2017 PROPANE MARKETERS STUDY

Transcription

1 2017 PROPANE MARKETERS STUDY SUMMARY REPORT June 2017 Wiese Research Associates, Inc Burt Street, Suite 100 Omaha, NE (402)

2 INTRODUCTION TO THE SUMMARY REPORT In preparing this summary of research results, the intent has been to present the information deemed most important and to discuss those findings in a way that will be meaningful and understandable to the reader. Since summaries by their very nature are not comprehensive, it cannot be expected that all study findings of potential value will be thoroughly discussed or presented in this report. Therefore, the reader should consider not only this document, but also the comprehensive Tabular Results, provided under separate cover, for a more thorough review of the findings. For this report, Wiese Research Associates, Inc. (WRA) has relied on its professional research experience in selecting data for presentation and, where deemed appropriate, has forwarded some possible interpretations with regard to how these results might influence planning or decision making. It is important to emphasize, however, that these interpretations are certainly not meant to be the only possible conclusions that can be drawn from the information obtained in this study. Further, no final recommendations or suggested courses of action have been included. Rather, PERC must consider these results, along with information and knowledge possessed outside the scope of this study, when making final determinations and decisions based on the research. The format of this report consists of a bullet-point discussion of selected findings alongside charts and graphs providing a visual presentation of the results. This narrative is preceded by a brief description of the study methodology employed for this research. 1

3 STUDY METHODOLOGY 2

4 STUDY METHODOLOGY PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH The overall purpose of this research was to better understand how propane marketers interact with PERC, as well as to gauge utilization and satisfaction with various PERC initiatives, outreach efforts, safety and training programs, marketing tools, materials, and communications. This study took the form of a telephone survey with propane marketers across the country. SAMPLING DESIGN With any research project, it is critically important to accurately define and understand the population or populations to be studied. The population is the group from which all sampling takes place and to which the results must eventually be projected. The population of interest for this study included propane marketers in the U.S. who are active in propane sales and management. More specifically, the individual who personally interacts with or is familiar with PERC programs and materials was interviewed at each qualified company. The sample was drawn from a list provided by PERC of approximately 10,000 propane marketers at roughly 8,000 locations. For the larger companies, multiple contact names were available and eligible to survey, but no more than one interview was completed per location. The total sample size for this study consisted of n=990 respondents, with approximate quotas established by PADD region to ensure proper geographic representation. Throughout this report, results will be shown based on the total sample responding to a particular question, along with findings broken out by selected respondent segments (i.e., by PADD region, by propane gallon sales, etc.) where differences across these sample groupings were found to be meaningful and/or statistically significant. 3

5 STUDY METHODOLOGY (Continued) ACCURACY OF RESULTS The accuracy of research results when random sampling is utilized is a function of both the sample size as well as the obtained results for any given question. The chart below depicts the standard error ranges achieved for the total sample of n=990, as well as for selected subsamples, given various obtained result percentages. Sample Size EXPECTED STANDARD ERROR RANGES FOR SELECTED SAMPLE SIZES* For Obtained Results Of 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% n=990 ±1.9 ±2.5 ±2.8 ±3.0 ±3.1 ±3.0 ±2.8 ±2.5 ±1.9 n=400 ±2.9 ±3.9 ±4.5 ±4.8 ±4.9 ±4.8 ±4.5 ±3.9 ±2.9 n=300 ±3.4 ±4.5 ±5.2 ±5.5 ±5.7 ±5.5 ±5.2 ±4.5 ±3.4 n=200 ±4.2 ±5.5 ±6.4 ±6.8 ±6.9 ±6.8 ±6.4 ±5.5 ±4.2 n=150 ±4.8 ±6.4 ±7.3 ±7.8 ±8.0 ±7.8 ±7.3 ±6.4 ±4.8 n=100 ±5.9 ±7.8 ±9.0 ±9.6 ±9.8 ±9.6 ±9.0 ±7.8 ±5.9 *Ranges expressed as percentage points at the 95% confidence level. It can be seen from the preceding chart that the maximum standard error range for n=990 respondents is ±3.1 percentage points (50% result) at the 95% confidence level, with error ranges diminishing on a continuum as the obtained result percentages for that sample size move closer to one end (e.g., 10%) or the other (e.g., 90%). Of course, when findings for various sub-samples or smaller respondent segments are being considered, results are subject to a greater margin of error. 4

6 STUDY METHODOLOGY (Continued) METHOD OF SAMPLE CONTACT As mentioned, telephone was the sample contact methodology for this project. All calling took place from WRA s central interviewing facilities in Lincoln, Nebraska using trained and experienced interviewers from its staff. Each interviewer was fully briefed on the proper administration of the questionnaire prior to sample contact, with interviews in progress monitored by supervisors to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data collected. The questionnaire administered to respondents averaged 14 minutes on the phone, and a copy of this survey instrument can be found in Appendix A. All results depicted in this report reference the question number(s) from which the data came, should the reader wish to review the exact wording of a particular item on the survey. INTERVIEWING DATES The data collection for this project was completed between April 18 and May 30, Research results are in one way much like a financial balance sheet in that they represent the situation only at a given point in time. Perceptions and behaviors can and often do change over time. Therefore, when referring to these results, it is important to keep in mind the time frame during which the interviewing was completed. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS To provide greater insight into who was listened to in this study, the reader is referred to the sample characteristics chart on the following page. This chart shows the profile of respondents when the total sample is considered (based on those responding to each question) with regard to PADD region, job title, number of states in which the company operates as well as the number the respondent oversees, and the propane gallons sold each year. 5

