Climate
Action Awareness Campaign Public Opinion Research – Concept Testing &
Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool Report
Qualitative and Methodology Report
Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada
Supplier: Narrative Research Inc.
Contract number: CW2323535
Contract value: $97,824.10 (including HST)
Contract award date: July 21, 2023
Delivery date: March 28, 2024
Registration number: POR 026-23
For more information on this report, please contact Environment and Climate Change Canada at POR-ROP@ec.gc.ca
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
Climate Action Awareness Campaign Public Opinion Research – Concept Testing & Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool Report
Qualitative and Methodology Report
Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada
Supplier: Narrative Research Inc.
Registration number: POR 026-23
Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre :
Recherche sur l’opinion publique en matière de campagne de sensibilisation à l'action climatique – Rapport du test du concept et de l’outil d’évaluation des campagnes publicitaires – Rapport qualitatif et méthodologique
Catalogue Number: En4-682/2024E-PDF
International Standard Book Number (ISBN): 978-0-660-71052-5
Related publications (registration number: POR 026-23):
Catalogue Number: En4-682/2024F-PDF (Final Report, French)
Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials in this publication, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s copyright administrator. To obtain permission to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes, apply for Crown Copyright Clearance by contacting:
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Public Information Centre
Place Vincent Massey Building
351 St-Joseph boulevard
Gatineau Quebec K1A 0H3
Toll free: 1-800-668-6767
Email: enviroinfo@ec.gc.ca
© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2024
Table of Contents
Detailed Analysis: Qualitative - Introduction
General Perceptions on the Topic of Climate Change and Adaptation
Methodological Report – Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool
Appendix B: Recruitment Screener
Appendix E: Study Questionnaires
Executive Summary
Background and Objectives
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is dedicated to securing a clean and thriving environment and economy for both current and future generations. A population that is knowledgeable about and engaged in climate action is essential for the social and economic transformation necessary to exceed Canada’s 2030 Paris target and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To that end, ECCC launched its new Climate Action Awareness advertising campaign.
ECCC has developed this awareness campaign to both inform Canadians’ climate literacy (i.e., the human influences on climate and climate’s influence on individuals and society), and inform Canadians on the science behind climate change, adaption and mitigation solutions and what a green future may entail so that these topics become an integral part of everyday societal conversations. The first phase of the campaign, which commenced in October 2023, consisted of a variety of advertisement placements that drew attention to the topic of climate change and directed Canadians to a website for additional information.
The overarching goal of this campaign is to empower Canadians with relevant and accessible information about climate change they need for everyday lifestyle choice and decision making, and to inform Canadians about individual and collective actions that can have a big impact on the environment and climate change. Ultimately, the campaign aims to build familiarity with pro-climate behaviours and collective efforts (Government programs and incentives that exist and what industry is doing) that can have a notable impact on the environment and climate changes and motivate Canadians from intention to action.
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) was looking to support their Climate Action Awareness Campaign with public opinion research. Prior to finalizing the development of the advertising campaign, ECCC wanted to obtain feedback from key target audiences to ensure that proposed concept elements resonated with Canadian residents. This feedback would help identify which concepts should be further developed into the final campaign. Three concepts were included in the qualitative testing, in video format. Each video, presented in an animatic format, included different key messaging and use of imagery for testing. As mentioned, the main goal of this phase of testing was to determine which advertising materials best engage the target audience and are most effective in its call to action.
Specific research objectives related to the creative testing included:
- Evaluate the advertising campaign’s proposed creative concepts with campaign target audiences prior to going in market, in terms of:
- How does the target audience feel after seeing these advertisements?
- Do the target audiences identify the main message of the creatives?
- What does the target audience think these advertisements are trying to achieve?
- Do the creatives get the attention of the target audience? Do they find the creatives memorable?
- Are the creatives missing anything?
- Do the target audiences identify the “call-to-action?”
- Would the ads motivate participants to do something/take action?
- Which images does the target audience find the most memorable/did they like the best and which ones are the least memorable/did they like the least?
- Provide insights to assist the department in selecting a creative concept for production, based on the response from target groups.
- Identify potential modifications to the selected creative concept based on insights outlined in the top-line report.
In addition, this research sought to evaluate the success of the advertisement campaign through a before/after measure of the campaign’s objectives and awareness/recall of the advertisements amongst Canadians, particularly the campaign’s target audience. The research was conducted using the Government of Canada’s Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool (ACET). ACET evaluations are required to help improve the Government of Canada’s ability to consistently evaluate major advertising campaigns, and to assist departments in complying with a key requirement in the Communications Directive.
The following criteria was used to measure the effectiveness of the Climate Action Awareness advertising campaign:
1. Pre-Campaign Evaluation using the standardized ACET Baseline online survey, with the objectives being to assess pre-campaign awareness of the subject matter, including:
- Recall of Government of Canada advertising on environmental initiatives; and
- Baseline assessment of the measures related to the advertisement’s objectives.
2. Post-Campaign Evaluation using the standardized ACET Post-Campaign online survey, which helped determine if:
- An increase of recall of Government of Canada advertising on environmental initiatives relative to pre-campaign has been achieved;
- There is strong aided recall of the campaign’s creatives (main measure of research). This includes where Canadians saw the advertisements and whether they can identify them as from the Government of Canada (GC);
- Measurement of ads motivating respondents to do something/take action after seeing the ad; and
- Strong improvement in the measures related to the advertisement’s objectives.
Qualitative: Research Methodology
To achieve these objectives, a qualitative research approach was undertaken. A total of eight focus groups were conducted, with Canadians that fall on the spectrum of “supporters” and “allies”, using a self-selection segmentation question provided by ECCC. Specifically, four groups were conducted with those classified as “Committed” or “Supportive”, and four sessions with those classified as “Ambivalent” or “Indifferent”. In each group, recruited participants included a mix of locations, urban/rural communities, age, gender, household type, and ethnic background. Four regions were represented, namely West (encompassing British Columbia, Yukon, and Northwest Territories), the Prairies (encompassing Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba), East (encompassing Ontario, Nunavut, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador), and francophone groups (encompassing Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick). Group discussions were held in English, except for the francophone region, with all groups being conducted from August 15 to 17, 2023. Sessions each lasted approximately one-hour and forty-five minutes and the participation incentive was $100 per attendee. Across all groups, a total of 80 individuals were recruited, with 68 attending a session. All participants were recruited in accordance with Government of Canada specifications. Recruitment was conducted through qualitative panels stored on Canadian servers, with follow-up calls to confirm the details provided, and to ensure quotas were met. This report presents the findings from the study. Caution must be exercised when interpreting the results from this study, as qualitative techniques are used in marketing research as a means of developing insight and direction, rather than collecting quantitatively precise data or absolute measures. Results cannot be attributed to the overall population under study, with any degree of statistical confidence.
Qualitative: Key Findings and Conclusions
The following summarizes the key findings and conclusions from the focus groups on the Climate Literacy Advertising Campaign Concept Testing.
General Perceptions
Participants generally lack confidence in their understanding of climate change, notably among those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments. This is in part due to the topic of climate change and adaptation being considered highly complex in terms of its causes, impacts, and how to best combat the issue going forward. At the same time, conflicting expert advice, and the perceived lack of a neutral trusted source of information affect participants’ confidence. That said, understanding the causes and effects of climate change is considered important to engage action.
Concept Testing
Participants were presented with three concepts for a national advertising campaign, each including a mock-up for a video (presented in a still animatic format). The concepts are referred to as, Concept A (Outdo You), Concept B (New Normal), and Concept C (Childhood Champs). The order of presentation of concepts was rotated across focus groups to avoid order biases. For Concept B (New Normal), an alternative script was presented following the initial concept discussion, that included an alternative opening and ending to the video.
Some of the comments received applied to all three concepts. Specifically, the concepts do not effectively convey the need for collaboration, as they focus on the role played by individuals and/or small businesses. There lacks proper explanation of the responsibility of governments in addressing climate change. At the same time, large corporations are viewed as having a significant contribution on climate change, and as such, their role, and responsibilities in addressing the issue should be recognized in the final video. All three concepts provide ideas of individual climate actions. While this is appreciated, the suggestions are generally deemed as generic and already known, or difficult to implement. As such, more novel ideas should be introduced, and attention should be paid to provide a variety of actionable ideas to align with people’s circumstances (e.g., parents, rural residents). Finally, while the provision of ideas suggests that climate action is needed, the concepts do not properly explain how small individual actions can contribute to making a difference towards climate change. The relationship between energy efficiency and climate change also lacks some clarity.
The following provide feedback specific to each of the three concepts.
Concept A (Outdo You)
Through the doubling effect used, Concept A (Outdo You) clearly conveys the idea of ‘taking the extra step’ towards climate change. Moreover, it is the concept that most clearly communicates that actions taken by both individuals and small businesses are desired when looking to address the issue of climate change. That said, it fails to effectively capture attention and engage participants and offers a weak call-to-action due to proposed actions being seen as outdated or impractical. While the tone is positive and the creative approach is viewed as conservative and aligned with what is expected of a government ad, opinions are mixed with regards to the usage of humour given the seriousness of the topic. In addition, some believe that it is negatively pressuring people to do more by discounting actions already taken.
Concept B (New Normal)
Despite its overall graphic appeal, positive tone and clear messaging, Concept B (New Normal) appears focused on small business actions with the help of government subsidies, and therefore is seen as lacking relevance to the general public. While participants understand the intent of the ad is to encourage small, pragmatic changes towards becoming more energy efficient, the relationship between energy efficiency and climate change is not always clearly demonstrated in the examples shown and the overall the call-to-action is seen as relatively weak.
There is a general preference for the alternative script for this concept. While seen as somewhat vague, participants appreciated the acknowledgement of government’s role and responsibility in addressing climate change, and found the alternative text offered a more specific call-to-action when it comes to encouraging people to find out more information.
Concept C (Childhood Champs)
Overall, participants felt the ad clearly conveyed the concept of taking small climate action now to benefit future generations; however, the negative tone underling the concept (Childhood Champs) poses a risk. While the focus being on children is seen as attention getting to some, its competitive and shameful tone is felt to be misaligned with the idea that climate change requires a joint effort. As such, despite this concept being preferred among French-speaking participants, this is the concept that poses the greatest risk.
Preferred Concept
Of the three concepts evaluated, all seemed to have room for improvement, noting the need for a more compelling argument and having a weak call-to-action. Across regions and audience segments, opinions are generally mixed as to which concept is most likely to make people reflect on their influence on climate change; the one that is most effective at communicating that taking on climate actions together can help fight climate change; and the one that is most likely to encourage them to visit the website for more information on climate actions (understanding that the final concept would include a URL). While French-speaking participants voice a general preference for Concept C (Childhood Champs), English-speaking participants lean towards Concept A (Outdo You) or Concept B (New Normal). Either Concept A (Outdo You) or Concept B (New Normal) should be further developed, with some modifications. By contrast, Concept C (Childhood Champs) should be discarded as it poses a risk due to its tone.
Overall, however, the feedback obtained allowed to identify useful aspects for the development of the final ads.
Quantitative: Target Population
The Statement of Work identifies that the target population of the research includes individual Canadians that fall on the spectrum of “supporters” (Committed and Supportive groups) and “allies” (Ambivalent and Indifferent groups). As well, those who tend to oppose climate action (Resistant group) were included in the research for comparison purposes with the target population. These groupings were derived via the Program of Applied Research on Climate Action (PARCA) segmentation that found an individual’s likelihood of pursuing pro-climate behaviour is more aligned with beliefs and perceptions than other more traditional demographics.
Quantitative: Methodology Summary
A pre-campaign online survey of the Canadian general public was undertaken from October 6 to 18 2023, while a post-campaign online survey was undertaken from February 12 to 19, 2024. The pre-wave survey required a mean average of approximately 8.8 minutes to administer (combined English and French), while the post-wave survey required a mean average of approximately 12.5 minutes to administer (combined English and French). The post-wave had a median average length of 10.2 minutes.
The derived tabulation for the Completed Survey Rate among Panelists Known to Have Accessed the Survey was 48.1% for the pre-wave, and 54.9% for the post-campaign wave. There was a total of 2,002 usable surveys completed in the pre-wave, and 2,000 usable surveys completed in the post-wave.
Quantitative: Research Usage
As articulated in the Statement of Work, the proposed research activity entailed pre- and post-advertising campaign evaluations, exploring the impact of advertising on public knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. This evaluation took the form of measuring (and comparing) awareness of the subject matter with the audiences in question.
Contract Value
The study overall entailed an expenditure of $97,824.10, including tax.
Consent
Narrative Research offers this written consent allowing the Librarian and Archivist of Canada to post this report, in both official languages.
Political Neutrality Certification
I hereby certify as a Senior Officer of Narrative Research that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity and the Directive on the Management of Communications. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leader.
Peter MacIntosh
Chief Research Officer
Narrative Research
pmacintosh@narrativeresearch.ca
March 28, 2024
Detailed Analysis: Qualitative - Introduction
Context
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) commissioned Narrative Research to its upcoming Climate Literacy Advertising Campaign with public opinion research. The campaign focused on climate literacy and education. Specifically, the main goal of the campaign was to empower Canadians with relevant and accessible information about climate change they need for everyday lifestyle choices and decision making, and to inform Canadians about individual and collective actions that can have a big impact on the environment and climate change.
The main objective of this research was to determine which advertising materials would best engage the campaign target audiences and be most effective in its call to action. More specifically, the research was intended to assist ECCC in making a final creative concept selection for production.
Objectives
Specific research objectives included:
- Evaluate the advertising campaign’s proposed creative concepts with campaign target audiences prior to going in market, in terms of:
- How does the target audience feel after seeing these advertisements?
- Do the target audiences identify the main message of the creatives?
- What does the target audience think these advertisements are trying to achieve?
- Do the creatives get the attention of the target audience? Do they find the creatives memorable?
- Are the creatives missing anything?
- Do the target audiences identify the “call-to-action?”
- Would the ads motivate participants to do something/take action?
- Which images does the target audience find the most memorable/did they like the best and which ones are the least memorable/did they like the least?
- Provide insights to assist the department in selecting a creative concept for production, based on the response from target groups.
- Identify potential modifications to the selected creative concept based on insights outlined in the top-line report.
This report presents the research findings. It includes a high-level executive summary, a description of the methodology used, and findings of the online focus group discussions, including recommendations derived from the research. Working documents appended to the report include the recruitment screener (Appendix A), moderator’s guide (Appendix B), and materials tested (Appendix C).
