Better Buildings Residential Network Peer Exchange Call Series: Bullseye: The Advantages of Targeted MarketingJuly 20, 2017Call Slides and Discussion Summary

Agenda and Ground Rules

▪ Agenda Review and Ground Rules ▪ Opening Polls▪ Residential Network Overview and Upcoming Call Schedule▪ Featured Speakers

▪ Marti Frank, Principal, Efficiency for Everyone, LLC ▪ Annika Todd, Senior Scientific Engineering Associate in the Electricity

Markets and Policy Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ▪ Kessie Avseikova, Senior Project Manager, Opinion Dynamics

▪ Discussion▪ Closing Poll and Announcements

2

Ground Rules:

1. Sales of services and commercial messages arenot appropriate during Peer Exchange Calls.

2. Calls are a safe place for discussion; please do notattribute information to individuals on the call.

Better Buildings Residential Network

Join the NetworkMember Benefits: ▪ Recognition in media and publications▪ Speaking opportunities▪ Updates on latest trends▪ Voluntary member initiatives▪ Solution Center guided tours

7

Commitment: ▪ Members only need to

provide one number: their organization’s number of residential energy upgrades per year.

Upcoming calls:• July 27: Making Program Evaluation Work for You• August 3: Making The Grade: Innovative Approaches to Improving Quality• August 10: Doing More with Less: Low Cost Program Strategies• August 17: Back to School: Engaging Students in Energy Efficiency at

Home and in the Classroom

For more information or to join, for no cost, email bbresidentialnetwork@ee.doe.gov, or go to energy.gov/eere/bbrn & click Join

Best Practices: Efficiency for Everyone, LLC Marti Frank, Principal

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Three (not so) easy steps to design programs for people we’re not reaching now

Marti Frank, Efficiency for Everyone

DOE Better Buildings Peer Network WebinarJuly 2017

Who do we want to reach?

Who do we want to reach?

= ≠

Who do we want to reach?

=Data

≠

Who do we want to reach?

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

Who do we want to reach?

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

How do we reach more of

them?

Who do we want to reach?

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

How do we reach more of

them?

Who do we want to reach?

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

Why?How do we

reach more of them?

Who do we want to reach?

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

Why?

What do we do about it?

How do we reach more of

them?

Three (not so) easy steps

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

Why?

What do we do about it?

How do we reach more of

them?

Source: Frank and Nowak. 2016. Who’s Participating and Who’s Not? The Unintended Consequences of Untargeted Programs. ACEEE Summer Study.

Example #1 Participation in California IOU appliance programs

Applianceincentives

Refrigerator recycling

All homeowners

High-income 48% 29% 30%

College degree 87% 54% 57%

English speakers Unknown 94% 85%

Single-family home 83% 79% 74%

Example #2 Pacific Northwest regional collaboration

Who: Ten utilities/funders in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana

What: Coordinating to define a process for analyzing participation data, publish report on participation

When: Q1 2018

Why: Meet Power Plan goal of ensuring full participation

Contact: Kevin SmitNorthwest Power and Conservation Council

2nd question Why?

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

Why?

What do we do about it?

How do we reach more of

them?

3rd question What do we do about it?

=Data

≠

Who’s participating? Who’s not?

Why?

What do we do about it?

How do we reach more of

them?

Example #1 VEIC’s Revised Home Performance with Energy Star

Who’s not Moderate-income homeownersparticipating?

