410 likes | 427 Views
An evaluation of the 2007 telephone survey results on K-State Research & Extension awareness among Kansas adults. The survey aimed to gauge credibility, importance, funding support, and interest areas. It also examined information channels and web technology usage among different demographics.
E N D
Awareness and Evaluation ofK-State Research and Extension Summer 2007 Telephone Survey Results Department of Communications Presented by Pat Melgares
Five Year Marketing Plan (2006-2010) Target marketing Why are we doing this?
Randomized digit dialing Survey Research Center (KU) All Kansas adults (age 18-older) Evening phone calls (June/July) Goal: 500 response Methods
512 responses (26.4 percent) 95% confidence level +/- 4% margin of error Results
Respondents expressed a stronger awareness of “Extension” compared to KAES, CES or KSRE Results
Number and percentage of respondents who said they had heard of the organization, by related names: N = 512
71% associated this system with Kansas State University Results
This system is associated with a university in the state of Kansas. Which university do you think that is? N = 512
Would you consider information from K-State Research and Extension to be very credible, somewhat credible, or not credible? N = 512
Service is perceived to be important in the state of Kansas Results
In your opinion, is it very important, somewhat important, or not important to maintain this type of service in the state of Kansas? N = 512
Do you approve, strongly approve, neither approve nor disapprove, disapprove, or strongly disapprove of spending public funds to support this program? N = 512
All areas of service are considered high interest among respondents Results
Number and percentage of respondents who said they are very or somewhat interested in selected topic areas: N = 512
Internet/computer usage is high; awareness of KSRE Web site is low Results
Awareness of K-State Research and Extension Web site, or local county Web site N = 512
Information channels rated as effective or very effective ways to provide Kansas citizens with information on topics that they are interested in. N = 512
Information ChannelsYoung adults (ages 24-44)Internet, TV, public places, brochures/reports, newsletters Results
Information ChannelsCurrent UsersNewspapers, TV, brochures/reports, presentations/seminars, telephone, public places, newsletters Results
Information ChannelsNon-UsersNewspapers, TV, public places, newsletters Results
Information channels: Non-Users N = 360
Information ChannelsMetro ResidentsInternet, radio, telephone, public places Results
Information ChannelsSuburban ResidentsInternet, newspapers, radio, TV, public places Results
Information ChannelsRural ResidentsNewspapers, TV, brochures/reports, public places, newsletters Results
Information ChannelsLeast effectiveVideotapes, courses/classes*(moderately effective for Current Users) Results
Web technologiesMinimal familiarity, mostly blogs, discussion boards, and chat roomsHigher overall among men than women. Results
Mean scores for respondents’ familiarity with common or emerging Web technologies. SCALE: 1 – Completely unfamiliar; 3 – Somewhat familiar;5 – Very familiar with the technology and have used it.
Focus groups (metro areas) Web address survey Additional research
County Web Addresses SCALE: 1 – Strongly dislike it; 2 – Dislike it; 3 – Neither Like or Dislike it; 4 – Like it; 5 – Strongly like it.
County Web Addresses SCALE: 1 – Strongly dislike it; 2 – Dislike it; 3 – Neither Like or Dislike it; 4 – Like it; 5 – Strongly like it.
KSRE Web Addresses SCALE: 1 – Strongly dislike it; 2 – Dislike it; 3 – Neither Like or Dislike it; 4 – Like it; 5 – Strongly like it.
KSRE Web Addresses SCALE: 1 – Strongly dislike it; 2 – Dislike it; 3 – Neither Like or Dislike it; 4 – Like it; 5 – Strongly like it.
What’s Next? Market Research