Research Report - Public Opinion Research with Canadians Qualitative Research on Agricultural Education - Phase 2: Concept Testing

Prepared for: Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Contract Number: 01B68-181213/001/CY
POR Registration Number: 095-17
Contract Award Date: February 7, 2018
Date of Delivery: August 24, 2018
Contact Information: aafc.info.aac@canada.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Table of contents

Executive Summary

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) summarizing the results of the focus groups with Canadians testing communications material for a marketing strategy about agricultural education.

Public opinion research indicates that Canadians have many concerns as well as a lack of knowledge and awareness about the foods and beverages that they consume and how they are regulated and produced.

AAFC required public opinion research to inform a new marketing strategy being developed to communicate with Canadians, support work being undertaken by the department with regards to the public trust pillar of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, and better communicate the importance of the agricultural sector and the role of AAFC to Canadians. This project was divided into two phases. Phase 1, conducted earlier this year, sought to better understand the reasons behind the perceptions identified in the quantitative Agriculture Awareness Baseline Survey and how to best communicate factual information about farming terminology and practices, and the agricultural sector to Canadians. Phase 2, covered in this report, tests communications and marketing materials aimed at raising awareness about the agricultural sector in Canada that were developed based on the learnings of the first phase. Feedback from this phase will help AAFC refine creative materials and/or messages for a new marketing strategy, and may also be used to inform policy, service and program development. The total cost to conduct this research was $141,091.56 including HST.

To meet these objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a comprehensive wave of qualitative research. The research included a series of ten focus groups (nine in-person and one online). The in-person focus groups were conducted in four cities across Canada: Mississauga, Ontario (July 17, 2018); Halifax, Nova Scotia (July 18, 2018), Calgary, Alberta (July 19, 2018); and Montreal, Quebec (July 24, 2018). The online focus group was conducted with Official Language Minority Communities (OLMC) by recruiting French-speaking Canadians residing outside Quebec (July 23, 2018).

The target audience for the groups was Canadian adults (18+) with a mix of different genders, ages, educations, incomes and ethnic backgrounds. The sessions were approximately two hours in length; although, in Montreal they were approximately one and a half hours long to accommodate for having an additional group with OLMC residents. Two of the focus groups in Montreal, as well as the online group, were conducted in French. One group in Montreal was with OLMC residents (English-speaking Canadians in Quebec).

For the purposes of this report, it is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy and public opinion research. Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic. Because of the small numbers involved the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number.

The key findings from the research are presented below.

Social Media

• Overall, participants’ reactions to the social media posts were lukewarm to positive. Participants were pleased to learn about AAFC scientists, their work, and plans to promote it more widely in Canada. They also understood the concepts were Government of Canada ads, and felt they were credible.
• Participants named a number of elements in the concepts that they felt would grab their attention. These included:
  • Emphasizing the fun facts about the work AAFC scientists have done, particularly results and discoveries, rather than infrastructure and techniques.
  • A catchy caption, potentially a question, which speaks directly to participants or piques their curiosity. The caption should relate directly and clearly to the images presented in order to be effective.
  • Including a photo of an AAFC scientist allowed participants to establish a more personal connection with them and relate to their work.
  • An explicit invitation to “learn more”, including a link to the website followed by consistent hashtags, was effective.

Campaign Concepts

• Participants’ reaction to each concept tested suggests that each have merits, and AAFC may wish to consider employing all three in some form.
• Participants clearly understood the main message of Concept 1 about the important role AAFC plays in the agriculture and food sector. While the overall look of Concept 1 was very consistent with the look participants had been exposed to while reviewing the social media examples, the majority reacted more positively to the imagery when presented in this form:
  • They found the images were much clearer (not blurry) and the colours were vivid.
  • They appreciated seeing scientists in situations, especially the scientist in the greenhouse.
  • The slogan, “We cover a lot of ground”, was easily understood as it related to the breadth of AAFC’s work when thought of in the context of “From the field to your cart” or “From the greenhouse to your cart”.
• Reactions to Concept 2 were polarized – some felt it was warm and positive, while others felt the visuals looked contrived and unnatural. Those who liked this concept appreciated efforts to make scientists more relatable. Those who disliked it pointed to unusual visual elements such as a scientist as a mother or father, serving dinner or making lunch in their home, wearing their lab coats. Overall, the images, colours, and slogan (or lack thereof) for Concept 2 were among the least appealing and attention-grabbing of the three concepts.
• Concept 3 was the most visually appealing. Participants felt that the colours and images of food were vivid and attention-grabbing. The science factoids were well received, and precisely the type of information participants were eager to receive. Participants really liked the slogan, “A Taste of Science. What’s on your plate?”, felt that it fit well with the imagery, and was an interesting way of linking food to science.

Infographic

• Impressions of the infographic were generally positive. Overall, participants appreciated the clean, well-organized, visually appealing layout. Many noted that the appropriate amount of information was included – it was not too busy. By contrast, many came away feeling the information was a little vague at times and would have preferred more concrete evidence about specific AAFC projects and/or discoveries.

On the whole, when asked, participants felt that this campaign was on the right track in terms of raising public awareness about the agriculture and food sector in Canada. It contained new and interesting information, and spurred further interest in AAFC research. Most importantly, participants came away with the impression that AAFC’s work is much broader than their initial perceptions.

Political neutrality statement

Research Firm: Earnscliffe Strategy Group Inc. (Earnscliffe)
Contract Number: 01B68-181213/001/CY
Contract award date: February 7, 2018

I hereby certify as a Representative of Earnscliffe Strategy Group that the final deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed:
Stephanie Constable
Principal, Earnscliffe

Date: August 24, 2018

Introduction

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) summarizing the results of the focus groups with Canadians testing communications material for a marketing strategy about agricultural education.

Public opinion research indicates that Canadians have many concerns as well as a lack of knowledge and awareness about the foods and beverages that they consume and how they are regulated and produced.

AAFC required public opinion research to inform a new marketing strategy being developed to communicate with Canadians, support work being undertaken by the department with regards to the public trust pillar of the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, and better communicate the importance of the agricultural sector and the role of AAFC to Canadians. This project was divided into two phases. Phase 1, conducted earlier this year, sought to better understand the reasons behind the perceptions identified in the quantitative Agriculture Awareness Baseline Survey and how to best communicate factual information about farming terminology and practices, and the agricultural sector to Canadians. Phase 2, covered in this report, tests communications and marketing materials aimed at raising awareness about the agricultural sector in Canada that were developed based on the learnings of the first phase. Feedback from this phase will help AAFC refine creative materials and/or messages for a new marketing strategy, and may also be used to inform policy, service and program development.

