NATIONAL AWARENESS
OF ENERGY STAR® FOR 2011
ENERGY STAR ANALYSIS OF CEE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Acknowledgements	ii
Executive Summary	ES-1
Introduction	1
Methodology Overview	2
Key Findings	4
Recognition	4
Understanding	11
Influence	16
Information Sources	22
Appendix A: Detailed Methodology	A-1
1	Questionnaire Design	A-1
2	Sampling	A-6
3	Data Collection	A-12
4	National Analysis	A-13
Appendix B: Demographics	B-1
Appendix C: Additional Questions From 2011 Survey	C-1
1	ENERGY STAR Designation	C-1
2	ENERGY STAR Designation by Publicity Category	C-2
3	ENERGY STAR Product Satisfaction	C-2
4	Consumer Perceptions	C-4
5	Purchasing Decisions	C-11
6	CFL Purchaser Questions	C-12
7	ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Questions	C-14
Appendix D: 2011 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
2011 survey:
•	Long Island Power Authority
•	Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
•	Pacific Gas and Electric
•	Southern California Edison
•	The United Illuminating Company
•	We Energies
•	Xcel Energy
In addition, EPA would like to acknowledge Hilary Forster and Nick Dahlberg for
their oversight of CEE data collection efforts; and Miriam Goldberg, Ryan Barry, Jon
Taffel, and Lucia Nixon of KEMA Inc.; and Grant Halloran, Sarah Duffy, and McCrea
Dunton 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 2011: Analysis of 2011 CEE
Household Survey. U.S. EPA, 2012.
ii

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2011, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) sponsored
the twelfth 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 2011 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-four percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when shown
the label. This is similar to the 83 percent finding in 2010.
•	Eighty-five 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 75 percent).
•	The proportion of households with a high understanding of the ENERGY STAR label
has increased from 70 percent in 2009 to 73 percent in 2010 and up to 75 percent in
2011. The difference between 2009 and 2011 is statistically significant at the 10
percent level (p-value = 0.089).
•	Sixty-four 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, 78 percent
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product.
ES-1

-------
•	Among all households, 44 percent knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product in the past 12 months.
•	For 76 percent of the households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided),
and knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product, the label influenced
at least one of their purchase decisions "very much" or "somewhat." For another 12
percent of these households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly."
•	Twenty-four percent of households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-
labeled product received a financial incentive for doing so in 2011, the same as in
2010. Eighty-eight percent of these households report they would have been "very
likely" (60 percent) or "somewhat likely" (28 percent) to purchase the labeled product
without the financial incentive.
•	Seventy-eight 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; 32 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.
•	Without a visual aid, 79 percent of households in high-publicity areas recognized the
label versus 70 percent in non-high-publicity areas; this difference is statistically
significant (p-value = 0.012). When the label was shown to them, about the same
proportion of households in high- and non-high-publicity areas recognized it, 86
percent in high publicity and 82 percent in non-high publicity areas (p-value > 0.10).
•	More households exhibited a high degree of understanding of the ENERGY STAR
label in high-publicity areas (77 percent) than in non-high-publicity areas (72
percent). This difference is significant at the 10 percent level (p-value = 0.091).
•	Sixty-eight percent of the households in high-publicity areas associated the
ENERGY STAR label with "efficiency or energy savings," compared with 60 percent
of households in non-high-publicity areas. This difference is statistically significant at
the 5 percent level (p-value = 0.049).
•	Considering only households that recognized the label (with a visual aid), a larger
proportion of households in high- than in non-high-publicity areas heard or saw
something about ENERGY STAR via radio commercials or from a friend, neighbor,
relative or co-worker.
ES-2

-------
Conclusions
This twelfth 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.
•	Understanding of the label's messaging continues to increase. The proportion of
households with a high understanding of the label has increased over the past
several years, from 70 percent in 2009 to 75 percent in 2011.
•	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 (75 percent).
•	Aided recognition of the ENERGY STAR label in non-high-publicity areas is quite
similar to aided recognition in high-publicity areas. It should be noted that during
2011, some states continued to offer rebates for ENERGY STAR qualified
appliances via funding (administered by the U.S. Department of Energy) from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
•	Publicity efforts of active regional/local energy efficiency program sponsors are
associated with increased recognition (unaided) and understanding of the ENERGY
STAR label:
o Unaided recognition of the label is higher (79 percent) in high-publicity areas
than in non-high-publicity areas (70 percent).
o A larger proportion of households exhibit a high degree of understanding of
the label in high-publicity areas (77 percent) than in non-high-publicity areas
(72 percent).
o A larger proportion of households in high- (68 percent) than non-high-publicity
areas (60 percent) associate the label with "energy efficiency/savings."
ES-3

-------
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 2011, members of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE)
sponsored the twelfth 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 2011 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 2011 survey (Appendix C), and a copy of the 2011 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 2011, 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 - 2010. As in
previous years, CEE and its sponsoring members made the survey data available to
EPA for analysis.
The survey was a national survey. The sampling frame for this national survey
included all households in the largest Nielsen Designated Market Areas® (DMA) that
together accounted for about 70 percent of U.S. television households (the largest
57 DMAs). In prior years, some CEE members chose to sponsor more intensive
sampling (i.e., an oversample) in selected localities, referred to here as sponsor
areas. In 2011, 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. 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. It should be noted that during 2011, some states continued to
offer rebates for ENERGY STAR qualified appliances via funding (administered by
the U.S. Department of Energy) from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009.
A decision was made to retain the same publicity classification procedure used in
the past 10 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.
1 In previous years, the panel was recruited via random-digit dial. 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
http://www.knowledqenetworks.com/accuracv/fall-winter2010/abs-fall201Q.html.
2

-------
• Other: All other DMAs.
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 2011 publicity classifications, given
the significant short-term publicity and funding associated with ARRA, for the
purpose of this report, low publicity and other publicity are combined in the analysis
and referenced as non-high-publicity areas. Another 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 2011 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 2011, 84 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when
shown the label (i.e., aided recognition). Seventy-five 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 unaided
recognition. Aided recognition was measured by showing respondents the ENERGY
STAR label and then asking if they had seen or heard of the label. Both methods are
useful measurements of label recognition, although unaided recognition is the more
conservative of the two.
Recognition results for both the 2011 and 2010 surveys are summarized in the
following table. Aided and unaided recognition of the ENERGY STAR label results
are similar in 2010 and 2011.
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Recognize
ENERGY
STAR Label
2011
2010
Aided
(n=976)
Unaided
(n=909)
Aided
(n=1,641)
Unaided
(n=1,521)
Yes
84%
75%
83%
72%
Standard
error
1.5%
1.8%
1.3%
1.7%
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), 86 percent of households in
high-publicity areas, and 82 percent in non-high-publicity areas recognized the label;
this difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.102). However, unaided
recognition was higher in high-publicity areas. Unaided recognition was 79 percent
in high-publicity areas and 70 percent in non-high-publicity areas; this difference was
statistically significant at the 5-percent level for unaided recognition (p-value =
0.012).
Recognition of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100%	-|
90%	-
80%	-
70%	-
60%	-
50%	-
40%	-
30%	-
20%	-
10%	-
0% -
86%
82%
¦ High Publicity
79% ~ Non-High Publicity
70%
Aided (n=976)
"Unaided (n=909)
High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent
level of significance (p-value<0.05).
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.
Unprompted, appliances, refrigerators, and washing machines showed the strongest
associations with the label at 43, 37, and 33 percent, respectively. Though it does
not have an ENERGY STAR specification, clothes dryers showed the fourth
strongest association with the label at 29 percent. The next most strongly associated
products (unprompted) were dishwashers, stoves/ovens, and air conditioners, at 16,
14, and 13 percent, respectively. Of the top eight product associations, none are
significantly different from the 2010 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. Windows and insulation showed a significant increase from 2010 in
unprompted association; however, these products were mentioned by relatively few
respondents (6% and 1% respectively).
When prompted, 88 percent of households had seen the label on refrigerators.
Washing machines (79 percent) and dishwashers (76 percent) were the next
products most commonly associated with the ENERGY STAR label. Windows,
central A/C, gas water heaters, televisions, room air conditioners, and microwave
ovens, followed next in a range of 43 to 55 percent. While 43 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.
No products show a significant increase or decrease in prompted association
compared to 2010.
6

