# EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups

Report of Findings

Prepared for:

March 2005

Prepared by:



# PRR, Inc.

# Table of Contents

Executive Summary

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction & Purpose

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Focus Group Methodology

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Findings

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Appendix A: Participant Profiles

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix B: Sample Moderator Guide

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix C: Proposed Fuel Economy Labels

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

# EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups

# Report of Findings 1 

# Executive Summary

With increased gas prices fuel economy has been becoming and may become an even more important feature when making a car buying decision. Currently, buyers can make fuel economy comparisons by reviewing the Fuel Economy Label that appears on all new vehicles, as it is mandated by EPA. A series of 10 focus groups were conducted across five cities throughout the United States to gather qualitative information that would assist EPA in enhancing the current fuel economy label. The following is a brief summary of the main findings from this research, followed by a more detailed report of the overall findings and recommen

dations.



# Yes, it is worth the effort to revise the current fuel economy label
The current label contains useful information; however the display and verbal descriptions on the current label are in need of an update. Overall, nearly all the participants agreed that revising the current label would be a good idea, especially after viewing the newly proposed labels.



# Of the proposed new fuel economy labels,
label #1 is the favorite
Four newly designed labels were presented to participants, and label #1 was unde

niably the most preferred label across all the groups. Label #1 provided the type of information that was most requested as missing from the current label.



# The City vs. Highway distinction
is understood and must remain intact
In any revision of the current label, participants want the city vs. highway mile

age estimate distinction to remain intact. Participants understand that city and highway mileage estimates represent the actual driving conditions, not the type of road one drives on. They also understand that the estimates are just that; estimates

. They do not expect to actually obtain the mileage on the label because they kno w that mileage is contingent upon a variety of factors such as the age of the car, how someone drives, regional traffic conditions, etc. They understand that the city vs. highway mileage estimates are guidelines for comparison purposes, and they are used to seeing the estimates presented this way.



# Annual fuel cost information has no meaning currently, but is appreciated if a reference is provided

The annual fuel cost estimate on the current label lacks a reference as to how the estimate is generated. The estimate is not comparable between vehicles and does not provide participants with a “true” indication of how much the vehicle will cost them annually. When additional reference information (estimated annual miles and estimated fuel cost per gallon) was presented on the proposed label, partici

pants felt the annual fuel cost estimate became more relevant and important. Current Label

Proposed Label #1

# 2 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# Overall there are mixed reactions about the ‘fine print’ on both the current and proposed labels
On the current label the “actual mileage will vary with...” statement contains important information to participants if they actually read it, but the statement is hard to understand and comes across as a disclaimer. And the “for comparison shopping” statement is unclear and confusing to participants. In fact most partici

pants admitted they had never paid attention to this information before.

After seeing the proposed labels they preferred some of the changes to the “actual mileage will vary” statement, but many were still confused by the “comparison shopping” statement. Overall participants preferred fine print statements that ex

plained how calculations were generated, but not the fine print that provided more explanation than was necessary or understandable.



# Mixed initial reaction to the environmental performance indicators on the proposed labels, but may be useful in the future
Participants either liked or disliked the environmental performance indicators in the newly proposed labels. Many disliked the indicators merely because they did not understand the information that was being presented to them. Many did not understand what a green house gas was, and they were unsure as to how to inter

pret the scores. Towards the end of the discussion though many began to agree that the environmental indicators would become more important in the future, and they would probably pay more attention if these indicators were displayed on

the label.



# EPA as a source is unknown, but the logo on the proposed label adds credibility to the information
Participants are largely unaware that EPA is the source behind the current fuel economy label. However, once made aware of this fact, participants were not nec

essarily surprised and were relieved that the information is not solely provided by the manufacturers. When viewing the proposed labels they clearly noticed the EPA logo, and indicated the logo adds credibility to the fuel economy information that is provided about vehicles.



# Overall fuel economy information is important, but not the most important when buying a car
Nearly all participants agree that the information provided on the current and proposed labels is important, however when they buy a car fuel economy is not the most important factor. They admit that buying a car is an ‘emotional’ experience, and even though they may choose a car with low mileage this is cancelled out by the cars many other appealing features. Cars with high fuel economy are often viewed as cheap, not aesthetically pleasing, and unsafe.

# Report of Findings 3 

# Introduction & Purpose

With increased gas prices fuel economy has been becoming and may become an even more important feature when making a car buying decision. Currently, buyers can make fuel economy comparisons by reviewing the Fuel Economy Label that appears on all new vehicles, as it is mandated by EPA.