The specific goals of the marketing campaign this research seeks to inform are to:

• help Canadians gain a better understanding of some of the agricultural terminology and practices that they have indicated they would like to learn more about;
• raise awareness of scientific research being done by AAFC;
• Help build trust and awareness in the programs and policies which contribute to an innovative, safe and strong agricultural sector;
• change Canadians’ views when it comes to false perceptions about the sector and issues that relate to it; and,
• build on the Government of Canada’s reputation of being a credible source of impartial and trustworthy information.

To meet these objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a comprehensive wave of qualitative research. The research included a series of ten focus groups (nine in-person and one online). The in-person focus groups were conducted in four cities across Canada: Mississauga, Ontario (July 17, 2018); Halifax, Nova Scotia (July 18, 2018), Calgary, Alberta (July 19, 2018); and Montreal, Quebec (July 24, 2018). The online focus group was conducted with Official Language Minority Communities (OLMC) by recruiting French-speaking Canadians residing outside Quebec (July 23, 2018).

The audience for the groups was Canadian adults (18+) with a mix of different genders, ages, educations, incomes and ethnic backgrounds. Two focus groups were conducted in Mississauga, Calgary and Halifax, and each was approximately two hours in length. In Montreal, the groups were approximately one and a half hours long to accommodate for having an additional group with OLMC residents. Two of the focus groups in Montreal, as well as the online group, were conducted in French. One group in Montreal was conducted in English with OLMC residents (English-speaking Canadians in Quebec).

For the purposes of this report, it is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy and public opinion research. Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic. Because of the small numbers involved the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number.

Detailed findings

The research explored participants’ reactions to the creative concepts developed based on the findings from Phase 1. Participants were asked to evaluate examples of social media posts, react to three approaches to the campaign, and, provide their views on an infographic.

This qualitative report is divided into four sections. The first section outlines the high-level observations about the campaign overall; the second section explores participants’ reactions to the examples of social media posts; the third section explores their thoughts on the three proposed campaign approaches; and, the fourth section explores their views on the infographic.

Worth noting, the findings across regions were very consistent and are therefore reported in aggregate form, although, minor differences were noted throughout.

High-Level Observations

Reaction to the various communications materials was generally positive. Participants were pleased to learn more about AAFC scientists and their work.

With respect to the specific executions, participants found merit in each of the approaches; they appealed to different participants for different reasons. This suggests that this campaign may not necessarily be “one size fits all”. Communicating with a mix of these approaches, particularly given the emphasis on social media as the communications channel, may have the potential to reach a broader audience.

Participants generally came away feeling like this campaign was on the right track. Indeed, most were pleasantly surprised to learn that AAFC scientists’ work was much broader in scope than their initial perceptions, that tend to be limited (and negative). Many participants initial assumption was that their work was only linked to genetically modified food (GMOs). The caveat to bear in mind, is that participants were exposed to a variety of materials over the course of our discussion which more than likely impacted on this impression. This suggests that exposure to a multitude of ads and different messages does have the net effect of broadening their perspective on the profession and sector.

Social Media

For most of the groups (except Mississauga and the first group in Halifax where they were presented with the campaign concepts first), participants were initially presented with the examples of social media posts as this came closest to replicating the way that they would see these ads in their social media feeds. Each participant was presented with a printed and stapled package with eight different examples. After reviewing the package, a discussion followed. The concepts tested are included in the Appendix.

Overall reactions to the social media posts were lukewarm to positive. They were easily recognized as Government of Canada posts, although there was some confusion surrounding the AAFC acronym, and were felt to be credible. Indeed, after reading the various examples, most participants said they came away feeling positive and reassured about the number of AAFC scientists, the work they are doing, and the fact the Government was raising public awareness about their work.

While it is a contrived exercise to ask participants whether they would notice one of these posts in their social media feeds, participants felt that at the very least, there were several elements used in the posts that would be more likely to grab their attention and possibly encourage them to do something (that is, look for more information, share with social media contacts, etc.).

Participants named a number of elements in the concepts that they felt would grab their attention. These included:

• Emphasize the fun facts about the work AAFC scientists do and/or discoveries they have made (that is, cow burps, small vineyards, climate-controlled growth chambers; insect rearing facilities, etc.). In almost every group, at least one or two participants giggled when they came across the social media post about cow burps.

  More than anything else, the science facts were the element that shed light on the work that AAFC scientists are doing, and most piqued participants’ curiosities to learn more. And, when asked how the social media posts could be improved, inevitably, most suggested the inclusion of more information about the scientists’ work.

  Emphasis should be placed on results and discoveries, and not just on infrastructure and techniques (that is, climate-controlled growth chambers, insect rearing facilities, etc.), unless the post sheds light on a discovery made in one of these facilities.

  The messages that spoke most directly to AAFC scientists’ work included:

  • “Did you know that cow burps have an impact on the environment?”
  • “#DYK our research centres have unique features like climate-controlled growth chambers and insect rearing facilities?”
  • “DYK our research centres have unique features like weather-monitoring stations, molecular biology labs, and even a small lot winery?”
  • “Jane Lee’s research is helping the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural activities.”

    “I really like the cow burps. It’s interesting and piques my curiosity.”

    “[About cow burps] This catches my attention.”

• Displaying a photo of an AAFC scientist conjured up a more personal connection with participants and made the scientists more human and relatable. It was also an element of the social media examples that many said was among the more attention-grabbing.

  “I prefer to see the ads with a picture. I make a connection with the scientist. It’s more credible, more human, and personal. It also gives [them] credit for [their] work. It personalizes it.”

  Worth noting, many participants said they would prefer to see images of AAFC scientists in situations as opposed to what appears to be corporate headshots. However, the fact that participants were drawn to the corporate headshots and came away with positive feelings about the scientists (warm, friendly, confident, etc.), suggests that that is not necessary.

  With respect to the specific examples of images provided, participants were pleased to see the diversity in gender, age, and ethnicity displayed across the various examples.