Research Methodology
Target Audience
For the study, the target audiences included members of the general population divided into four segments using a self-selection question provided by ECCC based on the work from the Program of Applied Research on Climate Action, according to their attitudes towards climate change, namely:
- Committed: Those who strongly believe in climate change and think it is caused by humans. They are extremely worried about it, are committed to taking climate action and think their actions would have an effect; however, they are not particularly hopeful about progress overall.
- Supportive: Those who strongly believe in climate change and think it is mostly caused by humans. They are very worried about it, they are willing to take climate action, and they think their actions would have some effect.
- Ambivalent: Those who mostly believe in climate change and think it is probably caused by humans, but sometimes feel a bit confused about the issue and are only moderately worried about it. They are somewhat willing to take climate action.
- Indifferent: Those who do not have strong feelings about climate change and are a bit uncertain about what causes it. They are not too worried about it and are not particularly willing to take climate action as they are unsure that their actions would have an effect.
Note, the fifth climate change segment, “Resistant” (those who are most resistant to beliefs about climate change and its impacts, most unconcerned with the topic of climate change generally, and less likely to support any initiatives), was excluded from the study since they are the least likely to be influenced by climate messaging.
Research Approach
The study included a total of eight (8) online focus groups conducted from August 15 to 17, 2023. The following table provides a breakdown of the number of sessions based on the audience, region, and language.
|
Breakdown of focus groups by audience and location |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Western BC, YT, NT (English) |
Prairies AB, SK, MB (English) |
Eastern ON, NU, NB, NS, PE, NL (English) |
Francophones QC, NB, ON (French) |
Total Groups |
|
|
Members from the general public based on the “Indifferent” and “Ambivalent” segments |
At least 6 from BC At least 1 from each YT and NT |
At least 4 from AB At least 1 from each SK and MB |
At least 6 from ON At least 2 from ATL |
At least 5 from QC At least 2 from NB or ON |
4 |
|
Members from the general public based on the “Supportive” and “Committed” segments |
At least 6 from BC At least 1 from each YT and NT |
At least 4 from AB At least 1 from each SK and MB |
At least 6 from ON At least 2 from ATL |
At least 5 from QC At least 2 from NB or ON |
4 |
|
TOTAL |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
To achieve strong participation, a total of 10 individuals were recruited for each focus group to ensure that between eight (8) and 10 attend each session. Overall, 80 people were recruited across all focus groups, and 68 took part in the sessions. Each focus group lasted approximately one-hour and forty-five minutes and each participant received an incentive of $100 in appreciation for their time.
Each focus group included a mix of ages, gender, household type and cultural backgrounds, with adequate representation of racialized communities (including Indigenous representation). Across all focus groups, a mix of locations was included within each region, with rural and urban representation. To participate in the online focus group, participants required access to a desktop or laptop computer, or a computer tablet connected to the internet, along with a speaker, microphone, and webcam.
All participants were recruited according to the Government of Canada's recruitment specifications. Recruitment was conducted through qualitative panels stored on Canadian servers, with follow up calls to confirm the details provided and to ensure quotas were met. Those with current or past employment in sensitive occupations were excluded from the research, in addition to those who have others in the household in this situation. These sectors included marketing, marketing research, public relations, advertising, media, graphic design, Government of Canada employees, and those whose work relates to climate or the environment.
Context of Qualitative Research
Qualitative discussions are intended as moderator-directed, informal, non-threatening discussions with participants whose characteristics, habits and attitudes are considered relevant to the topic of discussion. The primary benefits of individual or group qualitative discussions are that they allow for in-depth probing with qualifying participants on behavioural habits, usage patterns, perceptions and attitudes related to the subject matter. This type of discussion allows for flexibility in exploring other areas that may be pertinent to the investigation. Qualitative research allows for more complete understanding of the segment in that the thoughts or feelings are expressed in the participants’ own language and at their own levels of passion. Qualitative techniques are used in marketing research as a means of developing insight and direction, rather than collecting quantitatively precise data or absolute measures. As such, results are directional only and cannot be extrapolated to all Canadians falling within the key groups participating in this project.
Research Findings
This section provides a detailed account of the focus group discussions.
General Perceptions on the Topic of Climate Change and Adaptation
The topic of climate change and adaptation is considered highly complex in terms of its causes, impacts and how to best combat the issue going forward.
Prior to discussing the creative material, participants were asked to complete a short poll to assess their level of confidence in their understanding of climate change and adaptation. A very brief discussion ensued. Across audiences and locations, understanding of the various facets related to climate change and adaptation is generally modest, although many expressed a desire to learn more about the topic. While recognizing the complexity of the issue, several participants, particularly those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments, express frustration with what is seen as a lack of consensus within the scientific community on the issue. Moreover, there is uncertainty as to what ‘trusted’ sources of information are available.
“I also find [the topic of climate change] very complex, and there are a lot of different opinions. I can listen to five different experts, and come away with three different ideas [on what to do], and these people are all smarter than me [when it comes to this topic].” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
A couple of participants from the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments also express frustration with recent changes to social media sites that restrict news access, further limiting the sources of information available to the general public with regards to climate change.
“There’s a lot of conflicting information out there and I’m also the type of person [who is] always on social media, and now not having access to the news [via social media] is a concern to me.” – West/North – Committed/Supportive
While tackling climate change is generally seen as a common topic of discussion within politics and on the news, it is not necessarily seen as a regular topic for day-to-day discussion, thus making it less familiar to people.
“…it’s not a normal conversation of two people catching up. Why would you talk about climate change with your friend? It’s not very interesting. For us to be fully aware, you have to get our attention and our interest to even talk about it and learn about it.” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
Understanding the Causes of Climate Change
Participants have limited confidence in their understanding of the causes of climate change, especially those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments. When asked to rate their familiarity (using a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent)), participants in the Ambivalent/Indifferent focus groups generally provide ratings near the mid-point of the scale. By contrast, those in the Committed/Supportive sessions offer slightly more positive ratings, though still expressing a moderate level of confidence in their personal understanding. For the most part, they consider their knowledge limited given the topic’s complexity. As previously mentioned, a few also point to the confusion resulting from the different point of views that exist, even within the scientific community.
“Everything seems to be about climate change now – small things to big things. Everything is a climate change issue now, and it’s hard to know what actually is a climate change issue.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Plusieurs études se démentent l’une l’autre et ça rend les choses confuses.C’est difficile à comprendre.” (Many studies contradict each other, and it makes things confusing. It is hard to understand.) - Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“On pense qu’on sait c’est quoi les raisons du changement climatique et ce qu’on doit faire mais on n’a pas une idée approfondie des raisons des changements climatiques et des choses qu’on peut vraiment faire pour y faire face. On sait des choses de base mais là où ça devient compliqué, d’en savoir un peu plus nous aiderait à avoir une meilleure idée de ce qu’on peut faire.” (We think we know the reasons for climate change and what we need to do, but we don't have a deep understanding of why climate change is going on and what we can really do to address it. We know basic things but where it gets complicated, knowing a little more would help us to have a better idea of what we can do.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
Within the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments, skepticism with regards to the specific causes of climate change is evident, along with the perceived need for greater consensus within the scientific community as to the specific causes and contributing factors to climate change.
“They keep blaming [climate change] on people. For example, they blamed the fire on people, but it could be [from a] lighting strike. I am not sure what the cause of climate change is or if it’s just that our weather has changed in the past ten years.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“The problem I have is you look for information and it’s from doctor so and so, and he’ll say that all the other scientists are wrong. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but they’ll say it’s a conspiracy, and [this doctor] says it’s just a natural cycle…you look up his credentials and he is [a doctor] and you go ‘well, what’s going on with the other people?’ That’s my dilemma.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Understanding the Impacts or Effects of Climate Change
Likewise, participants have limited confidence in their understanding of the impacts or effects of climate change. Again, the level of confidence of those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments hover around the mid-point of the 10-point scale, while scores are generally only a couple of points higher among those in the Committed/Supportive segments.
Understanding What Can be Done About Climate Change
Understanding of what can be done about climate change is moderate at best. When asked to rate how well they understand what can be done about climate change, participants in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments offer scores around the mid-point of the 10-point scale, while those in the Committed/Supportive segments offer scores just slightly above that, suggesting a moderate level of confidence.
“…climate change seems like just such a broad umbrella term…that could mean many things. You need to specify what in climate change needs to be address. Is it greenhouse gases? Is it other things?...[and] you kind of need to make it more understandable for people…break it down to layman’s terms so people can understand. Not too technical. I just find it’s a broad umbrella term. [People say] we need to do something about climate change. Okay, so what steps can we take? How can we start?” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
“I’m pretty confident [on my overall knowledge of climate change]. I think I know about the causes and effects, but I’m not too sure about the solutions. I’m not too confident about those. I don’t know any solutions that will work well.” – West/North – Committed/Supportive
Across segments and demographics there is general uncertainty with regards to the actual impact individuals can have when addressing climate change. While participants believe individuals have a role in addressing climate change, the role is seen as very limited in comparison to that of governments and industries, especially the large multinational corporations that are viewed as causing significant environmental damage on a global scale. Moreover, there is uncertainty as to which specific actions would have the most notable impact on addressing climate change. Again, this sentiment is slightly stronger among the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments.
“I really want to do all those things to make things better [for the environment], but I just don’t know [what to do to make a difference]…I don’t see how much more I can do. I mean I’m going to do my part, but when I see so many sports teams and politicians flying all over the world, if it’s really carbon, if that’s what is really causing this, I think people would be treating it way more seriously than they are…I can’t believe there’s much I can do to fix it…my biggest motto is lead by example, and [the ones most responsible] aren’t doing that, so why should everyone else?” – Eastern – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Understanding Climate Change Necessary to Act
Understanding the causes and effects of climate change is considered an important motivator in taking action. While across groups participants commonly believe broad, general education is needed to improve their own understanding of the issue, the topic’s complexity, and the diversity of opinions on the subject are seen as critical barriers to action. Many participants indicate that not knowing who or what information to trust can lead to them being disengaged and unmotivated.
“Le fait de comprendre c’est quoi les changements climatiques et de comprendre l’urgence est important et en comprenant, ça nous motive aussi de faire des actions.” (Understanding what climate change is and understanding the urgency is important and by understanding, it also motivates us to take action.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“[People need to know that] it’s happening faster than we think.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
Those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments are most interested in learning how small actions impact climate change, as they are most doubtful of the effectiveness of individual involvement. A few also express interest in learning more about the impact of climate change on the planet more globally, but also on people’s lifestyle.
“Il faut dire que le changement climatique n’est pas une fatalité et que nos actions comptent.” (They need to say that climate change is not a fatality and that our actions count.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Je veux savoir ce que fait les changements climatiques. Qu’est-ce que ça a comme impacts sur la planète et sur nous. Je veux savoir les vraies causes et non le ‘plaster’. Par exemple, à cause de la fonte des glaciers ça se peut qu’on manque d’eau un jour donc il faut faire ci ou ça pour prévenir.” (I want to know the effects of climate change. What impacts does it have on the planet and on us. I want to know the real causes and not the band aid. For example, because of the melting of glaciers it may be that we run out of water one day so we must do this or that to prevent it from happening.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“It is important to know if we don’t start making those changes, how will things get worst?” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I would want understanding. How my actions are impacting climate change. And how they are positively reducing climate change.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Across groups, some participants, particularly those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments, also mention the importance of providing tangible incentives towards climate actions to raise awareness amongst the general population. For example, lowering taxes on local products is seen as a way to motivate consumers to buy local and reduce their carbon footprint.
“Poor people can’t afford to be climate conscious. The government should reduce taxes and giving grants is helpful to make us think about our actions.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I think if you pitch something that is going to save people money, and will have a positive impact [on the environment], you’ll have more buy in.” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
Concept Testing
A few considerations are common to all three concepts, notably in terms of better positioning the role of government and large industries in addressing climate change, demonstrating the impact of combined small actions, and the provision of new and easily actionable ideas.
Participants were shown three concepts for an advertising campaign on climate change and adaptation, with each comprised of one draft video. The video showed a series of images, combined with sound and voice over (i.e., animatic), to provide participants a sense of what the final version would look like once professionally produced. Each concept was presented and discussed one at a time, with the presentation order rotated across groups to minimize biases.
Although several comments pertain to each individual concept, several general opinions and perceptions are shared across all three approaches. The following provides overall reactions across all concepts.
Joint Effort in Addressing Climate Change
The role played by governments and larger industries is not well represented in the three concepts when speaking of the importance of collaborative actions on addressing climate actions. There is widespread perception that large industries are a major contributor to greenhouse gases emissions, and as such, they have a critical role in addressing climate change. Consequently, there is a general belief that industry should be included in advertisements that speak of collaboration in fighting climate change.
“Quand je vois tous ce que les grandes industries font [comme dommage] je ne crois pas que mon action fera une différence [sur les changements climatiques].” (When I see the damage from the large industries, I don’t think my actions will make a difference on climate change.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“[Concept B] should also definitely mention the massive corporations who are responsible for the vast majority of the pollution. Mention government actions/laws/mandates that are holding them accountable (if any such actions/laws/mandates exist and/or are actually enforced).” West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I would like to hear more about how big corporations have been encouraged or mandated to change their practices not just what else I can [do] as a good consumer […] to do my part.” West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“We need to see how we can tackle industries. We need to see how we can make a larger impact and that’s not going to be through riding your bike, that’s not going to be through changing your shower head…” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
In terms of the role of governments, although the availability of financial assistance is mentioned in some of the concepts, which perked interest in some participants, it is not perceived as related to the government’s own actions in the fight against climate change, but rather providing support to those who take action. Participants suggest to more clearly state that the government has a plan, with specific goals and targeted actions in place. A few participants mention that this could be communicated by saying that the government has invested in solar energy, in financing the installation of EV charging infrastructure and/or in providing financial support to provincial governments in updating infrastructure and climate change programs, to support individual actions referred to in the videos.
“I kept asking myself, what is the government doing? Let’s have the big list of how much the government is doing.” – Eastern – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Les vidéos disent que vos petites actions globales prises ensemble va avoir un impact mais j’aurais voulu savoir ce que le gouvernement va faire; genre de dire ‘on a un plan d’action’.” (The videos say that your small overall actions taken together will have an impact, but I would have liked to know what the government will do; kind of saying 'we have an action plan'.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“[Government] should force provinces to play a larger role [such as expanding recycling programs] to help with the climate crisis...Government has to say Manitoba get your act together so people will take part in these types of programs.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Impacts of Small Actions
The concepts do not effectively demonstrate how small individual actions can have a large impact on climate change. More specifically, particularly among the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments, the three concepts lack relevance for not clearly explaining how people’s small involvement/contribution in energy saving and conservation will make a difference. There is a belief that small behavioural changes are insignificant, as the resulting effect on climate change will be negligible. There is also some misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the topic of energy efficiency introduced in some of the concept videos, and climate change.
