ENERGY STAR
NATIONAL AWARENESS
OF ENERGY STAR® FOR 2013
ANALYSIS OF CEE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
£% United States
Environmental Protection
Lb:I wm Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
Executive Summary ES-1
Introduction 1
Methodology Overview 2
Key Findings 4
Recognition 4
Understanding 11
Influence 16
Information Sources 23
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology A-1
1 Questionnaire Design A-2
2 Sampling A-7
3 Data Collection A-13
4 National Analysis A-14
Appendix B: Demographics B-1
Appendix C: Additional Questions From 2013 Survey C-1
1 ENERGY STAR Designation C-1
2 ENERGY STAR Designation by Publicity Category C-2
3 ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction C-3
4 Consumer Perceptions C-5
5 Purchasing Decisions C-12
6 CFL Purchaser Questions C-13
7 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Questions C-15
Appendix D: 2013 Survey Questions and Flow Chart D-1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to thank the
Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) and its members for making its survey data
available for this analysis. The following CEE member organizations sponsored the
2013 survey:
• Cape Light Compact
• Commonwealth Edison Company
• Connecticut Light & Power
• Long Island Power Authority
• National Grid
• New Jersey Natural Gas
• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
• NSTAR
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company
• Southern California Edison
• The United Illuminating Company
• Unitil
• Western Massachusetts Electric
• Xcel Energy
In addition, EPA would like to acknowledge Hilary Forster, Nick Dahlberg, and
Patrick Wallace for their oversight of CEE data collection efforts; and Miriam
Goldberg, Ryan Barry, Jon Taffel, Jessi Baldic, and Carolyn Ramsden of DNV GL;
and Sarah Duffy, Dan Lawlor, and Anthony Albano 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 2013: Analysis of 2013 CEE
Household Survey. U.S. EPA, 2014.
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2013, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) sponsored
the fourteenth 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. CEE members may choose
to supplement the national sample by adding additional data points in order to assess
label awareness in their local service territories.
This report discusses the results of the CEE 2013 ENERGY STAR Household Survey,
building on prior years' survey results and focusing on the extent to which consumers
recognize the ENERGY STAR label, understand its intended messages, and utilize (or
are influenced by) the label in their energy-related purchase decisions. Research
questions of interest included:
• Where do consumers see or hear about the ENERGY STAR label?
• How does increased publicity affect recognition, understanding, and influence of the
ENERGY STAR label?
• Which key messages about the ENERGY STAR label are consumers retaining?
• Do consumers demonstrate loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label?
Key Findings at the National Level
• Eighty-seven percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label. This is the same as the 2012 finding.
• Eighty 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 70 percent).
• The proportion of households with at least a general understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label is similar from 2012 to 2013, 82 percent and 80 percent, respectively (p-
value = 0.4182).
• Sixty-five 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, 75 percent
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
ES-1
-------
• Among all households, 43 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product in the past 12 months.
• For 70 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 14
percent of these households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly."
• Eighteen percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product received a financial incentive for doing so in 2013; this is the same
as 2012. Eighty-six percent of these households report they would have been "very
likely" (39 percent) or "somewhat likely" (47 percent) to purchase the labeled product
without the financial incentive.
• Seventy-one percent of households that recognized the label and purchased a
product in a category where ENERGY STAR-labeled products are an option were
likely to recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend; 27 percent of
these households reported that they were "extremely likely" to recommend ENERGY
STAR-labeled products.
Key Findings from Publicity-Level Analyses
High-publicity areas are defined as having a locally sponsored energy-efficiency
program [sponsored by a utility, state agency, or other organization] that has actively
and continuously promoted ENERGY STAR for two or more years.
• When the ENERGY STAR label was shown to them, 88 percent of households in
high-publicity areas recognized the label versus 86 percent in non-high-publicity
areas; this difference is not statistically significant (p-value = 0.376). Without a visual
aid, a similar proportion of households in high- and non-high-publicity areas
recognized it, 74 percent in high publicity and 72 percent in non-high-publicity areas
(p-value > 0.10).
• Sixty-six percent of the households in high-publicity areas associated the ENERGY
STAR label with "efficiency or energy savings," compared with 64 percent of
households in non-high-publicity areas; this difference is similar.
• Considering only households that recognized the label (with a visual aid), a smaller
proportion of households in high-publicity areas than in non-high-publicity areas
heard or saw something about ENERGY STAR from homebuilders or contractors;
these differences are statistically significant at the 5-percent level (p-value < 0.05).
ES-2
-------
Conclusions
This fourteenth 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 with at least a general understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label is similar from 2012 to 2013, 82 percent and 80 percent, respectively (p-
value = 0.4182).
• 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 (70 percent).
ES-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2013, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE)
sponsored the fourteenth 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.
This report discusses the results of the CEE 2013 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; it
provides key findings regarding ENERGY STAR label recognition, understanding,
influence, and information sources. It also contains appendices presenting detailed
survey methodology (Appendix A), demographic information (Appendix B), additional
questions from the 2013 survey (Appendix C), and a copy of the 2013 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).
1
-------
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
During September and October of 2013, CEE fielded a questionnaire to obtain
information at the national level on consumer awareness of the ENERGY STAR
label (please refer to Appendix A for a more detailed outline of the survey
methodology). A random sample of households that are members of an Internet
panel was surveyed. Both the Internet panel as a whole and the sample of
households completing the survey were selected by address-based sampling and
recruited by telephone.1 The panel is designed to be representative of the U.S.
population.
This year's questionnaire was similar to the ones CEE fielded in 2000 - 2012. As in
previous years, CEE and its sponsoring members made the survey data available to
EPA for analysis.
The sampling frame for this national survey included all households in the largest 57
Nielsen Designated Market Areas® (DMAs) that together accounted for about 70
percent of U.S. television households. In addition, some CEE members periodically
chose to sponsor more intensive sampling (i.e., an oversample) in selected
localities, referred to here as sponsor areas. In 2013, no CEE members chose to
sponsor an oversample.
As in previous years' studies, the Top-57 DMAs in the sampling frame were
classified by publicity category. The original intent of the classification was to be able
to assess the effect of local energy efficiency program publicity on awareness. The
majority of these local efficiency programs historically have been supported by utility
rate-payer funding.
A decision was made to retain the same publicity classification procedure used in
the past 12 years and to retain the prior year's publicity classification of the 57
largest DMAs—in essence preserving the historical classification for future study
years, which was based on the following criteria:
• High publicity: Active local ENERGY STAR promotion recently sponsored by a
utility, state agency, or other organization for two or more continuous years. The
activities must include sustained promotions and publicity from non-federal
sources.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional
program sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
1 In previous years, the panel was recruited via random-digit dial. GfK, formerly Knowledge Networks, the firm
that conducts the survey each year, believes that address-based sampling (ABS) offers advantages, including
coverage of cell-phone-only households, and analysis of non-response bias. More information is available at The
Knowledge Networks Information webpaqe.
2
-------
The key working definitions are below:
• Recent: The 2 years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• Sustained: The 2 years of activity must be continuous.
• Significant: In addition to any direct federal publicity efforts, a DMA's publicity
efforts must include a deliberate and multifaceted regional program sponsor
investment in ENERGY STAR programming, such as direct marketing efforts or
the creation and distribution of promotional material.
Although the sample design was based on the 2013 publicity classifications, low
publicity and other publicity are combined in the analysis and referenced as non-
high-publicity areas. One reason to combine these categories in the analysis is that
over time, the population of low-publicity DMAs has dropped to about 15 percent,
while high-publicity DMAs now account for about half of U.S. television households.
The sample was stratified by area and within an area by publicity category. While the
dataset has always been appropriately weighted in the national analysis, beginning
in 2010, the number of respondents in each stratum was chosen in proportion to that
stratum's share of the U.S. population living in DMAs. As in the past for the national
sample, the three publicity categories (the top 57 DMAs) comprise 1,000
respondents.
This report presents the 2013 survey results at the national level and by publicity
category. Results are presented on consumer recognition and understanding, and
purchasing influence of the ENERGY STAR label, as well as on messaging, product
purchases, and information sources that consumers use in their purchasing
decisions.
In this report, the following terminology is used in comparing results across years or
sub-categories. (1) The term "significant" implies statistical significance. In other
words, differences between proportions that are described as "significant" are at
least statistically different at the 10-percent level of significance. In some cases, the
p-values are given to provide the exact level of statistical significance. (2) Unless
stated otherwise, terms such as "smaller," "larger," "increase," or "decrease" refer to
changes that are statistically significant at the 10-percent level or better. (3) The
term "similar" implies that there is no statistical difference between the results being
compared at the 10-percent level of significance. In other words, the difference
between the results is within the bounds that would be expected from chance
variation in a random sample.
3
-------
KEY FINDINGS
RECOGNITION
In 2013, 87 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label (i.e., aided recognition). Seventy-three percent of households
recalled having seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label without first being shown
the label (i.e., unaided recognition).
For purposes of this analysis, respondents were said to recognize the ENERGY
STAR label if they had seen or heard of the label before the survey. Recognition of
the label was explored in two ways. Unaided recognition was measured by asking if
the respondent had seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label without showing the
label. Delivery of the survey by Internet made it possible to measure aided
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 2013 and 2012 surveys are summarized in the
following table. Aided and unaided recognition of the ENERGY STAR label results
were similar in 2012 and 2013.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize
ENERGY STAR
Label
2013
2012
Aided
(n=959)
Unaided
(n=868)
Aided
(n=1,523)
Unaided
(n=1,407)
Yes
Standard error
87%
1.3%
73%
1.9%
87%
1.3%
74%
1.8%
Note: The unaided recognition results for both years were based on the question
ES1: "Have you ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label?" The aided
recognition results were based on five questions. (1) ES3A and (2) ES3B were
asked if ES1 = "yes." ES3A: "Is this the label you have seen or heard of
before?"—whether the old or new label was shown was randomly determined.
ES3B: "Have you seen or heard of this version of the ENERGY STAR label?" —
where the label shown was the one not shown previously. (3) ES3C and (4)
ES3D were asked if ES1 = "no." ES3C: "Please look at the ENERGY STAR label
on the left. Have you ever seen or heard of this label?"—whether the old or new
label was shown was randomly determined. ES3D: "Have you seen or heard of
this version of the ENERGY STAR label?"—where the label shown was the one
not shown previously. (5) ES6 was asked if either ES1 = "no" or both ES3A and
ES3B = "no." ES6: "Now that you have had the opportunity to see the ENERGY
STAR label, do you recall seeing or hearing anything about it before this
survey?"—where both the old and new labels were shown.
4
-------
Recognition by Publicity Category
After being shown the ENERGY STAR label (aided), 88 percent of households in
high-publicity areas, and 86 percent in non-high-publicity areas recognized the label;
this difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.376). Unaided recognition
was 74 percent in high-publicity areas and 72 percent in non-high-publicity areas;
this difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.610).
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100% T
¦ High Publicity
~ Non-High Publicity
Aided (n=959) Unaided (n=86S)
High- and non-high publicity area proportions are statistically similar to each other.
5
-------
Product Associations
Households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) indicate strong
association between the label and products historically supported by regional energy
efficiency programs (refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, compact
fluorescent light bulbs, etc.).
