Climate Action Incentive Advertising Campaign: Concept Testing
Final Report

Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency

Supplier name: The Strategic Counsel

Contract Number: # 46558-195330/001/CY

Contract value: $39,194.05 (including HST)

Award date: December 11, 2018

Delivery date: February 21, 2019

Registration number: POR 096-18

For more information on this report, please email media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca.

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

Climate Action Incentive Advertising Campaign: Concept Testing

Final Report

Prepared for the Canada Revenue Agency by The Strategic Counsel

February 2019

This public opinion research report presents the results of an online survey conducted by The Strategic Counsel on behalf of Canada Revenue Agency. The research study was conducted with 1100 Canadian residents in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in January 2019.

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre: Test de concepts pour la campagne publicitaire sur l'Incitatif à agir pour le climat – Rapport final.

Permission to Reproduce

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Canada Revenue Agency. For more information on this report, please contact the Canada Revenue Agency at: media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Catalogue Number:
Rv4-132/2019E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-31206-4

Related Publication (Registration Number: POR 096-18):

Catalogue number Rv4-132/2019F-PDF (Final Report, French)

ISBN: 978-0-660-08694-1

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Revenue, 2019

I. Executive Summary

A. Background and Research Objectives

As part of the Government of Canada’s carbon pollution pricing system, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for the delivery of the Climate Action Incentive (CAI) payment to residents of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick, through their respective income tax and benefit returns.

Canada Revenue Agency is launching an advertising campaign in March 2019, utilizing radio and print advertising to encourage Canadians in these four provinces to file their income tax and benefit returns to claim the CAI payment, and to drive target audiences to the web page where more information can be found. A direct mail postcard will also be sent to residents of the four provinces at the end of March.

The key objective of this research study was to test a series of advertising concepts, specifically to evaluate:

• Preference for and likeability of each concept, by format and overall
• Performance of each concept against key diagnostics, including memorability, ability to attract audience attention, clarity, credibility, and relevance; and
• Effectiveness of messaging and the call to action.

B. Intended Use of the Research

The results of this research study offer CRA and the creative agency valuable guidance with respect to the creative approach and messaging which will be most effective in encouraging residents in the four provinces to claim the climate action incentive payment at the time they complete and submit their income tax and benefit return. In particular, results for the key ad diagnostics, combined with respondents’ answers to open-ended questions regarding what they liked and disliked about the concepts, by format, and what they perceived to be the call-to-action, reveal the relative strengths and weaknesses of each concept and provide some direction in terms of improving their overall effectiveness.

C. Methodology

The Strategic Counsel undertook a 20-minute survey online with a total of 1100 Canadians, drawn from an online panel. The fieldwork took place from January 22-30, 2019. Because the sample for this survey is based on those who opted-in to participate in the panel, no estimates of sampling error can be calculated. Therefore, the results cannot be considered to be statistically projectable to the target population in the four provinces in which the survey was undertaken.

Quotas were set to ensure the final sample reflected a 50/50 gender split overall, and in each of the four provinces, and reasonable representation across age groups (aged 18 and older). Regionally, a disproportionate sample design of n=1100 was employed to provide a minimum number of completions to analyze each of the four provinces sampled: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick.

Further details on the methodology, including the response rate calculation as well as the English and French survey instruments can be found in the Appendix.

The survey was designed so that each respondent evaluated:

• 3 print and 3 direct mail concepts (direct mail concepts were specific to each province) – these concepts are referred to throughout the report as Eligibility, Incentive and Future. Copies of the creative for both print and direct mail can be found in Section B of the Appendix.
• 2 concepts for a radio ad – these concepts are referred to as Eligibility and Future. The scripts for these concepts are included in Section B of the Appendix.The order in which respondents saw each format was rotated. Half saw print/direct mail first and the other half listened to the radio ads first. Additionally, within each format the concepts were rotated based on least fill. 

D. Key Findings

Awareness of the Climate Action Incentive (CAI) payment

Following the announcement in October, 2018, there are modest levels of awareness of the CAI payment (25% have heard of it), ranging from 21% in New Brunswick, to 23% in Ontario and Manitoba, and 35% in Saskatchewan.

Preferred Concept

Eligibility is the preferred concept, of the three concepts tested, for both the print and direct mail formats by over half of all respondents (59%). Respondents reacted positively to the clear message in the design (i.e., the dollar sign) and the text that mentioned an incentive or tax rebate. Unlike the other two concepts, Future (24%) and Incentive (17%), those who preferred the Eligibility concept found it to be more eye catching and the message to be clearer and more direct.

Examples of Print Ads Tested – 3 Concepts

Eligibility

Future

Incentive

The findings were not quite as clear-cut for the two radio concepts tested, although Eligibility (57%) was the preferred concept with a 14-point margin over Future (43%). Here again, respondents’ preference for Eligibility was based on their perception that the message was clear and understandable. Notably, the use of children/children’s voices as a creative element (in the Future concept) was seen as a somewhat divisive or polarizing feature. It worked as a positive for those who preferred the Future radio concept, but was also viewed negatively, and was explicitly stated as a reason why some chose Eligibility as their overall preference.

Likeability scores for each concept, by format, were in line with respondents’ overall preference. Eligibility received the highest likeability scores for both the print (61% somewhat/strongly liked this concept) and direct mail (37% somewhat/strongly liked this concept). Likeability scores were, however, somewhat more competitive between the two radio concepts. Here again, Eligibility came out ahead, but only slightly by an 8-point margin (69% likeability for Eligibility; 61% for Future).

Message Takeaway

For the print and direct mail creative, the message to collect the CAI payment by filing your income tax and benefit return comes across reasonably clearly for many respondents regardless of the concept or the format, although it was somewhat more effective in the Eligibility and Incentive print ads compared to Future. For the latter concept, respondents were twice as likely to take away the message that pollution has a cost, rather than the key message about claiming the incentive. And, although most respondents felt that this phrase – pollution has a cost – was more meaningful and understandable than Climate Action Incentive, the combination of this phrase with the depiction of pollution in the graphic may be inadvertently overriding or diluting the call-to-action, which is to claim the incentive by filing an income tax return.

Regarding the radio advertisements, both concepts appear to relay a clear message around the Incentive. In addition, the phrase pollution has a cost is a key message takeaway for the Eligibility concept and is a phrase that respondents find quite memorable.

Key Diagnostics

Each concept was tested with respect to a number of key diagnostics, including: memorability, ability to grab audience attention, comprehension/clarity, believability, relevance and clarity of the call to action (to file taxes in order to claim the Incentive). Eligibility scored reasonably well, and typically higher than the other concepts, on most of these measures, regardless of the format. All concepts (in both print and radio formats) received strong scores for clarity of the call-to-action. This was the highest score of the six diagnostic metrics for which ratings were captured. Lower ratings were usually given for memorability and relevance, suggesting that these are areas that could be amplified through the creative and the messaging in all of the concepts, including Eligibility.

Call-to-Action

Two-thirds to three-quarters of respondents said they would be somewhat or very likely to claim the CAI payment when filing their return, after being exposed to any of these concepts, in print, direct mail or on the radio. Thus, the call-to-action is strong.

Notably, however, the direct mail version of Eligibility seemed to have the strongest impact on respondents, relative to other concepts and other formats, in terms of encouraging them to visit the Government of Canada website for more information or tell a family member or friend. Almost two-thirds (62%) said they would be somewhat or very likely to take these actions after seeing the direct mail version of this concept compared to half, or fewer, who said the same for the other two concepts tested. 

Differences by Province

Across all four provinces, Eligibility was the clear ‘winning’ concept for print/direct mail. While, as noted, results were closer between the two concepts tested in radio format, respondents in Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan were more likely to favour Eligibility over Future. Only in New Brunswick were the results mixed (50% preferred Eligibility; 50% preferred Future).