-------
Unprompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 732]
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."
444 2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance
(p-	The proportion of households in 2011 is larger than 2010 for window.
44 2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance
(P-
7

-------
Prompted Product Association with the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = Recognize label (aided)2]
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dishwasher
Window
Central A/C
Gas water heater
Television
Room air conditioner
Microwave oven
Compact fluorescent light bulb
Computer or monitor
Furnace/boiler
Door
Newly built home
Insulation
Lighting fixture
All-in-one printer
DVD
Heat Pump
Thermostat
Computer printer
Dehumidifier
Copying machine
Roofing material
Audio product
Skylight
Fax machine
Scanner
~
3%
=~ 79%
76%
55%
~ 50%
48%
~	45%
~	44%
I 43%
~ 35%
34%
~ 33%
~ 29%
~ 26%
~ 25%
~ 23%
=1 19%
=] 18%
=~ 18%
¦ 17%
~ 15%
I 14%
=~ 12%
¦ 12%
: 11%
] 10%
3%
~ 7%
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."
2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically similar for all products.
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 744, 744, and 717 respectively.
8

-------
Product Associations by Publicity Category
Regional energy efficiency program sponsors have traditionally focused on
promoting ENERGY STAR qualified lighting, refrigerators, room air conditioners,
washing machines, dishwashers, programmable thermostats3, and new homes.
More recently, program sponsors have begun to promote ENERGY STAR qualified
water heaters and TVs in some parts of the country. In addition, some programs that
have traditionally promoted ENERGY STAR appliances might have begun promoting
higher levels of efficiency due to local market conditions, or discontinued some
promotions due to state-run ENERGY STAR appliance rebate programs coming
online in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 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 (38 percent)
than non-high-publicity areas (31 percent) associated compact fluorescent light
bulbs (CFLs) with the ENERGY STAR label when prompted.
•	A significantly smaller proportion of households in high- than in non-high-publicity
areas associated central A/C, microwave ovens (which do not qualify for
ENERGY STAR labeling), and doors with the 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
4,5
[Base = Recognize label (aided) ]
Refrigerator
Washing machine
Dishwasher
Window
Gas water heater
Room airconditioner
"""Central A/C
Television
""Microwave oven
"Compact fluorescent light bulb
Computer or monitor
Furnace/boiler
"Door
Newly builthome
Insulation
Lighting fixture
All-in-one printer
DVD
HeatPump
Computer printer
Thermostat
Dehumidifier
Copying machine
Roofing material
Audio product
Skylight
Fax machine
_87%
J 89%
_78%
—1 82%
L75%
78%
52%
58%
*/f%
¦	46%
43%
¦	45%
~ 57%

46%
39%
~ 48%
J 31%
H 33%
138%
35%
32%
~ 34%
¦ 25%
] 34%
M 24%
] 28%
22%
24%
I 16%
I 20%
11%
11%
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 1-percent level of
significance (p-value<0.01).
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 401
and 343, respectively. For Home Appliances/Lighting and Home Electronics they are 401 and 343, and for
Building Materials and Buildings they are 383 and 334.
5	The percent labels on the bars are rounded to nearest whole number. Therefore bars with the same label may
not appear to be the same length.
10

-------
UNDERSTANDING
In 2011, 85 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 (75 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 2011, 2010, and 2009 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 has increased from 70 percent in
2009 to 75 percent in 2011. This difference statistically significant at the 10 percent
level (p-value=0.089). There are no statistical differences in the level of
understanding between 2011 and 2010.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Level of Understanding
2011
2010
2009
of the Label
(n=1,017)
(n=1,707)
(n=1,091)
High understanding
75%
73%
70%
General understanding
10%
12%
10%
No understanding
16%
16%
19%
Total
100%
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-six percent of households in high-publicity areas had at least a general
understanding of the label compared with 83 percent of households in non-high-
publicity areas. This difference between the publicity areas is not statistically
significant at the 10-percent level. However, more households exhibited a high
degree of understanding in high-publicity areas (77 percent) than in non-high-
publicity areas (72 percent). This difference is significant at the 10 percent level fa-
value = 0.091).
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
Publicity Category
At Least General
Understanding of Label
High
86%
Non-high
83%
Difference (High minus Non-high)
3%
p-value
0.274
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
100% -I
90% -
80% -
70% -
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
~ High Understanding
77%
~General Understanding
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-four 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.
Between 2010 and 2011 there was an increase in the proportion of respondents who
associated the ENERGY STAR label with "savings (not linked to operation)" (4
percent to 10 percent) and "energy/environmental product standards" (7 percent to 9
percent) and there was a decrease in "save money on operation" (8 percent to 5
percent).
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label
[Base = All respondents]
Energy efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
***Savings (not linked to operation)
'Energy/environmental product standards
**Save money on operation
Energy conservation
11%
10%
9%
5%
~ 3%
Energy without link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses with EnergyGuide
Government backing
Product standards no environmental link
Save money on purchase
Environmental no link to benefit
Mentions specific products
Quality
64%
High
Understanding
~ 9%
~	4%
P 3%
~	3%
Q 1%
1%
Q 1%
1%
1%
General Understanding
J-
0% 20% 40%
	1	1	1
60% 80% 100%
2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-
2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level of significance
(P-
13

-------
Understanding of Label Messaging by Publicity Category
More respondents (68 percent) in high-publicity regions than in non-high-publicity
regions (60 percent) associated the ENERGY STAR label with "energy
efficiency/savings"; this difference is significant at the 5-percent level. Fewer
respondents (4 percent) in high-publicity than in non-high publicity regions (7
percent) associated the label with "save money on operation" with the label; this
difference is significant at the 10-percent level. For other messages, the proportion
of households that associated the message with the ENERGY STAR label was
similar for high- and non-high-publicity areas.
Messages of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
[Base = All respondents]
**Energy efficiency/savings
Environmental benefit
Savings (not linked to operation)
Energy/environmental product standards
*Save money on operation
Energy conservation
Energy without link to efficiency
Electricity
Confuses with EnergyGuide
Government backing
Save money on purchase
Product standards no environmental link
Quality
Mentions specific products
Environmental no link to benefit
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-	05).
* High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent level
of significance (p-
12%
10%
68%
J 60%
I 9%
3 10%
I 9%
I 9%
4%
~7%
3%
3%
High Understanding
4%
?3%
3%
72%
3%
T 2%
1%
1 2%
"L1%
3 2%
1%
11%
l%
l 1%
1%
12%
9%
9%
General Understanding
~I
¦ High Publicity ~ Non-High Publicity
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 2011, 90 percent of households that recognized the
ENERGY STAR label had at least a general understanding of it, while among
households that did not recognize the label, 58 percent had at least a general
understanding of it. This 32 percentage point difference in understanding between
households that recognized the label and those that did not is statistically significant
at the 1-percent level.
Among households that did not recognize the label when shown it, the proportion
that had at least a general understanding of the label in 2011 (58 percent) is
statistically different (lower) from the 2010 result (74 percent). It is not statistically
different from the 2009 result (63 percent), suggesting the 2010 result is not part of
an upward trend.
Understanding of the ENERGY STAR Label by Aided Recognition
	[Base = All respondents]	
Recognize ENERGY STAR
Label Aided
At Least General Understanding of Label
2011
2010
2009
Yes
90%
87%
63%
No
58%
74%
37%
Difference (Yes minus No)
32%
13%
26%
p-value
<0.0001
0.002
<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 2010 and 2011 are similar. In 2011,
of the households that recognized the label (aided) and purchased a product in a
relevant product category, 78 percent purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product.
16