7 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS Percentages based on those responding. Characteristic PADD REGION % Of Total Sample Responding (n 990) PADD 1 (East Coast) 32% New England 8% Central Atlantic 10% Lower Atlantic 14% PADD 2 (Midwest) 40% PADD 3 (Gulf Coast) 12% PADD 4 (Rocky Mountain) 8% PADD 5 (West Coast) 8% Characteristic JOB TITLE % Of Total Sample Responding (n 990) Manager 41% Owner 20% President/C-Level Executive 8% Sales And Marketing 8% Senior VP/Vice President 5% Office Manager 5% Director 4% Customer Service Manager 4% Safety 3% Other 2% # OF STATES RESPONDENT OVERSEES One State 68% Two States 19% Three States 6% 4+ States 7% Characteristic % Of Total Sample Responding (n 990) # OF STATES IN WHICH COMPANY OPERATES One State 53% Two States 18% 3 to 49 States 19% 50 to 51* States 10% PROPANE GALLONS SOLD EACH YEAR <1 Million Gallons 26% 1 to <2 Million 20% 2 to <5 Million 19% 5 to <20 Million 11% 20 to <100 Million 5% 100 To <300 Million 2% 300+ Million Gallons 10% Don t Know/Refused 7% *Includes D.C. (Reference: SQ3, Q1, Q1A-B, Q2) 6

8 KEY STUDY FINDINGS 7

9 PERCENTAGE OF COMPANY S PROPANE GALLONS DISTRIBUTED TO EACH OF SEVEN MARKETS It is evident from these results that residential customers comprise the lion s share of business for these propane marketers (mean of 65.9% of gallon sales). More specifically, 81% of respondents indicated that over half of their company s propane gallon sales are distributed to residential markets, and while not shown here, 47% of the sample gave a percentage exceeding 75% residential. Percentage of total sample responding (able to estimate). 50%+ 25%-49% 1%-24% 0% Market (Mean %) Residential (65.9%) 81% 13% Commercial (12.1%) 2 14% 61% 23% Agriculture (10.4%) 3 10% 56% 31% Forklift (5.6%) 24% 51% 43% 3 3 Commercial, agriculture, and forklift markets follow at quite a distance in terms of propane gallon sales volume, although over half of these propane marketers do sell to these customers. On-Road Fleet/Autogas (1.8%) Resellers/Retailers (3.4%) % 30% 66% 68% By comparison, two-thirds or more of the propane marketers do not conduct any business at all in the on-road fleet/autogas, reseller/retailer, or landscape/ golf/turf markets. Landscape/Golf/Turf (0.6%) (Reference: Q3) 19% 81% 8

10 OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF PERC S ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES For the most part, the propane marketers surveyed rated their understanding of PERC s role and responsibilities fairly high (as expected given the criteria for study qualification). Percentage of those able to rate. SCALE: 1 = VERY LITTLE To 10 = A GREAT DEAL TOTAL BASE (n=987) PADD 1 (n=318) 26% 28% % 38% 25% 28% 6% 6% MEAN SCORE When compared to the other regions, propane marketers in PADD 5 appear to be the most knowledgeable about PERC s role and responsibilities. PADD 2 (n=388) PADD 3 (n=119) PADD 4 (n=80) PADD 5 (n=82) 26% 24% 22% 34% 45% 45% 45% 44% 24% 24% 26% 12% 5% 5% 9% 10% As one might assume, larger propane marketers in terms of gallon sales rated their understanding of PERC s role and responsibilities higher than their smaller counterparts. Finally, those who are more likely to recommend PERC (i.e., promoters) also possess a greater understanding of its role in the industry and this trend is logical. Since the reverse is also true, expanding marketer knowledge of PERC s role and responsibilities could have a positive impact on these recommendation levels. <1M Gallons (n=261) 1M-<2M (n=197) 2M-<5M (n=191) 5M-<100M (n=152) 100M+ Gallons (n=113) Promoter (n=537) Passive (n=295) Detractor (n=140) 17% 15% 16% 24% 29% 33% 34% 36% *Significantly higher than other segment(s) within that category at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q4A) 29% 46% 47% 37% 46% 43% 45% 43% 41% 32% 28% 32% 19% 22% 15% 17% 9% 14% 7% 6% 2% 6% 4% 6% * 7.7* 7.7* 7.7* 6.8* 6.1 9

11 AMOUNT OF INTERACTION WITH PERC OVER PAST 24 MONTHS Based on these ratings, perceptions that one has had a great deal of interaction with PERC over the past 24 months appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Percentage of those able to rate. SCALE: 1 = VERY LITTLE To 10 = A GREAT DEAL TOTAL BASE (n=983) 12% % 37% 24% MEAN SCORE 5.5 These results were fairly consistent by PADD region, although the amount of interaction was found to be slightly higher in PADD 5 versus the other regions (although these differences were not statistically significant). PADD 1 (n=318) PADD 2 (n=385) PADD 3 (n=118) PADD 4 (n=81) PADD 5 (n=81) 11% 10% 13% 15% 14% 27% 28% 20% 21% 33% 38% 39% 41% 30% 31% 24% 23% 26% 34% 22% Relatively larger propane marketers when measured by gallon sales rated their level of interaction with PERC higher than their smaller counterparts. <1M Gallons (n=261) 1M-<2M (n=196) 2M-<5M (n=191) 5M-<100M (n=152) 8% 9% 14% 17% 21% 28% 27% 36% 40% 36% 41% 30% 31% 27% 18% 17% * 6.2* Not surprisingly, the degree of interaction with PERC was significantly greater among promoters versus detractors. This trend is consistent with the level of understanding results just discussed. However, even one-half of the promoters rated their amount of interaction with PERC over the past 24 months to be fairly modest. 100M+ Gallons (n=112) Promoter (n=534) Passive (n=294) Detractor (n=140) 3% 13% 18% 4% 5% 25% *Significantly higher than other segment(s) within that category at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q4B) 28% 39% 33% 47% 32% 32% 52% 27% 25% 17% 5.6* 6.2* 5.1*

