Report Delivery Date: November 30, 2010
Contract#G9178-100001/008/CY
Contract Date: October 22, 2010
POR# 059-10
End of Field: November 10, 2010
Total Cost of Research: $51,409.34
Client Contact Information: nc-por-rop-gd@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français
Harris/Decima is pleased to present this report to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), highlighting the findings from qualitative research on the Prime Ministerial Award for Volunteerism.
The main objective of this study was to test communications materials developed by HRSDC. More specifically, three different creative concepts were tested with four key audiences:
The following elements were assessed for each concept:
Harris/Decima conducted twelve (12) focus groups, four (4) in each of Halifax, Montreal (French) and Vancouver, on November 3-4 and November 9-10, 2010.
A total of 89 individuals participated in the 12 group discussions – 25 non-volunteers, 25 volunteers, 18 NFP and 21 SMB.
Following are the key findings from the research.
i. No Clear Winner. None of the three creative concepts, in their present form, adequately communicate the Awards to their audiences. In the view of participants, a combination of aspects taken from each concept would be more effective.
ii. Address Confusion/Disconnect. There was confusion around who the Awards will recognize. The name Volunteer Awards implied that they would be awarded to volunteers and, in that sense, the award categories were not seen as appropriate. Most participants did not think that most everyday volunteers may be categorized as Community Leaders, Business Leaders or Social Innovators. These categories were appropriate for “heroes”, however, as discussed later.
According to participants, Business Leaders can be involved in their community and make a difference in many ways but there is often some incentive for them (promotion, marketing, sales etc.) and therefore, they cannot usually be considered true volunteers.
When thinking of Community Leaders, participants typically cited leaders of large not-for-profit organizations, celebrity endorsers or mayors (e.g. Dr. Julien, John Furlong). As for Social Innovators, participants had a hard time either understanding the term or thinking of specific examples.
Most participants drew a significant distinction between everyday volunteers and everyday heroes. In their words, “heroes” are those who have accomplished something extraordinary. Therefore, should the awards be for everyday volunteers, participants feel the term heroes should not be used.
iii. Concerns With Awards Being Associated with the Prime Minister. The majority of participants opposed the reference to “Prime Minister” in the 2011 Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards or the 2011 Prime Minister’s Awards for Everyday Heroes. They were uncomfortable with the notion that through the reference to “Prime Minister” there was the possibility that the awards might be perceived to be political in nature.
Not-for-profit organizations shared particularly strong feelings about this issue. They were concerned that their chances of being awarded would be related to the importance placed on their area of work by the government of the day.
Only a handful of participants thought that the term “Prime Minister” conveyed a sense of prestige to the award. Among these participants, it was viewed positively.
iv. Name of the Awards. Between the two names tested, the majority preferred the 2011 Prime Minister’s Volunteer Awards, as long as volunteers are indeed the ones being awarded. Overall, individuals working for not-for-profit and social organizations chose the name 2011 Prime Minister’s Awards for Everyday Heroes as their favourite. Further, most Vancouverites also preferred the name 2011 Prime Minister’s Awards for Everyday Heroes, citing relevance of the award categories to the term everyday heroes.
Given the concerns raised above, participants suggested, instead, using the 2011 Government of Canada’s Volunteer Awards or the 2011 Canada’s Volunteer Awards. A few also suggested the name 2011 Volunteer Recognition Awards or 2011 Community Contributor Awards.
v. Visuals. Between the three visuals tested with participants, none enjoyed a clear preference. Overall, the preference was for a visual depicting individuals in a volunteer action.
The four images of volunteers blended together were often qualified as “too pretty” or “too happy” and therefore ignoring the more complex, social volunteer actions. Although often seen as appealing, it did not stand out.
The three images of volunteers in boxes were more eye-catching but, like the previous visual, did not include a cross-section of volunteers. Some images were confusing and could be portraying individuals in situations other than volunteering (e.g. working, personal/family situation). Most believed that those were stock images and, further, somewhat outdated.
The superhero visual elicited the most reactions, whether positive or negative. Some participants liked the concept of the hidden hero underneath the everyday person and the impersonal aspect of the image. Others felt the concept was too impersonal. A large number of participants mentioned that the Heroes concept was too often used and therefore, not very original. Whether they liked it or not, the majority agreed that this visual was very eye-catching and bold.
There appears to be a distinction between likeability and noticeability. While the Heroes concept was the least favourite of all, it was the most effective at attracting attention because of the bold colours and font size. Improving these two aspects on the other visuals should increase their effectiveness.
According to participants, using images depicting volunteers in action creates the most effective visual. The chosen images need to encompass a variety of volunteering actions and a variety of volunteers (age, gender, ethnic background, etc.).
vi. Taglines. Most participants preferred the tagline Celebrating People Who Make A Difference. The word “celebrating” describes exactly what they feel the awards are about. The addition of the word everyday, as in “Celebrating Everyday People”, was strongly recommended in most groups. The tagline Nominate A Legend In Your Community Today was the least favourite. For most, a “legend” is someone, often deceased, who has had a great impact on the society over many years, and not necessarily by volunteering (e.g. sports legends, Terry Fox).
vii. Understanding of Call-to-action. The majority of participants understood that the call-to-action was to nominate someone who deserves to be rewarded for their contribution as a volunteer. However, this message was often qualified as “too subtle”, lost in all the different visual elements. A secondary message taken away was to get involved and become a volunteer. This secondary message was less seen in the Heroes concept.
viii. Contact Information. According to participants, a simple and easy-to-remember website address and phone number should be sufficient as contact information. No value was seen in including a long secure email address at the bottom or the physical mailing address. Most assumed that there would be a hyperlink to this email address found on the main website.
In market research, the focus group approach seeks to develop insights and direction rather than quantitatively absolute measures. Because of the limited number of respondents and the restrictions of recruiting, this research must be considered only in a qualitative frame of reference. The qualitative elements of this study cannot be considered reliable or valid in a statistical sense or representative of the larger population. The findings presented here are intended to provide a first step in determining awareness, attitudes, reactions and opinions about issues discussed in these sessions.
Harris/Decima Inc. certifies that the final deliverables comply with the political neutrality requirement in section 6.2.4 of the revised Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research in the Government of Canada.
Doug Anderson, Senior Vice President, Harris/Decima