|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online November/December 1998
TRENDS
Label Lessons from Thailand
 |
| My research showed that this Thai label is easy to understand, as
it provides a simple 1-5 rating that is clearly explained at the top. Although
most Thai usually only understand this amount of information from the label,
Thai salespeople reported that customers are content with that information. |
|

|
| The original EnergyGuide label was revised in 1994, with the new
label (above) currently appearing on about half or more of white
goods in U.S. appliance stores. U.S. salespeople reported that few customers
bother to look at the label and that those who do look have a hard time
understanding it. |
Do consumers really understand energy labels? I
did the first study to examine how consumers read, interpret, and think
about energy labels in the retail environment. I conducted interviews and
observed sales transactions in appliance stores in the United States and
Thailand. In the United States, I worked as a sales trainee for two weeks
in a New Jersey appliance store, observing nearly 40 complete sales transactions.
I interviewed 14 appliance salespeople, 100 consumers, and 16 policymakers
involved in the design of consumer energy efficiency programs. In Thailand,
I interviewed 11 policymakers, 53 salespeople, and 62 consumers, and carried
out a national survey of 971 consumers.
I found that, after just 3 years of operation,
the Thai appliance labeling program is having a significantly greater impact
on the consumer appliance market than the 20-year-old U.S. program. Thai
salespeople reported that more than 60% of consumers ask about or look
at the label. The corresponding number for the United States was just 20%.
The Thai's greater interest in their energy label
is related to their heightened concern with the energy efficiency of their
appliances. Energy efficiency was reported among the top three purchase
priorities by 28% of Thai appliance consumers, compared to just 11% of
U.S. consumers. My in-store tests of label comprehension showed that the
U.S. EnergyGuide label fared poorly.
For example, the average time that it took for
a consumer to understand the label was more than 40 seconds. Observations
during the interview and debriefing afterward indicated that most consumers
found the EnergyGuide label difficult to understand. Because of poor text
labeling, one-third of the consumers interpreted the cost figure in reverse
and thought that the label showed annual savings rather than operating
cost. Fewer than half of the 100 consumers could use a single label to
tell whether a model was more efficient than average, and fewer than half
were able to interpret that the horizontal scale on the label represented
a relative scale of energy use.
The Thai appliance label was more effective at
helping consumers to identify efficient models. However, both labels suffer
from the problem of too much detailed product information, which hinders
comprehension. The Thai label has a simple rating system at the top and
much detailed product information below. While most Thais were able to
grasp the 1 to 5 efficiency rating system, the vast majority felt they
either did not understand the label (22%) or understood it only somewhat
(63%). In spite of this problem, though, the Thai label is effective.
Salespeople are the essential link in both appliance
labeling programs because they exert a significant influence on consumer
purchase decisions. However, in most appliance transactions, salespeople
in both countries have an incentive to sell units that have additional
features and use more energy. This is because they get larger commissions
on more expensive products.
I concluded that the two appliance labeling programs
have different goals. The goal of the U.S. program is to provide consumers
with information that will help them to make appliance purchase decisions.
This approach does not work well, largely because the label is presented
in a technical, data-intensive format rather than a more user-friendly
format.
In contrast, the goal of the Thai program is
to persuade consumers to buy a more efficient appliance--one that will
save money and protect the environment. To support the program, the Thai
government has implemented a massive nationwide advertising campaign. In
fact, the television advertisements promoting the appliance energy labels
are part of a utility marketing effort that is the largest nationwide television
advertising campaign in Thailand.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
been working with the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. appliance retailers
to improve the effectiveness of the federal appliance labeling program.
Over the past year, the EPA has started to apply its highly effective Energy
Star endorsement label to the top tier of efficient appliances in hundreds
of stores around the country. The Federal Trade Commission may soon expand
this initiative by allowing manufacturers of the most efficient products
to print the same green Energy Star logo as an endorsement mark on the
existing yellow EnergyGuide appliance labels.
For more information about the study, including
a 15-page executive summary, contact me at IIEC-Asia, 8 Sukhumvit Soi 49/9,
Bangkok 10110 Thailand. Fax:+66-2-381-0815; E-mail: ptdupont@loxinfo.co.th.
Peter du Pont is a former managing editor of
Home Energy. He is now managing director of IIEC-Asia, a nongovernmental
organization promoting appliance efficiency in Bangkok, Thailand.
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright
Notice
|