  Some felt that the size of the headshots was a little large and occupied too much space on the visuals. They wondered whether the background image could be clearer if there was less space allocated to the headshot, and more space allocated to the background image.

  Finally, there was also a desire to identify each scientist’s area of specialization, education, or geographical location, with their titles, to make them even more credible (and relatable).

• A catchy caption, that can be in the form of a question, which speaks directly to participants or piques their curiosity. Some of the captions were felt to be much too long, not digestible quickly (at a glance), and given the caption is one of the more prominent and attention-grabbing elements of the social media posts, there was a sense they need to be succinct.

  The caption that seemed to come closest to hitting the mark was, “Your Agriculture. Your Food. Your Canada.” Participants felt that this caption was addressing them very directly. They explained that it conjured up a sense of pride in Canada and a vested interest to learn more about their agriculture and food (and the science behind it). This was particularly relevant given the context of current trade relations with the US and a desire on participants’ parts to prioritize Canadian products and buy local.

  “Repeating ‘your’ gets my attention.”

  “This brings it to me. Talks to me.”

  Worth noting, there were some captions that did not work as well as others:

  • “Dig into Science” / “Croquez dans la science” - While most participants understood the meaning of the caption, most did not like to think about “digging” in the context of the message about cow burps. Moreover, some felt that the concept of “digging” implied too much work in the sense that they might find themselves on the AAFC website having to do more work than they wanted to learn more about the science behind the food. In French, the term “croquez” (loosely translated as biting or chewing) was even more out of place and unappealing especially in the context of the message related to cow burps. Loosely translated, “croquez” refers to biting.
    • Interestingly, several participants across different groups and cities, suggested that for the cow burps message, “Research You Can Digest” would be a more appropriate caption in English. However, this was not volunteered in any of the French groups, and when asked, participants did not believe “Recherche digestible” was appropriate; the double entendre did not work in French.

    “It’s fine but it doesn’t tie together. Research you can digest works better.”

  • “Science plants the seed” – Reactions to this caption were mixed. Those who liked it said it spoke to them about the role (and importance) of science from beginning to end. Those who disliked it felt that the link between science and the seed reminded them of their perceptions of agricultural scientists and genetic modification.

    “I don’t like this one. It makes me think of Monsanto.”

  • “Research that tastes good” – While most understood the connection of this caption to the mention of the small lot wineries, there was a sense that this was a bit of a stretch and that this caption would be better positioned with a message that was more directly related to food.

    “What does this have to do with taste?”

  • “How many scientists are employed by AAFC across Canada?” – Participants felt that the approach of a question and answer was interesting and could work. However, they were not all that interested in this particular question or answer.
    • Worth noting, many suggested that answers to questions in social media should be linked or tied together (either by clicking or swiping) but that the answer should not follow in a separate social media post that they may or may not see.

    “Q&A’s pique my curiosity. They promote engagement. You have to find the answer.”

    “If the answer isn’t tied to the question, it would be frustrating. For example, if I had to wait for another day to get the answer.”

    “The approach of a Q&A seems disjointed. It’s risky if it’s not linked.”

  • An explicit invitation to “learn more”, with the link to the website followed by one or two (maximum) consistent hashtags. Participants noticed and appreciated the website link and felt it should be incorporated into all of the social media posts. With respect to its placement, many suggested that the link to the website should always precede any hashtags on that line; hashtags should appear last.

    On the topic of hashtags, there was a sense that there were too many different hashtags being used across the various examples.

    • The “#DYK” at the beginning of some of the posts was not always understood, felt to be out of place at the beginning of a post, and not really something you would hashtag. Participants preferred when the message simply stated “Did you know...”.
    • To close out some of the posts, participants noticed a couple of different hashtags and felt that AAFC might want to consider picking one and using it each time for consistency. There was a sense that it would potentially gain more attraction if it were only one particularly given the topic. For the most part, they seemed to be ambivalent about whether to use: “#AgriAwareness” or “#FieldsofScience”.

Campaign Concepts

For most of the groups (except Mississauga and the first group in Halifax where they were presented with the campaign concepts first), participants were then presented with three concepts/approaches to the campaign. For each concept, there were three different executions displayed in three formats: web carrousel, social media post, and roll up banner. The order of each execution for each concept was randomized, as was the order in which participants were presented each of the three concepts. Participants were provided with a printed and stapled copy of each concept (including the three executions) one at a time; a discussion followed for each concept before the next concept was presented.

The research suggests that there were pros and cons associated with each concept but all three clearly had merits and were preferred by some participants for one reason or another.

While each concept will be discussed in turn below, there was one comment raised in almost every group that relates to the roll up banner (in each concept). Participants often volunteered that they appreciated seeing bilingual messages, an invitation to “find out more”, a website url, and the Department logo; and, a desire to have those elements embedded in the other formats (to the extent possible), as well.

As a wrap-up to the conversation about the campaign concepts, participants were asked to rank the three concepts with 1 being their preferred concept and 3 being their least preferred. As stated earlier, these findings should be treated directionally only and are not meant to be representative of the larger Canadian population.

The table below outlines the number of times each concept was ranked numbers 1, 2, and 3.

Each concept will be discussed in turn beginning with Concept 3 (most often ranked number 1); followed by Concept 1 (most often ranked number 2); and, then Concept 2 (most often ranked number 3).

Concept 3

Concept 3 tended to garner the most positive initial reactions and enthusiasm. Participants consistently remarked that the colours were very attention-grabbing, as were the images of appetizing food.

In terms of the colours, there was a sense that the green background in Concept 3A was the more appealing of the three. It implied a certain freshness and presented a complimentary background that showcased the steak and vegetable dinner. In contrast, some felt the blue background in Concept 3B did not make the food (pizza in this case) look all that appealing; indeed, some felt the pizza looked like it may have spoiled. As for the colours in Concept 3C, many liked the pink background colour but did not find the images of the seafood all that appetizing. In large part this had more to do with the presentation of the unprepared fish than the pink background.

With respect to the foods featured in the ads, the overwhelming majority of participants really liked the idea of changing things up to feature regional and/or seasonal foods. There was also a sense that the food features should be healthy choices, as much as possible (that is, less frozen or takeout pizza and more grilled steak and vegetables).

