ENERGYSTAR
NATIONAL AWARENESS
OF ENERGY STAR® FOR 2008
ANALYSIS OF CEE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 1
Methodology Overview 2
Key Findings 5
Recognition 5
Understanding 12
Influence 17
Information Sources 22
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology A-1
1 Questionnaire Design A-1
2 Sampling A-6
3 Data Collection A-14
4 National Analysis A-14
Appendix B: Demographics B-1
Appendix C: Additional Questions From 2008 Survey C-1
1 ENERGY STAR Designation C-1
2 ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction C-3
3 Consumer Perceptions C-5
4 Purchasing Decisions C-10
5 CFL Purchaser Questions C-11
5 New Sources of Information Questions C-13
Appendix D: 2008 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 2008 survey:
• Bonneville Power Administration
• Cape Light Compact
• Long Island Power Authority
• Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
• National Grid
• New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
• New York State Energy Research & Development Authority
• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
• NSTAR Electric
• Pacific Gas and Electric
• San Diego Gas and Electric
• Southern California Edison
• Tennessee Valley Authority
• Wisconsin Focus on Energy
• 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 Alex Fayvil of KEMA
Inc., and Jocelyn Spielman, Grant Halloran, and Sarah Duffy of The Cadmus Group,
Inc. for data analysis and report preparation.
Recommended citation:
EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Climate Protection Partnerships Division.
National Awareness of ENERGY STAR® for 2008: Analysis of 2008 CEE
Household Survey. U.S. EPA, 2009.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2008, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE) sponsored
the ninth 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 2008, additional surveys were conducted in three states—
Massachusetts, New York (except Long Island), Wisconsin; two Nielsen Designated
Market Areas® (DMA)—Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul; and the Tennessee Valley
Authority's service territory. As in the eight previous years, GEE and sponsoring
members made the survey data publicly available.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2008 ENERGY STAR Household Survey,
building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which consumers
recognize the ENERGY STAR label, understand its intended messages, and utilize (or
are influenced by) the label in their energy-related purchase decisions. Research
questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity affect recognition, understanding, and influence of the
ENERGY STAR label?
• Which key messages about the ENERGY STAR label are consumers retaining?
• Do consumers demonstrate loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label?
Key Findings at the National Level
• Seventy-six percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label.
• Seventy-eight 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 (10 percent versus 68 percent).
• Sixty-three percent of households associated the ENERGY STAR label with
"efficiency or energy savings."
• Of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) and purchased a
product in a relevant product category within the past 12 months, 73 percent
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
ES-1
-------
• Among all households, 40 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product in the past 12 months.
• For 76 percent of the households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided),
and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product, the label influenced
at least one of their purchase decisions "very much" or "somewhat." For another 9
percent of these households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly."
• Twenty-one percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product received a financial incentive for doing so. Ninety percent of these
households report they would have been "very likely" (68 percent) or "somewhat
likely" (22 percent) to purchase the labeled product without the financial incentive.
• Seventy-nine percent of households that recognized the label and purchased a
product in a category where ENERGY STAR-labeled products are an option were
likely to recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend; 35 percent of
these households reported that 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, 80 percent of households in high-publicity areas recognized the label versus 70
percent in low-publicity areas. (High-publicity areas have an active local ENERGY
STAR program that has been sponsored by a utility, state agency, or other
organization for two or more continuous years.)
• Sixty-eight percent of households in high-publicity areas associated the ENERGY
STAR label with "efficiency or energy savings," compared with 55 percent of
households in low-publicity areas.
• 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 TV and radio commercials, newspaper or magazine
article, utility mailing or bill insert, or salesperson.
ES-2
-------
Conclusions
This ninth 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 (10 percent) compared with the proportion of households that exhibit a high
understanding (68 percent).
• Publicity efforts of active regional/local energy efficiency program sponsors increase
recognition of the label. These efforts also appear to have an effect on the
understanding of the label, with a larger proportion of households in high- than low-
publicity areas associating "Energy efficiency/savings" and "Energy/environmental
product standards" messages with the label.
ES-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2008, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE)
sponsored the ninth 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 2008 additional
surveys were conducted in three states—Massachusetts, New York (except Long
Island), Wisconsin; two Nielsen Designated Market Areas® (DMA)—Denver and
Minneapolis-St. Paul; and the Tennessee Valley Authority's service territory. As in
the eight previous years, GEE and sponsoring members made the survey data
publicly available.
This report discusses the results of the GEE 2008 ENERGY STAR Household
Survey, building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which
consumers recognize the ENERGY STAR label, understand its intended messages,
and utilize (or are influenced by) the label in their energy-related purchase decisions.
Research questions of interest included the following:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity affect recognition, understanding, and influence of
the ENERGY STAR label?
• Which key messages about the ENERGY STAR label are consumers retaining?
• Do consumers demonstrate loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label?
The remainder of this report summarizes the survey and analysis methodology;
provides key findings regarding ENERGY STAR label recognition, understanding,
influence, and information sources; and contains appendices presenting detailed
survey methodology (Appendix A), demographic information (Appendix B), additional
questions from the 2008 survey (Appendix C), and a copy of the 2008 questionnaire
(Appendix D). In all cases, the results presented in this report were weighted to
obtain results applicable at the national level (please refer to Appendix A for details
on the weighting methodology).
-------
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
During September 2008, 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.
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 this national 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 2008,
this encompassed the 57 largest DMAs. In addition, GEE members may choose to
sponsor more intensive sampling (i.e., an oversample) in selected localities, referred
to here as sponsor areas. In 2008, the sponsor areas were:
• Denver DMA,
• Massachusetts,
• Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA,
• New York state (with the exception of Long Island),
• Tennessee Valley Authority's service territory, and
• Wisconsin.
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. However, to facilitate comparisons
across years, the national results were based only on data collected from
respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data collected from respondents not in the
57 largest DMAs, but in a sponsor area, 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 local energy efficiency program publicity on
national awareness could be considered. The same publicity classification procedure
-------
used in the past 7 years was used this year.1 A DMA was classified as high publicity,
low publicity, or overusing the following criteria:
• High publicity: Active local ENERGY STAR program recently sponsored by a
utility, state agency, or other organization for two or more continuous years. The
activities must include sustained promotions and publicity from non-federal
sources.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional
program sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
This classification was designed to provide clear and verifiable definitions. The key
working definitions are below:
• Recent: The 2 years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• Sustained: The 2 years of activity must be continuous.
• Significant: In addition to any direct federal publicity efforts, 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. Each
sponsor area is also further stratified by large versus non-large DMA as well as any
stratification requested by the GEE member funding the oversample.2 The GEE
members who fund the oversample for a sponsor area determine the total number of
sampling points allocated to the sponsor area as a whole. This total number of
sampling points is then allocated across sponsor area strata proportional to
population. Among the top 57 DMAs, for areas located outside the sponsor area,
each publicity category was allocated approximately 333 sampling points.
This report presents the 2008 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 and understanding, and purchasing influence of the
1 Between September 2007 and 2008, 2 of the 57 largest DMAs changed publicity category: Atlanta and
Phoenix. Both changed from "Other" to "High".
2 No CEE member funding an oversample requested additional stratification.
-------
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.
-------
KEY FINDINGS
RECOGNITION
In 2008, 76 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label (i.e., aided recognition). Sixty-two percent of households recalled
seeing or hearing of the ENERGY STAR label without first being shown the label
(i.e., unaided recognition).
For purposes of this analysis, respondents were said to recognize the ENERGY
STAR label if they had seen or heard of the label before the survey. Recognition of
the label was explored in two ways. Unaided recognition was measured by asking if
the respondent had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label without showing the
label. Delivery of the survey by Internet/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 2008 and 2007 surveys are summarized in the
following table. The 2008 and 2007 aided and unaided recognition of the ENERGY
STAR label results are not statistically different at the 10-percent level of
significance.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize
ENERGY
STAR Label
Yes
Standard error
2008
Aided
(n=1,805)
76%
1 .7%
Unaided
(n=1,630)
62%
2.0%
2007
Aided
(n=995)
74%
1 .7%
Unaided
(n=892)
58%
2.1%
Note: The unaided recognition results for both years were based on the
question ES1: "Have you ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR
label?" The aided recognition results were based on five questions. (1)
ES3A and (2) ES3B were asked if ES1 = "yes." ES3A: "Is this the label
you have seen or heard of before?"—whether the old or new label was
shown was randomly determined. ES3B: "Have you seen or heard of this
version of the ENERGY STAR label?" —where the label shown was the
one not shown previously. (3) ES3C and (4) ES3D were asked if ES1 =
"no." ES3C: "Please look at the ENERGY STAR label on the left. Have
you ever seen or heard of this label?"—whether the old or new label was
shown was randomly determined. ES3D: "Have you seen or heard of this
version of the ENERGY STAR label?"—where the label shown was the
one not shown previously. (5) ES6 was asked if either ES1 = "no" or both
ES3A and ES3B = "no." ES6: "Now that you have had the opportunity to
see the ENERGY STAR label, do you recall seeing or hearing anything
about it before this survey?"—where both the old and new labels were
shown.
