Evaluation Methodology
The Commuter Monitor is a standardized monitoring and evaluation
system that tracks the effectiveness of marketing activities at
the regional and sub-regional level. This consumer research methodology
measures and assesses changes in commuter awareness and attitudes
of -- and behaviors in -- all transportation modes within a geographic
region so transportation agencies and policymakers can plan and
develop products and services that consumers desire and will use.
The Commuter Monitor's standard research methodology compares
timely survey research and transportation data by mode within
a specific region, examining variances and trends in each set
of data. The Commuter Monitor is designed to operate three times
a year within each region in order to continuously track and evaluate
the effectiveness of marketing and consumers' attitudes, perceptions
and behaviors.
The Commuter Monitor focuses on collecting and evaluating data
in five major areas:
Mode: Awareness
and perceptions of specific modes available in the region or corridor.
Marketing Promotion:
Awareness and perceptions of marketing activities, which speak
to the marketing ability to communicate effectively with target
audiences.
Stated Effect: Assessment of
the effect of marketing activities on commuters, as stated by
the consumers themselves.
Stated Behavior: Commuters'
behavior at the corridor level, again, as stated by consumers.
Subsequent waves of research will panel back to previous respondents
in order to examine their commute behavior over the course of
various marketing activities taking place in their region or corridor.
Real World Transportation Data:
Transportation data collected at the local and regional levels
simultaneous with the survey research.
California Rideshare Week Promotion
Commuter Monitor
This Commuter Monitor was conducted by telephone among 800 randomly
selected participants in California Rideshare Week (CRSW) within
the Los Angeles region. This evaluation research was conducted
March 31 - April 18, 1995.
The margin of error for this data is + 3.46 % in 95 out
of 100 cases. That is, if we conducted 100 identical surveys,
the results in 95 of them would be identical to this survey within
the margin of error. Readers are cautioned that the margin of
error for sub-groups is significantly higher. In addition to
theoretical sampling error, administration of the survey elements
and questionnaire design may bias some responses, although precautions
have been implemented to minimize any bias.
All respondents participated in the CRSW promotion, and were selected
from two universes: "active" participants and "inactive"
participants. The active universe represents participants who
submitted a pledge card seeking more information about commuting
alternatives. The inactive universe represents participants who
returned the CRSW pledge card without seeking any further information.
Pledge cards submitted by all respondents were sampled randomly
using the "every nth" method, and grouped randomly into
cluster cells for the purpose of administering the random sample
in the Monitor survey. This multi-stage, sampling method maximizes
randomness and statistical integrity.
The participation rate, or incidence, of the survey was 31%.
The incidence is calculated as completions and terminations (respondent
and interviewer) divided by completions plus terminations plus
non-eligible respondents (including those excluded due to gender
or occupation).
Key Findings
55% of all Los Angeles CRSW
participants who submitted a pledge card say they are aware of
alternative mode products available in their area:
36% of all CRSW participants say they are unaware of any
available alternative transportation modes.
There are more similarities than differences between Drive Alones
and alternative mode users with regard to their awareness of alternative
modes. With the exception of Park-n-Ride and Metrolink -- of
which current alternative mode users are slightly more aware --
the level of awareness of alternative modes is statistically indistinguishable.
Promotion and Product Awareness
There is no difference in the level of alternative mode awareness
between those aware of the CRSW promotion specifically and those
who are unaware of the promotion. Yet, CRSWs' goal was not to
raise consumers' awareness of alternative mode products, with
the exception of ridesharing mechanisms such as car- and vanpooling.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Creating awareness of products is the crucial first step in the
process of increasing a target audience's "purchase intent."
Without the awareness of alternative mode products available
to them, audiences cannot sample or convert to regular use.
The principle objective of the CRSW promotion was to encourage
participation in the promotion itself and generate ridesharing
information requests (it was, in effect, an inquiry about carpooling
and vanpooling). CRSW was not directed toward building multi-modal
awareness or trial.
The promotion had little to no effect on generating awareness
of alternative mode products for two reasons: 1) the CRSW promotion
was essentially a contest, not a promotion of alternative mode
products; 2) no alternative mode transportation products and facilities
were specifically related to the CRSW promotion, except for references
to carpools, vanpools and ridesharing.
"Placement" -- Understanding Multi-Modal
Alternatives
Overall, commuters aware of Park-n-Ride lots are slightly more
aware of multiple transportation modes in their area, since using
Park-n-Ride necessitates the use of other transportation modes.
Commuters aware of Metro Red, Blue and Green lines were also
aware of multiple alternative modes.