Aside from the initial attention-grabbing colours and appetizing food, the idea of including science factoids about the food featured in each concept was very well received. In fact, the science facts respond to the very thing participants are clamoring for: information about the science and what AAFC scientists are working on. Participants came away feeling that this concept more than the other two, would be able to educate them about the science and pique their curiosity to learn more. Worth noting, participants cautioned that the science facts should not make the food unappetizing (that is, should not refer to insects or bugs, cow burps, etc.) but should emphasize positive (health) benefits related to the science behind the food.

Most participants really liked the slogan, “A Taste of Science. What’s on your plate?”. They felt that it fit well with the imagery, and was an interesting way of linking the food to the science. Some participants were less enthused and questioned whether the concepts of taste and science should be used together. They suggested the slogan could simply be: “What’s on your plate?” which seemed to fit with the concept and be an intriguing question that would pique their curiosities about the science behind the food.

While the exercise is contrived, when asked, many suggested that this concept would cause them to stop and pay attention if they came across it in their social media feeds. Others did not think they would stop and pay attention to one of these posts explaining that their social media feeds are often saturated with food features (that is, recipes, how-to videos, photos friends share of their meals, etc.) and thought that this concept could be easily overlooked.

“This one is my favourite. It is appealing visually. The others are boring in comparison. It would catch my attention.”

“This is really eye-catching. I like the slogan: What’s on your plate?”

“The science facts are really interesting to learn. We don’t think about this a lot in relation to our food.”

“I really like that you could learn more about the food you’re eating.”

“This is clean looking and modern. The food draws you in and it shows another side of food.”

“Visually, these are my favourite. The colours are bold and I love food.”

“I would stop if the science fact grabbed my attention.”

Concept 1

Overall reaction to Concept 1 was lukewarm to positive.

While the overall look of Concept 1 was very consistent with the look participants had been exposed to while reviewing the social media examples, the majority reacted more positively to the imagery in these concepts. This they attributed to the images being much clearer (not blurred) and colours that were, therefore, much more vivid and attention-grabbing. Secondly, participants appreciated seeing scientists in situations, especially the scientist in the greenhouse, more than the head shots they saw in the social media posts. Seeing scientists working in their elements made them more relatable and gave participants a sense of the scope of their work. For example, many participants were surprised to see scientists amidst the crops in the farm fields suggesting that they tend to default to thinking of farmers as the only stewards of the land.

The main message of this concept was generally very clear; participants came away with the understanding that scientists played an important and significant role in agriculture and food production from beginning to end (and the foods we eat). In fact, the slogan, “We cover a lot of ground”, was more readily understood here than in the social media examples as it related to the breadth of their work when participants thought of it in the context of “From the field to your cart” or “From the greenhouse to your cart”. Some also suggested that this could be extrapolated to include other examples of the ground covered including: “From the orchard to your cart”; “From the garden to your cart”; “From the farm to your cart”; “De la culture dans votre panier”; “De notre étable à votre table”; etc.

In terms of the imagery, there were a few takeaways:

• When asked, many tended to prefer seeing the scientist in the greenhouse, although, there was a sense that seeing a scientist in a farm field was unexpected, curious, and might be more attention-grabbing.
  • Some participants suggested it would be interesting to see a scientist in the field with a farmer showing how the two work together.
• The overwhelming majority of participants preferred seeing the scientist in a lab coat. When presented with a scientist in plain clothes, the majority felt the ad would be less noticeable. Some also felt the ad would be less effective, suggesting the main message would be lost because the plain clothed scientist looked like a regular person doing their groceries in a field, which was curious, but not about the science behind the food.
• In terms of the scientists’ poses, preference was for Concept 1A in which the scientist’s pose looked a little more casual because of the way she was learning on the cart; and, less staged than the scientists in Concepts 1B and 1C.
• Some also questioned the inclusion of a shopping cart. This was particularly the case among French-speaking participants both online and in Montreal. Essentially, they felt it might be more appropriate to take the concept one step further and talk about “From field to your table” or “From field to your plate”. They suggested the visual could feature a scientist (in a lab coat) sitting at a table eating a meal in the field. Others felt the locations could be varied to feature
• Others that were comfortable with the shopping cart, did suggest that the shopping cart should be fuller with many examples of products created with the featured crop or to use a shopping basket instead which would appear more full by the virtue of being smaller.
  • As with the pizza in Concept 3, some participants did not like the inclusion of foods perceived as unhealthy (that is, margarine, canola oil, white bread, etc.).
• In terms of the crops, the canola fields were much less recognizable as compared to the wheat fields, although both images were attention-grabbing because of the vivid colours (bright yellow and blue skies). A few participants suggested labelling the location of the field.

• Finally, some participants questioned the use of all-caps and the words selected for that treatment. They suggested accentuating the words “field” or “greenhouse” and “cart” rather than “the” and “your”.

  “I’m curious to know what role agricultural scientists play on the farm. It’s interesting. I hadn’t thought of that before. It makes me want to learn more.”

  “I like this one. It’s about from the field to your cart. Hopefully it makes people think about where food comes from. How did your food get here?”

  “This one was not that appealing to me. It would be good to have a science fact about the crop; a little more information to hook me.”

  “I like the connection of where food starts to how we get it.”

  “This gives me the impression the scientists are doing things I approve of in the field.”

  “This one is laughable. What is she doing in the field? The shopping cart looks bizarre in the field.”

Concept 2

Overall reactions to Concept 2 were somewhat polarized.

Those who appreciated this concept liked seeing people in a family setting and especially children; it was warm and positive. They also liked the approach of making scientists more relatable; “one of us.”

Those critical of this concept felt the visuals were contrived and unnatural (that is, a scientist as a mother or father, serving dinner or making lunch in their homes, wearing their lab coats). Some were a little more comfortable with the outdoor setting of Concept 2C which participants extrapolated could have been a family visit to Grandma’s place of work.

Most important, the main message – the suggestion that scientists would share the food they have developed (through their research/work) with their families meaning it is good enough for all Canadians  – was not understood or embraced by all. In most groups, there were a handful of participants who did not extrapolate any meaning beyond making scientists more relatable and human; and, only became aware of that secondary message once another participant explained their interpretation to the group. Furthermore, the suggestion to feature athletes, pet owners, artists, etc. as agricultural scientists was appealing to some participants, typically those living alone; however, most felt that the secondary message was not as powerful when taken out of the context of: this is the food that I, agricultural scientist, serve my own family.