-------
National Household Market Penetration of
ENERGY STAR Products by Year

Aided
Recognition
(2010 n=1,641)
(2011 n=976)
Purchased
Product
(2010 n=1,400)
(2011 n=829)
Knowingly
Purchased
ENERGY STAR
product
(2010 n=733)
(2011 n=423)
2010
83%
67%
77%
2011
84%
67%
78%
Difference
-0.9%
0.5%
-0.5%
p-value
0.658
0.852
0.880
The overall result is that 44 percent of all households knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR product in the past 12 months. This is similar to the 2010 result (43
percent).
Knowingly Purchased ENERGY STAR Product By Year
(Base = All respondents)

2011
(n=976)
2010
(n=1,641)
Estimate (yes)
44%
43%
Standard Error
2.5%
2.2%
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 44 and 43 percent, respectively.
This difference is not significant at the 10-percent level (p-value = 0.822). The
market penetration of ENERGY STAR products in high-publicity areas and in non-
high-publicity areas was similar between 2010 and 2011.
Knowingly Purchased ENERGY STAR
Product by Publicity Category and Year
[Base = All respondents]
Publicity Category
% Households
2011
2010
High
44%
43%
Non-High
43%
44%
Difference (High minus Non-High)
1%
-1%
p-value
0.822
0.757
As noted above, three proportions are used to calculate the proportion of all
households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR product: aided recognition
17

-------
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. In
2011, for each of these three proportions, the differences between high- and non-
high-publicity areas are not statistically significant.
National Household Market Penetration of
ENERGY STAR Products by Publicity Category

Aided
Recognition
(n = 976)
Purchased
Product
(n = 829)
Knowingly
Purchased
ENERGY STAR
product
(n = 423)
High Publicity
86%
66%
77%
Non-High Publicity
82%
67%
78%
Difference
4.8%
-1.1%
-1.1%
p-value
0.103
0.784
0.821
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label
Half of the households that knowingly purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled
product in 2011 reported having been influenced "very much" by the label. For 12
percent of households, the label influenced their purchase decisions "slightly."
Another 12 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 2010.
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label on Purchase Decisions6
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and ENERGY STAR purchasers]
Influence of the Label
on Purchasing
Decisions
2011
(n=305)
Maximum
2010
(n=556)
Maximum
Very much
50%
48%
Somewhat
26%
26%
Slightly
12%
11%
Not at all
12%
15%
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.
18

-------
Influence of the ENERGY STAR Label by Publicity Category
The purchase decisions of 53 percent of households in high-publicity areas were
influenced "very much" by the ENERGY STAR label, compared to 45 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 78 to 72 percent, respectively, which
is not statistically different at the 10-percent level of significance. The combined
"very much, somewhat, or slightly" proportion is 91 percent in high-publicity areas,
and 84 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 = 305]
Publicity Category
Very much
Very much
or
somewhat
Very much,
somewhat,
or slightly
High
53%
78%
91%
Non-High
45%
72%
84%
Difference (High minus Non-High)
8%
6%
7%
p-value
0.252
0.316
0.134
19

-------
Rebate and Financing Influence
From 2010 to 2011, the percentage of households that knowingly purchased an
ENERGY STAR-labeled product and received rebates or reduced-rate financing was
level at 24 percent. Of these households in 2011, 60 percent would have been "very
likely" to purchase the ENERGY STAR product if financial incentives had not been
available. This increase of 10 percentage points from the previous year is not
statistically significant.
Another 28 percent would have been "somewhat likely" to purchase without a rebate
in 2011. This leaves 10 percent that would have been "slightly likely" and 3 percent
"not at all likely." None of these are significantly different from 2010.
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
2011
(n=281)
2010
(n=521)
Yes
24%
24%
No
76%
76%
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 Purchase
ENERGY STAR Product
Without Financial
Incentive
% Households
2011
(n=65)
2010
(n=133)
Very likely
60%
50%
Somewhat likely
28%
25%
Slightly likely
10%
19%
Not at all likely
3%
5%
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?"
20

-------
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR is investigated by asking respondents who knowingly
purchased an ENERGY STAR-labeled product how likely they would be to
recommend ENERGY STAR products to a friend. Respondents were asked to report
this likelihood on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means "extremely unlikely" and 10
means "extremely likely." As can be seen in the table below, 32 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 2010 value.
The likelihood of recommending ENERGY STAR products to a friend is greater than
"6" for 78 percent of these households. This is consistent with the previous year's
result of 79 percent.
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided) and purchasers]
Likelihood
Recommend
ENERGY STAR
Products
% Households
2011
(n=320)
2010
(n=577)
10 - Extremely likely
32%
29%
9
22%
24%
8
13%
16%
7
11%
10%
6
6%
7%
5
11%
8%
4
2%
2%
3
0%
1%
2
0%
1%
1
2%
1%
0 - Extremely unlikely
0%
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."
21

-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
Sources Seen
Sixty-nine percent of households have seen something about ENERGY STAR in
store displays, and 68 percent of households have seen something about ENERGY
STAR on appliance or electronics labels. Forty-six percent of households heard or
saw something about ENERGY STAR on TV commercials. Between 23 and 26
percent of households saw something about ENERGY STAR on or in utility mailings
or bill inserts, EnergyGuide labels, or in newspaper or magazine advertisements.
Significantly fewer households in 2011 than in 2010 saw something about ENERGY
STAR in a TV news feature story (5 percent compared to 8 percent). The proportion
informed by their lender fell from one percent in 2010 to zero in 2011. All other
responses were statistically similar to the proportions from the 2010 survey.
Sources Saw or Heard Something About ENERGY STAR
[Base = Recognize label (aided), n = 721]
Displays in stores
Labels on appliances or electronic equipment
TV commercial
Utility mailing or bill insert
Yellow EnergyGuide label
Newspaper or magazine advertisement
Internet
Salesperson
Newspaper or magazine article
Direct mail or circular advertisement
Homebuilder
Radio commercial
Friend, neighbor, relative, or co-worker
Billboard
Contractor
**TV news feature story
Realtor
Other
***Lender
69%
68%
46%
26%
: 23%
1 23%
1 18%
] 13%
I 12%
10%
Zl 9%
~	9%
~	7%
Zl 6%
~	5%
~	5%
] 2%
] 2%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: S01: "Where did you see or hear something about ENERGY STAR? Please mark all that apply."
** 2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.05). Proportion of households in 2011 is smaller than in 2010 for TV news feature story.
* 2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-
value<0.01). Proportion of households in 2011 is smaller than in 2010 for Lender.
22