The EPA’s Certification and Compliance Division (CCD) is conducting research on automobile buyer response to these labels. While estimates have been a useful tool for comparing the fuel economy of different vehicles, the test procedures on which they are based have been in place since l970 and have been adjusted only once, twenty years ago. EPA has received significant comment from their stakeholders as well as the public in support of updating the methods by which the estimates are calculated. As a result, EPA has begun a collaborative process to assure that more credible fuel economy information is available to consumers.

Focus groups were conducted to gather qualitative information that would assist EPA in enhancing the current fuel economy label. The key objectives of the focus groups included:

• Determine the level of public awareness and knowledge of the fuel economy

label, including knowledge and credibility of sponsorship

• Determine consumer reaction to the current label/information, including

comprehension of existing elements

• Identify any elements that are difficult to read or understand

• Determine consumer reaction to proposed label/information concepts, includ

ing comprehension of the elements

# 4 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups

# Report of Findings 5 

# A series of ten focus groups were conducted to understand automobile buyer’s response to the current and newly proposed fuel economy labels.

Focus groups are a preferred methodology to uncover authentic core values and beliefs. They can provide access to the underlying reasoning behind people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. It is important to caution that focus groups are limited in their ability to extrapolate fi ndings to larger populations (such as can be done with random sample surveys).

In order to ensure an appropriate mix of participants and account for possible regional differences two groups were conducted in each of five areas representing different population densities and geographic regions of the country. These five

areas included:

• Kansas City, Missouri

• Detroit, Michigan

• Los Angeles, California

• Atlanta, Georgia

• Boston, Massachusetts

Each group lasted two hours and had a maximum of nine participants (see Ap

pendix A). Moderator guides (see Appendix B for a sample guide) were used to structure the discussions however, the dynamic nature of the focus group process leads to the same topic areas being covered, albeit in similar but not identical ways. Audio and video recording of all groups were conducted and all groups were observed from behind one-way mirrors.

Participants were further screened for the following additional qualifications:

• Person had not participated in a focus group during the last six months.

• No one in their household worked in the automobile sales field or business

• Person in the household selected had purchased a new vehicle in the last three

years or had been shopping for one in the past year

Finally, the groups were comprised of a mix of males and females from various ages, price they paid for their most recent new car, and the type of new car they had purchased (SUV’s, compacts, sedans, etc). 

# Focus Group Methodology

# 6 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups

# Report of Findings 7 

# The City vs. Highway distinction is remembered above all
Nearly all participants remembered a fuel economy label being on the last new car they purchased. Without showing them the label, most of the respondents specifi

cally remembered a city vs. highway distinction in how the average mileage for the vehicle was displayed. Other information remembered included:

• Annual fuel cost • General fuel economy information • Size of gas tank • Picture of a gas pump • Features of the car (engine size, color, etc.) • Type of fuel

Information on the quality of the vehicles emissions was specifically remembered in the Los Angeles groups.



# YES, IT IS WORTH THE EFFORT
TO REVISE THE CURRENT LABEL

Once the current label was displayed many participants freely provided comments and suggestions to improve the label. This was true for all the focus groups. In addition towards the end of the sessions, participants were asked if they felt it was

worth the effort for EPA to revise the old label. 1 

# Most of the participants agreed that revising the current label would be a good idea, especially after they viewed proposed labels. However, those that agreed that the label should be revised also believed EPA should be prudent in how much they spend for this revision.

An interesting comment by one participant in Kansas City suggested that instead of spending the effort on revising the label, money should be spent on improving the fuel economy of cars that are manufactured today. Putting pressure, or man

dates on the manufacturers to make more fuel efficient vehicles seemed to be the better solution for this participant, and others in the group agreed.

Overall, the participants in all the focus groups agreed on many suggestions for improving the current fuel economy label. The following section details some of the specific items that participants felt needed to be changed or updated on the

current fuel economy label.



# Annual Fuel Cost information has no meaning
Consistent across all the focus groups, participants indicated that the ‘estimated annual fuel cost’ information on the current label is meaningless to them. They had no idea what the current annual fuel number was based on. “How many miles a year was the estimate based on, and at what fuel cost?” Many indicated this

information was useless to them unless there was some sort of reference as to how

the cost estimate was calculated. Without the reference information, the number is not comparable between vehicles and it does not provide participants a ‘true’

indication of how much the vehicle will cost them annually. 

# Findings

“ The estimated annual

fuel cost doesn’t mean

anything...people don’t

drive the same.”