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.
Appliances, refrigerators, and washing machines showed the strongest unprompted
associations with the label at 46, 36, and 29 percent, respectively. Though the
product category is not yet eligible for ENERGY STAR certification, clothes dryers
showed the fourth strongest association with the label at 26 percent. The next most
strongly associated products (unprompted) were air conditioners, dishwashers, and
stoves/ovens, at 14, 14, and 13 percent, respectively. For all product associations,
none are significantly different from the 2012 results. The list of products mentioned
by households without prompting also includes two products, in addition to clothes
dryers, that do not have an ENERGY STAR specification: microwave ovens and
stoves/ovens.
When prompted, 85 percent of households had seen the label on refrigerators.
Washing machines (75 percent) and dishwashers (70 percent) were the next
products most commonly associated with the ENERGY STAR label. Windows,
microwave ovens, televisions, central A/C, room air conditioners, and gas water
heaters followed next in a range of 46 to 48 percent. While 48 percent of households
associated microwave ovens with the ENERGY STAR label, as mentioned above,
they are not a product category eligible for ENERGY STAR labeling.
6
-------
Unprompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 706]
Freezer CJ 4%
Appliance IIM I 46%
4
Refrigerator I I 36%
J
Washing machine i 1 29%
Clothes dryer i I 26%
Air conditioner
Dishwasher
Stove/oven
Television
Water heater
No product
Electronics
Other
Microwave oven
Computer or monitor
Lighting
Freezer
Furnace ~ 4%
Window ~ 4%
Healer Q 3%
Computer printer || 1%
T
Stereofradio | 1%
Insulation | 0%
Dehumidifier j 0%
VCR/DVD j 0%
J
Boiler | 0%
Fan j 0%
-
Vacuum cleaner 0%
Thermostat 0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 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."
For all product associations, 2013 and 2012 proportions are statistically similarto each other.
7
-------
Prompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided)2]
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Oishwastie:
Window
Microwave oven
Television
""Central AVC
"'Room air conditioner
™Ga& water heale*
**'Computer or monitor
¦"Fumaee.'boiier
Compact fluorescent tight bulb
Doc*
Newty built home
Insulation
AINn-one printer
Lighting fixture
"Heat Pump
DVD
"'Computer printer
"Thermostat
Dehumidifier
""Copying machine
Audio product
Skylight
'"Scanner
Roofing material
"'Fax machine
85%
=1 75%
70%
H 48%
~ 48%
1 47%
I 47%
46%
~ 46%
1 37%
35%
27%
23%
22%
H) 20%
20%
18%
=~ 19%
ZD 17%
=3 17%
~ 15%
~ 15%
~ 14%
~ 11%
~ 11%
~ 10%
3 10%
~ 8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Note: Q5 (a, b, and c): "Now we're going to ask you about several groups of products. As you review the list, please
select each of the products, product literature, or packaging on which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label."
*** 2013 and 2012 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-
value <0.01). The proportion of households in 2013 is larger than 2012 for central A/C, room air conditioner, gas
water heater, computer or monitor, furnace/boiler, heat pump, computer printer, thermostat, copying machine,
scanner, and fax machine.
2 Respondents were asked about three sets of product groupings: (1) (a) Heating and Cooling Products and
Home Office Equipment, (2) (b) Home Appliances/Lighting and Home Electronics, and (3) (c) Building Materials
and Buildings. The sample sizes, n, for these sets of product groupings are 726, 726, and 702 respectively.
8
-------
Product Associations by Publicity Category
Regional energy efficiency program sponsors have traditionally focused on
promoting ENERGY STAR certified lighting, refrigerators, room air conditioners,
washing machines, dishwashers, programmable thermostats3, and new homes.
More recently, program sponsors have begun to promote ENERGY STAR certified
water heaters and TVs in some parts of the country. Key findings from this year's
analysis of product association by publicity category include the following.
• A significantly larger proportion of households in high-publicity areas than non-
high-publicity areas associated all-in-one printers (22 percent and 16 percent,
respectively), copying machines (17 percent and 11 percent, respectively), and
fax machines (10 percent and 5 percent, respectively) with the ENERGY STAR
label when prompted.
• A significantly smaller proportion of households in high-publicity areas than non-
high-publicity areas associated central A/C (42 percent and 52 percent,
respectively) and doors (20 percent and 27 percent, respectively) with the
ENERGY STAR label when prompted.
3 EPA suspended the use of the ENERGY STAR label for programmable thermostats December 31, 2009.
While EPA recognizes the potential for programmable thermostats to save significant amounts of energy, there
continue to be questions regarding the net savings and environmental benefits achieved due to variations in
consumer understanding and usage of programmable thermostats. EPA is working to develop a related
Residential Climate Control specification. For more information visit: www.energystar.gov/productdevelopment.
9
-------
Prompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
4-i 5
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dishwasher
Microwave oven
Room a* conditioner
Window
Gas water heater
Television
"Central A/C
Computer or monitor
Furnace/boiler
Compact fluorescent light bub
•AJI-in-one printer
Newly built home
•Door
DVD
Insulation
Lighting fixture
Computer printer
'Copying machine
Dehumidifier
Heat pump
Thermostat
Audio product
Scanner
Skylight
"Fax machine
Roofing material
[Base = Recognize label (aided) ]
I #7*
I #2*.
I MS
I 76%
73*
150%
72%
r«s%
m «8%
44%
¦ 47%
=] 49%
146%
J 46%
I 45%
=~ 49%
I4ZV
3 52%
36%
—S »%
¦ 34%
36%
22%
26%
26%
27%
¦ High Publicity
~ Non-High Publicity
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
** High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value < 0.05).
* High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of
significance (p-value < 0.10).
4
As discussed in footnote 3, respondents were asked about three sets of product groupings. In Heating and
Cooling Products and Home Office Equipment, the sample sizes for high- and non-high- publicity areas are 386
and 340, respectively. For Home Appliances/Lighting and Home Electronics they are 384 and 342, and for
Building Materials and Buildings they are 375 and 327.
5 The percent labels on the bars are rounded to the nearest whole number. Therefore bars with the same labe!
may not be the same length.
10
-------
UNDERSTANDING
In 2013, 80 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 (70 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 2013 and 2012 survey results on the level of understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label are provided in the following table. The proportion of respondents with a
high understanding of the label is similar from 2012 to 2013, 70 percent for both
years (p-value = 0.8360). The proportion of respondents with at least a general
understanding of the label from 2012 to 2013 is also similar, 82 percent and 80
percent, respectively (p-value = 0.4182).
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Level of Understanding
of the Label
2013
(n=1,000)
2012
(n=1,579)
High understanding
70%
70%
General understanding
10%
12%
No understanding
20%
18%
Total
100%
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.
11
-------
Understanding by Publicity Category
Eighty-two percent of households in high-publicity areas had at least a general
understanding of the label compared with 78 percent of households in non-high-
publicity areas. Additionally, a large percent of households exhibited a high degree
of understanding in both high- (71 percent) and non-high-publicity areas (69
percent). Neither of these differences is significant at the 10 percent level.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
Publicity Category
At Least General
Understanding of Label
High
Non-high
82%
78%
Difference (High minus Non-high)
4%
p-value
0.247
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100%
~ High Understanding
~ General Understanding
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
71%
69%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
High Publicity
Non-High Publicity
12
-------
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-five percent of households
surveyed associated the ENERGY STAR label with this message. The second most
common response was "environmental benefit" offered by 11 percent of households,
which is also considered high understanding of the label; this is similar to the 2012
result (9 percent).
Between 2012 and 2013 there was a decrease in the proportion of respondents who
associated the ENERGY STAR label with "energy/environmental product standards"
(10 percent to 9 percent), "save money on operation" (6 percent to 5 percent) and
"energy conservation" (4 percent to 3 percent); "savings (not linked to operation)"
was 7 percent in 2012 and 2013. Proportions are statistically similar for all messages
in 2012 and 2013.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Energy efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
Energy/environmental product standards
Savings (not linked to operation)
Save money on operation
Energy conservation
¦ 9%
: 7%
~ 5%
~ 3%
I 11%
I 65%
High
Understanding
Energy no link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses with EnergyGuide
Quality
Mentions specific products
Government backing
Product standards no environmental link
Environmental no link to benefit
Save money on purchase
3 11%
] 6%
3 4%
] 2%
] 2%
] 1%
] 1%
1%
1%
General Understanding
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
13
-------
Understanding of Label Messaging by Publicity Category
A similar number of respondents in high-publicity regions (66 percent) and non-high-
publicity regions (64 percent) associated the ENERGY STAR label with "energy
efficiency/savings." The proportion of households that associated the ENERGY
STAR label with the messages below was similar for high- and non-high-publicity
areas.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
Energy efficiency/savings
Energy/environmental product standards
Environmental benefit
Savings (not linked to operation)
Save money on operation
Energy conservation
—i 5%
=~ 8%
¦ 10%
8%
i9%
~ 12%
I 66%
64%
i_4%
=17%
I 3%
3%
High Understanding
Energy without link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses with EnergyGuide
Government backing
Mentions specific products
Environmental no link to benefit
Quality
Save money on purchase
Product standards no environmental link
5%
I 6%
m 4%
U 3%
. 2%
1%
, 1%
12%
1%
I 1%
L 2%
3 2%
1%
0%
1%
11%
12%
%
General Understanding
~1
¦ High Publicity DNon-High Publicity
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
High- and non-high publicity area proportions are statistically similar to each other.
14
-------
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 2013, 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, 55 percent had at least a general
understanding of it. This 29 percentage point difference in understanding between
households that recognized the label and those that did not is statistically significant
at the 1-percent level. The proportion of households that had at least a general
understanding of the label in 2013 is not statistically different from the 2012 result
(87 percent).
Among households that did not recognize the label when shown it, the proportion
that had at least a general understanding of the label in 2013 (55 percent) is similar
to the 2012 result (53 percent).
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize ENERGY STAR
Label Aided
At Least General Understanding of
Label
2013
2012
Yes
84%
87%
No
55%
53%
Difference (Yes minus No)
29%
34%
p-value
<0.0001
<0.0001
15
-------
INFLUENCE
The survey provided some insight into consumers' decisions to purchase ENERGY
STAR-labeled products, including the following:
• The proportion of households nationwide that recognized the ENERGY STAR
label and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
• The influence of the ENERGY STAR label on purchase decisions.
• The role of rebates or financing in decisions to buy ENERGY STAR-labeled
products.
• The loyalty of purchasers to ENERGY STAR-labeled products.
Purchases of ENERGY STAR-labeled Products
In order to estimate the percent of all households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR product, the following three proportions were multiplied:
• The proportion of all households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label
(aided)
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided), the proportion that
purchased a product in a product category that has an ENERGY STAR
specification
• Of the households that recognized the label (aided) and purchased a product in a
relevant category, the proportion that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product
For each of the three proportions, the results for 2012 and 2013 are similar. In 2013,
of the households that recognized the label (aided) and purchased a product in a
relevant product category, 75 percent purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product.