In terms of the imagery, there were a few other takeaways worth noting:

• In situations where the scientist was featured at home, interacting with their families, participants would prefer that the scientist be dressed in plain clothes rather than a lab coat. The juxtaposition of the mother or father dressed as a scientist (in a lab coat) at home was off-putting for some. Again, the context displayed in Concept 3C was less controversial as participants extrapolated this was Grandma dressed as a scientist interacting with her family at work.
• As with Concept 3, participants felt that the foods featured in the ad should be healthy choices, as much as possible (that is, less emphasis on the white bread and more emphasis on the salad as depicted in Concept 2B).
• Reactions to the hand-drawn illustrations were mixed. Some really liked them and thought that they could be used to emphasize the science and scientist, especially if the scientists wore plain clothes. Others questioned their meaning and overall contribution to the concept.
• Finally, some participants questioned the use of different colours in the message. The white font seemed to be the words that participants felt were emphasized although they thought they were not the right words to emphasize. Most felt that the two colours could be swapped so that the white font accentuated the words “Agricultural Scientist” and “Father”, “Mother”, or “Grandmother”.

Finally, participants had the sense that this concept lacked a slogan. The message “I am an agricultural scientist and a father/mother/grandmother” was not interpreted as a slogan the same way “We cover a lot of ground” or “A Taste of Science. What’s in your plate?” were and some felt the concept could be improved with a central message.

“This one is very boring. There is no information. Why are they wearing a lab coat in these settings?”

“I don’t like seeing the lab coat around food.”

“What does this have to do with science?”

“What I think this is saying is: I’m a scientist and my knowledge reflects my preferences. I share my knowledge of nutrition with my family.”

“I like it. It stands out. It tells me that scientists are real people. They’re creating the food that they feed to their own families. They care about what they’re producing.”

“Scientists are real people.”

Infographic

Finally, each participant was presented with a printed version of the infographic. Participants were asked to review the infographic and mark it up based on what they liked (checkmark); found confusing or unclear (?); and, disliked (x).

Overall impressions of the infographic were generally positive. Participants felt it was clean, well-organized, and visually-appealing. Many explained that they appreciated the snapshot (one-pager) format and said they came away understanding more about the profession and the work the Department is doing to ensure the food Canadians eat is safe, nutritious, and sustainably-produced.

In terms of the messaging, many noted that the amount of information was appropriate, that the language was clear and easily understood, and that the infographic was not too busy. However, while most understood that they could go to the website for more information, participants felt that the inclusion of examples of AAFC projects and/or discoveries would make the infographic more interesting and useful.

The following visual outlines what participants liked (checkmark), found confusing or unclear (?), and disliked (x) about the infographic. Each of these is discussed in detail below.

Liked (positive reactions)

One of the more appealing and attention-grabbing elements of the infographic were the images of AAFC scientists. They looked friendly and happy.

Participants were also pleased to see the diversity of cultures and genders represented. Some participants did suggest that it might be helpful to also show a diversity of ages. They argued that images of older scientists would add an inferred dimension of wisdom and experience.

Participants really liked the information about what AAFC scientists do. The message was short, to-the-point, clear and among the more compelling elements of the infographic.

Messaging about the collaboration between scientists and farmers was particularly well-received. Indeed, these three messages were the most compelling of the messages on the right-hand side of the infographic. In large part, this has a lot to do with the lack of awareness and knowledge Canadians have about the science behind agriculture and AAFC scientists; their natural inclination when thinking about agriculture was to think of farmers. This also coincides with their interest in seeing farmers depicted in some of the visuals.

Participants really liked the slogan and felt that it was very relevant, particularly on this infographic, as the information presented in the infographic very much conveyed a sense that AAFC scientists were responsible for a lot and did in fact "cover a lot of ground."

The reference and link to the website was also noticed and appreciated.

Confusing/unclear

Most questioned the value in citing the number of AAFC scientists and tended to feel that without a point of reference or context, the statistic was vague. "Is that a good or bad number?"

The first four messages on the right-hand side of the infographic often raised more questions than they answered for most participants (less so for those in the online OLMC group). The perceived ambiguity lead some participants to question the credibility of the information; at best, the information was felt to be vague.

Participants questioned:

• Which other partners?
• Who conducts the other half of all agriculture-related research in Canada?
• Where are the 20 research centers located?
• Which highly technical fields?
• How does their work drive innovation and growth? “Those are buzz words.”

Reaction to the icons was also mixed. Most were not exactly sure what the icon signified. Many thought (or hoped) that they signified something to do with the area of specialization for each scientist. The fact that they were meant to represent the message to the right of each scientist was not obvious to most participants. Those able to make that connection were a little perplexed and felt the icon was insignificant; especially as the placement of the icon was closer to the image of the scientist than it was to the text/message. For this reason, some questioned whether the icons were perhaps unnecessary or might be more interesting if they were representative of each scientist’s area of specialization.

Disliked (negative reactions)

Participants felt the title was wordy, not all that attention-grabbing or interesting, and a little redundant. A few participants questioned why AAFC was spelled out arguing that it added to the sense that the title was cluttered and too long. They also noticed the Department logo at the bottom, in which the full name of the Department is spelled out, and felt it would be appropriate to reference the acronym in the title to condense words. Second, many questioned the need to reiterate what they would expect of a scientist: "Of course, they’re experts in their fields."

While this was not a significant criticism, there was agreement that identifying each scientist’s specific title, rather than a generic title, Agriculture Scientist, would help demonstrate their respective areas of specialization and provide further information about the breadth of expertise of AAFC scientists. Others thought it might be interesting to reference where each scientist is located geographically.

Conclusions

Overall, participants felt the campaign is on the right track in terms of raising awareness about the agriculture and food sector. The bulk of the concepts were met with positive feedback, included new and interesting information, and piqued many participants’ curiosity about AAFC’s work. Negative feedback related primarily to concepts participants found inauthentic or contrived.

When it came to the social media posts, reaction was lukewarm to positive. Participants were pleased to learn about AAFC scientists, their work, and plans to promote it more widely in Canada. They also understood the concepts were Government of Canada ads, and felt they were credible. A number of elements attracted participants’ attention, including:

• Fun facts about the work AAFC scientists have done, particularly results and discoveries, rather than infrastructure and techniques.
• A catchy caption, potentially a question, which speaks directly to participants or piques their curiosity.
• Photos of AAFC scientists – these allowed participants to establish a more personal connection with them and relate to their work.
• An explicit invitation to “learn more” including a link to the website followed by consistent hashtags.