— Detroit

____________________________________

1 This question was only presented to Detroit, Kansas City, and Los Angeles. 

# Current Label

# 8 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# City vs. Highway mileage distinctions are clear and useful guidelines
Overall participants in all the groups agreed that the city vs. highway distinction on the current label is very useful information. Many of the participants realized that these scores were not perfect, in that they may never achieve the actual mile

age stated on the label. They understood the best use of these mileage estimates was as a guide for comparison purposes when shopping for a new car.

Participants also understood that the mileage numbers were not perfect because there is no way to create mileage numbers that are “real” across all situations. How someone drives, the age of the car, and regional traffic conditions all effect the mileage of the car and participants reluctantly understood this. They did hope for an improved and possibly more regional estimate, but understood that no estimate would perfectly reflect all driving conditions. However, in Boston and in Atlanta, there was concern over recent news articles that referenced the impreciseness of EPA mileage estimates. These concerns were voiced by one or two people in sev

eral of these groups, but discussion of these concerns were put off until the end of the groups so as not to overly influence the discussion or group dynamics.

Even though most participants reluctantly understand that the mileage numbers were estimates, and not ‘perfect,’ many expressed interest in how the numbers were generated. The current label does not give any indication as to how the mileage estimates are calculated. Some suggestions included providing on the label the conditions the mileage estimate was based on. Again, as with the annual fuel cost estimate this would provide some sort of reference as to what they could expect.

The participants made it very clear in all the groups that they know the distinction between city and highway driving mileage estimates. City driving means “stop and go” conditions and highway driving means “driving at a high speed limit without slow downs.” To confirm this distinction, participants were shown 4 driving sce

narios and asked to indicate whether the scenario depicted city or highway mileage

estimates. 

# “ Everyone assumes

these (the mileage esti

mates) are averages.”

— Kansas City

“ The estimates are good

for shopping around.”

“ There is no way to get

more specific... it is

too hard to make the

numbers more real.”

— Detroit

“ You are lucky if you

get these numbers... it

has to be under perfect

conditions.”

— Kansas City

“ It varies with the

person and how they

drive.. it is not always

30 (mileage) for every

one.”

— Boston

Without hesitation, participants agreed that driving in scenario A means you can expect ‘city’ mileage estimates, or worse. Even though the scenario was technically on a highway, participants understood that because there was ‘stop and go’ condi

tions city mileage estimates were expected. Scenario B very clearly depicted ‘high

way’ mileage estimates. Scenario C again clearly represented the kind of conditions where participants expect to achieve the ‘city’ mileage estimate. Lastly, for scenario D participants agreed the mileage in this condition would probably fall somewhere between the ‘city’ and ‘highway’ estimates. In the end, there was no confusion that the city and highway mileage estimates represented actual driving conditions. A B

D C

# Report of Findings 9 

# “Actual mileage will vary with...” statement is important, but seems like a confusing disclaimer
This statement seems to be clarifying the meaning behind the numbers, and reiterating that the estimates are ‘averages’ and subject to varying driving condi

tions. However, many of the participants agreed that the actual statement on the label failed to make this clarification. In fact, many participants admitted they had never read or paid attention to this statement before. When forced to read it for the discussion, many felt the way the statement is written makes them suspicious of where the numbers come from, and exactly how they were generated.

It was agreed that making the clarification that the estimates will vary based on driving conditions was a necessary reminder, but that providing only some detail

without clarifi cation only made the statement misleading, as if it was a legal dis

claimer.



# Unclear who creates the label, but if it is the EPA that is okay
When asked if they knew where the mileage estimate information came from, there were varying responses from participants. Only a handful of participants out of all the groups combined seemed to have a clear understanding that the labels were from EPA. Many indicated they thought the labels were from:

• Manufacturers

• Dealers
• Consumer Reports
• JD Powers • Gas companies • Government agency of some sort

Many participants were not overly surprised to find out EPA provided the label,

which also made them feel better that it wasn’t manufacturers. However, one group in Los Angeles was more leery of EPA, because they did not align them

selves politically with the current federal administration. Many did make the sug

gestion that knowing exactly how EPA is involved would make the estimates more reassuring, particularly because on the label the term “results reported to the EPA” implies the estimates are from manufacturers. The fact the estimates are actually from the manufacturers, but under strict EPA guidelines and random testing was not known, nor was it apparent.

The EPA logo on the current label was also not noticeable to most of the partici

pants. Many were confused by the DOE and EPA markings next to the logo. Did this mean the information was provided by the DOE or EPA? The logo did not clearly indicate on the label that EPA was the source behind the information.



