ENERGYSTAR
NATIONAL AWARENESS
OF ENERGY STAR® FOR 2006
ANALYSIS OF CEE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
Executive Summary ES-1
Introduction 1
Methodology Overview 2
Key Findings 5
Recognition 5
Understanding 11
Influence 17
Information Sources 22
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology A-1
1 Questionnaire Design 1
2 Sampling 8
3 Data Collection 14
4 National Analysis 15
Appendix B: Demographics B-1
Appendix C: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM 2006 SURVEY C-1
1 ENERGY STAR Designation 1
2 ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction 3
3 Consumer Perceptions 5
4 Purchasing Decisions 10
Appendix D: 2006 Survey Questions and Flow Chart D-1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 2006 survey:
• Cape Light Compact
• KeySpan Energy Delivery New England
• Long Island Power Authority
• National Grid USA
• New York State Energy Research & Development Authority
• New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
• Northeast Utilities (WMECO)
• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
• NSTAR Electric
• Pacific Gas & Electric
• Sacramento Municipal Utility District
• San Diego Gas & Electric
• Southern California Edison
• United Illuminating
• Unitil Corporation
• Xcel Energy
In addition, EPA would like to acknowledge, Monica Nevius for her oversight of GEE
data collection efforts; and Miriam Goldberg, Ryan Barry, and Kate Dresher of
KEMA Inc., and Jocelyn Spielman and Grant Halloran of The Cadmus Group, Inc.
for data analysis and report preparation.
Recommended citation:
EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Climate Protection Partnerships Division.
National Awareness of ENERGY STAR® for 2006: Analysis of 2006 CEE
Household Survey. U.S. EPA, 2007.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2006, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE) sponsored
the seventh national household survey of consumer awareness of ENERGY STAR.
Each year, the survey objectives have largely been the same: to collect national data on
consumer recognition, understanding, and purchasing influence of the ENERGY STAR
label, as well as data on messaging and product purchases. GEE members may choose
to supplement the national sample in order to assess label awareness in their local
service territories. In 2006, additional surveys were conducted in Massachusetts, the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Nielsen Designated Market Area® (DMA), New York state (with the
exception of Long Island), the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Montana, Oregon,
Washington), and the United Illuminating service territory in southwestern Connecticut.
As in the six previous years, GEE and sponsoring members made the survey data
publicly available.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2006 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-eight percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when shown
the label.
• Seventy-three 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 (12 percent versus 61 percent).
• Fifty-seven percent of households associated the ENERGY STAR label with
"efficiency or energy savings."
• Of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label and purchased a product in
a relevant product category within the past 12 months, 66 percent purchased an
ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
ES-1
-------
• Among all households, 31 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product in the past 12 months.
• 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 16 percent of these households, the label
influenced their purchase decisions "slightly."
• Twenty-six percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product received a financial incentive for doing so. Eighty-three percent of
these households would have been "very likely" (57 percent) or "somewhat likely"
(26 percent) to purchase the labeled product without the financial incentive.
• Seventy-one percent of households that recognized the label and purchased a
product in a category where ENERGY STAR-specified products are an option were
likely to recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend; 29 percent of
these households reported they were "extremely" likely to recommend ENERGY
STAR-labeled products.
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, 76 percent of households in high-publicity areas recognized the label versus 61
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 most of
the appliances that 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.
• Among households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product, a
larger proportion in high- than in low-publicity areas reported that their purchase
decisions were influenced "very much" or "somewhat" by the ENERGY STAR label.
• Considering only households that recognized the label (with a visual aid), a larger
proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas heard or saw something
about ENERGY STAR via store displays, utility mailings or bill inserts, newspaper or
magazine advertisements, direct mail or circular advertisements, salespersons, or
radio commercials.
ES-2
-------
Conclusions
This seventh 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 (12 percent) compared with the proportion of households that exhibit a high
understanding (61 percent).
• Publicity efforts of active regional/local energy efficiency program sponsors increase
recognition, understanding, and influence of the label.
ES-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2006, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE)
sponsored the seventh national household survey of consumer awareness of
ENERGY STAR. Each year, the survey objectives have largely been the same: to
collect national data on consumer recognition, understanding, and purchasing
influence of the ENERGY STAR label, as well as data on messaging and product
purchases. GEE members may choose to supplement the national sample in order
to assess label awareness in their local service territories. To this end, in 2006
additional surveys were conducted in Massachusetts, the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Nielsen Designated Market Area® (DMA), New York state (with the exception of
Long Island), the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington), and the
United Illuminating service territory (southwestern Connecticut). As in the six
previous years, GEE and sponsoring members made the survey data publicly
available.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2006 ENERGY STAR Household
Survey, building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which
consumers recognize the ENERGY STAR label, understand its intended messages,
and utilize (or are influenced by) the label in their energy-related purchase decisions.
Research questions of interest included the following:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity 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), additional
questions from the 2006 survey (Appendix C), and a copy of the 2006 questionnaire
(Appendix D). 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 2006, 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
(in the first year, GEE only fielded a paper survey). 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. In 2006 this
encompassed the 57 largest DMAs. In addition, GEE members may sponsor more
intensive sampling (i.e., an oversample) in selected localities, referred to here as
sponsor areas. In 2006, the sponsor areas were:
• Massachusetts
• Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA
• New York state (with the exception of Long Island)
• Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington)
• United Illuminating service territory (southwestern Connecticut)
Sponsor areas are not limited to the 57 largest DMAs. Thus, the complete frame for
the study was the combination of the largest DMAs and any portion of the sponsor
areas that fell outside the 57 largest DMAs.
To facilitate comparisons across years, the national results were based only on data
collected from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data collected from
respondents not in the 57 largest DMAs, but in a sponsor area, are not included in
this analysis. Some of the 57 largest DMAs are also included in the sponsor areas
and therefore were oversampled. The data from these respondents (as well as from
the other respondents in the 57 largest DMAs) received an appropriate weight in the
analysis in order to generate valid national results and facilitate comparison with
data from other years.
As in previous years' studies, the DMAs in the sampling frame were classified by
publicity category so that the effect of publicity on national awareness could be
considered. The same publicity classification procedure used in the past 5 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
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 below:
• 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.2 Each
sponsor area is also further stratified by large versus non-large DMA3 as well as any
stratification requested by the GEE member funding the oversample.4 The GEE
members who fund the oversample for a sponsor area determine the total number of
sampling points allocated to the sponsor area as a whole.5 This total number of
sampling points is then allocated across publicity categories present in a sponsor
area proportional to population. Among the top 57 DMAs, for areas located outside
the sponsor area, each publicity category was allocated approximately 333 sampling
points.
1 Between September 2005 and 2006, 2 of the 57 largest DMAs changed publicity category: Atlanta and New
Orleans. Both changed from "Low" to "Other".
2 Montana was not stratified by publicity category because 98 percent of Montana households are in low-publicity
DMAs and the number of sampling points to be allocated across all of Montana was only 35.
3 Idaho was not further stratified by large versus non-large DMA because 93 percent of Idaho households are in
non-large DMAs and the number of sampling points to be allocated across all of Idaho was only 65.
4 No CEE member funding an oversample requested additional stratification.
5 The CEE member that funded the Pacific Northwest oversample provided allocation of sample points across
states for Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
-------
This report presents the 2006 survey results at the national level and by publicity
category. The publicity category results provide evidence of the effectiveness of
EPA's model for increasing awareness, understanding, and use 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
consumers use in their purchasing decisions.
In this report, the following terminology is used in comparing results across years or
sub-categories: (1) The term "significant" implies statistical significance. In other
words, differences between proportions that are described as "significant" are at
least statistically different at the 10-percent level of significance. In some cases, the
p-values are given to provide the exact level of statistical significance. (2) Unless
stated otherwise, terms such as "smaller," "larger," "increase," or "decrease" refer to
changes that are statistically significant at the 10-percent level or better. (3) The
term "similar" implies that there is no statistical difference between the results being
compared at the 10-percent level of significance. In other words, the difference
between the results is within the bounds that would be expected from chance
variation in a random sample.
4
-------
KEY FINDINGS
RECOGNITION
In 2006, 68 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label (i.e., aided recognition). Fifty-one percent of households 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 had 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 2006 and 2005 surveys are summarized in the
following table. Both aided and unaided recognition of the ENERGY STAR label in
2006 were greater than in 2005. For aided recognition, the 2006 and 2005
proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value = 0.032). For unaided recognition, results for the two years
were significantly different at the 1-percent level (p-value = 0.005).