Carpool Park-n- Buses Metro Metrolink Multiple Lanes Ride Modes
Aware of ...... (average)
Buses and ... 37% 43% - - 7% 12% 25%
Carpool Lanes and ... - - 56% 46% 7% 17% 32%
Park-n-Ride lots and 47% - - 45% 6% 19% 29%
Metrolink and.. 49% 62% 43% 15% - - 42%
Metrolines and ... 51% 56% 63% - - 39% 52%
Key Findings
Driving Alone is clearly the most favorably perceived transportation
mode, with commuters' "perfect" description of driving
alone being "safe," "clean" and most "reliable."
Driving Alone is also perceived two-times more positively than
carpooling on three key measures: flexibility, convenience and
safety.
Although "reliable" is considered an accurate description
of carpooling, carpooling is not perceived as reliable as driving
alone.
Tables based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 represents
a "perfect" description of the mode and 1 "does
not" describe the mode. Scores from 5 to 7 were combined,
as were scores from 1 to 3. The blue bars represent positive
mode perceptions and red bars represent negative perceptions.
Those who responded "don't know" or attributed the mode
a "4" were excluded.
Metro and Metrolink are both perceived positively on the same
four measures: reliability, speed, safety and cleanliness. Yet,
by comparrison, perceptions of Metrolink are much more positive
on each of these measures.
Tables based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 represents
a "perfect" description of the mode and 1 "does
not" describe the mode. Scores from 5 to 7 were combined,
as were scores from 1 to 3. The blue bars represent positive
mode perceptions and red bars represent negative perceptions.
Those who responded "don't know" or attributed the mode
a "4" were excluded.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Driving Alone is consistently viewed most positively on each of
four key measures: flexibility, convenience, safety and reliability.
Driving Alone is described as:
Metrolink is perceived as a very safe and reliable mode, second
only to driving alone. It is also perceived positively in terms
of cleanliness and speed. Overall, perceptions of Metrolink
on these measures are much less positive than perceptions of driving
alone.
Tables based on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 represents a "perfect" description of the mode and 1 "does not" describe the mode. Scores from 5 to 7 were combined, as were scores from 1 to 3. The blue bars represent positive mode perceptions and red bars represent negative perceptions. Those who responded "don't know" or attributed the mode a "4" were excluded.
.
Key Findings
Aided Awareness of CRSW Promotion
57% of CRSW participants specifically
recall the California Rideshare Week promotion while 71% recall
general messages about commuting by using alternatives to driving
alone:
When asked if they are aware of anything about commuting
using alternatives, 71% of CRSW
participants say they have "seen, read or heard something
encouraging commuting using alternatives to driving alone."
27% are not aware of any communications.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Awareness of the CRSW promotion was high, but significantly more
CRSW participants are aware of general communications about alternatives.
More than half (57%) of CRSW
participants recall the promotion specifically, while 71%
recall general communications about alternatives to driving
alone.
Of those who recall the California Rideshare Week promotion, very
few remember "call to action" elements of the promotion
-- that CRSW encouraged and reinforced ridesharing. Combined,
only 9% who recall the promotion
said the promotion involved "sending in paperwork,"
"pledging to rideshare" or "ridematching."
63% of participants who are
aware of general communications about alternatives say they are
also aware of the CRSW promotion specifically. Yet, 45% of all
CRSW participants were unaware of their participation in
any promotion.
Key Findings
Correct perception and comprehension of promotional messages is one of the first steps in the purchase intent process -- with positive perceptions of products (transportation information and alternative transportation modes) leading to initial sampling.
57% are aware of the CRSW promotion
specifically and 37% of all CRSW participants correctly identified
specific elements of the promotion.
Perceptions of CRSW and general messages about commuting alternatives
were virtually one in the same. Some recollections of the promotion
were, at best, vague references to executional components of the
promotion. Nevertheless, some participants did recall specific
"call-to-action" elements of the promotion:
Usefulness of Information
By accessing information about alternative modes, commuters take
a critical step toward building purchase intent of alternative
modes, and ultimately, converting commute behavior.
The perceived benefit -- or usefulness -- of the information can
be one of the strongest indicators of the propensity to initially
sample alternative modes. Generally, consumers who perceive products
(information and modes) favorably are more likely to sample and
resample.
16%
of CRSW participants who currently
do not use alternatives tried to find out more information about
transportation alternatives. Of them:
12%
used the information they sought, and 8%
said the information they received was useful:
CRSW participants who are aware of general communications were just as likely to say the information they received was "useful" as those who are aware of the CRSW promotion specifically (6% versus 5%, respectively).
Analysis and Conclusions:
Meaningful, relevant and motivating perceptions of promotional
messages are crucial elements in encouraging "purchase intent"
among consumers. Commuters' perceptions of CRSW focus on executional
elements of the promotion, with no recall of specific alternative
mode products and little reference to the promotions' call-to-action.
