Summary of Findings

Telephone Survey for

Indiana American Water Company

Indiana Research Service, Inc.

5130 Potomac Drive
Fort Wayne, IN 46835
(260) 485-2442

Project No. 22311

February 2011

1
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

In February 2011, Indiana American Water Company, the largest

investor-owned water utility in Indiana, commissioned Indiana
Research Service, Inc. (IRSI), a Fort Wayne-based independent
marketing research company to conduct a telephone research survey.

The survey was designed to track perceptions, attitudes and behaviors

of customers in three important geographical service areas.
(See Tabulations)

PROCESS

IRSI completed six hundred interviews with adults residing in homes

served by the utility. Indiana American provided IRSI with updated
telephone numbers given by customers, who are believed to include
listed, unlisted and cellular telephones.

The randomized sample was allocated to each of three service areas

proportionately based on the number of customers served.

Results based on the entire sample of 600 are estimated to provide a

margin of error of plus or minus 4% at the ninety-five percentile. This
means were the same survey taken one hundred times, the results
would fall within 4% of our estimates, 95% of the time. This is
considered a relatively high standard for business decision making.

Of necessity, some of our estimates are based on smaller samples. In

these cases, the error margins are substantially larger.

Data for this survey was collected by trained interviewers utilizing

computer-assisted telephone interviewing software. All interviewing
occurred in December 2010 and January 2011.

2
DEMOGRAPHICS

Tabulations are provided for four segments: income, gender, service

area (“region”) and customer age. Random sampling was successfully
employed except for age, where quota sample was employed to
provide demographics mirroring the population of the service areas. As
in most telephone studies, females were slightly over-represented.

Residents of single family homes comprise more than 91% of the

sample. Most households are small, as 88% have only one or two
persons. The great majority (90.2%) own their homes.

The three service areas (“regions”) surveyed were Johnson County,

Newburgh and Noblesville

3
 SURVEY FINDINGS

WATER USAGE

Most (60%) households report “peak” summertime monthly water

costs of $75 or less. Four in ten (42.5%) say that they spend less than
$50. Monthly bills tend to be highest in the Newburgh service area,
where unlike the other two regions; sewer billing is bundled with water
costs.
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
Johnson
30.0%
Newburgh
25.0%
Noblesville
20.0%
Total
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0 - $25 $26 - $50 $51 - $75 $76 - $100 $100 and Don't
above know/Not sure

4
PERCEPTIONS OF INDIANA AMERICAN WATER

The brand name is widely recognized. More than half (56.3%)

correctly identified their water provider as “Indiana American Water”.
An additional 35% identified the company as “Indiana American”,
“Indiana Water” or “American Water”. Noblesville area customers were
somewhat less likely to know the name their water utility.
Name recognition

60.0% 56.3%

50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
11.3% 14.5%
20.0%
9.2% 8.5%
10.0%
0.2%
0.0%
American Indiana Water Indiana Indiana Don’t know / Other
Water American American unsure
Water

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

5
Nearly two-thirds (62.2%) describe their overall satisfaction with the
quality of water service they receive as “completely” or “very”
satisfied.

When price is considered, only about half as many (30.1%) are

“completely” or “very” satisfied. However two-thirds (66.8%) are at
least “moderately” satisfied. Customers between the ages of 45 and 54
were less satisfied than other age groups.
Customer satisfaction

30.7% 31.5%
35.0%
30.0%
23.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
8.2% 6.3%
10.0%
0.3%
5.0%
0.0%
Completely Very satisfied Moderately Only somewhat Not satisfied Don’t know /
satisfied satisfied satisfied unsure

INTEREST IN CONSERVATION

Customers evidence their interest in conservation and saving money in

various ways. Only one in six customers (17.3%) reports not owning
an “Energy Star” energy efficient appliance. A majority (52.5%) have
at least one, but not more than three, such appliances. Just over 20%
recall having received an incentive when purchasing an energy
efficient appliance.
Number of “Energy Star” energy efficient appliances owned
40.5%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0% 23.5%
25.0%
20.0% 17.3%
15.0% 8.3%
6.5%
10.0%
3.2% 0.7%
5.0%
0.0%
0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10 or more Own some, Don’t know /
but not sure unsure
how many

