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 San Diego region. This evaluation research was conducted
April 19 through April 26, 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 46%.
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
59% of all San Diego CRSW participants
who submitted a pledge card say they are aware of available alternative
mode products along their regular commute:
35% of all CRSW participants
are unaware of any available alternative modes along their regular
commute route.
The awareness of available alternative mode products is virtually
identical between drive alone commuters and commuters who use
alternative modes.
Promotion and Product Awareness
Commuters' awareness of the CRSW promotion (or their participation
in it) had no impact on their awareness of specific alternative
mode products. Commuters aware of CRSW were no more aware of
alternatives than commuters who were unaware of their participation
in CRSW.
"Placement" -- Understanding Multi-Modal
Alternatives
CRSW's goal was not to raise awareness of specific alternative
mode products. Yet, commuters are slightly more aware of public
transportation like buses and the trolley than of other alternative
modes. The awareness of multiple modes among commuters aware
of carpool lanes and of park-n-ride lots is statistically indistinguishable.
Carpool Park-n- Buses/ Multiple Lanes Ride Trolley Modes
Aware of ...... (average)
Buses and ... 23% 23% 55% 34%
Carpool Lanes and ... - - 25% 25% 25%
Park-n-Ride and ... 25% - - 25% 25%
Trolley and... 4% 7% 12% 8%
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.
Key Findings
Overall, commuters' perceptions of driving
alone are far more positive than carpooling on a variety of measures,
including key measures such as reliability, convenience and flexibility.
In fact, driving alone is perceived to be twice as flexible as
carpooling.
Driving alone and carpooling are perceived
similarly in terms of cleanliness and safety.
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.
Compared to driving alone and carpooling, attributes of both the
trolley and buses are perceived negatively. When compared to
each other, perceptions are strikingly similar and relatively
neutral.
Buses and the trolley are perceived as equally reliable.
The trolley is perceived as being cleaner, more flexible, convenient
and faster than buses, while buses are perceived as being safer.
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 more positively than carpooling,
buses and the trolley with regard to four key measures: flexibility,
convenience, safety and reliability. Driving alone is perceived
as:
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
51% of all CRSW participants
say they saw, read or heard about the CRSW promotion specifically,
while 44% say they had not heard
of CRSW:
Unaided Awareness
When asked if they are aware of anything about commuting using alternatives,
78% say they have seen, read,
or heard "something about commuting by using alternatives,"
while 22% were not aware of
any communications -- general or specific.
Analysis and Conclusions
Half (51%) of all CRSW participants
recall the CRSW promotion specifically, yet more than three-out-of-four
(78%) commuters said they remembered
general messages about commuting using alternatives.
Several promotions ran during, or, at approximately the same time as the CRSW promotion, which can serve as an explanation as to why awareness of general messages about commuting alternatives is high.
Commuters who say they recall CRSW specifically do not recall
the motivating "call-to-action" aspects of the promotion:
In fact, a higher percentage of commuters aware of only general
messages recited specific "call-to-action" elements
of the promotion -- 8% say they "filled
out a survey or gave information."
.
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.
51% are aware of CRSW specifically,
and 49%
correctly identified specific elements of the promotion.
Recall and perception of general and specific promotional messages
are virtually one in the same.
Commuters who recall specific "call-to-action" elements
of the promotion still do not recall the CRSW promotion specifically
-- they do not associate CRSW with these messages:
25% of all CRSW participants
who are aware of general information said the messages
encouraged carpooling, ridesharing, park-n-ride and public transportation:
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 is
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.
CRSW is perceived as less useful than general communications by
all CRSW participants:
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 low 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 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
CRSW had no effect on the likelihood to sample
information -- unprompted, more than a third (34%)
of all CRSW participants said they
were "not at all" or "not very" likely to
seek information:
There are no distinctions in the likelihood to sample information
based on commuters' awareness of the CRSW promotion versus commuters'
awareness of general messages. CRSW did no more to motivate commuters
to sample information than did general information about commuting
alternatives.
39% of commuters who say they are likely
to sample alternatives also say they are likely to find out about
commuting alternatives. CRSW had no impact on 22%
of commuters.
Likely to
Sample Alts
More likely to find out about alternatives 39%
Message made no difference to them 22%
Information Usage
23% of all CRSW participants
say they actually tried to find out information about commute
alternatives, while 67% say
they did not seek information.
Actual Information Use
13% of commuters who sought
information actually used the information they obtained:
Fewer commuters aware of CRSW specifically used the information
than did commuters aware of general messages about alternatives:
Source of Information
Commuters aware of the CRSW promotion are those most likely to
get information from their employer and/or school -- yet more
than half (53%) of commuters unaware
of CRSW sought information from the same source. Commuters unaware
of any promotion are more likely to seek information from their
family, friends or co-workers.
Information Inquiry and Trial
There are no differences between commuters who are likely to access
information and commuters who did seek information with regard
to actual alternative mode sampling. Information utilization
had no impact on the propensity to sample alternatives modes.
Actually Sampled
Alternatives
Likely to inquire about alternatives 10%
Not likely to inquire 5%
Tried to find information 11%
Did not try to find information 5%
Specific Stated Effect: Usefulness of Information
10% of all CRSW participants
said the information they received was either extremely or very
useful, and of them, 6% say they are
likely to sample alternatives.
63% of commuters who say they are likely
to sample alternatives also say the information they received
was useful.
Likely to Sample
Alternative Modes
Information was useful 63%
Information was not useful 29
Trial Propensity
29% of all CRSW participants
say they are very or extremely likely to try alternatives such
as carpooling, buses, the trolley, biking, walking or telecommuting
within two years:
More commuters aware of general messages about commuting alternatives say they are likely to sample alternatives than commuters aware of CRSW specifically:
Actual Alternative Mode Trial
39% of all CRSW participants
say their commute did not change as a result of CRSW.
Nevertheless, the promotion had a stated effect on a small percentage
of participants:
First Time Trial Effect
8% of all CRSW participants
sampled an alternative for the first time following the promotion,
while 92% did not sample a bus
or train -- or biked or walked -- for two months following the
promotion.
The similarities in trial effect among commuters aware of CRSW
and those unaware of CRSW is noteworthy:
Repeat Propensity
5% of all CRSW participants
said they were either "extremely" or "very"
likely to resample alternatives:
Analysis and Conclusions
The goal of the CRSW promotion was to spur
participation in the promotion itself -- with a secondary goal
to generate ridematching lists. The promotion was not directed
toward building multi-modal awareness or trial and sample.
Commuters did not associate any "call-to-action"
with the CRSW promotion. CRSW did little to motivate consumers
to use alternatives -- ultimately very few (3%)
actually sampled an alternative for the first time or used an
alternative more often (6%)
because of CRSW.
Moreover, commuters aware of general messages
about alternatives were actually more aware of specific
"call to action" elements of the CRSW promotion than
were commuters who recall their participation in CRSW.
Key Findings
64% of CRSW participants drive alone in their car to work or school
42% take public transportation
or carpool with someone else every day