Why? Key program elements don’t work for themPrimarily due to time and $ constraints

What do we Testing a free home energy visit/consultationdo about it? Testing role of Home Energy Advisor

Contact: Matt KilcoyneEfficiency Vermont

Example #2 Efficiency for Everyone’s Shift Model for Appliances

Who’s not Low/moderate income, no college, rentersparticipating? Buyers of low-priced appliances

Why? High incremental cost of Energy Star$ constraints

What do we do Target incentives to buy down the cost of ando about it? Energy Star appliance to the same price as the

cheapest (inefficient) model on the sales floor

Contact: Marti FrankEfficiency for Everyone

What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Three (not so) easy steps to design programs for people we’re not reaching now

Marti Frank

DOE Better Buildings Peer Network WebinarJuly 2017

Presentation Highlights: Efficiency for Everyone, LLC

22

▪ Programs should understand both who they are missing and why. ▪ Biggest misses are often the lower and middle-income segments:

▪ Evaluation in California found less variation in participation in an incentive program for appliance recycling compared to providing incentives for purchase of new appliances

▪ The latter program attracted wealthier, higher education participants, mainly due to high cost and rigid offerings.

▪ There’s no one right way to identify the “why” once you’ve identified who’s not participating. VEIC did extensive qualitative research to understand why moderate income homeowners were not participating in its HPwES program: ▪ Findings: (1) Homeowners thought they know what their home needed and did not want

to do the required audit; (2) The required comprehensive upgrades were too expensive; (3) Homeowners preferred to do the labor themselves rather than use pre-qualified contractors

▪ Solution: VEIC initiated a free energy visit, direct shipment of free bulbs and appliance coupons; created a home energy advisor role

▪ First-cost barrier: people are wired to favor the most convenient choices. ▪ A Shift Model tested in Fort Collins (CO) used midstream incentives paid to retailers to

reduce the cost of the most inexpensive Energy Star appliances to shift sales away from inexpensive and inefficient versions.

Best Practices: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Annika Todd, Senior Scientific Engineering Associate in the Electricity Markets and Policy Group

Behavior Analytics:new data + new techniques understand people, target the right segments and tailor messages, improve programs!Annika Todd, PhD, July 2017Team: Sam Borgeson, Dan Fredman, Ling Jin, Sid Patel, Anna Spurlock, Annika Todd, Alex Sim, John Wu, Taehoon Kim, Dongeun Lee, Jaesik Choi

Things are changing!

• Electric vehicles, renewables, fancy batteries

changing grid

• Energy reductions: need programs to deliver▪ Where we need it

▪ When we need it

▪ How much we need

• And cheaply!

• And quickly!

sound overwhelming?

Things are changing!

• Electric vehicles, renewables, fancy batteries

changing grid

• Energy reductions: need programs to deliver▪ Where we need it

▪ When we need it

▪ How much we need

• And cheaply!

• And quickly!

Our solution: Behavior Analytics

new, easily accessible

data+

new (and old) techniques

Understand people & their energy behavior

Target the right segments, Tailor specific messages

Get programs to deliver more (enrollment, energy savings)

Proof-of-concept (aka, example)

CPP program

smart meter data

9 types of people (segments),

with different energy behaviors

Proof-of-concept (aka, example)

CPP program

smart meter data only - no surveys! no marketing labels!

9 types of people (segments),

with different energy behaviors

percent enrollment vs. percent savings

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

You might think people who are more likely to enroll also save the most energy…

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

But actually – people that enroll more save less energy!

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

But actually – people that enroll more save less energy!

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

Which of these are those pesky people who will automatically get lower bills but don’t deliver

actual savings? You might think:

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

Which of these are those pesky people who will automatically get lower bills but don’t deliver

actual savings? You might think:

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

Actually – these are the people that automatically get lower bills actually deliver high energy savings. Let’s get them to enroll! Tell them they’ll save $!

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

Target enrollment

So who are these people who enroll and don’t save much?

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

These people have flexible energy schedules (maybe want to save). Let’s help them save!

Tailor the program to fit their needs!

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10% Tailor ↑ savings

Target to ↑ enrollment of high saversTailor programs to ↑ savings of high enrollers

Predict to optimize program planning

15% 24% enrollment

60% savings

10%

Target enrollment

Tailor ↑ savings

Behavior Analytics: it works, it’s

cheap, it can be done today!

understand people & their energy use

Target Tailor Predict

programs that deliver what we need!

