Since the government of the United States introduced the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), Canadians have been confused about what documents they require in order to travel to the United States and when they need them (i.e. flying versus driving). In order to educate the Canadian public on the new requirements, an advertising campaign is planned to inform Canadians of what documents they need for travel to the United States, including passports and NEXUS/FAST cards.
This study was initiated in order to test three print advertising concepts, two radio scripts and an Internet site concept aimed at informing Canadians of the document requirements when travelling to the United States by land or sea.
The specific research objectives for this study were to:
This study involved the conduct of four focus groups; two in Montreal, conducted in French, on October 30, 2007 and two in Toronto, conducted in English, on November 1, 2007. The key criterion for participation in these focus groups was the participants had travelled to the United States in the past twelve months and were 18 years or older1. In total, ten participants were recruited for each focus group with eight participating in each group. One group in each location was conducted with participants who have passports while the other group did not have valid passports.
Due to the feedback received following the focus groups in Montreal, changes were made to the concepts prior to the groups in Toronto. One of the print ads was eliminated, the other two were revised, and the radio ads were also adjusted. In addition, an Internet site concept was included for the Toronto testing.
Print Ads « Pas de papiers – Pas d'entrée » (No Documents – No Entry) – Montreal
In the French language groups the overall message was well received by focus group participants. They were able to successfully identify that two pieces of ID were required to enter the United States, a government issued photo id plus proof of citizenship. However, there was some confusion as to the status of the passport. They wondered why passports were not mandatory, and expressed some frustration at the ambiguity. Participants did not understand what NEXUS or FAST are, and for some, this introduced some confusion in the message. Some participants simply ignored it, since they reasoned that if they didn't know what it was, it didn't pertain to them; however, given the seriousness of the message, others wanted more information, and indicated they wanted to go to the website to find out. Participants reacted well to the suggestion of eliminating the last paragraph, which mentions the passport, and NEXUS and FAST programs.
No Documents – No Entry (Revised following Montreal groups) – Toronto
The intended message was well received by focus group participants. Some of the key information participants were able to gather after their initial viewing of the print ad included: changes were coming regarding requirements to enter the United States, participants were able to identify that 2 pieces of ID were required, government issued photo id, plus proof of citizenship. There was however some confusion among the different requirements for Land and Water compared to air travel. Participants felt it was necessary to have it explained in the same message that when travelling to the United States by air, a passport is required.
Lisez ceci avant de partir – Montreal
Focus group participants in Montreal indicated, unanimously, that they didn't feel this was as important a message as the No Documents – No Entry concept. They also felt that it was a little comical to tell them to read the notice before they left, when they would throw their newspaper out that day or soon after. The white on grey presentation also did not attract the attention very effectively when compared to the No Documents – No Entry concept. Participants also felt the two-column format was hard to read, and although they read the text, the message was more difficult to retain and seemed longer.
Text Ad – Toronto
Those participants that preferred this concept felt this ad was softer and easier to read, in other words they felt it was more "Canadian". That said, even those who preferred this concept agreed that the No Documents – No Entry concept would grab their attention should they be flipping through a newspaper.
Radio Script One – Monreal and Toronto
Focus group participants indicated that radio script one was more clear than radio script two, in both languages, with rotation. In Toronto this was due to the fact that land and water was indicated early in the ad while in Montreal participants felt the sentences were more concise in the first script. It is interesting to note that participants indicated that it was nearly impossible to remember the website www.canada.gc.ca however they had very easy recollection of the 1 800 O-Canada telephone number. Also, most participants liked that the government is going to continue to monitor the US requirements and keep Canadians informed. Finally, participants in Montreal mentioned (with some displeasure) that it was the English website which was read in the French ad, i.e. www.cbsa.gc.ca.
Radio Script Two – Montreal and Toronto
While participants achieved the same message recall, they felt that sentences in this script were longer than in script one therefore more difficult to follow. In the French groups, some participants felt that « une loi américaine » (an American law) was very effective in catching attention, but this did not arise when this ad was read first (in the second group). In the English groups, participants felt the land and water message was lost in this script. In fact some participants mentioned they didn't even hear it during this script and that they didn't catch it until radio script one was read (when the second version was read first.)
Internet Concept – Toronto
Most participants indicated they are most likely to 'Google it' when they are looking for travel documentation requirements. While many participants could see the potential value of creating a central depository for travel documents required, most felt it wasn't necessary.
During all focus groups, the majority of participants agreed that the Print Ad – No Documents – No Entry was the preferred option as it effectively communicated the desired messaging and was most successful at gaining the attention of the participants. Suggested changes to the text would be to add a bullet to the list stating that if you are travelling with a passport, which remains the preferred travel document for all international travel, that the other documentation is not required; and that for air travel a passport is required.
Radio script one was the option most preferred by focus group participants in both Montreal and Toronto. Participants felt that it best communicated the intended messaging. The key driver, especially among the English groups, was the location of the land and sea information in the script. Furthermore, most participants liked the idea that the Government was going to inform Canadians should the US requirements change.
In Montreal, participants also felt that Radio Script One more clearly communicated the message that two pieces of ID would be required after January 31, 2008 for land and sea crossing into the U.S.
Participants in Toronto nearly unanimously agreed that while it might be useful to have a central depository for required travel documents when travelling outside of Canada, it wasn't necessary. However, of the three names presented to participants, they selected www.canada.gc.ca.
To obtain more information on this study, please e-mail POR-ROP@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca.
1 Given that this is qualitative research, participants were not selected using random or probability sampling methods. For this reason, results cannot be deemed representative of any wider population.