12 METHODS BY WHICH PROPANE MARKETERS HAVE INTERACTED WITH PERC IN LAST 24 MONTHS Despite the average ratings just discussed, results here would suggest that many of these propane marketers have, in fact, interacted with PERC in several different ways over the past 24 months. The most common methods by which propane marketers have interacted with PERC include receiving s/newsletters and visiting PERC websites, each done by 8 to 9 in every 10 respondents in the past 24 months. A majority of marketers have also interacted with state association websites or communications, ordered or downloaded items online, attended industry or state meetings, attended trade shows, and spoke with a representative. Percentage of total sample (n=990). Received s/Newsletters Visited PERC Websites State Assoc. Website/Communications Ordered/Downloaded Items Online Attended Industry/State Meetings Attended Trade Shows Spoke With Representative Attended Webinars/Workshops Participated In MTST Followed On Social Media Yes No Don't Recall 90% 9% 1 85% 14% 1 71% 29% 64% 35% 1 57% 43% 57% 43% 51% 48% 1 35% 64% 1 33% 66% 1 32% 68% While far fewer have served on committees, a significant minority of marketers have attended webinars/workshops, participated in MTST, and followed PERC on social media. (Reference: Q5) Served On Committees Any Other Interaction 3 16% 97% 84% 11

13 INTERACTION WITH PERC IN LAST 24 MONTHS BY PADD REGION Statistically significant differences were found in these results by PADD region, although with just a few exceptions, the same general trends were found across regions in terms of the relative frequency with which many of these interactions have taken place. It seems propane marketers in PADD 1, and in the New England area specifically, are more likely to have interacted with PERC given several of these methods versus those in some of the other regions. It is also worth noting that attending trade shows is less common in PADD 4, while those in PADD 3 are more likely than their counterparts to have attended webinars or workshops. Ordering or downloading items from PERC online was also significantly higher in PADD 1 and PADD 5 when compared to the other regions. INTERACTION WITH PERC PADD 1 East Coast (n=319) PADD 2 Midwest (n=389) PADD REGION PADD 3 Gulf Coast (n=119) PADD 4 Rocky Mtn (n=81) PADD 5 West Coast (n=82) New England (n=76) PADD 1 SUB-REGION Central Atlantic (n=101) Received s/Newsletters 90% 91% 87% 85% 94% 95% 83% 92% Visited PERC Websites 89% 83% 82% 83% 89% 96% 87% 87% State Assoc. Website/Communications 72% 77% 64% 64% 52% 75% 60% 79% Ordered/Downloaded Items Online 73% 57% 57% 64% 73% 74% 80% 68% Attended Industry/State Meetings 55% 61% 59% 47% 51% 68% 41% 58% Attended Trade Shows 61% 56% 59% 40% 61% 75% 53% 58% Spoke With Representative 48% 51% 47% 58% 60% 64% 43% 43% Attended Webinars/Workshops 37% 33% 42% 27% 39% 51% 31% 33% Participated In MTST 39% 30% 32% 26% 37% 39% 33% 42% Followed On Social Media 34% 31% 34% 22% 35% 45% 28% 34% Served On Committees 15% 17% 15% 15% 13% 21% 10% 16% Any Other Interaction 2% 3% 3% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% Lower Atlantic (n=142) Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. Significantly higher than other PADD 1 sub-region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q5) 12

14 INTERACTION WITH PERC IN LAST 24 MONTHS BY PROPANE GALLON SALES The extent to which propane marketers have interacted with PERC over the past 24 months also varied by propane gallon sales. As expected, those at the lower end of the continuum in terms of gallon sales were less likely than their counterparts to have interacted with PERC. Percentage of sample segment. INTERACTION WITH PERC <1M (n=262) 1M-<2M (n=198) PROPANE GALLON SALES 2M-<5M (n=192) 5M- <100M (n=152) 100M/ More (n=113) Received s/Newsletters 84% 90% 89% 97% 92% Visited PERC Websites 81% 84% 85% 93% 86% State Assoc. Website/Communications 62% 68% 78% 82% 74% Ordered/Downloaded Items Online 60% 64% 73% 70% 53% Attended Industry/State Meetings 45% 56% 66% 72% 63% Attended Trade Shows 48% 58% 63% 70% 58% Spoke With Representative 38% 48% 57% 66% 56% Attended Webinars/Workshops 29% 32% 37% 41% 43% Participated In MTST 22% 34% 36% 45% 39% Followed On Social Media 29% 32% 35% 34% 32% Served On Committees 8% 10% 17% 27% 28% Any Other Interaction 2% 3% 2% 4% 3% Significantly higher than other gallon sales segment(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q5) 13