-------
Recognition by Publicity Category
Both aided and unaided recognition were higher in high-publicity areas than in low-
publicity areas. After being shown the ENERGY STAR label, 80 percent of
households in high-publicity areas recognized the label versus 70 percent in low-
publicity areas. Unaided recognition was 66 percent in high-publicity areas
compared with 53 percent in low-publicity areas.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100% -|
90% -
QflO/. _
OU /O
-71-107
AJ% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
no/, .
80%
70%
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
66%
53%
*Aided(n=1,805)
"Unaided (n=1,630)
High- and low-publicity area proportions for unaided recognition are statistically different from each other at
the 1-percent level of significance (p-value<0.01).
High- and low-publicity area proportions for aided recognition are statistically different at the 5-percent level
of significance (p-value<0.05).
-------
Product Associations
Households who recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) indicate strong
association between products historically supported by regional energy efficiency
programs (refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, compact fluorescent light
bulbs, etc.) and the ENERGY STAR label.
Survey respondents that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were asked,
"What types of products, goods, and services do you think of when you think of the
ENERGY STAR label?" (survey question QA). The figure on the next page presents
the results for this question, which indicate unprompted product associations.
Unprompted, appliances, refrigerators and washing machines showed the strongest
association with the label at 30 to 42 percent. Clothes dryers followed at 27 percent.
The next most strongly associated products (unprompted) were air conditioners and
dishwashers at 16 and 14 percent, respectively. The list of products mentioned by
households without being prompted also includes several products that do not have
an ENERGY STAR specification: clothes dryers, water heaters3, microwave ovens,
and stoves or ovens.
When prompted, eighty-one percent of households had seen the label on
refrigerators. At about 70 percent, washing machines and dishwashers were the
next products most commonly associated with the ENERGY STAR label. Room air
conditioners, windows and central air conditioners followed at about 47 percent.
However, 38 percent of households associated microwave ovens with the ENERGY
STAR label, although they do not in fact have an ENERGY STAR specification.
(Nevertheless, of all appliances, microwave ovens were the least often associated
with the label). Doors were the only product to show a significant decrease in
prompted association with the ENERGY STAR label from 2007 to 2008. There were
no significant increases in prompted association.
3 An ENERGY STAR specification for water heaters went into effect on January 1, 2009. During the time the
study was conducted water heaters were not a qualified product.
-------
Unprompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,150]
Appliance
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dryer
Air conditioner
*Dishwasher
"Computer or monitor
Water heater
***Electric things
Lighting
**Stove/oven
Other
No product
Television
Heater
Electronics
Freezer
Furnace
Microwave oven
Window
Don't know
Fan
VCR/DVD
Stereo/radio
Computer printer
***lnsulation
Dehumidifier
Boiler
Vacuum cleaner
Thermostat
-I 42%
131%
H 30%
H 27%
316%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Note: 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."
*** 2008 and 2007 proportions are :
(p-value<0.01). The proportion
for insulation.
i statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance
of households in 2008 is larger than in 2007 for "electric things" and smaller
2008 and 2007 proportions are
(p-value<0.05). The proportion
2008 and 2007 proportions are
(p-value<0.10). The proportion
statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance
of households in 2008 is smaller than in 2007.
statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
of households in 2008 is smaller than in 2007.
-------
Prompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided)4]
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dishwasher
Room air conditioner
Window
Central A/C
Microwave oven
Computer or monitor
Television
Furnace/boiler
Compact fluorescent light bulb
*Door
Lighting fixture
Newly built home
Insulation
Heat pump
Thermostat
DVD
Computer printer
Copying machine
Dehumidifier
Skylight
Roofing material
Fax machine
Scanner
Audio product
VCR
381%
3 72%
369%
3 47%
3 47%
346%
3 38%
3 36%
3 33%
3 32%
3 30%
3 25%
3 24%
3 23%
321%
319%
318%
316%
316%
315%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 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."
* 2008 and 2007 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). The proportion of households in 2008 is smaller than in 2007.
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 all of these sets of product groupings is 1,194.
-------
Product Associations by Publicity Category
Regional energy efficiency program sponsors promoted HVAC system
improvements, lighting, refrigerators, room air conditioners, washing machines, and
dishwashers. For furnace/boilers and dehumidifiers, a larger proportion of
households in high- than low-publicity areas associated these products with the
ENERGY STAR label when prompted. A significantly smaller proportion of
households associated heat pumps in high- than in low-publicity areas in 2008. This
result was seen for heat pumps in each of the previous 4 years.
10
-------
Prompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided)5]
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dishwasher
Room air conditioner
Window
Central A/C
Microwave oven
Computer or monitor
***Furnace/boiler
Television
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Lighting fixture
Door
Newly built home
Insulation
Thermostat
Computer printer
Copying machine
DVD
"Dehumidifier
***Heat pump
Scanner
Skylight
Fax machine
Audio product
Roofing material
VCR
1 81 %
1 82%
172%
1 70%
1 69%
1 r 1"'
1 51 %
I 4^%
r47%
46%
1 44%
I *sn%
I -v«.
1 35%
I ^1 %
I -W/_
1 31 %
| 26%
I "V%
| '2b"/o
I O-1 O/
' 7° D High Publicity
1 0^0/ D Low Publicity
1 22%
1 •">•">%
1 1«%
1 1 7%
M 6%
I 14%
|17%
I 1e»x
114%
1 7%
I ^/o/.
1 1 1 %
_ 1 1 %
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10C
*** High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1 -percent leve
significance (p-value<0.01).
** High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent leve
significance (p-value<0.05).
As discussed in footnote 4, respondents were asked about three sets of product groupings. In all
groupings, the sample size in high- and low- publicity areas is 621 and 264, respectively.
11
-------
UNDERSTANDING
In 2008, 78 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 (10 percent) was small compared with the proportion that
exhibited a high understanding (68 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 2008 and 2007 survey results on the level of understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label are provided in the following table.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Level of Understanding
of the Label
High understanding
General understanding
No understanding
Total
2008
(n=1,881)
68%
10%
22%
100%
2007
(n=1,051)
65%
11%
24%
100%
Note: The level of understanding of the ENERGY STAR label is
determined using the open-ended responses to two questions (1) ES2:
"What does the ENERGY STAR label mean to you?", and (2) ES4A1:
"Please look at the ENERGY STAR labels on the left. Type the
messages that come to mind when you see the ENERGY STAR label."
In all years except 2006, all respondents were asked either ES2 or
ES4A1, depending on their answers to ES1. Respondents that
answered "Yes" to ES1 were then asked ES2, while all other
respondents were asked ES4A1.
12
-------
Understanding by Publicity Category
The level of understanding of the ENERGY STAR label was similar in high- and in
low-publicity areas. Seventy-nine percent of households in high-publicity areas had
at least a general understanding of the label compared with 78 percent of
households in low-publicity areas. The difference between the publicity areas is not
statistically significant at the 10-percent level. Among those households with at least
a general understanding of the ENERGY STAR label, more households exhibited a
high degree of understanding in both publicity categories.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All res
Publicity Category
High
Low
Difference (High
minus Low)
p-value
pondents]
At Least General
Understanding of Label
79%
78%
1%
0.792
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100% -
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
D High Understanding
D General Understanding
r
W ' ' /0 VO
,
High Publicity
Low Publicity
13
-------
Understanding of Label Messaging
Open-ended responses to the questions on the level of understanding of the
ENERGY STAR label are an indicator of how effectively EPA communicates its
messages through the label. These responses are used in the analysis of
understanding in the previous section. By far, the most common message
associated with the label was "energy efficiency or energy savings," which is
considered high understanding of the label. Sixty-three percent of households
surveyed associated the ENERGY STAR label with this message. The second most
common response was "associating specific products with the ENERGY STAR
label," at 16 percent of households, which is considered general understanding of
the label.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Environmental benefit
Save money on operation
Energy/environmental product standards
Energy conservation
Savings (not linked to operation)
Mentions specific products
Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses with EnergyGuide
18% ^
17%
HI 5%
]2%
116%
General
1 6%
SI 5%
=14% _
^\
j^
derstanding
Understanding
1
Government backing
Save money on purchase
Quality
*Product standards no environmental link
""""Environmental no link to benefit
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2008 and 2007 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.01).