It is important to note, however that respondents in Saskatchewan were less enthusiastic about any of the concepts – likeability scores for all concepts across all formats were typically lower in Saskatchewan compared to scores given by respondents in the other three provinces. At the same time, diagnostic scores for each of the concepts were not significantly different across each of the formats.

With respect to the call-to-action, respondents in New Brunswick and Ontario are somewhat more likely to visit the Government of Canada website for more information about the CAI payment, compared to those in Manitoba or Saskatchewan. Otherwise, there were no significant differences in how the public could be expected to respond to the CAI payment campaign, across the four provinces in which it applies.

Finally, with respect to the phrase pollution has a cost – while almost two thirds in Saskatchewan agreed this phrase to be both meaningful (63%) and easy to understand (69%), this was much lower level of agreement as compared to Ontario (82% and 84%, respectively).

Demographic Differences

Women and younger respondents generally tended to respond more positively to all the concepts. Typically, women gave higher likeability ratings, compared to men and also stronger rates on all six diagnostics. The same pattern held for younger respondents, aged 18 to 24, compared to those in older age brackets.

Those aged 25 to 44 were more likely to say they would visit the Government of Canada website to get more information on the Incentive and to tell a friend, specifically in response to the Eligibility ad, but it was those aged 65 and older who were most likely to say they would claim the CAI payment when filing their income tax and benefit return (and this pattern held regardless of the concept or the format). By contrast, the direct mail version of Future seemed to have most impact on those aged 18 to 24 in terms of encouraging them to file their taxes and claim the CAI payment.

E. Conclusions

The findings from this research offer some clear direction in moving forward with the Climate Action Incentive payment campaign.

• The Eligibility concept appears to be the more effective concept in print and direct mail – the incorporation of a design feature which clearly reinforces the idea of an incentive or a refund effectively underpins and amplifies the key message and call-to-action;
• While Future has some merit with respect to the radio format, the use of children in the ad as a creative device may have a polarizing effect and, for some, may be confusing. While the children capture audience attention and connect them to the future/a cleaner future, they detract from the call-to-action which is to file taxes in order to collect the Incentive;
• Leading with the phrase pollution has a cost in print, but particularly in radio, does capture audience attention. It is something that respondents readily understand and has meaning for them; and
• There may be opportunities, both creatively and via messaging/content, to enhance the memorability and the relevance of each of the concepts. When asked what they liked or disliked about each of the concepts, participants’ comments suggest that a short, concise and straightforward message is optimal.

F. Note to Reader

Unless otherwise noted, results shown in this report are expressed as percentages and may not add up to 100% due to rounding and/or multiple responses to a given question.

MORE INFORMATION

Supplier Name: The Strategic Counsel

PWGSC Contract Number: 46558-195330/001/CY

Contract Award Date: 2018-12-11

Contract Budget: $39,194.05

To obtain more information on this study, please e-mail media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca.

Statement of Political Neutrality

I hereby certify as a Senior Officer of The Strategic Counsel that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. 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:
Donna Nixon, Partner

II. Detailed Findings from the Survey

The detailed findings pertaining to the assessment of each concept, by format, are covered in the following sections. As relevant, key demographic differences are noted as well as any variability in assessments of or reaction to the concepts by province.

A. Awareness of the Climate Action Incentive

In order to benchmark awareness prior to the launch of the campaign, respondents were asked at the beginning of the survey whether they had heard of the Government of Canada’s new Climate Action Incentive (CAI). As might be expected, awareness is modest. The majority (55%) of Canadians report that they have not heard of the CAI. By contrast, one-in-four (25%) said they are aware of the CAI, while another 20% of respondents are ‘unsure’.

AWARENESS OF THE CLIMATE ACTION INCENTIVE

S9. Have you heard of the Government of Canada’s new Climate Action Incentive? Base: Total sample

There is some variability in awareness of the CAI, both across provinces and by key demographic groups:

• Provincially, awareness is higher in Saskatchewan where about one-third (35%) have heard of the CAI. It is lower in the other three provinces, where about one-in-five respondents are aware of the Incentive.
• Awareness is generally higher among men (30%), older adults, 45 years age and above (30%), and those with a higher socioeconomic status. This includes Canadians who have annual household incomes over $100K (31%), or between $60K and $100K (29%), and with post-secondary education, having attended college (29%) or university (28%).

B. Evaluation of Creative Concepts

1. Overall Preference

Respondents were asked to review and listen to each of the creative iterations in print, direct mail, and radio formats. Half of respondents were exposed to the two radio concepts first, followed by print/direct mail. The other half were exposed to the three print/direct mail concepts first, followed by radio. When viewing the print and direct mail components, respondents always viewed the print component first, followed by the direct mail component for the same concept.

Each individual viewed three separate concepts for print and direct mail – Eligibility, Future and Incentive and listened to two concepts – Eligibility and Future for the radio ads. In total, each respondent was exposed to eight different ad treatments.

Following exposure to all concepts, respondents were asked to choose which concept they preferred overall for the print/direct mail and which they preferred for radio.

Overall Preference – Print Ads and Direct Mail

Across the board Eligibility far outperforms the other concepts in print and direct mail format. Almost 6 in 10 Canadians (59%) prefer this concept. Future is preferred by about one-quarter (24%) while Incentive is the least preferred option, by only 17% of respondents.

OVERALL PREFERENCE– PRINT ADS/DIRECT MAIL

D1. Thinking of these three different concepts, which one do you prefer overall? Base: Total sample.

With respect to respondents’ preference for one of the three concepts, for the print/direct mail format, results are fairly consistent across the four provinces, there are some key differences among specific demographic groups:

• Most notably, a higher proportion of younger respondents, aged 18-24 and 25-44, indicate that they preferred Eligibility (66% and 64%, respectively), compared to older respondents (aged 45 and older) who indicate higher than average preference for Incentive and Future concepts.
• Interestingly, those who have not heard of the CAI (61%) and those living in urban areas (60%) are also more likely to prefer the Eligibility concept. By contrast, those who had heard of the Climate Action Incentive were more likely to prefer the Future print/direct mail concept.

A follow up, open-ended, question was asked to respondents after the selection of their preferred option that aimed to provide some insight as to why the concept was preferred. The results varied by concept.

Among those who chose Eligibility as their preferred print ad/direct mail, just under one-third (30%) indicate that it is because it speaks directly to savings in terms of a tax incentive, rebate or refund. The Eligibility concept was also chosen because it appears to be more effective at catching respondents’ interest and attention (23%) and it has a clear and direct message that is easy to understand (21%). 

Those who prefer the Future ad in print format indicate that it is because of the focus on a green environment (24%) including the idea of sustainability and addressing pollution. This was also mentioned by one-in-five (22%) respondents who preferred the Incentive concept. In the Future ad, respondents also mention that it conveys the concept of thinking about the future (18%), specifically children’s future.

By contrast, the comments from those who prefer the Incentive ad are much more general, simply stating that is ‘good’ or ‘better’ than the others. Terms used include ‘positive’, ‘appealing’ or ‘effective’.

REASON FOR PREFERENCE – PRINT/DIRECT MAIL

D2. Why do you prefer this concept over the others? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Overall Preference – Radio Ads

Looking at the two concepts for the radio advertising, the results are more competitive with over half selecting Eligibility (57%) and just under half preferring Future (43%).

OVERALL PREFERENCE– RADIO ADS

RC1. Thinking of these two different concepts for the radio ads, which one do you prefer overall? Base: Total sample.

Those who are more likely to prefer the Eligibility radio concepts include:

• Older adults, over 65 years of age (66%)
• Those who are not working full or part time, but considered as another employment (such as self-employed, unemployed, a student attending school full-time, retired or not in the workforce) (62%)
• Men (61%)
• Manitobans (60%)
• University educated (60%)

Those who are more likely to prefer the Future radio ad are:

• Younger adults, aged 18-24 (61%) and aged 25-44 (47%)
• Those residing in New Brunswick (50%)
• Those who are less educated, reporting high school or less (49%)
• Those employed full-time (48%)
• Women (46%)

Again, when asked to elaborate on their preferred concept for radio, the use of children is seen as a benefit for some, while a drawback for others. For those who prefer the Future concept, over one-third (35%) of respondents cite that it is due to the fact that children are used in the ad. Meanwhile, for the Eligibility radio ad, one in six (16%) mentioned that they preferred this concept specifically because it did not include children, which were sometimes described as ‘annoying’ or ‘fake’. 

For a significant share of respondents who preferred the Eligibility radio ad, their choice is based on the fact that the message is clear, more precise and direct (23%).

REASON FOR PREFERENCE – RADIO

RC2. Why do you prefer this radio ad concept over the others? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

2. Likeability Ratings by Concept, and Format

After viewing or listening to each of the specific formats for the concepts that were tested, respondents were asked whether they liked or disliked the ad. Given the similarities in the look, feel and content for the print and direct mail components of each concept, only those respondents who had said they disliked the print component, or who had responded ‘don’t know/not sure’ to that question, were asked whether they liked or disliked the direct mail component of the same concept. The results are shown in the table below and indicate higher ‘likeability’ ratings for the Eligibility concept, relative to the others, across all formats.

Six-in-ten respondents (61%) like the print component of Eligibility, somewhat higher than for Incentive (56%) and much higher than Future (48%). While likeability ratings are not as high for the direct mail components, compared to print, Eligibility still receives a higher likeability score (37%) relative to Incentive (20%) and Future (18%). Likeability scores are roughly equivalent for both the radio concepts with over two-thirds (69%) saying they like Eligibility, while slightly fewer, albeit still a significant number (61%) said they like Future.

LIKEABILITY OF CONCEPTS – Overall

A1/A5/RA1/RB1. Thinking generally about the print/direct mail/radio ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

There were a number of notable demographic differences in preference for a concept and by format, primarily by gender and age. Women and younger respondents are, in general, more likely to offer higher likeability ratings for each component (i.e., print, direct mail and radio) of each concept. The specific differences by gender and age are detailed below, by concept:

Eligibility

• Younger respondents, aged 18 to 24 (81%) give higher likeability ratings for the print component as compared to those 25 and older. Women (69%) give higher likeability ratings as compared to men (52%).
• This same pattern is evident in the likeability ratings for the direct mail component. Here again, those aged 18 to 24 (75%) give high likeability ratings as do women (43%) compared to men (32%).
• While there are no signficant differences across age groups for the radio component, women give higher ratings as compared to men (73% vs. 65%, respectively).

Future

• Women (53%) and younger respondents, aged 18 to 24 (68%) rate the print component higher in terms of overall likeability.
• For the direct mail component, women also give higher ratings (21%) relative to men (14%).
• Women (68%) and younger respondents, aged 18 to 24 (81%) are also more likely to assess higher likeability scores for the radio component.

 Incentive

• Women and younger respondents give higher ratings to the print component (59% and 68%, respectively).
• Notably, there are no differences for the direct mail component, by gender or age.

Likeability Ratings by Province – Print Ads

Looking strictly at the print component for each of the three concepts, results also vary to some extent acrosss the four provinces. However, regardless of the province, Eligibility receives the highest likeability rating (65% in Ontario, 64% in New Brunswick, 60% in Manitoba and 51% in Saskatchewan). Two findings are of particular note:

• All concepts receive a lower likeability score in Saskatchewan; and
• Future receives the lowest likeability scores of the three concepts in all provinces, ranging from 42% in Saskatchewan to 55% in Ontario.

LIKEABIILTY OF PRINT ADS – By Province

A1. Thinking generally about the print ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

Reasons for Likeability Rating – Print Ads

After being exposed to each concept and indicating the extent to which they liked or disliked it, respondents were asked to explain their rating. For those who indicated they either ‘strongly or somewhat liked’ the print ad for Eligibility, it was primarily the dollar sign (22%) and the fact that the ad was generally viewed as eye-catching (20%) which underpinned their rating. The general layout and design (16%), the message around an incentive/tax break (15%), and the use of design features such as flowers, plants and greenery 14%) also fed into the overall ‘likeability’ of this concept.

LIKED ABOUT PRINT AD – ELIGIBILITY

A1a_1. What did you like about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat liked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Among those few (29%) who disliked the print ad for Eligibility, the main reasons given were the dollar sign (22%), the perception that the ad was unclear or confusing (20%), the sense that the ad lacked credibility or was misleading (18%) and a general negative feeling toward the concept itself and/or the incentive (12%) were among the issues most frequently cited.

DISLIKED ABOUT PRINT AD – ELIGIBILITY

A1b_1. What did you dislike about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat disliked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Those who liked the print component for Future, remarked on the design/image/layout (18%), the focus on pollution (18%), the use of Lego blocks in the creative approach (16%), and the orientation to the future (16%) as key reasons for their positive reaction to this concept.

LIKED ABOUT PRINT AD – FUTURE

A1a_2. What did you like about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat liked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Just under half (42%) of respondents disliked the print component of Future and the most commonly cited reason for their negative response was the focus on pollution/industry causing pollution (23%).

DISLIKED ABOUT PRINT AD – FUTURE

A1b_2. What did you dislike about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat disliked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

The print component of Incentive receives reasonably good likeability ratings and the primary reason for this was the incorporation of flowers/plants/nature/greenery in the design of this concept (23% cited this feature). Others (18%) also mention the general design/image/layout.

A1a_3. What did you like about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat liked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

About one-third of respondents (32%) disliked the print component for Incentive and the main reason given for this rating was a lack of clarity or the confusing nature of the ad (31%).

DISLIKED ABOUT PRINT AD – INCENTIVE

A1b_3. What did you dislike about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat disliked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Likeability Ratings by Province – Direct Mail

Similar to the findings for the print component, likeability scores are also higher in all provinces for the direct mail component of Eligibility, compared to the other two concepts. Scores range from a high of 41% in Manitoba and Ontario to 35% in New Brunswick, and 28% in Saskatchewan. Likeability ratings for the other two concepts range from 14% to no higher than 25%.

GENERAL IMPRESSION OF DIRECT MAIL – By Province

A5. Thinking generally about the direct mail ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

Note that the follow-up questions regarding what respondents liked or did not like was not asked in regards to the direct mail component for each concept. Since the creative approach and messaging for the direct mail component of each concept was quite similar to the print component, the results would most likely have mirrored the responses given for the latter (shown above).

Likeability Ratings by Province – Radio Ads

The two radio concepts both score well in all provinces although, again, Eligibility receives higher likeability scores ranging from 73% in New Brunswick to 61% in Saskatchewan. By contrast, likeability scores for Future are slightly lower, ranging from 67% in New Brunswick to 55% in Saskatchewan. In general, residents of Ontario and New Brunswick give higher likeability ratings for both concepts, while in Saskatchewan, respondents tended to rate both concepts lower.

GENERAL IMPRESSION OF RADIO ADS – By Province

RA1/RB1. Thinking generally about the radio ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

Reasons for Likeability Rating – Print Ads

Among those who liked Eligibility, the main reasons were: the clarity of the message (30%), the direct/concise message (25%), the informative nature of the ad (24%) and the incentive/tax break (22%).

LIKED ABOUT RADIO AD – ELIGIBILITY

RA1a. What did you like about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat liked the ad Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Just under one quarter of respondents (23%) disliked the radio component of Eligibility. Among this group, the most frequently cited issues centered on a lack of believability (23%) and the fact that the ad is tax-related (22%). Fewer mention issues having to do with the creative approach such as a lack of information/details (13%) or the monotone nature of the speaking style (12%).