“Je ne pense pas qu’il y a aucune des trois vidéos qui m’a donné la raison pour laquelle je dois agir, ou le danger ou l’urgence d’agir. Donc je ne sais pas si mes actions sont importantes ou non.” (I don't think there was any of the three videos that gave me the reason why I need to act, or the danger or urgency to act. So, I don't know if my actions are important or not.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I just don’t feel I know enough [about climate change generally]. I don’t feel informed enough. I don’t know if other Canadians are more informed…but just watching those commercials, it doesn’t really tell me anything [about the impact on climate change].” – Eastern – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I think [the videos] showed the positive feeling of taking action to deal with climate change, but I don’t think it showed what the impact of climate change is.” – West/North – Committed/Supportive
Novel and Actionable Ideas
Across concepts, featured actions to combat climate change are largely seen as being generic and commonplace (i.e., changes people would already considered/have made, if they were able) or difficult to implement based on personal circumstances (e.g., not financially viable for those of lower economic status; not practical for parents or those living in rural areas). The videos are generally not offering viewers ‘new ideas’ of potential actions they can easily incorporate. That said, participants struggle to identify what ‘new ideas’ would be appropriate or practical.
“This didn’t tell me anything new that I didn’t know when I was 12-years old.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
“It’s the same old, same old. I wouldn’t pay attention…It’s just background noise to me.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“There’s got to be a balance. I want to help save the environment as much as I can, but not at the cost of [putting dinner on the table].” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
Finally, across groups, several participants believe bold imagery is needed to be effective in capturing viewers’ attention and motivating change. Such imagery would also stress the importance of urgent and ongoing action.
“If they want to get my attention, do what they do for cigarette packages. Scare [me]….” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“All are too nice, fluffy. I want something to punch me in the face, so I’d pay attention.” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
The following provides an overview of the reactions specific to each of the three concepts:
Concept A (Outdo You)
Concept A (Outdo You) conveys the idea of ‘taking the extra step’ towards climate change, although it does not capture attention or motivate action.
Prior to showing the video, additional clarity was provided to the concept with regards to the use of ‘doubles’, intended to be the main character ‘doubling’ themselves, with participants informed that the creative treatment would make this more obvious once finalized.
Overall reactions/Attention/Memorability/ Credibility
Overall reactions towards this concept are generally lukewarm across locations and segments. The approach, while seen as creative by some, is viewed as ineffective in grabbing attention or being memorable primarily as it presents information familiar to participants in a manner that does not elicit strong opinions. While the message is generally considered credible and clear, the claim that individuals have an impact on climate change is questioned.
“C’est comme toutes les annonces qu’on voit. C’est la même approche que les autres annonces du gouvernement; avec la même musique. Ça n’a pas attiré mon attention.” (It is the same as the ads we see. The same approach as the other government ads, with the same music. It did not grab my attention.) – Francophones - Ambivalent/Indifferent
Message/Tone
The concept effectively communicates the need for individuals and small businesses to take climate actions, while to some extent inviting viewers to ‘take the extra step’. The concept’s intent is understood as engaging the public to take action towards climate change by giving various ideas of what can be done. To some, it also encourages doing more, something that is viewed as interesting by some, and by others, as putting undue pressure on people to do their part.
“Le message c’est que chaque petit geste apporte à quelque chose de plus grand. Chaque petit geste est important. Est-ce que je peux faire plus? Si tu fais déjà ce geste, ça dit que c’est très bien mais ça demande qu’est-ce que tu peux faire de plus?” (The message is that every small action brings to something bigger. Every little bit is important. Can I do more? If you already do this, it says it's very good, but it asks what more can you do?) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“Dans cette vidéo je comprends qu’on veut que les gens en fassent plus mais c’est présenté comme la personne qui a fait l’effort, on lui dit tu peux en faire plus, c’est comme si l’effort qu’elle a fait n’est pas considéré.” (In this video I understand that we want people to do more but it is presented as the person who made the effort, we tell them you can do more, it is as if the effort they made is not considered.) - Francophones – Committed/Supportive
All-in-all, it is the concept that most clearly suggests that responsibility for climate action lies with individuals and small businesses; however, it does not properly explain the rationale for this claim, nor does it detail the impact that the collaborative efforts will have on climate change. It also fails to explain how energy efficiency actions contribute to addressing climate change, a notable mention among participants in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments. This concept is the least likely to communicate that actions taken together will have the greatest impact, although showing both individuals and businesses somewhat alludes to that.
“I feel like it keeps coming back to energy efficiency and saving energy and there is no real discussion or connection of the energy consuming relating to climate change. Maybe showing how energy consumption affects climate change and what it does and then showing what we can do with energy efficiency and that would be us doing our part. By changing our shower head, how is that going to impact climate change?” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“On me vend un message mais des choses pas cohérentes. Économiser l’eau? Je ne vois pas comment quand on limite l’eau ça change le climat.” (I am sold a message but things that are not coherent. Save water? I don't see how when we limit water usage, it changes the climate.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
The tone is viewed by some as positive, encouraging, and empowering though others feel that it is negatively pressuring people do to more by discounting actions already taken.
“C’est à nous autre de prendre action. Ça responsabilise.” (It’s up to us to take action. It is empowering.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
A few participants take offense to the negative tone from the tagline, implying that we work against something rather than working towards a goal. In addition, a couple of participants in the Francophone Ambivalent/Indifferent session are confused with the significance of the parcel being delivered to the wrong address, as mentioned in the script.
Personal Relevance
The concept is seen as having a broad target audience - individuals and small businesses, but the concept fails to engage participants. In presenting actions that are already being done or that are difficult to implement, the concept fails to engage the viewer in reflecting on their own actions and encouraging them to take the time to investigate what else they can do. Only a few see themselves in the individuals or situations represented.
“I’m a truck driver, and I start in the evening, and I work alone…It’s not relevant to me – I can’t carpool. I can’t ride a bike. There are no buses where I got to work. These are not options for me…” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“This ad appealed to me in a way. It outlined individuals at home or at work or even companies can all do something to address climate change, but for myself, I don’t relate too much to these people. They seem to be middle class or above or business owners. Myself, I’m not amongst the well to do. I don’t own my home, I’m renting, so I can’t change the faucets…I’m older, so bicycling, my bike has been in storage for over a decade, and I don’t see myself buying a vehicle. I’m not in that socioeconomic bracket, but I do understand the message that individuals can do something to bring about change. It’s just not relatable [to my own life].” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
Nonetheless, this concept is seen as presenting more individual actions than business involvement, thus making it more relevant for the general public.
“On montre des travailleurs, du monde dans mon monde a moi.” (It’s showing workers. People from my own world.”) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
Approach/Design
The creative approach is viewed as conservative and aligned with government advertisement. It is believed to be ‘safe’ and aligned with what is considered a ‘typical’ government advertisement. The doubling effect is neither liked nor disliked, although participants seem to understand how it is inviting people to reflect on their actions and challenge themselves to do more.
“Ça ne m’a pas accroché, mais pas du tout. Que la personne se dédouble ou que ce soit un jumeau; c’est pas rapport. Ils auraient mis une autre personne et discuter ensemble sans avoir de musique trop forte ça aurait peut-être été accrocheur.” (It didn't grab my attention, but not at all. Whether the person is split, or it is a twin; it does not matter. They would have put another person and them talking together without having music that is too loud, it might have been catchy.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Par rapport au dédoublement on dit que chaque geste simple peut faire la différence et une fois qu’on a mis en place de petits gestes, on peut avoir intérêt à aller plus loin.” (In relation to the duplication effect, we say that each simple action can make the difference and once we have implemented small actions, we may have an interest in going further.") – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
That said, even with additional clarity on the use of ‘doubles’, a few believe viewers may need to be exposed to the video multiple times for the message to be clearly received.
“…I get the double down, showing the two people, a reflection of themselves, but it wasn’t super clear. You may have to see it a couple of times to see the tagline at the end [to understand the message] and then apply it back.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Although some appreciate the introduction of humour, it is not always seen as appropriate given the seriousness of the issue. Moreover, a few believe that the use of humour lessens the sense of urgency in addressing the issue.
“I feel they were trying to use humour, and humour is generally good, but climate change is serious…I like the funny tone, but I think a lot of people wouldn’t take [the problem as serious as they should]…the funny lets me off the hook. I understand that humour can be used to get attention, but the humour just says to me this isn’t as big of a deal as we’re being led to believe.” – Eastern – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I think it’s the chipper tone which may be seen as two ways – one, being ‘oh, it’s fine, do these things and climate change won’t happen’, but maybe it’s [done that way to avoid fearmongering] … I don’t think that type of approach would be helpful either… it’s a serious thing happening to our climate…it almost elicited some frustration in me for almost minimizing the real life damages to real people.” – West/North – Committed/Supportive
Call-to-Action
The concept is perceived to have a weak call-to-action, as it provides suggestions for climate change actions already familiar to participants, and/or not viable to their situation. Most ideas have already been actioned upon by participants in the Committed/Supportive segments, or are considered difficult/impossible to implement by some participants across segments. For example, those in rural locations are unable to envision how they could realistically carpool or bike to work due to geography and a lack of infrastructure. As such, the concept is seen by some as being more relevant to those in large urban centres.
“It’s unrealistic to have a guy biking to work and the three people on the same bike that is not realistic. I don’t like that.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Infrastructure – that’s a huge issue. I live in a place where it’s not super safe to ride your bike…and public transportation here is really lacking so I can’t use that either. I live in a place where you have to drive 20 minutes to get to a grocery store. There are some solutions that work very well in cities, but there are lots of places where a lot of these suggestions are not possible…it feels kind of condescending.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
“These are the same solutions that we’ve been hearing for years, and we know individual actions are not going to do a lot at this point.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
“Carpooling, biking – it gives you the impression that [the message is to] people who live in the City. I live 20-minutes outside Winnipeg, so I can’t bike to my job. Same as carpooling – [it’s not an option where I live].” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
In addition, among those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments, the cost of implementing some of the proposed actions, along with a lack of clarity on the impacts from individual actions, are the two most cited reasons for the concept’s lack of personal relevance.
“Not everyone can bike to work, especially in bad weather. Electric vehicles are more expensive and there are not enough grants for them.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I know they have to make these ads short and sweet, but they need to include more information on what causes climate change and how these actions can help.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Incentives would be impactful for everyone, and they should speak about that [in the video]. The ability we would have to save money if carpooling.” West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
That said, across groups, participants recognize that grants and financial incentives may hold high appeal to businesses, especially given the current economic environment.
“What only stood out was a government grant. That’s the positive – if the government is going to help. Times are hard right now, interest rates are high…if [people] hear that the government is going to give them an incentive to do something, to take action, maybe that will convince people to act positively.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
At the same time, a few parents in the Francophone sessions are doubtful of their ability to use a clothesline given the amount of laundry they go through. In addition, the closing script lacks a clear, simple, and actionable suggestion for next steps, according to some in the Francophone groups.
Concept B (New Normal)
Overall reactions/Attention/Memorability/ Credibility
Overall reactions to this concept are lukewarm. While the creative approach is viewed as safe and comfortable, the content lacks personal relevance. This concept is not recognised as attention grabbing or memorable, in part as it appears to speak more to small businesses than the general public. To an extent it also lacks some credibility, in implying that small actions can have an important effect on climate change (something that is questioned), and in the lack of personal relevance of the suggested actions.
“It needs a bang moment. A good commercial needs a bang moment that grabs us. It had nice imagery, nice and sweet, but I’ll forget it in 10-minutes...[want to see something major] and think how can we help? I don’t need to help any of these people in this ad. They don’t need my help.” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
“It is missing the 'how' doing these things will help climate change, the connection.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
A few also question the negative impacts of electrical vehicles on the environment, thus wondering why the video promotes their use. This further point to the need to provide a rational for the proposed actions, specifically in how they can help address climate change.
“Aren’t electric vehicles actually pretty bad for the environment? Maybe I’m misinformed but I’ve heard that the process of generating the electricity isn’t actually as clean as the companies profiting from it would suggest… I also heard the process of mining the critical minerals needed for EV batteries is terrible for the environment.” –West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Gas vehicles are problematic, but the electric vehicles you hear production of a battery is twice as bad [for the environment]. What do you believe?” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Message/Tone
The concept is viewed as an invitation to take action through small, pragmatic changes towards becoming more energy efficient. The concept is believed to convey the message that small actions taken towards becoming more energy efficient are rewarded by government and can have an impact on climate change. To some extent, the message implies that everyone can make a difference in their environment, or their community, and as such, it introduces the concept of the importance of everyone’s involvement towards addressing climate change. The focus on small businesses also affects the concept’s relevance to participants.
“For me, it shows we can all do something. Those were just everyday people showing the changes that they made. But climate change, fixing it, is not going to be a one big button [solution].” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
“Ça parle de subventions gouvernementales pour les entrepreneurs qui veulent aider avec le changement du climat.” (I t's about government grants for entrepreneurs who want to help with climate change.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“There are government grants to help your business be more energy efficient but also ways an average person can help too (thrifting). The main message I think is that as business owners there are ways to help.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Some believe, however, that the focus on government programming introduces some confusion, in that the message could be perceived as a way for government to promote those programs, rather than inviting action to fight climate change amongst the broader population.
“The whole message is to apply for a government grant, but it does not provide real information about how to apply. And it’s not addressing the issue of climate change.” –West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
The tone is positive and inviting; however, few feel it is factual, as though the concept is telling a story rather than inviting action through the situations depicted. This concept also lacks a sense of urgency.
“J’ai eu l’impression qu’on essayait de me raconter un bout de vie plutôt que de me vendre quelque chose. C’est moins intrusif.”(I felt like they were telling me a life story rather than selling me something. It’s less instrusive.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I find that this one wasn’t as competitive [as Concept A] and it was more each individual doing their part. I get the sense of togetherness.” West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Personal Relevance
The primary target audience is perceived to be small businesses, with individual actions being secondary. Many participants do not recognize themselves in this concept, as the content primarily focuses on the actions of small businesses supported by the availability of government programs (with the first and final scenarios being business focused), rather than the role of an individual in addressing climate change. A few participants also believe the concept lacks diversity in the age groups represented.