15 INTERACTION WITH PERC IN LAST 24 MONTHS BY PROPANE MARKET Finally, interaction with PERC through several of these methods was also significantly higher among those doing business with on-road fleet (autogas) customers versus the other markets. However, when considering how these methods rank from most to least used when interacting with PERC, there were more similarities than differences across the various propane markets. INTERACTION WITH PERC Residential (n=869) Agricultural (n=615) On-Road Fleet (n=300) PROPANE MARKET Landscape (n=171) Forklift (n=502) Commercial (n=686) Received s/Newsletters 90% 90% 94% 91% 91% 90% 93% Visited PERC Websites 86% 86% 90% 87% 87% 87% 88% State Assoc. Website/Communications 72% 73% 80% 74% 75% 73% 76% Ordered/Downloaded Items Online 66% 65% 69% 60% 66% 67% 66% Attended Industry/State Meetings 58% 60% 66% 64% 62% 58% 65% Attended Trade Shows 59% 59% 68% 61% 63% 60% 63% Spoke With Representative 51% 52% 59% 54% 52% 51% 56% Attended Webinars/Workshops 35% 34% 47% 49% 39% 35% 41% Participated In MTST 34% 33% 44% 42% 37% 35% 36% Followed On Social Media 34% 32% 37% 38% 37% 34% 37% Served On Committees 15% 15% 22% 19% 17% 15% 21% Any Other Interaction 3% 3% 2% 5% 3% 2% 3% Reseller/ Retailer (n=286) Significantly higher than other market(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q5) 14

16 NUMBER OF METHODS BY WHICH PROPANE MARKETERS HAVE INTERACTED WITH PERC IN LAST 24 MONTHS Results here quantify the number of different ways these propane marketers have interacted with PERC over the past 24 months. Percentage of the sample segment. TOTAL SAMPLE (n=990) PADD 1 (n=319) 18% 19% 25% 27% 27% 25% 22% 22% 8% 7% As might be expected given the results just discussed, propane marketers in PADD 4 and those with propane gallon sales under 1 Million recorded fewer ways in which they interacted with PERC when compared to their respective counterparts. PADD 2 (n=389) PADD 3 (n=119) PADD 4 (n=81) PADD 5 (n=82) <1M Gallons (n=262) 1M-<2M (n=198) 16% 18% 14% 21% 9% 13% 25% 27% 23% 21% 22% 27% 30% 23% 22% 29% 24% 30% 21% 20% 30% 22% 32% 21% 8% 12% 11% 7% 13% 9% In contrast, propane marketers conducting business with onroad fleet customers were more likely than those serving several of the other markets to have interacted with PERC using 9 or more of the methods evaluated. 2M-<5M (n=192) 5M-<100M (n=152) 100M+ Gallons (n=113) Residential (n=869) Agriculture (n=615) 21% 33% 23% 18% 17% 30% 23% 26% 27% 24% 28% 27% 26% 27% 27% 15% 6% 12% 4% 23% 5% 22% 7% 22% 7% 3-4 <3 On-Road Fleet (n=300) 29% 26% 24% 16% 5% Landscape/Golf/Turf (n=171) 22% 28% 25% 18% 7% Forklift (n=502) 23% 26% 24% 20% 7% Commercial (n=686) 19% 26% 28% 21% 6% Reseller/Retailer (n=286) 24% 29% 23% 20% 4% (Reference: Q5) 15

17 SATISFACTION WITH PERC S INDUSTRY OUTREACH EFFORTS PERC received fairly high satisfaction scores with respect to its outreach efforts and interaction with the industry, with the majority of propane marketers surveyed rating PERC a 7 or higher across the board. Percentage of total sample able to rate PERC in that area. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED Making Resources Easy To Use/Access 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating 46% 37% 17% MEAN SCORE 8.1 PERC scored particularly well in the areas of making resources that are easy to use/access over the Internet and responding in a timely manner. These would be considered perceived strengths for PERC, relatively speaking. Responding In A Timely Manner Making PERC's Employees Available Fulfilling Your Company's Needs 43% 40% 36% 39% 35% 36% 18% 25% 28% By comparison, approximately 3 in 10 propane marketers did give PERC scores of 6 or lower in the categories of soliciting ideas and feedback, listening and considering the industry s suggestions, engaging effectively with marketers and industry reps, and fulfilling the company s needs, suggesting some potential room for improvement in these areas in particular. Engaging With Marketers/Reps Considering Industry's Suggestions Soliciting Ideas And Feedback (Reference: Q6) 30% 29% 28% 41% 44% 40% 29% 27% 32%

18 MEAN SATISFACTION SCORES FOR PERC S INDUSTRY OUTREACH EFFORTS BY PADD REGION Review of these results by region show the scores for PADD 1 and PADD 5 to be higher than the other regions, in some cases by a statistically significant margin. As PERC targets efforts to improve industry perceptions regarding its outreach efforts, particular attention should perhaps be given to PADD regions 2, 3, and 4 based on these findings. Mean scores based on those able to rate PERC in that area. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED OUTREACH EFFORT PADD 1 East Coast PADD 2 Midwest PADD REGION PADD 3 Gulf Coast PADD 4 Rocky Mtn Making Resources Easy To Use/Access Responding In A Timely Manner Making PERC s Employees Available Fulfilling Your Company s Needs PADD 5 West Coast Engaging With Marketers/Reps Considering Industry s Suggestions Soliciting Ideas And Feedback Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q6) 17

19 Reasonably strong scores were also given to PERC when propane marketers were asked to rate their satisfaction with PERC s communications regarding current programs and initiatives. Relatively speaking, PERC is perceived to do a better job of providing timely and informative updates than being transparent about current product and program investments and sharing results of those programs. As such, efforts to improve transparency and the sharing of results are perhaps warranted given these results. SATISFACTION WITH PERC S COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES Percentage of total sample able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED Providing Timely Updates Providing Informative Updates Transparent About Product/Investments 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating 38% 38% 35% 41% 40% 42% 20% 21% 25% MEAN SCORE Sharing Results Of Programs/Initiatives 32% 40% 28% 7.4 (Reference: Q7) 18