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize
ENERGY
STAR Label
Yes
Standard error
2006
Aided
(n=2,176)
68%
1 .7%
Unaided
(n=1,900)
51%
1 .9%
2005
Aided
(n=1,181)
63%
1 .9%
Unaided
(n=1,017)
43%
2.1%
Note: The unaided recognition results for both 2005 and 2006 are based on the
question ES1: "Have you ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label?" The
sequence and numbering of questions on which the aided recognition results are
based, however, was slightly different in 2006 than it was in 2005. In 2006, aided
recognition was based on the following four questions: (1) ES3A was 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. (2) ES3C was 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. (3) ES3B was asked of everyone answering either ES3A or ES3C. ES3B:
"Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label?" where the label
shown was the one not shown previously. (4) ES6 was asked if either ES3A and ES3B
= "no" or ES3C 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. A more detailed explanation
of the differences between the 2005 and 2006 question sequence and numbering is
located Appendix A, Section 1.3.3.d-Effects on Aided Recognition and Understanding.
-------
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, 76 percent of
households in high-publicity areas recognized the label versus 61 percent in low-
publicity areas. Unaided recognition was 63 percent in high-publicity areas
compared with 45 percent in low-publicity areas.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100% -
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/.
76%
61%
63%
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
45%
*Aided(n=2,176)
'Unaided (n=1,900)
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
Households who recognized the ENERGY STAR label indicate strong association
between products supported by regional energy efficiency programs (refrigerators,
washing machines, dishwashers, compact fluorescent light bulbs, etc.) and the
ENERGY STAR label. Seventy-four percent of households had 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 mid to low 40s. Thirty-four
percent of households associated microwave ovens with the ENERGY STAR label,
although they 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 a significant increase in association with the ENERGY STAR
label from 2005 to 2006 were compact fluorescent light bulbs and light fixtures.
Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided)6]
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dishwasher
Central A/C
Room air conditioner
Computer or monitor
Window
Microwave oven
Furnace/boiler
Television
^Compact fluorescent light bulb
Newly built home
Door
**Lighting fixture
Insulation
Heat pump
Computer printer
Thermostat
Copying machine
VCR
Skylight
Audio product
Scanner
Fax machine
Roofing material
U 74%
H 63%
U 58%
—I 45%
H 43%
H 37%
H 37%
H 34%
Zl 22%
H21%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
70% 80% 90% 100%
Note: Q5(a, b, and c): "Now we're going to ask you about several groups of products. As you review the list,
please select each of the products, product literature, or packaging on which you have seen the ENERGY STAR
label."
** 2006 and 2005 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05). The proportion of households in 2006 is larger than in 2005.
Respondents were asked about three sets of product groupings: (1) Heating and Cooling Products
and Home Office Equipment, (2) Home Appliances/Lighting and Home Electronics, and (3) Building
Materials and Buildings. The sample size, n, for each of these sets of product groupings is 1,524;
1,503; and 1,445; respectively.
-------
Product Associations by Publicity Category
For refrigerators, room air conditioners, and skylights a significantly 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. For central A/C,
computers or computer monitors, thermostats, and heat pumps, a significantly
smaller proportion of households in high- than in low-publicity areas associated the
product with the ENERGY STAR label. This result was seen for heat pumps in each
of the previous two years.
Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided)7]
*Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dishwasher
*Room air conditioner
"Central A/C
Window
Microwave oven
*Computer or monitor
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Furnace/boiler
Television
Newly built home
Lighting fixture
Door
Insulation
Copying machine
Computer printer
•Skylight
VCR
"Thermostat
Roofing material
***Heat pump
Audio product
Fax machine
Scanner
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.01).
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.10).
As discussed in Footnote 6, respondents were asked about three sets of product groupings. For
high and low publicity areas, the sample sizes for Heating and Cooling Products and Home Office
Equipment were 748 and 199, respectively. For Home Appliances/Lighting and Home Electronics,
sample sizes for high and low publicity areas were 741 and 196, respectively. For Building Materials
and Buildings, the corresponding sample sizes were 714 and 191.
8
-------
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 on the next page presents the results for
this question, which indicate unprompted product associations. The figure also
repeats the results for the question that asked survey respondents whether or not
they have seen the ENERGY STAR label on specific products. These latter results
indicate prompted product associations and are included here to simplify
comparison.
Unprompted, refrigerators and appliances showed the strongest association with the
label at 34 percent. Washing machines and clothes dryers followed at 26 and 25
percent, respectively. The next most strongly associated unprompted products were
air conditioners and computers or monitors, each at just under 20 percent.
Most products that showed a strong association with the ENERGY STAR label
unprompted also showed a strong association with the label prompted. However, the
list of products mentioned by households without being prompted also includes
several products that do not have ENERGY STAR specification: clothes dryers,
water heaters, microwave ovens, and stoves or ovens.8 In addition, although
dishwashers did not show a particularly strong association with the ENERGY STAR
label when unprompted, when prompted they were the product that was the second
most commonly associated with the label.
Certain ENERGY STAR-specified products were mentioned by less than 1 percent of survey
respondents. In the case of vacuum cleaners, dehumidifiers, and boilers, this was true whether
respondents were unprompted or prompted regarding specific products. In contrast, both computer
printers and thermostats were mentioned by less than 1 percent of respondents when unprompted,
but by approximately 13 percent of respondents when prompted. Because unprompted these
products were mentioned by such a small percentage of households, they are not shown in the chart.
-------
Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label Unprompted
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,461]
R f '
9
Appliance
Dryer
Air conditioner
_
c t 't
P
Stove/oven
Water heater
No product
Don't know
Other
Electronics
Lighting
Heater
Electric things
Freezer
Furnace
Stereo/radio
VCR/DVD
Fan
0
| 34%
->g%
^^^^^^^^^^^ffjffffffffffffffffffj\ 63%
I 25%
19%
18%
18%
18%
17%
17%
~777$Jjtjtjtjt j j *22% Prompted: CFL
ffffff££*\ 7% Prompted: Lighting
15%
15%
14%
14%
— 3%
ffffffffffffffffff**1 '° D Unprompted
1120/0 0 Prompted
-ii%
fffjffi 12% Prompted' VCR
|1%
i 1%
/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 10
10
-------
UNDERSTANDING
In 2006, 73 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, 12 versus 61 percent. The level of understanding was
investigated by asking respondents what messages came to mind when they saw
the ENERGY STAR label. Based on the reported messages, a respondent's
understanding was classified as high, general, or no understanding.
The 2005 and 2006 survey results on the level of understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label are provided in the following table. Due to changes in the survey in
2006, the base of respondents who were asked questions related to their level of
understanding was different than in previous years. As a result, 2006 and 2005
results cannot be directly compared. In order to facilitate direct comparison, results
for 2005 were computed using a base of respondents that corresponds to that of the
2006 survey. These modified 2005 results are included in the table below. The
results indicate that the proportion of households with at least a general
understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was similar in 2006 and 2005 (73
percent compared with 71 percent).9
Level of Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (unaided)
OR
Did not recognize label (aided) and Did not recognize label (unaided]
Level of Understanding
of the Label
High understanding
General understanding
No understanding
Total
2006
(n=1,755)
61%
12%
27%
100%
2005
Modified
(n=1,027)
58%
13%
29%
100%
2005
Original
(n=1,225)
57%
13%
30%
100%
Note: The Level of Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label is
determined using the open-ended responses to two questions (1) ES2:
"What does the ENERGY STAR label mean to you?", and (2) ES4A1:
"Please look at the ENERGY STAR labels on the left. Type the
messages that come to mind when you see the ENERGY STAR labels."
In years prior to 2006, all respondents were asked either ES2 or ES4A1,
depending on their answers to ES1. Respondents that answered "Yes" to
ES1 were then asked ES2, while all other respondents were asked
ES4A1. In the 2006 survey, respondents that answered "No" or "Don't
Know" to ES1 and "Yes" to either of the "shown label" questions that
followed (ES3B or ES3C in 2006; ES3C or ES3D in 2005) were not
asked ES4A1.
9 There is no statistically significant difference between the 2006 results and the
modified 2005 results at the 10 percent level or better.