14
-------
Understanding of Label 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. However, for
the "Energy efficiency/savings" and "Energy/environmental product standards"
messages, a significantly larger proportion of households in high- than in low-
publicity areas associated these messages with the label. A larger proportion of
households in the low- than in high-publicity areas associated the "Energy
conservation" and "Energy no link to efficiency" messages with the label.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
***Energy
efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
Save money on operation
'Energy/environmental
product standards
'Energy conservation
Savings (not linked to
operation)
-I 55%
168%
11 2%
^J 13%
I 8%
1 8%
High Understanding
Mentions specific products
Electricity
Confuses with
EnergyGuide
"Energy no link to
efficiency
115%
General Understanding
1%
Save money on purchase P<1 o/
Government backing
Product standards no
environmental link
Quality
Environmental no linkto
benefit
1%
1%
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
o%
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).
15
-------
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
Households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label when shown the label were
more likely to have at least a general understanding of the label than those that did
not recognize the label. In 2008, 84 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, 58 percent had at least a general
understanding of it.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize ENERGY STAR
Label Aided
Yes
No
Difference (Yes minus No)
p-value
At Least General Understanding
of Label
2008
84%
58%
26%
<0.0001
2007
82%
59%
24%
<0.0001
16
-------
INFLUENCE
The survey provided some insight into consumers' decisions to purchase ENERGY
STAR-labeled products, including the following:
• The proportion of households nationwide that recognized the ENERGY STAR
label and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product
• The influence of the ENERGY STAR label on purchase decisions
• The role of rebates or financing in decisions to buy ENERGY STAR-labeled
products
• The loyalty of purchasers to ENERGY STAR-labeled products
Purchases of ENERGY STAR-labeled Products
In order to estimate the percent of all households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR product, the following three proportions were multiplied:
• The proportion of all households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label
(aided)
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided), the proportion that
purchased a product in a product category that has an ENERGY STAR
specification
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided) and purchased a product in a
relevant category, the proportion that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product
The result is that 40 percent of all households knowingly purchased an ENERGY
STAR product in the past twelve months. This result is not statistically different, at
the 10-percent level, from the 2007 result.
Purchased ENERGY STAR
(Base = All respondents)
Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
Estimate (yes)
Standard Error
2008
(n=1,805)
40%
2.3%
2007
(n=995)
37%
2.6%
An increase or decrease in the percent of all households that knowingly purchased
an ENERGY STAR product could be due to changes in any of the three proportions
listed above between 2007 and 2008. There were no statistically significant changes
17
-------
(at the 10-percent level) for any of the three proportions. In 2008, considering only
households that recognized the label and purchased a product in a relevant
category, 73 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product in the past
twelve months. This proportion is similar to the 68 percent measured in 2007 (p-
value = 0.143).
Purchased ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchaser]
Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
Estimate (yes)
Standard error
2008
(n=764)
73%
2.4%
2007
(n=376)
68%
3.1%
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
The proportion of all households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product in high- versus low-publicity areas is 44 and 37 percent, respectively. This
seven percentage point difference is not significant at the 10-percent level (p-value
0.216).
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
44%
37%
7%
0.216
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
In 2008, for 53 percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product, the label influenced at least one of their purchase decisions "very
much". Compared to the 2007 result of 40 percent, this increase is significant at the
5-percent level (p-value = 0.025). The increase in the "very much" category is
accompanied by a significant decrease in the "somewhat" category (p-value =
0.068).
For 9 percent of households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly".
Fifteen percent of households reported the presence of the ENERGY STAR label
had no influence on their purchase. These findings are not significantly different from
those of 2007.
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
2008
(n=506)
53%
23%
9%
15%
100%
2007
(n=234)
40%
32%
12%
16%
1 00%
Note: Q8: "For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you purchased, how
much did the ENERGY STAR label influence your purchase decision?"
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
The purchase decisions of 51 percent of households in high-publicity areas were
influenced "very much" by the ENERGY STAR label, compared to 48 percent in low-
publicity areas. Similarly, when these proportions are added to the proportions of
households for which the ENERGY STAR label was "somewhat" influential in their
purchasing decisions, the high- to low-publicity area comparison is 76 to 74 percent,
respectively. None of these proportions are statistically different from each other at
the 10-percent level of significance.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions
by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers, n = 506]
Publicity Category
High
Low
Difference (High minus Low)
p-value
Very much
51%
48%
3%
0.695
Very much
or somewhat
76%
74%
2%
0.768
Respondents that recognize the label (aided) and purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product are asked Q8
("For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you purchased, how much did the ENERGY STAR label influence
your purchase decision?") for each ENERGY STAR-labeled product they purchased. The results presented in
this table use the highest influence rating provided by respondents that purchased more than one ENERGY
STAR-labeled product.
19
-------
Rebate and Financing Influence
From 2007 to 2008, the percentage of households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR-labeled product and received rebates or reduced-rate financing
remained the same, at 21 percent. Of these households in 2008, 68 percent would
have been "very likely" to purchase the ENERGY STAR product if financial
incentives had not been available. Another 22 percent would have been "somewhat
likely." This leaves 9 percent that would have been "slightly likely" and 1 percent "not
at all likely." Among these results, the 2008 result for "very likely" is statistically
different at the 10-percent level from the 44 percent reported in 2007 (p-value =
0.067).
Received Financial Incentive for an ENERGY STAR Product Purchased
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchaser]
Received Financial
Incentive for an ENERGY
STAR Product Purchased
Yes
No
Total
% Households
2008
(n=471)
21%
79%
100%
2007
(n=220)
21%
79%
100%
Note: Q9: "Did you receive rebates or reduced-rate financing for any ENERGY
STAR-labeled product(s) you purchased?"
Influence of Rebates and Financing on Purchasing Decisions
[Base = Recognize label (aided), ENERGY STAR purchaser, and received an incentive, n = 69]
Likelihood Purchase ENERGY STAR
Product Without Financial Incentive
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Slightly likely
Not at all likely
Total
% Households
68%
22%
9%
1%
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. 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, 35 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.
The likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR products to a friend is greater than
"6" for 79 percent of these households. This is consistent with the previous year's
result of 80 percent.
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchasers]
Likelihood Recommend
ENERGY STAR
Products
10 - Extremely likely
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 - Extremely unlikely
Total
% Households
2008
(n=530)
35%
17%
15%
12%
6%
7%
3%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1 00%
2007
(n=247)
29%
19%
21%
11%
4%
9%
1%
1%
<1%
1%
3%
100%
Notes: Q11: "How likely are you to recommend ENERGY
STAR-labeled products to a friend?"] is measured on an 11-point
scale, where 0 ="Extremely unlikely" and 10 -'Extremely likely."
21
-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
Sources Seen
Sixty-seven percent of households have seen something about ENERGY STAR on
the labels of appliance or electronic equipment, followed by store displays at 65
percent. Thirty-nine percent of households heard or saw something about ENERGY
STAR on TV commercials. Between 21 and 30 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 2008 than in 2007 saw something about
ENERGY STAR on displays in stores (p-value = 0.006) and Internet (p-value =
0.021), as well as heard about ENERGY STAR from a salesperson (p-value =
0.003), realtor (p-value = 0.011), and from a friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
(p-value = 0.031). The proportion of households that saw something about ENERGY
STAR on the EnergyGuide labels decreased from 27 percent in 2007 to 21 percent
in 2008 (p-value = 0.099).
22
-------
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,117]
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
'"Displays in stores
TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
*Yellow EnergyGuide label
"Internet
Newspaper or magazine article
'"Salesperson
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Radio commercial
Homebuilder
**Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Billboard
TV news feature story
Contractor
"Realtor
Lender 1%
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."
*** 2008 and 2007 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.01). The proportion of households in 2008 is larger than in 2007.
** 2008 and 2007 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.05). The proportion of households in 2008 is larger than in 2007.
