© 2008 ESA Market Research Ltd LowCVP Label – Research Programme 2008 ESA Market Research

© 2008 ESA Market Research Ltd

LowCVP Label – Research LowCVP Label – Research ProgrammeProgramme

20082008

ESA Market ResearchESA Market Research


ContentsContents

• Background

• Methodology

• Showroom Audit Results

• Mystery Shopping Results

• Summary


BackgroundBackground

The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (LCVP) commissioned ESA to:

1. Monitor the levels of compliance of the LCVP label.

2. Assess the level of awareness and understanding that car dealership staff have of the fuel economy label and associated environmental issues.

The LCVP label is displayed with new car models in dealer showrooms and indicates the fuel efficiency and emissions information about the car.


Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives

The objectives of the research are:

• To identify what proportion of new car dealerships are correctly displaying the label

• To be able to break this information down by car brand/manufacturer

• To identify the best/ worst performing brands/ manufacturers.

• To understand the causes of non-compliance

• To assess the level of awareness and understanding of the label among dealer staff


MethodologyMethodology

The research was conducted in the following two ways:

• Showroom Compliance – Showroom Audit

• ESA’s researchers covertly visited the showroom and measured the profile and compliance on site of the LCVP Label

• Member of Staff Knowledge – Mystery Shop

• After the audit, ESA’s researchers would interact with a member of staff in order to assess their knowledge and understanding of the LCVP Label

*Please note that all visits were covert.


Methodology ContinuedMethodology Continued

• Fieldwork Dates: Friday 20th – Tuesday 24th June 2008

• Sample: 384 New Car Showrooms throughout the UK.


Showroom Audit ResultsShowroom Audit Results


Results – Showroom AuditResults – Showroom Audit

Overall LCVP label compliance (across all dealerships selling new cars):

Number of Dealerships Showing LCVP Label:

348

Number of Dealerships NOT Showing LCVP Label:

36

Base: 384

% Compliance: 90.63%


Overall SummaryOverall Summary

Trended topline compliance 2006-2008.

Percentage of dealerships showing the LCVP Label:

74.25%

85.96%90.63%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

2006 2007 2008

Compliance


Results – showroom auditResults – showroom audit

Brands achieving the Good Performance Target

88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100%

VauxhallCitroen

HyundaiNissan

VWFord

HondaMazda

RenaultMini

Land RoverMercedes

MitsubishiJaguarLexus

15 brands have achieved the target that 90% of vehicles should be labelled



Findings by Car Type – Small/ Medium/ Large/ Performance Cars:

Total proportion of cars correctly labelled was 82%, up from 65% in 2007

Car Type Cars Displaying the LCVP Label Total Cars Present %

Small 593 701 84.59%

Medium 675 806 83.75%

Large 710 878 80.87%

Performance 416 530 78.49%

Total 2394 2915 82.13%



Findings by Car Type – Small/ Medium/ Large/ Performance Cars:

Large Cars Number of

Cars Compliance

LCVP Label Present

710 80.87%

Different Label Present

31 3.53%

No Label Present 137 16.60%

Total Cars: 878 -

Small Cars Number of

Cars Compliance

LCVP Label Present

593 84.59%


14 2.00%


Total Cars: 701 -

Medium Cars Number of

Cars Compliance

LCVP Label Present

675 83.75%


16 1.99%


Total Cars: 806 -

Performance Cars Number of

Cars Compliance

LCVP Label Present

416 78.49%


18 3.40%


Total Cars: 530 -



Findings by Region:

RegionCars Displaying the LCVP

LabelTotal Cars Present %

London 275 303 90.76%

North East 89 99 89.90%

South West 110 123 89.43%

Yorkshire & Humberside 146 164 89.02%

South East 382 430 88.84%

East Midlands 119 134 88.81%

Wales 102 123 82.93%

Scotland 295 368 80.16%

East England 253 319 79.31%

North West 326 433 75.29%

West Midlands 297 419 70.88%

Overall 2394 2915 82.13%



Showroom Audit Performance by Brand:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Good Performance Performance needs to improve Unacceptable performance



Showroom Audit performance by Dealer Group: (see excel report for datasheet)

Dealer Group Analysis:

Strongest Performing Dealer Groups

• 35 Dealer Groups - 100% ‘Good Performance’

Weakest Performing Dealer Groups

• 5 Dealer Groups - 100% ‘Unacceptable Performance’


Showroom Audit – SummaryShowroom Audit – Summary

Brand Analysis:

Strongest Performing Brands

• Jaguar - 100% ‘Good Performance’

• Land Rover - 100% ‘Good Performance’

• Lexus – 100% ‘Good Performance’

• Mitsubishi – 100% ‘Good Performance’

Weakest Performing Brands

• One brand – 80% ‘Unacceptable Performance’

• Two brands – 75% ‘Unacceptable Performance’


Mystery Shopping ResultsMystery Shopping Results


Communicating Benefits of Fuel Communicating Benefits of Fuel EconomyEconomy

Staff members were more likely to mention Financial Savings than the Label or Climate Change:

Count: % Compliance

Q6 - Financial Savings

Mentioned?239 61%

Q7 - Label Metioned?