20 MEAN SATISFACTION SCORES FOR PERC S COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING CURRENT PROGRAMS/INITIATIVES BY PADD REGION Again, higher satisfaction scores are seen in PADD 1 and PADD 5 when compared to those given by propane marketers in the other regions. Scores were notable lower in PADD 4, even in the areas of providing timely and informative updates (where PERC received stronger ratings overall). Mean scores based on those able to rate PERC in that area. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED COMMUNICATIONS IN TERMS OF PADD 1 East Coast PADD 2 Midwest PADD REGION PADD 3 Gulf Coast PADD 4 Rocky Mtn Providing Timely Updates Providing Informative Updates PADD 5 West Coast Transparent About Product/Investments Sharing Results Of Programs/Initiatives Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q7) 19

21 Overall, satisfaction with the way PERC manages or handles strategic planning is not quite as strong, but still quite respectable from the perspective of most propane marketers. PERC scores are higher, relatively speaking, in the areas of informs the industry about future initiatives and programs with sufficient timing and invests in services, products, and materials to meet the industry s future needs. In contrast, greater room for improvement can be seen in the areas of transparency about future program goals, providing sufficient market data to substantiate its strategies, and planning human and financial resources appropriately. SATISFACTION WITH THE WAY PERC MANAGES/HANDLES STRATEGIC PLANNING Percentage of total sample able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED Informs Industry About Programs With Sufficient Timing Invests To Meet The Industry's Future Needs Transparent About Future Program Goals Provides Sufficient Market Data Plans Human/Financial Resources Appropriately 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating 34% 33% 30% 29% 26% 41% 44% 44% 42% 44% 24% 23% 29% 27% 30% MEAN SCORE (Reference: Q8) 20

22 MEAN SATISFACTION SCORES FOR THE WAY PERC MANAGES/HANDLES STRATEGIC PLANNING BY PADD REGION In what can now be seen as a recurring trend, propane marketers in the PADD 1 and PADD 5 regions rated there satisfaction with PERC higher than their counterparts in each of the areas related to strategic planning as well. Mean scores based on those able to rate PERC in that area. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED TO 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED STRATEGIC PLANNING IN THE AREA OF Informs Industry About Programs With Sufficient Timing Invests To Meet The Industry s Future Needs PADD 1 East Coast PADD 2 Midwest PADD REGION PADD 3 Gulf Coast PADD 4 Rocky Mtn PADD 5 West Coast Transparent About Future Program Goals Provides Sufficient Market Data Plans Human/Financial Resources Appropriately Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q8) 21

23 INCIDENCE OF USE AND SATISFACTION WITH PERC S SAFETY AND TRAINING PROGRAMS/MATERIALS A solid majority of propane marketers have used at least one of PERC s safety and training programs or materials, with satisfaction levels quite high among users. Percentage of total sample able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating MEAN SCORE % USED Incidence of use was highest for customer safety brochures and lowest for safety talks. Customer Safety Brochures 66% 28% 6% % Likewise, customer safety brochures also received the highest satisfaction scores, followed fairly closely by singletopic workforce training programs and CETP elearning. Over one-half of users gave these programs a 9-10 rating, while very few ratings were below 7 on the 10-points possible scale. Single-Topic Workforce Training CETP e-learning 60% 57% 33% 34% 7% 9% % 71% Safety talks, while still rated quite high overall, received the lowest scores in addition to being less often used when compared to the other PERC safety and training programs/ materials evaluated. Safety Talks 46% 43% 11% % (Reference: Q9) 22

24 INCIDENCE OF USE AND MEAN SATISFACTION WITH PERC S SAFETY AND TRAINING PROGRAMS/MATERIALS BY PADD REGION For the most part, these results were fairly consistent by PADD region, although a few differences are worth noting. In terms of usage, propane marketers in PADD 3 were significantly less likely than those in each of the other regions to have had any past experience with CETP elearning. Use of customer safety brochures is also lower in PADD 3 versus PADD s 2 and 5, while the use of safety talks is significantly higher in PADD 5. Satisfaction with single-topic workforce training programs and CETP elearning is highest in PADD 1, while propane marketers in PADD 3 rated their satisfaction with safety talks higher versus those in other regions (especially versus PADD 2). Mean scores based on PADD sample segment used and those able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED CUSTOMER SAFETY BROCHURES SINGLE-TOPIC WORKFORCE TRAINING CETP e-learning SAFETY TALKS PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5 PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5 PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5 PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD * * * % USED 87% 90%* 82% 89% 94%* 76% 79% 75% 74% 80% 73%* 71%* 58% 79%* 78%* 64% 61% 66% 62% 74%* *Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q9) 23