“For me, most of it was directed to businesses. They threw in the guy shopping and the girl, but most of it was about business, so it didn’t even pertain to me.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“On montre que ce n’est pas seulement aux grandes entreprises de faire les efforts mais ça peut concerner les petits entrepreneurs, les artisans.” (We show that it is not only up to large companies to make the effort, but it can involve small entrepreneurs, craftspeople.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Je me sens moins visé par ce concept. Je sens qu'il vise plus les entreprises mais quelque chose de sûr c’est que si eux tout comme nous visent le zéro carbone, ça serait une super bonne chose!” (I feel less targeted by this concept. I feel that it is aimed more at companies but something certain is that if they and us aim for zero carbon, it would be a super good thing!) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“The video is geared on businesses not people that don’t own businesses; you know, just average people.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“[The video] is more grant focused on commercial businesses, as opposed to what individuals can do, besides shopping for second-hand clothing. I just feel if you want to target the general population it has to be individualized rather than focused on business owners.” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
Further, a number of those in the Committed/Supportive segments do not feel compelled by the message, as they have already implemented some or most of the proposed actions.
“En ce qui concerne les vêtements ce sont des trucs que je fais déjà. Comme le vélo et la douche aussi. Donc j’ai l’impression que je suis rendu plus loin que ce qu’ils montrent.” (As far as the clothes go, these are things I'm already doing. Same for the biking and the shower too. So, I feel like I've gone further already than what is shown.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
Approach/Design
The creative approach is familiar to participants, and as expected of government. It is viewed as presenting a series of vignettes describing individuals’ and businesses’ actions. A few, however, embrace the positive tone, nice imagery, and vibrant lighting which contribute to the video’s appeal.
“La publicité est belle à regarder. Il y a de belles images, la nature, le pain, une belle lumière.” (The ad is nice to watch. There are nice images, nature, bread, a nice light.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
Call-to-Action
The call-to-action is weak, as the message is viewed as targeting small businesses. There lacks clarity in terms of the government’s intent with this concept, with some viewing the video as being primarily directed towards business.
“If I’m not someone who owns a business, I’m not a student, not somebody with these plans, I may not find this relevant, so I wouldn’t pay attention to it at all. To me, it’s very specific.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
“I’m not sure if they’re promoting [business] grants or trying to do something about climate change [with this ad]. It seems like some sort of propaganda to me.” – Eastern – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Further, a few participants, especially those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments believe the concept focuses too much on expensive or somewhat inaccessible actions thus weakening the call-to-action.
“Sure, the government will chip in a few bucks, but what’s it going to cost [that business in the long run to make that change. The woman in the bakery] she owns a small business, she has to worry about rising costs, her employees, rent – is that oven going to save her money in the long run, or is it just going to help with the environment? If you’re running a small business…if money is tight, you don’t always have the luxury to worry about the environment. You’re focused on keeping the doors open and employees paid.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
Alternative Script
After discussing the concept presented in the video, participants were shown an alternate script (as text) that introduces a different opening and ending to the video. The alternative version is generally preferred, for putting some of the responsibility on the government in the fight against climate change, although it lacks specific actions and an explanation of how the government is getting involved.
“I think that the alternative is better in a way because it is showing that the government is also trying to do their part as opposed to just us.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“It’s a misrepresentation to say that the government is raising the bar without explaining how.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“…it says government is raising the bar at the beginning…but it’s not clear what that means. [Raising the bar -] I’ve heard this saying before, and it’s very indirect…it’s almost cliché that saying.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I like the second one [the alternative], and what I would like after that would be an example of how the Government of Canada is raising the bar. Something specific, something with numbers that cuts right through the media and shows me we’re all in this together…” – Eastern – Ambivalent/Indifferent
The alternative is also preferred for the stronger call-to-action statement (‘find out how’). The ending tries to engage the viewer, thus being more relevant to the general public than some of the scenes shown throughout the video. Some felt that asking viewers to ‘find out how you can raise the bar’ was more gentle, inviting, and respectful than telling them to ‘join in the fight’.
“Je vois que [l’alternative] s’adresse encore aux entreprises mais à la fin du vidéo, je découvre comment moi je peux monter la barre. C’est comme un ‘challenge’.” (The alternative video still focusses on businesses, but at the end of it, I find out how I can raise the bar. It’s like a challenge.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“I wouldn’t say I feel differently [about the video with the alternative text], but it is better. It just indicates that the government is doing something, and at the end it pushes you to do something more than just having watched what you watched. ‘Join the fight against climate change’ is rather broad [and vague], but ‘find out how you can raise the bar in the fight against climate change’, it’s a little more directed to see what you can do to affect the situation.” – West/North – Committed/Supportive
“I think the words ‘find out’ sort of puts the onus on each individual to find out how we can be a part of this change, rather than thinking ‘oh, the government is going to make changes’. We’re all part of this.” – West/North – Committed/Supportive
Concept C (Childhood Champs)
Overall Reactions/Attention/Memorability/ Credibility
This concept elicits the most varied reactions, although it poses the greatest risk in the tone being conveyed. As with the other concepts, it does not grab attention and is generally not considered memorable. While the proposed actions make sense, the concept does not explain how individual actions contribute to addressing climate change. Across groups, the concept elicits more positive reactions among French-speaking participants than among English-speaking participants.
“It’s more memorable then the other two, but in a negative way, because I want to make fun of it. I don’t like the braggadocious or arrogant attitude. I get that maybe that’s a thing kids do, but it’s not believable that they would be so proud about installing a heat pump or a back rack. It’s more comical than anything.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“C’est une bonne idée d’utiliser les enfants pour interpeller les parents. Ça montre qu’il y a des gestes qui ne sont pas compliqués et qui peuvent avoir un impact. Ça montre que ce que les parents font c’est pour les enfants.” (It's a good idea to use children to challenge parents. It shows that there are actions that are not complicated and that can have an impact. It shows that what parents do is for children.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I am not overly comfortable that the kids are competing. The message is that everyone is to do something. It should be collaboration, so the competition is not worth it.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Message/Tone
The concept implies that small actions can be implemented to address climate change, though the tone is often seen as negative and pressuring. The concept is seen as suggesting the importance of parents and other adult family members taking action towards climate change. While some appreciate the provision of ideas, others feel that there is nothing new (i.e., commonsense actions that most people would have already undertaken) or that the ideas are difficult or expensive to implement. In some instances, the concept reminds participants that climate change actions are important to the benefit of future generations. To a few, this is a welcomed incentive to take action.
“I understand they’re using humour and talking about bragging rights, but I didn’t like the way the kids were talking to one another. I found it to be negative and mean...” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Nous (parents, citoyens) pouvons lutter contre le changement climatique avec des petits gestes.” (We (parents, citizens) can fight climate change through small actions.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“It is getting kids to encourage their parents to be more environmentally conscious by attempting to make it ‘cool’.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“Probably a lot of those things [suggested] have already been pushed by provincial governments in terms of rebates.” – Prairies – Committed/Supportive
It should be noted that many participants believe that showing children playing video games and being disengaged with climate actions contradicts the message that everyone’s actions play a role in addressing climate change.
“When the boy was playing a video game and he said my dad was installing a shower…why would he not be there watching his dad instal the water head shower? He was not interested?” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
For the most part, the tone is viewed as competitive, arrogant, shaming, and eliciting guilt. As such, it is seen in disconnect with the idea that taking on climate actions can help flight climate change. Some find it insulting to be told that it is time to step up, putting the blame on individuals for contributing to climate change. A few believe the tone is tongue-in-cheek, which is considered not appropriate given the topic.
“Ce que je n’ai pas aimé, c’est qu’on se sert des enfants. Pour moi c’est une compétition et ça peut porter à des conflits. Les enfants arrivent à la maison et disent le père de mon ami fait ceci mais toi papa qu’est-ce que tu fais?” (What I didn't like was that they used children. For me it suggests a competition and it can lead to conflicts. The kids come home and say ‘my friend's dad does this but you dad what do you do?’) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“I found it kind of insulting for adults. It says, ‘it's time for everyone to step up’ which implies that the audience is at fault, and that changing my shower head would offset corporations that dump chemicals, pollute 24/7 from factories, and ship garbage to other countries.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“It is a serious topic, and it should be a serious tone.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Just a few felt that this kind of competitive nature was normal, and would have the potential to grab attention and start conversations about climate change.
“Almost in a polite way they’re almost shaming their parents to do something.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
Personal Relevance
The target audience is generally seen as adults, most notably parents, as the proposed actions are directed at them, although a few feel that children are also part of the target audience. Despite adults being considered the main target, a few believe that including children in the video may help broaden the audience and that it implies that kids also have a role to play in addressing the situation.
“When I first saw the ad, I thought it was for children, because it’s children talking to each other [even though] they’re giving examples done by adults…[I thought it] was more awareness raising at the children level.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
While some English-speaking participants take offense to children being used in the video to reach adults, the approach is generally liked by a few, most notably by French-speaking participants, who feel that it introduces the notion of acting upon climate change now to benefit future generations.
“Ils s’adressent aux jeunes mais aussi aux adultes. Ça me fait réfléchir plus que les deux autres concepts pace que justement ça rejoint le public en général.” (They are targeting young people but also adults. It makes me think more than the other two concepts because it reaches the general public.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Nonetheless, the concept is not effectively engaging participants across locations, given the tone and proposed actions. Further, a few participants mention that the topic of climate change is not introduced early enough in the video and thus may not be effectively grasped if someone is not watching the video until the end.
Approach/Design
Presenting children in competition with each other introduces a sense of uneasiness among some participants. Although it is understood that the creative approach is meant to introduce some humour, there is a dislike for presenting children in competition with each other, an attitude that is felt (particularly among parents) to be somewhat unhealthy and inappropriate, especially given the serious nature of the topic. In addition, a few parents do not appreciate the concept’s invitation for children to pressure their parents in ‘keeping up’ in terms of climate change actions, especially as it disregards barriers they may face (e.g., time, finances) in implementing these actions. The concept also fails at acknowledging the role and impact corporations have on addressing climate change. Some would have liked the children taking part in the family’s climate actions, while encouraging others to take such actions, rather than only bragging about them.
“I feel like the steps that [individuals can do that are highlighted here] are good steps…but also at the same time, I think it feels a little hypocritical for the government to try and put things on the individual when we know the top polluters are companies, not individuals…” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
“I kind of took [the competition aspect] as a negative, because I think it’s too serious of topic to make a ‘my mom does this, my dad does that’ [comparison].” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
“Ça m’offusque un peu qu’on utilise les enfants pour faire passer un message aux adultes.” (It offends me a little that children are used to get a message across to adults.) Francophones – Committed/Supportive
“As fair as doing things as a team [to address climate change – I don’t get that from the ad]. No, I see a competition here. Who’s better.” – Prairies – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Call-to-Action
The call-to-action is weak, due to the lack of personal relevance. The proposed actions are either seen as nothing new/basic changes, or they are considered difficult to implement, especially for those of lower socioeconomic status who may not be able to afford certain climate friendly actions/activities. That said, several participants, particularly those in the Francophone sessions, note the appeal of the personal savings from climate actions.
“Ça me montre des astuces pour sauver de l’énergie et des subventions pour rejoindre l’utile à l’agréable.” (It shows tips to save energy and subsidies to bring what is useful and pleasant together.) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“I like the idea of having more recommendations, or having more of an ask – how about you try this? Or generally provide more suggestions for the general public to try, because, okay, ‘it’s time for everyone to step up in the fight against climate change. Okay, but how do we step up? What can we do? Students may be able to do one thing, kids might be able to do another, seniors might be able to do another.” – Eastern – Committed/Supportive
Preferred Concepts
While no one concept stands out as being the strongest, for lacking a compelling argument and having a weak call-to-action, the overall message to help the environment was well received.
Following the discussion of each of the three concepts, participants were asked to choose the one most likely to make them think about their own actions influencing climate change; the one that is most effective at communicating that taking on climate actions together can help fight climate change; and the one that is most likely encourage them to visit the website for more information on climate actions. For this last choice, participants were asked to consider that the final concept would include a URL.
The following provides an overview of concept choices across sessions, as well as by segment and language:
Best at Making People Reflect on their Influence on Climate Change
There are mixed opinions as to which concept is best to make people reflect on their influence on climate change, with all three lacking a compelling argument. Across sessions, participants are equally likely to have chosen any of the three concepts as being most effective at making them think of how their actions affect climate change. Despite their personal choice, none of the concepts are felt to present a strong argument. Across segments, Committed/Supportive participants offer split views, while Concept C (Childhood Champs) is only slightly preferred over the other concepts by those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments. English-speaking participants offer a small preference for Concept B (New Normal), while French-speaking participants most commonly choose either Concept A (Outdo You) or C (Childhood Champs).
Most Effective at Suggesting the Importance of Taking on Climate Change Together
Opinions are divided on which concept is most effective at suggesting the importance of taking on climate change together. Across sessions, no concept clearly stands out as best in communicating the idea that taking on climate actions together can help fight climate change, although Concept B (New Normal) receive a few more votes than the other two approaches. While preferences are mixed among participants in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments, those in the Committed/Supportive groups express a preference for either Concept A (Outdo You) or B (New Normal). English-speaking participants show a preference for Concept B (New Normal), and to a slightly lesser extent, Concept A (Outdo You), while French-speaking participants’ opinions is largely split between Concept A (Outdo You) and C (Childhood Champs).
“J’aime mieux le concept A. Ça touche tout le monde et chacun peut faire un petit effort et on peut faire une différence ensemble.” (I like concept A better. It affects everyone and everyone can make a little effort and we can make a difference together.) – Francophones – Committed/Supportive
[Referring to Concept C] “Je trouve que c’est la meilleure version parce que c’est important que nos enfants sachent ce que c’est, les changements climatiques. Plus on comprend jeune plus ça reste.” (I find that this is the best version because it is important that our children know what climate change is. The more we learn about it when we are young, the more it stays) – Francophones – Ambivalent/Indifferent
“B [is most effective] especially with the altered text. It gives you the most detail, most facts in a condensed amount of time, and kind of points you towards something you can do at the end.” – Western/North – Committed/Supportive
Best at Encouraging Visiting the Website for Information
Concepts B and C are marginally more likely to be considered best at encouraging participants to visit the website for information. Across groups, Concepts B (New Normal) and C (Childhood Champs) are more likely to be selected as the most effective approach to encourage participants to go to the website to find out more about taking on climate actions. Participants in the Committed/Supportive segments are a little more likely to choose Concept B (New Normal), while Concept C (Childhood Champs), and to some extent Concept B (New Normal), are most often chosen by those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments. English-speaking participants offer a clear preference for either Concept B (New Normal) or C (Childhood Champs), while opinions are mixed across concepts among French-speaking participants.