Participants clearly understood the main message of Concept 1 about the important role AAFC plays in the agriculture and food sector. While the overall look of Concept 1 was very consistent with the look participants had been exposed to while reviewing the social media examples, the majority reacted more positively to the imagery in the examples for Concept 1 when compared to the Social Media posts.

• They found the images were much clearer and the colours were vivid.
• They appreciated seeing scientists in situations, especially the scientist in the greenhouse.
• The slogan, “We cover a lot of ground”, was easily understood as it related to the breadth of AAFC’s work when thought of in the context of “From the field to your cart” or “From the greenhouse to your cart”.

Reactions to Concept 2 were polarized - some felt it was warm and positive, while others felt the visuals looked contrived and unnatural. Those who liked this concept appreciated efforts to make scientists more relatable. Those who disliked it pointed to unusual visual elements such as a scientist as a mother or father, serving dinner or making lunch in their home, wearing their lab coats.

Concept 3 was the most visually appealing. Participants felt that the colours and images of food were vivid and attention-grabbing. Participants liked the idea of including science factoids and the slogan, “A Taste of Science. What’s on your plate?”. They felt the slogan fit well with the imagery and was an interesting way of linking the food to the science.

Impressions of the infographic were generally positive. Overall, participants appreciated the clean, well-organized, visually-appealing layout. Many noted that the appropriate amount of information was included, although, some came away feeling the information was a little vague at times.

In summary, AAFC’s current approach to the marketing campaign requires a few adjustments, but the overall direction is appropriate to help meet the campaign’s goals. Each of the concepts had merits and appealed to participants for different reasons suggesting that AAFC may wish to consider using a combination of all of them.

Appendix A: Discussion guide

Introduction

Time equals 10 minutes. Total time equals 10 minutes.

Moderator introduces herself/himself and her/his role: role of moderator is to ask questions, make sure everyone has a chance to express themselves, keep track of the time, be objective/no special interest

• Moderator works for Earnscliffe Strategy Group, an independent marketing research firm
• Role of participants: speak openly and frankly when expressing opinions, remember that there are no right or wrong answers and no need to agree with each other
• Results are confidential and reported all together/individuals are not identified/participation is voluntary
• The length of the session (2 hours/1.5 hours in Montreal)
• The presence of any observers, their role and purpose, and the means of observation (one-way mirror, teleconference/webstreaming; colleagues viewing in the back room and listening in remotely)
• The presence and purpose of any recording being made of the session (audio and video taping of the discussion
• Turn off cell phones for the duration of the discussion
• As mentioned when we invited you to participate in this discussion group, we are conducting focus groups on behalf of the Government of Canada. We are holding discussion groups to hear people’s views on raising awareness about the agriculture and food sector.

Moderator will go around the table and ask participants to introduce themselves.

• Introduction of participants: To get started, please give your first name, who lives in your household (that is, whether you live with someone including children (number and ages of children), and the role you play in grocery shopping and meal preparation in your household.

Reactions to Visual Concepts

Time equals 60 minutes. Total time equals 70 minutes.

Tonight, we’re going to be reviewing some creative concepts that are being proposed by the Government of Canada to help raise awareness of the agriculture and food sector in Canada.

We have three creative concepts to show you with three executions for each: a social media post, a website banner and a promotional poster. This is to give you a feel for how each concept would be executed in different formats.

It is important to note, these have been created for the purposes of our discussion today/tonight. They are not in their final versions - your feedback will be used to help further refine these concepts.

Moderator to show each concept on screen and provide participants with their own printed copies. The order in which each concept will be rotated in each group, as will the presentation of the three executions within each concept.

Moderator to probe for each of the three concepts

• Overall, what did you think of this concept? Why do you say that?
  • What did you like/dislike? Why do you say that?
• Would you notice this ad? Would it capture your attention? Why or why not?
  • What stands out most? Why do you say that?
• What did this concept say to you? What was the key message(s) or idea(s) conveyed by the concept? Why do you say that?
• Was it credible/believable? Why or why not?
• What did you think of the approach (intent) taken in this ad? Was it appropriate? Why or why not?
• If you saw this ad, would it motivate you to take action? Why or why not?
  • What type of actions? Probe: talk to someone, look for more information, share it, etc.?
  • What, if anything, would you say to your friends if you saw this ad? Why is that?
• What, if anything, would you change to improve this concept? Why do you say that?

Additional concept specific probes

Concept 1

• Let’s look at the version of Concept 1 where the scientist is not wearing a lab coat. Does the lab coat make a difference? If yes, why? If no, why?
• What do you think of the scientist in the field and greenhouse (other versions could be in an orchard)? What if the scientist were in his/her laboratory? Would that change anything?

Concept 2

• For Concept 2 (imagine also that the “parent as a scientist” idea could also apply to “an athlete as a scientist”, or “a pet owner as a scientist”):
  • What does seeing a scientist in a family setting evoke?
  • What message is being conveyed?
  • Is it important/valuable to see a scientist in this type of setting?

Concept Wrap-up

Moderator will ask participants to rank each of the the three concepts from 1 (their preferred approach) to 3 (their least preferred approach).

• How did you rank the three Concepts? Why did you rank them this way?
• Which approach would be most likely to capture your attention? Why do you say that?
• Which would most likely encourage you to take action (that is, talk to someone, look for more information, share it, etc.)? Why do you say that?

Reactions to specific messaging and executions

Time equals 20 minutes. Total time equals 90 minutes.

Now, I would like to review some examples of potential social media posts in which specific messaging has been applied to the overall look of each of the three concepts.

Moderator to show each concept on screen and provide participants with their own printed copies. The order in which each concept will be rotated in each group.