6
 Recollection of rebate or financial incentive when purchasing
energy efficient appliances
64.1%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.6% 15.3%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Yes No Don’t know / unsure

Similarly, only (16.3%) report no use of energy efficient light bulbs in

their homes and few (10.8%) recall receiving an incentive for buying
efficient bulbs. However, Noblesville area customers were twice as
likely to recall (22.3%).
Number of energy efficient light bulbs used throughout entire
home
21.0%
25.0%
16.3% 16.5% 17.3%
20.0%
15.0%
10.2% 7.5% 8.5%
10.0%
2.7%
5.0%
0.0%
None 1-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21+ Own Don’t
some, but know /
not sure unsure
how many

7
 Recollection of rebate or financial incentive when purchasing
energy efficient light bulbs

87.9% 93.8%
100.0%
83.3%
69.4%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
22.3% 10.8%
8.3% 6.0%
20.0%
6.9% 5.2% 2.1% 4.1%
0.0%
Johnson Newburgh Noblesville Total

Yes No Don’t know / unsure

Most customers say that they “take measures to limit or reduce” water
consumption “on a regular basis”. Most (82.3%) advise that they take
shorter showers or baths and turn off running water when shaving or
brushing teeth. Still more (87%) claim to “run their washing machine
only when full”. A sizable majority (79%) are reducing “how often”
they water outdoors.

Nearly four in ten (38.3%) report use of low-flow shower heads while
more than a quarter of homes surveyed (26.5%) claim to use low-flow
faucet aerators. Usage for both products was greatest in homes with
annual income of $50,000 to $100,000 per year. Low-flow toilets are
installed in about 17% of homes surveyed. Very few customers recall
having received a financial incentive to purchase any of the fore
mentioned water conservation devices.

A surprising majority of customers (59%) report “usually not” watering

their lawn in a typical summer week. Seniors, age 65+ were the most
likely to refrain from watering their lawn. 68.9% do not water. More
affluent customers in the top income bracket of $150,000+ are the
most likely to water once or twice per week. 62.5% do so.

Of those who do water lawns, most (54.5%) run their sprinkler for less
than one hour. The most popular time of day for watering outdoors is
6 to 9 pm (43.5%), followed by 5 to 8 am (33.3%). Among those
using irrigation systems, the great majority (87.7%) uses a
programmable timer and most (64%) have a sensor that turns off the
sprinkler when it rains. More than one third (36.3%) claim they would
consider a sensor were it offered at a discount or rebate.

8
53.5% of Newburgh area customers employ permanent irrigation
systems. That is more than twice the penetration rate for the total of
the three service areas (23.2%).

Close to half (44.7%) of homes surveyed never water their gardens,

trees or flowers. About the same number (42.1%) water one to three
times a week. Most of those who water gardens, trees or flowers
(80.1%) spend less than thirty minutes per application doing so.

ATTITUDES CONCERNING WATER SUPPLIES

Apparently consumers do not have grave concerns about their water

supplies. Only 7.3% indicate that water supply is a “major concern”.
However young consumers, age 18-24 are more than twice as likely
(16.2%) to have “major concern”.
View toward the water supply in your area

70.0%
60.0%
Water supply is a major concern
50.0%
It is a moderate concern
40.0%
It is a minor concern
30.0%
It is not a concern
20.0%
Don’t know / unsure
10.0%
0.0%
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or Refused Total
older

However, most consumers (67%) indicate willingness to voluntarily

reduce their water consumption. The primary motivator for
conservation of water is economic. 69% of those surveyed conserve
“to reduce my water bill”.

9
 Liklihood to consider voluntarilyreducing amount of water used

45.0% 39.5%
40.0% 37.5%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% 14.5%
15.0%
5.8%
10.0%
5.0% 2.7%
0.0%
Definitely would Probably would Probably would Definitely would Don’t know /
consider it not not unsure

Motivation for conserving water: "To reduce water bill"

80.0%
69.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
13.0% 18.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1) Most Important 2) 3) Least important

A slight majority (50.1%) ranks “ensuring long-term economic success

for my community” as their second greatest water conservation
motivator.

Of the three reasons researched “ensuring long-term water availability

for my community” was the least often chosen. Only 9.7% selected
“availability” as the prime motivator to conserve.

A majority of those surveyed would consider purchasing a low-flow

shower head or aerator if an attractive rebate were offered.

10
MESSAGING FOR WATER CONSERVATION

More than a third (37.5%) has no recollection of hearing or seeing any

type of message about water conservation within the past year. Of
those who recall having seen or heard such a message, 15.2% credit
Indiana American Water as the source or sponsor. Indianapolis
Waterworks was cited by just 6.7%

The medium where water conservation messages were most often

noticed is television. More than half (55.6%) of those recalling a
conservation message claims to have seen it on TV. Newspaper scored
a distant second with 17.2%.

Media where water conservation messages were noticed

55.6%
60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%
17.2% 16.4%
20.0%
5.2% 5.6%
10.0%

0.0%
Newspaper Internet Mail TV Other

When asked how many Indiana American water conservation

messages were observed in the past year, one of the most frequent
answers was twelve times. Perhaps the most likely explanation for the
frequency of twelve is the inclusion of inserts in the monthly water bill.
As further evidence 16.7% recall seeing bill inserts, but were unsure of
exactly how many they have seen.

The vast majority (93.3%) of customers say that posting information

on social media sites about local conservation efforts would not be an
effective way to reach consumers.

Two tag lines were compared for their ability to link water
conservation, environmental responsibility and saving money on
one’s water bill.”Green begins with me” received 46.2% of the vote
outpacing “Save blue, save green” at 31.2%. The margin in favor of
“Green begins” was somewhat larger among females; (51.5% to
27.5%), but males also favored “Green begins”.

11
 60.0%
51.5%
46.2%
50.0%
39.1%
36.0%
40.0%
31.2% Save Blue. Save Green
24.8% 27.5%
30.0% Green begins with me
21.1% 22.7%
Don’t know / unsure
20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Male Female Total

A substantial minority (41.3%) finds it effective to receive information

about water conservation in their monthly water bill, but the majority
(58.7%) does not agree.

A slight majority (50.7%) say that conservation stories or information

on TV would be effective. About half as many (25%) would find water
conservation information and articles in the newspaper effective.

30.7% would find radio messages to be effective while 26.7% values

direct mail. Just 18.3% would find it effective on social media web
sites and only 6.7% would find it effectively through the company’s
web site. Given the large number of childless couples in this
population, it is not surprising that only 11.2% would find messages
brought home from school to be effective.

Effective ways to reach people with information regarding water

conservation efforts in your area
50.7%
60.0%
41.3%
50.0%
30.7%
40.0%
25.0% 26.7% 18.3%
30.0%
11.2%
20.0%
10.0% 6.7%

0.0%
Provide Inserts Place Articles Provide Stories Priovide Post Send Printed Use Social Send Materials
sent to you in or information or information Stories or Information on materials media sites, home from
your monthly in the over the radio information on your water directly to your like Facebook, school with
bill newspaper television company’s home twitter or your children
website MySpace

12
CONCLUSIONS

The “Indiana American Water” brand name is widely recognized

among its customers in the three areas surveyed.

Nearly two-thirds of Indiana American Water consumers report

high satisfaction with the quality of water service they receive.

Energy efficient appliances are becoming more common. Only

one in six Indiana American Water customers reports not owning
an “Energy Star” energy efficient appliance. About the same
small percentage report no use of energy efficient light bulbs in
their homes.

Most customers say that they take measures to limit or reduce

water consumption “on a regular basis”.

A surprising majority of customers do not water their lawn in a

typical summer week. Older adults and seniors, age 55+ were
the most likely to refrain from watering their lawn. Roughly three
quarters report reducing outdoor watering.

Consumers generally do not have grave concerns about their

water supplies. However young consumers, age 18-24 are more
than twice as likely to have “major concern”.

While most consumers indicate willingness to voluntarily reduce

their water consumption. The primary motivator for conservation
of water is economic.

13
 More than a third of consumers have no recollection of hearing
or seeing any type of message about water conservation within
the past year.

The medium where water conservation messages were most

often noticed is television. Newspaper scored a distant second.

A substantial minority (41.3%) finds it effective to receive

information about water conservation in their monthly water bill.

A slight majority say that conservation stories or information on

TV would be effective. At least half as many would find water
conservation information on radio and articles in the newspaper
effective.

Copyright 2011 Indiana Research Service, Inc.

14