Out 3

ASSESSING BRAND MANAGEMENT:
A REPLICATION OF UNITED WAY OF AMERICAS NATIONAL SURVEY

by
Barbara S. Rogers
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
May, 2007
UMI Number: 3263157
Copyright 2007 by
Rogers, Barbara S.
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 3263157

Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Barbara Rogers, 2007
ASSESSING BRAND MANAGEMENT:

A REPLICATION OF UNITED WAY OF AMERICA'S NATIONAL SURVEY
by
Barbara S. Rogers
has been approved
May 2007
APPROVED:
CLIFF BUTLER, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
R.D. O'CONNOR, Ph.D., Committee Member
YVONNE KOCHANOWSKI, DPA, Committee Member
SUSAN WAJERT, Ph.D., Committee Member
MICHAEL DENNING, Committee Member
ACCEPTED AND SIGNED:
__________________________________________
CLIFF BUTLER, Ph.D.
__________________________________________
Kurt Linberg, Ph.D.
Dean, School of Business & Technology
Abstract
Brand management is an important element in todays business setting. Organizations must be
able to ascertain just how much their brand is worth by assessing the brands performance to see
if it is realizing its full potential. In the past decade, United Way of America (UWA) has
witnessed the erosion of its brand, and the organization has begun a full-scale effort to strengthen
its brand image particularly in the area of differentiation. Local United Ways have been called
upon to assist with this repositioning as well. This study examined United Way of Americas
efforts to value its decades-old brand and what it has done to reposition itself in the philanthropic
marketplace. UWA has utilized different research methods to measure its brands equity
including Young and Rubicams Brand Asset Valuator, research conducted by Interbrand, and an
annual survey tool to measure the publics perception of United Way. This study replicated the
national survey performed by UWA at United Way of Putnam County in order to determine the
studys applicability at the local level.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
iii
List of Tables
List of Figures
vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.1
Introduction to the Problem..1
Background of the Study..3
United Way of America.....4
United Way of Putnam County....12
Statement of the Problem14
Purpose of the Study...15
Rationale.....16
Research Questions.16
Significance of the Study16
Assumptions and Limitations.....16
Nature of the Study.17
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW18
Branding...18
Brand Equity.....22
Brand Valuation....24
Young and Rubicams Brand Asset Valuator...26
iii
Differentiation........28
Relevance....30
Esteem........31
Knowledge..31
Brand Strength and Brand Stature.....32
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY......34
Survey Timeline........42
CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ....44
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS... ......78
REFERENCES.. .....89
Appendix A United Way of America National Survey ...93
Appendix B United Way of America National Survey Results ....114
Appendix C United Way of Putnam County Web Survey.. ..128
Appendix D United Way of Putnam County Web Survey Results.... ...148
Appendix E Instructions for Participation and Consent to Participate ..164
Appendix F Putnam County Sentinel Advertisements Inviting Survey Participation ...165
Appendix G E-Mail Inviting Survey Participation. ...166
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Makeup of Putnam County......38
Table 2: Gender.44
Table 3: Age..45
Table 4: Education.45
Table 5: Employment46
Table 6: Labor Union Affiliations.46
Table 7: Marital Status..47
Table 8: Under Five Years of Age in Households47
Table 9: Rent/Own Residence...48
Table 10: Home E-Mail Access48
Table 11: Income...49
Table 12: Ethnicity....49
Table 13: Confidence in Charities in General...50
Table 14: Confidence in Specific Charities...51
Table 15: Giving to Charitable Organizations..52
Table 16: Crosstabulations: United Way is an Organization that Lets Me Know
What is Being Accomplished with My Contribution and Income....70
Table 17: Crosstabulations: United Way is an Organization that Gets Visible Results
and Education....73
Table 18: Crosstabluations: United Way is an Organization that Enables Me to
Make the Greatest Difference My Community and Age..75
List of Figures
Figure 1: Growth of Non-Profits...2
Figure 2: Philanthropic Giving 5-Year Periods.....2
Figure 3: Top of Mind Awareness Trends.......12
Figure 4: Effectiveness of United Way as a Leader in Community Impact....12
Figure 5: Trust in Charities..54
Figure 6: Awareness of United Way Programs...55
Figure 7: Importance of United Way Brand Promises58
Figure 8: Agreement with United Way Brand Promises.59
Figure 9: Agreement with Key Attributes of United Way..61
Figure 10: Agreement with Key Attributes of Red Cross...62
Figure 11: Agreement with Key Attributes of Salvation Army..63
Figure 12: Likelihood of Giving to United Way in the Future...64
Figure 13: Advertising Awareness..65
Figure 14: United Way Advertising Awareness in Specific Media66
Figure 15: Community Issues Associated with United Way..68
vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
The United Way brand evokes a strong message to many Americans. It is an institution
that has been in the forefront of human service work for decades, and nearly every community in
America has a United Way. United Ways or community chests were originally formed to scale
back massive fundraising efforts that were taking place in communities across the United States
by replacing small individual non-profit efforts at fundraising and allowing the United Ways to
take on this task. Money raised through the United Way campaigns were allocated to agencies
such as Salvation Army, American Red Cross, and other major charities that no longer had to
worry about how they would be funded within their own communities. Even with all of its good
work, the United Way had to ask itself if it remained relevant and if its brand image really
conveyed what it should. While Americans are making more charitable contributions, United
Ways share of the philanthropic market is getting smaller (United Way Brand Guide, 2001,
p.1), and this issue forced United Ways to ask its agencies to begin some fundraising efforts on
their own. Agencies were now asking for United Way funding as well as conducting fundraising
efforts for themselves, which increased competition for the donors dollars. This has caused
many donors to question United Ways relevance in the marketplace since other non-profits were
conducting fundraising appeals as well.
Many factors contribute to the decline in giving to United Way including the enormous
growth of the non-profit sector. Over the last decade, non-profits have grown from 575,690
organizations in 1993 to 964,418 organizations in 2003 causing United Way more concern over
its share of the philanthropic market (United Way of America, 2004, p. 6). Giving from 1993 to
Assessing Brand Management

1997 totaled $773.63 billion, and during the five-year period of 1998 to 2002, giving totaled
$1,135.13 billion dollars (United Way of America, 2003, p. 3).
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Non-Profits
1993
2003
Figure 1. Growth of non-profits from 1993 to 2003
Billions
1,200
1,000
800
600
Giving
400
200
0
1993 to 1997
1998 to 2002
Figure 2. Philanthropic giving 5-year periods from 1993 to 2002
United Way of America has taken steps to address its eroding brand including periodic
brand valuation conducted through Young and Rubicams Brand Asset Valuator, research
conducted by Interbrand, and an annual survey tool that measures the publics perception of the
United Way. The nearly 1,400 local United Way chapters have recently been asked to make
changes to the way they function as well to help shore up the organizations image in the
marketplace. In an effort to determine the applicability of the annual survey tool at the local level
and to determine if local United Ways face the same threats, this study replicated the national
survey performed by UWA at United Way of Putnam County Ohio.
Background of the Study
When people think of the United Way, they generally think of it as a fundraising
agency, one they normally see in their workplace collecting funds for a number of social causes.
Others see it as a distributor of funds. The money raised through annual workplace campaigns is
given to various partner agencies in the community to help address critical human service needs.
The goal of the United Way is to be seen as a community impact leader, change agent, and
solutions provider. This role can raise a United Way organization to a more proactive leadership
position in the community, gaining greater visibility among donors in every market. With a
strategy that focuses on the donor, United Ways make donors feel they are doing more for their
community and feel great about giving to United Way. The result, the brand new United Way
(United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.1).
Over the past decade, Young and Rubicam, a leading marketing firm specializing in
brand management, has conducted research on the United Ways brand equity. Equity is a set of
assets such as name, awareness, loyal customers, perceived quality, and associations that are
linked to the brand and that either add or subtract value from the product or services being
offered (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.6). Their research indicated the United Way brand
was showing all the signs of an eroding brand (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.7). Young
and Rubicams research was substantiated by studies conducted by Interbrand and United Ways
national annual survey.
These studies brought deep concern from UWA management and staff. Losing brand
equity in the face of increasing competition could deal the United Way a blow it may not be able
to recover from. Van Auken described brand equity as creating a relationship and a strong bond
that grows over time. It is often so strong that it compensates for performance flawsbuilding
brand equity is like building a close friendship. It requires a consistent relationship over time,
trust, and an emotional connection (2001, p. 2).
Brand equity determines the amount of additional income expected from a brand
product over and above what might be expected from an identical, unbranded product; the
tangible value associated with a product that can not be accounted for by price or features; and
the overall perceptions of quality and image attributed to a product, independent of its physical
features (Understanding, p. 1).
United Way of America
The Mission of the United Way is to improve people's lives by mobilizing the caring
power of communities (United Way Web Site, 2002). United Way is a national movement that
is community based and seeks to activate community resources to make the greatest possible
human impact. The United Way system includes approximately 1,400 community-based United
Way organizations. Each is independent, separately incorporated and governed by local

volunteers (United Way Web Site, 2002).
United Way chapters have emerged as community impact leaders that address social
issues on the local level and mobilize resources beyond dollars that are pledged through their
fund-raising efforts. Each chapter partners with many local entities including schools,
government policy makers, businesses, organized labor, financial institutions, voluntary and
neighborhood associations, community development corporations and the faith community
(United Way Web Site, 2002). Some common areas of focus among United Ways include:
helping children and youth succeed, strengthening and supporting families, promoting selfsufficiency, building vital and safe neighborhoods and supporting vulnerable and aging
populations (United Way Web Site, 2002).
The United Way system conducted successful campaigns during 2000 and 2001 as they
raised $3.91 billion. United Ways also leveraged almost $1 billion in additional resources--for a
total of $4.7 billion--to build stronger communities (United Way Web Site, 2002). The United
Ways ability to employ large numbers of volunteers in its campaign efforts has allowed the
system to keep administrative costs low, averaging about 13 percent of funds raised, which is
well within the Better Business Bureau recommendations of up to 35% (Hoover.com, 2006).
Each of the 1,400 United Way chapters is an autonomous, independently governed
organization. Local United Ways choose their own board of trustees and standing committees.
They formulate their own individual missions and strategic goals, set up the structure of their
organization, and hire who they want to direct the operation. They are responsible for identifying
areas of concern within their own communities and partnering with agencies that can help
alleviate these concerns. All fundraising is done on a local level through the use of volunteers.
Through memberships, local United Ways are aided by the United Way of America
(UWA), which is a national leadership organization for the United Way movement. UWA leads
the movement through public relations, national brand advertising, the NFL partnership and the
management of relationships with national corporate and philanthropic partners and the federal
government (United Way Web Site, 2002). UWA provides support services to local entities
including training programs, consultation sessions, mediation, conferencing, research, and
assessment. Local United Ways are also members of individual state organizations.
For decades, United Ways across the country experienced positive donor relationships
within their communities. Campaigns grew without much concern for failure. However, recent
years have seen a change in the philanthropic landscape, which greatly impacted United Ways.
These changes include:
1. Decline in market share
2. Growth in 501(c)(3)s
3. Change in corporate landscape including employment patterns and inclusion of other
workplace fundraisers
4. Economic slump
5. Emergence of the Internet
6. Low brand differentiation
7. Impersonal and distant donor relationships
These factors, coupled with turmoil inside the UWA which included the questioning of
the use of 9-11 donations, abuse of power by the national United Way director, and reported
misconduct at the National Capital United Way, made it imperative the UWA take the lead in
movement towards brand analysis and strong brand management within the United Way system.
They had to work to revitalize their brand image by repositioning it for new
marketsthrough redevelopment and improvements (Foxall, Goldsmith, and Brown, 1998,
p. 13). The choice of a brand strategy was made in an effort to
1. Promote increased awareness of United Ways core purpose and mission
2. Guide cohesive action across the United Way system, delivering a consistent
experience to donors
3. Drive accelerated growth among target donors
4. Ensure long-term vitality, preference and differentiation
In todays world of philanthropic competition, donors are given a myriad of choices of
where to place their money. Donors are savvy and want to get the biggest bang for their buck
when donating, and they want the charity of their choice to be responsible stewards of their
money. Donors are being heavily courted by the old tried and true charities such as the YMCA,
American Red Cross, American Cancer Society, and the United Way. They are also being
bombarded by hundreds of requests each year by new startups. Requests are made for aid in the
areas of the arts, education, social services, religion, and sports. A strong brand image can help
people make the decision of where to donate their hard earned money. Peppers and Rogers
stated, Clinging to the safety of a well-known brand is one way a consumer can deal with the
storm of information and choice that now surrounds us all (1999, p. 328).
According to Cynthia Round, Executive Vice President of Brand Management at UWA,

Strong brands have the power to lift earnings (Round, 2003). Betty Beene, past President of
the UWA, stated, Brand commitment can enable a United Way to focus on meeting the
expectations of its best and most demanding donor and, in the process, delight everyone else.
The result is a stronger reputation and brand (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p. 2).
Many companies do not realize the possible worth a brand can have to their company. It
is important they determine the brand valuation. In recent years, corporate brands have become
enormously valuable assetscompanies with strong corporate brands can have market values
that are more than twice their book values (Hatch and Schultz, 2001, p. 2).
The UWA recently contracted with Interbrand, a brand consultancy company, to
investigate the value of its brand. Interbrand studies companies, their brands, and their brandworth. Their company is responsible for identifying the top 100 global brands, which is
announced annually in Business Week. United Ways brand was valued at $34.7 billion, and is in
the top ten of the worlds most recognizable brands. It appears behind Coke and Microsoft, but
ahead of the Disney Company (Round, 2003).
Interbrand estimates 20% of the United Ways brand value is yet to be unleashed, and
the company states 67% of United Ways tangible earnings can be attributed to its brand. Five
differentiating drivers of donor demand were identified in Interbrands study: local impact, ease
of transaction, image and heritage, transparency, and inertia (Round, 2003).
The United Ways brand is hugely recognizable in the global marketplace. It was not
necessary for the organization to totally reinvent the brand image. However, it was necessary to

take a good, hard look at consumers perceptions and to reposition the brand in order to make it
stronger.
The UWAs objectives in repositioning its brand are to
1. Disrupt current perceptions of United Way as a fundraiser and fund distributor
2. Position United Way as the leading community organization focused on what
mattersresults
3. Guide cohesive action by delivering a consistent message and experience
4. Energize and inspire people to make a difference in their community (Round, 2003).
The target audience in this repositioning is the active community investor who would:
1. Value a lasting contribution to society
2. Have an interest in politics
3. Believe they can make a difference
4. Be well-informed and interested in current events
5. Have the means to give $500 and up (Round, 2003).
National research showed the demographics of this target audience to be 18% of the
population (35 million Americans), between the ages of 35 and 54 (52%), married (67%), have
children (58%), college educated (64%), own their own homes (81%), and have an average
household income of $86,800 (Round, 2003).
Young and Rubicam, a major global advertising agency, conducts brand equity
research among hundreds of brands every year using their Brand Asset Valuator. They examine
brands across four attributes: knowledge, esteem, relevance, and differentiation (United Way
10
Brand Guide, 2001, p.7). In several evaluations done during the past decade, this company
analyzed United Ways brand across these attributes.
The Brand Asset Valuator used by Young and Rubicam is a leading global brand
model conducted in 32 countries. More than 100,000 people are surveyed on over 13,000 brands.
The Y and R model is based on 56 measures per brand (United Way of America, 2002, p. 2).
These 56 measures are grouped into four key areas:
1. Knowledge How well is the brand known?
2. Esteem How highly respected is the brand?
3. Relevance How much is the brand an actual part of peoples lives?
4. Differentiation How unique is the brand in the consumers mind? (United Way of
America, 2002, p. 2)
Differentiation and relevance are part of a brands strength, and esteem and knowledge
combine to make up the brands stature (United Way of America, 2002, p.2).
In initial studies done in 1993, the firm found the brand was strong in knowledge, but
lacking in the areas of esteem, differentiation, and relevance (United Way Brand Guide, 2001,
p.7). Studies in 1997 and 1999 showed the brand had made great strides in the areas of esteem
and relevance, but was clearly behind in the area of differentiation. While United Way has been
able to increase differentiation among donors in recent years, it still has a way to go in terms of
increasing differentiation among the general public (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.7).
The importance of differentiation is shown in the United Ways Brand Guide:
Differentiation is the engine of the brand train. It leads the way (2000, p.7). This attribute is
11
what sets the brand apart from so many others out there. It is what makes people sit up and take
notice.
There are three types of brand differences: brand performance associations, brand
imagery associations, and consumer insight associations (Keller, Sternthal, Tybout, 2002, p. 5)
and those differences are defined as:
1. Brand performance the way a product or service attempts to meet a customers
needs
2. Brand imagery- who uses the brand and under what circumstances
3. Consumer insight- used when performance and imagery do not differ much. Brand
has insight into a consumers problems or goals (Keller, Sternthal, Tybout, 2002, p.6).
Results from United Way of Americas national public opinion poll showed public trust
in charities in general has improved, but United Way has not experienced significant
improvements in its public trust numbers (United Way of America Research, 2004, p. 1). The
study indicates in 2004 charities were thought to be doing a good job by 81% of the population.
United Ways confidence rating was at 78%, Red Cross at 88%, and Salvation Army 89%. In
regards to charities being trusted to do what they say they will do with contributions, 51% stated,
in general, they feel charities can be trusted on this issue. Outcomes for other charities included:
United Way, 75%; Red Cross, 88%, and Salvation Army, 91% (United Way of America
Research, 2004, p. 9).
Other results also included:
1. UWA top of mind awareness has declined
2. UWA effectiveness as a leader in community impact issues has weakened