Moderator to probe for each of the three concepts:

• Overall, now that you have seen how this concept would look once executed, what did you think? Why do you say that?
• Did your view of this concept change in any way – for the better, for the worse or no change? Why so you say that?
• Would you notice this ad in your social media feed? Would it capture your attention? Why or why not?
  • What stands out most? Why do you say that?
  • If you did receive this in your social media feed, would you share this with your friends/contacts? Why or why not?
  • What do you think of the question and answer approach taken in slides 1 and 1a?
    • Are you more likely to take action with this type of post?
    • Would you be interested in the answer?
• For the last one, what do you think of post without the picture/avatar of the scientist? Would it affect how you react to the post?
• What did you take away about the science behind Canada’s agriculture and agri-food sector?
  • What did you think of the specific messaging that was introduced?
  • Was this information new to you?
  • Was it of interest to you? Why or why not?
  • Does the message fit with the graphic? Would the message fit better with one of the other graphics? Why do you say that?
• Was it credible/believable? Why or why not?
• How does it make you feel about the work Canada’s agriculture scientists are doing to ensure the quality of the food you consume? Why do you say that?
• What, if anything, would you change to improve this concept? Why do you say that?

Reactions to the Infographic

Time equals 20 minutes. Total time equals 110 minutes.

For the remainder of our discussion, I would like to review an infographic. Please feel free to mark this up. Put a check mark beside messages/wording that you found particularly compelling or persuasive; put an “X” beside any messages/wording that you did not find particularly compelling or persuasive; and, a “?” beside any messages/wording that you found confusing or unclear.

Moderator to show infographic on screen and provide participants with their own printed copies. Moderator to probe the following:

• What is your overall impression of the infographic? Why do you say that?
• Would you notice this infographic? Would it capture your attention? Why or why not?
  • What stands out most? Why do you say that?
• What did you think of the visual? Why do you say that?
• What was the key message(s) or idea(s) conveyed by this infographic?
  • Was there anything you found particularly compelling or persuasive? Why?
  • Was there anything you did not find particularly compelling or persuasive? Why?
  • Was there anything you found confusing or unclear? Why?
• Was it credible/believable? Why or why not?
• What did you think of the approach taken in this infographic? Was it effective? Why or why not?
• If you saw this, would it motivate you to take action? Why or why not?
  • What type of actions? Probe: talk to someone, look for more information, share it, etc.?
• What, if anything, would you change to improve this infographic? Why do you say that?

Wrap-up

Time equals 10 minutes. Total time equals 120 minutes.

Moderator to check in the back room and probe on any additional areas of interest.

• This concludes what we needed to cover tonight. We really appreciate you taking the time to come down here to share your views. Your input is very important.
• Reminder to those in the first and second groups about reserving comments so as not to influence those waiting at reception for the next group.

Appendix B: Screener

Focus group summary

• Recruit 10 participants per group
• Participants must be at least 18 years of age
• For the online focus group, participants must be French-speakers living outside Quebec (that is, New Brunswick, Ontario or Manitoba)
• Aim to recruit at least 2 Indigenous persons in each group (especially Mississauga and Calgary) (S7)
• Good mix of other demographics

• Mississauga: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 (Honorarium: $100)
  • Group 1 - 6:00 pm
  • Group 2 - 8:00 pm
• Halifax: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 (Honorarium: $100)
  • Group 1 - 5:30 pm
  • Group 2 - 7:30 pm
• Calgary: Thursday, July 19, 2018 (Honorarium: $100)
  • Group 1 - 5:30 pm
  • Group 2 - 7:30 pm
• Online: Monday, July 23, 2018 (Honorarium: $100)
  • Group 1 (French) - 6:30 pm
• Montreal: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 (Honorarium: $85)
  • Group 1 (French) - 5:00 pm
  • Group 2 (French) - 6:30 pm
  • Group 3 (English) - 8:00 pm

• Respondent’s name:
• Respondent’s phone number: (home/cell)
• Respondent’s phone number: (work)
• Respondent’s fax number:
• Respondent’s email:
• Sample source: panel random
• Interviewer:
• Date:
• Validated:
• Quality Central:
• On list:
• On quotas:

Hello/Bonjour, my name is [insert name] and I’m calling on behalf of Earnscliffe, a national public opinion research firm. We are organizing a series of discussion groups on issues of importance to Canadians, on behalf of the Government of Canada, specifically for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The purpose of the study and the small group discussion is to hear people’s views on issues related to the domestic agriculture and agri-food system. We are looking for people who would be willing to participate in a discussion group that will last up to two hours. These people must be 18 years of age or older. Up to 10 participants will be taking part and for their time, participants will receive an honorarium of [insert amount]. May I continue?

Would you prefer that I continue in English or French? Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? [If french, continue in french or arrange a call back with french interviewer: Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en français. Merci. Au revoir].

Participation is voluntary. We are interested in hearing your opinions; no attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view. The format is a ‘round table’ discussion led by a research professional. All opinions expressed will remain anonymous and views will be grouped together to ensure no particular individual can be identified. But before we invite you to attend, we need to ask you a few questions to ensure that we get a good mix and variety of people. May I ask you a few questions?

Yes - Continue
No - Thank and terminate

Read to all: “This call may be monitored or audio taped for quality control and evaluation purposes.

Additional clarification if needed:

• To ensure that I (the interviewer) am reading the questions correctly and collecting your answers accurately;
• To assess my (the interviewer) work for performance evaluation;
• To ensure that the questionnaire is accurate/correct (that is evaluation of CATI programming and methodology – we’re asking the right questions to meet our clients’ research requirements – kind of like pre-testing)
• If the call is audio taped, it is only for the purposes of playback to the interviewer for a performance evaluation immediately after the interview is conducted or it can be used by the Project Manager/client to evaluate the questionnaire if they are unavailable at the time of the interview – all audio tapes are destroyed after the evaluation.

If “yes” to any of the above, thank and terminate.

S2. Do not ask – note gender

• Ensure good mix of gender (50/50)
  • Male: 1
  • Female: 2

S3. Could you please tell me which of the following age categories you fall in to? Are you...

• Ensure good mix of age
  • 18-24 years: 1
  • 25-29 years: 2
  • 30-34 years: 3
  • 35-44 years: 4
  • 45-54 years: 5
  • 55-64 years: 6
  • 65+ years: 7 (Thank and terminate)
  • DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S4. What is your current employment status?

• Ensure good mix of employment status
  • Working full-time: 1
  • Working part-time: 2
  • Self-employed: 3
  • Retired: 4
  • Unemployed: 5
  • Student: 6
  • Homemaker: 7
  • Other (please specify): 8
  • DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S5. Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes [read list]?

• Ensure good mix of income
  • Under $20,000: 1
  • $20,000 to under $40,000: 2
  • $40,000 to under $60,000: 3
  • $60,000 to under $80,000: 4
  • $80,000 to under $100,000: 5
  • $100,000 to under $150,000: 6
  • $150,000 or more: 7
  • DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S6. What is the last level of education that you have completed?