* 2008 and 2007 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.10). The proportion of households in 2008 is smaller than in 2007.
23
-------
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 TV and radio commercials, newspaper or magazine articles,
utility mailings or bill inserts and salespersons. All of these sources, except
salespersons, involve means of mass communication.
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 1,117]
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Displays in stores
*TV commercial
""Utility mailing or bill insert
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Internet
Yellow EnergyGuide label
"Newspaper or magazine article
"Sales person
***Radio commercial
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Billboard
Contractor
Homebuilder
TV news feature story
Realtor
Lender
U 72%
J 33%
J 42%
J 24%
J21%
| 20%
Jl7%
20%
20%
J 18%
I 13%
13%
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
16%
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).
24
-------
APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY
During September 2008, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (GEE) fielded a
questionnaire to obtain information at the national level on consumer awareness and
understanding of the ENERGY STAR label, the value accrued to the label in the
eyes of consumers, satisfaction with labeled products, and other ENERGY STAR-
related information. The questionnaire was similar to the Internet/WebTV-based
questionnaires fielded in previous years (2001 through 2007). As in the eight
previous years, GEE and its members sponsoring the survey made the survey data
available to EPA for analysis. In 2001, a rigorous comparative analysis of the results
obtained via a mail survey versus an Internet/WebTV survey was conducted. The
results from the two survey methods were comparable for most major indicators.7
Results from that time-frame were also analogous to telephone surveys for aided
recognition.8
This report discusses the results of the 2008 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 17 through September 30, 2008.
The remainder of Appendix A discusses the questionnaire design, sampling and
weighting methodologies, data collection, and the national analysis. See Appendix D
for survey questions.
1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
In 2008, 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
7 National Analysis of GEE 2001 ENERGY STAR Household Surveys. U.S. EPA, 2002.
8 Tannenbaum, Bobbi and Shel Feldman. "ENERGY STAR Awareness as a Function of Survey
Method." IEPEC, 2001.
A-1
-------
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
sample was contacted. Households selected for previous years' surveys were not
eligible to participate in the 2008 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 2008 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 2008 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 2008 survey against those from the 2007 GEE survey
The 2008 Internet/WebTV questionnaire addressed the following:
• Respondent recognition and understanding of the ENERGY STAR label
• Key messages communicated by the ENERGY STAR label
• Products on which respondents have seen the ENERGY STAR label
• Products that respondents have shopped for or purchased in the past year
• Products that respondents have purchased that displayed the ENERGY STAR
label on the product, packaging, or instructions
• Influence of the presence or absence of the ENERGY STAR label on the
purchase decision
• Whether purchases of ENERGY STAR-labeled products involved rebates or
reduced-rate financing
A-2
-------
Likelihood of having purchased ENERGY STAR-labeled products in the absence
of rebates or reduced-rate financing
Likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend and
other measures of loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label
Satisfaction with ENERGY STAR-labeled products versus products without the
ENERGY STAR label
Demographic questions (most of the demographic questions were not asked in
the Internet/WebTV survey as the demographic characteristics of the
respondents were already on file)
Recognition and understanding of the yellow EnergyGuide 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 EnergyGuide
label) ask respondents—without showing the ENERGY STAR label—whether they
have ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label. Responses to this question
should thus be comparable to those obtained through a telephone survey. The
Internet/WebTV questionnaires then show the ENERGY STAR label(s) (which is not
possible with a telephone survey) and ask again about recognition and
understanding. As a result, responses to these questions should be comparable to
those obtained through a mail survey where respondents are shown the label.
Another difference between a mail questionnaire and an Internet/WebTV
questionnaire is that the latter—like a telephone questionnaire using computer-
assisted telephone interviewing (CATI)—can program lines of questions based on
responses to earlier questions. For example, respondents to an Internet/WebTV
questionnaire who say they have bought a given product in the past year can then
be asked whether that specific product (or its packaging or instructions) had the
ENERGY STAR label.
Thus, the Internet/Web TV survey is able to combine some of the attributes of both
print and telephone surveys.
A-3
-------
1.3 Changes to the Questionnaire
The 2008 Internet/WebTV questionnaire was very similar to the 2007 questionnaire.
However the 2008 survey contains the addition of compact fluorescent light bulbs
(CFLs) purchaser questions, sources of information questions, and two additions to
list of products used throughout the survey.
1.3.1 New Questions for CFL Purchasers
Respondents who purchased CFLs were asked if they installed the bulbs purchased,
and what kind of bulb(s) were replaced. The respondents who purchased an
ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture were further asked to identify the type of
lighting fixtures purchased. The new CFL Purchaser questions include:
Q12D: Did you install the fluorescent light bulb(s) you purchased in your fixture?
Q12E: What kind of bulb(s) did you replace?
Q8A_1-4: Which ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture did you purchase?
1.3.2 New Questions About Sources of Information
The respondents were asked to identify sources they are most likely to rely on for
information on Heating and Cooling Products, Home Appliances, Lighting, and
Electronics. Households who identified Internet as a source of information were
asked to select the type of Internet source(s) they are most likely to rely on for
information. The new Sources of Information questions are:
Q13A_1-12: Please select the source(s) of information you are most likely to use to
obtain information about this product type [Heating and Cooling Products].
Q13A1_1-6: Please select the type of Internet source(s) you are most likely to
rely on to obtain information about this product type [Heating and Cooling
Products].
Q13B_1-12: Please select the source of information you are most likely to use to
obtain information about this product type [Home Appliances / Lighting / Home
Electronics].
Q13B1_1-6: Please select the type of Internet source(s) you are most likely to
rely on to obtain information about this product type [Home Appliances /
Lighting / Home Electronics].
A-4
-------
1.3.3 Questions About DVD Products and Dehumidifiers
In 2008, "DVD product" and "Dehumidifiers" were added to the product lists used in
the following questions.
Q5(b): Please select each of the products, product literature, or packaging on which
you have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
Q6A: Have you or someone else in your household been shopping in a store in the
last 12 months for any of the products listed below?
Q7A: On which products did you see the ENERGY STAR label?
Q8: How much did the ENERGY STAR label influence your purchase decision?
Q12(b): Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12 months?
QC: In general, how satisfied are you with each of the following products you
purchased?
1.4. Determination of Aided Recognition
In the 2008 analysis the determination of aided recognition was based on the
responses to five questions. This is the same sequence and numbering used in the
2007 survey. Specifically:
ES3A: Is this the label you have seen or heard of before? (Respondents were
randomly shown either the old or new ENERGY STAR label. This question was
asked to respondents who said they had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR
label.)
ES3B: Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label? (In this
question, asked after ES3A, respondents were shown the label not shown in the
previous question.)
ES3C: Please look at the ENERGY STAR label on the left. Have you ever seen or
heard of this label? (Respondents were randomly shown either the old or new
ENERGY STAR label. This question was asked to respondents who said they had
not seen or heard of or didn't know whether they had seen or heard of ENERGY
STAR.)
ES3D: Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label? (In this
question, asked after ES3C, respondents were shown the label not shown in the
previous question.)
A-5
-------
ESS: Now that you had the opportunity to see the ENERGY STAR label, do you
recall seeing or hearing anything about it before this survey? (This question was
asked to respondents who answered "no" or "don't know" to ES3A and ES3B. It was
also asked to all respondents who answered ES3C and ES3D.)
• Respondents who answered ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, ES3D, or ESS "yes" were
categorized as recognizing the ENERGY STAR label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ESS "no," were categorized as not recognizing the label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ESS "don't know" or refused to answer ESS were not included in the
analysis of aided recognition. (Their data were set to missing.)
2 SAMPLING
2.1 Designated Marketing Areas' Publicity Categories
The same publicity classification procedure used in the past 8 years was used in
2008. 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.
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
A-6
-------
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 survey was a national survey. The sampling frame for this national 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 2008,
this encompassed the 57 largest DMAs. In addition, GEE members may choose to
sponsor more intensive sampling (i.e., an oversample) in selected localities, referred
to here as sponsor areas. In 2008, the sponsor areas were:
• Denver DMA,
• Massachusetts,
• Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA,
• New York state (with the exception of Long Island),
• Tennessee Valley Authority's service territory, and
• Wisconsin.
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.