11
-------
Understanding by Publicity Category
The level of understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was greater in high- than in
low-publicity areas. Seventy-seven percent of households in high-publicity areas had
at least a general understanding of the label compared with 69 percent of
households in low-publicity areas. This difference is statistically significant at the 5-
percent level (p-value = 0.041). 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 = Recognize label (unaided)
OR
Did not recognize label (aided) and Did not recognize label (unaided)]
Publicity Category
High
Low
High-Low
p-value
At Least General
Understanding of Label
77%
69%
9%
0.041
12
-------
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (unaided)
OR
Did not recognize label (aided) and Did not recognize label (unaided)]
100%
90%
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40%
30% -
20% -
10%
0%
9%
High Understanding
General Understanding
High Publicity
Low Publicity
13
-------
Label Messaging
Open-ended responses to the questions on the level of understanding of the
ENERGY STAR label are an indicator of how effectively EPA communicates its
messages through the label. These responses are used in the analysis of
understanding in the previous section. By far, the most common message
associated with the label was "energy efficiency or energy savings," which is
considered high understanding of the label. Fifty-seven 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 21 percent of households. Identification of this message with the label is
considered general understanding of the label.10
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (unaided)
OR
Did not recognize label (aided) and Did not recognize label (unaided)]
Energy efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
Energy conservation
Save money on operation
Energy/environmental product standards
Savings (not linked to operation)
H57%
High Understanding
Mentions specific products
Energy no link to efficiency
Confuses with EnergyGuide
Electricity
Quality
Government backing
Product standards no environmental link
Save money on purchase
Environmental no link to benefit
121 %
General Understanding
H6%
H2%
31%
I
1%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10 A discussion of differences in the label messaging results across years is not included here. Due to
changes in the 2006 survey, the base of respondents who were asked questions related to their level
of understanding was different than in previous years. Therefore the 2005 and 2006 results related to
a household's understanding of the ENERGY STAR label are not directly comparable.
14
-------
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 the
"saves money on purchase" message, however, a significantly larger proportion of
households in high- than in low-publicity areas associated the message with the
label. Associating "saves money on purchase" with the ENERGY STAR label is
considered general understanding of the label.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (unaided)
OR
Did not recognize label (aided) and Did not recognize label (unaided)]
Energy efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
Save moneyon operation
Energy conservation
Energy/environmental
product standards
Savings (not linked to
operation)
J55%
-]62%
Mentions specific products
Confuses with
EnergyGuide
Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
"Save moneyon purchase
Government backing
Product standards no |<1%
environmental link
Environmental no link to
High Understanding
General Understanding
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
benefit
Quality
0%
0%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.10).
15
-------
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 that did
not recognize the label. In 2006, 86 percent of households that recognized the
ENERGY STAR label had at least a general understanding of it, while among
households that did not recognize the label, 56 percent had at least a general
understanding of it. Although the table below also provides the 2005 results, a direct
comparison of the 2005 and 2006 findings is not appropriate due to differences in
the survey across these years.11
Undf
I
irstanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition of the Label
[Base = Recognize label (unaided)
OR
Did not recognize label (aided and Did not recognize label (unaided)
Recognize ENERGY STAR
Label Aided
Yes
No
Difference (Yes minus No)
p-value
At Least General Understanding of
Label
2006
86%
56%
30%
<0.0001
2005
78%
57%
22%
<0.0001
A discussion of differences in the label messaging results across years is not included here. Due to
changes in the 2006 survey, the base of respondents who were asked questions related to their level
of understanding was different than in previous years. Therefore the 2005 and 2006 results related to
a household's understanding of the ENERGY STAR label are not directly comparable.
16
-------
INFLUENCE
The survey provided some insight into consumers' decisions to purchase ENERGY
STAR-labeled products, including the following:
• 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 Products
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 (aided), the proportion that
purchased a product in a product category that has an ENERGY STAR
specification
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided) and purchased a product in a
relevant category, the proportion that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product
The result is that 31 percent of all households knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR product in the past twelve months. This proportion is 7 percentage points
higher than it was in 2005, at 31 versus 24 percent. This difference is statistically
significant at the 5-percent level (p-value = 0.015).
Purchased ENERGY STAR
(Base = All respondents)
Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
Estimate (yes)
Standard Error
2006
(n=2,176)
31%
2.0%
2005
(n=1,181)
24%
2.1%
An increase in the proportion of all households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR product could be due to an increase in any of the three proportions
listed above between 2005 and 2006. A close look at the survey results shows that
all three of these proportions increased from 2005 and 2006. In 2006, considering
17
-------
only households that recognized the label and purchased a product in a relevant
category, 66 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product in the past
twelve months. This proportion is 9 percentage points larger than the 57 percent
proportion noted in 2005. The difference is statistically significant at the 10-percent
level (p-value = 0.054).
Purchased ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchaser]
Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
Estimate (yes)
Standard error
2006
(n=808)
66%
2.9%
2005
(n=362)
57%
3.6%
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- and in low-publicity areas, 37 and 30 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
37%
30%
7%
0.178
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
In 2006, 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 16 percent of households, the label influenced
their purchase decisions "slightly." Twenty percent of households said the presence
of the ENERGY STAR label had no influence on their purchase. These findings are
not significantly different from those of 2005.
18
-------
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
2006
(n=524)
Maximum
33%
30%
16%
20%
100%
2005
(n=186)
Maximum
31%
32%
12%
25%
100%
Note: Q8: "For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you purchased,
how much did the ENERGY STAR label influence your purchase
decision?"
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
The ENERGY STAR label influenced the purchase decisions of a larger proportion
of households in high- than in low-publicity areas. The purchase decisions of 44
percent of households in high-publicity areas were influenced "very much" by the
label, compared to 31 percent in low-publicity areas. These proportions are not
statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance.
However, by adding these proportions to the proportion of households for which the
ENERGY STAR label was somewhat influential in their purchase decisions, the
proportion of households influenced by the label is larger in high- than in low-
publicity areas (75 versus 53 percent).
Maximum Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions
by Publicity Category[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers, n = 524]
Publicity Category
High
Low
Difference (High minus Low)
p-value
Very much
44%
31%
13%
0.124
Very much
or somewhat
75%
53%
22%
0.010
19
-------
Rebate and Financing Influence
Twenty-six percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product received rebates or reduced-rate financing. This is a significant
increase from the 12 percent of households that received rebates or reduced-rate
financing in 2005 (p-value = 0.001). Of these households in 2006, 57 percent would
have been "very likely" to purchase the ENERGY STAR product if financial
incentives had not been available. Another 26 percent would have been "somewhat
likely." This leaves only 17 percent that would have been "slightly likely" (13 percent)
or "not at all likely" (4 percent).
Received Financial Incentive for an ENERGY STAR Product Purchased
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchaser]
Received Financial Incentive for
an ENERGY STAR Product
Puchased
Yes
No
Total
% Households
2006
(n=483)
26%
74%
100%
2005
(n=175)
12%
88%
100%
Note: Q9: "Did you receive rebates or reduced-rate financing for
any ENERGY STAR-labeled products(s) you purchased?"
Influence of Rebates and Financing on Purchasing Decisions
[Base = Recognize label (aided), ENERGY STAR purchaser, and received an incentive, n = 110]
Likelihood Purchase ENERGY
STAR Product Without
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Total
% Households
57%
26%
13%
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?"
20
-------
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR is investigated by asking respondents who knowingly
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product how likely they would be to
recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend. In 2006, respondents were asked
to report this likelihood on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means "extremely unlikely"
and 10 means "extremely likely." As can be seen in the table below, 29 percent of
households who knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product reported
they would be "extremely likely" to recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend.
Also, the likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR products to a friend is greater
than "6" for 71 percent of these households.
The change to the survey response categories in 2006 makes it difficult to directly
compare these results with the results on loyalty to ENERGY STAR in previous
years. While in 2006 the likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR products to a
friend was measured on a scale of 0 to 10, in 2005 it was measured on a scale of 1
to 4.
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchasers, n = 554]
Likelihood Recommend
ENERGY STAR Products
10 - Extremely likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 - Extremely unlikely
Total
% Households
29%
17%
14%
11%
6%
17%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
2%
100%
Notes: In 2006, Q11 ["How likely are you to recommend
ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend?"] is measured on
an 11-point scale, where 0 ="Extremely unlikely" and 10
-'Extremely likely." Prior to 2006, Q11 was measured on a
scale of 1 to 4, where 1 = Very likely, 2 = Somewhat likely, 3 =
Slightly likely, and 4 = Not at all likely.
21
-------
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 56 percent.