3. Decreased public support for UWAs key messages (United Way of America
Research, 2004, p. 1).
30
25
20
United Way
15
Churches
Red Cross
Salvation Army
10
5
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Figure 3. Top of mind awareness trends for various non-profits

50
40
30
2002
2003
2004
20
10
0
Very
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
Neither
Figure 4. Effectiveness of United Way as a leader in community impact
United Way of Putnam County

The United Way of Putnam County (UWPC) was organized in 1955. Its mission and
vision are very similar to that of the UWA: To bring together the people and resources of
12
13
Putnam County to help build a healthy, happy, and strong community of which we can all be
proud.
The UWPC covers an area in Northwest Ohio of 34,726 people. The population of the
county is not very ethnically diverse. Whites account for 96.3%, 4% are of Hispanic or Latino
descent, and only .2% are African-Americans. About 12.9% have a bachelors degree or higher.
The median household income in Putnam County is about $46,400. The UWA targeted age range
in Putnam County accounts for nearly 30% of the population (US Census Bureau, 2005, p. 1).
The UWA embarked upon an extensive advertising campaign to reposition its brand
message. Larger metro United Ways did the same; however, smaller United Ways like UWPC
are unable to expend much in the way of advertising dollars outside of their annual campaigns
towards that end. Overhead at the local United Ways is kept very low, and advertising is usually
done minimally. National advertising as well as advertising done in large metropolitan United
Ways will aid smaller chapters.
The strength of local United Ways lies within their ability to market one-on-one
throughout their area. Board members and other volunteers meet face to face with business and
community leaders to sell the United Way story and garner their support through pledged
contributions. It is through these discussions, transparent operations, and effective messages
UWPC will accomplish its brand strategy. When United Way organizations align all three
promises, performance, and presentationwithin their individual organizations, they will
succeed in strengthening their local brand and help build a national brand. Consistency builds
trust and strengthens efforts to increase differentiation (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.2).
14
The UWA chose as its target audience the committed donor who contributes $500 or
more annually. This donor is considered a Leadership Donor at UWPC. In the 2002 campaign,
there were 166 Leadership givers totaling $105,146 in a campaign of $520,000. This averages
about $633 per contribution in that particular category. The typical donor in Putnam County is
blue collar and gives between $100 to $200 each year. The industrial division is the largest
giving segment within UWPCs campaign making up about a half of the actual dollars raised.
Those donors able to give at higher amounts rarely do so and should come from the professional,
health care, and public service divisions.
One concern of the UWPC was its ability to manage the branding messages of the
UWA. The key to a strong brand is the consistency in its use and communication across an
organization (United Way Brand Guide, 2001, p.2.1). It was imperative for the organization to
send out messages consistent with UWAs. These messages had to be clear and concise in order
to be understood by all stakeholders. Biolos stated, Consumers respond to simplicity and
branding efforts must be kept focused and uncomplicated in order to succeed (1997, p. 3).
Statement of the Problem
The goals of the branding effort of the UWA are clear cut and attainable on the national
level and with the larger metro United Ways. Smaller United Ways such as the United Way of
Putnam County (UWPC), however, do not have the funds, staff, or other resources to aid in the
repositioning of the UWAs branding strategy. The UWPC was not able to conduct extensive
research needed to supplement the findings of the Young and Rubicam studies or the annual
national study. The national United Way does offer independent United Ways the opportunity to
piggyback on its annual survey. The survey can be conducted at the local level for a cost of
15
$13,500an amount UWPC is unable to afford. While these studies offer a great deal of insight
into brand equity and branding strategies, they do not tell the entire story for smaller United
Ways.
Research had to be done on the local level in order to get a complete picture of the
brands image within Putnam County. Any brand management initiative, any marketing
initiative, and indeed any business or organizational initiative must start with a solid
understanding of the customer. Indeed, organizations exist for one purposeto meet human
needs. Thriving organizations do that exceedingly well. Venerated organizations have managed
to meet evolving needs over a long period of time (Van Auken, 2001, p. 3).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of replicating UWAs national annual survey was to determine if its
research findings were relevant to United Way of Putnam County. Were the findings done on the
national scale actually transferable to small town America? The organization is better equipped
to develop and implement sound marketing strategies for the county. According to Kristin
Thomsen, Manager of Market Research at United Way of America, We use the public opinion
poll results to define our brand in the publics eye. We need to know how our brand is perceived
compared to our competitors, and what it means to the public and to the donor. We test brand
attributes, brand promises, and several brand metrics (such as trust, favorability, satisfaction,
etc.) which give us an idea of how UW is doing in terms of differentiating itself from others,
reaching donors with its advertising and campaign, and relationship building (personal
communication, February 7, 2005).
16
Rationale
The study replicated at the local level what had been done on the national stage. There
are many small United Ways under the national umbrella--each with its own distinctive place in
the philanthropic market. The study allowed a small United Way the opportunity to see if its data
is comparable to that of the national survey. The research allowed United Way of Putnam
County an opportunity to measure its data against the national data, and it created a
knowledgebase for Putnam County that can be used as a benchmark in coming years.
Research Question
The question addressed in this study was: Do the results of the survey being replicated
by United Way of Putnam County mirror the findings of United Way of Americas national
survey?
Significance of the Study
This study determined if survey findings by the Putnam County United Way mirrored
those on the national level. It examined whether or not the surveys national findings could be
generalized across the board and used in rural areas of the country and areas economically and
demographically different than the U.S. in general. The research enabled UWPC to select its
target audience and develop strategic marketing and communication efforts.
Assumptions and Limitations
For this study, the following assumptions were made:
1. The study sample were representative of Putnam County
2. Answers provided were truthful and to the best of participants knowledge
3. Representatives of donor and non-donor groups participated in the study
17
Limitations of the study included:

1. Participation was constrained by the delivery method of the survey. Only
individuals who had access to the Internet were able to respond to the survey
2. Those who felt compelled to respond to the survey may have felt a close connection
to UWPC and its mission or those who felt dissatisfied with UWPC may have felt
compelled to fill out the survey
3. Data was unique only to Putnam County
4. The replicated study was not being conducted during the same time frame as the
national study
5. There was no way to limit how many times someone took the survey
Nature of the Study
The research that was replicated was a quantitative study consisting of a 65-question
survey. The survey was done on an annual basis by the United Way of America and was
conducted through telephone interviews with 1,500 adults nationwide. Permission was granted
by UWA for the study to be replicated by United Way of Putnam County.
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Consumers are bombarded with thousands of marketing messages every day from
businesses and organizations vying for their hard-earned dollar. The primary task of marketers is
to get their message to stand out amidst all of this clutter and to get consumers to act upon the
message by purchasing the product or service offered. The next step in this process is to build a
relationship with the customer by gaining his loyalty and getting him to come back again and
again. Many marketers get their messages out through brand building by creating a brand
customers understand and appreciate. Peppers and Rogers (1999) stated, Clinging to the safety
of a well-known brand is one way a consumer can deal with the storm of information and choice
that now surrounds us all (p. 328). Marketers build strong brands by using key message points,
logos, colors, and other symbols to sell their brands to customers.
The literature review outlines branding, brand equity, brand valuation, and Young and
Rubicams Brand Asset Valuator.
Branding
The branding process has been addressed in marketing literature by Aaker (1991),
Kotler and Armstrong (1997), Keller (1998), Peppers and Rogers (1999), Brand Guide of the
United Way of America (2001), Blumenthal (2001), McFarland (2002), and Dunn.
Aaker (1991) wrote:
A brand is a distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or
package design) intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or a
group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of
competitors. A brand thus signals to the customer the source of the product, and
protects both the customer and the producer from competitors who would attempt
to provide products that appear to be identical. (p. 7)
19
Kotler and Armstrong (1997) defined a brand as a name, term, sign, symbol, or design,
or a combination of these that identifies the maker or seller of a product. It is the sellers promise
to deliver consistently a specific set of features, benefits, and services to buyers. Consumers view
a brand as an important part of a product, and branding can add value to a product (p. 247).
Keller wrote, Although manufacturing processes and factory designs often can be
duplicated, strongly held beliefs and attitudes established in the minds of consumers often can
not be easily reproduced (Keller, 1998, xvii).
Peppers and Rogers stated:
Throughout the Industrial Age, companies have focused more and more on
differentiating themselves from their competition. One important element of this
effort has been branding. Brands became important when mass marketing
became the dominant form of competition among consumer businessesThe
brand symbolizes a companys promise to deliver a good product to customers
who have no personal relationship with the people who work at the company.
(1999, p. 329)
According to the Brand Guide of the United Way of America, Although every brand is
a product or service, not every product or service is a brand. A brand is the relationship between
the product or service and the user. A product or service does not become a brand until it has
earned a significant place in the lives of its users. Understanding the brand context of the users
life facilitates defining the essence of the brandand leveraging the connection a brand has with
its users (2001, p. 1.1).
Blumenthal (2001) stated, Branding is about creating loyalty, motivation, and even
missionary zeal among customers and employees alike (p. 2); McFarland (2002) put forth the
idea a brand should serve as a trustworthy guide to help consumers make choices (p. 3); and
20
Dunn wrote, Functionally, the brand acts as a sort of shorthand that consumers use to decide
between competing products (p. 1).
Other sources focused on branding included: Arnold (1992), Gobe (2001), Van Auken
(2001), Hatch and Schultz (2001), Athens, Understanding Brand Equity, and Mercer
Management Consulting (2002).
According to Arnold (1992), customers turn to brands because,
1. Customers never understand a product as well as the company selling it.
2. Customers will perceive a product in their own terms.
3. Customer perception will focus on benefits, which are often intangible.
4. Customer perception is not always at the conscious level (p. 6-8).
Branding is primarily an emotional experience and many times it goes beyond what the
product feels like, looks like, or even actually does. A strong brand can produce real emotions in
consumers as to how they feel about themselves when they are associated with the product. The
use of some brands can elicit good feelings, childhood memories, or even feelings of self-worth.
Gobe (2001) wrote:
Emotional Branding provides the means and methodology for connecting
products to the consumer in an emotionally profound way. It focuses on the most
compelling aspect of the human character: the desire to transcend material
satisfaction, and experience emotional fulfillment. A brand is uniquely situated to
achieve this because it can tap into the aspirational drives which underlie human
motivation. (p. xv)
Van Auken (2001) echoed Gobe as he stated, Emotional connection is what every
brand should ultimately strive for. If your brand can achieve emotional connection, it can gain
customer loyalty. The customer first must know your brand and then he or she must like your
brand. Finally, the consumer must trust your brand and feel an emotional connection to it
21
(p. 3). Van Auken (2001) further stated people become emotionally connected for many reasons
including:
1. The brand stands for something important to them.
2. The brand is intense and vibrant. It connects with people on multiple levels across
several senses.
3. The brand is unique.
4. The brand is admirable.
5. The brand consistently interacts with them. It never disappoints them.
6. The brand makes them feel good (Van Auken, 2001, p. 5).
A great deal of time and money have been spent on developing brands, and today
companies realize one of the most priceless resources an organization can have is its brand.
Although manufacturing processes and factory designs often can be duplicated, strongly held
beliefs and attitudes established in the minds of consumers often can not be easily reproduced
(Keller, 1998, xvii).
The customers relationship with the brand makes it a vital part of the company, and
until recently, there was no real financial value placed on this branding relationship. In recent
years, corporate brands have become enormously valuable assetscompanies with strong
corporate brands can have market values that are more than twice their book values (Hatch and
Schultz, 2001, p. 4).
Athens wrote:
When brands are treated as an asset, companies begin to see the power of
branding, including what it can do for them. Branding goes beyond the execution
22
of advertising and logos, touching practically every area of an organizationfrom