16
-------
National Household Market Penetration of
ENERGY STAR Products by Year
Aided
Recognition
(2012 n=1,523)
(2013 n=959)
Purchased
Product
(2012 n=1,334)
(2013 n=835)
Knowingly
Purchased
ENERGY STAR
product
(2012 n=638)
(2013 n=383)
2012
87%
63%
75%
2013
87%
65%
75%
Difference
-0.1%
-2.4%
-0.2%
p-value
0.959
0.411
0.951
Overall, 43 percent of all households knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product in the past 12 months. This is similar to the 2012 result (41 percent).
Knowingly Purchased ENERGY STAR Product by Year
(Base = All respondents)
Purchased
ENERGY STAR product
2013
(n=959)
2012
(n=1,523)
Estimate (yes)
Standard Error
43%
2.6%
41%
2.4%
-------
Purchases of ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
The proportion of all households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR
product in high- versus non-high-publicity areas is 40 and 46 percent, respectively.
This difference is not statistically significant (p-value = 0.2539). In 2013, a larger
proportion of households in non-high-publicity areas (46 percent) knowingly
purchased ENERGY STAR products than in 2012 (37 percent). This difference is
statistically significant at the 10 percent level (p-value = 0.0741). The proportions of
respondents who knowingly purchased ENERGY STAR products in high-publicity
areas was similar between 2012 and 2013 (p-value = 0.3190).
Knowingly Purchased ENERGY STAR
Product by Publicity Category and Year
[Base = All respondents]
Publicity Category
% Households
2013
2012
High
40%
45%
Non-High
46%
37%
Difference (High minus Non-High)
-6%
8%
p-value
0.254
0.091
As noted above, three proportions are used to calculate the proportion of all
households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product: aided recognition
of the program label, purchase of a product in a relevant product category, and the
proportion of those purchasers that knowingly bought ENERGY STAR products. A
larger proportion of respondents in non-high publicity areas (71 percent) purchased
products when compared to high-publicity areas (61 percent). This difference is
statistically significant at the 5 percent-level (p-value < 0.05).
National Household Market Penetration of
ENERGY STAR Products by Publicity Category
Aided
Recognition
(n=959)
Purchased
Product
(n=835)
Knowingly
Purchased
ENERGY STAR
product
(n=383)
High Publicity
88%
61%
75%
Non-High Publicity
86%
71%
76%
Difference
2.3%
-10.2%
-0.8%
p-value
0.376
0.012
0.888
18
-------
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
In 2013, nearly three quarters (70 percent) of the households that recognized the
ENERGY STAR label (aided), and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product reported having been influenced "very much" or "somewhat" by the label.
For 14 percent of households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly"
and 16 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 2012.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions6
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers]
Influence of the Label
on Purchasing
Decisions
2013
(n=277)
Maximum
2012
(n=458)
Maximum
Very much
46%
46%
Somewhat
24%
27%
Slightly
14%
11%
Not at all
16%
16%
Total
100%
100%
Note: Q8: "For each ENERGY STAR-labeled product you
purchased, how much did the ENERGY STAR label influence
your purchase decision?"
6 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
-------
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
The purchase decisions of 48 percent of households in high-publicity areas were
influenced "very much" by the ENERGY STAR label, compared to 44 percent in non-
high-publicity areas; this difference is not significant at the 10-percent level. When
these proportions are added to the proportions of households for which the
ENERGY STAR label was "somewhat" influential in their purchasing decisions, the
high- to non-high-publicity area comparison is 73 to 67 percent, respectively, which
is not statistically different at the 10-percent level of significance. The combined
"very much, somewhat, or slightly" proportion is 86 percent in high-publicity areas,
and 83 percent in non-high-publicity areas, which is not statistically different at the
10 percent level.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers, n = 277]
Publicity Category
Very much
Very much
or
somewhat
Very much,
somewhat,
or slightly
High
48%
73%
86%
Non-High
44%
67%
83%
Difference (High minus Non-High)
4%
5%
3%
p-value
0.553
0.424
0.600
20
-------
Rebate and Financing Influence
From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR-labeled product and received rebates or reduced-rate financing was
at 18 percent. Of these households in 2013, 39 percent would have been "very
likely" to purchase the ENERGY STAR product if financial incentives had not been
available. This is similar to the 2012 result (42 percent).
Another 47 percent would have been "somewhat likely" to purchase without a rebate
in 2013. This leaves 9 percent that would have been "slightly likely" and 5 percent
"not at all likely." None of these are significantly different from 2012.
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
% Households
2013
(n=261)
2012
(n=429)
Yes
18%
18%
No
82%
82%
Total
100%
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]
Likelihood of Purchasing
ENERGY STAR Product
Without Financial
Incentive
% Households
2013
(n=47)
2012
(n=75)
Very likely
39%
42%
Somewhat likely
47%
32%
Slightly likely
9%
14%
Not at all likely
5%
12%
Total
100%
100%
Note: Q10: "If rebates or reduced-rate financing had not been available, how likely
is it that you would have purchased the ENERGY STAR-labeled product?"
21
-------
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR is investigated by asking respondents who knowingly
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product how likely they would be to
recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend. Respondents were asked to report
this likelihood on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means "extremely unlikely" and 10
means "extremely likely." As can be seen in the table below, 27 percent of
households who knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product reported
they would be "extremely likely" to recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend.
This proportion is similar to the 2012 value.
The likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR products to a friend is greater than
"6" for 71 percent of these households. This is similar to the previous year's result of
75 percent.
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchasers]
Likelihood
Recommend
ENERGY STAR
Products
% Households
2013
(n=283)
2012
(n=481)
10 - Extremely likely
27%
30%
9
19%
18%
8
15%
17%
7
10%
10%
6
12%
7%
5
11%
12%
4
1%
2%
3
2%
1%
2
1%
1%
1
1%
0%
0 - Extremely unlikely
1%
2%
Total
100%
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."
22
-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
Sources Seen
Seventy-two percent of households have seen something about ENERGY STAR on
appliance or electronics labels, and 52 percent of households have seen something
about ENERGY STAR in store displays. Thirty-seven percent of households heard
or saw something about ENERGY STAR on TV commercials. Between 22 and 29
percent of households saw something about ENERGY STAR in utility mailings or bill
inserts, on EnergyGuide labels, or in newspaper or magazine advertisements.
Significantly fewer households in 2013 than in 2012 saw something about ENERGY
STAR in store displays (52 percent compared to 60 percent). The proportion
informed by the yellow EnergyGuide label increased from 20 percent in 2012 to 26
percent in 2013. All other responses were statistically similar to the proportions from
the 2012 survey.7
7 Social Media was added as a new response in 2013 and therefore there is no 2012 result to compare to; a
comparison for this information source can be made in 2014.
23
-------
Sources Saw or Heard Something about ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 698]
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
"'Displays in stores
TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
"Yellow EnergyGuide label
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Internet
Salesperson
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Newspaper or magazine article
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Radio commercial
Homebuilder
Contractor
Billboard
TV news feature story
Other
Realtor
Social Media
Lender
H 72%
H 52%
II 37%
ZZI 29%
ZD 26%
I 22%
18%
~ 14%
~ 14%
H 13%
8%
7%
7%
~ 6%
~ 5%
~ 4%
~ 3%
~ 2%
Q 1%
0%
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: SOI: "Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY STAR? Please mark all that apply."
*** 2013 and 2012 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-
value < 0.01). Proportion of households in 2013 is smaller than in 2012 for displays in stores.
** 2013 and 2012 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value < 0.05). Proportion of households in 2013 is larger than in 2012 for yellow EnergyGuide label.
24
-------
Sources Seen by Publicity Category
The proportion of households that heard or saw something about ENERGY STAR
was significantly smaller in high- than in non-high-publicity areas for homebuilders (5
percent and 10 percent, respectively) and contractors (3 percent and 9 percent,
respectively). Other sources of information are not significantly different between
high- and non-high-publicity areas.
Sources Saw or Heard Something about ENERGY STAR by Publicity Category
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 698]
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Displays in stores
TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Internet
Salesperson
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Newspaper or magazine article
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Radio commercial
Billboard
"Homebuilder
"Contractor
Other
TV news feature story
Social Media
Realtor
Lender
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
** High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level
of significance (p-value < 0.05). Proportion of households in high-publicity areas is smaller than in non-high.
I 73%
72%
| 52%
51%
31%
37%
36%
I 27%
25%
I 22%
1 21%
20%
| 7%
~ 9%
6%
15%
Z] 16%
r 13%
L13%
-1 15%
{ 13%
13%
~ High Publicity
~ Non-High Publicity
5
5%
5%
10%
3%
^ 9%
¦ 3%
1 4%
M—2%
I 5%
I 1%
_J 1%
L1%
-¦ 3%
0%
0%
25
-------
APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY
During September and October of 2013, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE)
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
2012). As in the 13 previous years, CEE and its members sponsoring the survey
made the survey data available to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for analysis. In 2001, a rigorous comparative analysis of the results obtained via a
mail survey versus an Internet survey was conducted. The results from the two
survey methods were comparable for most major indicators.8 Results from that time-
frame were also analogous to telephone surveys for aided recognition.9
This report discusses the results of the 2013 CEE 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 October 1, 2013.
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.
8 National Analysis of CEE 2001 ENERGY STAR Household Surveys. U.S. EPA, 2002.
9 Tannenbaum, Bobbi and Shel Feldman. "ENERGY STAR Awareness as a Function of Survey Method." IEPEC,
2001.
A-1
-------
1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
In 2013, CEE conducted the ENERGY STAR survey using a questionnaire designed
to be delivered by Internet/WebTV. The survey was conducted via an interactive
Internet format with a random sample of households that are members of an
Internet-based panel. Both the panel as a whole and the sample of households
completing the survey were selected by address-based sampling (ABS) and
recruited by telephone.10 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 2013 survey.
The panel is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Panel members
without their own Internet access are provided with a laptop and an Internet service
connection. Households that already have Internet service receive other incentives
to participate in the panel. Panel members respond to questionnaires administered
to them via the Internet. They receive no more than three to four short
questionnaires each month, and are expected to respond to a certain percentage of
them.
Data collected using the 2013 Internet questionnaire may in most cases be
compared with data collected using the internet questionnaires fielded in previous
years, for which CEE was also responsible.
1.1 Survey Objectives
CEE had several broad objectives in designing the 2013 questionnaire including:
• To fine-tune the questionnaire based on lessons learned from prior years'
analyses of the CEE survey while maintaining the ability to analyze the results of
the 2013 survey against those from the 2012 CEE survey.
10 In previous years, the panel was recruited via random-digit dial. GfK believes that ABS offers advantages,
including coverage of cell-phone-only households, and analysis of non-response bias. More information is
available at The Knowledge Networks Information page.
A-2
-------
The 2013 Internet questionnaire addressed the following:
• Respondent recognition and understanding of the ENERGY STAR label.
• Key messages communicated by the ENERGY STAR label.
• Products on which respondents have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
• Products that respondents have shopped for or purchased in the past year.
• Products that respondents have purchased that displayed the ENERGY STAR
label on the product, packaging, or instructions.
• Influence of the presence or absence of the ENERGY STAR label on the
purchase decision.
• Whether purchases of ENERGY STAR-labeled products involved rebates or
reduced-rate financing.
• Likelihood of having purchased ENERGY STAR-labeled products in the absence
of rebates or reduced-rate financing.
• Likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR-labeled products to a friend and
other measures of loyalty to the ENERGY STAR label.
• Satisfaction with ENERGY STAR-labeled products versus products without the
ENERGY STAR label.
• Demographic questions (most of the demographic questions were not asked in
the Internet survey as the demographic characteristics of the respondents were
already on file).
• Recognition and understanding of the yellow EnergyGuide label.
A-3
-------
1.2 Internet Questionnaire
The interactive format of an Internet questionnaire allows questions to be asked in a
way that is not possible with a printed questionnaire. On printed questionnaires,
respondents can see questions in advance and may be tempted to read the entire
questionnaire before completing it, potentially educating themselves in a limited way
about the subject and affecting their responses.
The Internet questionnaires (after questions about the yellow EnergyGuide label)
ask respondents—without showing the ENERGY STAR label—whether they have
ever seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label. Responses to this question should
thus be comparable to those obtained through a telephone survey. The Internet
questionnaires then show the ENERGY STAR label(s) (which is not possible with a
telephone survey) and ask again about recognition and understanding. As a result,
responses to these questions should be comparable to those obtained through a
mail survey where respondents are shown the label.
Another difference between a mail questionnaire and an Internet questionnaire is
that the latter—like a telephone questionnaire using computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI)—can program lines of questions based on responses to earlier
questions. For example, respondents to an Internet questionnaire who say they
bought a given product in the past year can then be asked whether that specific
product (or its packaging or instructions) had the ENERGY STAR label.
Thus, the Internet survey is able to combine some of the attributes of both print and
telephone surveys.
A-4
-------
1.3 Changes to the Questionnaire
The 2013 questionnaire was very similar to the 2012 questionnaire. The only
changes to the 2013 questionnaire from the previous year were the addition of a
new response, two new questions, and a changed skip pattern.11
A new response (social media) was added to the following question:
S01. Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY STAR? Please mark all
that apply.
The new questions asked in 2013 were:
Q16w: On a scale by the following statement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly
Agree), please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
statement: I consult energystar.gov for information on saving energy.
Q20. Were you aware that products designated ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
2013 represent a subset of ENERGY STAR qualified products within a given
product category?
A skip pattern was changed in the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient series. Last year
only those who confirmed recognition of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (Q21. Is this
the graphic you have seen or heard of before?) were asked Q22: All other things
equal, I would buy a product because it is designated as ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient. This year, all Q21 respondents regardless of confirmation of aided
recognition of the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient label were asked about purchasing
an ENERGY STAR Most Efficient product (Q22).
11 Appendix D: 2013 Survey Questions and Flow Chart provide a graphical presentation of the survey questions
and skip patterns.
A-5
-------
1.4 Determination of Aided Recognition
In the 2013 analysis, the determination of aided recognition was based on the
responses to five questions. This is the same sequence and numbering used in the
2012 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.)
ES6: 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 ES6 "yes" were
categorized as recognizing the ENERGY STAR label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ES6 "no," were categorized as not recognizing the label (aided).
• Respondents who did not answer ES3A, ES3B, ES3C, or ES3D "yes" and
answered ES6 "don't know" or refused to answer ES6 were not included in the
analysis of aided recognition. (Their data were set to missing.)
A-6
-------
2 SAMPLING
2.1 Designated Marketing Areas' Publicity Categories
The same publicity classification procedure used in the past 12 years was used in
2013. The original intent of the classification was to be able to assess the effect of
local energy efficiency program publicity on awareness. The majority of these local
efficiency programs historically have been supported by utility rate-payer funded
energy efficiency programming. A decision was made to retain the same publicity
classification used in the past 12 years and to retain the prior year's publicity
classification of the 57 largest DMAs—in essence preserving the historical
classification for future study years, which was based on the following criteria:
• High publicity: Active local ENERGY STAR program recently sponsored by a
utility, state agency, or other organization for 2 or more continuous years. The
activities must include sustained promotions and publicity from non-federal
sources.
• Low publicity: Federal campaign activities only and no significant regional
program sponsor activities.
• Other: All other DMAs.
The key working definitions are:
• Recent: The 2 years of activity must include the time period during which the
survey was in the field.
• Sustained: The 2 years of activity must be continuous.
• Significant: In addition to any direct federal publicity efforts, publicity efforts
must include a deliberate and multifaceted regional program sponsor investment
in ENERGY STAR programming, such as direct marketing efforts or the creation
and distribution of promotional material.
Each of the Top 57 DMAs was classified according to these three criteria, and
sampled based on that classification. For the purpose of this report, low publicity and
other publicity are combined in the analysis and referenced as non-high-publicity
areas. One reason for combining these categories in the analysis is that over time,
the population of low-publicity DMAs has dropped to about 15 percent, while high-
publicity DMAs now account for about half of U.S. television households.
A-7
-------
2.2 Sample Design
The sampling frame for this national survey included all households in any DMAs
that together accounted for about 70 percent of U.S. television households. As in
prior years, to facilitate comparison across years, the national results were based
only on data collected from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs.12
CEE members may choose to sponsor more intensive sampling (i.e., an
oversample) in selected localities. In 2013, no CEE member chose to sponsor an
oversample.
As in previous years' studies, the Top-57 DMAs in the sampling frame were
classified by publicity category, so the effect of local energy-efficiency program
publicity on national awareness could be considered. The same publicity
classification procedure used in the past 12 years was used this year.13
Program publicity has expanded over the past thirteen years. Originally, high-
publicity, low-publicity, and other groups had similar numbers of households, and so
the sample was allocated equally among the three groups. Beginning in 2010, the
number of respondents in each stratum was chosen in proportion to that stratum's
share of the U.S. population living in DMAs. As in the past for the national sample,
the three publicity categories (the top 57 DMAs) comprise 1,000 respondents.
A list of the large DMAs and their publicity category assignments is provided in the
table below. A map that shows the large DMAs and their publicity categories follows.
12 Analysis included in the 2010 report showed no statistical difference for key metrics between the 57 largest
DMAs and all 210 DMAs.
13 None ofthe 57 largest DMAs changed publicity category between 2012 and 2013.
A-8
-------
Large (Top 57) DMAs14
TV Households
2012-2013
Rank
Designated Market Area (DMA)
Number
% of
US
Publicity
Category
1
New York
7,384,340
6.468
High
2
Los Angeles
5,613,460
4.917
High
3
Chicago
3,484,800
3.052
High
4
Philadelphia
2,949,310
2.583
Other
5
Dallas-Ft. Worth
2,588,020
2.267
Other
6
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose
2,502,030
2.191
High
7
Boston (Manchester)
2,366,690
2.073
High
8
Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)
2,359,160
2.066
High
9
Atlanta
2,326,840
2.038
High
10
Houston
2,215,650
1.941
Other
11
Detroit
1,845,920
1.617
Other
12
Seattle-Tacoma
1,818,900
1.593
High
13
Phoenix (Prescott)
1,812,040
1.587
High
14
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)
1,806,560
1.582
Other
15
Minneapolis-St. Paul
1,728,050
1.514
High
16
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
1,621,130
1.420
Other
17
Denver
1,566,460
1.372
Other
18
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
1,485,140
1.301
Other
19
Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn
1,453,170
1.273
Other
20
Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto
1,387,710
1.215
High
21
St. Louis
1,243,490
1.089
Other
22
Portland, OR
1,182,180
1.035
High
23
Pittsburgh
1,165,740
1.021
Other
24
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)
1,150,350
1.008
Low
25
Charlotte
1,136,420
0.995
Other
26
Indianapolis
1,089,700
0.954
Other
27
Baltimore
1,085,070
0.950
Other
28
San Diego
1,075,120
0.942
High
29
Nashville
1,014,910
0.889
Low
30
Hartford & New Haven
996,550
0.873
High
31
Kansas City
931,320
0.816
Other
32
Columbus, OH
930,460
0.815
Other
33
Salt Lake City
917,370
0.803
High
34
Milwaukee
902,190
0.790
High
35
Cincinnati
897,890
0.786
Low
36
San Antonio
881,050
0.772
Low
37
Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And
846,030
0.741
Low
38
West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
794,310
0.696
Low
14 Publicity categories are the same as 2012.
A-9
-------
TV Households
2012-2013
Rank
Designated Market Area (DMA)
Number
% of
US
Publicity
Category
39
Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk
720,150
0.631
Other
40
Las Vegas
718,990
0.630
High
41
Oklahoma City
718,770
0.630
Low
42
Birmingham (Ann and Tusc)
717,530
0.628
Low
43
Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York
716,990
0.628
Other
44
Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws
709,730
0.622
Low
45
Austin
705,280
0.618
High
46
Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem
695,100
0.609
Low
47
Albuquerque-Santa Fe
691,450
0.606
Other
48
Louisville
670,880
0.588
High
49
Memphis
662,830
0.581
Low
50
Jacksonville
659,170
0.577
Low
51
New Orleans
641,550
0.562
Other
52
Buffalo
632,150
0.554
High
53
Providence-New Bedford
606,400
0.531
High
54
Wilkes Barre-Scranton-Hztn
581,020
0.509
Low
55
Fresno-Visalia
576,820
0.505
High
56
Little Rock-Pine Bluff
561,760
0.492
Low
57
Richmond-Petersburg
553,390
0.485
Other
Total
81,095,490
71.028
A-10
-------
Large (Top 57) DMAs by Publicity Category15
2013
aSr-H
'V. t
\
H \ H
H "High" publicity category1
L 'Low'" publicity category
0 "Other" publicity category
15 There were no large DMAs in either Alaska or Hawaii.
A-11
-------
2.3 Weighting Procedures
GfK, the company that provided the Internet survey service, developed the weights
used in the analysis. GfK first adjusted its panel members for known disproportions
due to the panel's original selection and recruitment design and then proceeded with
a post-stratification weighting that accounted for differences between the panel and
the U.S. population. The adjustment to this typical sampling weight approach was
based on geographic and demographic characteristics known for both the panel and
the population (refer to Appendix B). It effectively scales up under-represented
population dimensions in the panel and scales down dimensions that are over-
represented in the panel. This more closely aligned the panel with the basic
demographic characteristics of the U.S. population.
After the field data were collected, GfK further adjusted the sampling weight to
account for survey non-response. The correction for survey non-response is
analogous to the adjustment for differences between the panel members and the
U.S. population. It was based on geographic and demographic characteristics known
for both the sample of panel survey completes and the entire sampling frame for the
study. The weighting scaled up under-represented population dimensions and
scaled down over-represented dimensions in the sample of survey completes. This
more closely aligned the sample of survey completes with the basic demographic
characteristics of the entire sampling frame for the study.
A-12
-------
3 DATA COLLECTION
3.1 Survey Fielding Period
The survey began on September 17 and closed on October 1, 2013.
3.2 Response Rate
The overall response rate was 8 percent for the CEE 2013 ENERGY STAR
Household Survey. This level of response is typical for GfK's surveys.
For an Internet survey, the response rate is defined as the product of the return rate,
which is survey-specific, and the recruitment rate. The return rate is the ratio of the
number of questionnaires completed to the number of panel members asked to
complete the questionnaire. For the CEE 2013 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 GfK's panel as a proportion of the number of households asked to participate. The
recruitment rate was 13 percent. Thus, the response rate for the CEE 2013
ENERGY STAR Household survey was the product of the survey-specific return rate
of 60 percent and the recruitment rate of 13 percent. This product is equivalent to
the ratio of the number of questionnaires completed to the number of households
that were offered the opportunity to be in the study.