Contact:Annika Todd

Presentation Highlights: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

42

▪ Behavior analytics can debunk myths about segments of people and their energy savings potential. ▪ Myth: people who are more likely to enroll in an energy efficiency program

save the most energy. ▪ Reality: people who are the least likely to enroll provide greater energy

savings.▪ LBNL’s demand response program focused on increasing enrollment and

increasing energy savings through two means: ▪ Increase enrollment of the most likely high-savers: they’ll generate

savings even without significant behavior changes as their off-peak rates will be lowered through enrollment.

▪ Tailor the program to increase energy savings of participants already enrolled people: they have limited savings due to their variable schedules and day-to-day variations in energy use.

▪ Analyzing behavior doesn’t always require surveys. LBNL’s program used only hourly smart meter data to generate the profiles of their targeted audiences.

▪ Once the upfront behavioral analysis is done, the cost of implementing such a program is relatively low.

Best Practices: Opinion Dynamics Kessie Avseikova, Senior Project Manager

NICHE PROGRAMS – BEST

PRACTICES AND LESSONS

LEARNED

July 20, 2017

WHAT IS THE SECRET TO A

SUCCESSFUL NICHE PROGRAM?

What is the secret to a successful niche program?

It Depends…On:

Target audience

Design

Operations

People involved

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned 46

WHAT ARE THE TACTICS TO ENSURE

EFFECTIVE NICHE PROGRAM

DESIGN?

Designing a Niche Program

48

Carefully consider goals

Strategically select target niches

Understand and document barriers, possible interventions,

expected outcomes, and performance metrics

Establish baseline measurements

Acknowledge the

necessary ramp-up

period and build needed

time and resources

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned

This combination of planning steps can help increase “success” and clarify

decision points along the way (thus illuminating “no go” decisions early

on in the process)

WHAT ARE THE TACTICS TO ENSURE

EFFECTIVE NICHE PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION?

Implementing a Niche Program

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned 50

▪ Understand the most effective way to engage the target customer niche

▪ Leverage existing structures but customize based on goals and barriers

▪ Multiple delivery partners = delivery bottlenecks

▪ Select appropriate marketing, outreach, and messaging tactics

▪ Streamline participation process to reduce customer dropout

▪ Total number of participation steps, application process, etc.

▪ Investigate and integrate various funding sources (bank loans, bill pay, etc.) or

other programs/measures

▪ Develop and integrate appropriate customer support systems or enhance existing

systems

▪ Multi-lingual phone support/in-language program materials

▪ Concierge services

▪ Dedicated community members

▪ Participation process walk-through

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Select Appropriate Marketing, Outreach, and Messaging Tactics

51

Overall Marketing and

Outreach

▪ Partnerships with local governments

can contribute to energy efficiency

implementation through:

▪ Regulatory mechanisms

▪ Financial incentives

▪ Local relationships

▪ Deeper energy savings can be

achieved through collective action

commitment by communities

▪ Rewards, competition, and incentives

can generate enthusiasm toward

energy efficiency

▪ Following up with customers (calls,

email alerts) while sometimes costly,

can ensure higher uptake

▪ Timing marketing activities can

advance the success of marketing

interventions (e.g., lifecycle

opportunities, such as purchase of

new home)

Sources of Outreach

▪ One of the most influential means of

encouraging engagement in

environmentally responsible behaviors is

the use of credible sources of

communication

▪ Trust in utilities is as high as community

organizations

▪ In-person communication is a powerful

outreach tool, however, the value of

community groups conducting the

outreach might not be much greater than

other outreach sources

▪ Home shows, community fairs, home

improvement workshops draw customers

who are already looking to do something in

their homes (“foot-in-the-door” approach)

▪ Website that can provide

homeowners/businesses readily available

access to information needed to evaluate

the fit of the program for their home (such

as personalized vivid information on energy

use, project outcome calculators,

community map or thermometer, links to

social media sites)

Messaging

▪ Customers are looking for a clear

pathway to participation and a

roadmap to measure selection.