• Ensure good mix of education
  • Some high school only: 1
  • Completed high school: 2
  • Some college/university: 3
  • Completed college/university: 4
  • Post-graduate studies: 5
  • DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S7. Do you consider yourself to be Indigenous Canadian (First Nations, Métis or Inuit)?

• Yes: 1
• No: 2

Aim for at least two indigenous canadians in each group – particularly in Mississauga and Calgary.

S8. Have you participated in a discussion or focus group before? A discussion group brings together a few people in order to know their opinion about a given subject.

• Yes: 1 (Max 1/3 per group, ask S9, S10, S11)
• No: 2 (Skip to S12)
• DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S9. When was the last time you attended a discussion or focus group?

• If within the last 6 months: 1 (Thank and terminate)
• If not within the last 6 months: 2 (Continue)
• DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S10. How many of these sessions have you attended in the last five years?

• If 4 or less: 1 (Continue)
• If 5 or more: 2 (Thank and terminate)
• DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S11. And what was/were the main topic(s) of discussion in those groups?

If related to agriculture, farming, or food, thank and terminate.

Invitation

S12. Participants in discussion groups are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts. How comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you... (read list)

• Very comfortable: 1 (Minimum 4 per group)
• Fairly comfortable: 2 (Continue)
• Comfortable: 3 (Continue)
• Not very comfortable: 4 (Thank and terminate)
• Very comfortable: 5 (Thank and terminate)
• DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S13. Sometimes participants are asked to read text and/or review images during the discussion. Is there any reason why you could not participate?

• Yes: 1 (Thank and terminate)
• No: 2 (Continue)
• DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

S14. Based on your responses, it looks like you have the profile we are looking for. I would like to invite you to participate in a small group discussion, called a focus group, we are conducting at [time], on [date].

As you may know, focus groups are used to gather information on a particular subject matter; in this case, the discussion will touch on issues related to the domestic agriculture and agri-food system. The discussion will consist of 8 to 10 people and will be very informal. It will last up to two hours, refreshments will be served and you will receive [insert amount] as a thank you for your time. Would you be willing to attend?

• Yes: 1 (Recruit)
• No: 2 (Thank and terminate)
• DK/NR: 9 (Thank and terminate)

Privacy questions

Now I have a few questions that relate to privacy, your personal information and the research process. We will need your consent on a few issues that enable us to conduct our research. As I run through these questions, please feel free to ask me any questions you would like clarified.

P1) First, we will be providing the hosting facility and session moderator with a list of respondents’ names and profiles (screener responses) so that they can sign you into the group. This information will not be shared with the Government of Canada department organizing this research. Do we have your permission to do this? I assure you it will be kept strictly confidential.

• Yes: 1 (Go to P2)
• No: 2 (Read respondent info below)

We need to provide the facility hosting the session and the moderator with the names and background of the people attending the focus group because only the individuals invited are allowed in the session and the facility and moderator must have this information for verification purposes. Please be assured that this information will be kept strictly confidential. Go to P1a

P1a) Now that I’ve explained this, do I have your permission to provide your name and profile to the facility?

• Yes: 1 (Go to P2)
• No: 2 (Thank & terminate)

P2) An audio and/or video tape of the group session will be produced for research purposes. The tapes will be used only by the research professional to assist in preparing a report on the research findings and will be destroyed once the report is completed.

Do you agree to be audio and/or video taped for research purposes only?

• Yes: 1 (Go to P3)
• No: 2 (Read respondent info below)

It is necessary for the research process for us to audio/video tape the session as the researcher needs this material to complete the report.

P2a) Now that I’ve explained this, do I have your permission for audio/video taping?

• Yes: 1 (Thank & go to P3)
• No: 2 (Thank & terminate)

P3) Each month we submit the names of individuals that have participated in our focus groups to the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association Qualitative Central system (www.mria-arim.ca). Qualitative Central serves as a centralized database to review participation in qualitative research and focus groups. You will not be contacted for any reason whatsoever as a result of being on this list.

Do we have your permission to submit your name and phone number to MRIA’s Qualitative Central system?

• Yes: 1 (Thank & go to invitation)
• No: 2 (Go to P3)

P3a) To participate in this focus group we must have your permission to add your name to the Qualitative Central system as it is the only way for us to ensure the integrity of the research process and track participation in qualitative research. The system is maintained by the industry body, the Professional Marketing Research Society, and is solely used to track your participation in qualitative research (such as focus groups). You will not be contacted for any reason whatsoever as a result of being on this list.

Now that I've explained this do I have your permission to add your name to our qualitative central list?

• Yes: 1 (Thank & go to invitation)
• No: 2 (Thank & terminate)

As required, additional info for the interviewer:
Please be assured that this information is kept confidential and is strictly accessed and used by professional market research firms to review participation and prevent “professional respondents” from attending sessions. Research firms participating in MRIA’s Qualitative Central require your consent to be eligible to participate in the focus group - the system helps ensure the integrity of the research process.

As required, note about MRIA:
The Marketing Research and Intelligence Association is a non-profit organization for marketing research professionals engaged in marketing, advertising, social, and political research. The Society's mission is to be the leader in promoting excellence in the practice of marketing and social research and in the value of market information.

Invitation:
Wonderful, you qualify to participate in one of our discussion sessions. As I mentioned earlier, the group discussion will take place the evening of [Day, Month, Date] @ [Time] for up to 2 hours.

Do you have a pen handy so that I can give you the address where the group will be held? It will be held at: [provide facility name and address].

We ask that you arrive fifteen minutes early to be sure you find parking, locate the facility and have time to check-in with the hosts. The hosts may be checking respondents’ identification prior to the group, so please be sure to bring some personal identification with you (for example, a driver’s license). If you require glasses for reading make sure you bring them with you as well.

As we are only inviting a small number of people, your participation is very important to us. If for some reason you are unable to attend, please call us so that we may get someone to replace you. You can reach us at [insert phone number] at our office. Please ask for [name]. Someone will call you in the days leading up to the discussion to remind you.

So that we can call you to remind you about the discussion group or contact you should there be any changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me?

First name
Last Name
Email
Daytime phone number
Evening phone number

If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the discussion group. If they still refuse thank & terminate.