Phoenix SPI was commissioned to conduct quantitative research to evaluate the effectiveness of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) advertising campaign. The campaign included radio, newspaper, and Internet ads, and a flyer sent to 68% of Canadian households (specifically those in border towns across the country and in cities with an international airport) to inform them of the new rules concerning the documents travellers will need to show in order to obtain entry to the United States. The main part of the campaign ran from November 10 to December 23, 2007 and from January 14 to February 3, 2008.
The survey was administered to 1,408 Canadian residents, 18 years of age and older. This included an oversample of approximately 400 Canadians living in communities near the Canada-U.S. border and a general population sample of 1004. Border communities were those deemed to be within 30 kilometres of Canada-U.S. border crossings. Fieldwork took place February 1 to 20, 2008. Based on a sample of this size, the overall results of the general public sample can be considered accurate to within +/-3.09% 19 times out of 20. No margin of error is provided for the border community oversample since this was not a probability sample.
This executive summary focuses on the general public results; border community findings are included only where there is a significant difference compared to the general public.
On an unprompted basis, the majority of general public respondents (62%) recalled having seen or heard advertising about the new travel requirements. Turning to the content of the ads, those who recalled them were most likely to remember that travellers will need a valid passport (57%), followed by needing valid government photo ID and a birth certificate (39%), and that air travellers in particular will need a passport (15%). A smaller majority (56%) of those in border communities also recalled the advertising, and generally remembered similar content related to the ads. However, they were less likely to recall that a valid ID and birth certificate will be required (25% vs. 39%). In terms of where the general public thought they saw the ads, the single greatest proportion identified television (44%), a medium not used for the campaign. Smaller numbers recalled seeing or hearing the ads in daily newspapers (27%) and on the radio (25%), followed by pamphlets or brochures (13%).
Although majorities of both the general public and those living in border communities claimed to recall the ads on an unprompted basis, many of these were incorrect. To obtain a better sense of the proportion of these respondents who actually recalled the ads, a more detailed calculation was used. When this was done, the proportion of those who recalled the ads on an unprompted basis is 21% of the general public and 19% of those living in border communities. This could be considered the validated proportion of respondents who recalled, on an unprompted basis, the WHTI ads.
After being asked about recall of the ads in an unprompted manner, participants were read short descriptions of the ads and flyer, and asked whether they recalled each of these (i.e. Quantitative Evaluation of the WHTI Advertising Campaign this is prompted or aided awareness of the ads). Total aided recall of the advertising was 53% among the general public. This is the proportion that recall seeing or hearing one or more of the ads (regardless of which ads). More specifically, just over one-quarter of the general public recalled hearing radio ads (26%) or seeing ads in newspapers (26%). Following this, 17% said they recalled receiving the flyer, while 6% claimed to recall the Internet banner ads. Total aided recall of the ads, as well as recall of the radio and newspaper ads, was somewhat higher among those living in border communities.
Turning to the messages the general public could recall from these ads, the need for proper documents to cross the border (39%), and that passports in particular are needed (26%) lead the way. The former included references to proper documentation in general, driver's licences, birth certificates, photo ID, and proof of identification, among others. In terms of sponsorship, the largest proportion pointed to the federal government (61%), followed by taxpayers in general (9%) and provincial governments (3%). Respondents in border communities who recalled the ads identified similar messages, but were somewhat less likely to perceive federal sponsorship of the ads (55% vs. 61%).
Those who recalled the advertising were unlikely to identify taking any actions as a result of the ads without prompting. Without prompting, only 12% of the general public, and the same proportion of those living in border communities, said they took action as a result of seeing or hearing the ads. Those who said they took action were asked to identify the action(s) they had taken. In addition, all those who recalled the ads were asked if they had taken any of six potential actions (read to them) that were relevant to the ad campaign. Members of the general public were most likely to have made sure they and their families had valid ID (41%). Following this, by a considerable margin, 17% had applied for a passport as a result of the ads. Respondents were much less likely to have taken other actions (3-7%), such as visiting the website for more information, applying for a birth certificate, changing travel plans, or calling the 1-800 number. The results were very similar for Canadians living in close proximity to the border.
Turning to media coverage (i.e. not advertising) about this subject matter, a slight majority of those in border communities recalled such coverage (53%), while recall was slightly lower among the general public (44%). Majorities of respondents had travelled to the U.S. during the previous two years, with those in the border communities being much more likely to have made such trips (72% vs. 58% of the general public). This included being twice as likely to make these trips frequently (40% made at least five trips vs. 20% in the general public). That said, identical majorities were at least somewhat likely to travel to the U.S. in the next two years (69%). In terms of identification, most respondents (58%) currently have valid passports, while few have other forms of travel documentation (i.e. FAST or NEXUS cards). Those living in border communities were more likely to have been previously aware of the new requirements, compared to Canadians in general (69% vs. 60%). Few general public participants (18%) see these new requirements as making their trips to the U.S. less likely. This was similarly the case among those living in border communities.
Ratings among the general public of federal government performance tended to be positive to neutral. Using a 7-point scale (1 = terrible, 7 = excellent), approximately half of those surveyed offered positive (scores of 5-7) assessments of the government's performance in terms of informing the public about the new requirements (51%). That said, the single greatest proportion provided neutral assessments (scores of 4) (25%). This was similar among those in border communities, although they were more likely to provide neutral assessments (31% vs. 25%).
Assessments of performance in terms of providing information to the public overall were similar. Almost half (48%) offered positive assessments. Turning to overall government performance, assessments followed a similar pattern, with 45% holding positive views, and the single greatest proportion holding neutral ones (30%). In general, Canadians were much more likely to provide positive, as opposed to negative (scores of 1-3) assessments of government performance. Similar assessments were offered by those living in border communities.
More Information:
To obtain more information on this study, please email por-rop@cbsa-asfc.gc.ca.