25 INCIDENCE OF USE AND MEAN SATISFACTION WITH PERC S SAFETY AND TRAINING PROGRAMS/MATERIALS BY GALLON SALES While satisfaction with these safety and training programs/materials were also fairly consistent by propane gallon sales, usage results did vary to a significant degree in some instances. Mean scores based on PADD sample segment used and those able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED CUSTOMER SAFETY BROCHURES <1M Gallons 1M-<2M Gallons 2M-<5M Gallons 5M-<100M Gallons 100M+ Gallons % USED 86% 91%* 96%* 91%* 79% Propane marketers with gallon sales over 1 million but less than 100 million were more likely than their counterparts to have used customer safety brochures, and the same trend can be found for single-topic workforce training programs. CETP elearning use is highest among those with propane sales in the 2 million to 100 million gallons range, especially when compared to smaller propane marketers (<2 Million). SINGLE-TOPIC WORKFORCE TRAINING CETP e-learning <1M Gallons 1M-<2M Gallons 2M-<5M Gallons 5M-<100M Gallons 100M+ Gallons <1M Gallons 1M-<2M Gallons 2M-<5M Gallons 5M-<100M Gallons 100M+ Gallons % 77% 86%* 81% 71% 63% 65% 81%* 79%* 73% SAFETY TALKS <1M Gallons 1M-<2M Gallons 2M-<5M Gallons 5M-<100M Gallons 100M+ Gallons * 61% 65% 66% 64% 66% *Significantly higher than other gallon sales segment(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q9) 24

26 PERC s ability to meet the industry s safety needs received high marks from most propane marketers surveyed, with fully 53% giving a 9-10 rating while only 10% scored PERC below 7 in this regard. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PERC S ABILITY TO MEET THE INDUSTRY S SAFETY NEEDS Percentage of total sample able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED TOTAL BASE (n=942) 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating 53% 37% 10% MEAN SCORE 8.4 Review of these results across PADD regions shows satisfaction with PERC in this regard to be highest in PADD 1 and PADD 5, while lowest in PADD 4 where there appears to be more room for improvement (although even in this region, satisfaction is still quite strong). PADD 1 (n=301) PADD 2 (n=379) 54% 49% 37% 42% 9% 9% 8.6* 8.3 Compared to several of the other performance metrics evaluated by propane marketers in this study, meeting the industry s safety needs appears to be a perceived strength for PERC. PADD 3 (n=108) PADD 4 (n=78) 54% 54% 36% 27% 10% 19% PADD 5 (n=76) 67% 26% 7% 8.8* *Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q10) 25

27 USE OF PROUDLY PROPANE, CLEAN AMERICAN ENERGY CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS IN TOTAL & BY PADD REGION In total, two-thirds of propane marketers have used at least one element of the consumer campaign, with significant minorities (3 to 4 in every 10) using collateral, photos, print ads, and/or videos. Use of the consumer campaign s social media content and digital ads was also found to a meaningful degree, while far fewer propane marketers have made use of the radio or TV commercials. Analysis of these results by region shows that propane marketers in PADD 1 are more likely to have used a number of these consumer campaign materials, with social media use also higher in PADD 3 and TV commercials (while not often used) higher in PADD 5. However, it should be noted that these significant differences were primarily due to lower usage levels for these consumer campaign materials in PADD 4 specifically. Percentage of sample segment stating they have used those materials. ANY MATERIALS Collateral Photos Print Ads Videos Social Media Digital Ads Radio Commercials TV Commercials TOTAL SAMPLE (n=990) 8% 5% 23% 19% 33% 29% 41% 37% 66% PADD 1 (n=319) Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q11) PADD 2 (n=389) PADD REGION PADD 3 (n=119) PADD 4 (n=81) PADD 5 (n=82) 67% 66% 71% 58% 62% 43% 41% 44% 35% 34% 39% 36% 39% 26% 38% 38% 30% 32% 23% 34% 31% 28% 29% 26% 32% 28% 20% 27% 15% 22% 22% 16% 21% 15% 22% 6% 10% 9% 6% 9% 5% 4% 5% 1% 10% 26

28 USE OF PROUDLY PROPANE, CLEAN AMERICAN ENERGY CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS BY GALLON SALES As might be expected, use of PERC s consumer campaign materials were, for the most part, found to be higher among propane marketers with gallon sales in excess of 1 million versus their smaller colleagues. Percentage of sample segment stating they have used these materials. CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS <1M (n=262) 1M-<2M (n=198) PROPANE GALLON SALES 2M-<5M (n=192) 5M-<100M (n=152) 100M+ (n=113) ANY MATERIALS 57% 73% 70% 66% 64% Collateral 37% 46% 42% 41% 35% Photos 26% 38% 39% 45% 45% Print Ads 24% 34% 38% 36% 38% Videos 23% 29% 32% 33% 35% Social Media 19% 28% 22% 23% 32% Digital Ads 13% 21% 22% 26% 21% Radio Commercials 6% 11% 9% 6% 9% TV Commercials 4% 5% 3% 5% 10% Significantly higher than other gallon sales segment(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q11) 27

29 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PERC S CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS A solid majority of those who have used at least some of the consumer campaign materials rated their satisfaction with these materials to be fairly high, with 9-10 ratings given by 39% of the base sample. These satisfaction scores were, for the most part, consistent across PADD regions, although it does appear that propane marketers in PADD s 4 and 5 were more pleased with the campaign than were those in PADD s 2 and 3 in particular (differences in the mean scores, however, were not statistically significant). The consumer campaign did receive higher scores, relatively speaking, from marketers with propane gallon sales over 100 million versus their smaller counterparts. Percentage of those using consumer campaign materials able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED TOTAL BASE (n=628) PADD 1 (n=206) PADD 2 (n=247) PADD 3 (n=80) PADD 4 (n=45) PADD 5 (n=50) <1M Gallons (n=143) 1M-<2M Gallons (n=137) 2M-<5M Gallons (n=129) 5M-<100M Gallons (n=99) 100M/More Gallons (n=71) 39% 34% 34% 36% 34% 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating 42% 41% 36% 51% 48% 49% 47% 47% 42% 43% 49% 43% 40% 36% 45% 36% 37% 18% 18% 19% 19% 16% 22% 17% 21% 13% 14% 14% MEAN SCORE * *Significantly higher than other segment(s) within that category at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q12) 28