-------
Sources Seen by Publicity Category
For a couple of information sources, the proportion of households that heard or saw
something about ENERGY STAR was significantly larger in high- than in non-high-
publicity areas. This was the case for radio commercials and friend, neighbor,
relative, or co-worker. 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 = 721]
444 High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 1-percent level
of significance (p-
23

-------
APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY
During September 2011, 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 2010). As in the 11 previous
years, CEE and its members sponsoring the survey made the survey data available
to EPA for analysis. In 2001, a rigorous comparative analysis of the results obtained
via a mail survey versus an internet survey was conducted. The results from the two
survey methods were comparable for most major indicators.7 Results from that time-
frame were also analogous to telephone surveys for aided recognition.8
This report discusses the results of the 2011 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 27 through October 10, 2011.
The remainder of Appendix A discusses the questionnaire design, sampling and
weighting methodologies, data collection, and the national analysis. See Appendix D
for survey questions.
1 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
In 2011, 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
7	National Analysis of CEE 2001 ENERGY STAR Household Surveys. U.S. EPA, 2002.
8	Tannenbaum, Bobbi and Shel Feldman. "ENERGY STAR Awareness as a Function of Survey Method." IEPEC,
2001.
A-1

-------
recruited by telephone.9 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 2011 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 2011 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 2011 questionnaire, including:
•	To maintain consistency with the CEE 2000 and 2001 mail questionnaires and
the internet questionnaires fielded in 2001 and subsequent years
•	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 2011 survey against those from the 2010 CEE survey
The 2011 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
9 In previous years, the panel was recruited via random-digit dial. Knowledge Networks believes that ABS offers
advantages, including coverage of cell-phone-only households, and analysis of non-response bias. More
information is available at http://www.knowledqenetworks.com/accuracv/fall-winter2010/abs-fall2010.html.
A-2

-------
•	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
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-3

-------
1.3 Changes to the Questionnaire
The 2011 questionnaire was very similar to the 2010 questionnaire. The only change
to the 2011 questionnaire from the previous year was the addition of a short
sequence of questions designed to collect information on recognition and influence
of the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient designation. The ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient questions are asked at the end of the questionnaire prior to the
demographic questions.
The new questions are:10
Q17: Have you ever seen or heard of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient?
Q18: What does ENERGY STAR Most Efficient mean to you?
Q19: Is this the graphic you have seen or heard of before? [SHOW MOST
EFFICIENT DESIGNATION]
Q20: 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. All other things equal, I would buy a product because it is
designated as ENERY STAR Most Efficient.
1.4 Determination of Aided Recognition
In the 2011 analysis, the determination of aided recognition was based on the
responses to five questions. This is the same sequence and numbering used in the
2010 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.)
10
Appendix D: 2011 Survey Questions and Flow Chart provides a graphical presentation of the survey questions
and skip patterns.
A-4

-------
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-5

-------
2 SAMPLING
2.1 Designated Marketing Areas' Publicity Categories
The same publicity classification procedure used in the past 10 years was used in
2011. 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. However, during 2011, some states continued
ENERGY STAR appliance rebate programs that were funded by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and administered via the U.S.
Department of Energy. A decision was made to retain the same publicity
classification used in the past 10 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.
A-6

-------
Each of the Top 57 DMAs was classified according to these three criteria, and
sampled based on that classification. Although the sample frame was based on the
2011 publicity classifications, given the significant short-term publicity and funding
associated with ARRA, for the purpose of this report, low publicity and other publicity
are combined in the analysis and referenced as non-high-publicity areas. Another
contributing factor 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.
2.2 Sample Design
The survey was a national survey. 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.11
In 2011, no CEE member chose to sponsor an oversample, so the stratum grouping
the remaining 153 DMAs (developed in 2010) was not revisited this year.
As in previous years' studies, the 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 10 years was used this year.12
Program publicity has expanded over the past eleven 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. In 2010, for the first time,
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 year, the national sample includes another 430 respondents from
the Non-Top-57 DMAs.13
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.
11	Analysis included in last year's report showed no statistical difference for key metrics between the 57 largest
DMAs and all 210 DMAs.
12	None of the 57 largest DMAs changed publicity category between 2010 and 2011.
13	These are not included in the national analysis to maintain consistency with previous years.
A-7

-------
Large (To
p 57) DMAs
Rank
Designated Market Area
(DMA)
TV Households
2010-2011

Number
% of US
Publicity
Category
1
New York
7,515,330
6.484
High
2
Los Angeles
5,666,900
4.889
High
3
Chicago
3,502,610
3.022
High
4
Philadelphia
3,015,820
2.602
Other
5
Dallas-Ft. Worth
2,594,630
2.239
Other
6
San Francisco-Oak-San Jose
2,523,520
2.177
High
7
Boston (Manchester)
2,460,290
2.123
High
8
Atlanta
2,407,080
2.077
High
9
Washington, DC (Hagrstwn)
2,389,710
2.062
High
10
Houston
2,177,220
1.878
Other
11
Detroit
1,883,840
1.625
Other
12
Phoenix (Prescott)
1,881,310
1.623
High
13
Seattle-Tacoma
1,874,750
1.617
High
14
Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota)
1,795,200
1.549
Other
15
Minneapolis-St. Paul
1,753,780
1.513
High
16
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale
1,580,580
1.364
Other
17
Denver
1,572,740
1.357
Other
18
Cleveland-Akron(Canton)
1,526,200
1.317
Other
19
Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn
1,453,120
1.254
Other
20
Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto
1,409,400
1.216
High
21
St. Louis
1,258,580
1.086
Other
22
Portland, OR
1,197,780
1.033
High
23
Charlotte
1,166,180
1.006
Other
24
Pittsburgh
1,160,820
1.002
Other
25
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle)
1,131,310
0.976
Low
26
Baltimore
1,108,360
0.956
Other
27
Indianapolis
1,106,420
0.955
Other
28
San Diego
1,089,010
0.940
High
29
Nashville
1,039,430
0.897
Low
30
Hartford & New Haven
1,018,770
0.879
High
31
Kansas City
974,820
0.841
Other
32
Salt Lake City
953,950
0.823
High
33
Cincinnati
923,830
0.797
Low
34
Columbus, OH
915,950
0.790
Other
35
Milwaukee
901,100
0.777
High
36
Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And
878,550
0.758
Low
37
San Antonio
844,910
0.729
Low
38
West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
773,890
0.668
Low
39
Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York
749,020
0.646
Other
40
Birmingham (Ann and Tusc)
747,190
0.645
Low
41
Grand Rapids-Kalmzoo-B.Crk
740,230
0.639
Other
42
Las Vegas
718,030
0.619
High
43
Norfolk-Portsmth-Newpt Nws
716,050
0.618
Low
14 Publicity categories are the same as 2010.
A-8

-------
Rank
Designated Market Area
(DMA)
TV Households
2010-2011

Number
% of US
Publicity
Category
44
Austin
707,430
0.610
High
45
Oklahoma City
704,670
0.608
Low
46
Albuquerque-Santa Fe
703,720
0.607
Other
47
Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem
699,040
0.603
Low
48
Memphis
693,860
0.599
Low
49
Jacksonville
678,430
0.585
Low
50
Louisville
674,940
0.582
High
51
Buffalo
636,320
0.549
High
52
New Orleans
635,860
0.549
Other
53
Providence-New Bedford
620,600
0.535
High
54
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
595,480
0.514
Low
55
Fresno-Visalia
581,340
0.502
High
56
Little Rock-Pine Bluff
573,670
0.495
Low
57
Richmond-Petersburg
558,500
0.482
Other
Total
82,162,070
70.887

A-9

-------
Large (Top 57) DMAs by Publicity Category15
2011
H "High" publicity category
L "Low" publicity category
O "Other" publicity category
15 There were no large DMAs in either Alaska or Hawaii.