Thirty-four percent of households heard or saw something about ENERGY STAR on
TV commercials. Between 22 and 26 percent of households saw something about
ENERGY STAR on or in utility mailings or bill inserts, EnergyGuide labels, or in
newspaper or magazine advertisements. A larger proportion of households in 2006
than in 2005 heard something about ENERGY STAR from a friend, neighbor,
relative, or co-worker.
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,379]
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Displays in stores
TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Newspaper or magazine article
Internet
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Salesperson
Radio commercial
Billboard
TV news feature story
1-
'"Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Homebuilder
Contractor
Realtor |2%
Lender <1%
J 65%
J 56%
J 34%
] 26%
] 24%
] 22%
| 5%
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."
** 2006 and 2005 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value < 0.05). The proportion of households in 2006 is larger than in 2005.
22
-------
Sources Seen by Publicity Category
For several sources, the proportion of households that heard or saw something
about ENERGY STAR was significantly larger in high- than in low-publicity areas.
This was the case for store displays, utility mailings or bill inserts, newspaper or
magazine advertisements, direct mail or circular advertisements, salespersons, and
radio commercials. Four of these six 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 = 1,379]
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
•"Displays in stores
TV corrmercial
""Utility mailing or bill insert
•"Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Newspaper or magazine article
•Qrect mail or circular advertisement
"Salesperson
•"Radio corrmercial
Internet
Billboard
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
TV news feature story
Homebuilder
Contractor
Realtor
Lender
167%
] 71 %
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of
significance (p-value < 0.01).
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value < 0.05).
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value < 0.10).
23
-------
APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY
During September and October 2006, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE)
fielded a questionnaire to obtain information at the national level on consumer
awareness and understanding of the ENERGY STAR label, the value accrued to the
label in the eyes of consumers, satisfaction with labeled products, and other
ENERGY STAR-related items. The questionnaire was similar to the Internet/WebTV-
based questionnaires fielded in previous years (2001 through 2005). As in the 6
previous years, GEE and its members sponsoring the survey made the survey data
publicly available. In 2001, a rigorous comparative analysis of the results obtained
via a mail survey versus an Internet/WebTV survey was conducted. The results from
the two survey methods were comparable for most major indicators.12 Results from
that time frame were also analogous to telephone surveys for aided recognition.13
This report discusses the results of the 2006 GEE ENERGY STAR Household
Survey, building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which
consumers recognized the ENERGY STAR label, understood its intended
messages, and utilized (or were influenced by) the label in their energy-related
purchase decisions. Research questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity impact consumer ENERGY STAR label
recognition, understanding, and influence?
• Which key messages about the ENERGY STAR label are consumers retaining?
• Do consumers demonstrate loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label?
The survey was fielded from September 19 through October 2, 2006.
The remainder of Appendix A discusses the questionnaire design, sampling and
weighting methodologies, data collection, and the national analysis. See Appendix C
for survey questions.
1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
In 2006, 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 then
randomly selected from the panel. Only one member per household in the random
12 National Analysis of GEE 2001 ENERGY STAR Household Surveys. U.S. EPA, 2002.
13 Tannenbaum, Bobbi and Shel Feldman. "ENERGY STAR Awareness as a Function of Survey
Method." IEPEC, 2001.
A-1
-------
sample was contacted. Households selected for previous years' surveys were not
eligible to participate in the 2006 survey.
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
Internet and WebTV. They receive no more than three to four short questionnaires
each month, and are expected to respond to a certain percentage of them.
Data collected using the 2006 Internet/WebTV questionnaire may in most cases be
compared with data collected using the Internet/WebTV questionnaires fielded in
previous years, for which GEE was also responsible.
1.1 Survey Objectives
GEE had several broad objectives in designing the 2006 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 2006 survey against those from the 2005 GEE survey
The 2006 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
A-2
-------
Likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend and
other measures of loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label
Satisfaction with ENERGY STAR-labeled products versus products without the
ENERGY STAR label
Demographic questions (most of the demographic questions were not asked in
the Internet/WebTV survey as the demographic characteristics of the
respondents were already on file.)
Recognition and understanding of the yellow Energy Guide labels
1.2 Internet/WebTV Questionnaire
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 and may be tempted to
read the entire questionnaire before completing it, potentially educating themselves
in a limited way about the subject and affecting their responses.
The Internet/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.
1.3 Changes to 2006 Questionnaire
The 2006 Internet/WebTV questionnaire was very similar to the 2005 questionnaire.
Three changes since the 2005 survey are explained below.
A-3
-------
1.3.1 Attitudinal and Purchasing Role Questions
Several experimental attitudinal questions from 2005 were dropped or reworded
slightly in response to CEE's own analysis of these questions. The questions in this
section were designed to measure consumers' perceptions of ENERGY STAR-
labeled products. Respondents were asked to rate on a five-grade scale how
strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements. Changes to this
question series were:
• Q16b, "All new products use energy just as efficiently whether or not they have
the ENERGY STAR label" was dropped.
• Q16d, "I prefer to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled products whenever I can"
was reworded to "If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking for with an
ENERGY STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather than buy a product that does
not qualify for the label."
• Q16e, "I would not go out of my way to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled
products" was dropped.
• Q16g, "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm acting
responsibly" was dropped.
• Q16j, "ENERGY STAR-labeled products deliver what they promise" was
dropped.
• Q16k, "ENERGY STAR-labeled products do not meet my needs" was dropped.
• Q16m, "I don't find any real difference in performance between products with the
ENERGY STAR label and those without the label" was dropped.
• Q16n, "It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these days"
was added.
• Q16o, "If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a more energy-
efficient product" was added.
• Q16p, "When I buy a product with the ENERGY STAR label, I can always be
sure it's high quality" was added.
In order to gauge the extent to which survey results represent the views and
behaviors of household decision makers, a question was added in 2006 asking
survey respondents about their role in their household's purchasing decisions. Q30
asked "Please tell us about your role in your household's purchasing decisions. For
each of the product groups listed below, do you usually make the purchasing
decisions, do you share the decision-making equally with another household
member, does someone else usually make the decisions but you have some input,
or do you have no input in the decision-making?"
A-4
-------
1.3.2 Likelihood of Recommending ENERGY STAR-Labeled Products to a Friend
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR is investigated by asking respondents who knowingly
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product how likely they would be to
recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend. Two changes were made in the
2006 survey that affect the loyalty to ENERGY STAR question.
• First, the survey response categories in 2006 are different. In 2006, Q11: "How
likely are you to recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend?" is
measured on an 11-point scale (where 0 ="Extremely unlikely" and 10
="Extremely likely"). Prior to 2006, Q11 was measured on a scale of 1 to 4
(where 1 = "Very likely," 2 = "Somewhat likely," 3 = "Slightly likely," and 4 = "Not
at all likely").
• Secondly, a difference in question sequencing for some respondents in the 2005
and 2006 surveys has resulted in differences in the base of respondents who
were asked this question in the two years. In 2006, respondents were asked this
question whether or not the product they purchased was an ENERGY STAR
product. In 2005, respondents had to have purchased an ENERGY STAR
product. The Loyalty to ENERGY STAR results reported in this report are
calculated using the same base of respondents who were asked Q11 in 2005.
1.3.3 Aided Recognition
As noted following the Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label table on page 5 of
the report, the sequence and numbering of questions on which the aided recognition
results are based changed slightly in 2006. This section provides further explanation
of these changes. Although there is no effect on the determination of aided
recognition, the changes to this sequence do have an effect on the determination of
the Level of Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label table on page eleven of the
report.
1.3.3.a. 2006 Survey Method
In the 2006 analysis, the determination of aided recognition was based on the
responses to four questions. Specifically:
ES3C: Please look at the ENERGY STAR label on the left. Have you ever seen or
heard of this label? (Respondents were randomly shown either the old or new
ENERGY STAR label. This question was asked to respondents who said they had
not seen or heard of or didn't know whether they had seen or heard of ENERGY
STAR.)
ES3A: Is this the label you have seen or heard of before? (Respondents were
randomly shown either the old or new ENERGY STAR label. This question was
asked to respondents who said they had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR
label.)
A-5
-------
ES3B: Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label? (In this
question, asked after ES3C or ES3A, respondents were shown the label not shown
in the previous question.)
ESS: Now that you had the opportunity to see the ENERGY STAR label, do you
recall seeing or hearing anything about it before this survey? (This question was
asked to respondents who answered "no" or "don't know" to ES3A and ES3B or to
ES3C and ES3B.)