The sample was stratified by area and within an area by publicity category. Each
sponsor area is also further stratified by large versus non-large DMA as well as any
stratification requested by the GEE member funding the oversample.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. This total number of
sampling points is then allocated across sponsor area strata proportional to
population. Among the top 57 DMAs, for areas located outside the sponsor area,
each publicity category was allocated approximately 333 sampling points. In order to
No CEE member funding an oversample requested additional stratification.
A-7
-------
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.10 A list of the DMAs included in the sponsor area and their publicity
category assignments follows. Lastly, the large DMAs and the DMAs in the sponsor
areas are shown on a map along with their publicity categories.
Between September 2007 and 2008, 2 of the 57 largest DMAs changed publicity category: Atlanta and
Phoenix. Both changed from "Other" to "High".
A-8
-------
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
DMA
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
Dallas-Ft. Worth
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose
Boston (Manchester)
Atlanta
Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)
Houston
Detroit
Phoenix (Prescott)
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)
Seattle-Tacoma
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
Denver
Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn
Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto
St. Louis
Pittsburgh
Portland, OR
Baltimore
Charlotte
Indianapolis
San Diego
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)
Hartford & New Haven
Nashville
Kansas City
Columbus, OH
Cincinnati
Milwaukee
Salt Lake City
Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And
San Antonio
West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk
Birmingham (Ann, Tusc)
Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York
Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws
Las Vegas
Albuquerque-Santa Fe
Oklahoma City
Greensboro-H.Point-W. Salem
TV Households
2007-2008
Number
7,391,940
5,647,440
3,469,110
2,939,950
2,435,600
2,419,440
2,393,960
2,310,490
2,308,290
2,050,550
1,925,460
1,802,550
1,783,910
1,782,040
1,706,740
1,536,020
1,533,710
1,477,280
1,434,050
1,391,790
1,244,370
1,158,210
1,150,320
1,095,490
1,085,640
1,072,090
1,051,210
1,039,890
1,007,490
966,170
927,060
905,690
904,340
891,010
874,650
838,270
792,440
775,340
739,640
730,430
723,620
717,440
707,470
677,740
676,850
671,980
% of US
6.553
5.007
3.076
2.606
2.159
2.145
2.122
2.048
2.046
1.818
1.707
1.598
1.582
1.580
1.513
1.362
1.360
1.310
1.271
1.234
1.103
1.027
1.020
0.971
0.962
0.950
0.932
0.922
0.893
0.857
0.822
0.803
0.802
0.790
0.775
0.743
0.703
0.687
0.656
0.648
0.642
0.636
0.627
0.601
0.600
0.596
Publicity
Category
High
High
High
Other
Other
High
High
High
High
Other
Other
High
Low
High
High
Other
Other
Other
Other
High
Other
Other
High
Other
Low
Other
High
Low
High
Low
Other
Other
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Other
Low
Other
Low
High
Other
Low
Low
A-9
-------
Rank
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
DMA
Memphis
Louisville
Jacksonville
Buffalo
Austin
Providence-New Bedford
New Orleans
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
Fresno- Visalia
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
Little Rock-Pine Bluff
Total
TV Households
2007-2008
Number
667,890
657,180
655,470
636,700
635,860
626,800
600,150
592,310
568,730
553,790
552,400
79,912,450
% of US
0.592
0.583
0.581
0.564
0.564
0.556
0.532
0.525
0.504
0.491
0.490
70.846
Publicity
Category
Low
High
Low
High
High
High
Other
Low
High
High
Low
A-10
-------
Sponsor Areas
Sponsor Area
Publicity
Category
DMA (Large and Small)
Denver
Other
Large: all
*Denver DMA
(Rank 18)
Massachusetts
High
Large: parts of
*Boston DMA (Rank 7)
*Providence-New Bedford (Rank 52)
*Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA (Rank 56)
Small: all of Springfield-Holyoke DMA (Rank 109)
Minneapolis-St. Paul
DMA
High
Large: all
*Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA in MN (Rank 15)
*Minneapolis-St. Paul DMA in Wl (Rank 15)
New York (with the
exception of Long
Island)
High
Large: parts of
*New York DMA (Rank 1)
*Buffalo DMA (Rank 49)
*Albany-Schenectady-Troy DMA (Rank 56)
Small: all of
*Rochester (Rank 78)
*Syracuse (Rank 80)
*Binghamton (Rank 156)
*Utica (Rank 169)
*Watertown (Rank 177)
Small: parts of
*Burlington-Plattsburgh (Rank 92)
*Elmira (Rank 173)
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Low
Large: parts of
*Nashville(Rank30)
*Memphis (Rank 47)
Small: parts of
*Knoxville (Rank 58)
*Huntsville-Decatur (Flor) (Rank 83)
*Chattanooga (Rank 86)
Wisconsin (with the
exception of the
Minneapolis-St. Paul
DMA)
High
Large: all
*Milwaukee (Rank 34)
Small: all
*Madison (Rank 85)
*Wausau-Rhinelander (Rank 134)
Small: partial
*Green Bay - Appleton (Rank 70)
*Cedar Rapids-Wtrlo-IWC&Dub (Rank 87)
*Duluth-Superior (Rank 138)
*Marquette (Rank 179)
A-11
-------
Large (Top 57) DMAs and Sponsor Areas by Publicity Category
11
2008
H "High" publicity category
L "Low" publicity category
O "Other" publicity category
I I CEE sponsor area ranking in Top 57 DMAs
I I CEE sponsor area not ranking in Top 57 DMAs
2.3 Weighting Procedures
Knowledge Networks, the company that provided the Internet/WebTV survey
service, developed the weights used in the analysis. Knowledge Networks first
adjusted its panel members for known disproportions due to the panel's original
selection and recruitment design and then proceeded with a post-stratification
weighting that accounted for differences between the Internet/WebTV panel and the
U.S. population. The adjustment to this typical sampling weight approach was based
on geographic and demographic characteristics known for both the panel and the
population (refer to Appendix B). It effectively scales up under-represented
population dimensions in the panel and scales down dimensions that are over-
represented in the panel. This more closely aligned the panel with the basic
demographic characteristics of the U.S. population.
There were no large DMAs or sponsor areas in either Alaska or Hawaii.
A-12
-------
After the field data are collected, Knowledge Networks further adjusted the sampling
weight to account for survey non-response. The correction for survey non-response
is analogous to the adjustment for differences in the Internet/WebTV panel from the
U.S. population. It was based on geographic and demographic characteristics known
for both the sample of panel survey completes and the entire sampling frame for the
study. The weighting scaled up under-represented population dimensions and
scaled down over-represented dimensions in the sample of survey completes. This
more closely aligned the sample of survey completes with the basic demographic
characteristics of the entire sampling frame for the study.
A-13
-------
3 DATA COLLECTION
3.1 Survey Fielding Period
The survey began on September 17 and closed on September 30, 2008.
3.2 Response Rate
The overall response rate was 13 percent for the GEE 2008 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 2008 ENERGY STAR Household
Survey, the return rate was 60 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 21 percent. Thus, the response rate
for the GEE 2008 ENERGY STAR Household survey was the product of the survey-
specific return rate of 60 percent and the recruitment rate of 21 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.
Survey Response Rate
Sendout/requested
Completed
Return rate
Recruitment rate
Response rate
1,749
1,051
60%
21%
13%
4 NATIONAL ANALYSIS
4.1 DMAs Included
To facilitate comparisons across years, the national results were based only on data
collected from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data collected from
respondents not in the 57 largest DMAs, 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
A-14
-------
analysis in order to generate valid national results and comparison with 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 the U.S. population. However, as in any survey effort,
those who respond to surveys tend to be different from those who do not. In this
case, the panel used for this survey may contain subjects that are receptive to the
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 U.S. population. If weighting was
accomplished perfectly, the distribution of various demographic characteristics in the
weighted survey data would be the same as the distribution of those characteristics
in national Census data. For most demographic characteristics, the two distributions
are quite similar. This suggests the weighted survey results are a reasonable
representation of the study population. A summary of the comparisons of
demographic characteristics is provided in the table below. Detailed comparisons
are provided in tables presented at the end of this appendix.
Summary of Distribution Comparisons
Demographic Characteristic
Number of persons in
household
Householder/respondent age
Householder/respondent
gender
Dwelling type
Own/rent
Household annual income
Largest Difference (Absolute
Value):
Survey Estimate Less Census %
One
18-24
Gender
Single-family, attached
Own/rent
Less than $15,000
2.5%
6.3%
+/- 0.7%
3.3%
+/- 2.2%
-1 .4%
The largest difference (in absolute value) between the weighted survey data and
national Census data, at around six percentage points, is the proportion of
households 18-24 years of age. The difference in the proportion of households
dwelling type is the next largest, at about three percentage points. The combined
under-representation of 18-24 years of age households and over-representation of
households based on dwelling type, 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
household, household income, own/rent, and gender—are all quite small, at less
than about three percentage points.