-------
2.3 Weighting Procedures
Knowledge Networks, the company that provided the internet survey service,
developed the weights used in the analysis. Knowledge Networks first adjusted its
panel members for known disproportions due to the panel's original selection and
recruitment design and then proceeded with a post-stratification weighting that
accounted for differences between the 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, Knowledge Networks further adjusted the
sampling weight to account for survey non-response. The correction for survey non-
response is analogous to the adjustment for differences 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-11

-------
3 DATA COLLECTION
3.1	Survey Fielding Period
The survey began on September 27 and closed on October 10, 2011.
3.2	Response Rate
The overall response rate was 9 percent for the CEE 2011 ENERGY STAR
Household Survey. This level of response is typical for Knowledge Networks'
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 2011 ENERGY STAR Household Survey,
the return rate was 64 percent. While this number is quite high, it must be adjusted
by the recruitment rate, which is the number of households that agreed to participate
in the Knowledge Networks panel as a proportion of the number of households
asked to participate. The recruitment rate was 15 percent. Thus, the response rate
for the CEE 2011 ENERGY STAR Household survey was the product of the survey-
specific return rate of 64 percent and the recruitment rate of 15 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 2011 ENERGY STAR Household Survey Response Rate16
Response Rate Factors
Number
or % of
Respondents
Sendout/requested
1,591
Completed
1,017
Return rate
64%
Recruitment rate
15%
Response rate
9%
16 Only respondents from Top-57 DMAs are included in this table.
A-12

-------
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.
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-13

-------
APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS
This appendix presents the relationship between the demographic characteristics
found in the weighted survey data and the corresponding characteristics in the study
population of all U.S. households. Professional survey and data collection firms
make significant efforts to ensure the rigor of their methods and to produce the
highest quality results. Each year, Knowledge Networks—the company that
maintains the internet-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
-12.3%
Householder/respondent age
25-34
6.1%
Householder/respondent gender
Gender
+/- 0.5%
Dwelling type
Bldg. (>=2 units)
-4.6%
Own/rent
Own/rent
+/- 1.3%
Household annual income
$75,000 and over
10.6%
The largest differences (in absolute value) between the weighted survey data and
national Census data, at 10 and 12 percentage points, are the proportion of
households in the $75,000 and over income category and the proportion of one
person households, respectively. The difference in the proportion of
householder/respondent age 25 - 34 years is the next largest, at 6.1 percentage
points, and the number of multi-unit dwellings is the next largest, at 4.6 percentage
points is the next largest. 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 Census data for other demographic characteristics of the
population—own/rent, and gender—are all quite small, at less than two percentage
points.
B-1

-------
Household Size Distribution
Number of
Persons in
Household
Census
% Dwelling
Units3
Survey
Estimate Minus
Census
% Dwelling
Units
One
27%
-12.3%
Two
33%
6.0%
Three
16%
2.9%
Four
14%
1.2%
Five or more
10%
2.3%
Total (%)
100%

Total (1,000s)
111,806
aU.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-9.
Age Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Age
Census
%
Householders3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
%
Householders
18-24
5%
5.4%
25-34
17%
6.1%
35-44
20%
-4.8%
45-54
21%
-3.2%
55-64
17%
1.8%
65 or older
21%
-5.3%
Total (%)
100%

Total (1,000s)
111,806
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-9.
Gender Distribution
Householder/
Respondent
Gender
Census
%
Population3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Population
Female
51%
0.5%
Male
49%
-0.5%
Total (%)
100%

aU.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates

-------
Dwelling Type Distribution

Census
Survey
Estimate Minus
Dwelling Type
% Dwelling
Units3
Census
% Dwelling
Units
Single-family,
unattached
63%
4.1%
Single-family, attached
6%
3.2%
Bldg. (>=2 units)
25%
-4.6%
Mobile home
6%
-2.7%
Total (%)
100%

Total (1,000s)
113,616

a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-1.
Own/Rent Distribution
Own/Rent
Census
%
Households3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
Own
68%
1.3%
Rent
32%
-1.3%
Total (%)
100%

Total
(1,000s)
111,806
a U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, 2009, Table 2-1.
Income Distribution
Total Household
Annual Income
(before taxes)
Census
%
Households3
Survey
Estimate
Minus Census
% Households
Less than
$15,000
13%
-3.2%
$15,000-$24,999
12%
-4.5%
$25,000-$49,999
25%
-3.2%
$50,000-$74,999
18%
0.3%
$75,000 and over
32%
10.6%
Total (%)
100%

Total (1,000s)
117,538
a U.S. Census Bureau, CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2010, Table HINC-01
Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income (2009 data)
B-3

-------
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM 2011 SURVEY
This appendix presents the results of additional ENERGY STAR related questions in
the 2011 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
1 ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION
Forty-five percent of households that recognized the ENERGY STAR label (aided)
thought that the U.S. government decides if a product deserves the label. This is
statistically similar to the 2010 result. Twenty-four percent thought the Underwriters
Laboratories make this decision, up from 18 percent in 2010 (p-value = 0.047).
Eighteen percent thought the product manufacturers make the decision.
Designates ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=482)
U.S. government
Underwriters Laboratories
Product manufacturer
*Electric and gas utility
Other
Retailer/store
45%
24%
18%
] 11%
1%
<1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: QB: "As far as you know, who decides if a product deserves the ENERGY STAR label?"
** 2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level
of significance (p-	05). Proportion is larger in 2011 than 2010.
* 2011 and 2010 proportions are statistically different from each other at the 10-percent
level of significance (p-	Proportion is smaller in 2011 than 2010.
C-1

-------
2 ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION BY PUBLICITY CATEGORY
In 2011, high-publicity areas and non-high-publicity areas identified the entity that
designates the ENERGY STAR label in similar proportions in all categories.
Designates ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product by Publicity Category
(Base = Recognize label (aided), n=482)
U.S. government
Underwriters Laboratories
P rod u ct m an u f actu re r
Electric and gas utility
Other
Retailer/store
¦ 46%
T44%
125%
[ 24%
¦ 17%
~ 19%
¦12%
™10%
1%
] 2%
0%
1%
¦ High Publicity
~ Non-High Publicity
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
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 4.1 and 4.0
respectively.
ENERGY STAR-labeled washing machines, heat pumps, roofing materials, and
insulation received higher satisfaction ratings compared with unlabeled versions of
these products.
Overall, customer satisfaction with ENERGY STAR products was similar in 2010 and
2011, at 4.1. Five ENERGY STAR-labeled products showed a statistically significant
increase in customer satisfaction between 2010 and 2011. These products were
computer printer, washing machine, heat pump, microwave oven, dehumidifier and
door. Two ENERGY STAR-labeled products showed a decrease in customer
satisfaction over the same period: compact fluorescent light bulbs and audio
products.
There is no ENERGY STAR designation for microwave ovens.
C-2