DISLIKED ABOUT RADIO AD – ELIGIBILITY

RA1b. What did you dislike about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat disliked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

The use of children in the Future concept is a key feature for those who liked the ad. This creative element is mentioned as the reason behind their rating by just under half (46%). Fewer mention the focus on the future (17%), the incentive itself (14%) or the clarity of the message (12%).

LIKED ABOUT RADIO AD – FUTURE

RB1a. What did you like about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat liked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

About one-third (32%) of respondents disliked the radio component of Future. And, while the use of children as a key creative element is seen as a positive for many respondents, it is also a negative – 34 % of those who disliked the ad cited this as this as a reason. Another 16% specifically mentioned children’s voices and children talking as an issue which negatively affected their perceptions of the ad.

DISLIKED ABOUT RADIO AD – FUTURE

RB1b. What did you dislike about the ad? Base: Strongly/somewhat disliked the ad. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

3. Key Message/ Takeaway

After capturing respondents’ general impressions as to why they liked or disliked the advertising, respondents were asked, in an open-end question format to describe what they felt was the key message or takeaway of the advertisement. This question was posed to all respondents after viewing each concept, in each format, regardless of their overall preference or likeability rating. Again, due to the similarities between the look, feel and content in the print advertising and direct mail, this question was only asked with respect to the three print concepts, and not for the corresponding direct mail component.

Key Message/Takeaway – Print Ads by Concept

Consistent with the findings reported in the previous sections with respect to overall preference and likeability, it is clear to respondents in viewing the Eligibility print concept the key takeaway is that they would receive a monetary benefit (61%) through claiming the incentive. Breaking this down, over one-third of respondents (37%) mention a tax related break, incentive or refund, while about one-quarter (24%) mention more generic terms such as ‘money,’ ‘cash’ or ‘dollars’.

KEY MESSAGE ABOUT PRINT AD – ELIGIBILITY

A2_1. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

The message takeaway varies slightly across regions and demographics. Of note:

• Those with university education (43%), working full time (41%), with an annual household income over $60,000 (41%), aged 45-64 years old (40%) or living in Ontario (40%) were more likely to indicate the key message to be around tax breaks or incentives.
• Those more likely to state generic monetary terms, such as ‘cash’ or ‘dollars’ are women (27%), residents of New Brunswick (27%) and those making under $60,000 in annual household income (25%).

By far, the impact of pollution (40%), including both the cost and effect, is what respondents take away the most from the Future concept. Another 21% believe the messaging is about a tax break or incentive, while another one-in-ten (12%) believe the message is about caring for children.

KEY MESSAGE ABOUT PRINT AD – FUTURE

A2_2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Of note:

• The message around pollution was most impactful among:
  • Women (45%, compared to 34% of men)
  • Older adults, aged 65 and older (44%)
  • Ontario residents (43%)
• There are significant differences by region on the message of the tax break/incentive. While this message is more likely to be identified as a key takeaway in Manitoba (23%), Ontario (22%) and Saskatchewan (22%) those in New Brunswick were less likely to take this away from the Future print ad.

Overall, the main message associated with the Incentive concept is a similar to the two other concepts. Just under one-third state the takeaway being about a tax break or incentive (32%), while another subset of respondents cite the ad as focuses more on a green future (14%), and the costs and effects of pollution (14%).

KEY MESSAGE ABOUT PRINT AD – INCENTIVE

A2_3. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Notably, there are some variations by province and across key demographic groups:

• Residents of Saskatchewan (36%) and Ontario (35%) are more likely to cite a tax break or incentive as the main message. Ontarians are also more likely to remark on the ‘green’ messaging (17%).
• Interestingly, those who are already aware of the CAI, are less likely to cite the incentive as the main message, but significantly more likely to reference a green environment or future (19%).

Key Message/Takeaway – Radio Ads by Concept

The main message for both the Eligibility and Future radio concepts appears to be very clearly articulated, with almost half of respondents (46% and 43%, respectively) indicating the message was around receiving a tax incentive or break.

A smaller proportion of respondents mention effects of pollution (19%), both in terms of cost and the future of our environment as being the main message of Eligibility. Mentions of carbon tax (14%) and climate change (13%) are also prevalent in the messaging associated with this concept.

KEY MESSAGE ABOUT RADIO AD – ELIGIBILITY

RA2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Of note:

• Younger adults (aged 18-24) are more likely to state the takeaway as a tax break or incentive (59%), whereas over one-quarter of those 65 and older (26%) are focused on the pollution messaging.
• Women, compared to men, are more likely to state a tax break or incentive (49%) or pollution (22%) as the main message of the ad.

In addition to a clear message about the Incentive, respondents also feel that the Future concept focuses on the topic of climate change (15%) as well as care for our children and their future (12%).

KEY MESSAGE ABOUT RADIO AD – FUTURE

RB2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

Some variability in terms of key takeaways is evident:

• Regionally, residents in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (46%) are more likely to absorb messaging around the tax incentive in the Future radio ad.
• Overall, women are more likely than men to state any of the top 3 mentions - tax incentive (46%), climate change (18%), and care for children (15%)

4. Concept Diagnostics – Print/Direct Mail and Radio

After exposure to the concepts, respondents were asked about their level of agreement with a series of statements to assess key diagnostics including memorability, clarity, believability, relevance and the call-to-action. Note that a shorter series of diagnostics were assessed for the direct mail versions of each concept. As explained earlier, the direct mail concepts were very similar with respect to messaging, look and feel as the print versions to which respondents had just been exposed.

For the print and direct mail concepts, respondents were first shown the print version followed by the direct mail version for each concept. As noted in the methodology, the three concepts were rotated such that respondents viewed them in a randomized order, according to the ‘least fill’ principle (across all 1100 respondents roughly equal proportions saw each possible rotation of the three concepts (i.e., A, B, C vs. C, A, B, etc.), to avoid any ordering bias in their responses).

Across key diagnostics, for both the print/direct mail and radio components, the Eligibility concept scores significantly higher, compared to the Future and Incentive concepts.

In print, Eligibility scores particularly well in terms of clarity around the call to action (66% agree that it is clear they have to file their taxes in order to claim the CAI, compared to 60% for Incentive and 57% for Future). Over half (58%) agree that Eligibility would catch their attention (compared to 48% for each of Future and Incentive). Similarly, Eligibility receives higher ratings compared to the other two concepts for overall clarity and believability (54% agree the ad makes sense and they find the ad believable). The scores on these measures are somewhat lower for Future (50% agree the ad is believable; 49% agree the ad make sense) and for Incentive (47% agree with each statement). Ratings are slightly lower for all three concepts on memorability and relevance. In all cases, fewer than half of respondents agree that any of the concepts are memorable or relevant, although scores are still slightly higher on these two measures for Eligibility (48% agree that Eligibility is memorable, compared to 42% for Future and 41% for Incentive; 47% agree that the ad for Eligibility is something they can relate to, compared to 43% for Incentive and 39% for Future).

Scores on the three diagnostics which were included in the survey to assess the direct mail component of each concept are also higher for Eligibility, relative to Future and Incentive, and even higher than the ratings for these same diagnostics vis a vis the print version of the Eligibility concept. Notably, Eligibility scores the highest rating on its ability to garner audience attention (71% agree the ad would catch their attention, compared to 54% who say the same for Future and Incentive). Almost two-thirds also agree that the direct mail version of Eligibility makes sense (63%) and is believable (62%). Results are reasonably good for the direct mail versions of the other two concepts on these two measures, although somewhat lower compared to Eligibility (54% agree that Future and Incentive make sense; 56% agree that Incentive is believable, compared to 54% who say the same for Future).

The open-ended responses provide some insight into as to why the print and direct mail versions of the Eligibility concept score higher on key diagnostics compared to the other two concepts – Future and Incentive. The design, which incorporates a dollar sign (and in the direct mail version highlights the actual average amount of the incentive which varies by province), is widely seen by those who like the ads and prefer this concept overall to be a key factor in their choice and their assessment of this concept, relative to the others.

Examining the results for radio, Eligibility also outperforms Future on almost all of the key diagnostics. Both concepts perform well with respect to the call-to-action (75% Eligibility; 72% Future agree that it is clear they have to file taxes to claim the CAI). However, Eligibility pulls slightly ahead of Future on two measures: 62% agree the ad makes sense and is believable (compared to 56% on the same two measures for Future). Over half of respondents agree that the ads would catch their attention and both concepts perform about the same on this measure (57% for Eligibility; 55% for Future). With respect to perceived relevance, slightly more agree that Eligibility is an ad they could personally relate to (51%), compared to Future (46%), although neither concept performs particularly well on this measure. By contrast, Eligibility scores slightly lower than Future on memorability (44% vs. 48%, respectively agree that the ad is memorable).

The results suggest that these areas of the ad – relevance and memorability – could be strengthened across all components, including print and radio.

CONCEPT DIAGNOSTICS – Overall

A3/A6/RA3/RB3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad. Note: Where n/a is specified, these response categories were not asked to respondents when answering this question for direct mail concepts.

There is some demographic variability on the diagnostic assessments for each of the concepts, mostly by gender, but also in some cases by age, language and urban/rural status. In general, women are more likely to rate all of the concepts higher across the key diagnostics, compared to men.

ELIGIBILITY

Print:

• Women are more likely, compared to men, to agree the ad:
• Is clear in terms of the call-to-action (68% vs. 63%)
• Would catch their attention (63% vs. 54%)
• Makes sense to them (59% vs. 49%)
• Is believable (58% vs. 48%)
• Is memorable (55% vs. 41%)
• Is something they can personally relate to (50% vs. 43%)
• Residents of urban areas are more likely to agree the ad is believable, compared to those residing in rural areas (55% vs. 47% respectively)
• Those who say they speak English at home are more likely to agree that the ad makes it clear they need to file their taxes, compared to those who mostly speak French (67% vs. 57%, respectively)

Direct Mail: Women are also more likely than men to agree the direct mail component:

• Would catch their attention (76% vs. 66%)
• Makes sense to them (68% vs. 57%)
• Is believable (67% vs. 56%)

Radio: Women are more likely compared to men to agree that the ad:

• Makes it clear that they need to file their taxes (79% vs. 71%)
• Makes sense (67% vs. 56%)
• Is believable (66% vs. 57%)
• Is something they personally relate to (53% vs. 50%)
• Is memorable (47% vs. 41%)

FUTURE

Print: Women are more inclined to agree, relative to men, that this concept:

• Makes it clear that they need to file their taxes (60% vs. 55%)
• Is believable (56% vs. 44%)
• Makes sense (53% vs. 44%)
• Would catch their attention (53% vs. 43%)
• Is memorable (46% vs. 37%)
• Is something they personally relate to (43% vs. 36%)

Direct Mail: Women are more likely than men to agree that the ad:

• Is believable and makes sense (60% vs. 48% on each measure)
• Would catch their attention (58% vs. 49%)

Radio: Women are more likely to agree with all six diagnostic statements, compared to men, that the ad:

• Makes it clear that they need to file their taxes (78% vs. 64%)
• Makes sense (63% vs. 48%)
• Is believable (61% vs. 49%)
• Would catch their attention (62% vs. 47%)
• Is memorable (55% vs. 40%)
• Is something they personally relate to (49% vs. 41%)

INCENTIVE

Print:

• By age, those 65 and older (67%) are more likely to agree that it is clear from the ad that they need to file their taxes to claim the incentive, compared to those aged 45 to 64 (59%) and those between the ages of 25 and 44 (58%).

Direct Mail:

• Younger people (aged 18-24) are more likely to agree, compared to those aged 45 to 64 years, that the ad is both believable (68% vs. 53%) and that it makes sense to them (68% vs. 52%).

Print Ad Diagnostics – By Concept and Province

Examining the performance of the print ad component of each concept, by region, indicates some degree of variability. For the Eligibility concept, residents of New Brunswick and Ontario are more likely to agree that the ad is memorable (54% and 50%, respectively) and believable (59% and 57%). Looking at results for the Future concept by region, residents of Ontario are also more likely to agree with all statements with the exception of the statement regarding clarity around the need to file taxes. This was also generally the case for the Incentive concept, where Ontarians are more likely to agree on three of the six diagnostics – memorability, ability to catch view attention, and believability.

PRINT AD DIAGNOSTICS – By Province

A3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

Direct Mail Diagnostics – By Concept and Province

There were three diagnostic measures captured with respect to the direct mail format for each concept. For Eligibility, residents of Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba are more likely to agree with each, compared to those in Saskatchewan where the scores are lower across the board. Ontarians generally provide higher ratings on the three diagnostics for both the Future and the Incentive concepts, compared to those in other provinces.

DIRECT MAIL DIAGNOSTICS – By Province

A6. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

Radio Ad Diagnostics – By Concept and Province

Some regional variations are also evident on the diagnostics for the radio component of the two concepts that were tested in this format. Residents in New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba are more likely to agree that Eligibility caught their attention, is memorable and believable, compared to those in Saskatchewan. By contrast, Ontarians are more likely to agree that Future was believable and made sense to them. Apart from this, there are few other differences across the four provinces on the radio format for this concept.

RADIO AD DIAGNOSTICS – By Province

RA3/RB3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

5. Evaluation of Call to Action

In order to evaluate the call to action for each concept, respondents were asked what they would do as a result of seeing or hearing the advertisements.

After viewing this campaign, a large proportion of respondents said that they would be either ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ likely to claim the Climate Action Incentive when filing their taxes (ranging from 64%-79% depending on the concept and the format). Fewer, but still a significant proportion of respondents, would look for more information on the Government of Canada website (48-62%) or would tell a friend of family member (42-62%).

The action a respondent may take does vary by concept and by format of the advertisement. All actions are more likely be to undertaken after viewing the Eligibility concept, compared to the Future or Incentive concepts which score very similarly.

Furthermore, the advertising in direct mail format seems to compel individuals to take more action, compared to the radio and print advertising.

EVALUATION OF CALL TO ACTION – Overall

A4/A7/RA4/RB4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing/hearing this ad.

There is variability across key demographics with respect to the call to action, overall and by concept. Most of the significant differences are by gender and across age groups.

• Across all concepts and formats, women, compared to men, are more likely to visit the Government of Canada website for more information or to tell another person.
• Those aged 25-44 are more likely to search for information on the web and to tell someone else, specifically in response to the Eligibility ad (64% and 61% respectively). Meanwhile, seniors, aged 65+ are more likely to simply claim when filing their taxes, regardless of the concept or format.
• Interestingly, for the direct mail version of the Future concept, younger adults, aged 18-24, (81%) indicate that the ad would make them more likely claim the Climate Action Incentive when filing their taxes, compared to the average (71%).

Evaluation of Print Ad Call to Action – By Province

Looking at the results of the print advertising for each concept, by province, there are some significant differences to note. Looking at the Eligibility concept, residents of New Brunswick and Ontario are more likely to visit the Government of Canada website for more information (63% and 58%), compared to those in Saskatchewan (51%) and Manitoba (50%).

For the Future concept, similar to the above, residents of Ontario and New Brunswick are also more likely to find out more information online (53% and 52% respectively). Those living in New Brunswick (46%) are more likely, than any other province, to tell a friend about the CAI.

The pattern is similar for the Incentive concept, where Ontarians are most likely to visit the website (53%) and all provinces, expect Manitoba, score well for sharing with a family member or friend.

EVALUATION OF CALL TO ACTION OF PRINT ADS – By Province

A4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad.

Evaluation of Direct Mail Call to Action – By Province

As a format, direct mail out performs the other two formats in term of getting Canadians to take action. Looking at the results by province, we see some variability in the Eligibility and Incentive concepts, however there is limited variability for the Future concept.