# Mixed reaction about the ‘for comparison shopping’ statement
Clarification was almost always needed when discussing the ‘for comparison shop

- 

# “ There needs to be

more clarification

about the meaning of

these numbers.”

— Detroit

“ I would think they have

to say this to cover

themselves.”

— Boston

“ Make it clear that the

information is not

coming from the

manufacturer... EPA

is better than the

manufacturers.”

— Detroit

“ What really is the

deal... what is the

EPA involvement?”

“ The use of the term

‘EPA guidelines’ is

confusing.”

— Los Angeles

# 10 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# ping’ statement that is on the current label. Many participants expressed confu

sion, and admitted they did not understand what the statement was explaining. Once the statement was explained, some participants felt the information was necessary and important for comparison shopping purposes, others felt it was still confusing and unnecessary. Exactly how they could use this information to compare cars was unclear (particularly in the Kansas City, Detroit and Los Angeles groups), because the definition of the classification system was unknown. There was no definition of what a “compact” car is. It was suggested by some that the

entire statement could be removed from the label.



# Some do measure their fuel economy, but mostly due to habit or for maintenance checks
Not everyone in the focus groups measured their own fuel economy, but some did. A few even indicated they kept track of their mileage every time they filled up with gas. This helped them to track if the mileage was dropping, which might indicate a car maintenance issue. Some participants, particularly women, indicated that they would ‘notice’ their mileage once in while because it was displayed on their instrument panel. A few also mentioned they particularly tracked their mileage while on road trips, as this helped to gauge how far they could travel before their next fill-up.

Most of participants didn’t really seem to be concerned about tracking their mileage to compare to the mileage estimates on the current label. As previously mentioned most of them seem to recognize that the current estimates are just that;

estimates . No one really expected that they might actually get the estimated mile

age, and that was okay. However, one participant in Los Angeles was particularly annoyed that his earlier model hybrid did not attain the mileage that was repre

sented on the label. This participant even went to great efforts to research why this had occurred, and had spoken to the manufacturer at length.



# Many suggestions recommended for the current label
Overall participants agreed that most of the information, particularly the city vs. highway mileage estimates, are important to provide on the label. However, some suggested that the range indicated in the “actual mileage will vary with” statement should be displayed instead of the one estimate for city and highway driving. Other suggestions included:

• Indicate the size of the vehicle gas tank
• Provide safety information
• Provide an overall fuel economy rating (like the system used to rate energy

usage for appliances)
• Clarify how the information on fuel economy was gathered- make references

that are meaningful
• Make the important information, that you want me to read, bigger
• Emphasize more that a complete fuel economy guide is available
• Emphasize the fuel economy website
• Indicate the type of gas that is used, or recommended, to get the estimated

mileage
• Indicate for how long in the life of the car I should expect this mileage
• Regional estimates instead of national ones 

# “ The comparison shop

ping statement is

‘verbal vomit’... I don’t

want to think that

much.”

— Detroit

“ All the information in

the center part (small

text on the label) is

‘Greek’ to me.”

— Kansas City

“ Fuel economy is an

indicator of how your

car is running.”

— Boston

“ The small print tells me

you don’t want me to

read it... it is manda

tory but not important

information.”

— Detroit

# Report of Findings 11 

# OF THE PROPOSED NEW FUEL ECONOMY LABELS, LABEL #1 IS THE FAVORITE

Four newly designed labels were shown to the participants after the discussion about the current label. Label #1 was presented first, #3 second, then #2, and lastly #4 (Full page versions of the labels are in Appendix C). Label #1 was undeniably the most preferred label across all groups. This was mostly due to the fact that participants felt label #1 displayed most all the information they had requested be changed about the current label. In fact participants in one of the focus groups joked that after the discussion on the current label when the moderator left the room to see if observers had questions (5 minutes), they were instead quickly cre

ating label #1. The following section highlights what participants indicated as the most improved aspects of the new labels, and items that still needed improvement.



# City vs. Highway distinction must remain intact
Maintaining the current ‘city’ vs. ‘highway’ mileage estimate distinction was clearly preferred by almost all participants. Prior to presenting the new labels, a few par

ticipants had recommended showing the range of mileage, but when they saw the range displayed in Label #3, they instantly disliked it. Participants strongly agreed that displaying the range was not as appealing as they thought it might be. The range displayed on Label #3 was too large of a range, it was not a number they could easily compare to other cars, and the range conveyed that the mileage was unknown. Many also stated that they were used to seeing the mileage presented as city vs. highway, they knew what the distinction meant, and that changing this would be very hard for them to adjust to.



# New Estimated Annual Fuel Cost Appreciated

One of the most liked features of Label #1 was that the estimated annual fuel cost included information on how the number was calculated. The estimate provided a reference that was more meaningful, and comparable to other vehicles. When label #2 was presented, participants were very unhappy that the information explaining the estimated annual fuel cost was missing. 

# “ I don’t like the range at

all... stick with the city

vs. highway groups.”

— Detroit Indicated as Favorite Label

#1 #2 #3 #4

Boston 13 1 2 0

Atlanta 11 2 1 0

Detroit 17 0 0 0

Kansas City 14 1 0 1

Los Angeles 10 6 0 0

Total 65 11 3 1

Proposed Label #1

Proposed Label #2

Proposed Label #3

Proposed Label #4

____________________________________

1 This question was only presented to Detroit, Kansas City, and Los Angeles.

# 12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# Mixed reaction about ‘fine print’
Labels #2 & #4 are basically the same as Labels #1 & #3, except that they contain less ‘fine print.’ Overall the groups consistently agreed they did not want a lot of ‘fine print.’ However one participant in Detroit, and others agreed that ‘fine print’ also makes them feel good about the information. ‘Fine print’ is associated with being a disclaimer, so if the label has a disclaimer that means the informa

tion provided is probably more legitimate. In other words ‘fine print’ provides an appearance of legitimacy.

Most of the participants agreed that the fine print indicating how annual fuel costs were calculated must be there, or the estimate is useless information. Many also preferred the “actual mileage will vary depending on driving conditions” statement in label #1, to the “actual mileage will vary” in label #2. The statement in label #1 was more true and simple, whereas the statement in label #2 was viewed as over simplified and open to various interpretations.

The ‘results reported to EPA’ statement in label #1 was also not a strongly pre

ferred statement. Some thought it was important information; others felt the state

ment still didn’t explain enough as to how the numbers were generated. The “for comparison shopping” statement was also preferred by some because they found it useful to compare to other cars, but really disliked by others. Those disliking the ‘comparison shopping’ statement felt the statement was contradictory to the ‘results reported to EPA’ statement, that there was no definition of what ‘compact’ meant, and the statement was still very unclear to them. Even towards the end of the discussion, many still did not understand the information being pr esented in the ‘comparison shopping’ statement.

In the end it seems safe to conclude that participants prefer the ‘fine print’ that explains how calculations are generated, but not the ‘fine print’ that provides more explanation than is necessary or understandable. Some also indicated that if the information in the ‘fine print’ is important then it should be bigger, as many agreed they never had and probably never will read the actual ‘fine print’ the next time they buy a car.



# Mixed initial reaction about the environmental performance indicators, but may be useful in the future
Participants either liked or disliked the environmental performance indicators in the newly proposed labels. The ‘green house gas score’ indicator was meaningless to most of the participants, in that they did not understand what a green house gas was. However in Detroit, Kansas City, and Los Angeles participants were asked if the indicator made more sense if it was called the ‘global warming score.’ Again there was a mixed reaction to this indicator. For some the term ‘global warming’ gave more meaning to the score, but they still were not sure if this was useful information. And many in Detroit, Kansas City and Los Angeles indicated they weren’t sure how to interpret the indicators; was a high score good or bad?

After seeing label #2, many in Detroit, Kansas City and Los Angeles liked the environmental performance indicators slightly more because of the “to protect the environment, choose vehicles with higher scores” statement. (However, in Boston and Atlanta most participants thought this additional information was not neces

- 

# “ It is an educational

process that has to be

talked about. We really

don’t know what those

(ENV Indicators) mean.”

— Atlanta “ I don’t read the little

stuff there...I just look

at the 23 & 30 (city vs.

hwy mileage)... that

is all.”

— Atlanta

“ They don’t take into

consideration that

most people tend not

to read small print.”

— Los Angeles

# Report of Findings 13 

# sary.) This ‘fine print’ told them how to interpret and understand the information presented. However they were still uncertain about the usefulness of the environ

mental indicators. When pointing out (in Detroit, Kansas City and Los Angeles) that the “greenhouse gas score” was the same as an overall ‘fuel economy’ score, most all the participants then agreed that ‘yes’ this was important information, and the label should depict this interpretation.

Those in Los Angeles and Boston liked the “air pollution score” slightly more than participants in the other cities, due to their being made aware of air pollution issues in their region. Those in Kansas City, Detroit, and Atlanta became more accepting of these indicators towards the end of the discussion. In fact, several of the participants in these cities indicated that this information would become more important in the future, and they would probably pay more attention to it if they started seeing it displayed. They realized it was information they just had not been “programmed” to be aware of yet. Again they stressed that if the environmental indicators are important, then they should be on the label because in time people will find the information useful and will come to expect it. Similar to how people expect to see the ‘city’ vs. ‘highway’ mileage distinctions.



# EPA logo more noticeable and adds credibility
The EPA logo was definitely more visible and noticeable on all the newly pro

posed labels, and participants agreed this was good. The logo indicated legitimacy, and was synonymous with a ‘seal of approval.’ Even though participants saw the new logo as a ‘seal of approval’ it was clear to them the approval was in regards to information provided about a particular vehicle, not to endorse that vehicle. Participants also welcomed the addition of the website address to research more fuel economy information.

Participants also very much appreciated the title, ‘fuel economy information’ at the top of all the new labels. However, those in Boston and Atlanta were in agreement that if the environmental performance information were to be included in a new label then the title at the top of the label should reflect both the fuel economy and environmental performance information. Lastly, participants expressed that the new gas tank image, the overall professional looking layout, and simplification of the information that was in all four of the proposed labels was preferred over the

current label.



# Some information is still missing on the newly proposed labels
Even though the new labels were definitely preferred over the current fuel econo

my label many still felt that some important information was missing. Particularly for the males in the groups, information such as the engine type, make and model, and type of gas recommended for the vehicle being rated was missing. The current label presents some of this information, and even though the fuel economy label is on the actual vehicle sticker where all of this information is displayed, these par

ticipants would also prefer it be on the fuel economy label as well. At a minimum the make and model of the vehicle being rated should be on the fuel economy label to ensure that the wrong label was not placed on the car. Other information participants would like to see on the new labels are: 

# “ I wouldn’t feel good

about buying that car if

it had a bad rating for

the environment and

overall fuel economy.”

— Kansas City

“ The EPA logo looks

more like a ‘seal of

approval,’ than when it

was in the gas tank.”

— Atlanta

# 14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# • Gas tank capacity

• How the EPA regulates or provides the guidelines for measuring fuel economy

• If the ‘comparison shopping’ statement is on the label the classification should

be explained

• How the estimates are calculated and under what conditions

• Interpretation of the environmental indicator scores



# Overall fuel economy information is important, but not the most important feature when buying a car
Most all of the participants agreed across all the groups that the information provided and presented in new label design #1 was preferred over the current label. Most all participants also agreed on the importance of EPA continuing to provide and regulate this information, because with the changes in fuel prices, this information will become even more useful. Most even half-heartedly agreed that effort to revise the current label was worthwhile, as long as over-spending on the revisions was not part of the effort.

In the end though, many still admitted that even with rising fuel costs, fuel economy was not the most important feature of buying a car. Buying a car is an ‘emotional’ experience. People buy the cars they choose because they like the im

age & status the cars provides, they like the way the car drives, the color, feeling safe in the car, and other similar aesthetic type features. Many thought of fuel economy cars as cheap, not aesthetically pleasing, and less safe because they are smaller. Those participants that currently prefer SUV’s for functionality (pulling trailers, storage space, etc) and the perceived sense of safety will continue to prefer these types of vehicles, even with rising fuel costs. People like their cars, and it is important to them that they drive one they like no matter the cost. 

# “ When you fall in love

with the car none of

this (referring to FE

info) is going to

matter.”

— Boston Average Score out of 5

Statement Score

Label #1 is useful 4.2

Label #1 is clear 4.4

Proposed Label #1

# Report of Findings 15 

# Boston Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30k

Female 30-39 Small sedan <$15k

Female 20-29 Small sedan $20-30K

Male 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 40-49 SUV $15-20K

Female 60-69 Small sedan $15-20K

Male 40-49 Pickup $30-40K

Male 60-69 Large sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 Large sedan/SUV $30-40K



# Boston Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 60-69 Large sedan $15-20K

Male 20-29 Large sedan $20-30K

Male 40-49 Pickup <$15K

Male 40-49 SUV $30-40K

Female 50-59 Small sedan $15-20K

Female 40-49 Large sedan $20-30K

Male 50-59 Large sedan $30-40K

Female 60-69 Minivan $40-50K

Female 20-29 Small sedan $20-30K



# Atlanta Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 Large Sedan $20-30K

Female 20-29 SUV; Minivan $15-20k

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30K

Female 40-49 Sports car $30-40k

Male 40-49 Large Sedan $20-30k

Female 50-59 Small sedan $15-20k

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40K 

# Appendix A: Participant Profiles

# 16 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# Atlanta Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 Small sedan $15-20K

Female 20-29 SUV $20-30K

Female 20-29 SUV $20-30K

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40K

Male 40-49 Pickup $20-30K

Male 40-49 Minivan $20-30K

Male 50-59 SUV $30-40K

Female 60-69 SUV $20-30K

Male 60-69 Large sedan $20-30K



# Detroit Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 40-49 Large sedan $20-30k

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40k

Female 60-69 Large sedan $15-20k

Male 20-29 Small sedan <$15k

Male 50-59 Small sedan $15-20k

Male 40-49 Pickup $30-40k

Female 50-59 Minivan $30-40k

Male 30-39 Small sedan $15-20k

Male 40-49 Station wage $20-30k



# Detroit Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 30-39 Small sedan $20-30K

Female 50-59 SUV $30-40K

Female 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 70+ Large sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 SUV $30-40K

Male 30-39 Sports car $20-30K

Female 60-69 Small sedan $15-20K

Male 30-39 SUV $40-50K

Male 20-29 Large sedan; SUV $15-20K

# Report of Findings 17 

# Kansas City Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30k

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30k

Female 20-29 Large Sedan $15-20K

Female 40-49 Small sedan $15-20k

Female 40-49 Large sedan $30-40K

Male 50-59 SUV $20-30k

Female 50-59 Sports car $20-30k

Female 50-59 Minivan $30-40K

Female 60-69 Large sedan $20-30k



# Kansas City Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 Small sedan $15-20k

Male 20-29 Pickup <$15k

Female 30-39 Minivan $20-30K

Male 40-49 Large sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 SUV $30-40K

Female 50-59 Large Sedan $20-30K

Female 50-59 Pickup $15-20k

Male 60-69 SUV $40-50K

Male 70+ Large Sedan $20-30K



# Los Angeles Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 50-59 Large Sedan $15-20k

Female 40-49 Large Sedan $20-30K

Male 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40K

Male 30-39 SUV $30-40K

Male 20-29 Large sedan $20-30K

Female 30-39 Minivan $20-30K

Male 60-69 Large Sedan $30-40K

Female 20-29 Large Sedan $20-30K

# 18 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# Los Angeles Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 30-39 SUV $30-40k

Male 30-39 Small sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 Minivan $30-40k

Female 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 30-39 Small sedan $30-40k

Male 60-69 Large sedan $40-50K

Female 20-29 SUV; sports car $30-40k

Male 60-69 Small sedan $20-30K

# Report of Findings 19 

# FUEL ECONOMY LABEL FOCUS GROUP

Introduction (10 minutes)

• [Moderator introduces herself/himself.]

• [Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we can learn more indepth about peoples’ ideas and opinions (compared to telephone or written surveys).

• My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everyone has an op

portunity to speak and to make sure that no one dominates the conversa

tion

. • [Mention facility, audio and video equipment (so I do not have to take notes),

observers in separate room.]

• Housekeeping – Toilets and refreshments.

• [Mention ground rules.]

° 

# There are no right or wrong answers; we’re interested in your honest and

candid opinions and ideas.

° 

# One person speaks at a time. This will allow all of us to be heard by each

other and by the recording equipment.

° 

# It is important to tell YOUR thoughts, not what you think others will

think, or what you think others want to hear.

° 

# Your ideas and opinions will be kept anonymous.

° 

# Your stipend will be provided as you leave.

° 

# Relax and enjoy

• We’re going to spend our time today talking about fuel economy informa

tion. Any questions about the purpose of our focus group or the ground rules before we begin?

I’d like you each to introduce yourselves. Please tell us:

• Your name

• When did you buy your last new vehicle?

• Are you currently shopping for a new vehicle?

• Was/Is fuel economy a consideration in your vehicle purchase?

• When do you plan to buy your next new vehicle



# Current Label Awareness, Understanding and Use (50 minutes)

• How many are aware of the fuel economy label found on new cars? Do you

remember what information is given on the label? [if not, “what sort of infor

mation do you think might be on the label”]? Please list the type of informa

tion you think is found on the label. [Then discuss as a group to create the group’s sense of the label content. Write this on flip chart.]

• [Show participants a large size example of the current label.] Discuss their 

# Appendix B: Sample Moderator Guide

# 20 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# understanding of each component of the label, what is useful, what the information means, what is clear, what is unclear, what is the most important information, is there more information you’d like to see, etc.