Whereas products hold inherent value (perceived benefits are immediate
and visible), behavioral change, by comparison, is often several
steps removed from perceived benefits. Other than participating
in a contest or drawing, CRSW participants had little incentive
to change their behavior and sample alternative modes.
Unaided, CRSW participants' perceptions of these highly targeted
promotions are faint, generally. Perceptions do not include crucial
incentives, benefits or call to action elements which would be
necessary for repeat sample after the promotion. Commuters aware
of only general communications about alternatives are just as
-- if not more -- likely to recite specific call-to-action elements
of the promotion.
Future marketing efforts need to focus on and promote actual alternative
mode products -- relative to consumers' needs and desires. Whether
the promotions focus on enhancements to existing products or new
technological advancements, they must be relevant and motivating
to the consumer. Vague references to alternative modes and contests
are not enough to stimulate purchase intent, trial, resample and
conversion to regular alternative mode use.
Key Findings
Likelihood to access information
There are no statistically significant distinctions in the propensity
to sample transportation information between commuters aware of
CRSW specifically and those aware of general communications.
CRSW motivated commuters to seek information no more than general
communications.
41% of commuters who say they
are likely to sample alternatives also say they are either extremely
likely or very likely to find out about alternatives ("Extremely"
38% and "Very" 43%, averaged). CRSW had no impact on
the likelihood to sample information among 31% of commuters.
Likely to Sample Alternatives
CRSW made them more likely to find info 41%
CRSW message made no difference 31
Information Usage
Among CRSW participants who do not currently use alternatives,
16%
sought additional transportation information while 49% did not.
12% of those who say they tried
to find information about carpooling and other commute alternatives
actually used the information. Of them:
There are no statistically significant differences in the actual
usage of transportation information between those aware of the
CRSW promotion versus those aware of only general messages:
Source of Information
There are no differences in the source of transportation information
between commuters who were unaware of CRSW and those who were
aware of CRSW specifically. Two-thirds of CRSW participants sought
transportation information from their employer or school, whether
or not they are aware of the CRSW promotion.
Information Inquiry and Trial
There are no statistically significant differences in actual alternative
mode sampling among those who stated they are likely to inquire
about alternatives versus commuters who actually did inquire about
alternative modes. The utilization of information had little
to no impact on commuters' propensity to sample alternative modes.
Actually Sampled
Alternatives
Likely to inquire about alternatives 13%
Not likely to inquire 8%
Tried to find information 12%
Did not try to find information 11%
Specific Stated Effect: Usefulness of Information
The usefulness of transportation information had no impact on
commuters' propensity to sample alternative modes. Commuters
who said the information they received was useful are no more
likely to sample alternative modes than commuters who said the
information was of no use. 18% of commuters who said the information
they received was useful actually sampled an alternative mode.
Likely to Sample
Alternative Modes
Information was useful 42%
Information was not useful 43
Trial Propensity
25% of CRSW participants say
they are likely to sample alternative modes (carpools, buses,
biking and walking) within the next two years. There are no statistically
significant distinctions in the propensity to sample alternatives
based on commuters' awareness of the promotion:
Actual Alternative Mode Trial
42% of commuters aware of the
CRSW promotion said the message did not change the way
they personally commute. Nevertheless, the promotion had a stated
effect on some participants:
First Time Trial Effect
10% of CRSW participants say
they sampled an alternative mode for the first time while 90%
did not try an alternative mode. 4%
who actually sampled an alternative mode said they were likely
to sample initially.
The similarities in trial effect between commuters aware of the
promotion specifically and those aware of general information
is noteworthy:
Repeat Propensity
8% of CRSW participants who
sampled an alternative for the first time following the promotion
say they are likely to sample again.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Although over half of CRSW participants recalled the CRSW promotion
specifically, ultimately, very few (13%) participants actually
sampled any alternative mode products or information directly
as a result of the promotion.
Over one-third of all CRSW participants correctly perceived the
promotion, but many recalled only executional elements of the
promotion -- not motivating benefits, incentives or call-to-action
elements of the promotion.
However, the promotion did not ask or motivate participants to
rideshare. Rather, the goal of the promotion was to encourage
participation in the promotion itself -- by submitting a pledge
card -- as a means to generate ridesharing matchlists.
Encouraging participation in the promotion could not guarantee, nor did it deliver, significant increases in ridesharing among participants: Among all CRSW participants, 2% tried either carpooling or vanpooling for the first time and 7% used carpools and vanpools more often.
Key Findings
38% of all commuters Drive Alone in their car to work or school.
39% utilize
a Carpool to commute to and from work or school and 6%
use a vanpool.
35% take public transportation
like buses, and carpools every day while 26%
use public transportation four times a week or less: