Two in Three (65%) Say It’s a Buyer’s Market Right Now

Toronto, ON – Opportunity awaits as two in three (65%) Canadians believe the current real-estate market in Canada is a buyer’s market, according to the 16th Annual RBC/Ipsos Reid Housing Poll. Nearly three in ten (27%) say they’re ‘likely’ (9% very/18% somewhat) to purchase a home within the next two years’, up 4 points from last year and the largest single-year increase since 2001. But Canadians are split on whether buying conditions will change to be more favourable within the next year, such that it makes more sense to wait until next year (52%) or buy now (48%).

• Albertans (35%) are most likely to say they’ll buy a home within the next two years, followed by those living in Ontario (30%), British Columbia (26%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (25%), Atlantic Canada (25%), and Quebec (22%).
• British Columbians (78%) are the most likely to believe that it’s a buyer’s market right now, followed by those living in Ontario (73%), Alberta (72%), Atlantic Canada (58%) and Quebec (52%). Only one in three (34%) in Saskatchewan and Manitoba believe the same.

The increase in home-buying intentions appears to be led by the under 35 segment of the population, as 48% say they’re ‘likely’ (18% very/29% somewhat) to purchase a home in the next two years, up 12 points from last year. Renters also see an opportunity to enter the real-estate market, as four in ten (38%) say they’re ‘likely’ (11% very/26% somewhat) to purchase in the next two years.

Overall, most (83%) Canadians are still convinced that buying a house or condominium is a ‘good’ (34% very/48% somewhat) investment. While this proportion is down 3 points from last year and 8 points from its high of two years ago, it is still well above its low (72%) of 1999.

Among those individuals who intend to buy a home within the next two years, three in ten (28%) say that favourable housing prices are among their reasons for purchasing. A majority (54%) of Canadians believe that housing prices will continue to drop next year (up from 23% last year), compared to 25% who think they will be higher (down from 56%), or 21% who believe that prices will be the same at this time next year (unchanged).

One in ten (14%) homeowners believe their home has lost value within the last two years, but a majority (54%) of these individuals believe the value of their home will recover within 3-5 years, while others believe it will be a shorter time-frame (30%), longer (11%), or never (6%).

Among those individuals who are not intending to purchase a home within the next two years, most (60%) say they’ve already got a home, but others cite job anxiety (8%) or general concern for current economic conditions (6%) as the reason they’re not likely to purchase a home. Three percent (3%) are waiting for prices to stabilize or decrease further.

45% of Canadians Agree that Serious Action on Climate Change Should Wait Until the Recession is Behind Us
Seven in Ten (71%) Say It is More Important for the Government to Focus on Jobs Than Climate Change at the Moment

Toronto, ON – As Canadians and their governments try to figure out how best to move forward in this time of economic recession, many have argued that other important issues have taken a back seat to economic concerns. A new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of the Dominion Institute has revealed that nearly one half (45%) of Canadians ‘agree’ (13% strongly/32% somewhat) that ‘serious action on climate change should wait until the recession is behind us’. Four in ten Canadians (43%) also ‘disagree’ (12% strongly/31% somewhat) that ‘Canada should take serious action on climate change right now, even if it means higher deficits’, meaning that a majority (57%) ‘agrees’ (19% strongly/37% somewhat) with this premise.

• Albertans (57%) are the most likely to believe that serious action on climate change should wait until the recession is behind us, followed by those living in Ontario (48%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (44%), Quebec (43%), British Columbia (39%), and Atlantic Canada (33%).
• Atlantic Canadians (68%) are most likely to agree that serious action should be taken right now even if it means higher deficits, while those living in Quebec (65%), Ontario (55%), British Columbia (53%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (52%) and Alberta (42%) are less likely.
• Those aged 18 to 34 are more likely (63%) to believe that action should be taken right now, while those aged 35 to 54 (55%) and 55+ (54%) are less likely.

In fact, seven in ten (71%) ‘agree’ (30% strongly/42% somewhat) that ‘it is more important for the Canadian government to focus on jobs than climate change at the moment’.

• Older Canadians (76%) are more likely than middle-aged (71%) or younger Canadians (67%) to say that it is more important for the Canadian government to focus on jobs than on climate change at the moment.
• Albertans (81%) are most likely to say that jobs should be the focus before climate change, followed by those in British Columbia (75%), Ontario (75%), Quebec (66%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (66%) and Atlantic Canada (58%).

With the economy dominating the political landscape, two in three (62%) believe (16% strongly/47% somewhat) that ‘the Canadian government is less concerned about climate change than it was a year ago’. However, the survey shows that Canadians don’t necessarily see economic stimulus and environmental action as being a trade-off, as three quarters (73%) ‘agree’ (23% strongly/49% somewhat) that ‘the Canadian government should only adopt economic stimulus measures that are environmentally sustainable’.

• Younger Canadians are most likely (79%) to think that only environmentally sustainable initiatives should be adopted with stimulus funds, while middle-aged (72%) and older Canadians (67%) are less likely to think so.

In an interesting measure of their desire for environmental protection vis a vis economic progress, two in three (64%) ‘agree’ (22% strongly/42% somewhat) that the ‘development of the Alberta Tar Sands should stop until a clean method of extraction can be found’, with nearly one half (47%) of Albertans agreeing with this position. Those in other areas of the country are more likely to agree, though: Quebec (73%), Atlantic Canada (71%), Ontario (64%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (59%), British Columbia (58%).

Obama and the Kyoto Protocol…

Seven in ten (68%) Canadians think (19% strongly/49% somewhat) that ‘the US will do more to tackle climate change under President Barack Obama than Canada will’. Perhaps as a result, nine in ten (91%) ‘agree’ (36% strongly/55% somewhat) that ‘Canada and the US should harmonize their climate change policies’.

• Younger Canadians are most likely (75%) to agree that ‘the US will do more to tackle climate change under President Barack Obama than Canada will’, followed by those aged 55+ (68%) or aged 35 to 54 (62%).

The Kyoto Protocol has been a contentious issue in Canada since its inception, and one that divides many Canadians and political parties. Canadians continue to be nearly evenly divided on this topic, with half (51%) ‘agreeing’ (16% strongly/36% somewhat) that ‘Canada should meet its Kyoto commitments even if this results in higher costs of living for Canadians’, while the other half (49%) ‘disagrees’ (16% strongly/33% somewhat).

• Atlantic Canadians (64%) are the most likely to say that ‘Canada should meet its Kyoto commitments even if this results in higher costs of living for Canadians’ followed by those living in Quebec (59%), British Columbia (50%), Ontario (49%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (45%) and Alberta (34%).

Canadians and Climate Change…

Contrary to their beliefs about the government, six in ten (59%) ‘agree’ (20% strongly/39% somewhat) that they are ‘more concerned about climate change than a year ago’, while one in three (31%) ‘agree’ (5% strongly/26% somewhat) that they are less concerned than a year ago.

Eight in ten (85%) Canadians ‘agree’ (22% strongly/64% somewhat) that they are doing their fair share to fight climate change. Further, seven in ten think (15% strongly/55% somewhat) that they’re ‘doing more than most people when it comes to helping the environment’.

• Interestingly, younger Canadians are least likely (81%) to say they’re doing their part, while middle-aged (87%) and older Canadians (86%) are more likely.
• Atlantic Canadians (88%) are the most likely to agree that they’re doing their part, followed by Ontarians (87%), British Columbians (87%), Quebecers (85%), residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba (84%) and Albertans (75%).

Six in ten (59%) agree (9% strongly/49% somewhat) that ‘Canada will have an environmentally-sustainable economy within their lifetime’, but four in ten (41%) ‘disagree’ (6% strongly/35% somewhat) that this will be the case.

• Younger Canadians (63%) are most likely to believe that this will be the case, while middle-aged (60%) and older Canadians (53%) are less likely.

Focusing on consumer trends and habits, two in three (66%) Canadians ‘agree’ (15% strongly/51% somewhat) that they are ‘prepared to pay more for an energy-efficient product’. However, nearly one half (45%) says they’re less likely to pay more for an environmentally-friendly product than they were a year ago – a change in behaviour likely brought on by tougher economic times.

• Younger Canadians are the most likely (73%) to say that they’re prepared to pay more for energy-efficient products, while older (67%) and middle-aged (62%) individuals are less likely.

For Companies in Unpopular Industries, the Silver Lining Is a Greater Opportunity to Stand Out

New York, NY – Since 2006, Ipsos Public Affairs has been studying and tracking the corporate reputation of over one hundred leading corporations in the United States, and of over thirty different economic sectors or industries with a research program named I-Rep American Public.

The results from this study show an interesting pattern: in sectors that are poorly rated – e.g., the oil and gas, mortgage-lenders and pharmaceutical industries – individual companies can receive surprisingly high favorability ratings. The wide gap between industry favorability scores and company favorability scores suggests that companies that operate in a challenging environment, but nurture their reputation can truly stand out. In contrast, the gap between favorability scores for popular industries such as information technology, food and beverage, and household cleaning products and those for the best-scoring companies in these sectors is not as wide.

These findings suggest that an equal gain in favorability provides a greater opportunity for a company in an unpopular sector to distinguish itself from its category than it does for a company in a well-liked sector. Considering that favorability is highly correlated with familiarity in all sectors, one could argue that equal gains in awareness and familiarity would have a higher relative impact on the image of a company operating in a poorly-liked sector than it would on the image of, say an IT or a CPG company. As awareness and familiarity result from exposure (through marketing, advertising, media coverage, etc.) the logical next step is to posit that companies in difficult sectors get a bigger return for their communications efforts than do those companies in more popular sectors.

Looking at data recently collected through I-Rep American Public, Ipsos Public Affairs compared favorability scores for each of eight sectors and those for specific companies within these sectors. More precisely, the metric used for the analysis is the “net favorability” score for each industry or company, calculated by subtracting the percentage of unfavorable responses (“very unfavorable” or “somewhat unfavorable”) from the percentage of favorable responses (“very favorable” or “somewhat favorable”). We have focused our analysis on eight sectors with diverse levels of net favorability and on a total of 51 companies operating in these sectors:

1. three sectors that consistently enjoy high levels of net favorability among the American public -- the information technology, food and beverage and household cleaning product industries;
2. two sectors that are relatively unpopular as they receive almost as many unfavorable opinions as favorable opinions: the automotive and payment cards industries; and
3. three sectors with negative net favorability scores: the oil and gas industry, which has had a very poor image for a long time, the mortgage lending sector, which has only recently become as unpopular as the oil and gas industry and the pharmaceutical sector which now receives slightly more negative than positive ratings.

Our analysis shows that, while the net favorability score for the information technology sector is +47 (as 56% have a favorable opinion of it and 9% an unfavorable opinion of it, the remainder being neutral), the score for the highest rated company in the IT sector is +74. Therefore, the gap between the best-rated IT company’s net favorability score and that of the sector in general is 27 points. In the food and beverage sector, the results are similar; the net favorability score for the sector is +49, while the top company’s score is +72, showing a gap of 23 points. In the other “popular” sector in our analysis – household cleaning products – the gap between the top-rated company’s score (+62) and the sector’s score (+48) is only 14 points. In sum, among those three “popular” sectors, the best-rated company’s score never exceeds that of its sector in general by as much as 30 points.

In contrast, “unpopular” sectors previously mentioned show considerably larger gaps between the best-rated company’s score in its sector and that sector’s score.

The oil and gas sector has a net favorability score of -57 (indeed 69% have an unfavorable opinion of it compared with only 12% who view it favorably), while one major company in the sector has a score of +12. This represents a gap of 69 points, or threefold the gap observed in the food and beverage sector. The results for the mortgage lenders sector are similar: while the sector’s net score is -53, the net favorability score for one of the key players in that industry is +18, a gap of 71 points. And in the pharmaceutical industry, the best-rated company enjoys a net score of +60 while the sector’s is -11 — also a gap of 71 points. In all three sectors with a net negative score, the gap approximates 70 points.

The picture in the “relatively unpopular” sectors is barely any better: The payment cards sector shows a gap of 55 points and the automotive sector a gap of 52 points. (See graph below )

As we mentioned before, extensive research demonstrates that familiarity breeds favorability; which means that generally, with the right conditions, the more a company is well known, the better it is liked. However, in order for familiarity to translate into favorability, the type of exposure feeding familiarity plays a major role. Research shows that unlike the old cliché, there is such a thing as “bad publicity”.

To illustrate this point we have taken two companies from the mortgage lenders sector; one that is ‘known at least a little’ by 54% of the general public (Lender A), and one known by 36% of the general public (Lender B). Between these companies there is an 18-point gap in favor of Lender A when it comes to familiarity. In terms of favorability, however, the story is different; Lender A’s net score is -16 (as 14% have a favorable opinion of it, 30% an unfavorable opinion of it and 57% are neutral), compared to +18 for Lender B (20% have a favorable opinion, 2% an unfavorable opinion of it and 78% are neutral). While both companies were measured at different times , the interesting point is that due to the negative media exposure presented by Lender A at the time of the survey, the favorability score was impacted negatively despite of its comparatively high familiarity.

The generally popular food and beverage sector, which has not suffered from the same type of negative exposure as the mortgage lending sector, presents a very different picture. When comparing Food Company A’s and Food Company B’s familiarity levels (94% and 45%, respectively) – the measured companies in the food and beverage sector with the highest and lowest familiarity scores , one can observe that the gap between their familiarity scores is exactly the same as the gap between their net favorability scores (+66 for Food Company A and +17 for Food Company B), 49 points. We have also compared familiarity and favorability of over one hundred companies measured by I-Rep American Public since 2006, and while the relationship is not as linear as it is with Food Companies A and B, it is undeniably present (see graph below).

Two important conclusions can be drawn from these analyses. First, there is a clear relationship between familiarity and favorability; however, in order for the relationship to be positive and to translate into an increment in favorability, the exposure that feeds familiarity must be positive. Second; for companies in unpopular sectors, a gain in familiarity resulting from positive exposure is likely to create a more effective differentiation from its sector than for companies in popular industries.

One could argue that it is in times of sector-wide crisis – when overall sector favorability is low – that companies committed to enhancing their reputation can most efficiently differentiate themselves from their direct competitors and emerge as reputation leaders in their sector. Undertaking a careful examination and evaluation of their reputation is an important first step that companies can take to stand out.

Reduced Travel and Shorter Trip Duration are Coupled with Travelers Who Are Looking to Switch Brands and Save on Meals and Entertainment

New York, NY – Fasten your seatbelts as the travel industry is facing strong headwinds. According to a recent survey conducted among U.S. adults by Ipsos’ Travel and Tourism division, both business and leisure travel are expected to see deepening shrinkage in 2009. The survey shows four in ten (39%) business travelers are saying that the financial crisis will cause them to reduce their overall business trips and/or expenditures, and just over half (52%) of leisure travelers plan to reduce their overall leisure trips and/or expenditures, compared to 2008.

“The numbers are sobering, and all sectors of the travel and hospitality industry have an immense challenge on their hands,” notes Jim Quilty, Vice President with Ipsos’ Travel and Tourism division.

Economy’s Impact on Business Travel Volumes

In terms of the expected business travel in 2009, a strong majority (79%) of Americans say they do not plan to take any business trips this year, while two in ten (21%) plan to take at least one business trip in 2009. Among those who plan to take at least one business trip, 71% expect that their 2009 travel volume will either remain the same (42%) or be lower (29%) compared to 2008.

Although just over half (54%) of business travelers say the current financial crisis will not have any impact on their planned business trips, a significant percentage (39%) say the financial crisis will cause them to reduce their overall business trips and/or expenditures.

Economy’s Impact on Leisure Travel Volumes

On the leisure side, most (81%) Americans say they plan to take at least one leisure trip in 2009, while two in ten (19%) do not plan to take any leisure trips in the coming year. Among those leisure travelers, 68% expect that their 2009 travel volume will either remain the same (47%) or be lower (20%) compared to 2008.

It appears that the leisure travel market will be hit even harder by the current economic downturn. Among those who plan to take at least one leisure trip in 2009, more than half (52%) say the current financial crisis will cause them to reduce their overall leisure trips and/or expenditures, while nearly four in ten (43%) say the financial crisis will not have any impact on their planned leisure travel.

Similarities & Differences in Cost Saving Techniques

It is interesting to note that of those who responded that the current financial crisis will cause them to reduce their overall business or leisure trips and/or expenditures in 2009 were asked how they intend to do so; significant differences exist between business and leisure travelers. The top way business travelers plan to save on expenditures is to stay at a less expensive hotel brand (61%), while among leisure travelers, this measure ranks sixth (45%). In contrast, the top way travelers intend to save on their leisure expenditures is to spend less on meals and entertainment (66%), while among business travelers, this measure ranks last, with just 2% of travelers who say they intend to cut business expenses this way.

“Today we have a new normal,” adds Quilty. “Business travelers will only demonstrate as much brand loyalty - especially among hotel selection - as they can afford, and leisure travelers are cutting back on meals and entertainment. This presents a unique challenge to travel suppliers. The brands that are most creative in demonstrating and communicating value and delivering customer service will fare better in 2009.”

Despite some clear differences in how travelers intend to save on business versus leisure expenses, strong similarities also exist. Reducing the number of nights away from home ranks as the second most common way travelers intend to lessen their leisure and business expenditures (58% and 57% respectively), while staying with friends or family more often ranks as the third most common way travelers plan to lower their leisure and business expenses (51% and 41% respectively).

“Travel brands across all sectors have a significant volume and rate issue on their hands as they aggressively compete for a smaller share of consumer travel and spending, resulting in a buyer’s market,” says Quilty.

For more detailed findings and how marketers can respond, please see our Point of View on the “New Normal”.

Toronto, ON — A new Ipsos poll conducted on behalf of Kellogg’s Special K of women aged 25 to 64 in ten major Canadian cities has found that City of Toronto women came out tops in a majority (4/7) of the seven life areas tested compared with their urban counterparts in the study. Two other cities where their female respondents came out at the top of a particular category were Vancouver (2/7) and Quebec City (1/7).