Interestingly, Canadians residing in New Brunswick and Ontario are more likely to search for more information on the incentive at Canada.ca after seeing either the Eligibility (68%) or the Incentive ads (57%), compared to those in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

EVALUATION OF CALL TO ACTION OF DIRECT MAIL – By Province

A7. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad.

Evaluation of Radio Ad Call to Action – By Province

While both radio ads perform well in terms of getting Canadians to take action, the Eligibility concept leads slightly over Future.

There are limited differences for the two radio ads by concept between provinces. However, similar to the results for direct mail, those residing in Ontario and New Brunswick are more likely to visit the Government of Canada website after seeing the advertising.

EVALUATION OF CALL TO ACTION OF RADIO ADS – By Province

RA4/RB4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad.

C. Evaluation of Campaign Messaging

Since the campaign is intended to encourage eligible recipients in each of the four provinces to claim the Climate Action Incentive payment, a number of key messages and phrases were tested to assess overall comprehension.

1. Understanding the Call to Action

A key message of the campaign is to ensure that it is clear to residents in each of the four provinces that the CAI payment can be claimed only via completion of their taxes and submission of an income tax and benefit return. To this end, respondents to the survey were asked which of several phrases they best understood.

For those responding to the survey in English, three phrases were tested: File your Income Tax and Benefit Return, Do your taxes, and File your return. Overall, and in each of the four provinces where the survey was administered, File your Income Tax and Benefit Return is the phrase that is best understood by a wide margin over the others. Almost two-thirds (64%), overall, say this is the phrase they understand best, compared to just one-in-five (21%) who prefer Do your taxes, and just over one-in-ten (15%) who feel that File your return is easiest to understand.

Among Francophones, however, the result is quite different. About three-quarters (76%) chose Produire votre déclaration de revenus (roughly equivalent to File your return in English) as the phrase they best understood, while the remainder (24%) selected Produire votre déclaration de revenus et prestations (equivalent to File your Income Tax and Benefit Return in English).

UNDERSTANDING OF CALL TO ACTION

4A. Please carefully read each of the following phrases, which could be used in the ads. Which of the following phrases do you best understand? Base: Total sample.

The results do not vary significantly by province.

2. Impact and Clarity of Phrases

Two different phrases were used in the concepts that were tested: climate action incentive and pollution has a cost. These were specifically tested with respondents to ascertain the degree to which each is perceived to be meaningful and easy to understand.

Perhaps not surprisingly, given that the Climate Action Incentive was announced only a few months ago (October, 2018) and there has been limited media coverage or public discussion of the Incentive in the intervening period, just under half agree this phrase was meaningful (49%) or easy to understand (48%).

By contrast, Pollution has a cost is viewed as easy to understand (78%) and meaningful (73%) by the vast majority of respondents.

IMPACT AND CLARITY OF PHRASES – TOP 2 BOX (% Strongly/Somewhat Agree)

4B. Using the scales provided, please rate the following phrases you would have seen or heard in the concepts you were asked to evaluate earlier. Base: Total sample.

There is some variability across the provinces in reaction to the phrase Pollution has a cost. Those in Ontario respond much more favourably to this phrase relative to respondents in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Over four-in-five of Ontario respondents agree this phrase as easy to understand (84%) and meaningful (82%), compared to Saskatchewan (69% and 63%, respectively). In Manitoba, just over two-thirds (69%) agree this phrase is meaningful. Agreement on this is just slightly higher in New Brunswick (72%) and Saskatchewan (73%).

3. Memorable Words/Images

In line with the above findings, when respondents were asked to identify those words or images that were most memorable, across all three print/direct mail and the two radio concepts to which they were exposed, two phrases or ideas stand out: pollution/pollution has a cost (24% mentions) and the Incentive/Benefit/Credit/Refund (21%).

Some respondents also mentioned filing taxes or something related to receiving a refund via taxes (12%), the dollar sign which was a design feature incorporated into the Eligibility concept (11%) and the reference to the future/future generations/family/kids’ voices (11%). Other specific aspects of the concepts, such as the CAI, the actual dollar value, greenery, etc. are each mentioned by fewer than 10 percent of respondents.

Some generally negative comments about carbon pricing, carbon taxes or the credibility of government in launching this initiative were included in responses to this open-ended questions, but these comprise a very small proportion of the overall commentary.

MEMORABLE WORDS/IMAGES

4C. Of all the ad concepts you saw and heard today, what words or images stand out to you the most? Base: Total sample. Mentions of 3% and above are shown.

The results do not vary greatly by province, although a slightly higher percentage of Ontarians mention pollution/pollution has a cost (28%) as an aspect of the concepts which stood out for them, much higher than is the case for residents of Manitoba (18%). Manitobans are more likely to relate to the messaging around an income tax refund/Filing taxes (17%) compared to those in Ontario (10%).

III. Appendix

A. Methodology

The Strategic Counsel undertook an online survey of n=1100 Canadians. The survey was conducted from January 22-30, 2019 and was approximately 23 minutes in length.

Sample Design and Procedures

The data was collected using a non-probability sampling method and respondents were selected through the use of a representative online panel.

The sample was designed to ensure a 50/50 gender split overall, and in each of the four provinces, and a reasonable representation across age groups of Canadians 18 and older within the total population (18-24 (7%), 25-44 (23%), 45-64 (51%) and 65+ (19%)).

Provincially, the sample comprised of residents from four provinces in which the Climate Action Incentive could be claimed, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and New Brunswick. As shown in the table below, a disproportionate sample design of n=1100 was employed to boost the sample completions to about n=200 completions in each of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick.

Survey Sample Design – by Province

*As a proportion of the 4 provinces in which research is being conducted. 

Specific quotas were set in field to reach key target populations and provide sub-analysis, including:

• A mix of urban and rural residents in the four provinces (at least 20% rural residents)
• Indigenous peoples (minimum of n=100 within the total sample)
• Francophones (minimum of n=100 within the total sample)

Questionnaire Design

The survey was designed in close consultation with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). It was crafted so that each respondent evaluated 3 print concepts, 3 direct mail concepts (specific to each province) and 2 radio ads. Examples of these concepts can be found in Section B of the Appendix. 

The order in which respondents saw each format was rotated, so that half saw print/direct mail first and the other half listened to the radio ads first. Additionally, within each format the concepts were rotated based on least fill.

Survey Pretesting

As per Government of Canada Standards for Public Opinion Research, pre-testing was undertaken prior to launching the survey. The survey was pre-tested among n=98 respondents in a soft launch, prior to running live in order to obtain feedback with respect to length, ease of completion, and comprehension. This did not result in any additional changes to the survey.

Response and Completion Rates

A total of 14,247 invitations were sent, of which 1,104 respondents completed the survey. The overall response rate achieved for the online study is 20 percent and the completion rate is 83 percent.

The following outlines the calculations:

Response Rate = Interviews Started / Respondents E-mailed = 2873/14247=20.17%

Completion Rate =(Completes + Screen outs + Quota fulls) / Total # of Click Ins=(1104+733+545)/2873=82.91%

Weighting Procedures

Weighting was applied to the final, cleaned data to ensure that the sample was weighted back proportionate to the 2016 Census by age. No other weighting was applied as quotas were set at the onset of the fieldwork as per the sample design above.

As a panel sample was used for this study, a margin of error does not apply.

B. Overview of Creative Concepts

1. Eligibility

ELIGIBILITY – PRINT AD

Ad copy:

Have you claimed your Climate Action Incentive yet?
Pollution has a cost: it impacts the air we breathe, our children’s health, and our economy. That’s why the Government of Canada has put a price on carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada has introduced the new Climate Action Incentive payment. If you are a resident of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick, you can claim it when you do your taxes.
Find out more at Canada.ca/Climate-Action-Incentive.