CEE 2013 ENERGY STAR Household Survey Response Rate16
Response Rate Factors
Number
or % of
Respondents
Send out/requested
1,664
Completed
1,000
Return rate
60%
Recruitment rate
13%
Response rate
8%
16 Only respondents from Top-57 DMAs are included in this table.
A-13
-------
4 NATIONAL ANALYSIS
4.1 DMAs Included
To facilitate comparisons across years, the national results were based only on data
collected from respondents from the 57 largest DMAs. Data collected from
respondents not in the 57 largest DMAs are not included in this analysis.
4.2 Treatment of "Don't Know" Responses and Refusals
For most questions, how "don't know" responses or refusals are handled has a
negligible effect on the results. Still, it is necessary to make a decision as to how
they should be handled. The results presented in this report for a given question do
not include "don't know" responses or refusal to answer (i.e., the results for a given
question were calculated after any "don't know" responses to that question or
refusals to answer that question were set to missing).
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS
This appendix presents the relationship between the demographic characteristics
found in the weighted survey data and the corresponding characteristics in the study
population of all U.S. households. Professional survey and data collection firms
make significant efforts to ensure the rigor of their methods and to produce the
highest quality results. Each year, GfK—the company that maintains the Internet-
based survey panel used in this analysis—strives to create a panel that is
representative of the U.S. population. However, as in any survey effort, those who
respond to surveys tend to be different from those who do not. In this case, the
panel used for this survey may contain subjects that are receptive to the incentive-
for-service tradeoff and introduce associated biases.
Weighting used in the analyses of this report is applied to account for differences
between the Internet-based panel and the U.S. population. If weighting was
accomplished perfectly, the distribution of various demographic characteristics in the
weighted survey data would be the same as the distribution of those characteristics
in national Census data. For most demographic characteristics, the two distributions
are quite similar. This suggests the weighted survey results are a reasonable
representation of the study population. A summary of the comparisons of
demographic characteristics is provided in the table below. Detailed comparisons
are provided in tables presented at the end of this appendix.
Summary of Distribution Comparisons
Demographic Characteristic
Largest Difference (Absolute Value):
Survey Estimate Less Census %
Number of persons in household
One
-6.7%
Householder/respondent age
18-24a
7.5%
Householder/respondent gender
Gender
+/- 0.9%
Dwelling type
Mobile home
-3.1%
Own/rent
Own/rent
+/- 0.1%
Household annual income
$75,000 and overb
9.5%
aCensus, under 25 years; WebTV/Internet, 18-24 years.
bCensus, $50,000-$80,000 and $80,000 and over.
The largest differences (in absolute value) between the weighted survey data and
national Census data, at 9.5 and 7.5 percentage points, are the proportion of
households in the $75,000 and over income category and the proportion of
householder/respondent age 18-24, respectively. The difference in the proportion of
one person households is the next largest, at -6.7 percentage points, and the
number of mobile home dwellings is the next largest, at -3.1 percentage points. The
combined under-representation of single-person households and over-
representation of higher income households are not expected to bias the survey
results in any particular direction. Differences between the weighted survey data and
B-1
-------
Census data for other demographic characteristics of the population—own/rent, and
gender—are all quite small, at less than one percentage point.
Household Size Distribution
Number of
Persons in
Household
Census
% Dwelling
Units3
Survey
Estimate Minus
Census
% Dwelling
Units
One
27%
-6.7%
Two
33%
1.6%
Three
16%
1.8%
Four
14%
0.4%
Five or more
10%
2.9%
Total (%)
100%
Total (1,000s)
114,907
aU.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2011, Table C-08-AO.
Age Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Age
Census
%
Householders3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
%
Householders
18-24b
5%
7.5%
25-34
17%
0.3%
35-44
18%
-0.8%
45-54
20%
-2.5%
55-64
18%
1.3%
65 or older
22%
-5.8%
Total (%)
100%
Total (1,000s)
114,907
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2011, Table C-08-AO.
b Census, under 25 years; WebTV/Internet, 18-24 years.
B-2
-------
Gender Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Gender
Census
%
Population3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Population
Female
51%
0.9%
Male
49%
-0.9%
Total (%)
100%
aU.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Dwelling Type Distribution
Dwelling Type
Census
% Dwelling Units3
Survey
Estimate Minus
Census
% Dwelling
Units
Single-family,
unattached
64%
0.0%
Single-family, attached
6%
2.5%
Bldg. (>=2 units)
24%
-0.4%
Mobile home
6%
-3.1%
Total (%)
100%
Total (1,000s)
114,908
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2011, Table C-01-AO.
Own/Rent Distribution
Own/Rent
Census
%
Households3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
Own
66%
0.0%
Rent
34%
0.1%
Total (%)
100%
Total
(1,000s)
114,908
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2011, Table C-01-AO.
-------
Income Distribution
Total Household
Annual Income
(before taxes)
Census
%
Households3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
Less than
$15,000
13%
-3.1%
$15,000-$24,999
12%
-4.9%
$25,000-$49,999
24%
-2.2%
$50,000-$74,999
17%
0.7%
$75,000 and over
34%
9.5%
Total (%)
100%
Total (1,000s)
122,459
a U.S. Census Bureau, CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2013, Table HINC-01
Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income (2012 data).
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM 2013 SURVEY
This appendix presents the results of additional ENERGY STAR related questions in
the 2013 survey that were added by CEE since 2005; and are not discussed in the
main body of the report. Topics included in this appendix include:
• ENERGY STAR Designation
• ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction
• Consumer Perceptions
• Purchasing Decisions
• CFL Purchaser Questions
• Most Efficient Designation
• ENERGYSTAR.gov Question
1 ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION
Forty-two percent of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided)
thought that the U.S. government decides if a product deserves the label. Twenty-
three percent thought Underwriters Laboratories makes this decision, up from 21
percent in 2012. Nineteen percent thought the product manufacturers make the
decision, down from twenty percent in 2012. All 2013 and 2012 proportions are
statistically similar to each other.
Designates ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=465)
U.S. government
] 42%
Underwriters Laboratories
] 23%
Product manufacturer
] 19%
Electric and gas utility I 13%
Other ] 2%
Retailer/store ] 2%
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
-------
2 ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION BY PUBLICITY CATEGORY
In 2013, high-publicity areas and non-high-publicity areas identified the entity that
designates the ENERGY STAR label in similar proportions in all categories with the
exception of "other." A larger proportion of high-publicity areas (4 percent) than non-
high-publicity areas (less than one percent) identified "other" for the entity that
designates the ENERGY STAR label. This difference is statistically significant at the
5-percent level (p-value=0.0378).
Designates ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=465)
U.S. government
I 42%
141%
Underwriters Laboratories
I 24%
Product manufacturer
ZT21%
|17%
Electric and gas utility
I 21%
|12%
] 14%
¦ 4%
other <1%
~ High Publicity
~ Non-High Publicity
Retailer/store
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2013 and 2012 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.05).
C-2
-------
3 ENERGY STAR PRODUCT SATISFACTION
For most products, household satisfaction with a given product in a product category
that has an ENERGY STAR specification does not appear to vary based on whether
or not the product had an ENERGY STAR label. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1
means "very dissatisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied," products with and without the
ENERGY STAR label had similar average satisfaction ratings, at 4.10 and 4.07
respectively.
Overall, customer satisfaction with ENERGY STAR products was similar in 2012 and
2013 at 4.0. Three ENERGY STAR-labeled products showed a statistically
significant increase in customer satisfaction between 2012 and 2013. These
products were furnace/boilers, thermostats,17 and fax machines. Two ENERGY
STAR-labeled products showed a decrease in customer satisfaction over the same
period: room air conditioners and copying machines. ENERGY STAR-labeled
thermostats, DVD players, washing machines, and refrigerators received higher
satisfaction ratings compared with unlabeled versions of these products.
17 EPA suspended the use of the ENERGY STAR label for programmable thermostats December 31, 2009.
While EPA recognizes the potential for programmable thermostats to save significant amounts of energy, there
continue to be questions regarding the net savings and environmental benefits achieved due to variations in
consumer understanding and usage of programmable thermostats. EPA is working to develop a related
Residential Climate Control specification. For more information visit: www.energystar.gov/productdevelopment.
C-3
-------
ENERGY STAR vs. Non-ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product Satisfaction
(Bases = Recognize label (aided) and purchased specified product18)19
Average Satisfaction (1=verv dissatisfied. 5=verv satisfied)
Overall (ne=289, n0=247
Newly built home (ne=4, n0=3
Heat pump (ne=5, n0=0
Furnace/boiler (ne=8, n0=7
"Thermostat (ne=17, n0=13
Skylight (ne=3, n0=1
Audio product (ne=22, n0=19
Door (ne=24, n0=11
"DVD (ne=39, n0=26
Roofing materials (ne=13, n0=13
Fax Machine (ne=3, n0=6
Lighting fixture (ne=49, n0=37
Central A/C (ne=21, n0=13
Window (ne=30, n0=13
Insulation (ne=12, n0=7
Television (ne=113, n0=66
Computer or monitor (ne=75, n0=44
Gas water heater (ne=15, n0=9
Computer printer (ne=21, n0=17
"Washing machine (ne=48, n0=19
"Refrigerator (ne=56, n0=19
Scanner (ne=6, n0=2
Dehumidifier (ne=12, n0=6
All-in-one printer (ne=52, n0=39
Compact fluorescent light bulb (ne=93, n0=68
Room air conditioner (ne=36, n0=14
Dishwasher (ne=35, n0=15
^Microwave oven (ne=38, n0=27
Copying machine (ne=6, n0=3
~ ENERGY STAR-labeled product
7ZZZZEZZttZZttZZZEEEZEZZEZEZEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAA,&
'4.0
TZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ&ZZZZZ&ZZZZZZZZZZl^'^'
Ml
1 '3.6
7ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2
1 3.8
4.5
4.5
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZja 4^4^
~ 4.4
4.2.
YZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ-TA'A
-> 4.5
5.0
>5.0
4.5
4.2
7ZZ IZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZA 4 ?
J 4.2
14.7
•///////////////////////////;////////////////////////\ 4.1
L4 1
=" 4.2
y////////////////////////////////////////////////za 4.1
*31
rZ8
AAL
4.6
4.6
3.83-9
VZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ2.3;8
J 4.0
I 40
HZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZl 37
JL5_
4.2
1.7
~ 4.2
2.8
0 12 3 4
~ Non-ENERGY STAR-labeled product
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-value < 0.05).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 10-percent level of significance (p-value < 0.10).
18 ne = number of respondents that recoqnized the label (aided) and purchased this product with an ENERGY
STAR label
nO = number of respondents that recoqnized the label (aided) and purchased this product without an ENERGY
STAR label
19 There is no ENERGY STAR designation for microwave ovens.
C-4
-------
4 CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS
Survey respondents that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were asked to
indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with a number of attitudinal statements
about ENERGY STAR-labeled products.20 The statements were shown to
respondents in random order.