• Can you tell from this label where this information is coming from/who is

responsible for this information? (the EPA logo clearly appears on the current label – we want to see if they get that) [If they don’t get it, then point out the logo and ask them what this means. If they still don’t get it, go on to next sec

tion.]

Referring to the different areas on the label, ask the following:

• What do the city and highway numbers mean? Where do you think they

come from? Dealers? Auto manufacturers? What if I told you that this logo belongs to the Environmental Protection Agency? Would this add credibility to the information on this label? Why or why not?

• Have you seen these numbers anywhere else besides the label? If so, where?

• What do you think "city" and "highway" driving consists of? Does it mean

driving in a certain location or does it mean driving in a certain way? [show 4 driving scenarios as follows:

1. Show a picture of congested rush hour traffic on a freeway – which fuel economy would you expect to get in this situation? 2. Show a picture of clear-moving traffic on a city freeway with a posted speed of 55+ MPH – which fuel economy would you expect to get in

this situation? 3. Show a picture of a 2-lane country road with a posted 45 mph limit and

no visible traffi c or stop signs/lights – which fuel economy would you expect to get in this situation? 4. Show a picture of a city street with stop signs/lights – which fuel econo

my would you expect to get in this situation?

• Do you have any experience measuring your own fuel economy? How did you

measure it? How did the numbers compare to the label values? Why do you think you got the results you did?

• What does the "Actual mileage may vary..." statement mean? Do you know

why actual mileage may vary? Is this information useful? Do you think this statement provides enough information? If not, what’s missing?

• What does the "estimated annual fuel cost" mean? Is this information useful?

If not, what would make it more useful?

• What does the “For Comparison Shopping...” statement mean? Do you do

comparison shopping? If so, are you comparing similar types of vehicles? This example says “COMPACT” [or whatever] vehicles. What other vehicle types can you think of that you might want to compare to?

• Overall, what is your opinion of this label? Anything missing? Confusing?

What one thing would you change?

Ask client if they have any questions at this time.

# Report of Findings 21 

# Consumer Reaction to Proposed Labels (30 minutes)

• First show them label 1 and instruct them to indicate on the rating sheet what

is clear, what is unclear, what is useful, not useful, what is missing.

• Then open up to group discussion and review label 1 as a group in terms of

what is clear, what is unclear, what is useful, not useful, what is missing.

• Then have them compare labels 1 and 3 and test if they prefer “city vs. high

way” estimates or a single range.

• Then have them compare labels 1 and 2 for more or less fine print. Then

compare labels 3 and 4 and test for more or less fine print.

• If you had to choose just one of these four proposed labels as is, which would

you choose? Why is that?

• If you were designing your ideal label, what elements do you think would be

the most useful?



# Wrap-Up (5 minutes)

• Now that we’ve had this discussion let me ask you again -- If there was just

one thing that could be changed on the fuel economy label what would y ou want that one thing to be? If there was just one thing/element/feature you would keep, what would that be? [phrase in a way that they could consider the city/highway numbers as “one thing”]

• Anything else you would like our clients to know about you thoughts about

fuel economy labels?

Ask client if they have any last questions.

# 22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups**� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� ��** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **�� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� ��** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� ��** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** **� �** 

# Report of Findings 23 

# Appendix C: Fuel Economy Labels

Current Label

# 24 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# Proposed Label #1 

# ������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� 

# 6

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# 7

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# �������������������� ������������������� 

# ������������������������� ����������������������

�������� 

# �� ����������� 

# ��

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������� ��� ����������������������������������� ��� ���������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ��� ����������

��������� ��� ��������� 

# ����������

���������������� 

# �����

�����������������������

��������������������



# �������������������������������������������������



# Å

# Report of Findings 25 

# Proposed Label #2 

# ������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� 

# 6

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# 7

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# �������������������� ������������������� 

# �������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��� ������

������������� ��� ��������� 

# ����������������������

�������� 

# �� ����������� 

# ��

����������

���������������� 

# �����

��������������������������



# Ç

# 26 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

# Proposed Label #3 

# ������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� 

# 6

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# 7

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# �������������������� ������������������� 

# ������������������������� ����������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
��������������������� ���

� 

# ���������������������� 

# ������� ����������

���������������� 

# �����

�����������������������

��������������������



# �������������������������������������������������



# É

# Report of Findings 27 

# Proposed Label #4 

# ������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������� 

# 6

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# 7

0 1 0
Best Av g. 

# �������������������� ������������������� 

# �������������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������� 

# ����������������������

������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���

� 

# ���������������������� 

# �������

����������

���������������� 

# �����

��������������������������



# Ñ