GEE member funding the over sample. In 2005, the only sponsor area (the state of
New Jersey) contained only large DMAs and no additional stratification was requested.
A-12
-------
Large (Top 57) DMAs
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
DMA
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Boston (Manchester)
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)
Atlanta
Detroit
Houston
Seattle-Tacoma
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Phoenix (Prescott), AZ
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
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
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
Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York
New Orleans
Memphis
Oklahoma City
Buffalo
Albuquerque-Santa Fe
Greensboro-H.Point-W. Salem
Providence-New Bedford
Louisville
Las Vegas
Jacksonville, Brunswick
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
Austin
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Dayton
Little Rock-Pine Bluff
Total
TV Households
2004-2005
Number
7,355,710
5,431,140
3,417,330
2,919,410
2,391,840
2,359,870
2,292,760
2,241,610
2,059,450
1 ,943,930
1,902,810
1 ,690,640
1 ,671 ,040
1 ,665,540
1 ,596,950
1 ,556,670
1,496,810
1 ,401 ,760
1,315,030
1,303,150
1,216,700
1,186,010
1 ,087,730
1 ,086,900
1 ,053,020
1 ,025,730
1,017,530
1 ,004,440
966,720
916,170
894,580
886,770
883,230
867,490
813,210
800,000
748,950
732,600
729,010
717,300
707,750
702,590
675,760
658,250
655,250
651 ,970
649,680
648,860
644,980
637,680
614,150
613,000
592,560
567,870
555,640
537,710
531 ,770
77,293,010
% of US
6.712
4.956
3.118
2.664
2.183
2.153
2.092
2.045
1.879
1.774
1.736
1.543
1.525
1.52
1.457
1.42
1.366
1.279
1.2
1.189
1.11
1.082
0.993
0.992
0.961
0.936
0.928
0.917
0.882
0.836
0.816
0.809
0.806
0.792
0.742
0.73
0.683
0.668
0.665
0.655
0.646
0.641
0.617
0.601
0.598
0.595
0.593
0.592
0.589
0.582
0.56
0.559
0.541
0.518
0.507
0.491
0.485
70.529
Publicity
Category
High
High
Other
Other
High
High
Other
Other
Low
Other
Other
High
Low
High
Other
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Other
High
Low
Other
Low
Other
Low
Other
Low
Low
Low
Other
Low
Low
Low
High
Other
Low
High
Other
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
A-13
-------
Sponsor Area
Sponsor Area
New Jersey
Publicity
Category
High
Other
DMA (Large and Small)
Large: parts of New York DMA (Rank 1)
Large: parts of Philadelphia DMA (Rank 4)
Large (Top 57) DMAs and Sponsor Area by Publicity Category
11
H "High" publicity category
L "Low" publicity category
O "Other"
I GEE sponsor area ranking in Top 57 DMAs
I GEE sponsor area not ranking in Top 57 DMAs
There were no large DMAs or sponsor areas in either Alaska or Hawaii.
A-14
-------
3.3 Weighting Procedures
Knowledge Networks, the company that provided the Internet/WebTV survey
service, developed the weights used in the analysis. Knowledge Networks began
with a typical sampling weight that also accounted for differences between the
Internet/WebTV panel and the population of U.S. households. The adjustment to the
typical sampling weight was based on geographic and demographic characteristics
known for both the panel and the population. It was designed to scale up groups
under-represented in the panel and scale down groups over-represented in the
panel. This more closely aligned the panel with the basic demographic
characteristics of the population of U.S. households.
This sampling weight was then corrected for survey non-response. The correction
for survey non-response is analogous to the adjustment for differences in the
Internet/WebTV panel from the population of U.S. households. 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 groups and scaled down over-represented groups in the
sample of panel survey completes. This more closely aligned the sample of survey
completes with the basic demographic characteristics of the entire sampling frame
for the study.
4 DATA COLLECTION
4.1 Survey Fielding Period
The survey began on September 13 and closed on September 27, 2005.
4.2 Response Rate
The response rate was 22 percent for the GEE 2005 ENERGY STAR Household
Survey. This level of response is typical for Knowledge Networks' surveys.
For an Internet/WebTV 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 2005 ENERGY STAR Household
Survey, the return rate was 76 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 Internet/WebTV panel as a proportion of the number of households
asked to participate. The recruitment rate was 29 percent. Thus, the response rate
for the GEE 2005 ENERGY STAR Household survey was the product of the survey-
specific return rate of 76 percent and the recruitment rate of 29 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.
A-15
-------
Survey Response Rate
Sendout/requested
Completed
Return rate
Recruitment rate
Response rate
1,618
1,225
76%
29%
22%
5 NATIONAL ANALYSIS
5.1 DMAs Included
To facilitate comparisons across years and to ensure national results, the analyses
presented in this report were based only on data collected from respondents from
the 57 largest DMAs. In 2005, all respondents resided in the top 57 DMAs. The only
sponsor area, the state of New Jersey, contained only large DMAs. All of the top 57
DMAs that are in the state of New Jersey were over sampled. The data from these
respondents, as well as from 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.
5.2 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 to that question or refusals to answer that
question. In other words, 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. This approach essentially assumes that "don't know" responses and
refusals are uninformative (i.e., if those who responded "don't know" to a given
question or refused to answer had instead provided a valid response to the question,
the distribution of households over the valid set of responses would not change).
5.3 Aided Recognition
As the note following the table that presented the results for aided recognition of the
ENERGY STAR label indicates, the determination of aided recognition was based
on the responses to five questions. Specifically:
• If a respondent answered ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, ES3D, or ESS "yes," then they
were considered to recognize the ENERGY STAR label (aided).