internal employee communications and operational facilities to dealerships, the
Web, as well as products and services that are being sold. Branding is about how
your business motivates a consumer to make a purchase. (p. 1)
In the article Understanding Brand Equity, it stated, Brand names are company
assets that must be invested in, protected, and nurtured to maximize their long-term value in your
company. Brands have many of the same implications as capital assets (like equipment and plant
purchases) on a companys bottom line, including the ability to be bought and sold and the
ability to provide strategic advantages (p. 2). A strong brand is every bit as important as the
more tangible assets such as physical facilities and inventories, and its affect on future earnings
may outweigh other assets.
With the prevalence of brands in the marketplace comes the difficult task of managing
them. Marketers must fully understand their brand and its connection to consumers, be able to
measure its equity, and develop strategy to support their brands growth in the marketplace.
Mercer Management Consulting (2002) reported:
Brand management has advanced since the days when brands were tag lines
managed by marketing executives and built by spending money on general
advertising. Senior executives today understand that brands are intangible assets
that can be leveraged to build or protect shareholder value. But executives are
often at a loss to understand their brands equity (the attributes of a brand that
influence behavior). (p. 2)
Brand Equity
Brand equity can be difficult to determine and measure. Companies must understand
consumers connections to the brand and be able to gauge its importance. First, a clear
understanding of brand equity must be gained. Brand equity is defined in marketing literature by
Aaker (1991), Kotler and Armstrong (1997), Boone and Kurtz (1999), Marconi (2000), Van
23
Auken (2001), Ricci and Volkmann (2003), Understanding Brand Equity, and Athens.
Aaker (1991) stated simply, Brand equity is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a
brand, its name and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or
service to a firm and/or to that firms customers (p. 16).
Kotler and Armstrong (1997) wrote, Brands vary in the amount of power and value
that they have in the marketplace. A powerful brand has high brand equity. Brands have higher
brand equity to the extent that they have higher brand loyalty, name awareness, perceived
quality, strong brand associations, and other assets such as patents, trademarks, and channel
relationships (p. 247).
Boone and Kurtz (1999) defined brand equity as the added value that a certain brand
name gives to a product in the marketplace. Brands with high equity often confer financial
advantages on a firm, because they often command comparatively large market shares, and
because consumers may give little attention to differences in price. Studies have also linked
brand equity to high profits and stock returns (p. 402).
Marconi (2000) wrote, Brand equity is the value, or the perception of value, in the
brand name. Establishing that value begins with creating awareness (p. 39), and Van Auken
(2001) described brand equity as creating a relationship and a strong bond that grows over time.
It is often so strong that it compensates for performance flawsbuilding brand equity is like
building a close friendship. It requires a consistent relationship over time, trust, and an emotional
connection (p. 2).
Brand equity has enabled companies to assign a financial value on the conceptual
relationship between brands and customers (Ricci and Volkmann, 2003, p. 23). It determines
24
the amount of additional income expected from a brand product over and above what might be
expected from an identical, unbranded product; the tangible value associated with a product that
can not be accounted for by price or features; and the overall perceptions of quality and image
attributed to a product, independent of its physical features (Understanding, p. 1).
Companies that understand their customers and their relationship to its brand are
building strong brand equity and are able to add value to your companys products and services.
This added value can be used to your companys advantage to charge price premiums, lower
marketing costs and offer greater opportunities for customer purchase (Understanding, p. 1).
However, a brand not managed properly can negatively impact the marketplace having
disastrous consequences for the company.
Companies must be vigilant in their efforts to track their brands in the marketplace.
With millions of dollars spent on brand building, marketers must be able to assess how well their
brands fair alongside other offerings, and tracking brand equity will allow companies the
opportunity to assess their advertising and promotional programs. Athens wrote, Brands also
need to be constantly measured and monitored. In the past, branding has been a somewhat
abstract concept that focused primarily on the communications aspects of advertising, images,
personalities, and logos (Athens, p. 3). The authors of Understanding Brand Equity concurred
when they wrote, Track equity over time and measure effectiveness of advertising and
marketing campaigns to build brand image (Understanding, p. 4).
Brand Valuation
Brand equity can be tracked through brand valuation. This process helps marketers
concentrate resources where they will have the most impact. Aaker (1991) wrote, Developing
25
approaches to placing a value on a brand is important for several reasons. First, as a practical
matter, since brands are bought and sold, a value must be assessed by both buyers and
sellersSecond, investments in brands in order to enhance brand equity need to be justified, as
there always are competing fundsThird, the valuation question provides additional insight into
the brand-equity concept (p. 22).
Arnold (1992), explained the importance of brand valuation when he wrote:
Although brand valuation began as a balance sheet exercise, it soon became clear
that the information generated in the process of valuation was of enormous value
to both marketing and general managementThe very nature of brand valuation,
in that it needs to assess brand profits and the prospect of future earnings, means
that markets, positioning, trends, market share, and all other relevant factors are
inevitably taken into consideration. (p. 217)
Five approaches to assessing the value of brand equity were proposed by Aaker
(1991):
1. Price premium supported by the name
2. Name impact on customer preference
3. Brands replacement value
4. Stock price of the company
5. Earning power of the brand (p. 22).
Clancy (2002) suggested companies take a more scientific approach to determining
what is important in evaluating brands when he wrote, Conduct a brand audit to determine
whats working and whats not. Build on your strengths and avoid making testosterone-driven,
from the gut decisions that can cause real damage (p. 5).
In determining brand value, Sherrington (2003) stated plainly, The ultimate value of a
brand is simply how much others will pay to get their hands on it (Sherrington, 2003, p. 161).
26
Companies must be able to determine just how much others will pay for the brand, and this is
determined by how highly consumers think of the brand, how motivated they are to purchase the
brand, and how tied they are to the brand.
Young and Rubicams Brand Asset Valuator
Companies pouring millions of dollars into brand building need to track their brands.
They must determine which instrument will give them the information needed. In regards to
measures for brand tracking Schultz (2002) stated:
Attitudinal measures, such as awareness, recall, and recognition are used most often.
They generally take the form of brand-tracking, awareness-and-usage, or intent-to-buy
studies among samples of the relevant population. Most brand measurement approaches
such as the Y & R Brand Asset Valuator, Millward-Browns Brand Dynamics, and
Market Facts Conversion model are all based on some type of attitudinal measure,
commonly attitudinal change. (p. 2)
Young and Rubicams (Y and Rs) Brand Asset Valuator (BAV) is an exhaustive
research tool that measures consumer perceptions of brands on an ongoing basis, and it provides
an understanding of how consumers evaluate brands, how brands gain and lose strength, and how
brands can be managed for long-term success. The tool also evaluates the comparative strength
of a brand (Shatrujeet, 2003, p. 1).
According to its Web site, Young and Rubicam Inc. is a diversified, global marketing
and communications organization with integrated services in advertising, database marketing and
customer relationship management, perception management and public relations, branding
identity consultation and design services, and healthcare communications (Inside, 2001, p. 1).
Since BAVs inception in 1993, the company has devoted over $70 million to building the most
comprehensive global database of consumer perceptions on brands. Brand Asset Valuator is
Young and Rubicams proprietary tool for building and managing brands, and one of the most
27
extensive research programs on branding ever taken (Brand Asset Valuator, 2001, p. 1). BAV
has grown since its beginning with over 121 studies, using the same methodology to 183,494
consumers in 40 countries interviewed about 198,000 brands (Brand Asset Valuator, 2001, p. 1).
Many aspects of marketing are difficult if not impossible to measure. Y and Rs Brand
Asset Valuator was developed in an effort to address such questions as How do you manage
what you cant measure? What value are investments that are not linked to returns? (Young
and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 2). Previous measures have not provided companies with a way to
identify problems within a brand before permanent damage has been done. BAV allows
companies an opportunity for continual brand evaluation. Problem areas can be spotted and
addressed before any devastating damage can be done to the brands image. Y and R stated, A
brand is too valuable an asset to manage without the help of smart metrics to help make the
smartest decisions. By adopting a clear definition of a brand and precisely measuring it in a way
that is linked to financial performance, marketers can gain an edge in making more intelligent
brand decisions (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 2).
BAV works on the premise brands are brought to life through a very specific
progression of four consumer perceptions: Differentiation, Relevance, Esteem, and Knowledge
(Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 3). These four pillars of branding are important and are
brought about in a systematic way, but the real action takes place in the relationships between
these measures. Managing the relationships between the measures is the key to brand health
(What is Brand Asset Valuator, 2001, p. 1).
Through extensive research, Y and R found these four characteristics were chosen as
the pillars to BAV because movement in these, more than any other combination of dimensions,
28
explains why brands grow, how they can get sick and how they can be managed back to health.
The quantitative relationships among these dimensions provide the basis of brand diagnosis
(Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 4).
Differentiation
According to Y and R, differentiation is the single most important aspect of the four
measures. Differentiation is the engine that pulls the brand train. Differentiation is critical to
brand success. If a brand is going to be successful, it must first build differentiation (Young and
Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 4). McFarland, 2002, pointed out 32,025 new packaged goods were
introduced in 2001, and products have to be different to get noticed (p. 3).
Boone and Kurtz (1999) wrote, Differentiation refers to a brands ability to stand apart
from competitorsAccording to the Y and R model, marketers who want to develop a strong
brand must start with a feature that no competitors match in consumers minds (p. 402). Van
Auken (2001) echoed their comments, Relevant differentiation is the defining aspect of a brand.
It is the most important thing a brand can deliver. Numerous studies have shown that relevant
differentiation today is a leading-edge indicator of profitability and market share tomorrow
(p. 4).
There are three relevant aspects to differentiation including different, unique, and
distinctive. These aspects are defined as:
1. Different captures the ability of an offering to stand out from its competition.
2. Unique characteristics tend to reflect a brands essence, beliefs, and personality.
3. Distinctive is about a brands prestige and pricing power (Young and Rubicam, Inc.,
2003, p. 4).
29
Marketers face a tough challenge when trying to differentiate their product offerings
from all the myriad of others that are available to consumers. Keller, Sternthal, and Tybout
(2002) warn, It is important to avoid a one-dimensional view of differentiation and contend
there are three types of brand differences including:
1. Brand performance- The way a product or service attempts to meet a customers
needs.
2. Brand imagery- Who uses the brand and under what circumstances.
3. Consumer insight- Is used when performance and imagery do not differ much. Brand
has insight into a consumers problems or goals (p. 6).
Van Auken (2001) warns against using price as a differentiator because it is easily
copied, reduces profits and dilutes brand equity. Product functions and features are also poor
differentiators because they also can be easily copied. The most powerful differentiators tend to
be one of the following:
1. Emotional, experiential and self-expressive benefits
2. Other non-rational benefits
3. Customer service elements that are invisible to competitors (such as rigorous customer
service training followed by customer service employee empowerment)
4. The carefully engineered total brand experience (p. 4).
Clancy (2002) supported Van Aukens opinions on price when he wrote, Discounting
tells your loyal customers that it is wrong to care so much about the brand; it is not worth that
muchBrand loyalty is based on the idea that a product or service is uniquely better and
30
different, not cheaper. Discounting erases the key difference with the competitors products
(p. 2).
Product differentiators may or may not last the products lifetime. Companies must be
willing to reassess points of parity from time to time, because attributes that were once
differentiators can become minimum requirements of a competing companys product
introduction (Keller, Sternthal, and Tybout, 2002, p. 5).
Differentiators remain an important factor throughout the life of a product. They do not
lose their importance when the other three pillars, relevance, esteem and knowledge come to the
forefront. It remains crucial, even as a brands performance on the other Pillars grows and
remains strong, and even as a brand achieves market leadershipA low or declining level of
differentiation is a clear warningoften the first warningthat a brand is fading (Young and
Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 5).
Relevance
Step two in building brands is relevance. A brand must show how it fits into consumers
lives. If it is not accomplished, consumers lose interest in the brand and go elsewhere. Boone and
Kurtz (1999) wrote, Relevance refers to the real and perceived importance of the brand to a
large consumer segment. A large number of consumers must feel a need for the benefits offered
by the brand (p. 402).
Differentiation gives birth to the brand and is critical for its continued reason for being,
while relevance drives franchise size (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6). Consumers are
inundated with thousands of brands each year including new launches as well as old brands, and
31
in order to remain in the forefront of these competitors, companies must continually prove their
relevance to the consumer.
Esteem
Esteem, the extent to which consumers like a brand and hold it in high regard, is the
third pillar of BAV (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6). Boone and Kurtz (1999) describe
esteem as a combination of perceived quality and consumer perceptions about the growing or
declining popularity of a brand. A rise in perceived quality increases consumer admiration for
the brand (Boone and Kurtz, 1999, p. 402).
Y and R stated, Esteem relates to how well a brand fulfills its implied or overtly stated
consumer promise, and this pillar consists of two important components: perceptions of quality
and popularity (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6-7). Young and Rubicam outlines those
components as
1. Quality- Ones own experience with the brand.
2. Popularity- How consumers think others experience the brand (Young and Rubicam,
Inc., 2003, p. 7).
Knowledge
The fourth pillar Y and Rs BAV is knowledge. Boone and Kurtz (1999) wrote,
Knowledge refers to the extent of customers awareness of the brand and understanding of its
identity. Knowledge implies that customers feel an intimate relationship with a brand (p. 402).
Young and Rubicam defined it as, High knowledge means consumers understand and have
internalized what the brand stands for. High knowledge cannot be attained only by higher levels
of media support spending. It has to be achieved, and it generally takes time. Knowledge is the
32
end result of all the marketing and communications efforts and experiences consumers have had
with a brand (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 7).
The four pillars are individually very important to the valuation process, however, the
relationships between these four pillars are essential factors, as well. There are two healthy
patterns. When differentiation is greater than relevance, the brand has room to growWhen
relevance is significantly greater than differentiation, the brand has become commoditized. Its
uniqueness has faded and price has become the primary reason to buy (Young and Rubicam,
Inc., 2003, p. 7).
Other relationship patterns include those of esteem and knowledge. The other healthy
pattern is when esteem is greater than knowledgeConsumers have motivation to find out more
about your brand, and when knowledge is greater than esteem, consumers know the product
very well, but are not necessarily motivated to buy (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 8).
Brand Strength and Brand Stature
Brand strength and brand stature are realized by combining the four pillars. Relevance
and differentiation are the key elements of brand strength, and they are essential in mapping
the life of a brand (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 6-8). Esteem and knowledge make up
brand stature, and this captures a brands pervasiveness in the marketplace (Young and
Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 8).
Young and Rubicam devised a power grid in which to measure brand strength and
brand stature. The power grid provides a model for mapping and diagnosing the life of a brand,
and its quadrants reflect new and unfocused brands, niche and unrealized potential of brands,
leadership brands, and eroding brands (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003, p. 9). Leadership is the
33
quadrant companies strive to achieve; however, it is not an easy feat since only 2% of brands in
BAV achieve leadership status: above 80% on all four pillars (Young and Rubicam, Inc., 2003,
p. 9).
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Research replication is common practice and is highly encouraged within the scientific
community. Cooper and Schindler (2001) defined replication as repeating an experiment with
different subject groups and conditions (p. 394). According to Babbie (1989), replication of
inquiry provides another safeguard (p. 9) and is the duplication of an experiment to expose or
reduce error (p. G7).
All research stands alone and can never be fully replicated. Different elements enter into
each research event. Babbie (1989), stated, As in all other forms of scientific research,
replication of research findings strengthens our confidence in the validity and generalizability of
those findings (p. 232). However, Neuliep (1991) pointed out, The same experiment can never
be repeated by even the same experimenter. At the very least, the subjects and the experimenters
themselves are different over series of replications (Neuliep, 1991, p. 2). The author outlined
three variables affecting the value, or utility, of any particular replication as:
1. When the replication is conducted
2. How the replication is conducted
3. By whom the replication is conducted (Neuliep, 1991, p. 2).
The research replicated was a quantitative study consisting of a 65-question survey (see
Appendix A). The survey was done on an annual basis by the United Way of America and was
conducted through telephone interviews with 1,500 adults nationwide. Permission was granted
by UWA for the study to be replicated for United Way of Putnam County (see Appendix E).
UWA outsourced the telephone interviews to an interviewing house that utilizes CFMC
software in programming the survey. This allowed interviewers to program the survey into the
35
computer so it became an automated process. According to Andrea Brunk, former Director of

Market Research of United Way of America, The interviewer does not have to pay attention to
skip patterns because the computer does that for him. He only has to ask the questions that
appear on the screen and check a box on the computer screen (personal communication,
February 7, 2005). The organization also used a sampling company, Polk, based out of
Southfield, Michigan. Polk has access to over 100 million households compiled from over 30
distinct sources of demographic data which includes auto title registration, phone directories,
and census data (Polk, 2005, p. 1).
Demographically, Putnam Countys 34,928 residents are divided relatively evenly
among gender with 51% female and 49% male. Breakdowns for race are 96.3% white, .2%
African-American, .2% Native American, .2% Asian, and 4.4% Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau,
2006, p. 2).
The median age of Putnam County was 36, and the age rundown included:
1. 18% ages 15 to 24
2. 37% ages 25 to 44
3. 27% ages 45 to 64
4. 18% ages 65 and older (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, p. 2).
There were 12,753 households in the county with 2.81 persons per household. Most of
those households were made up of married couples, 63%, and 23% have never been married. Out
of a civilian labor force of 17,609, 17,095 are employed. Manufacturing was the largest
employment segment in Putnam County accounting for 31% of all jobs followed by management
36
and professional, 24%; sales and office, 20%; service, 13; and construction, 11% (US Census
Bureau, 2005, p. 1).
Economic data for Putnam County include:
1. Median household income is $46,426
2. Median family income is $52,859
3. Males median income is $36,548
4. Females median income is $23,963
5. Per capita income is $18,680 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, p. 3)
The replicated study was conducted among Putnam County residents and was a
geographic survey making it clustered in scope, and its only criterion for participation was the
respondent be 18 years of age or older. Participants were directed to a Web address and asked to
complete the study on-line. Putnam County Sentinel, a local daily newspaper in Putnam County,
published a newspaper article describing the survey and asked county residents for their
participation. The newspaper editor and the researcher wrote the newspaper article jointly. The
newspapers circulation is 19,000 copies on weekdays, and 20,000 papers on Sunday with
11,000 papers going to the 15,138 Putnam County households covering 73%. A series of
newspaper advertisements were also purchased directing residents to take part in the survey and
how they could become involved. Other options used to recruit participants included a flier
inserted in the county paper and e-mails sent to county residents through the aid of local business
and industry.
The total population of Putnam County was 34,726. Of that number, 70% of the
population (24,410) was 18 and older, and that was the group surveyed within the county (US
37
Census Bureau, 2005, p. 1). For the purposes of this study, a minimum of 379 surveys were
needed to achieve a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval of 5%. The national
survey had a confidence level of 95% and confidence interval of 2.5%, and if UWPC duplicated
the same confidence interval level, the organization would have to gather 1,479 surveys. Because
of time and money constraints, the researcher opted for the confidence interval of 5% in which
researchers attempted to conduct 379 surveys. The sample size formula was provided through
Creative Research Systems online sample size calculator. The formula used for the
determination is below:
Z2 * (p) * (1-p)
SS = ________________
C2
Where:
Z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)
p = percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal (.5 used for sample size needed)
C = confidence interval, expressed as decimal (e.g., .04 = 4)
Care was taken to make sure participation in the on-line survey reflected the
demographic makeup of Putnam County including age, gender, ethnicity, income levels, and
education. This stratification of the study ensured survey results were applicable to Putnam
County.
38
Table 1. Putnam County Demographics

Age
15-24
18%
25-44
37%
45-64
27%
65 and older
18%
Gender
Male
49%
Female
51%
Ethnicity
White
AfricanAmerican
.2%
Native
American
.2%
Asian
Hispanic
.2%
4.4%
$15,000$34,999
25.1%
$35,000$74,999
44.6%
$75,000$149,999
17.3%
$150,000and up
2%
Less than
9th grade
9th to 12th
grade-no
diploma
Some college
No degree
Associate
degree
Bachelors
degree
Graduate
5%
8.9%
High school
graduate
including
GED
47.7
16%
9.5%
9%
3.9%
Own
84%
Rent
16%
Married
Never
Married
23.3%
Divorced
Widowed
6.2%
6.7%
96.3%
Household
Income
0-$14,999
11%
Education
(25 and older)
Homeowner
Marital Status
63%
If unable to attain the proper demographic makeup through newspaper and e-mail
contact, the researcher would have used radio and random postcards to encourage survey
participation. Putnam County had two radio stations: WBUK in Ottawa and WLWD located in
Columbus Grove. Other larger radio stations with regional draws existed outside the county
including stations in Defiance and Lima, Ohio.
The study was conducted on-line using SurveySolutions Express a product developed
by Perseus Development Corporation located in Braintree, Massachusetts. It was modified
slightly because of the change in the data collection method from telephone calls conducted by
39
UWA to an Internet based application. Web based surveys are very valuable to many
organizations including non-profits like UWPC, and they provided a cost-effective, timesaving
avenue allowing organizations the ability to reach millions of people. According to Perseus
(2004),
Electronic commerce and the impact of the Internet on communication have opened
new worlds for surveys. Hundreds of millions of people world-wide have access to email and the Web. Answers come back in an electronic format, so putting them into a
computer is easier. A survey can reach people in a matter of seconds, rather than days
or months while completing phone calls or waiting for the mail to come in. (p. 4)
Access to computers and the Internet have increased significantly over the past few
years. According to Cooper and Schindler (2001), nearly 61 percent of U.S. households are
actively online, and once connected, 91 percent are likely to continue their Internet subscription
(p. 339). The authors also point out several advantages for Web surveys:
1. Short turnaround of results; results are tallied as respondents complete surveys
2. Ability to use visual stimuli
3. Ability to do numerous surveys over time
4. Ability to attract participants who wouldnt participate in another research project,
including international respondents
5. Respondents feel anonymous
6. Shortened turnaround from survey draft to execution of survey
7. Experiences unavailable by other means (Cooper and Schindler, 2001, p. 340).
Disadvantages for the design include:
1. Recruiting the right sample is costly and time-consuming
2. Converting surveys to the Web can be expensive
40
3. It takes technical as well as research skill to field a Web survey