30 USE OF MARKET OUTREACH TOOLS IN TOTAL & BY PADD REGION (EXCLUDING CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS) Six in ten propane marketers indicated using one or more of PERC s market outreach tools (excluding the consumer campaign materials) to help attract or retain accounts. Percentage of sample segment stating they have used those tools. TOTAL SAMPLE (n=990) ANY TOOLS 60% PADD 1 (n=319) PADD 2 (n=389) PADD REGION PADD 3 (n=119) PADD 4 (n=81) PADD 5 (n=82) 62% 56% 62% 57% 66% The tools used most often by propane marketers include fact sheets, videos, photos, and cost calculators, while the use of digital ads is less common. As with the consumer campaign materials discussed earlier, propane marketers in PADD 1 are more likely to have used a number of these tools versus their counterparts in some of the other regions. The use of cost calculators and case studies are more prevalent in PADD 5. While the use of videos is greater in PADD 4 versus PADD s 2 and 3, propane marketers in this region were significantly less likely to use several of the other tools. Fact Sheets Videos Photos Cost Calculators Print Ads Social Media Case Studies Digital Ads 12% 21% 19% 19% 25% 31% 29% 35% Significantly higher than other PADD region(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q13) 36% 34% 37% 28% 39% 34% 28% 24% 41% 35% 34% 25% 31% 23% 30% 27% 23% 27% 15% 34% 24% 21% 24% 15% 13% 22% 16% 25% `12% 22% 21% 16% 18% 19% 28% 16% 10% 14% 10% 11% 29

31 USE OF PERC MARKET OUTREACH TOOLS BY GALLON SALES (EXCLUDING CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS) As was the case for the consumer campaign materials, propane marketers with gallon sales of less than 1 million are not as likely as their larger counterparts to use these outreach tools. In fact, as gallon sales increase, the tendency to make use of many of these market outreach tools increases. Percentage of sample segment stating they have used those tools. OUTREACH TOOLS <1M (n=262) 1M-<2M (n=198) PROPANE GALLON SALES 2M-<5M (n=192) 5M-<100M (n=152) 100M+ (n=113) ANY TOOLS 45% 55% 65% 70% 76% Fact Sheets 22% 29% 41% 46% 50% Videos 21% 31% 32% 39% 42% Photos 19% 28% 31% 36% 42% Cost Calculators 13% 20% 29% 37% 44% Print Ads 15% 22% 26% 22% 23% Social Media 14% 24% 18% 24% 26% Case Studies 10% 18% 18% 26% 36% Digital Ads 8% 15% 12% 14% 19% Significantly higher than other gallon sales segment(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q13) 30

32 USE OF PERC MARKET OUTREACH TOOLS BY PROPANE MARKET (EXCLUDING CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS) Overall, the use of PERC s outreach tools was found to be most prevalent among propane marketers serving the on-road fleet, landscape, reseller and, to a lesser extent, forklift markets. While those serving the residential, agriculture, and commercial markets are not as likely to use many of these tools, collectively 6 in 10 reported using at least one, which is encouraging. Percentage of sample segment stating they have used. OUTREACH TOOLS Residential (n=869) Agriculture (n=615) On-Road (n=300) PROPANE MARKET Land- Scape (n=171) Fork Lift (n=502) Commercial (n-686) Reseller (n=286) ANY TOOLS 59% 59% 70% 71% 66% 60% 69% Fact Sheets 35% 36% 44% 44% 38% 37% 42% Videos 31% 31% 37% 40% 34% 31% 37% Photos 29% 29% 39% 42% 33% 31% 36% Cost Calculators 25% 25% 36% 37% 29% 26% 33% Print Ads 22% 22% 26% 24% 23% 21% 23% Social Media 20% 20% 25% 25% 23% 21% 24% Case Studies 19% 19% 27% 29% 20% 20% 23% Digital Ads 13% 11% 17% 16% 15% 14% 12% Significantly higher than other market(s) at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q13) 31

33 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PERC S MARKET OUTREACH TOOLS (EXCLUDING CONSUMER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS) Satisfaction ratings for PERC s market outreach tools mirror those shown earlier for the consumer campaign materials, with fairly high scores achieved, although some room for improvement does exist. Percentage of those using market research tools able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED TOTAL BASE (n=568) 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating 37% 42% 21% MEAN SCORE 7.8 Propane marketers in PADD 1 and PADD 5 rated their satisfaction with these outreach tools significantly higher than those in the PADD 2 region. Interestingly, satisfaction with PERC in this regard was also greater among both smaller marketers with propane gallons sales under 1 million as well as larger marketers with propane gallon sales over 100 million (versus mid-sized companies). PADD 1 (n=188) PADD 2 (n=213) PADD 3 (n=72) PADD 4 (n=44) PADD 5 (n=51) <1M Gallons (n=114) 1M-<2M Gallons (n=106) 2M-<5M Gallons (n=121) 40% 33% 38% 41% 41% 46% 33% 34% 41% 44% 43% 32% 43% 36% 44% 41% 19% 23% 19% 27% 16% 18% 23% 25% 7.9* * 8.1* M-<100M Gallons (n=101) 33% 44% 23% M/More Gallons (n=83) 43% 40% 17% 8.1* *Significantly higher than other segment(s) within that category at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q14) 32