[Referring to Concept B] “The things that would drive me to the website would be for me to look at my opportunity for grants.” – West/North – Ambivalent/Indifferent
Conclusions
As Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) moves to further develop its Climate Literacy Advertising Campaign, results of the qualitative research highlight key items for consideration. The following provides additional conclusions from the research findings.
- The topic of climate change and adaptation is considered highly complex in terms of its causes, impacts and how to best combat the issue going forward.
There are varied levels of self-confidence with the understanding of the causes and the impacts or effects of climate change, and with what can be done to address it. Notably, participants in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments believe they lack the proper understanding of the issue, while those in the Committed/Supportive segments only offer a moderate level of confidence in their knowledge. The perceived complexity of the topic, divergent expert advice, and the perceived difficulty in identifying a neutral and trusted information source all negatively affect participants’ confidence.
Nonetheless, having a good understanding of climate change, notably of its causes and effects, is considered an important component to motivate action by participants. Those in the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments are especially interested in understanding how small individual actions can have a significant impact on climate change. Although information is important in their engagement, financial incentives are also viewed as an important motivator to take action. By contrast, participants in the Committed/Supportive segments are especially interested in new ideas for climate actions.
- A few considerations are common to all three concepts, notably in terms of better positioning the role of government and large industries in addressing climate change, demonstrating the impact of combined small actions, and the provision of new and easily actionable ideas.
Some of the feedback received during the concept testing is consistent across all three concepts. Notably, the role played by governments and larger industries is not well represented in any of the concepts when speaking of the importance of collaboration in addressing climate change. Specifically, participants are unclear regarding the government’s focus and efforts, beyond the provision of financial assistance mentioned in the videos. At the same time, large industries are considered major contributors to greenhouse gases, and participants are puzzled that these are not referenced in the concepts as a key player in the fight against climate change.
Another shortfall of all three concepts is that none effectively demonstrate how the combination of small individual actions impact climate change. This is an area where participants lack clear understanding of the situation, and one that could provide a stronger motivator to action. Further, the link between energy saving and climate change is not always obvious, especially among the Ambivalent/Indifferent segments, and thus it is recommended that this be clarified in the final concept.
Finally, the proposed actions to address climate change are seen to be nothing new or in some instances, difficult to implement. New ideas of potential actions are most notably of interest to participants in the Committed/Supportive segments, given that many suggestions outlined in the concepts have already been actioned upon. At the same time, the proposed actions should be be easy to implement, regardless of financial considerations, lifestyle, or accessibility to the required infrastructure.
- Concept A (Outdo You) conveys the idea of ‘taking the extra step’ towards climate change, although it fails to effectively capture attention and motivate action.
Of all three concepts, this one most clearly communicates that actions taken by both individuals and small businesses are desired towards addressing climate change. The idea of ‘taking an extra step’ is well conveyed using the ‘doubling’ effect, although the approach fails to engage participants. Proposing actions that are already implemented by some participants, or that are considered unattainable, results in a weak call-to-action. Overall, the creative approach is viewed as conservative and aligned with what is expected of a government ad. Mixed opinions are expressed with the use of humour to speak of an urgent and highly important issue. Nonetheless, the tone is perceived to be positive, encouraging, and somewhat empowering, though some believe that it is negatively pressuring people to do more by discounting actions already taken.
- Despite its graphic appeal, Concept B (New Normal) appears focused on small business actions with the help of government subsidies, thus lacking relevance to the general public.
Despite an appealing creative approach, this concept lacks strong engagement across segments as it appears to be primarily directed at small businesses, and to a lesser extent, the general public. The intended message to take action through small, pragmatic changes towards becoming more energy efficient is clearly understood, although the relationship between energy efficiency introduced in the proposed actions, and climate change, is not always clearly understood by participants. At the same time, the focus on government programming introduces some confusion in the concept’s intent. The tone is perceived to be positive, factual and takes a storytelling approach that is not motivating and that lacks a sense of urgency. The creative approach is familiar and as expected of government, and the graphic composition appears pleasing.
Participants generally prefer the alternative script for Concept B (New Normal), whereby the video’s introduction and conclusion differ from the original version. The alternative script introduces the government’s responsibility in addressing climate change (although vague), in addition to providing a more specific call-to-action (e.g., ‘find out how you can raise the bar’, rather than ‘join the fight’).
- Although it introduces the concept of taking climate action now to benefit future generations, and targeting the general public, the competitive and shameful tone used in Concept C (Childhood Champs) poses a risk.
This concept is perceived to clearly invite the general public to take on small actions towards climate change. Involving children in the discussions is appealing to some, especially in the Francophone sessions, as a reminder that addressing climate change will benefit future generations. That said, others feel that it is putting undue pressure on adults, a sentiment that is further supported by the concept’s competitive tone. As such, this is the concept that poses the greatest risk for alienating viewers with its competitive tone and eliciting guilt rather than rewarding actions. Despite this concept being preferred among French-speaking participants, it lacks a strong call-to-action overall given that the proposed actions are either already implemented, or difficult to execute.
- None of the concepts stand out as being the strongest, as all have a weak compelling argument and a weak call-to-action.
Across sessions, participants are equally likely to have chosen any of the three concepts as being most effective at making them think of how their actions affect climate change. Likewise, none of the concepts stand out as being most effective at suggesting the importance of taking on climate change together. Participants were informed that the final concept would include a URL and they were asked to choose the one that would be best at encouraging them to visit the website for information. Concept B (New Normal) and C (Childhood Champs) are only considered a little better than Concept A (Outdo You) in that regard. Across locations, Concept C (Childhood Champs) is consistently preferred among French-speaking participants, while opinions are more varied among English-speaking participants, despite a small preference for Concept A (Outdo You) and B (New Normal).
Direction
The following provides direction for ECCC based on the analysis of research findings, to guide the final development of its advertising campaign.
1. Concept C (Childhood Champs) should not be further developed, as it poses the greatest risk in terms of the tone. As such, either Concept A or B should be further developed, with some considerations.
Given negative reactions by some to the tone of Concept C (Childhood Champs), with some viewing it as competitive and arrogant, it is recommended this concept not be further developed. Either Concept A (Outdo You) or Concept B (New Normal) should therefore be further developed, with the following considerations:
- Highlight the role played by government and large companies.
- Ensure that the concept presents individuals and businesses as equally engaged in climate action.
- Make it clear that climate actions are varied and can relate to energy efficiency, lifestyle, and consumer choices.
- Feature climate actions that are easily actionable, while being new or adapted to specific lifestyles (e.g., food gardening; bank or invest responsibly; unplug electronics when not in use; start composting; shop local; make smart seafood choices; plant a tree).
- Provide a stronger call-to-action, suggesting that more ideas or actions can be found the website.<
- Ensure the tone is engaging, while being cautious in the use of humour.
- Elevate the sense of urgency in taking actions. For example, this could be done by incorporating bolder imagery or more impactful statements illustrating the tangible impacts of climate change nationally and at the local level.
- Clearly showcase the impact of multiple small actions on addressing climate change.
2. The final concept should better demonstrate the role that large industries and government play in fighting climate change.
To further promote the notion that everyone is playing a role in the fight against climate change, there is merit in expressing in the video that governments and large corporations are key to the solution, even if the focus of the campaign remains on individuals and small businesses.
3. There is value in providing a rationale for small climate actions, and to explain the impact of individual efforts.
Although this may not be easily achieved in a short video, there is merit in providing an explanation online of how the combination of small, individual actions and behaviour changes can lead to a significant impact on addressing climate change. Perhaps the call-to-action in the video could direct viewers to find out ideas of climate actions online, but also understand how their involvement can make a notable difference. In doing so, it is important to use credible, neutral sources of information to support any claim.
Methodological Report – Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool
Background
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is dedicated to securing a clean and thriving environment and economy for both current and future generations. Climate change communication and education are recognized as a priority in the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. A population that is knowledgeable about and engaged in climate action is essential for the social and economic transformation necessary to exceed Canada’s 2030 Paris target and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To that end, ECCC launched its new Climate Action Awareness advertising campaign.
ECCC has developed this education and awareness campaign to both inform Canadians’ climate literacy (i.e., the human influences on climate and climate’s influenced on individuals and society), and educate Canadians on the science behind climate change, adaption and mitigation solutions and what a green future may entail so that these topics become an integral part of everyday societal conversations.
The first phase of the campaign, which commenced in October 2023, consisted of a variety of advertisement placements that drew attention to the topic of climate change and directed Canadians to a website for additional information.
ECCC’s advertising campaign focused on two areas: climate literacy and
education, supporting the following key campaign objectives:
- To empower Canadians with relevant and accessible information about climate change they need for everyday lifestyle choices and decision-making; and<
- To educate Canadians about individual and collection actions that can have a big impact on the environment and climate change.
More specifically, this campaign sought to:
- Improve climate literacy among Canadians. That is, equip Canadians with an understanding of human influences on climate and climate’s influence on individuals and society. This includes improving:
- Understanding of the essential principles of the Earth’s climate system.
- Knowledge of how to assess scientifically credible information about climate.
- The ability of Canadians to communicate about climate and climate change in a meaningful way.
- The ability of Canadians to make informed and responsible decisions with regard to actions that may affect climate.
- Inform Canadians about climate via the following means:
- Starting with an understanding of the science behind climate change, biodiversity loss, and other environmental issues related to a changing climate and what our future climate will look like.
- Highlighting adaptation and mitigation solutions and what they mean for Canadians.
- Pointing to what a green future entail in terms of career choices, lifestyle choices, etc.
- Making those topics an integral part of every day societal conversations and not just a response to the next extreme weather event that will make headlines for a news cycle or two, and then disappear.
Research Objectives
The purpose of this research evaluation is to measure the success of the advertisement campaign through a before/after measure of the campaign’s objectives and awareness/recall of the advertisements amongst Canadians, particularly the campaign’s target audience. The research was conducted using the Government of Canada’s Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool (ACET). ACET evaluations are required to help improve the Government of Canada’s ability to consistently evaluate major advertising campaigns, and to assist departments in complying with a key requirement in the Communications Directive.
The following criteria was used to measure the effectiveness of the Climate Action Awareness advertising campaign:
1. Pre-Campaign Evaluation using the standardized ACET Baseline online survey, with the objectives being to assess pre-campaign awareness of the subject matter, including:
- Recall of Government of Canada advertising on environmental initiatives; and
- Baseline assessment of the measures related to the advertisement’s objectives.
2. Post-Campaign Evaluation using the standardized ACET Post-Campaign online survey, which helped determine if:
- An increase of recall of Government of Canada advertising on environmental initiatives relative to pre-campaign has been achieved;
- There is strong aided recall of the campaign’s creatives (main measure of research). This includes where Canadians saw the advertisements and whether they can identify them as from the Government of Canada (GC);
- Measurement of ads motivating respondents to do something/take action after seeing the ad; and
- Strong improvement in the measures related to the advertisement’s objectives.
Target Population
The Statement of Work identifies that the target population of the research includes individual Canadians that fall on the spectrum of “supporters” (Committed and Supportive groups) and “allies” (Ambivalent and Indifferent groups). As well, those who tend to oppose climate action (Resistant group) were included in the research for comparison purposes with the target population. These groupings were derived via the Program of Applied Research on Climate Action (PARCA) segmentation that found an individual’s likelihood of pursuing pro-climate behaviour is more aligned with beliefs and perceptions than other more traditional demographics. The segments are defined as follows:
Committed: Overall, most receptive to beliefs, social norms, willingness, and affective response to climate change highly anxious and least hopeful. Most committed to action on climate change. This group comprises approximately 25% of Canadian adults.
Supportive: Endorsement of belief in climate change, less anxious and worried about climate change. Most well-rounded group of all. This group comprises approximately 37% of Canadian adults.
Ambivalent: Endorsement of climate belief but ambivalent affective response to the issue. Willing to make changes but not leading the charge. This group comprises approximately 18% of Canadian adults.
Indifferent: Most neutral group. No strong pull toward support or opposition, other than in terms of a slight belief in climate change, no endorsed beliefs towards negative impacts of climate. This group comprises approximately 13% of Canadian adults.
Resistant: Most resistant to beliefs about climate change and its impacts. Most unconcerned with climate change and less likely to support any initiatives. This group comprises approximately 7% of Canadian adults.
Methodology Summary
A pre-campaign online survey of the Canadian general public was undertaken from October 6 to 18 2023, while a post-campaign online survey was undertaken from February 12 to 19, 2024. The pre-wave survey required a mean average of approximately 8.8 minutes to administer (combined English and French), while the post-wave survey required a mean average of approximately 12.5 minutes to administer (combined English and French). The post-wave had a median average length of 10.2 minutes.
The derived tabulation for the Completed Survey Rate among Panelists Known to Have Accessed the Survey was 48.1% for the pre-wave, and 54.9% for the post-campaign wave. The email contact records for the research were drawn from panelists administered by The Logit Group of Toronto, Ontario. There was a total of 2,002 usable surveys completed in the pre-wave, and 2,000 usable surveys completed in the post-wave.
Research Usage
As articulated in the Statement of Work, the proposed research activity entailed pre- and post-advertising campaign evaluations, exploring the impact of advertising on public knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. This evaluation took the form of measuring (and comparing) awareness of the subject matter with the audiences in question. ECCC’s principal goal is to increase climate literacy among Canadians, educate Canadians knowledge of climate change and adaptation and mitigation solutions, and promote day-to-day societal conversations on these various environmental issues. Advertising campaign evaluation is mandatory under the guidelines of the Government of Canada, in situations such as the current case in which a media buy exceeds $1 million. The sought-after pre-and post-campaign ACET-related data collection data is collected for all major Government of Canada advertising campaigns in order to consistently evaluate these campaigns, as a means of complying with key requirements in the Government of Canada’s Communications Policy.
Contract Value
The study overall entailed an expenditure of $97,824.10, including tax.
Study Methodology
The questions utilized in this study were based on the Government of Canada’s standard Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool questionnaire. In the online approach implemented in the present study, the survey respondents were aided in their post-campaign ad recall by way of being shown on-screen advertising from the recent Climate Action Awareness campaign. No ads were displayed in the pre-campaign wave as the pre-advertising survey was aimed at assessing recall and opinions prior to the recent advertising campaign. In the post-campaign wave, the respondents were subsequently asked a series of questions about the advertising. Narrative Research ensured that respondents were able to complete the survey on various platforms including computers, tablets or smartphones.