-------
ENERGY STAR vs. Non-ENERGY STAR-Labeled Product Satisfaction
(Bases = Recognize label (aided) and purchased specified product18)
Room air conditioner (ne=37, n0=15
**Washing machine (ne=59, n0=19
Dishwasher (ne=29, n0=
Microwave oven (ne=33, n0=20
Dehumidifier(ne=12, n0=6
Computer printer (ne=19, n0=17
**Heat pump (ne=6, n0=3
0
~ ENERGY STAR-labeled product
5^

Average Satisfaction M=verv dissatisfied. 5=vervsatisfied)
Overall (ne=327, n0=236
Audio product (ne=26, n0=20
Newly built home (ne=4, n0=3
*Roofing materials (ne= 15, n0=18
Insulation (ne=23, n0=10
Thermostat (ne=31, n0=14
Window (ne=37, n0=12
Furnace/boiler (ne=24, n0=5
Lighting fixture (ne=54, n0=42
Skylight (ne=3, n0=2
Computer or monitor (ne=86, n0=46
Copying machine (ne=3, n0=3
Central A/C (ne=28, n0=12
Gas water heater (ne=25, n0=3
Television (ne=88, n0=59
Compact fluorescent light bulb (ne=126, n0=74
Door(ne=30, n0=12
DVD (ne=37, n0=35
Scanner (ne=7, n0=4
Refrigerator(ne=63, n0=22
All-in-one printer (ne=52, n0=30
Fax Machine (ne=3, n0:
r-j\ 4.1
^T4.0
i_3,9
=>4.1
4.5
'3.6
I 4.7

14.5
3.4

a 4.3
14.3

4.0
I 4.1
2.9
I378
D 4.0
734 1
2.4
i 2.7
4.4


~4.3
g.3.7
3.9
*T5"1
4.3
3.6
4.7

0

l 4.3
w
Z]4.0

4.1
ih
,4.3

1 3.4
i4.7
i 4.0

m

] 4.4
4.5
e4.7
3 4.6
12	3	4
~ Non-ENERGY STAR-labeled product
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 1-percent level of significance (p-value<0.01).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 5-percent level of significance (p-value<0.05).
ENERGY STAR and Non-ENERGY STAR product proportions are statistically different from each
other at the 10-percent level of significance (p-value<0.10).
1S ne = number of respondents that recognized the label (aided) and purchased this product with an ENERGY
STAR label
nO = number of respondents that recognized the label (aided) and purchased this product without an ENERGY
STAR label
C-3

-------
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.19 The statements were shown to
respondents in random order.
For purposes of discussion, the statements are grouped into three categories:
•	Environmental and social responsibility messaging
•	Purchasing preference
•	Product attributes and performance
The 2011 survey results indicate that households generally agree with positive
statements about the ENERGY STAR label and disagree with negative statements
about the label.20 Similar to 2010 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.
19	These statements are numbered Q16a through Q16s in the survey.
20	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-4

-------
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 above and the discussion that follows. In the chart, the results for the "Neutral"
response category are shown in text and not depicted in the bar graph. The results for the other four response
categories are depicted in the bar graph.
~Strongly disagree
I Somewhat disagree DSomewhatagree BStrongly agree
ENVIRONMENTAL/ SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
MESSAGING
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me fell
like I'm helping to protect the environmentforfuture
generations (n=827)
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me
feel like I'm contributing to society (n=827)
33% Neutral
39% Neutral
PURCHASING PREFERENCE
If I cannotfind the kind of product I am looking forwith
an ENERGY STAR label, I will shop elsewhere rather
than buy a product that does not qualify for the label
(n=826)
I considermy self loyalto ENERGY STAR-labeled
products (n=826)
47% Neutral
50% Neutral
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
ENERGY STAR products provide me with more
benefits than products withoutthe ENERGY-STAR
label (n=827)
ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value
than products withoutthe label (n=826)
If I seethe ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a
more energy-efficient product (n=826)
When I buy a productwith the ENERGY STAR label, I
can always be sure it's high quality (n=827)
44% Neutral
48% Neutral
24% Neutral
48% Neutral
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
C-5

-------
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 above and the discussion that follows. In the chart, the results for the "Neutral"
response category are shown in text and not depicted in the bar graph. The results for the other four response
categories are depicted in the bar graph.
~Strongly disagree ¦ Somewhat disagree DSomewhat agree ~Strongly agree
PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES/PERFORMANCE
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes aw m + |
me feel like I'm spending extra money for nothing 0
(n=827)
ENERGY STAR labeled products are no different 36% Neutral
from otherproducts. (n=827)
In the longrun, I don'tbelieve ENERGY STAR
labeled products save me money. (n=826)
I don'ttrust that ENERGY STAR labeled products 40% Neutral
save the energy they're supposed to. (n=827)
-100%-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
34% Neutral
C-6

-------
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 2011 survey, two statements addressed the label's
messaging in these areas: "Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel
like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations" and "Buying
ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to society."
Of the thirteen statements in the survey that explore consumer attitudes toward the
ENERGY STAR label and products, these two messages cited above ranked
second and third in terms of the proportion of households who strongly agree with
the statements. These two statements had the same ranking in the five previous
years.
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 unchanged
from 2010, at 56 percent. Forty-seven percent of ENERGY STAR aware households
strongly or somewhat agree that by purchasing ENERGY STAR-labeled products
they feel they are contributing to society, two percentage points more than in 2010;
this difference is not statistically significant.
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 2011 survey,
two separate statements were included to investigate households' views of their
purchasing preferences with respect to ENERGY STAR-labeled products. In 2011,
twenty-one 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 proportion as in 2010. More households (32 percent)
either strongly or somewhat disagree, as in 2010. However, the largest proportion of
households—47 percent—are neutral in their level of agreement or disagreement
with this statement of their purchasing behavior.
Similar to 2010, twenty-six percent of households agree with the second statement
addressing households' views of their purchasing preferences: "I consider myself
loyal to ENERGY STAR products." Disagreement with this statement was 24
percent, also similar to 2010.
C-7

-------
4.3 Product Attributes and Performance
A third 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 2011 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. This indicates a high
perception among consumers that the ENERGY STAR label indicates superior
performance with respect to energy efficiency relative to products without the label.
The survey addressed perceptions of product quality. Survey respondents were
asked the level at which they agreed or disagreed with the statement "When I buy a
product with the ENERGY STAR label, I can always be sure it's high quality." The
results show that 32 percent of households either strongly or somewhat agree with
this statement and 48 percent are neutral. Household agreement and disagreement
with this statement is similar to last year's results.
A number of attitudinal statements were included in the survey to measure
consumers' perceptions of ENERGY STAR-labeled product value. One of these
statements is "ENERGY STAR products provide me with more benefits than
products without the ENERGY STAR label." The results show that nearly half of
households (46 percent) either strongly or somewhat agree with the statement, while
only 11 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, while only 13
percent disagree. The proportions of households that agree and disagree with these
statements in 2011 are similar to the 2010 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. Here, nearly half (47 percent) of all households who
recognize the ENERGY STAR label strongly or somewhat disagree with the
statement, while 41 percent of households are neutral. Only 12 percent agree with
this statement. The proportions of households that agree and disagree with this
statement in 2011 are similar to the 2010 results.
In 2011, 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 14 percent agreement, and over three
times as much disagreement (46 percent).
C-8