34 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PERC When propane marketers were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with PERC, generally speaking, the scores obtained were reasonably strong across the board. There were a few differences in these scores that are perhaps worth noting. Specifically, propane marketers in PADD 1 and PADD 5, those with larger gallon sales, and those serving the landscape market rated their satisfaction with PERC higher versus their respective counterparts. While these scores do suggest some room for improvement (19% gave a rating of 6 or lower ), it is encouraging to see that the majority of propane marketers are satisfied with PERC overall. Percentage of sample segment able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL SATISFIED To 10 = EXTREMELY SATISFIED TOTAL BASE (n=978) PADD 1 (n=317) PADD 2 (n=384) PADD 3 (n=114) PADD 4 (n=81) PADD 5 (n=82) <1M Gallons (n=256) 1M-<2M Gallons (n=197) 2M-<5M Gallons (n=190) 5M-<100M Gallons (n=152) 100M/More Gallons (n=111) Residential (n=860) Agriculture (n=610) On-Road (n=298) Landscape (n=171) Fork Lift (n=497) Commercial (n=679) Reseller (n=286) 36% 32% 36% 35% 31% 38% 39% 33% 35% 39% 35% 33% 35% 37% 34% 34% 36% 9-10 Rating 7-8 Rating 1-6 Rating 45% 46% 39% 47% 45% 45% 42% 49% 47% 46% 48% 44% 47% 46% 44% 47% 38% 46% 50% 22% 26% 19% 19% 17% 19% 22% 15% 18% 18% 15% 19% 19% 21% 19% 20% 20% 13% MEAN SCORE * * * * *Significantly higher than other segment(s) within that category at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q17) 33

35 LIKELIHOOD TO RECOMMEND PERC MATERIALS, PROGRAMS, ETC. TO OTHER INDUSTRY COLLEAGUES OR PROPANE MARKETERS Another indication of satisfaction with any organization is one s willingness to recommend its products or services. To this end, PERC appears to be very strongly positioned. When asked how likely they would be to recommend PERC materials, programs, etc., over one-half (55%) of these propane marketers gave a rating of 9 or 10 on the 10-points possible scale and would be considered promoters for PERC. As would follow given the overall satisfaction results just discussed, PERC promoters are more prevalent in PADD 1 and PADD 5. Propane marketers with larger gallon sales and those serving the landscape market are also more likely than their counterparts to recommend PERC to industry colleagues. Percentage of sample segment able to rate. SCALE: 1 = NOT AT ALL LIKELY To 10 = EXTREMELY LIKELY TO RECOMMEND TOTAL BASE (n=975) <1M Gallons (n=256) 1M-<2M Gallons (n=196) 2M-<5M Gallons (n=190) 5M-<100M Gallons (n=150) 100M/More Gallons (n=111) Residential (n=859) Agriculture (n=610) Landscape (n=171) Commercial (n=676) 9-10 Rating (Promoter) 7-8 Rating (Passive) 1-6 Rating (Detractor) PADD 1 (n=315) PADD 2 (n=384) PADD 3 (n=115) PADD 4 (n=81) PADD 5 (n=80) On-Road (n=297) Fork Lift (n=496) Reseller (n=286) 55% 49% 51% 56% 55% 50% 54% 55% 53% 55% 54% 61% 61% 55% 55% 69% 64% 63% 35% 31% 22% 26% 32% 30% 34% 30% 32% 30% 32% 30% 30% 29% 27% 20% 31% 27% 16% 18% 22% 15% 19% 18% 10% 11% 12% 12% 15% 15% 15% 10% 14% 15% 15% 5% MEAN SCORE * * * * *Significantly higher than other segment(s) within that category at the 95% confidence level. (Reference: Q18) 34

36 REASONS FOR NOT RATING LIKELIHOOD TO RECOMMEND PERC MATERIALS/PROGRAMS HIGHER Those who gave PERC a 6 or lower rating on the recommend scale would be considered detractors and when asked why they did not rate PERC higher in this regard, don t use enough/have what I need and unfamiliar account for many of these reasons. Other reasons mentioned often enough to deserve note include poor customer service/no communication, not accessible/ available, not geared to the small market/individual (or geared towards urban market/not rural). When reviewing these results, it is important to keep in mind that they are based on only 14% of the total sample, which means that most of these complaints reflect comments given by fewer than 1% of the propane marketers surveyed. While perhaps still deserving some attention, they are certainly not widely-held opinions. Rather, most propane marketers are satisfied with and would recommend the materials and programs provided by PERC. Percentage of those rating likelihood to recommend PERC a 6 or lower on the 10-point scale (14% of total sample). VOLUNTEERED REASON % Of Base Sample Mentioning (n=142) Don t Use Them Enough/Don t Have What I Need 21% Unfamiliar 20% Poor Customer Service/No Communication 12% Not Accessible/Available 9% Not Geared To Small Market/Individual 7% Poor Value 6% Need More/Better Advertising 6% Not Impressed/Poor Product 6% Use Another Company 5% Doesn t Do Anything For Me 5% They Already Know/Use Them 4% Don t Talk To Marketers/Competitors/Colleagues 3% Geared Towards Urban Market/Not Rural 3% Don t Like Blue Dog Program 3% No Need To Recommend 3% Dissatisfied With How They Spend Money 3% Another Government Subsidized Program/Too Political 3% Need More Hands-On Training 3% Need To Offer Rebates/Incentives 2% Other* 17% Don t Know/No Reason/Positive Comment 6% Multiple replies (3) accepted. *No other reply volunteered by ore than 1% of base sample. (Reference: Q19) 35

37 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT 36

38 37

39 38

40 39

41 40

42 41

43 42