As required by Government of Canada standards, English and French pre-test surveys were collected in both waves. As well, a line of questioning was included at the end of the pre-test surveys in which respondents were asked if they encountered any questions or survey wording that was difficult to understand. No pre-test respondents offered specific commentary concerning a lack of understanding or clarity of any of the survey questions, from a comprehension perspective.
Questionnaire Design
The questions utilized in this study were based on the Government of Canada’s standard Advertising Campaign Evaluation Tool questionnaire. In the online approach implemented in the present study, the survey respondents were aided in their post-campaign ad recall by way of being shown on-screen advertising from the recent Climate Action Awareness campaign. No ads were displayed in the pre-campaign wave as the pre-advertising survey was aimed at assessing recall and opinions prior to the recent advertising campaign. In the post-campaign wave, the respondents were subsequently asked a series of questions about the advertising. Narrative Research ensured that respondents were able to complete the survey on various platforms including computers, tablets or smartphones.
As required by Government of Canada standards, English and French pre-test surveys were collected in both waves. As well, a line of questioning was included at the end of the pre-test surveys in which respondents were asked if they encountered any questions or survey wording that was difficult to understand. No pre-test respondents offered specific commentary concerning a lack of understanding or clarity of any of the survey questions, from a comprehension perspective.
Sampling
The survey approach utilized was designed to be administered to an online general public panel sample of approximately 2,000 Canadian adults (18+) during each wave. Narrative Research ensured that the surveys collected closely reflected the actual, true adult Canadian general population in terms of gender and age group and by region, as required by the project’s Statement of Work, with respondents falling across the spectrum of ‘supporters’ (Committed and Supportive groups) and ‘allies’ (Ambivalent and Indifferent groups), as well as those who tend to oppose climate action (Resistant group), which were derived via the Program of Applied Research on Climate Action (PARCA) segmentation.
Specifically, to ensure robust samples that approximate the true population parameters for age (18-34, 35-54, and 55+), gender (male/female), and region (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, MB/SK/NU, AB/NT, BC/YT), quotas were implemented. However, there were no specific quota targets for the above-mentioned PARCA segments, although sufficient surveys were collected from each of these groups to allow for robust analysis of the resultant survey data. Age and gender quotas were implemented per region, and statistical weighting of the survey data was implemented to adjust for the small differences between the target data collection quotas, on the one hand, and the actual distribution of survey completions, on the other hand. Implementing minimum quotas for Indigenous Canadians were also applied during sampling to reach this audience of interest to ECCC, but are not necessarily representative per region, or for Canada overall.
Contact Records Source
Narrative Research utilized the services of The Logit Group for this research. The Logit Group’s online general population panel is comprised of over 600,000 Canadian residents nationally, with sound representation across regions. Logit Group panelists are recruited from a large number of sources to maximize reach and representation. The recruitment policies of The Logit Group’s partners (SSI, Toluna, Asking Canadians, and Research Now) are broad in scope. Survey data quality rests on many different factors, including sourcing of panelists who are vetted, using ongoing quality checks such as eliminating panelists who are no longer active, and so forth. The following are panel member sources for Logit Group studies:
- Email invitations: pre-authorized to opt in lists from associations and groups
- Social Media: advertising and social groups on leading social media platforms
- Media Platforms: advertising on online media platforms both niche and mainstream
- Use of major recruiting brands
- Loyalty programs
- Targeted audiences
- Web and social networking sites
- Targeted emails by The Logit Group’s online partners to their members or subscribers
- Referral programs
The Logit Group has established a variety of quality assurance processes to proactively identify invalid respondents. For example, the company has incorporated methods to quickly identify and flag straight-lining speedsters (i.e., respondents who give the same responses to all questions as a means of quickly finishing the survey), thereby monitoring whether panelists are able to provide thoughtful and accurate responses to survey queries.
Panel members are monitored against Statistics Canada data to gauge statistical representation. Annual profile refreshing campaigns are conducted to incentivize panelists to remain active; these can also contain new questions in order to target specific niche audiences more precisely. Panelists’ participation is rewarded with their choice of HBC Rewards bonus points, Aeroplan Miles or Petro Points, as well as various prizes. The sampling procedure reflected a computerized randomization of online panel members, with exclusions from the randomization process being based upon, for example, whether a panelist had received his/her monthly maximum number of survey invitations.
Survey Administration
Survey Programming and Testing
The online surveys were programmed by Narrative Research in both English and French, using Voxco Acuity programming software. Respondents were notified of the surveys in the official language of their choice. In addition, respondents had the option to select the official language of their choice at the beginning of the questionnaire. Assistance in completing the surveys was available at the respondents’ request through our supplier, The Logit Group. Respondents were able to verify the legitimacy of the survey via representatives from Narrative Research, or via the survey registration system made available via the Canadian Research Insights Council (CRIC), Canada’s national research agency for this sector. The programmed surveys were tested to ensure question order and skip patterns were properly implemented. Testing included Narrative Research researchers receiving the invitation via email just as a respondent would, to ensure accuracy of delivery, text, links, and so on. Environment and Climate Change Canada staff were also provided with the pre-test links.
A total of 58 English and 11 French pre-tests were completed in October 2023 for the pre-campaign or baseline survey, while a total of 22 English and 14 French pre-tests were completed in February 2024 for the post-campaign survey. These pre-test survey completions were conducted via a survey “soft launch” whereby a small number of panel respondents were invited to participate in the survey. The pre-testing of the surveys allowed the collected data to be reviewed to ensure accuracy and to identify any programming aspects that should be modified. Pre-test respondents were asked if they had any difficulty understanding any aspect of the survey, and none offered specific commentary concerning a lack of understanding or clarity of any of the survey questions, from a comprehension perspective. No substantive comprehension or data quality issues arose as a result of the pre-testing, and thus the pre-test data was maintained in the final data sets for both waves.
Data Collection
The pre-campaign survey was administered between October 6 to 18, 2023, while the post-campaign survey was administered between February 12 to 19, 2024. Fieldwork was monitored and reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure target quotas were met. Narrative Research provided reports to ECCC representatives regarding progress, as requested or pre-determined. No individual was able to complete the survey questionnaire more than once. A total of 2,002 usable surveys were included in the final data set in the pre-wave baseline survey. A total of 2,000 surveys were included in the final data set in the post-wave survey. It is important to note that for various reasons, a small percentage of submitted online panel surveys is often removed from study data sets after submission. Such was indeed the case in these surveys, as Narrative Research’s initial quota targets in each wave exceeded the overall final requirement of 2,000 questionnaires.
The pre-wave survey required a mean average of approximately 8.8 minutes to administer (combined English and French), while the post-wave survey required a mean average of approximately 12.5 minutes to administer (combined English and French). This 12.5 minute figure, however, likely was influenced greatly by a small number of respondents who likely left their browser open to the survey for an extended period of time while undertaking non-survey-related activities, as it is found that the median post-wave average was 10.2 minutes, likely a more telling indicator of the true ‘average’ length of time required to complete the post-wave survey.
A non-probability sample approach was implemented given that the study was designed to be conducted among online Canadian general public panelists. All such panels are inherently non-probability in nature, given that panelists self-select to become members of such panels, and not all adult Canadians belong to such a panel. The tables below for the pre- and post-campaigns display regional, gender, and age data in terms of the actual distribution of Canadians as per the 2021 Statistics Canada Census.
As well, approximate regional, gender, age and key special demographic quota targets per wave are detailed (both in terms of the actual number of surveys completed, and the percentage of all surveys completed). The tables on the pages below present data with the weighted and unweighted number as well as percentage of surveys collected, for relevant demographic dimensions for each wave.
Data Tabulation: There were a total of 36 overlapping or interlocking statistical weighting cells created from the study design using the weighting factors of: Region (6: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, MB/SK/NU, AB/NT, and BC/YT); Age group (3: 18–34, 35–54, and 55+); Gender (2: Male, Female). The 36 overlapping or interlocking statistical weighting cells thus were derived from Region (6) x Age (3) x Gender (2) dimensions = 36 unique statistical weighting cells. Population data for the 36 statistical weighting cells were obtained from Census of Canada, and can be found here:
- 2021 Statistics Canada Census Data (baseline and post-wave): https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=9810002001
With such a large number of weighting cells, it was necessary to combine specific cells due to the fact that sample sizes for specific cells were small or empty, and therefore would have led to quite large weights if left separate. Combining weighting cells is a common approach in such instances, and it explains why the final weighted data distribution differs slightly from the actual population distribution, along certain dimensions. Nonetheless, it is suggested that the quantitative impact of implementing this approach was very modest, thereby recommending the specific statistical weighting approach as helpful.
It should also be noted that a small number of individuals were not able to be placed into one of the 36 weighting cells due to the fact that they identified as other than male or female. For tabulation purposes, these individuals were given a weight value of 1.0.
Pre-Campaign/Baseline Wave Survey – October 2023 (Percentages may not sum exactly to 100%, owing to rounding) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
2021 Census |
Quota Targets |
Surveys Completed (Unweighted) |
Surveys Completed (Weighted) |
|||
|
Surveys (n=) |
Surveys (%) |
(n=) |
(%) |
(n=) |
(%) |
||
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantic |
6.7% |
200 |
10.0% |
200 |
10.0% |
134 |
6.7% |
|
Quebec |
23.0% |
400 |
20.0% |
400 |
20.0% |
458 |
22.9% |
|
Ontario |
38.6% |
620 |
31.0% |
620 |
31.0% |
773 |
38.6% |
|
MB/SK/NU |
6.5% |
232 |
11.6% |
233 |
11.6% |
131 |
6.5% |
|
AB/NT |
11.2% |
264 |
13.2% |
265 |
13.2% |
226 |
11.3% |
|
BC/YT |
14.0% |
284 |
14.2% |
284 |
14.2% |
280 |
14.0% |
|
Gender1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
48.8% |
975 |
48.8% |
950 |
47.7% |
971 |
48.7% |
|
Female |
51.2% |
1025 |
51.3% |
1041 |
52.3% |
1020 |
51.2% |
|
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-34 |
26.7% |
548 |
27.4% |
526 |
26.3% |
538 |
26.9% |
|
35-54 |
32.2% |
778 |
38.9% |
791 |
39.5% |
644 |
32.2% |
|
55+ |
41.1% |
674 |
33.7% |
685 |
34.2% |
820 |
40.9% |
1 Eleven respondents identified in the survey as other than male or female, and are not presented in the table.
Post-Campaign Wave Survey – February 2024 (Percentages may not sum exactly to 100%, owing to rounding) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
2021 Census |
Quota Targets |
Surveys Completed (Unweighted) |
Surveys Completed (Weighted) |
|||
|
Surveys (n=) |
Surveys (%) |
(n=) |
(%) |
(n=) |
(%) |
||
|
Region |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atlantic |
6.7% |
200 |
10.0% |
192 |
9.6% |
134 |
6.7% |
|
Quebec |
23.0% |
400 |
20.0% |
401 |
20.0% |
460 |
23.0% |
|
Ontario |
38.6% |
620 |
31.0% |
630 |
31.5% |
771 |
38.5% |
|
MB/SK/NU |
6.5% |
232 |
11.6% |
235 |
11.8% |
129 |
6.4% |
|
AB/NT |
11.2% |
264 |
13.2% |
264 |
13.2% |
225 |
11.2% |
|
BC/YT |
14.0% |
284 |
14.2% |
278 |
13.9% |
281 |
14.2% |
|
Gender1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
48.8% |
975 |
48.8% |
974 |
48.7% |
972 |
48.6% |
|
Female |
51.2% |
1025 |
51.3% |
1019 |
51.0% |
1021 |
51.1% |
|
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-34 |
26.7% |
548 |
27.4% |
561 |
28.0% |
535 |
26.7% |
|
35-54 |
32.2% |
778 |
38.9% |
755 |
37.8% |
644 |
32.2% |
|
55+ |
41.1% |
674 |
33.7% |
684 |
34.2% |
822 |
41.1% |
1 Seven respondents identified in the survey as other than male or female, and are not presented in the table.
Completed Survey Rates among Panelists Known to Have Accessed the Survey: In the current version of the Government of Canada’s Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research - Online Surveys, Section 1.2.2.7 states that “When the research design or selection procedures will not allow the calculation of a response rate or participation rate (for example, when a sample router is used to screen potential respondents and assign them to one of several surveys), describe the design/ selection procedure and any potential sampling bias that may result.” As mentioned above, the current Environment and Climate Change Canada Public Opinion Research study utilized the online general public panel of The Logit Group. This panel indeed uses the routing approach for panel research of the type referenced in the Government of Canada’s Standards document. Beyond the quality control measures discussed elsewhere in these standards that are employed by Narrative Research and The Logit Group, it is evident from the measures referenced in the Survey Rate formula developed below that other checks also have been introduced to enhance the quality of the study’s final data set. Specifically, surveys were removed owing to captcha fails, international IP addresses, survey speeders, flatliners (that is, those who offer the same responses to all questions), and so forth. In addition, as mentioned above, to augment the representativeness of the final data set, quotas were introduced in terms of age, gender, and region, ensuring the final data set matches as closely as possible the survey targets along those dimensions.
Please note, the Completed Survey Rate among Panelists Known to Have Accessed the Survey measure that is calculated below has been derived by Narrative Research. This is an alternate completion measure that is distinct from the standard Participation Rate formula mentioned in the Public Opinion Research Standards document (and which is used when panelists are emailed survey invitations).
Pre-Campaign / Baseline Survey
|
Number of panelists who commenced the survey process (total clicks): |
4,162 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Invalid cases (outside of target population; sensitive occupations): |
337 |
|
||||
|
Blocked from process for quality reasons (e.g., invalid IP address/international; captcha fails; professional survey takers; etc.): |
554 |
|
||||
|
Incomplete surveys: |
240 |
|
||||
|
Quota full (age/gender/region): |
999 |
|
||||
|
Completed survey but removed for quality reasons (e.g., speeders; flatliners, etc.): |
30 |
|
||||
|
Completed surveys/Qualified completes: |
2,002 |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Pre-Campaign Wave Completed Survey Rate among Panelists Known to Have Accessed the Survey = 2,002/4,162= 48.1% |
|
|||||
|
| ||||||
Post-Campaign Survey
|
Number of panelists who commenced the survey process (total clicks): |
3,640 |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Invalid cases (outside of target population; sensitive occupations): |
282 |
|
|
Blocked from process for quality reasons (e.g., invalid IP address/international; captcha fails; professional survey takers; etc.): |
367 |
|
|
Incomplete surveys: |
314 |
|
|
Quota full (age/gender/region): |
629 |
|
|
Completed survey but removed for quality reasons (e.g., speeders; flatliners, etc.): |
48 |
|
|
Completed surveys/Qualified completes: |
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-Campaign Wave Completed Survey Rate among Panelists Known to Have Accessed the Survey = 2,000/3,640= 54.9% |
||
Given that the online methodology utilized a non-probability sample, a margin of error cannot be applied to the results as per the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research – Online Surveys.
