Division D - Student Projects In Public Relations
Category 5 - Public Relations Campaign
Buy Green, Save Green
Giselle de la Moriniere, Leticia Solaum, Candice Pauley, Danny Rigby

Golden Image Award


Research/Situation Analysis: Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), the public utility serving the Gainesville area, developed several rebate programs that were designed to promote conservation practices and energy reduction among low-income residents of the city’s east side. However, participation in these rebate programs was much lower than expected. GRU turned to our graduate public relations campaigns course at the University of Florida, charging us with the task of designing a PR campaign aimed at increasing participation in the window unit A/C and mobile home reflective roof coating rebate programs, as well as promoting the use of compact fluorescent lighting (CFL). This task encompassed the fall semester of 2006 and culminated in a formal presentation of the campaign to GRU representatives. Extensive research was conducted in order to formulate the campaign. Preliminary research focused on gathering information on demographics, product cost, ease of adoption, availability and potential demand. We performed a comprehensive review of other utility company’s rebate programs, purchasing behavior studies, and existing research on CFL adoption, noting barriers to participation, keywords and messages that resonated with publics, and necessity of point-of-purchase (POP) materials as well as retailer partnerships. Surveys were administered at several east Gainesville churches and community group meetings (providing a benchmark for later evaluation), and semi-structured interviews were conducted with key opinion leaders in the community. Salient research findings included the perception of distrust in GRU and their commitment to save residents money, yet most survey respondents believed that energy conservation could save them money, with 51% of respondents indicating awareness of the benefits of CFL use. The opinion leaders believed that the rebate programs were beneficial but cost prohibitive, and most importantly, that rebates should come in the form of cash or checks rather than credits on utility bills (GRU’s previous method of reimbursement).

Objectives: Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU), the public utility serving the Gainesville area, developed several rebate programs that were designed to promote conservation practices and energy reduction among low-income residents of the city’s east side. However, participation in these rebate programs was much lower than expected. GRU turned to our graduate public relations campaigns course at the University of Florida, charging us with the task of designing a PR campaign aimed at increasing participation in the window unit A/C and mobile home reflective roof coating rebate programs, as well as promoting the use of compact fluorescent lighting (CFL). This task encompassed the fall semester of 2006 and culminated in a formal presentation of the campaign to GRU representatives. Extensive research was conducted in order to formulate the campaign. Preliminary research focused on gathering information on demographics, product cost, ease of adoption, availability and potential demand. We performed a comprehensive review of other utility company’s rebate programs, purchasing behavior studies, and existing research on CFL adoption, noting barriers to participation, keywords and messages that resonated with publics, and necessity of point-of-purchase (POP) materials as well as retailer partnerships. Surveys were administered at several east Gainesville churches and community group meetings (providing a benchmark for later evaluation), and semi-structured interviews were conducted with key opinion leaders in the community. Salient research findings included the perception of distrust in GRU and their commitment to save residents money, yet most survey respondents believed that energy conservation could save them money, with 51% of respondents indicating awareness of the benefits of CFL use. The opinion leaders believed that the rebate programs were beneficial but cost prohibitive, and most importantly, that rebates should come in the form of cash or checks rather than credits on utility bills (GRU’s previous method of reimbursement).

Implementation: Campaign implementation was not required for this project; however, tactics supporting the two rebate programs and the CFL educational component were planned based on findings from primary and secondary research. The campaign theme, “Buy Green, $ave Green,” reinforced key messages of cost savings, conservation and GRU’s desire to be an active community partner. Our team constructed a 12-month schedule for tactical implementation based on the heating and cooling seasons, also designed for maximum impact from minimal GRU staff. Several tactical elements were crafted to capitalize on point-of-purchase opportunities and retailer partnerships, such as in-store displays and brochures (which included a simplified rebate form and instructions). The CFL display even featured a working light bulb in order to attract attention. Other components of the plan included bus ads (to be placed on routes serving the east side of Gainesville), bill inserts, and radio and newspaper advertisements. Since interpersonal communication was identified in our research as an effective method of communication to key publics, the plan also called for the formation of alliances with community organizations (such as mobile home parks, neighborhood groups and Gainesville realtors/builders) in order to effectively promote the programs by utilizing roadshows and information fairs.

Evaluation: We successfully completed the goal of the project, which was to present a comprehensive plan to GRU officials by December 2006. Our campaign was graded as a 97 (out of 100) by our professors and received very positive feedback from GRU officials. While campaign implementation was not required, our plan advised methods of evaluation for the proposed objectives. 1) Confirm signed partnership agreements with retailers by December 2007. 2) Administer follow-up survey to east side churches to gauge awareness of A/C rebate programs in December 2007. 3) and 5) Confirm participation using GRU rebate count in December 2007. 4) Survey mobile home parks to gauge awareness of mobile home roof coating rebate in December 2007. 6) and 7) Add CFL use and understanding questions to GRU surveys in January 2007 to establish a baseline, then conduct follow-up surveys in December 2007. As part of the campaign, our group made general recommendations to GRU based on our research findings, which included issuing cash back for rebates instead of bill credits and simplifying the rebate form. GRU has currently adopted one of these recommendations, offering residents the choice of receiving the rebate amount via check or as a credit on their utility bill.

Budget: Our group planned the campaign using a budget of $50,000, as requested by GRU. This amount was divided among the three programs, with $19,130 dedicated to the window A/C rebate program, $2,850 to the mobile home reflective roof coating rebate program, $22,988 devoted to the CFL educational program, $2,500 to cover costs of evaluation, and $2,500 for contingencies. The A/C and CFL programs were determined to have much larger publics than the mobile home reflective roof coating rebate, therefore they received a larger share of the budget. We received $700 from GRU in order to offset costs associated with planning the campaign, which was used for material production and research expenses, and an in-kind donation of $500 from CH2MHILL to assist with printing and design costs.