ELIGIBILITY – DIRECT MAIL

Ad copy:

Have you claimed your Climate Action Incentive yet?
Pollution has a cost: it impacts the air we breathe, our children’s health, and our economy. That’s why the Government of Canada has put a price on carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada has introduced the new Climate Action Incentive payment. In [Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick], a family of four could receive [$609, $339, $307, $256] in 2019. You can claim it when you file your Income Tax and Benefit Return.
Find out more at Canada.ca/Climate-Action-Incentive.

ELIGIBILITY – RADIO AD

Ad copy:

Pollution has a cost: it impacts the air we breathe, our children’s health, and our economy. That’s why the Government of Canada has put a price on carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada has introduced the new Climate Action Incentive payment. If you are a resident of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick, you can claim it when you do your taxes.
Find out more at Canada.ca/Climate-Action-Incentive.

2. Future

FUTURE – PRINT AD

Ad copy:

A healthy environment for our kids and grandkids.
Pollution has a cost: it impacts the air we breathe, our children’s health, and our economy. That’s why the Government of Canada has put a price on carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada has introduced the new Climate Action Incentive payment. If you are a resident of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick, you can claim it when you file your Income Tax and Benefit Return.
Find out more at Canada.ca/Climate-Action-Incentive.

FUTURE – DIRECT MAIL

Ad copy:

A healthy environment for our kids and grandkids.
Pollution has a cost: it impacts the air we breathe, our children’s health, and our economy. That’s why the Government of Canada has put a price on carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada has introduced the new Climate Action Incentive payment. In [Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick], a family of four could receive [$609, $339, $307, $256] in 2019. You can claim it when you file your Income Tax and Benefit Return.
Find out more at Canada.ca/Climate-Action-Incentive.

FUTURE – RADIO AD

Kid1: I want a better future.
Kid 2: That’s greener
Kid 3: With less carbon pollution.
Kid 1: If you live in
Kid 2: Saskatchewan,
Kid 3: Manitoba,
Kid 4: Ontario,
Kid 1: Or New Brunswick
Kid 2: You can claim
Kid 3: the Climate Action Incentive
Kid 4: When you do your taxes.
Kid 1: (cute) What are taxes?
Kid 2: A message from Government of Canada.

3. Incentive

INCENTIVE – PRINT AD

Ad copy:

Have you claimed your Climate Action Incentive payment yet?
Pollution has a cost: it impacts the air we breathe, our children’s health, and our economy. That’s why the Government of Canada has put a price on carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada has introduced the new Climate Action Incentive payment. If you are a resident of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or New Brunswick, you can claim it when you file your Income Tax and Benefit Return.
Find out more at Canada.ca/Climate-Action-Incentive.

INCENTIVE – DIRECT MAIL

Ad copy:

Have you claimed your Climate Action Incentive payment yet?
Pollution has a cost: it impacts the air we breathe, our children’s health, and our economy. That’s why the Government of Canada has put a price on carbon pollution.
The Government of Canada has introduced the new Climate Action Incentive payment. In [Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick], a family of four could receive [$609, $339, $307, $256] in 2019. You can claim it when you file your Income Tax and Benefit Return.
Find out more at Canada.ca/Climate-Action-Incentive.

C. English Questionnaire

[AUDIO TEST] Please turn on your speaker. What number did you hear? NOTE: Please ensure you are fully able to hear the number as this survey contains audio components.

• Number 1
• Number 2
• Number 3
• Number 4
• I don’t hear any number

[IMAGE TEST] Please click anywhere on the [insert fruit] and then proceed to next page.

• Red apple
• Orange
• Green pear

[INTRO]

The Strategic Counsel is conducting a survey on behalf of the Government of Canada that will be used to guide decisions related to an advertising campaign planned for 2019.

The survey will take about 15 minutes of your time. Your participation is entirely voluntary and all of your answers will be kept completely confidential, and anonymous.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Click here [POP-UP IN NEW BROWSER WINDOW*] to verify its authenticity.

TEXT TO SHOW ONCE RESPONDENT CLICKS:

This research is sponsored by the Canada Revenue Agency. Note that your participation will remain completely confidential and it will not affect your dealings with the Government of Canada, including the Canada Revenue Agency, in any way.

You may contact Lisel Douglas, Public Opinion Research and Environmental Analyst, CRA at 343-550-1911 to verify the legitimacy of this survey.

SECTION 1 – SCREENING

S1. Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following organizations? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY. RANDOMIZE.

• A marketing research firm SCREEN OUT
• A magazine or newspaper SCREEN OUT
• An advertising agency or graphic design firm SCREEN OUT
• A federal or provincial political party SCREEN OUT
• A radio or television station SCREEN OUT
• A public relations company SCREEN OUT
• Employed by the federal or provincial government SCREEN OUT
• None of these organizations CONTINUE
• Prefer not to say SCREEN OUT

S2. In the past 30 days, in which, if any, of the following have you participated? RANDOMIZE

• A Government of Canada survey SCREEN OUT
• A survey on environmental issues SCREEN OUT
• Neither CONTINUE [ANCHOR]
• Prefer not to say SCREEN OUT [ANCHOR]

S3. In which of the following age categories do you belong? SELECT ONE ONLY

• Less than 18 years old SCREEN OUT
• 18 to 24
• 25 to 34
• 35 to 44
• 45 to 49
• 50 to 54
• 55 to 64
• 65 or older
• Prefer not to say SCREEN OUT

S4. Are you:

• Female
• Male
• Non-binary
• Prefer not to say SCREEN OUT

S5. In which province do you live? [Drop down list]

• Alberta SCREEN OUT
• British Columbia SCREEN OUT
• Manitoba Quota = 250
• New Brunswick Quota = 200
• Newfoundland and Labrador SCREEN OUT
• Nova Scotia SCREEN OUT
• Ontario Quota = 400
• Prince Edward Island SCREEN OUT
• Quebec SCREEN OUT
• Saskatchewan Quota = 250
• Prefer not to say SCREEN OUT

S6. Please provide the first 3 digits of your postal code [OPEN TEXT] [80/20 split URBAN/RURAL]

• Prefer not to say SCREEN OUT

S7. Are you an Indigenous person, that is, First Nations, Métis or Inuit/Inuk? First Nations includes Status and Non–Status Indians.

• Yes Quota = 100
• No
• Prefer not to say 

S8. Which of the following languages do you speak most often at home? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY

• English
• French Quota = 100
• Other, please specify:
• Prefer not to say

S9. Have you heard of the Government of Canada’s new Climate Action Incentive? 

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

The purpose of this survey is to gather reactions and feedback to some advertising material regarding the Canada Revenue Agency’s upcoming advertising campaign.

Next, you will be shown a number of concepts for the ad campaign. You will be asked to evaluate print, direct mail and radio concepts for the campaign.

NOTE TO PROGRAMMERS:

CONCEPTS (A, B AND C) WITHIN EACH FORMAT WILL NEED TO BE PROGRAMMED FOR LEAST FILL.

SECTION 2 – PRINT/DIRECT MAIL CONCEPTS

In this section you will be asked to evaluate three PRINT and DIRECT mail versions of the concept. These ad concepts are in the early stages of development and are only meant to give you an idea of what the final ad may look like.

A. CONCEPT ELIGIBILITY

FIRST CONCEPT [ELIGIBILITY] - PRINT

Please take a look at the print version of the concept ELIGIBILITY, which you may see in a newspaper. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

A1. Thinking generally about the print ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad? 

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

A1a.[IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.A1, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

A1b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.A1, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

A2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad?