4. While research is more compatible with numerous browsers, the technology is not
perfect (Cooper and Schindler, 2001, p. 340).
The study was descriptive in nature, which according to Babbie (1989) means it is a
method for presenting quantitative descriptions in a manageable form (p. 437). Cooper and
Schindler (2001) stated descriptive research tells the who, what, when, where, and how of a
topic (p. 161). Basic ways to analyze these studies include measures of location such as mean
(average), median (midpoint of distribution), and mode (the most regularly occurring value)
(Cooper and Schindler, 2001, p. 474-475).
The survey results were reviewed through graphical breakdowns and frequency tables,
which offers the simplest method for analyzing categorical (nominal) data. They are often used
as one of the exploratory procedures to review how different categories of values are distributed
in the sample (StatSoft, 1984, p. 14). Data was analyzed through crosstabulation, which is a
combination of two (or more) frequency tables arranged such that each cell in the resulting table
represents a unique combination of specific values of crosstabulated variables (StatSoft, 1984,
p. 15). Other review techniques included:
1. Column, row, and total percentages
2. Graphical representations of crosstabulations
3. Stub and banner tables (StatSoft, 1984, p. 16-17).
A comparison of the data was made to that obtained by UWA and its national survey. In
addressing the study of replications, Neuliep (1991), stated:
Replications provide for external validity, to the extent that their results are in
agreement with those of the study being replicated. If the results are not in
41
agreement, doubt is cast on the internal validity of the original study. But
replication can be important even in the case of studies that are not experiments.
This is true in physics and biology and there is no reason to think that it should
not be so for the social sciences. (p.3)
The author further stated, We are, all things being equal, more persuaded by evidence
that is reliable, and the best empirical test of the reliability of evidence is provided by
replication (Neuliep, 1991, p. 32). He outlined replications as three types:
1. Conceptual replications which is an attempt to convey the same crucial structure of
information in the independent variables to subjects, but by a radical transformation
of the procedural variables of the primary information focus.
2. Partial replications where there is some change (deletion or addition) in part of the
procedural variables, while other parts are duplicated as in the original experiment.
3. Exact replications are duplicated as exactly as possible. That is, the physical
procedures are reinstituted as closely as possibleIt is implicitly assumed that
variables classes 1-6 are either the same as in the original experiment or are
irrelevant (Neuliep, 1991, p. 45-46).
Anonymity for participants is important and was duly protected. Data was collected
through SurveySolutions Express on-line venue, and it was hosted by the companys server and
ensured the privacy of those visiting the Web site to take the survey. Participants were informed
of the methods by which their responses will be anonymous. Surveys were examined for their
completeness. Those that appeared incomplete may have had useable components and may have
been included in the responses. Some participants may not have felt comfortable answering all
questions; however, the answers they did produce should be used in the analysis if appropriate.
42
The survey was posted and pilot tested by members of UWPCs 15 member Marketing
and Communication Committee as well as 10 participants who are not closely connected to
United Way. This ensured there were both people familiar with United Way and those who were
not at all familiar with the organization testing the survey instrument. Testing the instrument
allowed the researcher to check for errors on the survey, ease of the use of the survey, and its
readability. If the sample did not meet the researchers expectations, corrections were made to
bring it inline.
Survey Timeline
A timeline was developed to better facilitate the survey process, and the research
activities for the study are outlined below:
Day 1
1. Survey, which has been previously posted and tested, was made
available to the public
2. Article published in Putnam County Sentinel outlining UWPCs
research endeavors and how Putnam County residents can participate
3. Surveys administered through the Internet
Day 8
1. Assessment of number of participants in study
2. Advertisement published or flier inserted in Putnam County Sentinel
asking residents to participate in study
Day 15
43
2. Advertisement published or flier inserted in Putnam County Sentinel

asking residents to participate in study
Day 22
2. E-mail possible survey subjects to participate if necessary using
UWPCs database of Putnam County residents
Day 30
1. Completion of surveys
2. Began data analysis
Study Limitations
As outlined previously, limitations of the study included:
1. Participation was constrained by the delivery method of the survey. Only
individuals who had access to the Internet were able to respond to the survey
2. Those who felt compelled to respond to the survey may have felt a close connection
to UWPC and its mission
3. There was no way to limit the number of times someone took the survey
4. Data was unique only to Putnam County
5. The replicated study was not conducted during the same time frame as the
national study
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The question addressed in this study was: Do the results of the survey being replicated
by United Way of Putnam County Ohio mirror the findings of United Way of Americas national
survey? The data collection and analysis presented in Chapter Four shows the results of the online survey conducted to evaluate this research question. The quantitative study consisted of a
65-question survey presented to residents of Putnam County Ohio.
There were 105 respondents to the survey of Putnam County residents. Nationally,
2,039 people took part in the original study. In Putnam County, 27% (25) of respondents were
male and 73% (68) were female. Nationally, respondents were equally divided at 50% (1,019)
male and female. The local study, with its predominately female participants, did not mirror the
results of the national survey, which had a fifty-fifty split on gender. The female population of
Putnam County is 50.7% (US Census Bureau, 2006, p. 1).
Table 2. Gender
Gender
Putnam Co.
National
Male
27% (25)
50% (1,019)
Female
73% (68)
50% (1,020)
Total
100% (93)
100% (2,039)
The ages of Putman County respondents were 22% (21) ages 55 and over, 61% (58)
ages 35 to 54, 13% (12) ages 27 to 34, and 4% (4) ages 18 to 26. Nationally, participants were
36% (734) ages 55 and over, 41% (836) ages 35 to 54, 13% (265) ages 27 to 34, and 9% (184)
ages 18 to 26. Most Putnam County responses were provided by those who were ages 35 to 54 at
61%, and the same is true nationally at 41% for that age group. An overwhelming majority of
45
participants were over 35 years of age for both studies. The age breakdown for Putnam County
is18 to 24, 9.2%; 25 to 44, 27.4%; 45 to 64, 23.9%; and 65 and older, 12.9%.
Table 3. Age
Age
Putnam Co.
National
55 and up
22% (21)
36% (734)
35-54
61%(58)
41% (836)
27-34
13% (12)
13% (265)
18-26
4% (4)
9% (184)
Total
100% (95)
99% (2,019)
In regards to education in Putnam County, 11% (10) of respondents were high school
graduates, 15% (14) had attended some college, 51% (48) were college graduates, and 24% (23)
attended graduate school. Nationally, 33% (673) were high school graduates, 53% (1,081)
college graduates, and 14% (285) attended graduate school. The majority of respondents for both
surveys were college grads with 51% for Putnam County and 53% for the national study. The
number for graduate school attendees was significantly higher for Putnam County, which
reported 24% to the national number of 14%. The education breakdown of Putnam County is less
than ninth grade, 4.1%; ninth to twelfth grade with no diploma, 11.2%; high school graduate
including GED, 45.8%; some college but no degree, 18.3%; associate degree, 6.3%; bachelors
degree, 9.7%; and graduate school, 4.6%.
Table 4. Education
Education
Putnam Co.
National
High School
11% (10)
33% (673)
Some College
15% (14)
College Grad
51% (48)
53% (1,081)
Grad School
24% (23)
14% (285)
Total
101% (95)
100% (2,039)
Putnam County survey participants reported their employment status as 74% (70)
worked full time, 12% (11) worked part time, 6% (6) worked full time and were self-employed,
46
none were part-time and self-employed, and 7% (7) were retired. United Way of America survey
respondents reported their employment status as 44% (897) worked full time, 8% (163) worked
part time, 7% (143) worked full time and were self-employed, 1% (20) were part-time and selfemployed, 24% (489) were retired, and 16% (326) unemployed. The national number for retiree
participants was 24% compared to 7% for Putnam County, which is an important difference.
Nationally 16% identified themselves as not employed, with 1% from Putnam County not
employed. Full-time workers from Putnam County was 74%, 30% higher than the national
results.
Table 5. Employment
Employment
Full Time
Part Time
Self-Full Time
Putnam Co.
74% (70)
12% (11)
6% (6)
National
44% (897)
8% (163)
7% (143)
Self-Part Time
1% (20)
Retired
7% (7)
Not
Employed
1% (1)
24% (489)
16% (326)
Total
100%
(95)
100%
(2,038)
Those involved in labor unions in Putnam County numbered 5% (5), and 95% (88)
stated they were not affiliated with a union. UWAs respondents reported 9% (184) were union
employees and 91% (1,855) were non-union workers. The Putnam County study mirrored the
responses of the national survey.
Table 6. Labor Union Affiliation

Labor Union
Putnam Co.
National
Yes
5% (5)
9% (184)
No
95% (88)
91% (1,855)
Total
100% (93)
100% (2,039)
47
The marital status of UWPC respondents was reported as 87% (80) married, 11% (10)
single, 1% (1) separated, 1% (1) divorced, and 1% (1) refused to answer. Nationally, marital
status was 23% (469) married, 56% (1,142) single, 2% (41) separated, and 11% (224) divorced.
The information provided by Putnam County participants was markedly unlike those obtained
for the national study. Most participants in Putnam County were married with 87% reporting this
as the case. Nationally, 23% were married and 56% were single. The number of divorced
participants was 11% nationally and 1% for Putnam County.
Table 7. Marital Status

Marital Status
Putnam Co.
National
Married
87% (80)
23% (469)
Single
11% (10)
56% (1,142)
Separated
1% (1)
2% (41)
Divorced
1% (1)
11%(224)
Refused
1% (1)
Total
101% (93)
92% (1,876)
Those with children under five in Putnam County households accounted for 19% (18)
and those without were 81% (77). Nationally, those with children under five numbered 14%
(285) and those without 86% (1,754). Putnam County survey findings paralleled those of the
national survey.
Table 8. Under Five Years of Age in Households

Children Under 5
Putnam Co.
National
Yes
19% (18)
14% (285)
No
81% (77)
86% (1,754)
Total
100% (95)
100% (2,039
Putnam County participants reported 94% (88) owned their own homes and 4% (4)
rented; 74% (1,509) owned homes nationally and 26% (530) rented their place of residence.
48
While home ownership was high for both studies, it was significantly high in Putnam County
nearly all participants were homeowners, which was 20% higher than the national survey.
Table 9. Rent/Own Residence

Residence
Putnam Co.
National
Own
94% (88)
74% (1,509)
Rent
4% (4)
26% (530)
Total
98% (92)
100% (2,039)
Putnam County home e-mail accounts were reported at 69% (65) having one and 26%
(24) not subscribing to home e-mail. Nearly 48% (979) of UWA respondents had a home e-mail
account, while 52% (1,060) did not. Nationally, over half of the survey respondents reported no
home e-mail address, with only 26% of Putnam County respondents reporting the same. Almost
70% of Putnam County participants had home e-mail address. The number was high considering
the rural local of the county.
Table 10. Home E-Mail Access

Home E-mail
Putnam Co.
National
Yes
69% (65)
48% (979)
No
26% (24)
52% (1,060)
Total
95% (89)
100% (2.039)
Income levels for Putnam County were identified as under $15,000, 1% (1); $15,000 to
$25,000, 3% (3); $25,000 to $50,000, 11% (10); $50,000 to $100,000, 56% (52); $100,000 to
$150,000, 13% (12); and $150,000 and up, 3% (3). Income levels nationally were under $15,000,
14% (285); $15,000 to $25,000, 14% (285); $25,000 to $50,000, 30% (612); $50,000 to
$100,000, 29% (591); $100,000 to $150,000, 8% (163); and $150,000 and up, 5% (102). A
minimal number of Putnam County respondents said their income was under $15,000 compared
49
to 14% for the national survey. Most national survey participants stated they made $25,000 to
$50,000 (30%) or $50,000 to $100,000 (29%). Putnam Countys stated 56% made $50,000 to
$100,000 and 13% made $100,000 to $150,000, which are high salary ranges for the county.
Putnam County income breakdowns are 0 to $14,999, 11.4%; $15,000 to $34,999, 24.9%;
$35,000 to $74,999, 45.2%; $75,000 to $149,999, 17.1%; and $150,000 and up 1.5%.
Table 11. Income

Income
Under $15,000
Putnam Co.
National
1% (1)
14% (285)
$15,000$25,000
3% (3)
14% (285)
$25,000$50,000
11% (10)
30% (612)
$50,000$100,000
56% (52)
29% (591)
$100,000$150,000
13% (12)
8% (163)
$150,000
and up
3% (3)
5% (102)
Total
87% (71)
100% (2,038)
Ethnicity of Putnam County participants were white, 97% (90); African-American, 0;

Hispanic-American 2% (2); Native-American, 0; Asian-American, 0; and other 1% (1).
Nationally, ethnicity was white, 79% (1,611); African-American, 11% (224); Hispanic-American
5% (102); Native-American, 1% (20); Asian-American, 2% (41); and other 3% (61). The
ethnicity of Putnam County is predominantly white, a fact represented by the respondents
answers. The breakdown for Putnam Countys ethnicity is white, 92.6%; African-American,
1.8%; Native-American, .3%; Asian-American, .4%; Hispanic, 7.2%; and other, 3.6%.
Table 12. Ethnicity

Ethnicity
Putnam Co.
National
White
97% (90)
79% (1,611)
African Am
11% (224)
Hispanic
2% (2)
5% (102)
Native Am
1% (20)
Asian Am
2% (41)
Other
1% (1)
3% (61)
Total
99% (92)
101% (2,059)
50
Question 2A asked survey respondents how much confidence in general they had in
charities to do a good job. UWPC reported 41% (41) had a great deal of confidence, 54% (53)
had a fair amount, and 5% (5) did not have too much. Nationally, 31% (632) stated they had a
great deal of confidence, 50% (1,020) had a fair amount, 15% (306) did not have too much, and
5% (102) had none at all. Putnam County reported 95% had a great deal and a fair amount of
confidence, while nationally the numbers were at 81%.
Table 13. Confidence in Charities in General (A great deal and a fair amount)
Putnam County
Nationally
Great Deal
41% (41)
31% (632)
Fair Amount
54% (53)
50% (1,020)
Not Too Much

5% (5)
15% (306)
None at All
5% (102)
Total
100% (99)
101% (2,060)
Questions 2B, C, and D asked how much confidence participants had in United Way,
Salvation Army, and American Red Cross, respectively, to do a good job. Concerning United
Way, Putnam County respondents reported their confidence level as 58% (56), a great deal of
confidence; 38% (37), a fair amount; 3% (3), not too much; 0, none at all; and 2% (2), did not
know. UWA reported 32% of participants had a great deal of confidence in United Way; 41%, a
fair amount; 17%, not too much; and 10%, none at all. Respondents from Putnam County stated
95% had a great deal and a fair amount of confidence in United Way, while national participants
findings were 73%. Both ratings are high; however, Putnam County residents were nearly
significantly higher in their confidence rating.
Putnam County rated Salvation Army as 27% (26), a great deal of confidence; 60%
(59), a fair amount; 6% (6), not too much; 1% (1), none at all; and 6% (6), did not know. UWA
respondents stated 51% a great deal; 38%, a fair amount; 7%, not too much; and 4%, none at all.
51
Respondents from Putnam County stated 87% had a great deal and a fair amount of confidence
in Salvation Army, while national participants findings were 89%. The numbers are nearly the
same for both studies.
Putnam County rated American Red Cross as 56% (55), a great deal of confidence;
38% (37), a fair amount; 6% (6), not too much; 0, none at all; and 0, did not know. United Way
of America reported 55% had a great deal; 32%, a fair amount; 7%, not too much; and 6%, none
at all. The following table shows the publics confidence in American Red Cross, Salvation
Army, and United Way both nationally and in Putnam County. Respondents from Putnam
County stated 94% had a great deal and a fair amount of confidence in American Red Cross,
while national participants findings were 88%. Both ratings, again, are high. However, Putnam
County is six percentage points higher than national levels.
Table 14. Confidence in Specific Charities (A great deal and a fair amount)
United Way
Putnam County
Nationally
95%
73%
Red Cross
94%
88%
Salvation
Army
87%
89%
Question 3A gauged giving to charitable organizations within Putnam County and

respondents were asked which non-profit or charitable organizations they had contributed money
to in the past 12 months (multiple answers were accepted). United Way scored 70% (74);
churches and religious organizations, 68% (71); American Cancer Society, 50% (53); American
Red Cross, 45% (47); Boy Scouts, 30% (32); cancer (general), 30% (32); education
(miscellaneous), 28% (29); disaster relief, 25% (26); St. Judes Research and Hospital, 23% (24);
52
Girl Scouts, 22% (23); community, fire, police, and rescue, 21% (22); school/university alumni,
19% (20); and Salvation Army, 18% (19). UWA reported Salvation Army at 20%, United Way
at 15%, churches and religious organizations at 13%, American Red Cross at 11%, American
Cancer Society at 9%, community, fire, and police at 5%, and 20% said they did not make any
charitable contributions. Putnam County donors favor giving to United Way and churches and
religious organizations at nearly 70% for each; this is substantially higher than the national
answers, which put United Way at 15% and churches and religious organizations at 13%. The
Salvation Army was the highest nationally with 20% reporting contributions within the last 12
months; this compared to Putnam Countys 18%. The results were reported as follows:
Table 15. Giving to Charitable Organizations