For purposes of discussion, the statements are grouped into four categories:
• Environmental and social responsibility messaging
• Purchasing preference
• Product attributes and performance
• Technology affinity
The 2013 survey results indicate that households generally agree with positive
statements about the ENERGY STAR label and disagree with negative statements
about the label.21 Similar to 2012 results, few statements elicit strong agreement or
strong disagreement among substantial proportions of households; in contrast, a
number of statements generated neutral responses from a sizeable proportion of
households. A more detailed discussion of the findings regarding the attitudinal
statements is provided on the following pages.
20 These statements are numbered Q16a through Q16w in the survey.
21 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 - Agreement with Positive Statements
(Base = Recognize label (aided))
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 below 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.
ffl Strongly disagree ¦ Somewhat disagree ~ Somewhat agree 0 Strongly agree
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-100%80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
ENVIRONMENTAL/ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
MESSAGING
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me
feel like I'm helping to protect the environment for future
generations (n=828)
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me
feel like I'm contributing to society (n=827)
36% Neutral
43% Neutral
PURCHASING PREFERENCE
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
(n=826)
I consider myself loyal to ENERGY STAR-labeled
products (n=827)
44% Neutral
51% Neutral
I consult energystar.gov for information on saving 36% Neutral
energy (n=828)
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
ENERGY STAR products provide me with more
benefits than products without the ENERGY STAR
label (n=828)
ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value
than products without the label (n=827)
If I seethe ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a
more energy-efficient product (n=827)
When I buy a productwith the ENERGY STAR label, I
can always be sure it's high quality (n=826)
44% Neutral
52% Neutral
27% Neutral
50% Neutral
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
C-6
-------
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging,
Purchasing, and Product Attributes - Agreement with Positive Statements (Cont.)
(Base = Recognize label (aided))
M Strongly disagree ¦ Somewhat disagree ~ Somewhat agree 0 Strongly agree
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-100%80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
I consider myself up to date with technology
(n=827)
I like to have the most advanced technology
available to me (n=825)
I am willing to pay more money for a product that
saves the most energy (n=827)
I
37% Neutral
44% Neutral
|
I
37% Neutral
I
-100%80% -60%-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging,
Purchasing, and Product Attributes - Disagreement with Negative Statements
(Base = Recognize label (aided))
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 below 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.
M Strongly disagree ¦ Somewhat disagree ~ Somewhat agree S Strongly agree
-100%80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes 44% Neutral
me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing
(n=827)
ENERGY STAR labeled products are no different 37% Neutral
from other products (n=827)
In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR
labeled products save me money (n=829)
I don't trust that ENERGY STAR labeled products
save the energy they're supposed to (n=827)
36% Neutral
40% Neutral
-100%80%-60%-40%-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
C-7
-------
4.1 Environmental and Social Responsibility Messaging
The development of the environmental and social responsibility messaging of the
ENERGY STAR label has been a strong focus of the national ENERGY STAR
education campaign. In the 2013 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 households that recognize the ENERGY STAR label, the proportion that either
strongly or somewhat agree with the statement that by buying ENERGY STAR-
labeled products they feel they are helping protect the environment was lower in
2013 (55 percent) than in 2012 (59 percent); this difference is not statistically
significant. Forty-four percent of ENERGY STAR aware households strongly or
somewhat agree that by purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products they feel they
are contributing to society; this percentage is statistically similar to the 2012 result
(47 percent).
4.2 Purchasing Preferences
Increasing consumers' preferences for purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products
is also an intended outcome of the national education campaign. In the 2012 and
2013 surveys, two separate statements were included to investigate households'
views of their purchasing preferences with respect to ENERGY STAR-labeled
products. In 2013, a new question was added to learn consumers' tendency to
consult the energystar.gov website for information on energy savings. Eleven
percent of households somewhat or strongly agree with the statement "I consult
energystar.gov for information on saving energy" while 36 percent are neutral and 53
percent somewhat or strongly disagree.
In 2013, twenty-three percent of households either strongly or somewhat agree with
the statement, "If I cannot find the kind of product I am looking for with an ENERGY
STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather than buy a product that does not qualify for
the label." This is the same as 2012. Fewer households (33 percent) either strongly
or somewhat disagree, this is down from 2012 (37 percent) and is statistically
similar. Forty-four percent of households are neutral in their level of agreement or
disagreement with this statement of their purchasing behavior.
Twenty-three percent of households agree with the second statement addressing
households' views of their purchasing preferences: "I consider myself loyal to
ENERGY STAR products." This is similar to 2012 (27 percent). Disagreement with
this statement was 26 percent, which is the same as in 2012.
C-8
-------
4.3 Technology Affinity
To support research interest related to advanced technologies the following
questions were added in 2012 and were included in the 2013 survey.
• On a scale by the following statement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly
Agree), please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
statement "I am willing to pay more money for a product that saves the most
energy."
• On a scale by the following statement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly
Agree), please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
statement "I like to have the most advanced technology available to me."
• On a scale by the following statement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly
Agree), please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
statement "I consider myself up to date with technology."
In 2013, 48 percent of households agree either somewhat or strongly with the
statement "I am willing to pay more money for a product that saves the most
energy." Thirty-seven percent of households are neutral in their level of agreement
or disagreement with this statement. Fifteen percent of households either somewhat
or strongly disagree with this statement addressing households' willingness to pay
more for a product that saves the most energy. These proportions are statistically
similar to the 2012 results where 50 percent of households agreed, 33 percent were
neutral, and 17 percent disagreed with the above statement.
Fewer (41 percent) households agreed (either somewhat or strongly) with the
statement "I like to have the most advanced technology available to me" when
compared to 2012 (46 percent). This difference is statistically significant at the 10-
percent level of significance (p-value = 0.09071). Forty-four percent are neutral, up
from 2012 (36 percent). This difference is statistically significant at the 5-percent
level of significance (p-value = 0.0118). About the same percentage of households
disagree with this statement in 2013 (15 percent) when compared to 2012 (17
percent); this result is statistically similar.
When compared to 2012 (49 percent), a similar proportion of households in 2013 (45
percent) agree (either somewhat or strongly) with the statement "I consider myself
up to date with technology." In 2013, 37 percent are neutral and 18 percent
somewhat or strongly disagree with this statement. This is statistically similar to the
2012 result, 33 percent and 18 percent, respectively.
C-9
-------
4.4 Product Attributes and Performance
Another goal of the national ENERGY STAR education campaign has been to inform
consumers that ENERGY STAR-labeled products are more energy efficient than
non-labeled products. The degree to which this goal is being accomplished is
addressed in the 2013 survey by asking respondents their level of agreement or
disagreement with the statement "If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm
getting a much more energy-efficient product." Sixty-seven percent of respondents
either strongly or somewhat agree with this statement, down from 2012 (70 percent),
which is statistically similar. This continues to indicate a 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." A
lower percentage (32 percent) of households either strongly or somewhat agree with
this statement than in 2012 (37 percent); this difference is statistically significant at
the 10-percent level (p-value = 0.0519) of significance. Fifty percent are neutral and
18 percent disagree with this statement. Households that are neutral in their
agreement and disagreement and in that disagree with this statement are similar to
last year's results.
A number of attitudinal statements were included in the survey to measure
consumers' perceptions of ENERGY STAR-labeled product value. One of these
statements is "ENERGY STAR products provide me with more benefits than
products without the ENERGY STAR label." The results show that 47 percent either
strongly or somewhat agree with the statement and only 9 percent of households
disagree. On another statement regarding product value, "ENERGY STAR-labeled
products offer better value than products without the label," 39 percent of
households either strongly or somewhat agree. Only 9 percent disagree, down from
2012 results (10 percent). The proportions of households that agree and disagree
with these statements in 2013 are similar to the 2012 results.
The results related to the statement "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products make
me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing" provide additional information on
perceptions of product value. Forty-four percent of all households who recognize the
ENERGY STAR label strongly or somewhat disagree with the statement; this is
down from the 2012 result (50 percent). This difference is statistically significant at
the 5-percent level of significance (p-value = 0.0196). Forty-four percent of
households in 2013 are neutral and only 12 percent agree with this statement. The
proportions of households that are neutral and agree with this statement are similar
to the 2012 results (35 percent and 14 percent, respectively).
C-10
-------
In 2013, the following negative statements about product performance, added in
2010, were included.
• The statement, "I don't trust that ENERGY STAR-labeled products save the
energy they're supposed to" had only 12 percent agreement, with four times as
much disagreement (48 percent). The proportions of households that agree and
disagree with these statements in 2013 are similar to the 2012 results.
• The statement, "In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR-labeled products
save me money" had only 12 percent agreement, and over four times as much
disagreement (52 percent). These proportions are similar to the 2012 results.
• Finally, the statement, "ENERGY STAR products are no different from other
products" received only 8 percent agreement, and over six times as much
disagreement (55 percent). In 2013, fewer households agreed (8 percent) with
this statement when compared to the 2012 result (11 percent); this difference is
statistically significant at the 10-percent level of significance (p-value = 0.0902).
The proportion of households that disagreed with this statement is similar to the
2012 result.
Forty-nine percent of respondents either somewhat or strongly agree with the
statement "It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these
days.22" Only 12 percent disagreed with the statement. This suggests people are
recognizing the label on many products. The proportions of households that agree
and disagree with these statements in 2013 are similar to the 2012 results.
4.5 Consumer Perceptions by Publicity Category
In 2013, there were not many statistically significant changes in consumer
perceptions between high- and non-high publicity areas. There was however, a
larger proportion of people in high-publicity areas than non-high-publicity areas that
agreed with the following statement, "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products
makes me feel like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations" (59
percent compared to 51 percent).
Also, a larger proportion of households in high-publicity areas (14 percent) than non-
high-publicity areas (9 percent) agree (either somewhat or strongly) with the
statement "I consult energystar.gov for information on saving energy." This
difference is statistically significant at the 10-percent level (p-value = 0.0737). The
proportions of households who are neutral or disagree with this statement are
statistically similar for high- and non-high publicity areas.
22 This statement was deemed neither positive nor negative so it does not appear in the previous chart.
C-11
-------
5 PURCHASING DECISIONS
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to characterize their role in the
household purchasing decisions. The results indicate that the vast majority of those
represented are primary decision makers, meaning they usually make household
purchasing decisions alone or share equally in these decisions. As can be seen
below, this varies little across product categories. Seventy-seven percent of
individuals were primary decision makers for their household's home electronics
purchases; 63 percent were primary decision makers for purchase of building
materials.
Role in Household Purchasing Decisions
(Base = All respondents)
Building Materials
(n=946)
Home Electronics
(n=973)
Home Appliances /
Lighting (n=969)
Home Office Equipment
(n=964)
Heating & Cooling
Products (n=961)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
(¦Usually make decisions or share decisions equally
QGive input to decisions
a Have no input in decisions
C-12
-------
6 CFL PURCHASER QUESTIONS
Similar to previous years, all respondents are asked what products they have
purchased in the last 12 months, with additional questions being asked of those who
purchased compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and fixtures. In 2013, 17 percent
and 9 percent of all households purchased CFLs and fixtures, respectively.
Respondents that purchased CFLs were asked the following questions:
• "Did you install the compact fluorescent light bulb(s) you purchased in a light
fixture?"
o If yes, then ask "Which type of bulb(s) did you replace?"