• Respondents who answered ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ESS "yes," were
categorized as recognizing the ENERGY STAR label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, or ES3C "yes" and answered
ESS "no," were categorized as not recognizing the label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, or ES3C "yes" and answered
ESS "don't know" or refused to answer ESS were not included in the analysis of
aided recognition. (Their data were set to missing.)
13.3.6. 2005 Survey Method
In the 2005 analysis the determination of aided recognition was based on the
responses to five questions. Specifically:
ES3A: Is this the label you have seen or heard of before? (Respondents were
randomly shown either the old or new ENERGY STAR label. This question was
asked to respondents who said they had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR
label.)
ES3B: Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label? (In this
question, asked after ES3A, respondents were shown the label not shown in the
previous question.)
ES3C: Please look at the ENERGY STAR label on the left. Have you ever seen or
heard of this label? (Respondents were randomly shown either the old or new
ENERGY STAR label. This question was asked to respondents who said they had
not seen or heard of or didn't know whether they had seen or heard of ENERGY
STAR.)
ES3D: Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label? (In this
question, asked after ES3C, respondents were shown the label not shown in the
previous question.)
ESS: Now that you had the opportunity to see the ENERGY STAR label, do you
recall seeing or hearing anything about it before this survey? (This question was
asked to respondents who answered "no" or "don't know" to ES3A and ES3B. It was
also asked to all respondents who answered ES3C and ES3D.)
A-6
-------
• Respondents who answered ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, ES3D, or ESS "yes" were
categorized as recognizing the ENERGY STAR label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ESS "no," were categorized as not recognizing the label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ESS "don't know" or refused to answer ESS were not included in the
analysis of aided recognition. (Their data were set to missing.)
1.3.3.C. Sequence and Numbering Changes
In 2006, survey respondents who answered "yes" to question ES1: "Have you ever
seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label?" were asked the same series of
questions as in 2005. After being asked ES1, these respondents were subsequently
asked ES3A and ES3B, where they were shown each of the versions of the label
and specifically asked if they had ever seen or heard of either of them ("Is this the
label you have seen or heard of before" and "Have you seen or heard of this version
of the ENERGY STAR label?", respectively).14 If, after being shown both versions of
the label, these individuals responded that they had seen or heard of at least one of
them, they were considered to recognize the ENERGY STAR label (aided). If,
however, these individuals responded that they had not seen or heard of either of
the two versions of the ENERGY STAR label,15 they were given one more chance to
gain aided recognition status with ESS: "Now that you have had the opportunity to
see the ENERGY STAR label, do you recall seeing or hearing anything about it
before this survey?"
The series of questions asked of survey respondents who answered "no" to question
ES1 in 2006 was different than that asked of respondents who answered "no" in
2005. In 2006, those answering "no" to ES1 were subsequently asked questions
ES3C and ES3B ("Please look at the label on the left Have you ever seen or heard
of this label?" and "Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR
label?", respectively). Instead of being asked ES3C and ES3B, 2005 survey
respondents who answered "no" to question ES1: "Have you ever seen or heard of
the ENERGY STAR label?"16 were asked the corresponding questions ES3C and
ES3D ("Please look at the label on the left. Have you ever seen or heard of this
label?" and "Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label?",
respectively).17 In 2005, regardless of their responses to these questions, all of the
respondents that did not answer "yes" to ES1 were subsequently asked ES6: "Now
14 ES3A and ES3B were asked such that each respondent was asked about each of the two versions
of the ENERGY STAR label, but in random order.
15 Or if they did not know or refused to answer whether they had seen or heard of the either of the
labels.
16 In this discussion, references to a "no" response to question ES1 also includes responses of "don't
know" or refused to answer.
17 As with ES3A and ES3B, ES3C and ES3D were asked such that each respondent was asked
about each of the two versions of the ENERGY STAR label, but in random order.
A-7
-------
that you have had the opportunity to see the ENERGY STAR label, do you recall
seeing or hearing anything about it before this survey?"
1.3.3.d. Effects on Aided Recognition and Understanding
The question numbering and sequence changes described in the previous section
have no substantive effect on the determination of aided recognition. Despite
changes to the numbering and sequence, the 2006 survey collects the same
information collected with the 2005 survey to determine aided recognition.
The question numbering and sequence changes described in the previous section
do affect the base of respondents used to determine understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label. More specifically, the base of respondents who were asked questions
related to their Level of Understanding of the ENERGY STAR label is different than
in previous years.
The following two questions are used to determine a participant's level of
understanding of the label.
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 LABELS]"
ES2: "What does the ENERGY STAR label mean to you?"
In previous years all respondents were asked either ES4a1 or ES2. However, this
year respondents who answered "no" to ES1 and "yes" to either ES3C or ES3B were
not asked either of the two understanding questions.
2 SAMPLING
2.1 Designated Marketing Areas' Publicity Categories
The same publicity classification procedure used in the past 5 years was used in
2006. 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 2 or more continuous years. The
activities must include sustained promotions and publicity from non-federal
sources.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional
program sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
A-8
-------
This classification procedure was designed to identify three publicity categories and
provide clear and verifiable definitions. The key working definitions are:
• Recent: The 2 years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• Sustained: The 2 years of activity must be continuous.
• Significant: In addition to any direct federal publicity efforts, publicity efforts
must include a deliberate and multifaceted regional program sponsor investment
in ENERGY STAR programming, such as direct marketing efforts or the creation
and distribution of promotional material.
These definitions were constructed to be applicable to future survey efforts; they can
be modified by simply increasing the duration of sustained high publicity.
2.2 Sample Design
The sample was a national sample. The sampling frame included all households in
the largest DMAs, which together accounted for about 70 percent of U.S. television
households. In 2006, this 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 2006, the sponsor areas
were:
• Massachusetts
• Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA
• New York state (with the exception of Long Island)
• Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington)
• United Illuminating service territory in southwestern Connecticut
Sponsor areas are not limited to the 57 largest DMAs. Thus, the complete frame for
the study was the combination of the largest DMAs and any portion of the sponsor
areas that fell outside those DMAs.
The sample was stratified by area and within an area by publicity category.18 Each
sponsor area is also further stratified by large versus non-large DMA,19 as well as by
any stratification requested by the GEE member funding the oversample.20 This
sample design resulted in 17 strata.
18 Montana was not stratified by publicity category because 98 percent of Montana households are in low-
publicity DMAs and the number of sampling points to be allocated across all of Montana was only 35.
19 Idaho was not further stratified by large versus non-large DMA because 93 percent of Idaho households are in
non-large DMAs and the number of sampling points to be allocated across all of Idaho was only 65.
20 No CEE member funding an oversample requested additional stratification.
A-9
-------
The GEE members who fund the oversample for a sponsor area determine the total
number of sampling points allocated to the sponsor area as a whole.21 This total
number of sampling points is then allocated across publicity categories present in a
sponsor area proportional to population. Among the top 57 DMAs located outside
the sponsor areas, each publicity category was allocated approximately 333
sampling points. In order to achieve the target number of sampling points, 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.22 A list of the DMAs included in the sponsor areas and their publicity
category assignments follows. Lastly, the large DMAs and the DMAs in the sponsor
areas are shown on a map along with their publicity categories.
21 The CEE member that funded the Pacific Northwest oversample provided allocation of sample points across
states for Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
22 Between September 2005 and 2006, 2 of the 57 largest DMAs changed publicity category: Atlanta and New
Orleans. Both changed from "Low" to "Other".