Providing marketing that contains

specifics that customers can study on

their own time might be effective

▪ Strategically combine “generic” vs.

“specific” messages

▪ Highlight non-energy benefits (comfort,

health, etc.) in addition to bill and

energy savings

WHAT ARE THE TACTICS TO

MEASURING NICHE PROGRAM

SUCCESS?

Measuring Niche Program Success

53Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned

▪ Establish data tracking, sharing, and reporting systems in advance of the

effort launch

▪ Set up and test data tracking and reporting systems prior to the effort’s

launch

▪ This will enable monitoring and mid-course corrections

▪ Align data tracking mechanisms with the effort’s goals and performance

metrics

▪ Marketing and outreach (customer movement from outreach to participation, lead

tracking, etc.)

▪ Channeling

▪ Energy savings

▪ Projects, etc.

▪ Where possible and feasible, track cost-related data strategically to

support cost-effectiveness analysis

CASE STUDIES

Efficient Neighborhoods +

A demonstration of successful target

audience selection

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned 55

Efficient Neighborhoods+

Geographic Microtargeting

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned 56

+

8 communities, 12,469

eligible customers

Design

▪ Existing audit and

weatherization program

▪ Enhanced incentives for

customers in targeted

communities

▪ Streamlined

participation process

Targeted Outreach

▪ Door-to-door

▪ Phone calls

▪ Events

▪ Mass media

Results

Energy

assessments

927

69%due to

EN+

Weatherization

Projects

248

76%due to

EN+

Energy Savings

(MMBTU)

10,698

73%due to

EN+

Concierge Initiative

A demonstration of why people

matter

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned 57

Concierge Initiative

Design▪ Pilot with personalized concierge services offered on top of the existing audit and weatherization program

▪ 2 concierge representatives for a randomly assigned group of 1,000 program participants also randomly

assigned to each concierge

Niche Programs - Best Practices and Lessons Learned 58

Sign-up Concierge Interaction HEA Concierge

Interaction InstallationConcierge Interaction

Quality Control

Concierge Interaction

Results

Audit-to-Weatherization

Conversion Rate

58% 64%54% 57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Concierge

Total

(n=583)

Concierge 1

(n=275)

Concierge 2

(n=308)

Control

(n=1,969)

Statistically significant differences at 90% confidence

+1% over Control

+7% over Control -3% below

Control

Average Per-Project Savings (in

MBTU)

5,704 6,171 5,283 5,174

2,644 3,211

2,134 2,385

4,847 4,965

4,741 4,000

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Total

Concierge

(n=1,001)

Concierge 1

(n=474)

Concierge 2

(n=527)

Control

(n=3,551)

Sa

vin

gs in

MB

TU

Other fuel

savingsGas

savingsElectric

savings

13,19514,347

12,15811,559

+14% over

Control

+24% over

Control+5% over

Control

KESSIE AVSEIKOVA

DIRECTOR

Presentation Highlights: Opinion Dynamics

60

▪ Tips for “niche” program design: ▪ Identify your program’s goals first, then identify your target▪ Identify where your customers are, then decide the appropriate outreach strategy ▪ Make the participation process as clear as possible; lower barriers to entry▪ Align data tracking to your goals▪ Consider the potential to scale effective niche program models to increase cost

effectiveness▪ Hard to reach customers respond well to targeted cost incentives: Efficient

Neighborhoods + program implemented by Massachusetts utilities used microtargeting to offer enhanced incentives to middle and low-income and make energy efficiency improvements more affordable.

▪ Program performance can depend on the people involved: the Concierge Initiative showed that one concierge outperformed the other by better engaging with his group of program participants, and achieving 24% more energy savings over the control group.

▪ Targeted customized outreach is very expensive, but starting small and/or using secondary data sources can help bring costs down. ▪ Programs with limited resources can start with the “low hanging fruit” setting up basic

program mechanisms and then scale it up. ▪ Data from the Census Bureau is public to everyone and available to use.