An overwhelming majority (92 percent) of CFL purchasers indicated they installed
the purchased CFL. This result did not vary significantly by publicity category.
Respondents that installed CFLs were then asked if the purchased CFL was used to
replace a CFL or an incandescent light bulb. In 2013, 49 percent of households
replaced an incandescent light bulb with the purchase of a CFL, down from 60
percent in 2012, and 51 percent of households replaced a CFL with a purchased
CFL, up from 40 percent in 2012; this change is statistically significant at the 10-
percent level (p-value = 0.0847). The percent of households that replaced a CFL
with a purchased CFL was larger in high-publicity areas (63 percent) when
compared to non-high-publicity areas (39 percent). The percent of households that
replaced an incandescent with a purchased CFL was smaller in high-publicity areas
(37 percent) than in non-high-publicity areas (61 percent). This change is statistically
significant at the 5-percent level (p-value = 0.0119).
Type of Light Bulb Replaced with a CFL
(Base = Installers of CFL Bulbs, n=180)
Incandescent
¦ High Publicity
O Non-High Publicity
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: Q12 (e) "Which type of bulb(s) did you replace?"
C-13
-------
Consistent with previous years, purchasers that recognize the ENERGY STAR label
were asked if they saw the label on the product(s) they purchased. Respondents
that reported purchasing an ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture were asked:
• "Which kind of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture did you purchase?"
In 2013, forty percent of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture purchasers report
purchasing a compact fluorescent-based lighting fixture, this is similar to 2012 (58
percent) (p-value=0.2517). While the proportion of CFL fixtures purchased appears
to decrease the proportion LED fixtures purchased appears to increase (19 percent
in 2012 to 39 percent in 2013) (p-value=0.2203). This result varies by publicity
category: in 2013, in high-publicity areas, 22 percent report purchasing a compact
fluorescent-based lighting fixture compared to 58 percent in non-high publicity areas.
This difference is statistically significant at thel 0-percent level.
Type of ENERGY STAR-Labeled Lighting Fixture Purchased
(Base = Purchasers of ENERGY STAR Lighting Fixture, n=24)
Compact fluorescent-based
lighting fixture
1 40%
-
LED-based lighting fixture
1 39%
-
Other type of lighting fixture
1 20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: Q8A 1-4. Which kind of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture did you purchase?
QBA 1-4 is a multiple response question and therefore does not always sum to 100 percent. In
2012, 5 percent of respondents "Don't know" the type of ENERGYS TAR lighting fixture purchased.
C-14
-------
7 RECOGNITION AND INFLUENCE OF ENERGY STAR MOST EFFICIENT
The 2011 questionnaire added a brief series of questions23 to collect information on
recognition and influence of the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient marketing
designation. Only respondents that recognize the ENERGY STAR label (aided) were
asked the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient questions. These questions were
continued with minor modification in the 2013 survey.
In 2013, 22 percent of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided)
indicated they had seen or heard of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient; this is consistent
with 2012 (19 percent). Among households that had seen or heard of ENERGY
STAR Most Efficient:
• Forty percent were aware that products designated ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient 2013 represent a subset of ENERGY STAR qualified products within a
given product category.24
• Just over half (55 percent) recognized the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
marketing graphic when it was shown to them; again this is consistent with 2012
(53 percent).
• Fifty-seven percent of households agreed (either somewhat or strongly) with the
statement that "All other things equal, I would buy a product because it is
designated as ENERGY STAR Most Efficient."
Response to Statement Regarding Purchase of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Product
[Base = Recognized ENERGY STAR (aided) and
Recognized ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (unaided)]
Would buy a product
because it is ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient
2013
(n=111)
Strongly disagree
1%
Somewhat disagree
2%
Neither agree nor disagree
40%
Somewhat agree
41%
Strongly agree
16%
Total
100%
A larger proportion of households in high-publicity areas (23 percent) than non-high-
publicity areas (4 percent) strongly agree with the statement that "All other things
equal, I would buy a product because it is designated as ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient" (p-value= 0.0054). No respondents in high publicity areas strongly disagree
with that statement.
23 The ENERGY STAR Most Efficient questions, Q18 - Q22, are shown in Appendix D: 2013 Survey
Questions and Flow Chart on page D-9.
24 This question was added to the survey in 2013 (Q20: "Were you aware that products designated ENERGY
STAR Most Efficient 2013 represent a subset of ENERGY STAR qualified products within a given product
category?").
C-15
-------
Response to Statement Regarding Purchase of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Product
By Publicity Category
[Base = Recognized ENERGY STAR (aided) and
Recognized ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (unaided)]
48%
38%
3% 3%
0%j 1 2/0
~ High Publicity (n=64)
~ Non-High Publicity (n=47)
Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat ***Strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
*** High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent
level of significance (p-value<0.01).
C-16
-------
7.1 Households influenced by ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
The survey results were analyzed by Most Efficient Influenced (MEI) households and
non-Most Efficient Influenced (non-MEl) households in order to learn about potential
demographic or attitudinal differences. This was done in order to understand the
customer segment that would likely be influenced by the marketing designation
regardless of whether they had been exposed to it or not. MEI households report
having seen or heard of the ENERGY STAR label and the ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient label and report that they would be influenced by the Most Efficient label.25
MEI households somewhat or strongly agree with the statement "All other things
equal, I would buy a product because it is designated ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient."
Demographics
Demographic characteristics of MEI and non-MEl households were similar in 2013;
however, the following two differences were identified:
• A smaller proportion of MEI households (35 percent) than non-MEl households
(51 percent) are married (p-value = 0.025).
• A smaller proportion of MEI households (51 percent) than non-MEl households
(65 percent) live in a one-family house detached from any other house (p-value =
0.076).
25 Most Efficient Influenced (MEI) households are those who are aware of the ENERGY STAR label,
have indicated awareness of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (unaided recognition, Q18. Have you
ever seen or heard of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient?), and report they would buy a product because
it is ENERGY STAR Most Efficient (somewhat or strongly agree with Q22. All other things equal, I
would buy a product because it is designated as ENERGY STAR Most Efficient).
C-17
-------
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS
MEI households are very likely to associate ENERGY STAR with environmental and
social benefits, are very likely to shop where they can find the ENERGY STAR label,
perceive ENERGY STAR products to have superior performance, and are willing to
pay more money for a product that saves the most energy. MEI households had
higher agreement than non-MEl households for eleven of the twelve attitudinal
statements shown below. Furthermore, nine of the statements in the table below are
statistically significant at the 1 percent level (p-value<0.01).
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging,
Purchasing, and Product Attributes - Average Response Positive Statements
(MEI Base = Recognize Most Efficient label, Non-MEl Base = Recognize label)
ENVIRONMENTAL.' SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY M ESS AGING
""'BuyingENERGY STAR fatatod products ituIuk mo 1utH Ikti I'm helping Id protect tho 4.Q
ermfoiwenl Tor Tutor* QerteraiOrts —I 3 5
-TO
3,&
'"Buying ENEFWJV STAR-tabeW products ms*** me iwl I'm conlrfcut^g to socwty
PURCHASING PREFERENCE
"IK cannot nnd the kndoi product 1 am IoAim! tor with an EN ERGYSTARla&at. iwflstop 3,3
elsewhere rather than buy * product lft#t does nc* qwrirty fcjr the label 1 2 B
"1 consider rrvywtl loyal to ENERGY STAR-labeled products
2.9
"1 ttRiuJt tjue^g-^af pew tor infcwiTMrtKWi on saving an«gry 2.9
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTESiPERFORMANCE
M*ENERGY STAR producli piovrift ma wth mow bunefrta than products ¦rftauttto t, g
ENERGY-STAR lafcel
¦"ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer fcetter value then products wrttwrtthe label
"¦in&ee the ENERGY STAR bbd, I Iron I'm gemng a more eneray-etftftent producl
¦"Wben I boy a predWI w*th tbe ENERGY STAR label. I can mm.ys be sura *s high quai«y
TECHNOLOGY AF F WITY
" I tonstdnr mywitf up to data wtti InctnolDgy
3-3
4.1
J 3.7
3.8
3.1
3.6
1 3.3
I Ika Id Imvo Iha mail atftjincod lachr Dtoqy nvata&lG Id mo 3-®
Htl am wtflvig lu pay morif murtiy A [Moducl tlml Hie ftwat 6iWf
3.3
3.9
3,3
4
¦ MEI
3-4 ~ Non-MEl
4.0
*** MEI and non-MEl averages are statistically different from each other at the 1 -percent level of significance
(p-value<0.01).
** MEI and non-MEl averages are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance
(p-value<0.05).
C-18
-------
Response to Categorical Statements Regarding Messaging,
Purchasing, and Product Attributes - Average Response to Negative Statements
(MEI Base = Recognize Most Efficient label, Non-MEI Base = Recognize label)
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me
feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing
ENERGY STAR labeled products are no different from
other products
In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR labeled
products save me money
I don't trust that ENERGY STAR labeled products
save the energy they're supposed to
~ MEI
~ Non-MEI
MEI and non-MEl averages are similar for all negative statements.
C-19
-------
APPENDIX D: 2013 SURVEY QUESTIONS AND FLOW CHART
EG!. Have you ever seen
or heard of yellow stickers
called EnergyBuMe
labels?
r
^ X
Yes
EG2
What information does the Energy
Guide label provide?
ESt l-ave ^en-er
seen cr ward of the
EN ERG r ST4=! abe
Nj or
Dor t t>now
X. X
»>
Yes
ES3A,
Is tfus the label you have seen or
heart of before? [SHOW OLD OR
NEW LABEL, IN RANDOM
ORDER]
ES2
What dees re ENERGV STAR label
rrean to yoiP
"Yes
No. or
-Don't Know/
/X
/ No or \
x Don't Know /*
*v
ES3C i'clc ES4a '4
Please oct> at the ENERGY
STAR larel on the ieft Haae
,'D-j eve" seen o heard of :h-s
laheP [SHOW OLD OR NEvY
LABEL IN RANDOf/ORDER;
Yes
No
Don't know
D-1
-------
ES3B,
Have ycu seen or hearou think iff
when , cfthe ENERCi'i
STAR laber 3 ease *rrt» veur
3ns*e"s lielo'A
SO!
Where dio ;>o. see or hear something about ENERGY
STAR ? P:wse rrarfs al that apply.
[ehectboxj
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Newspaper or magazine article
TV commercial
TV news feature story
Radio commercial
Utility mailing or bill inserts
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
Yeitew BwareuMe label
Displays in stores
Social media
Salesperson
Contractor
Realtor
Lender
Homebuikter
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-woiker
Orel o'ease specify) {text box]
Don't know
ES3D.
Have »ou seen or reard of this
vers'-cn of the ENERGY STAR
latei? [SHOW LAPEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEENJ
Yes
No
Don't Know
ES4a1.