B-1
-------
Household Size Distribution
Number of Persons
in Household
One
Two
Three
Four
Five or more
Total (%)
Total (1 ,000s)
Census
% Dwelling Units3
27%
33%
16%
14%
10%
100%
110,691
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Dwelling Units
2.5%
0.1%
-2.4%
0.5%
-0.7%
1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2007, 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%
20%
100%
110,693
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Householders
6.3%
0.6%
0.1%
-1 .3%
0.1%
-5.9%
3 U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2007, Table 2-9.
b Census, Under 25 years; WebTV/Internet, 18-24 years.
Gender Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Gender
Female
Male
Total (%)
Census
% Population3
51%
49%
100%
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Population
0.7%
-0.7%
a U.S. Census Bureau, The Population Profile of the United States: Dynamic
Version, Part I: Population Dynamics, Age and Sex Distribution in 2005.
B-2
-------
Dwelling Type Distribution
Dwelling Type
Single-family, unattached
Single-family, attached
Bldg. (>2 units)
Mobile home
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Dwelling
Units3
65%
5%
24%
6%
100%
110,693
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Dwelling
Units
0.4%
3.3%
-1 .7%
-2.1%
' U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2007, Table 2-1.
Own/Rent Distribution
Own/Rent
Own
Rent
Total (%)
Total
(1,000s)
Census
%
Households3
68%
32%
100%
110,692
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
1 .7%
-1 .7%
U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2007, 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-$74,999b
$75,000 and overb
Total (%)
Total (1,000s)
Census
% Households3
15%
10%
27%
21%
27%
100%
110,692
Survey Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
-1 .4%
0.2%
0.9%
-0.1%
0.4%
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2007, Table 2-12.
'Census, $50,000-$80,000 and $80,000 and over.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM 2008 SURVEY
This appendix presents the results of additional ENERGY STAR-related questions
that were added by GEE in 2005 and 2008; and were not discussed in the main
body of the report.
1 ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION
Thirty-eight percent of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided)
thought that the U.S. government decides if a product deserves the label. This is
four percentage points larger than the proportion noted in 2007. The difference is not
significant at the 10-percent level. Twenty-three percent of households thought the
Underwriters Laboratories makes this decision, while 21 percent thought product
manufacturers make the decision.
Designates ENERGYSTAR-Labeled Product
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=732)
US government
Underwriters Laboratories
Product manufacturer
Electric and gas utility
Other
Retailer/store
138%
123%
15%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: QB: "As far as you know, who decides if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label?"
C-1
-------
ENERGY STAR Designation by Publicity Category
Similar to the 2007 results, a significantly larger proportion of households in high-
than in low-publicity areas thought that electric and gas utilities make this decision,
18 percent compared with 7 percent. This difference is significant at the 1-percent
level (p-value = 0.006). This result is not surprising given the role electric and gas
utilities often play in promoting ENERGY STAR-labeled products in high-publicity
areas.
Twenty-two percent of households in high-publicity areas and 34 percent of
households in low-publicity areas thought that the Underwriters Laboratories decide
if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label. This difference is significant at the
5-percent level (p-value = 0.035). The same proportion of households, 34 percent, in
high- and low-publicity areas thought the U.S. government decides if a product
deserves the ENERGY STAR label.
Designates ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=732)
US government
"""Underwriters Laboratories
Product manufacturer
***Electric and gas utility
Other
Retailer/store
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).
** High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
ZT/7%
13%
1%
<1%
|1%
34%
34%
• 22%
1 34%
• 22%
—1 23%
18%
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
C-2
-------
2 ENERGY STAR PRODUCT SATISFACTION
For most products, household satisfaction with a given product in a product category
that has an ENERGY STAR specification does not appear to vary based on whether
or not the product had an ENERGY STAR label. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1
means "very dissatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied," products with and without the
ENERGY STAR label had an average satisfaction rating between 4.0 and 4.1.
ENERGY STAR-labeled furnaces/boilers and CFLs received higher satisfaction
ratings compared with the equivalent product without the label (p-value = 0.054 and
p-value = 0.011). The satisfaction rating of three office products were lower for
ENERGY STAR-labeled models compared with non-ENERGY STAR-labeled
models. These include copying machines (p-value = 0.001), fax machines (p-value
= 0.035), and scanners (p-value = 0.058).
There were no significant (p-value < 0.10) changes in product satisfaction between
2007 and 2008 for households that knowingly purchased a product with the
ENERGY STAR label. However, there were many significant decreases in product
satisfaction for products without the ENERGY STAR label. These include refrigerator
(p-value = 0.082), television (p-value = 0.024), microwave oven (p-value = 0.009),
door (p-value = 0.020) and CFL (p-value = 0.034).
C-3
-------
ENERGY STAR vs. Non-ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product Satisfaction
4.12.
(Bases = Recognize label (aided) and purchased specified product )
Average Satisfaction (1=very dissatisfied. 5=very satisfied)
Overall (ne=530, nO=490)
"Furnace/boiler (ne=33, nO=13)
Thermostat (ne=65, nO=18)
Television (ne=137, nO=133)
Computer or monitor (ne=162, nO=137)
Roofing materials (ne=44, nO=19)
Window (ne=69, nO=31)
Insulation (ne=53, nO=22)
Computer printer (ne=101, nO=95)
DVD(ne=90, nO=71)
Lighting fixture (ne=104, nO=68)
Audio product (ne=28, nO=30)
VCR (ne=28, nO=30)
Central A/C (ne=40, nO=16)
Washing machine (ne=86, nO=36)
"Compact fluorescent light bulb (ne=243, nO=147)
Refrigerator (ne=81, nO=32)
Door (ne=78, nO=34)
Dishwasher (ne=68, nO=23)
Microwave oven (ne=83, nO=46)
Skylight (ne=9, nO=4)
Dehumidifier (ne=30, nO=10)
Room air conditioner (ne=71, nO=33)
"Fax machine (ne=17, nO=35)
Newly built home (ne=12, nO=4)
•Scanner (ne=36, nO=37)
Heat pump (ne=19, nO=2)
•"Copying machine (ne=26, nO=29)
J4.0
ffffs. 14.7
J3.9
34.5
74.4
14.0
H4.7
34.3
H4.6
]4.5
14.2
14.5
14.5
H4.5
n4.2
, 4.2
H4.5
H4.7
i4.2
II 4.2
J3.4
*24.1
Has
H4.4
]4.0
J3.3
13.8
H3.8
33.9
.3.5
34.6
^.5
-j, 3.5
H4.4
]3.0
H4-6
0 1
D Non-ENERGY STAR-labeled product
234
U ENERGY STAR-labeled product
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each other at
the 1-percent level of significance (p-value<0.01).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each other at
the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each other at
the 10-percent level of significance (p-value<0.10).
ne = number of respondents that recognized the label (aided) and purchased this product with an ENERGY STAR label
nO = number of respondents that recognized the label (aided) and purchased this product without an ENERGY STAR label
C-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.13 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 2008 survey results indicate that households generally agree with positive
statements about the ENERGY STAR label and disagree with negative statements
about the label.14 Similar to the 2007 results, few statements elicit strong agreement
or strong disagreement among substantial proportions of households; in contrast, a
number of statements generated neutral responses from a sizeable proportion of
households. A more detailed discussion of the findings regarding the attitudinal
statements is provided below.