Putnam County
United Way
Church/Religious Org.
American Cancer Society
American Red Cross
Boy Scouts
Cancer (General)
Education (misc.)
Disaster Relief
St. Judes/Research/Hospital
Girl Scouts
Community/Fire/Police/Rescue
School/University Alumni
Salvation Army
Percentage
70%
68%
50%
45%
30%
30%
28%
25%
23%
22%
21%
19%
18%
Number
74
71
53
47
32
32
29
26
24
23
22
20
19
UWA
15%
13%
9%
11%
5%
20%
Question 4 asked respondents if they personally investigate charities to which they

donate money. In Putnam County, 53% (51) responded they did investigate, and 45% (43)
53
responded they did not. The national survey results showed 45% personally investigate charities
while 55% did not. The responses were flipped for the two surveys.
Question 5 focused on trust in charities and asked participants if, in general, they
trusted charities to do what they say they will do with the money. UWPC participants answered
yes, 38% (36); no, 2% (2); I trust some charities, but not others, 59% (57); and 1% (1), did not
know. UWAs results were 51%, yes; 15%, no; and 34%, some but not all charities were trusted.
Participants were asked with Questions 6, 7, and 8 if they trusted United Way, American Red
Cross, and Salvation Army, respectively, to do what they say they will do with donated funds.
Putnam Countys responses for United Way were yes, 95% (91); no, 2% (2); and do not know,
3% (3). Nationally, responses for United Way were yes, 75% and no, 25%. Putnam Countys
trust in American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the money were yes, 82% (80); no,
7% (7); and do not know, 10% (10). Nationally, American Red Cross ranked yes, 88% and no,
12%. Putnam County scored Salvation Army as yes, 65% (62); no, 6% (6); and do not know,
29% (28). Nationally, Salvation Army was yes, 91% and no, 9%. Trust in charities, nationally, is
higher for charities in general, Salvation Army, and American Red Cross than it is in Putnam
County with the broadest difference for Salvation Army. Nationally, United Way ranks the least
of the three charities, but is higher than charities in general. Within Putnam County, United Way
is ranked significantly higher than Salvation Army, American Red Cross, and charities in general
with 95% have trust in it. Responses to trust in charities are illustrated in Figure 5 below:
54
100
80
60
Nationally
Putnam County
40
20
0
United
Way
Red Cross Salvation Charities

Army
in General
Figure 5. Trust in charities is illustrated by responses toward United Way, Red Cross, Salvation
Army, and charities in general. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
Question 13A focused on awareness of 211, which is a United Way initiative

encouraging communities to adopt 211 as its local information and referral number for social
services. Putnam County responses indicated 29% (28) had heard of 211, 70% (68) had not, and
1% (1) did not know. Nationally, only 6% were aware of 211. Putnam County respondents are
much more aware of the 211 initiative than those nationally.
Question 16 focused on awareness of United Ways Success by Six, an early childhood
education program; State of Caring Index, a tool to measure giving within a specific donor area;
and United Way Draft. In Putnam County, 9% (9) had heard of Success by Six, 13% (14) had
heard of the State of Caring Index, 6% (6) had heard of United Way Draft, and 73% (77) had not
heard of any of the programs. Nationally, the breakdown was Success by Six, 6% were aware;
State of Caring Index, 8%; and United Way Draft, 5%. Putnam County residents are more aware
of other United Way initiatives as well. Figure 6 outlines those results.
55
Those answering in the affirmative
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Nationally
Putnam County
211
Success State of UW Draft

by Six
Caring
Index
Figure 6. Awareness of United Way programs by recognizing 211, Success by Six, State of
Caring Index, and the United Way Draft. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
Question 14 asked respondents if they had heard of United Way. UWA reported 93% of
survey participants were aware of United Way, while 7% stated no. Within Putnam County, 98%
(95) of respondents were aware, and 2% (2) stated no. Awareness of United Way both nationally
and in Putnam County is extremely high.
Favorability of United Way was the focus of Question 15, and participants were asked,
Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of United Way? Nationally,
36% were very favorable; 40%, somewhat favorable; 14%, somewhat unfavorable; and 10%,
very unfavorable. Putnam County stated 59% (57) were very favorable; 36% (35), somewhat
favorable; 4% (4), somewhat unfavorable; 0%, very unfavorable; and 1% (1), did not know.
Nationally, very favorable and somewhat favorable totaled 76% of respondents, and in Putnam
County those numbers totaled 95%. While the rankings are good from both surveys, this makes a
very positive statement for United Way of Putnam County.
56
The importance of and agreement with United Way brand promises are outlined in
Figures 7 and 8, which appear below. Both charts indicate the responses to very and
somewhat important. Survey question17 focused on this aspect by asking respondents: How
important is each item when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable organization:
1.
An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions
2.
An organization gets visible results in my community
3.
An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most
pressing community problems
4.
An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent
5.
An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my

community
6.
An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community
Possible responses to those questions were very important, somewhat important, neither
important nor unimportant, somewhat unimportant, very unimportant, and do not know.
Nationally, the measures for very important and somewhat important for lets me know what is
being accomplished by my contributions, 84%; gets visible results in my community, 86%;
brings community together to focus on solutions, 83%; makes sure money I give is well
spent, 92%; enables me to make the greatest difference, 83%; and energizes and inspires
people to get involved, 85%. UWPC reported the measures for very important and somewhat
important for these factors as lets me know what is being accomplished by my contributions,
78% (82); gets visible results in my community, 80% (84); brings community together to
focus on solutions, 68% (71); makes sure money I give is well spent, 81% (85); enables me
57
to make the greatest difference, 78% (82); and energizes and inspires people to get involved,
74% (78). The numbers for very important and somewhat important are higher nationally for
each question, most significantly for brings community together, money well spent, and
energizes and inspires.
Survey question 18 asked respondents: For the next series of statements, tell how much
you agree with the statement:
1.
United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with
my contributions
2.
United Way is an organization that gets visible results in my community
3.
United Way is an organization that brings our community together to focus on

solutions for the most pressing community problems
4.
United Way is an organization that makes sure the money I give is well spent
5.
United Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in

improving my community
6.
United Way is an organization that energizes and inspires people to get involved in
our community
Possible responses to those questions were strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor
disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, and do not know. Nationally, the measures for
strongly agree and somewhat agree for United Way lets me know what is being accomplished
by my contributions, 51%; United Way gets visible results in my community, 53%; United
Way brings community together to focus on solutions, 51%; United Way makes sure money I
give is well spent, 58%; United Way enables me to make the greatest difference, 47%; and
58
United Way energizes and inspires people to get involved, 54%. Putnam County reported the
scores for strongly agree and somewhat agree for these factors as United Way lets me know
what is being accomplished by my contributions, 64% (67); United Way gets visible results in
my community, 68% (71); United Way brings community together to focus on solutions,
58% (61); United Way makes sure money I give is well spent, 68% (71); United Way enables
me to make the greatest difference, 55% (58); and United Way energizes and inspires people
to get involved, 54% (57). In this instance, the numbers for very important and somewhat
important are higher in Putnam County with every question, most significantly for gets visible
results and lets people know what is being accomplished.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Nationally
Putnam County
30
20
10
Lets people know
Gets visible
results
Brings community
together
Money well spent
Enables me to
make difference
Energizes/inspires
Figure 7. Importance of United Way brand promises is illustrated by measuring how United Way
energizes and inspires, makes a difference, spends money well, brings together community, gets
results, and educates and informs donors. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
59
70
60
50
40
30
Nationally
Putnam County
20
10
Lets people know
Gets visible
results
Brings community
together
Money well spent
Enables me to
make difference
Energizes/inspires
Figure 8. Agreement with United Way brand promises is illustrated by measuring how United
Way energizes and inspires, makes a difference, spends money well, brings together community,
gets results, and educates and informs donors. National and Putnam County responses are
reported.
Question 19 measured the key attributes of United Way, Red Cross, and Salvation
Army. Survey participants were asked: Below is a series of adjectives used to describe the
United Way, Salvation Army, and American Red Cross. Please tell how much you agree or
disagree with each adjective as it applies to each charity. The adjectives describing the key
attributes included innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant, collaborative, influential,
and personal. Nationally, those answering strongly agree and somewhat agree for United Way
60
were innovative, 56%; trustworthy, 66%; results oriented, 62%; arrogant, 22%; collaborative,
57%; influential, 67%; and personal, 48%. UWPCs responses in regards to United Way were
innovative, 59% (62); trustworthy, 80% (84); results oriented, 70% (73); arrogant, 12% (13);
collaborative, 67% (70); influential, 62% (65); and personal, 47% (49). The key attributes of
personal and innovative were scored nearly the same in both surveys. Trustworthy and
collaborative were scored significantly higher by Putnam County, and Putnam Countys
responses were more positive than those in the national survey for all categories except
personal, influential, and arrogant.
American Red Cross was rated as the following through UWAs survey: innovative,
62%; trustworthy, 80%; results oriented, 78%; arrogant, 18%; collaborative, 68%; influential,
77%; and personal, 64%. UWPCs responses in regards to ARC were innovative, 50% (53);
trustworthy, 73% (77); results oriented, 57% (60); arrogant, 12% (13); collaborative, 49% (51);
influential, 63% (66); and personal, 53% (56). The findings for Red Cross were more positive on
the national level than in Putnam County, with all key terms scoring better nationally. The most
significant differences were for innovative, results-oriented, and influential.
Salvation Army was scored as the following through UWAs survey: innovative, 56%;
trustworthy, 82%; results oriented, 75%; arrogant, 14%; collaborative, 63%; influential, 69%;
and personal, 65%. Putnam Countys responses for Salvation Army were innovative, 33% (35);
trustworthy, 56% (59); results oriented, 43% (45); arrogant, 7% (7); collaborative, 36% (38);
influential, 39% (41); and personal, 32% (34). The details of United Ways key attributes appear
in Figure 9, and Figures 10 and 11 identify those key attributes in regards to Red Cross and
Salvation Army, respectively. The data displayed indicates those who answered, strongly and
61
somewhat agree. Nationally, the Salvation Army scored more favorably in all key attributes
but arrogant. There were significant differences in all key terms.
Innovative
Trustw orthy
Results Oriented
Putnam County
Arrogant
Nationally
Collaborative
Influential
Personal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure 9. Agreement of key attributes of United Way is displayed in regards to whether

respondents found United Way innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant, collaborative,
influential, and personal. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
62
Innovative
Trustw orthy
Results Oriented
Putnam County
Arrogant
Nationally
Collaborative
Influential
Personal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure 10. Agreement of key attributes of Red Cross is displayed in regards to whether
respondents found Red Cross innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant, collaborative,
influential, and personal. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
Innovative
Trustworthy
Results Oriented
Putnam County
Arrogant
Nationally
Collaborative
Influential
Personal
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Figure 11. Agreement of key attributes of Salvation Army is displayed in regards to whether
respondents found Salvation Army innovative, trustworthy, results oriented, arrogant,
collaborative, influential, and personal. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
Participants were asked with question 25: Overall, how satisfied are you with your
relationship with United Way? Possible responses were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, and do not know. In
regards to their satisfaction with United Way, participants from Putnam County reported 57%
(46) were very satisfied; 28% (23), somewhat satisfied; 12% (10), neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied; 1% (1) somewhat dissatisfied; no one reported being very dissatisfied; and 1% (1)
did not know. Nationally, satisfaction was stated as: 42%, very satisfied; 29%, somewhat
satisfied; 19%, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 5%, somewhat dissatisfied; and 4%, very
63
64
dissatisfied. Nationally, 71% scored their satisfaction as very satisfied and somewhat
satisfied. In Putnam County, the satisfaction was 85% considerable difference.
The likelihood of giving to United Way in the future is outlined in Figure 12.
Question 26 asked respondents, How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future?
Responses were very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely, and do not
know. Putnam County reported 68% (63) as very likely; 23% (21), somewhat likely; 0,
somewhat unlikely; 7% (6), very unlikely; and 2% (2), do not know. UWAs findings were 25%,
very likely; 30%, somewhat likely; 15%, somewhat unlikely; and 31%, very unlikely. There is a
considerable difference in the scores for this particular question. Nationally, over 30% of
respondents are very unlikely to give to United Way in the future, while less than 10% reported
this. Those very likely to give in Putnam County were nearly 70%, and those very likely to give
nationally were 25%, a very significant difference in the surveys.
Very Unlikely
Somewhat Unlikely
Putnam County
Nationally
Somewhat Likely
Very Likely
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 12. Likelihood of giving to United Way in the future is illustrated by responses from
participants. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
65
Advertising awareness was measured with question 32 by asking participants if they

had seen heard, or read any advertisements from the American Red Cross, United Way, or the
Salvation Army. Putnam County reported 61% (64) had seen advertisements from American Red
Cross; 30% (31), Salvation Army; 67% (70), United Way; and 8% (8) did not know. Nationally,
the numbers were American Red Cross, 47%; Salvation Army, 40%; United Way, 31%; and
37%, did not see any ads. United Way advertisements were seen nationally by 31% of
respondents and by 67% of respondents in Putnam County. This shows an important difference
in advertising awareness on the national level and on the local level. American Red Cross
advertisements were viewed by 61% of Putnam County respondents and by 47% of national
participants. Viewership for Salvation Army advertisements was much less both nationally and
in Putnam County, with national respondents seeing the ads 40% of the time and Putnam County
30%. Those responses are summarized in Figure 13:
70
60
50
40
Nationally
30
Putnam County
20
10
0
United Way
Red Cross
Salvation Army
Figure 13. Advertising awareness of United Way, American Red Cross, and Salvation Army
was measured by asking participants if they had seen heard, or read any advertisements from the
three organizations. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
66
Awareness of United Way advertising in specific media such as National Football

League TV spots, other TV spots featuring United Way, print (newspapers and magazines), radio
announcements, e-mail or electronic bulletin boards, and video and film was targeted with
question 33A and is charted in Figure 14. UWPC participants stated 34% (36) had seen the
television spots associated with the National Football League (NFL), 19% (20) had seen other
television spots featuring United Way, 43% (45) had seen ads in newspapers or magazines, 28%
(29) had heard announcements on the radio, 11% (12) had seen electronic mail or electronic
bulletin boards, and 3% (3) had seen a video or film about United Way. Nationally those
numbers were 40%, NFL television spots; 36%, other television spots featuring United Way;
30%, newspapers or magazines; 14%, radio; 11%, electronic mail or bulletin boards; and 5%,
video or film. Within Putnam County, the most important advertising channels were print and
NFL TV spots. Nationally, the important channels were NFL TV spots and other TV spots. The
greatest differences in responses were for radio and print, and Putnam County rated them higher.
Video/Film
E-mail
Radio
Putnam County
Nationally
Print
Other TV spots
NFL TV spots
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 14. United Way advertising awareness in specific media is illustrated by responses to
video and film, e-mail, radio, print, other TV spots, and NFL TV spots. National and Putnam
County responses are reported.
67
Question 37 asked participants: Do you associate United Way with any of the
following community issues? Putnam County responses were seniors, 53% (56); early childhood
development (birth to six), 43% (45); affordable housing and homelessness, 24% (25); health
care, 30% (32); domestic violence, 40% (42); children and youth (school age seven to eighteen),
58% (61); families, 61% (64); civic involvement, 28% (29); safety, 16% (17); economic selfsufficiency, 16% (17); none of the above, 3% (3); and do not know what United Way does, 6%
(6). Nationally those numbers were seniors, 46%; early childhood development (birth to six),
45%; affordable housing and homelessness, 38%; health care, 34%; domestic violence, 31%;
children and youth (school age seven to eighteen), 46%; families, 38%; civic involvement, 31%;
safety, 25%; economic self-sufficiency 23%; and none of the above, 24%. Nationally, the
community issues that scored higher were economic self-sufficiency, safety, and affordable
housing and homelessness. In Putnam County, those issues scoring higher were domestic
violence, families, children and youth, and seniors. Several issues scored very close
including civic involvement, healthcare, and early childhood development. Figure 15
shows the community issues respondents associated with United Way:
68
Economic SelfSufficiency
Safety
Civic Involvement
Domestic Violence
Healthcare
Putnam County
Nationally
Affordable
Housing/Homelessness
Families
Early Childhood
Development
Children/Youth
Seniors
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 15. Community issues associated with United Way are measured by responses to
economic self-sufficiency, safety, civic involvement, domestic violence, healthcare,
affordable house/homeslesness, families, early childhood development, children/youth, and
seniors. National and Putnam County responses are reported.
Crosstabulations of data were conducted on the income of survey participants and their
responses to United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with
my contributions, educational levels were compared to United Way is an organization that gets
visible results in my community, and age levels were evaluated with the statement, United
69
Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my

community. The information is presented in Tables 16, 17, and 18.
The survey question asked respondents to consider the statement: United Way is an
organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions and then
respond by marking strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree,
somewhat disagree, strongly disagree, or dont know. When the data was crosstabulated
using income as a variable, it showed those in higher income brackets were more inclined to
agree with the statement. Of the total survey respondents, 38.5% choose strongly agree, and
51% of those indicated they made $50,000 but less than $100,000 per year and 24% stated they
made $100,000 but less than $150,000 per year. Over 27% of participants choose somewhat
agree, and 62% of those who stated they made $50,000 but less than $100,000 per year, and
15% made $100,000 but less than $150,000 per year. Neither agree nor disagree, was chosen
9.4% of the time with nearly 78% making $50,000 but less than $100,000. Over 3% chose
somewhat disagree, and 1% chose strongly disagree. Twenty-one percent stated they did not
know. Of the total responses, 19.8% chose strongly agree and made $50,000 but less than
$100,000; 16.7% chose somewhat agree and made $50,000 but less than $100,000; 10.4%
chose dont know and made $50,000 but less than $100,000; and 9.4% chose strongly agree
and made $100,000 but less than $150,000.
70
Table 16. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Lets Me Know What is Being