A-10
-------
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
Houston
Detroit
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)
Seattle-Tacoma
Phoenix (Prescott)
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
Denver
Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto
Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn
St. Louis
Pittsburgh
Portland, OR
Baltimore
Indianapolis
San Diego
Charlotte
Hartford & New Haven
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)
Nashville
Kansas City
Columbus, OH
Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk
Birmingham (Ann, Tusc)
Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York
Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws
New Orleans
Memphis
Oklahoma City
Albuquerque-Santa Fe
Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem
Las Vegas
Buffalo
Louisville
Providence-New Bedford
Jacksonville
Austin
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Fresno-Visalia
Little Rock-Pine Bluff
Total
TV Households
2005-2006
Number
7,375,530
5,536,430
3,430,790
2,925,560
2,375,310
2,355,740
2,336,140
2,252,550
2,097,220
1 ,938,670
1 ,936,350
1,710,400
1 ,701 ,950
1 ,660,430
1 ,652,940
1 ,541 ,780
1 ,522,960
1,415,180
1 ,345,820
1 ,345,700
1 ,222,380
1,169,800
1 ,099,890
1 ,089,220
1 ,053,750
1,026,160
1,020,130
1,013,350
985,200
927,500
903,540
890,770
880,390
880,190
815,460
810,830
760,410
751 ,930
731 ,630
716,520
707,010
704,810
672,150
657,670
655,400
653,680
652,020
651,110
644,430
643,290
639,590
624,220
589,360
588,540
552,250
546,210
531 ,470
77,919,710
% of US
6.692
5.023
3.113
2.654
2.155
2.137
2.120
2.044
1.903
1.759
1.757
1.552
1.544
1.507
1.500
1.399
1.382
1.284
1.221
1.221
1.109
1.061
0.998
0.988
0.956
0.931
0.926
0.919
0.894
0.842
0.820
0.808
0.799
0.799
0.740
0.736
0.690
0.682
0.664
0.650
0.641
0.640
0.610
0.597
0.595
0.593
0.592
0.591
0.585
0.584
0.580
0.566
0.535
0.534
0.501
0.496
0.482
70.701
Publicity
Category
High
High
Other
Other
High
High
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Low
High
Other
High
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
Other
High
Low
High
Low
Low
Other
Other
High
Low
Low
Other
Low
Low
Other
Low
Other
Low
Other
Low
Low
Other
Low
High
High
Other
High
Low
High
Low
High
High
Low
A-11
-------
Sponsor Areas
Sponsor Area
Idaho
Massachusetts
Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA
Montana
New York (with the
exception of Long Island)
Oregon
United Illuminating
Washington
Publicity
Category
Other
Low
High
High
Other
Low
High
High
Other
Low
High
High
Other
DMA (Large and Small)
Large: parts of Salt Lake City DMA (Rank 36)
Small: parts of Spokane DMA (Rank 78)
Small: all of Twin Falls DMA (Rank 192)
Small: parts of
*Boise DMA (Rank 119)
Idaho Falls-Pocatello DMA (Rank 163)
Large: parts of
*Boston DMA (Rank 5)
*Providence-New Bedford (Rank 51)
*Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA (Rank 55)
Small: all of Springfield-Holyoke DMA (Rank 108)
Large: Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA (Rank 15)
Small: parts of Spokane DMA (Rank 78)
Small: all of
*Missoula DMA (Rank 168)
*Great Falls DMA (Rank 1 89)
*Butte-Bozeman, MT DMA (Rank 193)
"Helena DMA (Rank 206)
*Glendive DMA (Rank 210)
Small: parts of
*Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson DMA (Rank 160)
*Billings DMA (Rank 171)
*Rapid City DMA (Rank 177)
Large: parts of
*New York DMA (Rank 1)
*BuffaloDMA(Rank49)
*Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA (Rank 55)
Small: all of
'Rochester (Rank 79)
'Syracuse (Rank 76)
*Binghamton (Rank 156)
*Utica (Rank 166)
*Watertown (Rank 178)
Small: parts of
*Burlington-Plattsburgh (Rank 90)
*Elmira (Rank 173)
Large: parts of Portland, OR DMA (Rank 23)
Small: all of Eugene DMA (Rank 121)
Small: parts of
*Spokane DMA (Rank 78)
*Yakima-Pasco-Rchlnd-Knnwck DMA (Rank 126)
Small: all of Bend, OR DMA (Rank 196)
Small: parts of
*Boise DMA (Rank 119)
*Medford-Klamath Falls DMA (Rank 141)
Large: parts of
*New York DMA (Rank 1)
*Hartford-New Haven DMA (Rank 28)
Large:
*all of Seattle-Tacoma DMA (Rank 13)
*parts of Portland, OR DMA (Rank 23)
Small: parts of
*Spokane DMA (Rank 78)
*Yakima-Pasco-Rchlnd-Knnwck DMA (Rank 126)
A-12
-------
Large (Top 57) DMAs and Sponsor Areas by Publicity Category
23
H "High" publicity category
L "Low" publicity category
O "Other" publicity category
J CEE sponsor area ranking in Top 57 DMAs
J CEE sponsor area not ranking in Top 57 DMAs
23
There were no large DMAs or sponsor areas in either Alaska or Hawaii.
A-13
-------
2.3 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 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 (refer to Appendix B). 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.
Knowledge Networks corrected the sampling weight 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.
3 DATA COLLECTION
3.1 Survey Fielding Period
The survey began on September 19 and closed on October 2, 2006.
3.2 Response Rate
The overall response rate was 20 percent for the GEE 2006 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 26 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 26 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-14
-------
Survey Response Rate
Sendout/requested
Completed
Return rate
Recruitment rate
Response rate
2,962
2,251
76%
26%
20%
4 NATIONAL ANALYSIS
4.1 DMAs Included
To facilitate comparisons across years, the national results were based only on data
collected from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data collected from
respondents not in the 57 largest DMAs, but in a sponsor area, are not included in
this analysis. Some of the 57 largest DMAs are also included in the sponsor areas
and therefore were oversampled. The data from these respondents, as well as from
the other respondents in the 57 largest DMAs, received an appropriate weight in the
analysis in order to generate valid national results and comparisons against data
from other years.
4.2 Treatment of "Don't Know" Responses and Refusals
For most questions, how "don't know" responses or refusals are handled has a
negligible effect on the results. Still, it is necessary to make a decision as to how
they should be handled. The results presented in this report for a given question do
not include "don't know" responses or refusal to answer (i.e., the results for a given
question were calculated after any "don't know" responses to that question or
refusals to answer that question were set to missing).
A-15
-------
APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS
This appendix presents the relationship between the demographic characteristics
found in the weighted survey data and the corresponding characteristics in the study
population of all U.S. households. Professional survey and data collection firms
make significant efforts to ensure the rigor of their methods and to produce the
highest quality results. Each year, Knowledge Networks - the company that
maintains the Internet/WebTV survey panel used in this analysis - strives to create
a panel that is representative of all U.S. households. However, as in any survey
effort, those who respond to surveys tend to be different from those who do not. In
this case, the panel used for the ENERGY STAR survey may contain subjects that
are receptive to the Internet/WebTV incentive-for-service tradeoff and introduce
associated biases.
Weighting used in the analyses of this report are applied to account for differences
between the Internet/WebTV panel and the population of U.S. households. If
weighting was accomplished perfectly, the distribution of various demographic
characteristics in the weighted survey data would be the same as the distribution of
those characteristics in national Census data. For most demographic characteristics,
the two distributions are quite similar. This suggests the weighted survey results are
a reasonable representation of the study population. A summary of the comparisons
of demographic characteristics is provided in the table below. Detailed comparisons
are provided in tables presented at the end of this appendix.
Summary of Distribution Comparisons
Demographic Characteristic
Number of persons in household
Householder/respondent age
Householder/respondent gender
Dwelling type
Own/rent
Household annual income
Largest Difference (Absolute Value):
Survey Estimate Less Census %
Three, Four
65 or older
Gender
Mobile Home, Other
Own/rent
$75,000 and over
+/- 1 .4%
-6.5%
+/- 0.9%
+7-2.1%
+/- 6.7%
-5.3%
The largest differences (in absolute value) between the weighted survey data and
national Census data, at around six and a half percentage points, are in the
proportions of households that own or rent and the proportion of householders 65
years of age or older. The difference in the proportion of households with annual
income of $75,000 or more is next largest, at about five and a half percentage
points. The combined under-representation of householders 65 years or older and
households with annual incomes of $75,000 or more, as well as the somewhat
inaccurate mix of those who own versus rent, are not expected to bias the survey
results in any particular direction. Differences between the weighted survey data and
Census data for other demographic characteristics of the population—number of
persons in the household, gender, and dwelling type—are all quite small, at less
than about two 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%
15%
10%
100%
108,871
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Dwelling Units
-0.1%
0.0%
1 .4%
-1 .4%
0.0%
'U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2005, 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%
20%
21%
16%
21%
100%
114,384
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Householders
3.4%
2.0%
2.4%
-1 .5%
0.3%
-6.5%
a U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Annual Demographic Survey Social and
Economic Supplement, Selected Characteristics of Households, by
Total Money Income in 2005, Table HINC-01.
b Census, 15-24 years; Internet/WebTV, 18-24 years.