Discussion Highlights: What are the gaps in knowledge for this topic that, if filled, would help improve work in this area?

▪ Demographic data on program participants: lack of program evaluation data and general data collection restricts opportunity for targeted analyses.

▪ Look beyond participation and focus on energy savings: programs tend to aim for increased program participation, but could achieve greater energy savings by focusing on enrolling households with the highest potential for savings.

▪ The incremental cost related to niche and community-based programs: understanding this cost and how it’s split between the various design and implementation components can provide valuable insight into how to improve the cost-effectiveness of future efforts.

▪ Evaluation and characterization of existing niche/community programs would help establish best practices in the field: a “multi-level model” study to assess existing targeted outreach strategies and their impact to various audiences would enhance understanding of the many targeted approaches and their effectiveness for different audiences.

61

Upcoming Seasonal Messaging Opportunities

Now is the time to start planning energy efficiency messaging!

62

5thNational Energy Efficiency Day Oktoberfest

31stHalloween

October: Energy Action Month

Alliance to Save Energy Article Energy Vibe

Posters

Arlington County Post

62

Addenda: Attendee Information and Poll Results

64

Call Attendee Locations

Call Attendees: Network Members

▪ Boulder County▪ Building Performance Institute

(BPI)▪ Center for Energy and

Environment (CEE)▪ City of Columbia▪ City of Kansas City▪ City of Plano▪ Clearesult▪ Columbia Water & Light▪ Connecticut Green Bank▪ County of San Luis Obispo▪ Efficiency Nova Scotia

▪ EnergySavvy▪ Greater Cincinnati Energy

Alliance▪ Local Energy Alliance

Program (LEAP)▪ Montgomery County

Department of Environmental Protection

▪ The Insulation Man, LLC▪ TRC Energy Services▪ Vermont Energy Investment

Corporation (VEIC)▪ Wisconsin Energy

Conservation Corporation (WECC)65

Call Attendees: Non-Members (1 of 2)

▪ AmeriCorps▪ Aeroseal▪ Alliant Energy▪ Blue Ridge Energy▪ California Public Utilities

Commission▪ Canadian Home Builders'

Association (CHBA)▪ Cascade Natural Gas▪ City of Asheville▪ Efficiency for Everyone, LLC ▪ Enbridge Gas Distribution,

Inc.

▪ Energy Solutions Professionals

▪ Fraunhofer Society▪ Hawaii Energy▪ ICF ▪ Insight Property Services, Inc.▪ Jofforts Energy▪ Leidos▪ Local Government

Commission▪ Loveland Water and Power▪ Metropolitan Government of

Nashville▪ Mercy Housing66

Call Attendees: Non-Members (2 of 2)

▪ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

▪ NANA Regional Corporation▪ National Fuel Gas▪ North Carolina Sustainable

Energy Association (NCSEA)▪ NW Energy Coalition▪ Off The Grid Renovations,

LLC▪ Opinion Dynamics▪ Potawatomi Business

Development Corporation▪ Platte River Power Authority

▪ Proctor Engineering Group ▪ PV Blue▪ Rebuilder Group, Inc.▪ Rhode Island Housing▪ San Joaquin Valley Clean

Energy▪ Smaart House▪ Southwest Energy Efficiency

Project▪ Stewards of Affordable

Housing for Future (SAHF)▪ Texas Energy Poverty

Research Institute (TEPRI)67

Opening Poll #1

▪ Which of the following best describes your organization’s experience with targeted marketing? ▪ Some experience/familiarity – 58%▪ Limited experience/familiarity – 30%▪ Very experienced/familiar – 8%▪ No experience/familiarity – 2%▪ Not applicable – 2%

68

Closing Poll

▪ After today's call, what will you do?▪ Seek out additional information on one or more of the ideas

– 56%▪ Consider implementing one or more of the ideas discussed

– 28%▪ Make no changes to your current approach – 11%▪ Other (please explain) – 5%

69