2. What’s good? –Clear wording. –A “typical week” eliminates confusion as to weekday vs. weekend What’s bad? –The “buckets” are not evenly distributed. (normative and informational bias towards low answers) –The behavior is poorly defined. E.g., “What part of my internet activity fits their definition?” What would be better? –Clarify what “visiting websites” means –Perhaps ask separate questions about weekdays or weekends. –Use open-ended reporting or same-sized buckets.

4. What’s bad? –There is not a lot to learn from the question. –It is really obvious that MAZDA3 is the target of the survey. –Arrangement of response options indicates that “Not Sure” does not fall between the first two. –Ambiguates response What’s good? –Clear wording. –Allows for a non-response (i.e., “not sure”). What would be better? –If you want to gauge actual familiarity, perhaps ask people to match photos with labels. –If you want subjective familiarity, allow people to report that on a graded scale. –If you want relative subjective familiarity, ask people to rank the options. –Choose comparison options that are similar in knowledge/familiarity.

6. What’s bad? –Extraordinarily difficult to answer correctly (“not sure” is very tempting). –Again, “not sure” is in a peculiar physical position. –1. “I am not sure what a MAZDA3 is” –2. “I am not sure if I have seen it advertised” –3. “I am not sure if those advertisements were online.” –4. “I am not sure if it was within 30 days.” What’s good? –Clear wording. –Clearly identifies which media channel under consideration. What would be better? –Implicit Goal: Has the respondent seen any online ads for our product? –Perhaps it is better to simply estimate based on knowledge of website and exposures paid for. –Alternatively, you could ask about something precise and see if respondents identify it. (e.g., an image or a slogan)

8. What’s bad? –Ambiguates indifference and ambivalence. –Who has a “very unfavorable” view of a Sentra? (the scale implies too much range). What’s good? –Generally clear. –Easy to use 5-point bipolar scale. What would be better? –Other than conflation of brand ignorance with brand indifference, this question seems easy to answer and face valid. –Yay!

10. What’s bad? –Implies that people would (should) have different strategies for different brands. –How do you differentiate someone who would consider a Civic (but not the others) from someone who searches differently by brand? –What is Consumer Reports? Does it matter if I read it in print or online? What’s good? –Allows for many responses –Conceptually captures meaningful variation in consumer search What would be better? –Perhaps ask people to identify where they would seek automotive advice in general, and provide a semi- exhaustive list. –If you want to know which brand people are considering, ask that directly.

12. What’s bad? –What is “neutral” consideration of purchase? –Is the respondent meant to interpret these as “relative likelihood” or “absolute likelihood”? –What constitutes consideration (have I already reached the minimum threshold)? What’s good? –Simple, generally straightforward. What would be better? –Ask two questions: (a) Would you consider buying one of these vehicles? (b) Relative to the listed alternatives, how much would you consider this option? –Perhaps allow people to express likelihood on a 100- point scale. –Remove silly neutral option.

14. What’s bad? –We already know that this is a survey for MAZDA3, that is probably the answer. –The extent to which I am uncertain, that answer is more likely (because the other brands are better known). –On the other hand, “don’t know” is incredibly appealing. What’s good? –Objective method for assessing knowledge of advertising. What would be better? –Ask about a number of slogans and look for the correct pairing. –Include fake slogans. –Exclude the “don’t know” option.

16. What’s bad? –If MAZDA3 is unfamiliar, that is a lot of room for non-response. –Scale midpoint responses are identical for people who have no knowledge and for people with neutral opinions. –People feel like they are doing something wrong if they give the same answer over and over. –False variation… and undifferentiable from random responding. What’s good? –Directly asks about associations with the product. What would be better? –Use a previous question to identify sufficient product knowledge. –Allow people to respond “don’t know” for specific items.

18. What’s bad? –Very difficult to express uncertainty. –Mini-van? –What counts as a cross-over SUV? –If I want a sedan that is sporty, but not luxurious, which box do I check? What’s good? –Gives a necessarily complete list (i.e., it includes “other”). –Most entries are understandable. What would be better? –Perhaps ask about specific parameters and build the concept. –How many doors? Approximate price? How fast? Mileage? –Ask a separate question about how certain people are in their preferences.

20. What’s bad? –Buckets range in size. Are they proportional to the population? –Because the lower end is over represented, the survey has now made it clear that the MAZDA3 is not for wealthier people. What’s good? –A complete list of options. –Income is generally well understood. –Small buckets allow for sensitivity at the smaller end of the scale. What would be better? –Actually, this is challenging. An open-ended item would be fine in concept, but people may feel lazy or uncomfortable answering it. –Even buckets might be nice, but that would provide less subtlety at the low end. –Perhaps ask two questions: large buckets, followed by small buckets.