-------
•	The statement, "In the long run, I don't believe ENERGY STAR-labeled products
save me money" had only 13 percent agreement, and over four times as much
disagreement (54 percent).
•	Finally, the statement, "ENERGY STAR products are no different from other
products" received only 10 percent agreement, and over five times as much
disagreement (54 percent).
Forty-eight percent of respondents either somewhat or strongly agree with the
statement "It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these
days.21" Only 13 percent disagreed with the statement. This suggests people are
recognizing the label on many products.
21 This statement was deemed neither positive nor negative so it does not appear in the previous chart.
C-9

-------
4.4 Consumer Perceptions by Publicity Category
The 2011 results also suggest that local and regional efforts to publicize ENERGY
STAR have been successful in affecting consumer perception and recognition of the
label. A larger proportion of people in high-publicity areas than non-high-publicity
areas agree with the following statements that communicate a positive perception of
ENERGY STAR:
•	"If I see the ENERGY STAR label, I know I'm getting a more energy-efficient
product" (71 percent compared to 62 percent).
•	"Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm helping to
protect the environment for future generations" (60 percent compared to 50
percent).
•	"Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'm contributing to
society" (50 percent compared to 43 percent).
•	"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"
(23 percent compared to 17 percent).
A larger proportion of people in high-publicity areas than non-high-publicity areas
also agree with the following statement relating to recognition of ENERGY STAR
products:
•	"It seems like most products have the ENERGY STAR label these days" (51
percent compared to 43 percent).
Although a larger proportion of people in high- than non-high publicity areas
disagree with the following two positive statements regarding ENERGY STAR, most
respondents agree or are neutral with respect to these statements in both high- and
non-high publicity areas.
•	"ENERGY STAR-labeled products provide me with more benefits than products
without the ENERGY-STAR label" (13 percent compared to 8 percent disagree).
•	"ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value than products without the
label" (16 percent compared to 9 percent disagree).
C-10

-------
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
appliances/lighting purchases; 66 percent were primary decision makers for
purchase of building materials.
Role in Household Purchasing Decisions
(Base = All respondents)
Building Materials
(n=955)
Home Electronics
(n=985)
Home Appliances /
Lighting (n=986)
Home Office
Equipment (n=975)
Heating & Cooling
Products (n=975)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
¦ Usually make decisions orsharedecisionsequally
~Giveinputto decisions
nHaveno inputin decisions
I r'J rr'4i r' 4' r'J ^
fSss/ mm
fj 16% / 11%
frssjQmm
c-11

-------
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 2011, 22 percent
and 10 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 (93 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 2011, 59 percent of households
replaced an incandescent light bulb with the purchased CFL and 41 percent of
households replaced a CFL with a purchased CFL. These proportions are larger
than in 2010 but the differences are not statistically significant at the 10-percent
level. Similar to last year, the difference between proportions of households in highl-
and non-high-publicity areas that replaced incandescent bulbs is not significant at
the 10-percent level.
Type of Light Bulb Replaced with a CFL
(Base = Installers of CFL Bulbs, n=227)
Incandescent
CFL
60%
59%
40%
41%
¦ High Publicity
~ Non-High Publicity
	1	1	1	1	1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: Q12(e) "Which type of bulb(s) did you replace?"
C-12

-------
Consistent with previous years, purchasers that recognize the ENERGY STAR label
are 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?"
Fifty-seven percent of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture purchasers report
purchasing a compact fluorescent-based lighting fixture. This result varies by
publicity category: in high-publicity areas, 71 percent report purchasing a compact
fluorescent-based lighting fixture compared to 32 percent in non-high publicity areas.
This difference is statistically significant at the 10 percent level.
Type of ENERGY STAR-Labeled Lighting Fixture Purchased
(Base = Purchasers of ENERGY STAR Lighting Fixture, n=30)
Compact fluorescent-based
lighting fixture
LED-based lighting fixture
Othertype of lighting fixture
57%
12%
42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Note: Q8A 1-4. Which kind of ENERGY STAR-labeled lighting fixture did you purchase?
C-13

-------
7 ENERGY STAR MOST EFFICIENT QUESTIONS
The 2011 questionnaire added a brief series of questions to collect information on
recognition and influence of the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient designation. In 2011,
nineteen percent of respondents indicated they had seen or heard of ENERGY
STAR Most Efficient. Of those respondents who had seen or heard of ENERGY
STAR Most Efficient, just over half (52 percent) recognized the ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient graphic when it was shown to them.
Among respondents who had seen or heard of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient and
recognized the Most Efficient graphic, 59 percent 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," while 19 percent
disagreed.
Response to Statement Regarding Purchase of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Product
(Base= Recognize Most Efficient graphic)
Would buy a product
because it is ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient
2011
(n=59)
Strongly disagree
11%
Somewhat disagree
8%
Neither agree nor disagree
22%
Somewhat agree
35%
Strongly agree
24%
Comparing responses to this statement across high-publicity areas and non-high-
publicity areas reveals some differences. However, it should be noted that the
number of respondents for these questions is fairly small (34 high-publicity, 25 non-
high-publicity). A smaller proportion of people in high-publicity areas than non-high-
publicity areas strongly agree with the statement that "All other things equal, I would
buy a product because it is designated as ENERGY STAR Most Efficient," and a
larger proportion in high-publicity areas than non-high-publicity areas strongly
disagree with that statement. These differences are statistically significant at the 5
percent level.
C-14

-------
Response to Statement Regarding Purchase of ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Product
by Publicity Category
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
44%
43% ¦ High Publicity (n=34)
31%
19%
123%
11%
I
~ Non-High Publicity (n=25)
**Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat **Strongly
disagree disagree	agree agree
** High- and non-high-publicity area proportions are statistically different from each other at the 5-percent level
of significance (p-
C-15

-------
APPENDIX D: 2011 SURVEY QUESTIONS AND FLOW CHART

EG1. Haw jwu ever seen
or heard of yeflour stickers
called EmrgyGaidt
iatsls?

r
*
ES". -Have yo.
¦ seen or heard of ibe
ENERGY S~AP ibeP
<
\I Of
Corn"nwa
Yes
ES3A.
Is tfw the lie! you haw seen or
hura of tetfere? [SHOW OLD Oft
NEW LABEL, IN RANDOM
ORDER]
ES2
mm does a* energy star label
mean to you"?
<
No tr v
Dont
Donlk-ow
D-1