• If a respondent did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and they
answered ESS "no," they were considered not to recognize the label (aided).
A-16
-------
• If a respondent did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and they
answered ESS "don't know," or they refused to answer ESS, they were not
included in the analysis of aided recognition. That is, in this analysis their data
were set to missing.
A-17
-------
APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS
The analysis presented in this appendix outlines how the weighted survey
demographic data corresponds to 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
Internet/WebTV panel, strives to create a panel that is representative of all U.S.
households, the panel will contain subjects and their associated biases that are
receptive to the Internet/WebTV incentive-for-service tradeoff.
The weights used in the analysis attempted to account for differences between the
Internet/WebTV panel and the population of U.S. households and for survey non-
response. 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 detailed comparisons
are provided in 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
Single-family, attached
Own/rent
$25,000-$49,000
-7.6%
-6.5%
+/- 1.1%
3.4%
+/- 5.6%
4.2%
The largest difference (in absolute value) between the weighted survey data and the
national Census data is about 8 percentage points for one-person households (19
versus 27 percent). Householders 65 years or older who own/rent are not far behind
with maximum differences of 7 and 6 percentage points, respectively, between the
weighted survey data and the national Census data. The combined under-
representation of one-person households and householders 65 years or older and
the inaccurate mix of own/rent should not bias the survey results in a particular
direction. For the remaining demographic characteristics, the largest difference
between the weighted survey data and the national census data range between 1
and 4 percentage points.
B-1
-------
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
-7.6%
1 .5%
3.6%
1 .4%
1 .0%
'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%
113,148
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Householders
2.9%
3.2%
1 .8%
-0.5%
-1 .0%
-6.5%
a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census, Annual Demographic
Survey (or March CPS Supplement), Selected Charactersitics of
Households, by Total Money Income in 2004, Table HINC-01.
b Census, 15-24 years; Internet/WebTV, 18-24 years.
Gender Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Gender
Female
Male
Total (%)
Census
% Population3
51%
49%
100%
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Population
1.1%
-1.1%
' U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
8-2
-------
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
-1.1%
3.4%
0.9%
-1 .4%
-1 .9%
' U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2003, Table 2-1.
1 Census, 2 or more units; Internet/WebTV, 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
-5.6%
5.6%
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2003,
Table 2-1.
Income Distribution
Total Household
Annual Income
(before taxes)
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
15%
13%
27%
18%
27%
100%
113,146
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
-1 .7%
-1 .9%
4.2%
3.2%
-3.9%
a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census, Annual
Demographic Survey (or March CPS Supplement), Selected
Charactersitics of Households, by Total Money Income in 2004,
Table HINC-01.
8-3
-------
APPENDIX C: 2005 SURVEY QUESTIONS AND FLOW CHART
2005 ENERGY STAR SURVEY
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-1
-------
ES3B.
Have you seen or heard of
this version of the
ENERGY STAR label?
[SHOW LABEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEN]
No/Don't Know
(or combo of the two)
to both ES3A and
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
New QA: What types of products,
goods, or services do you think of
when you think of the ENERGY
STAR label? Please write your
answers below.
S01.
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 inserts
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Yellow EnergyGuide label
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 label, do
you recall seeing or hearing anything
about it before this survey?
C-2
-------
SO2.
What did you see or hear about
Energy Star? Please be specific.
New QB: As far as you know, who decides
if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR
label? Select one answer only.
Product manufacturers
Retailers/stores
US Government
Underwriters Laboratories
Electric & gas utilities
Other:
Don't know
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
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 central air
conditioner, furnace or boiler, heat pump or
newly built 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
If they did not recognize
label, then end.
If they did recognize label,
then go to Q16 series.
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)?
If they did not recognize
label, then skip to New Qc,
and then end.
If they did recognize label,
then skip to New QC, and then
goto Q16 series.
Q7a_1 thru Q7a_3: On which products
did you see the ENERGY STAR label?
(show only the products they checked
off in Q12, in grid pattern, with the
following options to check for each:
"Saw label" "Did not see label" "Don't
know")
New QC. In general, how satisfied are you with each of the following products you
purchased?
(Show each product they purchased—both ES and not-in grid format in random order.)
Response scale:
Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Don't Know
Q8. For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product(s) you
purchased, how much did the ENERGY STAR label influence
your purchase decision?
(Show each ES product they purchased in a grid pattern.
Response scale is below, and is unchanged from previous
years.)
Very much / Somewhat / Slightly / Not at all / Don't know
Q9. Did you receive rebates or
reduced-rate financing for any
ENERGY STAR-labeled produces) 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
On the scale by each statement, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the statement.
(Note to programmer: present q16a through h in random order for each respondent.)
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Q16a. ENERGY STAR-labeled products provide me with more benefits than products without the ENERGY STAR label.
12345
Q16b. All new products use energy just as efficiently, whether or not they the have the ENERGY STAR label.
12345
Q16c. ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value than products without the label.
12345
Q16d. I prefer to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled products whenever I can.
12345
Q16e. I would not go out of my way to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled products.
12345
Q16f. Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations.
12345
Q16g. Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm acting responsibly.
12345
Q16h. Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society.
12345
Q16i Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing.
12345
Q16J. ENERGY STAR-labeled products deliver what they promise.
12345
Q16k. ENERGY STAR-labeled products do not meet my needs.
12345
Q16I. I consider myself loyal to ENERGY STAR-labeled products.
12345
Q16m. I don't find any real difference in performance between products with the ENERGY STAR label and those without the label.
12345
/ Go to demographic \
I questions and closing I
C-6
------- |