A3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

A4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad:

FIRST CONCEPT [ELIGIBILITY] - DIRECT MAIL

Please take a look at the direct mail version of the same concept, which you may receive at your mailing address or place of residence. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

[IF ‘STRONGLY DISLIKED/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED/DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE’ AT Q.A1, ASK Q.A5 OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.A6]

A5. Thinking generally about the direct mail ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

A5a. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.A5, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

A5b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.A5, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

A6. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

A7. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad:

B. CONCEPT FUTURE

SECOND CONCEPT - [FUTURE] PRINT

Please take a look at the print version of the concept FUTURE. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

B1. Thinking generally about the print ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad? 

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

B1a.[IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.B1, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

B1b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.B1, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

B2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad?

B3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

B4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad:

SECOND CONCEPT - [FUTURE] - DIRECT MAIL

Please take a look at the direct mail version of the same concept, which you may receive at your mailing address or place of residence. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

[IF ‘STRONGLY DISLIKED/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED/DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE’ AT Q.B1, ASK Q.B5 OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.B6]

B5. Thinking generally about the direct mail ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

B5a. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.B5, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

B5b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.B5, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

B6. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

B7. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad:

C. CONCEPT INCENTIVE

THIRD CONCEPT - [INCENTIVE] PRINT

Please take a look at the print version of the concept INCENTIVE. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

C1. Thinking generally about the print ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

C1a.[IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.C1, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

C1b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.C1, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

C2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad?

C3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

C4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad:

THIRD CONCEPT - [INCENTIVE] DIRECT MAIL

Please take a look at the direct mail version of this concept, which you may receive via your mailbox or place of residence. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

[IF ‘STRONGLY DISLIKED/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED/DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE’ AT Q.C1, ASK Q.C5 OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.C6]

C5. Thinking generally about the direct mail ad you just saw, did you like or dislike the ad?

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

C5a. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.C5, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

C5b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.C5, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

C6. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

C7. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after seeing this ad:

D. OVERALL CONCEPT EVALUATION – PRINT/DIRECT MAIL

OVERALL CONCEPT EVALUATION – PRINT/DIRECT MAIL

[STACK CONCEPT IMAGES – PRINT FIRST, THEN DIRECT MAIL]

[FIRST CONCEPT – IMAGE] [SECOND CONCEPT – IMAGE] [THIRD CONCEPT – IMAGE]

Thinking of these three different concepts, which one do you prefer overall? [SHOW IN ORDER IN WHICH RESPONDENTS VIEWED THE CONCEPTS]

• ELIGIBILITY
• FUTURE
• INCENTIVE

D2. Why do you prefer this concept over the others? [OPEN TEXT]

SECTION 3 – RADIO CONCEPTS

In this section you will be asked to evaluate two RADIO concepts. This is a rough version of a radio ad. The final ad will be professionally produced like the ones you hear on the radio.

A. CONCEPT ELIGIBILITY

SECOND CONCEPT [ELIGIBILITY] - RADIO

Please listen to the radio ad ELIGIBILITY. This is an ad that you may hear on your local radio station. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

AFTER PLAYS THROUGH ONCE, SHOW TEXT:

Please listen to the radio ad again. When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

RA1. Thinking generally about the radio ad you just heard, did you like or dislike the ad?

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

RA1a.[IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.RA1, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

RA1b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.RA1, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

RA2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad?

RA3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

RA4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after hearing this ad:

B. CONCEPT FUTURE

SECOND CONCEPT - [FUTURE] RADIO

Please listen to the radio ad FUTURE. This is an ad that you may hear on your local radio station. Think about what you like and do not like about the ad, and whether you understand it.

When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

AFTER PLAYS THROUGH ONCE, SHOW TEXT:

Please listen to the radio ad again. When you are ready to proceed, click the ‘next’ button.

RB1. Thinking generally about the radio ad you just heard, did you like or dislike the ad?

• Strongly liked the ad
• Somewhat liked the ad
• Somewhat disliked the ad
• Strongly disliked the ad
• Don’t know/Not sure

RB1a.[IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT LIKED’ AT Q.RB1, ASK] What did you like about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

RB1b. [IF ‘STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISLIKED’ AT Q.RB1, ASK] What did you dislike about the ad? [OPEN TEXT]

RB2. What do you believe is the key message or takeaway of this ad?

RB3. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about this ad.

RB4. Please indicate how likely you would be to do the following after hearing this ad:

C. OVERALL CONCEPT EVALUATION - RADIO

OVERALL CONCEPT EVALUATION – RADIO

RC1. Thinking of these two different concepts for the radio ads, which one do you prefer overall? [SHOW IN ORDER IN WHICH RESPONDENTS VIEWED THE CONCEPTS]

• ELIGIBILITY
• FUTURE

RC2. Why do you prefer this radio ad concept over the other? [OPEN TEXT]

SECTION 4 – MESSAGING

In this section you will be asked to rate and indicate your preference for a few phrases that may be included in the ad campaign.

MESSAGING

4A. Please carefully read each of the following phrases, which could be used in the ads.

Which of the following phrases do you best understand? [RANDOMIZE PHRASES]

• “Do your taxes”
• “File your return”
• “File your Income Tax and Benefit Return”

4B. Using the scales provided, please rate the following phrases you would have seen or heard in the concepts you were asked to evaluate earlier. [CAROUSEL. SHOW EACH STATEMENT SEPERATELY.]

• A. “climate action incentive”
• B. “ Pollution has a cost …”

4C. Of all the ad concepts you saw and heard today, what words or images stand out to you the most? [OPEN TEXT]

SECTION 5 – DEMOGRAPHICS

DEMOGRAPHICS

The following are a few questions about you and your household for statistical purposes only. Please be assured that all of your answers will remain completely confidential.

5A. Which is the highest level of formal education that you have completed? (ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY)

• Grade 8 or less
• Some high school
• High school diploma or equivalent
• Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma
• College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma
• University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level
• Bachelor's degree
• Post graduate degree above bachelor's level
• Prefer not to say

5B. In what country were you born? (ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY)

• Canada
• Other (Please specify)
• Prefer not to say

5C. Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status? Are you: (ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY)

• Working full-time, that is, 35 or more hours per week
• Working part-time, that is, less than 35 hours per week
• Self-employed
• Unemployed, but looking for work
• A student attending school full-time
• Retired
• Not in the workforce (Full-time homemaker or unemployed but not looking for work)
• Other
• Prefer not to say

[IF FULL TIME, PART-TIME, SELF-EMPLOYED AT Q.5.3 ASK Q.5.4]

5D. What is the principal activity or sector of your primary employment? (ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY)

• Advertising
• Agriculture
• Automotive
• Banking/Finance/Insurance
• Biotechnology
• Career Counselling
• Construction
• Consumer Products
• Consulting/Business Services
• Crown Corporation
• Culture/Recreation
• Education (Teacher)
• Education (Other than Teacher)
• Engineering
• Environmental services
• Federal Government
• Food processing
• Health Care or Social Services
• Home Renovation
• Hospitality
• Information Technology
• Manufacturing/Production (not including Automotive)
• Market Research
• Marketing/Communications
• Media/Entertainment
• Military
• Non-Profit Organization
• Oil & Gas/Mining/Forestry
• Pharmaceutical
• Provincial Government
• Public Safety (Fire, Police, Ambulance)
• Real Estate Management
• Recreation/Tourism
• Municipal/Regional/Government
• Research & Development
• Retail or Wholesale
• Scientific and Technical Services
• Social and Community Services
• Telecommunications/Technology
• Transportation
• Utilities
• Other (please specify)

5E. 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? (ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY)

• Under $20,000
• $20,000 to just under $40,000
• $40,000 to just under $60,000
• $60,000 to just under $80,000
• $80,000 to just under $100,000
• $100,000 to just under $150,000
• 150,000 and above
• Prefer not to say

CONCLUSION

That concludes the survey. This survey was conducted on behalf of the Canada Revenue Agency. In the coming months the report will be available from Library and Archives Canada. We thank you very much for taking the time to participate; it is greatly appreciated.