Gender Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Gender
Female
Male
Total (%)
Census
% Population3
49%
51%
100%
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Population
-0.9%
0.9%
' U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
8-2
-------
Dwelling Type Distribution
Dwelling Type
Single-family, unattached
Single-family, attached
Apt. bldg. (>=2 units)
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, 2005, Table 2-1.
Own/Rent Distribution
Own/Rent
Own
Rent
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Households3
69%
31%
100%
108,871
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
-6.7%
6.7%
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2005,
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%
12%
26%
18%
28%
100%
114,384
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
-1 .0%
-0.6%
4.1%
2.8%
-5.3%
a U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 Annual Demographic Survey Social and
Economic Supplement, Selected Characteristics of Households, by
Total Money Income in 2005, Table HINC-01.
8-3
-------
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM 2006 SURVEY
This appendix presents the results of new questions added to the survey in 2005
and 2006 that were not discussed in the main body of the report.
1 ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION
Twenty-eight percent of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label
(aided) thought that Underwriters Laboratories decides if a product deserves the
label. Twenty-seven percent of households thought the U.S. Government makes this
decision, while 24 percent thought product manufacturers make the decision.
Designates ENERGY STAR Product
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=943)
Underwriters Laboratories
US government
Product manufacturer
Electric and gas utility
Other
"""Retailer/store
] 28%
] 27%
] 24%
119%
1%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: QB: "As far as you know, who decides if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label?
2006 and 2005 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05).
C-1
-------
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,
25 or 28 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, 29
percent compared with 10 percent. This difference is significant at the 1-percent
level (p-value = 0.00003). 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, 40 percent compared with 22 percent. These proportions are
statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level (p-value = 0.003).
Designates ENERGY STAR Product by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=943)
***Electric and gas utility
US government
"Underwriters Laboratories
Product manufacturer
Other
Retailer/store
29%
10%
• 25%
_] 28%
122%
] 40%
22%
19%
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.01).
C-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). On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1
means "very dissatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied," products with and without the
ENERGY STAR label had an average satisfaction rating of 4.3. At the 10-percent
level of significance, no product with the ENERGY STAR label received a higher
satisfaction rating compared with products without the label. Households that
purchased a skylight, copying machine, washing machine, scanner, or thermostat
without the label were more satisfied than their counterparts that knowingly
purchased models with the label.
Three product satisfaction results increased dramatically in 2006 for households that
knowingly purchased a product with the ENERGY STAR label. The average
satisfaction rating of a compact fluorescent light bulb, furnace or boiler, or a newly
built home for households in 2006 that knowingly purchased ENERGY STAR rated
models were statistically different from those reported in 2005. The 2005 to 2006
increases were:
• compact fluorescent light bulb from 3.6 to 4.4 (p-value = 0.013),
• furnace or boiler 3.6 to 4.6 (p-value = 0.075), and
• newly built home 3.7 to 4.6 (p-value = 0.092).
C-3
-------
ENERGY STAR vs. Non-ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction
(Bases = Recognize label aided and purchased specified product)
A\erage Satisfaction (1 = very dissatis?i ed, 5= \erysati sfi ed)
1
Qverall(;ne=555. nO57S)
Newly built home (ne= 10. rO=11^
Furnace/boiler (ne=40. nO=17)
Roofing mate rial (ne=41. nO=4CTi
Donr(ne=83. nO=7(J)
Audio product(ne=70, nO=70)
Room air conditioner(ne=121, nO=39Ti
Televis ion (ne=126. n01*9
Central A/C (ne=51. rtO=18f)
Computer printer(;ne=131. nCl=126^
Compact fluorescent light t>ulb(ne= 196. nO12Z)
WindoiAj(;ne=94. nD=38Ti
LJghtingfixturei;ne=1-14. rtO=96[)
Ins u latin n(ne=55. nO=313
C ompjtsr or mon itor (ns=19C|, nf= 155)
"Scanner(ne=54. nD=53|)
""mermostat(;ne=51. nD=38Ti
Microwave oven(ne=83, nD=63f)
"Washing machine (;ne=85. nO=4?)
Heat pump (neF 17. nOS)
Reftigerator(;ne=111. nO=51^
Dishifliasher(;ne=79. nO=28Ti
FaKmachine(ne=29. NO=32D
"Copying machine (ne=36. nO=35i)
VCR (ne=40, rfl=53T)
"""Skylight (ne=6. nO=8f)
4
_l
4.3
J4.3
jfjfjfjfl4.&
4.S
'714.3
M.O
4.3
H4.5
]4.3
H4.3
J4.7
j4.3
j4.2
H4.7
3378
'ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffr
,3.5
H4.S
H4.6
]3.5
n3.-l
H4.3
012345
Avera ge S atisfacti on (1=^ry dissaiisfie d, 5= very satisfi ed)
D Non-ENERGY STAR product a ENERGY STAR product
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each other at
the 1-percent level of significance (p-value<0.01).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each other at
the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each other at
the 10-percent level of significance (p-value<0.10).
C-4
-------
3 CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS
Survey respondents that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were asked to
indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with a number of attitudinal statements
about ENERGY STAR-labeled products.24 The statements were shown to
respondents in random order.
For purposes of discussion the statements are grouped into three categories:
• Environmental and social responsibility messaging
• Purchasing preference
• Product attributes and performance
The 2006 survey results indicate that households generally agree with positive
statements about the ENERGY STAR label and disagree with negative statements
about the label.25 Few statements elicit strong agreement or strong disagreement
among substantial proportions of households, In contrast, a number of statement
generated neutral responses from a sizeable proportion of households expressed
neutrality toward a number of statements. A more detailed discussion of the findings
regarding the attitudinal statements is provided below
24 These statements are numbered Q16a through Q16p in the survey. Several experimental attitudinal
questions from 2005 were dropped or reworded slightly in response to CEE's own analysis of these
questions. A detailed explanation of these changes is provided in Appendix A, Section 1.3.1
Attitudinal and Purchasing Role Questions.
25 In this discussion, the term "agree" is used to correspond to survey responses of "strongly agree"
or "somewhat agree." Similarly, the term "disagree" corresponds to survey responses of "strongly
disagree" or "somewhat disagree."
C-5
-------
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging, Purchasing, and Product
Attributes (Base = Recognize label (aided))
0 Strongly disagree • Somewhat disagree D Somewhat agree H Strongly agree
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0°,i 20% 40% 60% 80%
ENVIRONMENTAL/ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY MESSAGING
Buying ENERGY STAR labeled products makes me feel like I'm helping to protect the
environment for future generations (n=1526)
Buying ENERGY STAR labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society (n=1 523) 47% Neutral
K
\^
LI
PURCHASING PREFERENCE
If 1 cannot find the kind of product 1 am looking for w ith an ENERGY STAR label, 1 w ill shop 43% Neutral
elsew here rather than buy a product that does not qualify for the label (n=1 528)
I consider myself loyal to ENERGY STAR labeled products (n=1525) 55% Neutral
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
ENERGY STAR labeled products provide me w ith more benefits than products w ithout the 55% Neutra|
ENERGY STAR label (n=1 524)
ENERGY STAR labeled products offer better value than products w ithout the label (n=1 524) 54%Neutral
If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a more energy-efficient product (n=1 522) 26% Neutral
When I buy a product w ith the ENERGY STAR label, I can alw ays be sure it's high quality 56% Neutral
(n=1527)
Buying ENERGY STAR labeled products makes me feel like I'm spending extra money for 440^ Neutra|
nothina (n=1524l
1 seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these days (n=1 524) 50% Neutral
For each attitudinal statement, respondents were asked whether they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed,
neither agreed nor disagreed, somewhat disagreed, or strongly disagreed. The response of "neither agree
nor disagree" is described as "Neutral" in the chart above and the discussion that follows. In the chart, the
results for the "Neutral" response category are shown in text and not depicted in the bar graph. The results
for the other four response categories are depicted in the bar graph.
C-6
-------
3.1 Environmental and Social Responsibility Messaging
The development of the environmental and social responsibility messaging of the
ENERGY STAR label has been a strong focus of the national ENERGY STAR
education campaign. In the 2006 survey, two statements addressed the label's
messaging in these areas: "Buying ENERGY STAR labeled products makes me feel
like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations" and "Buying
ENERGY STAR labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society".