Accomplished with My Contributions and Income
Income
$15,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000
but less but less but less but less $150,000 Refused
than
than
than
than
or more
$25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000
UW is an
Organization
that Lets Me
Know What is
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
Count
19
37
1.2
3.1
20.8
5.0
1.5
5.4
37.0
% within UW
is an
Organization
that Lets Me
Know What is
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
.0%
8.1%
51.4%
24.3%
2.7%
% within
Income
.0%
37.5%
35.2%
69.2%
25.0%
35.7%
38.5%
% of Total
.0%
3.1%
19.8%
9.4%
1.0%
5.2%
38.5%
Count
16
26
Expected
Count
.8
2.2
14.6
3.5
1.1
3.8
26.0
7.7%
7.7%
61.5%
15.4%
.0%
66.7%
25.0%
29.6%
30.8%
.0%
14.3%
27.1%
2.1%
2.1%
16.7%
4.2%
.0%
2.1%
27.1%
Count
Expected
Count
.3
.8
5.1
1.2
.4
1.3
9.0
Expected
Count
Strongly
agree
% within UW
is an
Organization
Somewhat that Lets Me
Know What is
agree
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
% within
Income
% of Total
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Total
13.5% 100.0%
7.7% 100.0%
71

Accomplished with My Contributions and Income, continued
% within UW
is an
Organization
that Lets Me
Know What is
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
.0%
22.2%
77.8%
.0%
.0%
.0% 100.0%
% within
Income
.0%
25.0%
13.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.4%
% of Total
.0%
2.1%
7.3%
.0%
.0%
.0%
9.4%
Count
Expected
Count
.1
.3
1.7
.4
.1
.4
3.0
.0%
.0%
66.7%
.0%
33.3%
.0% 100.0%
% within
Income
.0%
.0%
3.7%
.0%
25.0%
.0%
3.1%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
2.1%
.0%
1.0%
.0%
3.1%
Count
Expected
Count
.0
.1
.6
.1
.0
.1
1.0
% within UW
is an
Organization
that Lets Me
Know What is
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% within
Income
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
% within UW
is an
Organization
Somewhat that Lets Me
Know What is
disagree
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
Strongly
disagree
7.1%
1.0%
72

Accomplished with My Contributions and Income, continued
% of Total
Don't
Know
.0%
.0%
.0%
.0%
Count
10
20
Expected
Count
.6
1.7
11.3
2.7
.8
2.9
20.0
5.0%
5.0%
50.0%
.0%
10.0%
30.0% 100.0%
33.3%
12.5%
18.5%
.0%
50.0%
42.9%
20.8%
1.0%
1.0%
10.4%
.0%
2.1%
6.3%
20.8%
54
13
14
96
3.0
8.0
54.0
13.0
4.0
14.0
96.0
3.1%
8.3%
56.3%
13.5%
4.2%
100.0% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
56.3%
13.5%
% within UW
is an
Organization
that Lets Me
Know What is
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
% within
Income
% of Total
Count
Expected
Count
Total
% within UW
is an
Organization
that Lets Me
Know What is
Being
Accomplished
with My
Contributions
% within
Income
% of Total
3.1%
8.3%
.0%
1.0%
1.0%
14.6% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

4.2%
14.6% 100.0%
73
Another question asked participants to consider the statement: United Way is an

organization that gets visible results in my community and then respond by marking strongly
agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, or dont know. The data was crosstabulated using education as a variable. Of the
total survey respondents, 34.4% choose strongly agree, and 52% of those were college
graduates. Nearly 37% of participants choose somewhat agree, and 37% were college
graduates and another 37% were graduate school or higher. Neither agree nor disagree, was
chosen 9.4% of the time with over 33% stating they were college graduates. One percent of
respondents chose strongly disagree, and 19% selected dont know. Of the total respondents,
17.7% chose strongly agree and were college graduates, 13.5% chose somewhat agree and
were college graduates, 13.5% chose somewhat agree and were graduate school or higher, and
10.4% chose dont know and were college graduates.
Table 17. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results and Education
Education
High
School
UW is an
Organization that
Gets Visible Results
Count
Expected Count
Strongly
agree
% within UW is an
Organization that Gets
Visible Results
% within Education
% of Total
Somewhat
agree
Count
Expected Count
Some
College
College
Graduate
Graduate
School or
Higher
Total
17
33
4.1
4.8
15.1
8.9
33.0
6.1%
21.2%
51.5%
21.2% 100.0%
16.7%
50.0%
38.6%
26.9%
34.4%
2.1%
7.3%
17.7%
7.3%
34.4%
13
13
35
4.4
5.1
16.0
9.5
35.0
74
Table 17. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Gets Visible Results and

Education, continued
% within UW is an
Visible Results
14.3%
11.4%
37.1%
37.1% 100.0%
% within Education
41.7%
28.6%
29.5%
50.0%
36.5%
5.2%
4.2%
13.5%
13.5%
36.5%
1.1
1.3
4.1
2.4
9.0
44.4%
11.1%
33.3%
33.3%
7.1%
6.8%
3.8%
9.4%
4.2%
1.0%
3.1%
1.0%
9.4%
Count
Expected Count
.1
.1
.5
.3
1.0
% within UW is an
Visible Results
.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within Education
.0%
.0%
2.3%
.0%
1.0%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
1.0%
.0%
1.0%
10
18
2.3
2.6
8.3
4.9
18.0
% within UW is an
Visible Results
5.6%
11.1%
55.6%
27.8% 100.0%
% within Education
8.3%
14.3%
22.7%
19.2%
18.8%
% of Total
1.0%
2.1%
10.4%
5.2%
18.8%
12
14
44
26
96
12.0
14.0
44.0
26.0
96.0
12.5%
14.6%
45.8%
27.1% 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 100.0%
12.5%
14.6%
45.8%
27.1% 100.0%
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
Neither agree % within UW is an
nor disagree Organization that Gets
Visible Results
% within Education
% of Total
Strongly
disagree
Count
Expected Count
Don't Know
Count
Expected Count
Total
% within UW is an
Visible Results
% within Education
% of Total
11.1% 100.0%
.0% 100.0%
Participants were asked to evaluate the statement: United Way is an organization that
enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community and to respond by
75
marking strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat
disagree, strongly disagree, or dont know. The results were crosstabulated using age as a
variable. Of the total survey respondents, 29.2% choose strongly agree, and 57% of those were
ages 35 to 54. Over 27% of participants choose somewhat agree, and 77% were ages 35 to 54.
Neither agree nor disagree, was chosen 16.7% of the time with 44% ages 35 to 54 and another
44% ages 55 and older. Over 7% of respondents chose somewhat disagree, and 43% were ages
35 to 54 and another 43% were 55 and older. Almost 20% selected dont know, and 42% of
them were ages 35 to 54. Of the total respondents, 20.8% chose somewhat agree and were 35
to 54, 16.7% chose strongly agree and were 35 to 54, and 8.3% chose dont know and were
35 to 54.
Table 18. Crosstabulation: UW is an Organization that Enables Me to Make the Greatest

Difference in Improving My Community and Age
Age
18 to
26
UW is an Organization
that Enables Me to Make
the Greatest Difference in
Improving my
Community
Strongly
agree
Count
Expected Count
% within UW is an
Organization that Enables
Me to Make the Greatest
Difference in Improving
my Community
% within Age
% of Total
Count
Expected Count
27 to
34
35 to
54
55 and
older
Total
16
28
1.5
3.8
15.8
7.0
28.0
3.6%
17.9%
57.1%
21.4% 100.0%
20.0%
38.5%
29.6%
25.0%
29.2%
1.0%
5.2%
16.7%
6.3%
29.2%
20
26
1.4
3.5
14.6
6.5
26.0

% within UW is an
my Community
76
3.8%
7.7%
76.9%
11.5% 100.0%
20.0%
15.4%
37.0%
12.5%
27.1%
1.0%
2.1%
20.8%
3.1%
27.1%
Count
16
Expected Count
.8
2.2
9.0
4.0
16.0
6.3%
6.3%
43.8%
43.8% 100.0%
20.0%
7.7%
13.0%
29.2%
16.7%
1.0%
1.0%
7.3%
7.3%
16.7%
Count
Expected Count
.4
.9
3.9
1.8
7.0
% within UW is an
my Community
.0%
14.3%
42.9%
% within Age
.0%
7.7%
5.6%
12.5%
7.3%
% of Total
.0%
1.0%
3.1%
3.1%
7.3%
19
1.0
2.6
10.7
4.8
19.0
10.5%
21.1%
42.1%
26.3% 100.0%
40.0%
30.8%
14.8%
20.8%
19.8%
2.1%
4.2%
8.3%
5.2%
19.8%
% within Age
% of Total
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
% within UW is an
my Community
% within Age
% of Total
Somewhat
disagree
Count
Expected Count
% within UW is an
Don't Know Me to Make the Greatest
my Community
% within Age
% of Total
42.9% 100.0%
Count
13
54
24
96
Expected Count
5.0
13.0
54.0
24.0
96.0

% within UW is an
my Community
% within Age
% of Total
5.2%
13.5%
56.3%
77
25.0% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

5.2%
13.5%
56.3%
25.0% 100.0%
In Chapter Four the analysis of data collected from 104 Putnam County surveys was
presented and evaluated along with the national survey done by United Way of America. Putnam
Countys replicated study shows how respondents in the county compare to the survey findings
of the national United Way. Chapter Five will offer conclusions and recommendations based on
the data analysis.
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY, RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
In todays business setting, brand management is a crucial element. Organizations must
be able to determine their brands value in the marketplace by assessing the brands performance
to see if it is realizing its full potential. United Way of America has witnessed the erosion of its
brand, and the organization began a massive effort to strengthen its brand image predominantly
in the area of differentiation. Local United Ways were called upon to assist with this
repositioning, also. The strategies employed were:
1. Promote increased awareness of United Ways core purpose and mission
2. Guide cohesive action across the United Way system, delivering a consistent
experience to donors
3. Drive accelerated growth among target donors
4. Ensure long-term vitality, preference and differentiation
This study examined United Way of Americas efforts to value its decades-old brand and
what it has done to reposition itself in the philanthropic marketplace. UWA has utilized different
research methods to measure its brands equity including Young and Rubicams Brand Asset
Valuator, research conducted by Interbrand, and an annual survey tool to measure the publics
perception of United Way. This study replicated the national survey performed by UWA at
United Way of Putnam County in order to determine the studys applicability at the local level.
The purpose of replicating United Way of Americas national annual survey was to
determine if its research findings were relevant to Putnam County Ohio. Are the findings done
on the national scale actually transferable to small town America? The research question
79
addressed in this study was: Do the results of the survey being replicated by United Way of
Putnam County mirror the findings of United Way of Americas national survey? Understanding
how United Ways brand is viewed by donors and potential donors will allow United Way to
strengthen its brand image and gain a strong foothold in the philanthropic marketplace.
According to Kristin Thomsen, Manager of Market Research at United Way of America, We
use the public opinion poll results to define our brand in the publics eye. We need to know how
our brand is perceived compared to our competitors, and what it means to the public and to the
donor. We test brand attributes, brand promises, and several brand metrics (such as trust,
favorability, satisfaction, etc.) which give us an idea of how UW is doing in terms of
differentiating itself from others, reaching donors with its advertising and campaign, and
relationship building (personal communication, February 7, 2005). This is an urgent matter to
United Way as it faces enormous growth in the non-profit sector and the public fails to
distinguish the organization from other non-profits. These factors are felt nationwide in each of
the 1,400 local United Ways, which struggle to keep up with what is happening.
The research that was replicated was a quantitative study consisting of a 65-question
survey. The survey is done on an annual basis by the United Way of America and is conducted
through telephone interviews with 1,500 adults nationwide.
Results and Conclusions
The replicated study was conducted on-line and had 105 participants. The demographic
makeup of those participants were 75% female, while nationally females accounted for 50% of
respondents. Most were ages 35 to 54 (61%), and nationally the age group was also the largest
with 41%. The educational level reported was 51% for college graduates; nationally, 53% were
80
college graduates. Nearly 74% worked full time; UWAs survey results stated 44% worked full
time. The national survey had a large number of retirees taking part in the research, also. At
UWPC, 87% were married and 11% were single, and nationally, 23% were married and 56%
were single. Homeownership for UWPC was 94% and 74% in the national survey. Those with
home e- mail accounts were 69% at UWPC and 48% for the national study. Income was reported
in Putnam County as 56% for $50,000 to $100,000 and 13% for $100,000 and over; nationally,
the income was 14% below $15,000, 30% for $25,000 to $50,000, and 29% for $50,000 to
$100,000.
The demographic makeup of Putnam County in relation to the information reported
above is as follows:
1. Female: 51%
2. Ages 35 to 54: 38% of population
3. College graduate: Associate degree, 9.5%; bachelors degree, 9%; 3.9% graduate
school
4. Marital status: Married, 63%
5. Homeownership: Own, 84%
Those responding to the survey in Putnam County report much higher numbers in those
who are married, home ownership, income, educational attainment, and those who are female.
Respondents were likely to be college-educated females, married with high incomes, own their
own homes, and work full time. In addition, Putnam County is a very rural county in Northwest
Ohio, and the numbers of those indicating a home e-mail account are probably much higher than
the demographics of the county would indicate.
81
Those taking part in the survey fit the profile of the active community investor United
Way of America is aggressively targeting in its advertising and fundraising campaigns. National
research shows the demographics of this target audience to be 18% of the population (35 million
Americans), between the ages of 35 and 54 (52%), married (67%), have children (58%), college
educated (64%), own their own homes (81%), and have an average household income of $86,800
(Round, 2003).
Other research areas important to the branding study are confidence in charities,
donations made to particular charities in the past 12 months, trust in charities, recognition of
United Way, overall opinion of United Way, brand promises of United Way, key attributes of
United Way, and satisfaction with United Way. Those surveyed in Putnam County had a
substantially higher confidence rate in United Way than those on the national level. ARC also
came out well, but not as significantly as United Way. Salvation Army nearly mirrored the
national numbers. Confidence in charities was reported as:
1. Confidence in United Way: Putnam County, 95%; nationally, 81%
2. Confidence in American Red Cross: Putnam County, 94%, nationally, 88%
3. Confidence in Salvation Army: Putnam County, 87%; nationally, 89%
Giving to charitable organizations in the past 12 months was significant to United Way.
Nearly 70% stated they had given to UWPC a considerably higher number than gives nationally.
This is nearly the same as those giving to churches and other religious organizations. This
information is important because donors and potential donors can talk about trust and confidence
82
in more abstract terms; however, the actual donation is what counts in the end. The data is
outlined below:
1. United Way: Putnam County, 70%; nationally, 15%
2. Churches: Putnam County, 68%; nationally, 13%
3. American Red Cross: Putnam County, 45%; nationally, 11%
4. Salvation Army: Putnam County, 18%; nationally 20%
When participants were asked if they trust charities in general to do what they say they
will do with funds, Putnam County responded yes (38%); nationally, it was 51%. Putnam County
trusts some but not others (59%); nationally, it is 34%. Trust in particular charities scores much
higher in Putnam County than charities in general. United Way has a significantly higher number
than the national United Way, and it also scores higher than ARC and Salvation Army.
1. United Way: Putnam County, 95%; nationally 75%
2. American Red Cross: Putnam County, 82%; nationally, 88%
3. Salvation Army: Putnam County, 65%; nationally, 91%
Recognition of United Way by Putnam County was nearly the same as the national
survey with 98% indicating they had hard of United Way, and 93% saying the same nationally.
The overall opinion of United Way measuring very favorable and somewhat favorable rated a
95% in Putnam County and a 76% nationally.
With measuring the importance of brand promises, each of the following questions were
evaluated:
1. An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions
2. An organization gets visible results in my community
83
3. An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most
4. An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent
5. An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my
community
6. An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community
Nationally, the numbers were higher for each question. When measuring the agreement with
these brand promises, the responses were flipped, and Putnam County respondents agreed more
strongly for each statement than those taking the national survey.
Key attribute measures for both surveys were reported as follows:
1. Innovative: Putnam County, 59%; nationally, 56%
2. Trustworthy: Putnam County, 80%; nationally, 66%
3. Results Oriented: Putnam County, 70%; nationally, 62%
4. Arrogant: Putnam County, 12%; nationally, 22%
5. Collaborative: Putnam County, 67%; nationally, 57%
6. Influential: Putnam County, 62%; nationally, 67%
7. Personal: Putnam County, 47%; nationally, 48%
Putnam County residents saw United Way as more trustworthy, results oriented, and
collaborative and less arrogant than their national counterparts. Innovative, influential, and
personal all received very similar rankings.
Satisfaction with United Way at the local level was 85% for very and somewhat
satisfied. The national survey scored 71% for very and somewhat satisfied with United Way.
84
Another important measure is the likelihood of giving to United Way in the future.
There is a considerable difference in the scores for this particular question. Nationally, over 30%
of respondents are very unlikely to give to United Way in the future, while less than 10%
reported this for Putnam County. Those very likely to give in Putnam County were nearly 70%,
and those very likely to give nationally were 25%, a very significant difference in the surveys.
Survey participants in Putnam County were likely to
1. Have high confidence in United Way
2. Have given to United Way in the past 12 months
3. Trust United Way to do what it says it will do with donations
4. Trust American Red Cross and Salvation Army, but not as much as United Way
5. Have high recognition of United Way
6. Agree with key United Way brand attributes
7. Have high satisfaction of United Way
8. Give to United Way in the future
Recommendations
Information gathered in the survey will be valuable to Putnam County United Way and
will enable them to target the active community investor the national United Way is targeting.
This group will help strengthen United Way fundraising efforts in the county. It will also warrant
further research as Putnam County tries to identity such marketing issues as the types of
advertising that reaches the segment, what issues are important to them, how they prefer to give,
and how involved they want to be in United Way.
85
Additional research efforts should include focus groups in an effort to triangulate the
research findings. The use of mixed methodologies, combining quantitative and qualitative
research, makes the studies more viable. Focus groups would also be valuable in getting to know
the active community investor segment.
Some possible research areas to address with focus groups and future surveys would
include:
1. Trust in Putnam Countys United Way is extremely high at 95%; however, giving
does not reflect this number. UWPC respondents also consider it to be results oriented
and collaborative; respondents rated UWPC highly in those areas as well. However,
giving does not indicate this. While 70% of respondents stated they have given, the
past campaigns do not reflect the trust numbers. Donors may be giving, but at much
lower levels. How is this so if so many view UWPC as a highly trusted organization?
Research into how much the county is able to give and how much is actually given
should be conducted. Other important questions to ask would be what other
fundraising campaigns are going on such as a major building project by a large local
church or a YMCA building campaign, what is the disposable income within the
county, and what are the taxes for the county (property, income, and city).
2. Nearly 70% of respondents stated they had given to UWPC in the last 12 months.
This mirrors their giving to churches. More insight into the amounts of the donations
must be obtained in order to accurately gauge this. Many United Ways and companies
trying to raise money for them do small fundraisers and other events during the year
in which people give a relatively small amount of money (possibly car raffles or car
86
washes). These small donations may be what they consider giving to United Way in
the past 12 months. The focus group should investigate how much is given or if
participants consider giving to these types of fundraisers as their annual donation to
United Way.
3. Is UWPC dealing with the social service issues Putnam County residents see as
important? The survey questioned respondents if they associated United Way with
community issues such as economic self-sufficiency, safety, civic involvement,
domestic violence, healthcare, affordable house/homeslesness, families, early
childhood development, children/youth, and seniors. Perhaps the county would like to
see its focus narrowed or would like UWPC to look at entirely different social issues.
This important question was not addressed in the national survey. Donors give to
those non-profits addressing areas they perceive to be important.
4. Are the key attributes measured by United Way of America, innovative, trustworthy,
results oriented, arrogant, collaborative, influential, and personal, actually the
attributes Putnam County finds to be of importance and would like its local United
Way to possess?
5. As discussed earlier in the study, those social service agencies that have been
receiving United Way funds have been pressed to do fundraising on their own
because of poor local campaigns. Putnam County residents are asked to give to
United Way and to the agencies United Way supports by different fundraising efforts.
Some donors consider this to be double-dipping. The question to be investigated
87
here is Does your gift to United Way funded agencies negate your gift to United
Way or does it lesson your gift to United Way?
6. Those responding to the county survey seemed to mirror the active community
investor United Way is targeting with its fundraising efforts. A focus group should be
conducted to help support survey findings from this market segment, which was
identified in the UWPC survey. The active community investor within Putnam
County must be gauged to see if it is willing and able to give at least at a $500 level
during the annual UWPC campaign. It must also be determined if this group would be
willing to work as strong supporters of UWPC by helping to conduct their own
workplace campaigns, urging others to give, and serving on boards and committees
for UWPC. They must be willing to help strengthen United Ways influence and
direction within the Putnam County.
Further research by Putnam Countys United Way is urgently needed. United Way
continues to face enormous growth in the non-profit sector, and this trend does not seem to be
letting up at all. Donors now have numerous options for giving thanks to the competitiveness of
the non-profit sector, and donor dollars are being stretched to the limit as large numbers of nonprofits vie for them. Wages in the U.S. are not growing as in the past, and workplace campaigns
for United Way are beginning to wane which makes fundraising efforts all the more difficult.
UWPC faces the tough task of differentiating itself in the marketplace as it has for the past
several years. UWPC must continue its efforts at research to find out what the giving public is
looking for in its support of non-profits, how it can align itself with potential donors and social