Non-Response Bias Analysis
Any survey that is conducted is potentially subject to bias or error. When a survey is conducted with a sample of the population, there are two general classes of bias or error: sampling error, which is quantifiable, and non-sampling error, which is typically not quantifiable. Sampling error arises from the fact that interviews are conducted with only a subset of the population, and thus is it possible that the results obtained from this group of respondents is not reflective of the population as a whole.
In contrast, non-sampling error encompasses a number of different types of errors including coverage error, measurement error, non-response error, and processing error.
No measurement of sampling error can be attributed to the current study, given that the contact records utilized in the data collection process were derived from an online panel of the general public, which is to say, a non-probability sample source. Having stated that, measures were taken in the implementation of the data collection to ensure sufficient completed surveys were obtained from demographic groups traditionally regarded as central in quantitative survey research, such as gender, age, and region/province. The final data set for each survey wave was statistically weighted to closely match the distribution of these dimensions as stated in the 2021 Statistics Canada census (baseline and post-wave). The statistical weights implemented were relatively small, given that the data collected already closely matched the actual distribution of adult Canadians along these demographic dimensions.
With respect to non-sampling error, a number of steps were taken to minimize bias due to these sources. All surveys utilized online interviewing technology to ensure proper survey skip patterns were followed and to minimize errors due to data entry and data capture. The French and English survey instruments from each campaign themselves were pre-tested with a small sample of respondents to ensure the survey material was easily understood by respondents, and that the resultant data were being captured properly. In terms of coverage, the surveys were conducted with an online panel of the Canadian general public 18 years of age or older, based on panel records for the target audience drawn from a commercially available online general public panel.
Appendix B: Recruitment Screener
ECCC: Climate Literacy Advertising Campaign Concept Testing Recruitment Screener – Final
Name: _______________________________________________________________________
Home phone: ________________ Work phone:___________________ Cell: _______________
Email: ________________________________________________________________________
Community: _____________________________ Province: _____________________________
SECTION 1: SCHEDULE & SPECIFICATIONS
NET FOCUS GROUP SCHEDULE
|
Date (2023) |
Group |
AST |
EST |
Participant Time |
Audience* |
Language |
Moder- ator |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tuesday August 15 |
1 |
6:30pm |
5:30pm |
7:00pm/6:30pm/ 5:30pm |
Supportive/Committed East (ON, NU, NB, NS, PEI, NL) |
EN |
LG |
|
2 |
7:00pm |
6:00pm |
7:00pm/6:00pm |
Indifferent/Ambivalent Francophones (QC, NB, ON) |
FR |
CP |
|
|
3 |
8:30pm |
7:30pm |
6:30pm/5:30pm |
Indifferent/Ambivalent Prairies (AB, SK, MB) |
EN |
LG |
|
|
4 |
9:30pm |
8:30pm |
6:30pm/5:30pm |
Indifferent/Ambivalent West (BC, YT, NT) |
EN |
CP |
|
|
Wednesday August 16 |
5 |
6:30pm |
5:30pm |
6:30pm/5:30pm |
Supportive/Committed Francophones (QC, NB, ON) |
FR |
CP |
|
6 |
9:00pm |
8:00pm |
7:00pm/6:00pm |
Supportive/Committed Prairies (AB, SK, MB) |
EN |
LG |
|
|
Thursday August 17 |
7 |
7:00pm |
6:00pm |
7:30pm/7:00pm/ 6:00pm |
Indifferent/Ambivalent East (ON, NU, NB, NS, PEI, NL) |
EN |
LG |
|
8 |
9:30pm |
8:30pm |
6:30pm/5:30pm |
Supportive/Committed West (BC, YT, NT) |
EN |
LG |
* Normalized codes are used to identify provinces and territories
Specification Summary
- Eight (8) online focus groups in total:
- Four (4) groups with General Population based on the “Indifferent” and “Ambivalent” segments (equal split in each group): One (1) English group in each of the following markets: West (BC/YT/NT), Prairies (AB/SK/MB), Ontario, Nunavut & Atlantic (NB/NS/PE/NL); and one (1) French group with residents of QC/NB/ON
- Four (4) groups with General Population based on the “Supportive” and “Committed” segments (equal split in each group): One (1) English group in each of the following markets: West (BC/YT/NT), Prairies (AB/SK/MB), Ontario, Nunavut & Atlantic (NB/NS/PE/NL); and one (1) French group with residents of QC/NB/ON
- Mix of age, gender, household type, and ethnic background in each group.
- Recruit min. 2 Indigenous people in each group.
- Mix of locations and urban/rural in each group.
- Incentive: $100 per participant
- Access to desktop, laptop or tablet. No smartphone use permitted.
- 10 recruits per group
- Each session lasting up to 2 hours, including login time
Breakdown of focus groups by audience and location
|
Segments |
Western BC, YT, NT (English) |
Prairies AB, SK, MB (English) |
Eastern ON, NU, NB, NS, PE, NL (English) |
Francophones QC, NB, ON (French) |
Total Groups |
Total Recruits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Members from the general public based on the “Indifferent” and “Ambivalent” segments |
At least 6 from BC At least 1 from each YT and NT |
At least 4 from AB At least 1 from each SK and MB |
At least 6 from ON At least 2 from ATL |
At least 5 from QC At least 2 from NB or ON |
4 |
40 |
|
Members from the general public based on the “Supportive” and “Committed” segments |
At least 6 from BC At least 1 from each YT and NT |
At least 4 from AB At least 1 from each SK and MB |
At least 6 from ON At least 2 from ATL |
At least 5 from QC At least 2 from NB or ON |
4 |
40 |
|
TOTAL |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
80 |
RECRUITER NOTE - WHEN TERMINATING AN INTERVIEW, SAY: “Thank you very much for your cooperation. We are unable to invite you to participate because we have enough participants who have a similar profile to yours.”
RECRUITER NOTE: If a respondent wishes to verify the validity of the study, please contact either: POR-ROP@ec.gc.ca; OR
Narrative Research: 888-414-1336; focusgroups@narrativeresearch.ca
INSTRUCTIONS APPEAR FOLLOWING EACH QUESTIONS ON THE SCREENER.
SECTION G: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Hello, my name is _______________ and I am contacting you on behalf of Narrative Research, a national market research company. Be assured that we are not trying to sell you anything. As part of a research project we are conducting on behalf of the Government of Canada, we are looking for people to take part in a small online group discussion the week of <INSERT DATE>. Those who qualify and take part in the group discussion will receive a $100 financial incentive. Is this something you might be interested in?
Yes...................................................... 1
No....................................................... 2 THANK & TERMINATE
Would you prefer to continue in English or French? / Préférez-vous continuer en français ou anglais?
RECRUITER NOTE - FOR ENGLISH GROUPS, IF PARTICIPANT WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE IN FRENCH, PLEASE RESPOND WITH: "Malheureusement, nous recherchons des gens qui parlent anglais pour participer à ces groupes de discussion. Désirez-vous que l’on communique avec vous pour participer à une session qui se tiendra en français?" RECORD CONTACT INFO AND PROVIDE TO FRENCH RECRUITER
The purpose of this group discussion is to hear people’s views on advertisements currently being developed by the Government of Canada. Participation in this research is voluntary and completely confidential. No attempt will be made to sell you anything or change your point of view.
[IF ONLINE, PROVIDE A LINK TO NARRATIVE RESEARCH’S PRIVACY POLICY AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE: https://narrativeresearch.ca/privacy-policy/]
[IF BY PHONE: Narrative Research’s privacy policy is available upon request. IF ASKED, PROVIDE PRIVACY POLICY LINK BY PHONE OR RECORD EMAIL WHERE IT WILL BE SENT]
This research is registered with the Canadian Research Insights Council Research Verification Service. [IF NEEDED, SPECIFY: to verify the research, you can visit canadianresearchinsightscouncil.ca/rvs/home/?. The survey registration number is 20230725-NA724]
The format of the online focus group is an informal small group discussion led by a professional moderator. May we ask you a few quick questions to see if you are the type of participant we are looking for? This should take about 5 or 6 minutes.
Yes...................................................... 1
No....................................................... 2 THANK & TERMINATE
SECTION P: PROFILING QUESTIONS
To begin, do you or any member of your household work in or has retired from…?
Marketing/Market Research.................................. 1
Public relations....................................................... 2
Advertising.............................................................. 3
Media (TV, Radio, Newspaper)............................... 4
Graphic Design....................................................... 5
Federal government............................................... 6
Work related to climate or the environment......... 7
P1 INSTRUCTIONS: IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK & TERMINATE
Are you a Canadian citizen at least 18 years old that normally resides in [PROVINCE/TERRITORY]?
Yes...................................................... 1
No....................................................... 2
P2 INSTRUCTIONS: IF NO, THANK & TERMINATE
In which city, town or village do you currently live?
Record name: ______________________
P3 INSTRUCTIONS: RECRUIT A MIX OF URBAN/RURAL IN EACH GROUP
The following five descriptions summarize different ways in which Canadians think about climate change. Which one of the following five descriptions most closely resemble your own thinking? [SINGLE RESPONSE]
1 I strongly believe in climate change and think it is caused by humans. I am extremely worried about it. I am committed to taking climate action and think my actions would have an effect, but I am not particularly hopeful about progress overall.
2 I strongly believe in climate change and think it is mostly caused by humans. I am very worried about it. I am willing to take climate action, and think my actions would have some effect.
3 I mostly believe in climate change and think it is probably caused by humans, but sometimes I feel a bit confused about the issue and am only moderately worried about it. I am somewhat willing to take climate action.
4 I do not have strong feelings about climate change and am a bit uncertain about what causes it. I am not too worried about it. I am not particularly willing to take climate action and am unsure that my actions would have an effect.
5 I do not believe in climate change or that it is caused by humans. I feel no confusion about the issue, and am not at all worried about it. I am very unwilling to take climate action and do not think my actions would have any effect.
P4 INSTRUCTIONS:
Committed = code 1; Supportive = code 2; Ambivalent = code 3; Indifferent = code 4
If code 5, thank & terminate.
Recruit equal mix of each segment in the relevant sessions (e.g., recruit 5 Committed and 5 Supportive in each of the Committed/Supportive sessions and recruit 5 Ambivalent and 5 Indifferent in each of the Ambivalent/Indifferent sessions)
The next questions will allow us to recruit a diversity of participants in each focus group.
Into which age group are you? [READ RESPONSES IN ORDER]
Less than 18....................................... 1
18-24.................................................. 2
25-34.................................................. 3
35-44.................................................. 4
45-54.................................................. 5
55-64.................................................. 6
65 or older......................................... 7
P5 INSTRUCTIONS: Thank & Terminate those less than 18 (Code 1)
In each group, recruit 2-3 who are 18-34 years old; 4-5 who are 35-54 years old; and 2-3 who are 55 and older
Are you…?
Male................................................... 1
Female; or.......................................... 2
Another gender................................. 3
Prefer not to answer.......................... 4
P6 INSTRUCTIONS: Recruit mix in each group
To make sure that we speak to a diversity of people, could you tell me what is your ethnic background? DO NOT READ – CODE ALL THAT APPLY
White...................................................................................................................... 1
Chinese................................................................................................................... 2
South Asian (i.e. East Indian, Pakistani, etc)........................................................... 3
Black....................................................................................................................... 4
Filipino.................................................................................................................... 5
Latin American........................................................................................................ 6
Southeast Asian (i.e. Vietnamese, etc)................................................................... 7
Arab........................................................................................................................ 8
West Asian (i.e. Iranian, Afghan, etc)...................................................................... 9
Korean.................................................................................................................... 10
Japanese................................................................................................................. 11
Indigenous people (First Nations, Métis, or Inuit).................................................. 12
Other (please specify)_________________........................................................... 13
Prefer not to say..................................................................................................... 14
P7 INSTRUCTIONS: Recruit mix. Recruit min of 2 indigenous persons per group.
Which of the following best describes your current household situation? Are you living…?
By yourself.............................................................................................................. 1
As a single parent with your children at least one third of the time...................... 2
With a partner or spouse (without children)......................................................... 3
With a partner or spouse and your children.......................................................... 4
As a blended family (with a spouse or partner, and your and/or their children)... 5
With your parents only or with siblings................................................................. 6
Other (Specify: ______).......................................................................................... 7
What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
Some high school or less................... 1
Completed high school...................... 2
Some college/university.................... 3
Completed college/university........... 4
Post-graduate studies........................ 5
Prefer not to say................................ 8
What is your current employment status?
Working full-time (at least 30 hours per week)..................................................... 1
Working part-time (less than 30 hours per week)................................................. 2
Self-employed........................................................................................................ 3
Retired.................................................................................................................... 4
Unemployed............................................................................................................ 5
Student.................................................................................................................... 6
Other (Specify: _____)............................................................................................ 7
Prefer not to say...................................................................................................... 8
IF EMPLOYED, ASK: In what sector do you work and what is your current occupation?
Sector: ____________________________________
Occupation: ________________________________
P11 INSTRUCTIONS: THANK & TERMINATE IF SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS AS IN P1
IF RETIRED, ASK: In what sector were you last employed before retirement and what was your occupation?
Sector: ____________________________________
Occupation: ________________________________
P12 INSTRUCTIONS: THANK & TERMINATE IF SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS AS IN P1
What was your household’s total income last year? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes? Note that this information will remain confidential.
Under $20,000................................... 1
$20,000 to under $40,000................. 2
$40,000 to under $60,000................. 3
$60,000 to under $80,000................. 4
$80,000 to under $100,000............... 5
$100,000 to under $150,000............. 6
$150,000 or more.............................. 7
Prefer not to say................................ 9
SECTION N: NETFOCUS QUESTIONS
The focus groups for this project will be conducted online on the Zoom platform and will require the use of a laptop or desktop computer, or a computer tablet, connected to high-speed Internet and equipped with a webcam, a microphone and speakers. Note that because of the complexity of the material we are showing on the screen during the focus group, you cannot use a smartphone to access the online session. The screen of those electronics is simply too small for the purpose of this research project.