13 These statements are numbered Q16a through Q16p in the survey.
14 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))
Q Strongly disagree • Somewhat disagree D Somewhat agree 0 Strongly agree
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
ENVIRONMENTAL/ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY MESSAGING
Buying ENERGY STAR labeled products makes me feel like I'm helping to protect the 30% Neutral
environment for future generations (n=1 ,386)
Buying ENERGY STAR labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society 40% Neutral
(n=1,388)
I
PURCHASING PREFERENCE
If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking for with an ENERGY STAR label, I w ill shop 42% Neutral
elsew here rather than buy a product that does not qualify for the label (n= 1 ,386)
1 consider myself loyalto ENERGY STARIabeled products (n=1, 387) 47%Neutral
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
ENERGY STAR labeled products provide me w ith more benefits than products w ithout the 44% Neutral
ENERGY STARIabel(n=1,388)
ENERGY STAR labeled products offer better value than products w ithout the label 51 % Neutral
If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a more energy-efficient product 24% Neutral
(n= 1,388)
When 1 buy a product w ith the ENERGY STAR label, 1 can alw ays be sure it's high quality 5Qo/0 Neutrai
(n=1,388)
Buying ENERGY STARIabeled products makes me feel like I'm spending extra money for
nothing (n=1,386)
It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these days (n=1,386) 43% Neutral
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
For each attitudinal statement, respondents were asked whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree. The response of "neither agree nor
disagree" is described as "Neutral" in the chart above and the discussion that follows. In the chart, the
results for the "Neutral" response category are shown in text and not depicted in the bar graph. The results
for the other four response categories are depicted in the bar graph.
C-6
-------
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 2008 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. These two statements had the same
ranking in 2006 and 2007. Of households that recognize the ENERGY STAR label,
62 percent either strongly or somewhat agree with the statement that by buying
ENERGY STAR-labeled products they feel they are helping protect the environment.
Fifty-one percent of ENERGY STAR aware households strongly or somewhat agree
that by purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products they feel they are contributing
to society. The proportion of households agreeing with the statement regarding
contribution to society is smaller that the 2007 result of 56 percent (p-value = 0.086).
3.2 Purchasing Preferences
Increasing consumers' preferences for purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products
is also an intended outcome of the national education campaign. In the 2008 survey,
two separate statements were included to investigate households' views of their
purchasing preferences with respect to ENERGY STAR-labeled products.
Household agreement and disagreement with the first statement in 2008 was similar
to the 2007 results. Twenty-seven percent of households either strongly or
somewhat agree with the statement, "If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking
for with an ENERGY STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather than buy a product
that does not qualify for the label." More households (31 percent) either strongly or
somewhat disagree. However, the largest proportion of households—42 percent—
are neutral in their level of agreement or disagreement with this statement of their
purchasing behavior.
Similar to 2007, thirty-one percent of households agree with the second statement
addressing households' views of their purchasing preferences: "I consider myself
loyal to ENERGY STAR products." Disagreement with this statement increased from
17 percent in 2007 to 22 percent in 2008. The difference is significant at the 5-
percent level (p-value = 0.046).
c-7
-------
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 energy efficient than
non-qualifying models. The degree to which this goal is being accomplished is
addressed in the 2008 survey by asking respondents their level of agreement or
disagreement with the statement "If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm
getting a much more energy-efficient product." Seventy-one 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 survey addressed perceptions of product quality. Survey respondents were
asked the level at which they agreed or disagreed with the statement "When I buy a
product with the ENERGY STAR label, I can always be sure it's high quality." The
results show that 37 percent of households either strongly or somewhat agree with
this statement—almost three times as many as those who strongly or somewhat
disagree—50 percent are neutral. Household agreement and disagreement with this
statement is similar to last year's results.
A number of attitudinal statements were included in the survey to measure
consumers' perceptions of ENERGY STAR-labeled product value. 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 almost half
of households (47 percent and 41 percent, respectively) either strongly or somewhat
agree with these statements. Only eight percent of households disagreed with these
statements. The remaining of households were neutral (44 percent and 51 percent,
respectively). The proportions are similar to the 2007 results.
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, over half (53 percent) of all
households who recognize the ENERGY STAR label strongly or somewhat disagree
with the statement, while 37 percent of households are neutral. Only 10 percent
agree with this statement. The proportions of households that agree and disagree
with this statement in 2008 are similar to the 2007 results.
3.4 Consumer Perceptions by Publicity Category
The 2008 results also suggest that local and regional efforts to publicize ENERGY
STAR have been successful in affecting consumer perception of the label. There
are statistically significant differences between high- and low-publicity areas for three
of the ten attitudinal statements.
c-8
-------
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 statement that buying ENERGY STAR-
labeled products makes them feel like they are contributing to society (p-value =
0.044). With regards to purchasing preference, a larger proportion in high- than low-
publicity areas agree with the statements that they consider themselves loyal to
ENERGY STAR-labeled products (p-value = 0.067). Lastly, the success of local and
regional efforts to promote ENERGY STAR is evident with respect to the product
quality statement. A larger proportion of low- than high-publicity area consumers
disagree that ENERGY-STAR-labeled products are higher quality than products
without the label (p-value = 0.032).
The level of consumers' agreement, disagreement, and neutrality is similar in high-
and low-publicity areas for the following statements:
• "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm helping to
protect the environment for future generations."
• "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."
• ENERGY STAR products provide me with more benefits than products
without the ENERGY STAR label."
• "ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value than products without the
label."
• "If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a much more energy-
efficient product."
• "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm spending
extra money for nothing."
• "It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these days."
c-9
-------
4 PURCHASING DECISIONS
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to characterize their role in the
household purchasing decisions. The results indicate that the vast majority of those
represented are primary decision makers, meaning they usually make household
purchasing decisions alone or share equally in these decisions. As can be seen
below, this varies little across product categories. Seventy-nine of individuals were
primary decision makers for their household's home electronics purchases, whereas
this was true for 65 percent for purchases of building materials.
Role in Household Purchasing Decisions
(Base = All respondents)
Building Materials
(n= 1,802)
Home Electronics
(n= 1,846)
Home Appliances /
Lighting(n=1,849)
Home Office
Equipment
(n=1820)
Heating & Cooling
Products (n=1,835)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
• Usually make decisions or share decisions equally
D Give input to decisions
n Have no input in decisions
C-10
-------
5 CFL PURCHASER QUESTIONS
Similar to previous years all respondents are asked what products they have
purchased in the last 12 months.15 Twenty-one percent and 10 percent of
households purchased compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and fixtures,
respectively. The 2008 survey included new follow-up questions for purchaser of
CFLs and fixtures.
An overwhelming majority (96 percent) of CFL purchasers indicated they installed
the purchased CFL. This result did not vary by publicity category. Respondents that
installed CFLs were then asked if the purchased CFL was used to replace a CFL or
an incandescent light bulb. Overall, three-quarter of households replaced an
incandescent light bulb with the purchased CFL. Compared to high-publicity areas, a
larger proportion of households in low-publicity areas replaced incandescent bulbs.
This difference is significant at the 5-percent level (p-value = 0.019).
Type of Light Bulb Replaced with a CFL
(Base = Installers of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs, n=416)
"Incandescent
"CFL
167%
85%
33%
• High publicity
D Low publicity
15%
o%
20%
40%
60%
100%
High- and low-publicity areas proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
Q12(a-c). Please look at each of the groups of products again. Which of these products have you purchased
in the last 12 months? Please select all that apply.
C-11
-------
Consistent with previous years, purchasers that recognize the ENERGY STAR label
are asked if they saw the label on the product(s) they purchased.16 Respondents
that reported purchasing an ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture were asked what
kind of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture they purchased. Seventy percent of
ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture purchasers report purchasing a compact
fluorescent-based lighting fixture. These results do not vary by publicity category.
Type of ENERGY STAR-Labeled Lighting Fixture Purchased
(Base = Purchasers of ENERGY STAR Lighting Fixture, n=61)
Compact fluorescent-
based lighting bulb
h
169%
Other type of lighting
fixture
26%
LED-Based lighting
fixture
0% 20% 40%
60% 80% 100%
Q7. For any products you purchased, did you see the ENERGY STAR label?
If yes, to Q7 then respondents are asked: Q7a. On which products did you see the ENERGY STAR label? (only
shown the products they purchased in the last 12 months (Q12)).
C-12
-------
6 NEW SOURCES OF INFORMATION QUESTIONS
Respondents that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were asked where
they saw or heard something about the label.17 The results from these responses are
presented in the Information Sources section on Page 22. In 2008, a new series of
questions asked all respondents what information sources they were most likely to
use to obtain product information about Heating and Cooling Products and Home
Appliance / Lighting / Home Electronics.
Heating and Cooling Products
The top four sources where households are most likely to obtain information on
heating and cooling products are from 1.) a friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker;
2.) product oriented magazines; 3.) the Internet; and 4.) retailers. This finding on top
sources is consistent across publicity categories. A larger proportion of households
in the low-publicity category (21 percent) than high-publicity category (15 percent)
would seek information from the television (p-value = 0.074).