-------
Ha* you seen or heart of
this verxan of Hie
ES3D

Haw you seai or feard cr r t
wemim of the ENERGY STAR
label? [SHOW LffiEL NOT
PREVIOUSLY SEEHJ
Yes

fto

Don't Know



/ Yes to EITHER * \
\ BOTH E33AS ESSS/"
V

/Co
X to bath ESSAand
E33S
'V£.
New QA: '.V-vH lyses of p'uducti
gceds, of u^un so you torik tf
whK >mj tn-i, of the ENERGY
ST ftp, late7 Pixn 
-------
SCG
What sid you see or hear about
BNERGY'STAR? Pfewte
speeiic.
Nn QB: As far as you know, who decides
« a orate tfesarees tie ENERGV STAR
label? Select on* an mm orty.
Daitknow
GSf'a). Now we're gong to ask you about several groups of protests.
As you lewew the 1st; please select each of the- products, product
iteratae, or padugmg an which you ha* seen tie ENERGY STAR
label.
Heating aid Goofes Products
Home Office GnuiwneBt
Central w coositsarw
Furnace or boier
He* pump
Thanroslat
Room air conditioner
Computer or monter
Computer printer
Copying madifie
Fast machine
Ssai¥i0r
None sf these pnxlucfe
(indudes capjer&canneirtaK)
QSf»). Plaase oontinue rwwmj the Sits of pixijcis befes*, and
select each of tie products, product literature, or packaging on
which you have seen the ENERGY STAR label..
Hane jWanastahing
Dishwasher
ReS^rctor
Lighting fbflure
Wasting ffBGhne
Compact: iusresoe! light bulb
Dehumidia-
Pfcrte of these pswJusS
05(c). -Finaif, please review Ck hat of tfie product lias Mow
aid select each of fc predicts, ^xouct literature, oj packaging
an ***ch you haw seen the ENERGY STAR label
Da?3*
Buttng
Newly buttt hcwie
ffeofcg. ifjateiiJ

*
r
D-3
-------
Q6a1



Have you or sonwne else in your household bet


aoL"' the las
12 months fa any of tie products listed behmt



Heating and Cresting Ffoduets



Room air QonsfifiGoer
Yes
Mo
Don't know
Home AppKancesUglMnQ



Dishwasher
Yes
No
Don't*™*
RefriBifatSF
>«s
No
Don't taw
lighting fsture
Yes
No
Don't know
WsGtang machine
Yes
to
Don't knew
Compxt ftamEscent lightbaits
-
No
Don> know
Heme Electronics



Tiitviwon
•i:
No
Dwi'ttaow
DVD product {*i«ng T¥»VD)
165
No
Dantfcnow
Audio product

No
Don't knew
GSa2
Have you or someone else in your
last 12 rreniis far any o
prwisos t»Md beta*7
un fee
Yes
Mo
Dent know
Heating and Codino Prod***
Thermostat
Gas water heater
Homs OSor Esjapffieft
Computer or monitor
Computer printer
Copying rraotme
fmrrwMne
Seanrwr
AH-in-cne printer
(includes Goptertscannefflac)
Hare ^pliaiKSt^htiig
MiaBwareown
BuMtig
Fnre»cr precua	Yes ivk	in fie OEal »r«, ask
«V?en -fOu shoooed *w	,
Yes i\3 fe-'t reror.i*-
•Y-*n yj. shocsta 'or _
r* ENERC-i"-" STAR jbei?
Yes N:> Os-t renenber
did you 'Dck far r* E*-JER:3%* STAR label?
I aid not shop for this sroduit ry***
did you ast a satesf»>"so" for a mxta nut"
1 did rait stop for ths pndust rajsslf
a roam m conditioner
K
Maweyau
newty
neone else in your
shoppinQ for a ^
ione^ fcgiiaea pr boitr. he
Yes
ho
Qai't snow
s in fc last 12 r
a washing machine
ecmpaet fluorescent Sght t*ifes
amropiwkiBt
an audio product
D-4
-------
Yes
Oil you instal the compact fluafsssent 10* butgsj you
pjfdiased n a li^htftrfure?
Yes
No
Don't know
If Y« checked total question *k:
Wtat kind of bufefsi did pw psplaiie? (Check #e
you made.}
¦ Con-pact tMesoBnl light bulb
•	Incandescent lifjttbuib
•	Don't know
Ql 2(c). Finaty. please iwisw Hie last at Sis jyodua bsis seiow
lAIMch of tfiese pniducls have you purctia&ad " the last 12
months? Please check Ml that appty
Roofing materia!
Naw of iiess fWEAiGfe.
Q12(b). Ptease otmnue mmemitig the lists rf prntuos below,
WMch of these- products haws you ptmtased si Ihe last 12
mcnths? Please check al that appty.
Nor* of luse prwiicis
Ndo* of lie* pnxiuats
at each cf the groups of products again. Which of
! you purchased -in fce last 12 months? ftease
Horm Office Eguinmafi:
Computer or men#*
Computer pinter
Copying raaAine
fax machine
Ssasier
Af-rnr* pr-tr
{fititafes oopecfccanner/taK)
D-5
-------
,/ E50A=1 erESiB=: or
"X ESi>1crES:C=1cr
x es-:=-
GotoQ13jii«res icj7'i
Q7; For any of It* praiucts you
purchased, «*a you see the ENERGY
STAR label {on She prwhrt is* on
foe paslaprtij or on the insbudkinsj?
fes
Q:7i_f thru Q7a_3: On which fXwtodB
did you -see fc SIERS¥ STAR label?
(show or»y its producfe they ebeofcei
off in Q12, in grid pattern, with tie
fefewwg apOcrts to sheds, far each:
"Saw labeT Did net sit label" T3ont
know")
tew QC. In general, hast MCsfled as- you with eatft of tie follaring pnxkids you
(Stow each product ihey puishased—toil ES and nol-n g*ia femas n random order.)
Response sale: Very O
D-6
-------
1
OB, Foreaoh ENERGY ST^R-labelHl products) you
purchased, how much aid tie ENERGY STAR label fiSuence
pur purchase dectsim?
(Show each ES prate fief piircfiasscl ii a grid paltem.
Response scale is bckm, aid is unchanged from previous
pars.)
Very nuchSomewhatElighHv ' Not at all I" Dcnl know

Yes
00. Did you receive rebates or
reduced-iate financing for arty
SIER6Y STSK-lafeetei produces) you
purchased?
SUing 11 -poM twzortal rate, «Mi onlf wwlpufclt mates.
Endpoinls:
Q11. Bow Itkaty m you
p»4ias!D3t«fid*?
to nwocnm»ncf ENERGY STAR-laixied
in	I'Aiui c •«« i«auwB3uf s»if v*# ta__i	wri
fcf reporta! purchaung an ENEBBY STftR-fabelei
Idling fixtuie), asfc
Whteh kiwi of BIESGV STARiabded lighting fixture did
you purchase? (Chtok all thai apply).
¦	Compact fluorescent-teased lighting firture
• lED-bassd lighting fixture
¦	CBwIpstf lifjrtmgfktsjre
m Dontknow
Q1Q. If' p»ta« or 'aluceo-rxe ''anang had not bsen awailatile,
haw likely is it #sal you Mould bam pinJiased to ENERGY
D-7
-------


<

\
IF
SSA=5 etES3B^1 x
E';3C=! xES2>l or
ES8=I
>
>: Thesetwo
f»g*5
ES3Anrt=1 and
E53B rtot=land
ES3C not=1
ES3DsiEt=1 and
ESC rrt=1 >•
/
On tie scale by each statement please indicate haw strongly jkju agree «r 
-------
Yes
No or Don't
Know
Yes
Go id demoyaphio
questions and dosing
Qf7. Hawe yrai eve-
seen or heaid of
ENERGY STAR Most
Effcien"?
Q19.
Is this the graph c you hive seen
Dr heard of before? [SHOW
MOST EFFICIENT
DESIGNATION!
Q18.
What does ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient rrean to yen'7
On the scale by Ihe fallowing statement, please indicate how strongly you agree w dsag'ee with the stateineffi.
020. All other thngs eqjal. I v«xio buy a product because it is desgnated as ENERGY STAR Most Elfoent.
Nether
Agree nor
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
D-9
-------