"lease cok at the ENERGY 8~AR
ot»ls on t"« eft T(*re the nessages
that cone to rr-nd wher yo* see Pe
ENERC y STAR abeis
"SHOW LABEL]
E 3 :i
No* that vou na«e had t~e cppolum1/
to see the ENERGY STAR atei, dc
v reca i seeing 0' hea'ng anything
¦snout ; tefore t s
\
Yes
A
No c*r \
Dor t Kito'a
I St p to Qi
0
D-2
-------
i
SCO
What did ju see or '"ear about
STAR'' P ease he
specific
New GB: As fa' as you !>io» wo cecities
if a product deserves the EMER3Y STAB
label? Select one answer on I ,•
Product manufacturers
Retailers/stores
US Government
Underwriters Laboratories
Electric S gas utilities
O'f-er _________
Con t Knc»
I
i
Q5(a). Now we're going to ask you about several groups of products.
As you review the list, please select each of she products, product
literature, or packaging on which you have seen the EWERC-Y STAR
label.
Heatino and Cooling Products
Home Office Equipment
Central air conditioner
Computer or monitor
Furnace or bolter
Computer printer
Heat pump
Copying machine
Thermostat
Fax machine
Room air conditioner
Scanner
Gas water heater
All-in-one printer
(includes copisr/scarmerffax)
None of these products
Q5(b>. Please continue reviewing the lists of products below and
select each of the products, product literature, or packaging or
which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
Home Electronics
Television
DVD product (including
TV/DVDJ
Audio product
None of these products
G5fc>. Finally, please review the last of tie product Sists below
and select each of the products, product lierature, or packaging
on which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label.
BuiJdina Materials
BuUdinas
Window
Newtf built home
Door
Skylight
insulation
Roofing materia!
I
¦ightina
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light Mb
Microwave men
Dehumidffier
D-3
-------
If
Qbat
Have vou or someone else in your household been siiopp.
rig in a si
ore in the last
12 months for any of the products listed below?
heating ant! Cooling Products
Room air conditioner
Yes
No
Don't know
Home Appiiancesflighting
Dishwasher
Yes
No
Don't know
Refrigerator
Yes
No
Don't toow
Lighting fixture
Yes
No
Don't know
Washing machine
Yes
No
Don't know
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Yes
No
Don't know
Home Electronics
Television
Yes
No
Don't know
DVD product (including TV/DVD s
Yes
No
Don"! know
Audio product
Yes
No
Daft know
i
QSa.2
Have you or someone else in your
housebote! been shopping in a store in the
last 12 rnomns for any of these other
products listed below?
Yes.
No
Don't know
Heating and Cooling Products
Thermostat
Gas water heater
Home Office Equipment
Computer or monitor
Computer printer
Copying machine
Fax machine
Scanner
All-in-one printer
(includes copierfecannerffax)
Hon* Appliances/Lighting
Microwave oven
DehumWfier
Building Materials
Window
Door
Skylight
insulation
Roofing material
Q6t>
Have you or someone
else in your
household been shopping for a central air
boiler, heat Durno or
newlv built home in tilt
last 12 months?
Yes
No
Don't know
i
i
For each product for wh-cfc Yes was checked in the Q6al ser es, asi<
Wher you shocked for . did vou look for the ENERGY STAR label?
Yes to Don't remember 1
did not s~cp for this product myself
'A-her vou shopped for . did vou ask a salesperson lor a orotfuct with
the ENERGY S'AR toel?
Yes No Don't remember 1
did not shop- for this product rrryseS
a room air conditioner
a dishwasher
a refrigerator
a lighting fixture
a washing machine
compact fluorescent tight bulbs
a television
a DVD product
an audio product
i
f
D-4
-------
Q12(a). Please tec* at each of tie groups of products again. Which of
these products have you purchased in the last 12 months' Please
check all that apply.
Heatina and Cooiina Products
Home Office Eouioirient
Central air conditioner
Computer or monitor
Furnace or boiler
Computer printer
Heat pump
Copying machine
Thermostat
Fix machine
Room air conditioner
Scanner
Gas water heater
AH-in-one printer
(includes copierfscanner/lax)
None of ttiese products
Q12(b). Please continue reviewing the lists of products below.
Which of these products have you purchased in the last 12
months? Please check. alt that apply.
Dishwasher
Refrigerator
Lighting fixture
Washing machine
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Tele vision
DVD product (including
TV/DVD)
Audio Product
Dehomiditer
None of these products
UU'Cj rjMi v, please e^v me ast ct :ne proc .»et list? r»esow.
*V*\ch oft^ese products fvive you tAirchassc r. the last 12
rrcntns^ check ail t"at arpi^
Buildings
Window Newly built home
Door
Skylight
insulation
Roofing materia!
None of these products
No/
Donl Know
Yes
Dd ,'ou nsr.^ii "-p cnnpatt 'imeozant light bulb(s) you
p'.rc^sel m 3 iig~f "e^
Yes
No
Don't know
if Yes checked to this question, ask:
What hind of buSb(s) did vou replace? (Check the
answei that L/e-st aesTbes rrosl cf the replacements
yoy made. 1
Coripari fluorescent ght hulc-
"candescent lig*" hu fo
Don'know
D-5
-------
X
E33A "Ot=1 an I
ES3B-ot=1 ard
ER3C not= 1 a-",!
„ ES:D not=l ar;
ESn not=1
ES3^=1 or ESjB~* or
:rS3C-1 or 3
ES6=1
No cf
Yes
Skip to New QC arK then
qc to ai i
Gc to O
Go to T>3j «tn«s rpo 7*
37 For anj of the products ycu
ourcmse; dies ,ou 're Eh ERGV
STA° ate> >0" the prMUC. itself an
the pkI-js ng or on the r.structiysl'
Q7a_1 thni Q7a_3: On which products
did you see lie ENERGY STAR label?
's-c» cnli tne product; the checked
o1 n0'2 in grra pj'tern v.'*- the
fa bwng options to check tot each
5>a,v late I d rof see la, el Don't
It'Xft ¦
Response scale: Very
iC In general, how
ch product they purchased—both ES and rot-in grid format in random order.)
Sosnewhat Dtssatslied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Very Satisfied
Don't Know
are you with each of the following products you
-------
/ tie
x Den t Knoft
Yes
09 Did v'ou tec&we telales or
reducer-ate flnarctng *tr tin*
ENERGf STAP-kWlSC P'OCluct'Si you
puichasea.
Q1! How I'hel,' are «xi la recommend ENERGY STAR-labeled
procucts to a f'-end"1
Slid ng 1 '-point "onzontal seals, with only appoints marten
En j point;
0=E'i'«Tiey UiMe j
i3=Et.n?' cecfed in Q73_t-C7a_S senes u e
they reporter, (/.rciiinj w, ENERC-Y STAR-iabe.ed
igrarg fixture i -si
A'hic Jpvt rf ENERG Y S^AR- ateed 13s" trj fi-tuia did
,ou cutchas?" iChetl ai that app ji
Gonpac" •uorescfnt-liasea ighting fixture
LED-sased iKj—irg fi-turs
Other type ct lighting fi > 'urs
Dor t Hiovv
G10. If
how BKety is it that you would have purchased the ENERGY
STAR-labefed proctuct?
or reduced-rate financing had not been available,
08. Far
parchas
your purchase decision?
(Show each ES product they purchased in 3 grid p;
Response
years !
Very much I Si
;h ENERGY STAR-tabeted produces) you
how much did the ENERGY STAR label ir
hat / Slight!it" / Not at all / Don't know
from previous
-------
/X
IF
x
IF
/ ES3A=1 0! E'VB=1 orX
\ ES3C=1 oi ES3^=I or
/
Hole: These two
diamonds are
the same as
those before Q7.
"'EI.h "h. =t an i *
Eo"*B no<=s lit 1
' ^*=1 «. il
XE^ J n« t=1 m t
sjESS nol=l/
'V
\
un me scale Dy eacn statement, piease incncate now strongly you agree or disagree witn me statement.
(Note to programmer: present G18a trough Q jirs in random order for each respondent.)
Strongly
Disagree
>oroewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Q16a. ENERGY STAR-iafceied products provide me with more benefits than products without the ENERGY STAR label..
1 2 3 4 5
Q1?u ENERGY c^P-W-eled Deducts offer better value than products without the label.
1 2 3 4 5
G*6c If canno* *nrl v nd cr pro^uct i am looking for with an ENERGY STAR label,! will shop elsewhere rattier than buy a product
'hr ooes n^t qua -> for fhe Id.-el
1 2 3 4 5
Q16f. Buying ENERGY ST^ 1 >-Ik; products makes me feel like I'm helping to protect the enviranmen* for future generations.
1 2 3 4 5
Q16h. Buying ENERGY ST^F-lah #*1 products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society.
12 3 4 5
G16i Buying ENERGY STAR |j >~\v l products makes me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing..
1 2 3 4 5
Q16I f consider myself to > to ENER S'^R-.iheted crcrlucts
1 2 3 4 5
Q16n. it seems like most pnd "tb hi,«- EKER3Y STAR 'ate1 these days
1 2 3 4 5
Q16o. If I see the EI4ERG ~ l.T^R hhe I knuA I rr getting a mere energ.-efficier' product
1 2 3 4 5
Q16p. When I buy a prod c4 ,sith ih^ ENERGY STAR label, I can always be sure it's high quality.
1 2 3 4 5
Q16q. ENERGY STAR-tol»- pi rr,% lur ts are no different from other products.
12 3 4 5
Ql6r. In the long run, I do" * h- ie*e ENERGY STAR-iabeled products save me money.
1 2 3 4 5
Q16s. I don't trust that ENERGY STAR-!abeted products save the energy they're supposed to.
1 2 3 4 5
Q16t1 am wilting to pay more money for a product that saves the most energy.
1 2 3 4 5
Q16u I like to have the most advanced technology available to me.
1 2 3 4 5
QtSv. I consider myself up to date with technology.
1 2 3 4 5
G18#„ I consult energystar.gov for information on saving energy.
2 4 5
Cl? -fease tell us al O'ut ,oui lote m you hous*^ h »purUosinq uecwwfe. Fui each of th» pr id rt groups IimoJ tv e* uo , 3 u ill,
make Repurchasing cecisrars dc vou snare zhv "ei wj! -makng equa i Aith mt tHer n u*®-"! j rrtn her -ome>. ne else u«mlf make
the decisions lx,t/ou sone mpi.: oi do -o. h"u- r v npiit ri ttv J? «.n n ma* nj
i -sualij. pule
the decisvns
I s^are the
dec.si^n-maf" srg
equally
Someone else
usually makes
the decisions, bu"
1 have some input
1 have no
input in
decision-
making
I'm not sure
Heating and Cooling Products
Home Office Equipment
Home Appliances/Lighting
Home Electronics
Building Materials
Page 8 of 9
D-8
-------
Note: These two
diamonds are
the same as
those before Q7
and Q16.
Q18. Have you ever
seen or heard of
ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient?
Q19.
What does ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient mean to you?
¦
Q20.
Were you aware that products
designated ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient 2013 represent a subset
of ENERGY STAR qualified
products within a given product
category?
No or Don t
Know
Q21.
Is this the graphic you have seen
or heard of before? [SHOW
MOST EFFICIENT
DESIGNATION]
On the scale by the following statement, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the statement.
Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat Strongly
Agree Agree
Q22. All other things equal, I would buy a product because it is designated as ENERGY STAR Most Efficient.
1 2 3 4 5
Go to demographic
questions and closing
------- |