176 45%

Q8 - Climate Change

Mentioned?132 33%

Q9 - Link between Fuel Consumption

and Climate Change

mentioned?

99 25%

Number of Sites: 395

Comunicating Benefits of Fuel

Economy:


Employing Fuel Economy in the SaleEmploying Fuel Economy in the Sale

The table below shows Top performers by Brand for Q10. This table is based on unprompted and extensive use of the LCVP label.

Q10 - Employing Fuel Economy in the Sale?

No knowledge of the label or subject matter

Referred to the label but

without elaborating

Had to be prompted on the subject matter and

then used it in a limited way

Unprompted use in a limited manner

Had to be prompted and

then used extensively

Unprompted and used

extensively

Jaguar 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 60.00%

Nissan 7.14% 7.14% 28.57% 7.14% 14.29% 35.71%

Skoda 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 33.33%


Employing Fuel Economy in the Employing Fuel Economy in the SaleSaleQ10. Employing Fuel Economy in the Sale: RESULTS BY BRAND

Areas For Improvement

• 15 brands had non compliance with regards the unprompted and extensive use of the LCVP label.

• One brand had 80% of sites with no knowledge of the label or subject matter.

• Second worst response was a brand for which 60% of dealerships had no knowledge of the label or subject matter.


Employing Fuel Economy in the Employing Fuel Economy in the SaleSaleThe table below shows the top performers by Dealer Group for Q10. This is based on unprompted and extensive use of the LCVP label:

Employing Fuel Economy in the Sale?

No knowledge of the label or subject

matter

Referred to the label but

without elaborating

Had to be prompted

on the subject

matter and then used it in a limited

way

Unprompted use in a limited manner

Had to be prompted and then

used extensively

Unprompted and used

extensively

Crosby Park Garage Ltd 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Inchcape Retail Ltd 16.67% 8.33% 16.67% 8.33% 8.33% 41.67%

Ford Retail Ltd 20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 40.00%

W Brindley Garages Ltd 0.00% 33.00% 33.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.00%


Employing Fuel Economy in the Employing Fuel Economy in the SaleSale

Q10. Employing Fuel Economy in the Sale: RESULTS BY DEALER GROUP

Areas for improvement

• 50 Dealer Groups had 0% compliance with regards the unprompted and extensive use of the LCVP label (see below)

• 4 Dealer Groups had no knowledge of the label or subject matter.


Quality of the Sales Staff Quality of the Sales Staff KnowledgeKnowledge

*Note: This is a multi code question.

The table below shows the overall analysis with regards knowledge of the LCVP Label at Q11:

Count: %

Voluntary agreement.

34 9%

Developed by industry and government.

227 57%

Provides information on fuel

economy.218 55%

Provides info on the environmental

performance of car.152 38%

None. 46 12%


Q11 - Who developed the

Label and what is is it for?





Count: %

Carbon Dioxide CO2.

193 49%

CO2 Band. 193 49%

Fuel Consumption. 280 71%

Number of drive cycles.

138 35%

None. 44 11%


Q12 - What environmental

information does the label provide?





Count: %

Fuel consumption figure (combined urban and extra-

urban drive cycle).

223 56.46%

Assumed annual mileage of 12,000.

177 44.81%

Annually revised average fuel cost.

88 22.28%

Graduated VED (vehicle excise duty) / road tax

based upon CO2 bands.

202 51.14%

None. 56 14.18%


Q13 - How do you work out the cost

of motoring shown on the

label?





Count: %

Is damaging to the environment.

247 62.53%

Fuel consumption and fuel type affect

amount of CO2.158 40.00%

CO2 is a global warming gas.

57 14.43%

Global warming gases cause climate

change.48 12.15%

None. 71 17.97%


Q14 - What impact does the

fuel economy have on the

mileage change?


Mystery Shopping SummaryMystery Shopping Summary

Based upon overall performance in displaying the label, knowledge and utilisation of the label the best performers were.

Brand Analysis

- Strongest Performing Brand(s) – Jaguar, Lexus, Mitsubishi

Dealer Group Analysis

- Strongest Performing Dealer Group – Inchcape Retail Ltd


Overall SummaryOverall Summary

Top Performing Dealerships

The following all achieved 100% in the ‘Overall Dealership Score’:

- Audi Bristol Audi

- BMW Cooper Reading

- Jaguar H A Fox - Hunters - Inchcape

- Land Rover Guy Salmon Land Rover

- Mazda Vospers Mazda (Marsh Hills)

- Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz of Plymouth

- Mitsubishi Horner's Mitsubishi

- Nissan Glyn Hopkin Ltd

- Peugeot Robins and Day Manchester

- Porsche Porsche Centre Norwich

- Proton Klic Cars

- Seat Hobin of Preston Ltd

- Toyota Border Toyota (Dumfries)

- Toyota Border Toyota (Carlisle)


LCVP Label – Research LCVP Label – Research ProgrammeProgramme

20082008

ESA Market ResearchESA Market Research

Documents

© 2008 ESA Market Research Ltd LowCVP Label – Research Programme 2008 ESA Market Research