Of the ten statements that explore consumer attitudes toward the ENERGY STAR
label and products, these two ranked second and third in terms of the proportion of
households who agree with the statements. Of households that are recognize the
ENERGY STAR label, 55 percent either strongly or somewhat agree with the
statement that by buying ENERGY STAR labeled products they feel they are helping
protect the environment. This is similar to the proportion of ENERGY STAR aware
households that agreed with the statement in 2005. Forty-two percent of ENERGY
STAR aware households strongly or somewhat agree that by purchasing ENERGY
STAR products they feel they are contributing to society. This is also similar to the
2005 findings.
3.2 Purchasing Preferences
Increasing consumers' preferences for purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products
is also an intended outcome of the national campaign. In the 2006 survey, two
separate statements were included to investigate households' views of their
purchasing preferences with respect to ENERGY STAR-labeled products. New in
2006 was the statement "If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking for with an
ENERGY STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather than buy a product that does not
qualify for the label." Seventeen percent of households either strongly or somewhat
agree with this statement. Twice as many households (34 percent) either strongly or
somewhat disagree. However, the largest proportion of households—nearly 50
percent -are neutral in their level of agreement or disagreement with this statement
of their purchasing behavior.
In 2006, 22 percent of households agree with the second statement addressing
households' views of their purchasing preferences: "I consider myself loyal to
ENERGY STAR products". This is a nearly equivalent to the proportion of
households that agreed with this statement in 2005.
3.3 Product Attributes and Performance
A third goal of the national ENERGY STAR education campaign has been to inform
consumers that ENERGY STAR qualifying products are more efficient than non-
qualifying models. The degree to which this goal is being accomplished is addressed
in the 2006 survey by asking respondents their level of agreement or disagreement
with the statement "If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a much
C-7
-------
more energy-efficient product." Nearly 70 percent of respondents either strongly or
somewhat agree with this statement. This indicates a high perception among
consumers that the ENERGY-STAR label indicates superior performance with
respect to energy efficiency relative to products without the label. The 2006 results
cannot be directly compared with those of 2005 due to changes in the approach to
investigating household's perceptions of the label as an indicator of a product's
energy efficiency performance through attitudinal questions. However, like the 2006
results, the 2005 results suggested that a larger proportion of households perceived
ENERGY STAR qualifying products as using energy more efficiently than non-
qualifying products than the proportion of households that did not.
In 2006, perceptions of product quality were also directly addressed. Survey
respondents were asked the level at which they agreed or disagreed with the
statement "When I buy a product with the ENERGY STAR label, I can always be
sure it's high quality." While the results show that 30 percent of households either
strongly or somewhat agree with this statement—twice as many as those who
strongly or somewhat disagree—the majority (56 percent) are neutral. This can be
interpreted as suggesting that consumers do not have strong feelings regarding the
ENERGY STAR label as a indicator of product quality. This question was also new
in 2006, so it is not yet possible to ascertain whether or how these perceptions may
be changing over time.
A number of attitudinal statements were included in the 2006 survey to measure
consumers' perceptions of ENERGY STAR product value. Two such statements are
"ENERGY STAR products provide me with more benefits than products without the
ENERGY STAR label" and "ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value than
products without the label." The results show that over a third of households (37
percent and 36 percent, respectively) either strongly or somewhat agree with these
statements. They also indicate that the majority of households are neutral (55
percent and 54 percent, respectively). These findings are very similar to those of
2005, suggesting continued potential for increasing consumers' perceptions of the
value of ENERGY STAR products relative to products without the label.
The results related to the statement "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products
makes me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing" provide additional
information on perceptions of product value. Here, nearly half (48 percent) of all
households who recognize the ENERGY STAR label strongly or somewhat disagree
with the statement, while 44 percent of households are neutral. Only 8 percent
agree. Compared to 2005, these results show a significant increase in the proportion
of households who disagree with this statement (p-value = 0.040) and a significant
decrease in the proportion who are neutral (p-value = 0.070). While this finding does
not address consumers views of the value of ENERGY STAR products relative to
products without the label, it does indicate significant changes across these two
years in consumers perceptions that extra money spent on ENERGY STAR-labeled
products corresponds to some additional product attribute.
C-8
-------
3.4 Consumer Perceptions by Publicity Category
The 2006 results also suggest that local and regional efforts to publicize ENERGY
STAR have been successful in affecting consumers' perceptions of the label. For
nearly all of the attitudinal statements, the level of consumers' agreement or
disagreement is significantly different in high and low publicity areas in the expected
direction. For example, with respect to the environmental and social messaging of
the ENERGY STAR label, a significantly higher proportion of consumers in high than
in low publicity areas strongly or somewhat agree with the statements that buying
ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes them feel like they are helping protect the
environment and contributing to society. Similarly, a significantly higher proportion of
households in high than in low publicity areas strongly or somewhat disagree with
the statement that buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes them feel like
they are spending extra money for nothing.
C-9
-------
4 PURCHASING DECISIONS
At the end of the survey each respondent was asked to characterize their role in the
household purchasing decisions. The results indicate that the vast majority of those
represented are primary decision makers, meaning they usually make household
purchasing decisions alone or share equally in these decisions. As can be seen
below, this varies little across product categories. Eighty-two percent of individuals
were primary decision makers for their household's home appliances/lighting
purchases, whereas this was true for nearly 70 percent for purchases of building
materials.
Role in Household Purchasing Decisions
(Base = All respondents)
Building Materials
(n=2,149)
Home Electronics
(n=2,200)
Home Appliances /
Lighting (n=2,197)
Home Office
Equipment
(n=2,146)
Heating & Cooling
Products (n=2,194)
11 % i 7%
79%
7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
• Usually make decisions or share decisions equally
0 Give input to decisions
H Have no input in decisions
C-10
-------
APPENDIX D: 2006 SURVEY QUESTIONS AND FLOW CHART
2OO6 ENERGY STAR SURVEY
Final Survey Instrument
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(oid ES4a1)
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
D-1
-------
ES3B.
Have you seen or heard of
this version of the
ENERGY STAR label?
[SHOW LABEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEN]
Yes to EITHER or
BOTH ES3A & ES3B OR
Yes to EITHER or BOTH
ES3C & ES3B
No or
Don't Know
to BOTH ES3A and ES3B
OR No or Don't Know
to BOTH ES3A and
ES3C
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.
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 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?
D-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
D-3
-------
Q12(a). Please look at each of the groups of products again
Which of these products have you purchased in the Iast12
months? Please check all that apply.
Heatina and Coolina Products Home Office Eauioment
Central air conditioner
Furnace or boiler
Heat pump
Thermostat
Room air conditioner
None of these products
Computer or monitor
Computer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
v
Q12(b). Please continue reviewing the lists of products below
Which of these products have you purchased in the last! 2
months? Please check all that apply.
Home Appliances/Lighting Home Electronics
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Microwave oven
None of these products
Television
VCR
Audio product
v
Q12(c). Finally, please review the last
Which of these products have you pur
months? Please check all that apply.
Building Materials
Window
Door
Skylight
Insulation
Roofing material
None of these products
of the product lists below
chased in the last! 2
Buildings
Newly built home
Go to Q30
(purchasing role)
D-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)?
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")
Skip to New QC, and then
go to Q11.
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
T
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 product(s) you
purchased?
Skip to Q11
D-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?
Sliding 11-point horizontal scale, with only endpoints marked.
Endpoints:
0=Extremely Unlikely
10= Extremely Likely
On the scale by each statement, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the statement.
(Note to programmer: present q16a through p 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
Q16c. ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer bettervalue than products without the label.
12345
Q16d. If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking for with an ENERGY STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather than buy a product
that does not qualify for the label.
12345
Q16f. Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations.
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
Q16I. I consider myself loyal to ENERGY STAR-labeled products.
12345
Q16n. It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these days.
12345
Q16o. If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a more energy-efficient product.
12345
Q16p. When I buy a product with the ENERGY STAR label, I can always be sure it's high quality.
12345
D-6
-------
Q30. Please tell us about your role in your household purchasing decisions For each of the product groups listed below, do you usually
make the purchasing decisions, do you share the decision-making equally with another household member , does someone else usually
make the decisions but you have some input, or do you have no input in the decision-making?
I usually make
the decisions
Heating and Cooling Products D
Home Office Equipment D
Home AppliancesdJghting D
Home Electronics D
Building Materials D
I share the Someone else
decision-making usually makes
equally the decisions, but
I have some input
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I have no
input in
decision-
making
D
D
D
D
D
I'm not sure
D
D
D
D
D
I Go to demographic A
I questions and closing J
D-7
------- |