Do you have access to a laptop or desktop computer, or a computer tablet, with high-speed Internet to take part in this focus group?
Yes, laptop or desktop computer........................... 1
Yes, computer tablet.............................................. 2
No........................................................................... 3
INSTRUCTIONS: IF NO, THANK & TERMINATE
Is the computer or tablet you will use for the focus group equipped with a webcam, a microphone and speakers you will be able to use?
Yes, webcam, microphone, and speakers.............. 1
Yes, microphone and speakers only....................... 2
No........................................................................... 3
INSTRUCTIONS: IF NO, THANK & TERMINATE BUT WEBCAM OPTIONAL FOR REMOTE PARTICIPANTS
You will need to be in a place that is quiet and free of distractions for the duration of the session. This includes being on your own, without pets, children or other people nearby, and in a quiet room. An outdoor area, a vehicle, or a public place are NOT acceptable locations. Are you able to secure a quiet environment without distractions or noises for the duration of the focus group session?
Yes ..................................................... 1
No....................................................... 2
INSTRUCTIONS: IF NO, THANK & TERMINATE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR NF1-NF3 THANK & TERMINATE: Based on your responses, we are unable to invite you to take part in this online focus group, as you do not meet the technical or logistic requirements. We thank you for your interest in this research.
SECTION R: PREVIOUS FOCUS GROUP EXPEREINCE QUESTIONS
I just have a few more questions about your past participation in market research…
Have you ever attended a group discussion or interview for which you received a sum of money?
Yes...................................................... 1 CONTINUE – Max of 5 recruits per group
No ...................................................... 2 Go To SECTION I: Invitation
When was the last time you attended a group discussion or interview? _____________
How many groups or interviews have you attended in the past 5 years? ____________ MAX 4
What was the subject(s) of the focus group(s) or interview? __________________________
THANK AND TERMINATE IF THEY HAVE…
· Been to 5 or more groups in the past 5 years (max 4 groups/interviews attended)
· Attended a focus group in the past six months.
· Ever attended a group discussion on advertising and communications materials
SECTION 1: INVITATION
Based on your responses so far, we would like to invite you to participate in a small group discussion that will be conducted online at <INSERT TIME> on <INSERT DATE>. The session will bring together 8 to 10 people and it will last up to 2 hours. We will send you a link to join the online focus group via Zoom and during the session, you will provide feedback on advertising currently being developed by the Government of Canada. In appreciation for your time to attend the focus group, you will receive $100 after the session.
Are you available and interested in taking part in this focus group?
Yes...................................................... 1
No ...................................................... 2
INSTRUCTIONS: IF NO, THANK AND TERMINATE
The discussion in which you will be participating will be video recorded for research purposes only. Be assured that your comments and responses are strictly confidential and that your name will not be included in the research report. Are you comfortable with the discussion being video recorded?
Yes...................................................... 1
No ...................................................... 2
INSTRUCTIONS: IF NO, THANK AND TERMINATE
There may be employees from the Government of Canada and the marketing agency they are working with, who will be listening in on the discussion. They will not be given the last names of participants. Are you comfortable with having observers?
Yes...................................................... 1
No ...................................................... 2
INSTRUCTIONS: IF NO, THANK AND TERMINATE
Which of the two official languages, English or French, do you speak most often on a regular basis? [SINGLE RESPONSE]
English................................................ 1
French................................................ 2
Both equally....................................... 3
INSTRUCTIONS: MUST ANSWER FRENCH (CODE 2) FOR FRANCOPHONE GROUPS
The group discussion will be held [GROUPS 2 & 5: in French] [ALL OTHER GROUPS: in English]. Participants will be asked to read simple text, write simple responses and/or review images during the session. Are you able to take part in these activities [GROUPS 2 & 5: in French] [ALL OTHER GROUPS: in English] on your own, without assistance?
Yes...................................................... 1
No....................................................... 2
Unsure................................................ 8
INSTRUCTIONS: IF “NO” OR UNSURE, THANK & TERMINATE
There will be someone available to assist you with the login process to join the online session. There will be a professional facilitator conducting the focus groups, and they will provide time during the session for participants to share their opinions. Are there any accommodations you may require to ensure you are able to participate in this research?
RECORD COMMENTS: ______________________
16 INSTRUCTIONS: IF ACCOMMODATIONS ARE REQUIRED, VERIFY WITH NARRATIVE RESEARCH BEFORE CONFIRMING PARTICIPANT
Could we please confirm the email address where we can send you the detailed instructions for logging in to the group?
Record email address (and verify): ________________________________________________.
We will send you by email the log-in instructions at least 1 day in advance of the group. The group discussion will begin promptly at <TIME> and will last up to 2 hours. Please log in on time to ensure that the session is not delayed. If you arrive late, we will not be able to include you in the discussion and will not provide you with the incentive.
As mentioned, we will be pleased to provide everyone who participates with $100, provided by e-Transfer or cheque, as you’d prefer. It takes approximately 5 business days to receive an incentive by e-Transfer or approximately 2-3 weeks following your participation to receive an incentive by cheque.
Would you prefer to receive your incentive by e-Transfer or cheque?
e-Transfer.......................................... 1
Cheque............................................... 2
[IF PREFER TO RECEIVE INCENTIVE BY E-TRANSFER – CODE 1 IN QI7] Could you please confirm the e-mail address where you would like the e-transfer sent after the focus groups?
Email address:________________________________________________________________
And please confirm the spelling of your name: _______________________________________
The e-transfer password will be provided to you via email following the group.
[IF PREFER TO RECEIVE INCENTIVE BY CHEQUE – CODE 2 IN QI7] Could I have the mailing address where you would like the cheque mailed after the focus groups?
Mailing address:_______________________________________________________________
City: ________________________________________________________________________
Province: ____________________________________Postal Code: _____________________
And please confirm the spelling of your name: _______________________________________
As these are very small groups and with even one person missing, the overall success of the group may be affected, I would ask that once you have decided to attend that you make every effort to do so. If you are unable to take part in the study, please call_____ (collect) at ________as soon as possible so a replacement may be found. Please do not arrange for your own replacement.
So that we can call you to remind you about the focus group or contact you should there be any last-minute changes, can you please confirm your name and contact information for me? [CONFIRM INFORMATION ALREADY COLLECTED AND CHANGE/COMPLETE AS NECESSARY]
First Name: ____________________________________________
Last Name: ____________________________________________
Email: ________________________________________________
Cell Phone: ____________________________________________
Home Phone: __________________________________________
Work Phone: ___________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS: If the respondent refuses to give his/her first or last name or phone number please assure them that this information will be kept strictly confidential in accordance with the privacy law and that it is used strictly to contact them to confirm their attendance and to inform them of any changes to the focus group. IF THEY STILL REFUSE THANK & TERMINATE.
Thank you for your interest in our study. We look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions!
ATTENTION RECRUITERS
Recruit 10 per group – including 2 stand-by participants
CHECK QUOTAS
Ensure participant has a good speaking (overall responses) ability-If in doubt, DO NOT INVITE
Do not put names on profile sheet unless you have a firm commitment.
Repeat the date, time and verify email before hanging up.
CONFIRMING – DAY BEFORE GROUP
1 Confirm in person with the participant the day prior to the group– do not leave a message unless necessary
2 Confirm all key qualifying questions
3 Confirm date and time
4 Confirm they have received the login instructions
Appendix C: Discussion Guide
Environment and Climate Change Canada
Climate Literacy Advertising Campaign Concept Testing
Moderator’s Guide – v2
Study Goals (Confidential – Not read to participants)
- Evaluate the advertising campaign’s proposed creative concepts with campaign target audiences prior to going in market, in terms of:
- How does the target audience feel after seeing these advertisements?
- Do the target audiences identify the main message of the creatives?
- What does the target audience think these advertisements are trying to achieve?
- Do the creatives get the attention of the target audience? Do they find the creatives memorable?
- Are the creatives missing anything?
- Do the target audiences identify the “call-to-action?”
- Would the ads motivate participants to do something/take action?
- Which images does the target audience find the most memorable/did they like the best and which ones are the least memorable/did they like the least?
- Provide insights to assist the department in selecting a creative concept for production, based on the response from target groups.
- Identify potential modifications to the selected creative concept based on insights outlined in the top-line report.
INTRODUCTION (10 MINUTES)
- Welcome: Introduce Narrative Research, self and function of a moderator (keep on time/on topic).
- Topic/Sponsor/Length: For the next 90 minutes or so, I’d like to explore your thoughts on different concepts that are currently being considered by the Government of Canada for an advertising campaign on climate change and climate adaptation.
- Participants’ Role: All opinions are important; no right/wrong answers; need to understand agreement/disagreement.
- Confidentiality: Individual comments are confidential; no names in report; voluntary participation; ask participants to keep content of discussion in confidence.
- Logistics: Session video recording; government employees & marketing firm representatives as observers, will not be taking part in the discussion.
- Platform Tools (Zoom): Raise hand; chat; mute/unmute; rejoining the audio if necessary.
- Participant Introduction: In which city or community do you live; who lives in your home; and what you like to do in your spare time.
CLIMATE LITERACY (8 MINUTES)
Before I share the advertising campaign topics with you, as the first part of our discussion, I would like to get a better understanding of your own views of climate change. You’ll see three questions appear on your screen in just a moment. For each item, please rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being ‘poor’ and 10 being ‘excellent’ your level of understanding with regards to climate change.
[POLL A – PERCEPTIONS]
- Q1. How well do you understand the causes of climate change? [RESPONSES: Scale from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent)]
- Q2. How well do you understand the impacts or effects of climate change (including its impact on weather, human health, plants/animals, cities/communities, etc.)? [RESPONSES: Scale from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent)]
- Q3. How well do you understand what can be done about climate change? These can be actions that would help slow the effects of climate change or help people adapt to it. [RESPONSES: Scale from 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent)]
CREATIVE TEST CREATING TESTING (60 MINUTES)
As I mentioned earlier, I’d like to show you a number of ideas that could be used by the Government of Canada for climate change and adaptation. We will look at three different concepts, or ideas, each including one video. The ads are still in development, and they have not yet been produced. As I am showing you the concepts, you will have to envision what the final ads would look like.
We will watch and discuss each concept one at a time. Hold your thoughts as I show you the videos. Once I am done, I will ask for your individual opinion before we discuss the concept as a group. Please pay attention to both the message and how it is communicated, as we will be discussing and focusing on those aspects. MODERATOR PRESENTS EACH CONCEPT ONE AT A TIME – ROTATE ORDER OF CONCEPTS ACROSS GROUPS
Concept A: Outdo you (DO NOT PROVIDE NAME OF CONCEPTS TO PARTICIPANTS)
Concept B: New normal
Concept C: Childhood champs
Campaign Presentation Order
|
Audience |
West/North |
Prairies |
East (ON, Atlantic, NU) |
Francophones |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Supportive/Committed |
G8: A-B-C |
G6: B-C-A |
G1: C-A-B |
G5: A-B-C |
|
Indifferent/Ambivalent |
G4: C-A-B |
G3: A-B-C |
G7: B-C-A |
G2: C-A-B |
AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE CONCEPT: Before we talk about this idea, take a moment to answer, each on your own, the questions you see on the screen. Keep in mind, I can see your responses, but other participants will not.
[POLL B-D – OPINIONS CONCEPT A-C]
Indicate on a 1-10 scale the extent to which the statement aligns with what you think of this concept (where 1 means “no, not at all” and 10 means “yes, absolutely”):
- [ATTENTION] Q1. This video grabs my attention.
- [MEMORABILITY] Q2. I would remember this video.
- [MOTIVATIONAL] Q3. This video makes me want to do something.
- [CREDIBILITY] Q4. I believe what this video is saying.
Then write a short response to answer the following question:
- [MESSAGE CLARITY] Q5. What is the main message communicated in this video?
AFTER THE EXERCISE: Now let’s talk about your reactions together…
- Attention: What, if anything, grabs your attention? Why? Why not?
- Message: What is this saying? What is the government trying to achieve with this ad? Is anything surprising? Have you learned anything?
- Design: What do you think of the way the message is communicated – the words, the images? Which images do you like best/least? Why?
- Clarity/Appropriateness: Is anything unclear, confusing or problematic?
- Which elements or visuals in this ad are most effective in encouraging you to take on actions to fight climate change?
- What elements or images in this concept particularly stood out to you as emphasizing the importance of joint effort in addressing climate change?
- Personal Relevance/Appeal: How would you describe the target audience? Do you feel compelled by what it is saying? Why/why not?
- Tone/Feelings: How does it make you feel? What emotions does the video elicit? What is the tone? Is it appropriate given the topic?
- Call-to-Action: What impact does the message have on you? Does it change how you feel about anything? Does it motivate you to take action? If so, what would you do? Why? What else is this asking of people? What would make the ad feel (even) more compelling to you – in terms of images/message/tone?
- How effectively does this concept communicate the idea that taking on climate actions together can help us fight climate change?
Now let’s have a look at the next concept. REPEAT POLL/DISCUSSION FOR THE OTHER CONCEPTS.
FINAL CHOICES & BEST CHANNELS (10 MINUTES)
Now that we’ve seen all three concepts, I’d like to know which one you think is the strongest. Take a moment to complete a poll:
[POLL E – PREFERENCE]
- Q1. Which concept is most likely to make you think about how your own actions influence climate change? [RESPONSES: A, B, C]
- Q2. Which of the three concepts do you feel most effectively communicates the idea that taking on climate actions together can help us fight climate change? [RESPONSES: A, B, C]
- Q3. Which concept would make you go to the website to find out more about taking on climate actions? [RESPONSES: A, B, C]
AFTER THE EXERCISE: Now let’s talk about this together…
- Which concept is the strongest? Why that one?
- Were there elements of the other concepts that you liked? If so, what?
- Did any of the 3 concepts make you feel more or less responsible for contributing to the causes and solutions of climate change?
CLOSING DISCUSSION (2-3 MINUTES)
We only have a couple minutes left. For the last part of our discussion, thinking to the future:
- What one or two things do you think are most important for people to know about climate change?
- Do people need to understand climate change in order to take action? Why/why not?
- What do you think the government can do to support you in making changes in your life that help tackle climate change?
THANKS & CLOSURE
That’s all my questions; thank you for taking part in our discussion. We will follow up with you by email regarding the incentive. Note that once finalized, the study report for this project will be available to the public through a government agency called Library and Archives Canada.
Appendix D:
Materials Shared During Groups