Heating and Cooling Product Information Sources by Publicity Category
(Base = All Respondents, n=1,881)
Advise from a friend, neighbor, relative, or co-
worker
Consumer Reports and other product-oriented
magazines
Internet
Advise from retailers or salespersons
Advise from contractors
Electric and gas utility
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value < 0.10).
17 SOL "Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY STAR? Mark all that apply."
C-13
-------
Respondents that identified the Internet as the source of information they would
most likely refer to were then asked to select the type of Internet source(s) they were
most likely to rely on to obtain information about heating and cooling products. Two-
thirds of these households would visit consumer organization and product
manufacturer websites for heating and cooling information; and nearly half of these
households would turn to retailer websites.
A larger proportion of households in the high- than low-publicity category are most
likely to obtain information from the local utility websites (p-value = 0.033). Thirty
percent of households in the high-publicity category compared with 23 percent of
households in the low-publicity category would visit state or federal government
websites. This difference is not significant at the 10-percent level (p-value = 0.173).
Heating and Cooling Product Internet Information Sources by Publicity Category
(Base = All Respondents, n=796)
Consumer
organization websites
(e.g., Consumer
Reports)
Product manufacturer
websites
Retailer websites
"Local utility
websites
State or Federal
Government websites
Other
163%
71%
67%
46%
43%
I 32%
21%
30%
• High Publicity
n Low Publicity
23%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
High- and low-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value < 0.05).
C-14
-------
Home Appliance/Lighting/Home Electronics
The top four product information sources for home appliance/lighting/home
electronics were the same for heating and cooling products. The high- versus low-
publicity category comparisons did not yield any statistically significant differences at
the 10-percent level.
Home Appliance/Lighting/Home Electronics Product Information Sources
by Publicity Category
(Base = All Respondents, n=1,881)
Advise from a friend, neighbor, relative, or
co-worker
Consumer Reports and other product-
oriented magazines
|40%
140%
Advise from retailers or salespersons
• High Publicity
D Low Publicity
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
C-15
-------
The top tier of Internet sources for home appliance/lighting/home electronics were
the same for heating and cooling products. The high- versus low-publicity category
comparison for local utility Web sites narrowly missed the threshold for a statistically
significant difference at the 10-percent level (p-value = 0.102).
Home Appliance/Lighting/Home Electronics Product Internet Information Sources
by Publicity Category
(Base = All Respondents, n=789)
Consumer
organization websites
(e.g., Consumer
Reports)
Product manufacturer
websites
Retailer websites
Local utility websites
State or Federal
Government websites
Other
63%
65%
60%
61%
• 56%
60%
23%
15%
• 20% • High Publicity
19%
• 4%
Ts%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
C-16
-------
APPENDIX D: 2008 SURVEY QUESTIONS AND FLOW CHART
2008 ENERGY STAR SURVEY
Final Version, September 10, 2008
EG1. Have you ever seen
or heard of yellow stickers
called EnergyGuide
labels?
Yes
No or
Don't Know
EG2.
What information does the Energy
Guide label provide?
ES1. Have you ever
seen or heard of the
ENERGY STAR label?
Yes
No or
Don't Know
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 (old 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
/ Yes, \
No, or
XDon't Know/
D-1
-------
ES3B.
Have you seen or heard of
this version of the
ENERGY STAR label?
[SHOW LABEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEN]
ES3D.
Have you seen or heard of this
version of the ENERGY STAR
label? [SHOW LABEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEN]
Yes
No
Don't Know
Yes to EITHER or
BOTH ES3A & ES3B
^/No/Don't Know^x
/(or combo of the two)
\ to both ES3A and
\ ES3B /
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
ES4al
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?
Yes
No or
Don't Know
Skip to Q6a
D-2
-------
S02.
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
Dehumidifier
None of these products
Home Electronics
Television
DVD product (including
TV/DVD)
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
Dehumidifier
Home Electronics
Television
DVD product (including TV/DVD)
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 last 12
months? Please check all that apply.
Heating and Cooling Products
Central air conditioner
Furnace or boiler
Heat pump
Thermostat
Room air conditioner
None of these products
Home Office Equipment
Computer or monitor
Computer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
Q12(b). Please continue reviewing the lists of products below.
Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12
months? Please check all that apply.
Home Appliances/Lighting
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Microwave oven
Dehumidifier
None of these products
Home Electronics
Television
DVD product (including
TV/DVD)
VCR
Audio product
Q12(c). Finally, please review the last of the product lists below.
Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12
months? Please check all that apply.
Building Materials
Window
Door
Skylight
Insulation
Roofing material
None of these products
Buildings
Newly built home
Did you install the compact fluorescent light bulb(s) you
purchased in a light fixture?
Yes
No
Don't know
No/
Don't Know
Yes
If Yes checked to this question, ask:
What kind of bulb(s) did you replace? (Check the
answer that best describes most of the replacements
you made.)
• Compact fluorescent light bulb
• Incandescent light bulb
• Don't know
D-4
-------
ES3A=1 or ES3B=1 or
ES3C=1 orES3D=1 or
\ ES6=1 /
ES3A not=1 and
ES3B not=1 and
ES3C not=1 and
ES3D not=1 and
\ ES6 not=1 /
Any products
purchased
No products
purchased
Goto Q13a series (pg 7)
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)?
No or
Don't Know
Yes
Skip to New QC, and then
go to Q11.
Q7a_1 thru Q7a_3: On which products
did you see the ENERGY STAR label?
(show only the products they checked
off in Q12, in grid pattern, with the
following options to check for each:
"Saw label" "Did not see label" "Don't
know")
New QC. In general, how satisfied are you with each of the following products you
purchased?
(Show each product they purchased—both ES and riot-in grid format in random order.)
Response scale: Very Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Don't Know
D-5
-------
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
If "Lighting fixture" checked in Q7a_1-Q7a_3 series (i.e.,
they reported purchasing an ENERGY STAR-labeled
lighting fixture), ask:
Which kind of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture did
you purchase? (Check all that apply).
• Compact fluorescent-based lighting fixture
• LED-based lighting fixture
• Other type of lighting fixture
• Don't know
Q9. Did you receive rebates or
reduced-rate financing for any
ENERGY STAR-labeled product(s) you
purchased?
No or
Don't Know
Yes
SkiptoQ.11
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
D-6
-------
Q13a. Now, please think only about Heating and Cooling
Products. Please select the source(s) of information you are
most likely to use to obtain information about this product type.
Please mark all that apply.
Heating and Cooling Products
Consumer Reports and other product-oriented magazines
Other magazines
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Electric or gas utility
Advice from retailers or salespersons
Advice from contractors
Advice from a friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Internet
Other
Don't know
Note: This question series
(Q13a through Q13b1)
was last fielded in 2004.
YES
Internet
Checked?
NO
Q13a1. Please select the type of Internet source(s) you are
most likely to rely on to obtain information about this product
type. Please mark all that apply.
Local utility websites
State or Federal government websites
Product manufacturer websites
Retailer websites
Consumer organization websites (e.g., Consumer Reports)
Other
Q13b. Now, please think only about Home Appliances / Lighting /
Home Electronics. Please select the source(s) of information you
are most likely to use to obtain information about this product
type. Please mark all that apply.
Home Appliances / Lighting / Home Electronics
Consumer Reports and other product-oriented magazines
Other magazines
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Electric or gas utility
Advice from retailers or salespersons
Advice from contractors
Advice from a friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Internet
Other
Don't know
YES
Internet
Checked?
NO
Q13a1. Please select the type of Internet source(s) you are
most likely to rely on to obtain information about this product
type. Please mark all that apply.
Local utility websites
State or Federal government websites
Product manufacturer websites
Retailer websites
Consumer organization websites (e.g., Consumer Reports)
Other
Go to IF statements on
pageS
D-7
-------
/ IF \
ES3A=1 or ES3B=1 or
ES3C=1 orES3D=1 or
\ ES6=1 x
Note: These two
diamonds are
the same as on
page 5.
/ IF \
ES3A not=1 and
ES3B not=1 and
ES3C not=1 and
ES3D not=1 and
\ ES6 not=1 x
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.)
Somewhat
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
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 better value 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
Q16a. 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?
I usually make
the decisions
I share the
decision-making
equally
Someone else
usually makes
the decisions, but
I have some input
I have no
input in
decision-
making
I'm not sure
Heating and Cooling Products
Home Office Equipment
Home Appliances/Lighting
Home Electronics
Building Materials
/ Go to demographic
I questions and closing
D-8
------- |