service agencies doing what matters in the community, and how it can engage the active
community investor.
88
REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Arnold, D. (1992). The handbook of brand management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Athens, D. Returning to brand relevance. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from
http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printer friendly.php?&Item_ID=17267.
Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Biolos, J. (1997). Why focus is vital and how to achieve it. Harvard Management Update.
Blumenthal, D. (2001). It's the people stupid! Why branding fails to inspire loyalty--and what
you can do about it. Retrieved December 26, 2002, from
http://www.allaboutbranding.com/printhis.lasso?print=280.
Boone, L.E. & Kurtz, D.L. (1999). Contemporary marketing. Forth Worth, TX: The Dryden
Press.
Brand Asset Valuator. (2001). Young and Rubicam Web Site. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from
http://www.youngandrubicam.com/knowledge/bag2.php.
Clancy, K.J. (2002). Save Americas dying brands. Marketing Management. Retrieved February
27, 2004, from http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printerfriendly.php?&Item_ID=16101.
Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2001). Business research methods. Boston, MA: McGrawHill.
Creative Research Systems. (2003). Sample size formulas. Retrieved March 13, 2005, from
http://www.surveysystem.com/ssformu.htm.
Duffy, N. (2003). Passion branding: Harnessing the power of emotion to build strong brands.
Hobeken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Dunn, M. Branding overview. Retrieved December 25, 2002, from
http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printer-friendly.php?&Item_ID=1003.
Foxall, G.R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Brown, S. (1998). Consumer Psychology for Marketing.
(2nd ed.). London: International Thomson Business Press.
90
Gobe, M. (2001). Emotional branding: The new paradigm for connecting brands to people. New
York, NY: Allworth Press.
Hatch, M., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?
Harvard Business Review.
Hoovers Web Site. Retrieved February 18, 2006, from http://www.hovers.com.
Inside Young and Rubicam. (2001). Young and Rubicam Web Site. Retrieved February 27,
2004, from http://www.youngandrubicam.com/inside/index2.php.
Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand
equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keller, K. L., Sternthal, B., & Tybout, A. (2002). Three questions you need to ask about your
brand. Harvard Business Review.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1997). Marketing: An introduction 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Marconi, J. (2000). The brand marketing book. Chicago, IL: NTC Business Books.
McFarland, J. (2002). Branding from the inside out, and from the outside in. Harvard
Management Update.
Mercer Management Consulting. (2002). Brand portfolio economics: Harnessing a group of
brands to drive profitable growth.
Neuliep, J.W. (1991). Replication research in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Peppers, D., Rogers, M., & Dorf. B. (1999). One to one field book: The complete toolkit for
implementing a one to one marketing program. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Perseus Development Corporation. (2004). Perseus survey 101: A complete guide to a successful
survey. Retrieved May 2, 2005 from http://www.perseus.com/express/index.html.
Polk Automotive Intelligence. (2005). Research sampling: Demographics. Retrieved April 19,
2005, from http://www.polk.com/products/res__sampl_demographic.asp.
Ricci, R. & Volkmann, J. (2003). Momentum: How companies become unstoppable forces.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
91
Round. (2003, January 30). United Way Branding Webinair.

Schultz, D.E. (2002). Mastering brand metrics. Marketing Management. Retrieved February 27,
2004, from http://www.marketingpower.com/live/content-printerfriendly.php?&Item_ID=16082.
Shatrujeet, N. (2003). Rediffusion launches Y and Rs Brand Asset Valuator in India. 2003
Agency Faqs. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from
http://www.agencyfaqs.com/news/stories/2003/11/27/7727.html.
Sherrington, M. (2003). Added value: The alchemy of brand-led growth. New York, NY:
Palgrave MacMillan.
StatSoft Inc. (1984). Electronic textbook. Retrieved May 3, 2005, from
http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html.
Understanding brand equity. Retrieved December 25, 2002, from
http://www.dssresearch.com/library/BrandEquity/understanding.asp.
United Way Brand Guide. (2001). The 21st Century United Way: The brand new United Way.
Alexandria, VA.: United Way of America.
United Way of America. (2002, June). Young and Rubicams research shows the United Way
brand has bounced back from the recession. Research Insights. Alexandria, VA: United
Way of America.
United Way of America. (2003, July). New charitable giving trends create a difficult
environment for United Ways, research finds. Research Insights. Alexandria, VA: United
Way of America.
United Way of America (2004, June). Research seminar: Trends in philanthropy and the
economy. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.
United Way of America Research. (2004, December). 2004 national public opinion poll.
Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.
United Way Web Site. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from http://www.unitedway.org.
U.S. Census Bureau. State and county quick facts: Putnam County. Retrieved March 13,
2005, from http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39039.
U.S. Census Bureau. Putnam County, Ohio. DP-2: Profile of selected social characteristics.
Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://factfinder.census.gov/.
92
U.S. Census Bureau. Putnam County, Ohio. DP-3: Profile of selected economic characteristics.
Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Van Auken, B. (2001). The fifteen most important things to know about building winning
brands. Retrieved December 26, 2002, from
http://www.allaboutbranding.com/printhis.lasso?print=268.
What is Brand Asset Valuator? (2001). Young and Rubicam Web Site. Retrieved February 27,
2004, from http://www.youngandrubicam.com/knowledge/what2.php.
Young and Rubicam, Inc. (2003). BAV: Brand Asset Valuator. Young and Rubicam Group.
New York, NY: Young and Rubicam.
93
APPENDIX A UNITED WAY OF AMERICA NATIONAL SURVEY

Hello, my name is __________. Im calling from Delta Market Research, a national research
firm. We are conducting a study on attitudes toward charitable organizations and community
involvement and we would like to include your opinions. We are NOT asking for donations.
S1. First are you 18 years of age or older?
_____Yes
_____No ASK TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE 18 OR OLDER
_____Refused ASK TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE 18 OR OLDER
ONLY FOR AFFLUENT AUGMENT
S2. Which of the following best describes your households total annual income before taxes?
(READ LIST)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Under $100,000
$100,000 but less than $150,000
$150,000 or more
Dont know (DO NOT READ)
Refused (DO NOT READ)
1. When you think about non-profit or charitable organizations that make a difference in the
community, which organizations come to mind? (PROBE) Any others? (DO NOT READ LIST.
ENTER MULTIPLE RESPONSES.)
2A. How much confidence do you have in charitable organizations in general to do a good job?
Do you have. (READ LIST AND CHECK ONLY ONE)?
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all
5. Dont know (DO NOT READ)

2B. How much confidence do you have in United Way to do a good job? Do you
have.(READ LIST AND CHECK ONLY ONE)?
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all
94
2C. How much confidence do you have in the Salvation Army to do a good job? Do you
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all

2D. How much confidence to you have in the American Red Cross to do a good job? Do you
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all

3A. To which non-profit or charitable organizations have you contributed money in the past 12
month? (PROBE) Any others? (DO NOT READ LIST. ACCEPT MULTIPLE RESPONSES)
1. American Cancer Society
2. American Diabetes Association
3. American Heart Association/Heart Fund
4. American Lung Society
5. American Red Cross
6. Animal shelters (general)
7. Arts
8. Big Brothers/Big Sisters
9. Boys and Girls Clubs
10. Boy Scouts
11. Camp Fire Boys and Girls
12. Cancer (general)
13. Children (general)
14. Childrens fund
15. Church/synagogue/religious organization (SPECIFY)
16. Civil Rights
17. Community centers (general)
18. Community fire/police/rescue (general)
19. Cultural
20. Disability
21. Disabled veterans

22. Disaster relief
23. Education (miscellaneous)
24. Elderly/Aging
25. Environmental organizations
26. Family Planning/Parenting
27. Girl Scouts
28. Goodwill Industries of America
29. Healthcare organizations
30. Homeless charities/missions (general)
31. Humane Society
32. MADD/Mothers Against Drunk Driving
33. Make a Wish Foundation
34. March of Dimes
35. Muscular Dystrophy Association
36. National Easter Seal Society
37. National Wildlife/Wildlife organizations
38. Political/Advocacy organizations
39. Religious charities (general)
40. St. Judes/St. Judes Research/Childrens Hospital
41. Salvation Army
42. School/university alumni (general)
43. Shriners
44. Special Olympics
45. Sports/Recreational
46. United Way
47. Veterans (general)
48. Visiting Nurse Association
49. Volunteers of America
50. Youth (miscellaneous)
51. YMCA
52. YWCA
53. Other (SPECIFY)
54. None
55. Dont know
56. Refused
95
96
ASK IF CHARITY IS MENTIONED IN Q3A

3B. Think about all the monetary contributions you made to charitable or non-profit
organizations in the past 12 months, approximately what was the total that you gave or pledged
to all charities? (ENTER AMOUNT IN DOLLARS. IF UNSURE, ENCOURAGE BEST
GUESS.)
$__________
Dont know
Refused
3C. Have you ever donated to a charity via the Internet?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
4. Do you personally investigate charities to which you donate money?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
5. In general, do you trust charities to do what they say they will do with the donations?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
I trust some charities but not others
Dont know
6. Do you trust United Way to do what it says it will do with the donations?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
7. Do you trust American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the donations?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
97
8. Do you trust Salvation Army to do what it says it will do with the donations?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ISSUES
9. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement, I am actively involved in
the community? Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat
disagree, or strongly disagree?
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree

7. Refused (DO NOT READ)
10. Have you volunteered for any type of service in the past 12 months, including helping at
your local church, serving on a neighborhood committee, or donating blood? By volunteer, I
mean work to help others without monetary pay, not just belonging to an organization?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
11. How important do you feel it is that people volunteer in the community? Do you feel it is
(READ THE LIST AND CHECK ONE)?
5. Very important
4. Somewhat important
3. Neither important nor unimportant
2. Somewhat unimportant
1. Very unimportant
98
12. How many neighbors or colleagues could you really count on if you needed help, such as a
ride to the hospital or to talk about a problem? (COUNT A HOUSEHOLD AS ONE)
__________ Enter number
1. Dont work
2. Dont know
3. Refused
13A. Have you heard of 2-1-1?
1. Yes CONTINUE
2. No SKIP TO Q13C
3. Dont know SKIP TO Q13C
13B. To the best of your knowledge, is 2-1-1 available in your community?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
13C. In the past year, have you needed to get information on how to find help for you or your
family, such as information on daycare, emergency food or shelter, counseling, home healthcare,
after school programs, etc?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
NOW I AM GOING TO ASK YOU SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNITED
WAY AND SOME OTHER SELECT CHARITIES.
14. (TO BE ASKED ONLY IF UNITED WAY NOT MENTIONED IN 1A.) Have you heard of
United Way?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
99
15. Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of the United Way? Is
it.(READ LIST)?
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Somewhat unfavorable
Very unfavorable

16. Have you heard of any of the following: (READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1. United Ways Success by Six
2. The United Way State of Caring
3. The United Way Draft
4. None (DO NOT READ)
17. Next, Id like to read a series of statements, and Id like for you to tell me how important
each item is when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable organization. Please
tell me whether the item is very important, somewhat important, neither important nor
unimportant, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant. (INSERT AND ROTATE)
How important is it that.
A. An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions
B. An organization gets visible results in my community
C. An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most
D. An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent
E. An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community
F. An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
100
18. For the next series of statements that I read, I would like you to tell me how much you agree
with the statement. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree,
somewhat agree, strongly disagree.? (INSERT AND ROTATE)
A. United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with my
contributions
B. United Way is an organization that gets visible results in my community
C. United Way is an organization that brings our community together to focus on solutions
for the most pressing community problems
D. United Way is an organization that makes sure the money I give is well spent
E. United Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in
F. United Way is an organization that energizes and inspires people to get involved in our
community
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree

19. Im going to read you a series of adjectives used to describe the United Way, the Salvation
Army, and the American Red Cross, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each
adjective as it applies to each charity. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor
disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the adjectives? (ROTATE CHARITIES)
United Way
A. Innovative
B. Trustworthy
C. Results oriented
D. Arrogant
E. Collaborative
F. Influential
G. Personal
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Red Cross
A. Innovative
B. Trustworthy
C. Results oriented
D. Arrogant
E. Collaborative
F. Influential
G. Personal
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree

Salvation Army
A. Innovative
B. Trustworthy
C. Results oriented
D. Arrogant
E. Collaborative
F. Influential
G. Personal
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree

20. Have you been asked to give money to United Way in the past 12 months?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused
101
102
21. Regardless of whether you have been asked, have you donated any money to United Way in
the past 12 months?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused
22. Have you given to United Way prior to the last 12 months?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused
ASK IF Q21 IS YES

23. Approximately how much did you give to United Way in the past 12 months? (ENTER
AMOUNT IN DOLLARS. IF UNSURE, ENCOURAGE BEST GUESS).
$__________
Dont know
Refused
ASK IF Q21 IS YES
24A. Thinking back on your contribution to United Way, what prompted you to make this
donation? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1. They asked me
2. Boss made me
3. Asked to donate at work
4. Tax benefit
5. Part of financial strategy
6. Acquisition of new wealth by myself or my family
7. An event associated with UW
8. News or media story
9. Response to a specific request (for example, a capital campaign)
10. Involvement of friend, family member, or co-worker with UW
11. Personal experience with UW
12. Family tradition
13. Business connection
14. Health (illnessfamily, friend, or personal)
103
15. Personal event

16. Atonement for past misdeeds
17. Feel strongly about the cause
18. Religion or spirituality
19. Moral imperative
20. Tithing
21. Other (SPECIFY)
22. Dont know
23. Refused
ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS YES
24B. Why did you choose not to donate to United Way this year? (DO NOT READ LIST.
CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1. Never asked/contacted
2. Didnt receive any literature on it
3. Employer isnt participating in campaign
4. No longer work for company sponsoring a campaign
5. Cant afford to/no money
6. Retired
7. Unemployed
8. On a fixed income
9. Have had medical expenses/family members sick
10. Gave money to other charities
11. Like to pick own charity
12. Didnt have time
13. Pressured to give makes me not give
14. Turned off by unfavorable news articles/bad press
15. Money scandal/crooks
16. Dont like the charities/groups they give to
17. They did not help me/friend/family member
18. Not sure how much money actually goes to help people
19. Other (SPECIFY)
20. None/no reason
21. Dont know
22. Refused
ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS NO
24C. Why have you never given to United Way? (DO NOT READ LIST. CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY)

4. Not familiar with it
5. No UW office in my area
7. Cant afford to/No money
8. Retired
9. Unemployed
14. Didnt have time
21. Like to have greater control over where the money goes
22. Give directly to organization/person in need
23. Other (SPECIFY)
24. None/no reason
25. Dont know
26. Refused
ASK IF YES CHECKED IN Q21
25. Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship with United Way? Are you very
satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very
dissatisfied?
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
104
105
ASK OF EVERYONE
26. How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future? Will you be.(READ LIST
AND CHECK ONLY ONE)
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely

ASK IF Q21 IS YES
27. Were you thanked for your United Way contribution?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes CONTINUE
No SKIP TO Q29
Dont know SKIP TO Q29
Refused SKIP TO Q29
28. Were you thanked by.(READ LIST AND MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
1. Your United Way
2. Your employer
3. The United Way agency(ies) to which your contribution was given
29. Once you made a contribution to United Way, how would you most like to be recognized for
this donation? Would you like a.(READ LIST AND MARK ONLY ONE)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Letter
Gift
Plaque/certificate
Invitation to a dinner/lunch or party
Mention in a newsletter or newspaper
Personal visit from United Way official
Other (SPECIFY)
Do not want recognition (DO NOT READ)
30. Do you recall receiving information from United Way about how your United Way
contribution is being used?
1. Yes CONTINUE
2. No SKIP TO Q32
3. Dont know SKIP TO Q32
106
31. As a result of the information you received from United Way, are you better informed about
the results that are being achieved with your contribution?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
32. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements from the
American Red Cross, the United Way, or the Salvation Army? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
American Red Cross

Salvation Army
United Way CONTINUE
None SKIP TO Q34
33A. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements for United Way?
Such as.(READ LIST AND MARK ALL THAT APPLY. ROTATE LIST)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TV spots associated with the National Football League

Other TV spots featuring United Way
Ads in newspapers or magazines
Announcements on the radio
Electronic mail or electronic bulletin board
A video or film
ASK IF 1 IS CHECKED IN Q33A

33B. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about the NFL? (DO NOT READ LIST AND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
NFL players are silly/fun/good sports

NFL is a good corporate citizen
NFL cares about the community
NFL just needs good publicity/PR stunt
Other (SPECIFY)
Nothing
Dont know
107

33C. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about United Way? (DO NOT READ LIST AND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
United Way helps people get involved in the community

UW pays football players to say good things about them
UW does cute commercials
Donor money should not go to pay for these ads
Other (SPECIFY)
Nothing
Dont know
34. In the past year, have you seen or heard the phrase What Matters in (READ LIST AND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In advertising for United Way

On United Way materials
On the United Way Web site
None of the above (DO NOT READ)
35. Have you ever seen the UW/NFL Thanksgiving Day Half Time Show?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
36. How would you rate United Way as a leader in community impact? Would you say that
United Way is.(READ LIST)
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very effective
Somewhat effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Somewhat ineffective
Very ineffective

108
37. Do you associate United Way with any of the following community issues? (READ LIST
AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1. Seniors
2. Early childhood development (birth to six)
3. Affordable housing and homelessness
4. Health care
5. Domestic violence
6. Children and youth (school age seven to 18)
7. Families
8. Civic involvement
9. Safety
10. Economic self-sufficiency
11. None of the above (DO NOT READ)
12. Dont know what United Way does (DO NOT READ)
38. Are you employed with a company that has a United Way fundraising campaign?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes CONTINUE
No SKIP TO Q40
Refused SKIP TO Q40
39. What is your overall opinion of the United Way campaign to raise money? (EMPHASIZE
THE WORD CAMPAIGN)
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Very unfavorable

109
40. Please give me your agreement level with the following statement. Do you strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with
the statement: My companys support of United Way makes me feel good about my
company.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree

41. Would you be more inclined to work for a company that supports United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Irrelevant/I dont think about it
Dont know
42. Would you be more inclined to buy a product or service from a company that supports
United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
43. Would you be more inclined to invest in a company that supports United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
44A. In the past 12 months, have you felt pressured to give to United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes CONTINUE
No SKIP TO Q45
Refused SKIP TO Q45

44B. Did the pressure that you felt, cause you to want to(READ LIST)?
1. Give more to United Way
2. Give less to United Way
3. Have no impact on you
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
45. RECORD RESPONDENTS GENDER (DO NOT READ)
1. Male
2. Female
46. Which of the following best describes your age? (READ LIST)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18 to 26
27 to 34
35 to 54
55 and older
47. What is the highest of education you completed? (READ LIST)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
High school
Some college
College graduate
Graduate school or higher (any)
48. What is your current employment status? Are you employed.(READ LIST)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Full time---Not self-employed CONTINUE

Part time---Not self-employed CONTINUE
Self-employed---Full time SKIP TO Q50
Self-employed---Part time SKIP TO Q50
Retired SKIP TO Q50
Not employed SKIP TO Q50
Refused (DO NOT READ) SKIP TO Q50
110

49. How many employees are at your place of employment? (READ LIST. IF UNSURE,
ENCOURAGE BEST GUESS)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1 to 50
51 to 250
251 to 999
1000 or more
50. Are you a member of a labor union?

1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused
51. What is your marital status? (READ LIST)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Married
Single, never been married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
52A. Do you have children under the age of five living in your household?
1. Yes CONTINUE
2. No SKIP TO Q53
111
112
52B. As a parent or grandparent of a young child, do you do any of the following: (READ LIST
AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
A. Talk with your child in full sentences, such as Yes thats a big furry dog
B. Wake the child up by 7:00 a.m. every morning
C. Praise your child by saying, Good job
D. Hug or snuggle your child at least four times a day
E. Use flash cards to teach math and letters
F. Read to your child everyday and ask questions about the story
G. Try teaching reading like they do in school
H. Encourage your child by saying things such as, You did that task all by yourself
I. Ask your children questions about what they see
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
No time
Didnt know I needed to do this
53. Do you own your current place of residence?

1. Rent
2. Own
3. Refused
54. Do you have a home e-mail account on the Internet?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know/Refused
55. Did you itemize your deductions on your 2002 tax return?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Refused
Dont remember
113
56. Which of the following best describes your households total annual income before taxes?
(READ LIST)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Under $15,000
$15,000 but less than $25,000
$25,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 but less than $150,000
$150,000 or more
57. Which of the following statements best describes how charitable giving fits in with your
estate planning? (READ LIST)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I have a will and have included contributions to charities in it

I have a will and have not included contributions to charities in it
I do not have a will
58. Would you consider United Way in your estate or will planning?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
59. What ethnic group would you consider yourself to be?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
White (Anglo-American)
Black (African-American)
Hispanic/Latin American
Asian-American
Native American
Mixed
Other (SPECIFY)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

APPENDIX B UNITED WAY OF AMERICA NATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS
2004 National Public Opinion

Poll
United Way of America Research
December 2004
Key Findings
Public Trust in Charities in General has improved.
But United Way has not experienced significant
improvements in its Public Trust numbers.
United Way also experienced declines in its Top of Mind
Awareness and Effectiveness as a Leader in Community
Impact numbers.
Just like Data Base I shows United Ways continued
reliance on the manufacturing sector, the Public Opinion
Poll shows United Ways continued reliance on the
workplace campaign to generate good public perception
numbers.
UWA Research: 2004 Public
Opinion Poll
114
Key Findings
Donor/Investors indicate that only less than ten percent are

dissatisfied (very/somewhat) with United Way.
There have been decreases in public support for United
Ways key messages.
United Way/NFL ads are showing some very good results.

Opinion Poll
Methodology
National random sample of general population over age
18
Data collected: October 23-December 17, 2004
2,039 telephone interviews
Conducted by Delta Market Research
Margin of error at the 95% confidence level is + 2%
Significant differences are noted with a circle throughout
the presentation
In the Detailed Findings, additional analysis is presented
in the notes portion of the presentation
Opinion Poll
Community Impact Issues
115
Community Issues Associated with United

Way
Seniors
46%
Children and Youth
46%
Early Childhood Development
45%
Families
Affordable
Housing/Homelessness
Health Care
38%
38%
34%
Domestic Violence
31%
Civic Involvement
31%
Safety
25%
Economic Self-Sufficiency
23%
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
None = 24%
Opinion Poll
Awareness of Availability of 2-1-1 in

Community
Yes
64%
No
36%

Opinion Poll
Personally Investigate Charities
No
55%
Yes
45%

Opinion Poll
116
Confidence in Charities to Do a Good Job*

100%
81%
88%
89%
Red Cross
Salvation
Army
73%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Charities in
General
United Way
* Top 2 Box = a great deal/a fair amount

Opinion Poll
Confidence in Charities in General to

Do a Good Job
60%
50%
50%
Top 2 Box = 81%
40%
31%
30%
15%
20%
5%
10%
0%
A Great Deal
A Fair Amount
Not too Much
None at All
Opinion Poll
10
Confidence in United Way to Do a Good

Job
60%
Top 2 Box = 73%
50%
41%
40%
32%
30%
17%
20%
10%
10%
0%
A Great Deal
A Fair Amount
Not too Much
None at All
Opinion Poll
11
117
Confidence in American Red Cross to

Do a Good Job
75%
Top 2 Box = 88%
55%
60%
45%
32%
30%
15%
7%
6%
0%
A Great Deal
A Fair Amount
Not too Much
None at All
Opinion Poll
12
Confidence in Salvation Army to Do a

Good Job
60%
51%
Top 2 Box = 89%
50%
38%
40%
30%
20%
7%
10%
4%
0%
A Great Deal
A Fair Amount
Not too Much
None at All
Opinion Poll
13
Trust and Charities

100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
Some But
Not
Others,
34%
51%
40%
20%
15%
0%
88%
91%
75%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Charities In General
United
Way
American
Red Cross
Salvation
Army

Opinion Poll
14
118

Top-of-Mind Awareness of Charitable
Organizations That Make a Difference in
the Community
35%
30%
25%
19%
20%
15%
15%
15%
12%
10%
10%
6%
5%
5%
0%
United Way
Salvation
Army
American
Church/
American
Red Cross Synagogues/ Cancer
Relig orgs.
Society
Children
(general)
Cancer
(general)
9% None came to mind

Opinion Poll
15
Charitable Organizations Contributed to

in Past 12 Months (Unprompted)
35%
30%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%
13%
11%
9%
10%
5%
5%
0%
United W ay
Salvation
Army
Churches/Religious American American Cancer

Red
Organizations
Society
Cross
Community/
Fire/Police
(general)
20% Said they did not make any charitable contributions

Opinion Poll
16
Amount of Money Donated to All Charities

in the Past 12 Months
$500 or
Less
71%
$501-$1000
11%
$1001 or
More
18%
Median
$200
Opinion Poll
17
119
Aware of United Way

Yes
93%
No
7%

Opinion Poll
18
Favorability toward United Way

60%
Top 2 Box = 76%
50%
40%
36%
40%
30%
20%
14%
10%
10%
0%
Very Favorable
Somewhat
Favorable
Somew hat
Unfavorable
Very
Unfavorable
Opinion Poll
19
Donor Status
Non Donor
50%
Former
Donor
24%
Current
Donor
26%

Opinion Poll
20
120
Satisfaction with Relationship with

United Way (Among Current Donors)
60%
Top 2 Box = 71%
50%
42%
40%
29%
30%
19%
20%
5%
10%
4%
0%
Very
Satisfied
Neither
Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Somewhat
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Opinion Poll
21
Likelihood of Giving to United Way in

Future
60%
Top 2 Box = 55%
50%
40%
31%
30%
30%
25%
15%
20%
10%
0%
Very Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Somewhat
Unlikely
Very Unlikely
Opinion Poll
22
United Way Advertising Awareness in

Specific Medias
60%
40%
40%
36%
30%
20%
14%
11%
5%
0%
NFL TV
Spots
Other TV
Spots
Featuring
UW
Print
Radio
Electronic
Mail
Video/Film

Opinion Poll
23
121
Attitudes toward NFL Resulting from

UW/NFL Ads (Among Viewers of Ads)
NFL cares about community
42%
21%
20%
NFL players are fun/good sports
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%

Opinion Poll
24
Importance of UW Brand Promises

(Very/Somewhat Important)
85%
Energizes and Inspires
83%
Enables Me to Make a Difference

Money Well Spent
92%
83%
Brings Community Together

86%
Lets People Know
84%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%

Opinion Poll
100%
25
Agreement of UW Brand Promises

(Strongly/Somewhat Agree)
54%
Energizes and Inspires

Enables Me to Make a Difference
47%
Money Well Spent
58%
51%
Brings Community Together

53%
Lets People Know
51%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%

Opinion Poll
100%
26
122

Agreement of Key Attributes about United
Way
48%
Personal
Influential
67%
57%
Collaborative
Arrogant
22%
Results Oriented
62%
Trustworthy
66%
Innovative
56%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

Opinion Poll
27
Agreement of Key Attributes about Red

Cross
64%
Personal
77%
Influential
68%
Collaborative
Arrogant
18%
Results Oriented
78%
Trustworthy
80%
Innovative
62%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Opinion Poll
100%
28
Agreement of Key Attributes about

Salvation Army
65%
Personal
Influential
69%
63%
Collaborative
14%
Arrogant
Results Oriented
75%
82%
Trustworthy
Innovative
56%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Opinion Poll
100%
29
123
Typical United Way Donor

Half are male (49%)
Half are between the ages of 35 and 54 (49%) (mean age is 51)
Average number in workplace is 573
More than one-quarter work in a workplace with 1,000 or more
employees (27%)
Over three-quarters own their own home (78%)
More than half have a home Internet account (54%)
Half (50%) report an income of $50,000 or more (Average income is
$64,000)
Almost half have no will (48%)
More than three-quarters are Caucasian (78%)
Over half personally investigate charities (53%)

Opinion Poll
30
Gender
Female
50%
Male
50%

Opinion Poll
31
Age
55 and Up
36%
18-26
9%
35-54
41%
27-34
13%
Average Age = 50
Opinion Poll
32
124
Education
80%
53%
60%
33%
40%
14%
20%
0%
High School
College
Graduate School
Opinion Poll
33
Marital Status
80%
56%
60%
40%
23%
20%
11%
9%
2%
0%
Single
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Opinion Poll
34
Children under Age Five in Household
No
86%
Yes
14%

Opinion Poll
35
125
Income
60%
40%
30%
20%
14%
29%
14%
8%
5%
0%
Under
$15,000
$15,000$25,000
$25,000$50,000
$50,000$100,000
$100,000$150,000
$150,000
or More
Mean = $57,800
Opinion Poll
36
Ethnicity
100%
79%
80%
60%
40%
20%
11%
5%
1%
2%
3%
0%
Caucasian
AfricanAmerican
Hispanic
Native
American
Asian
American
Other

Opinion Poll
37
Employment Status
60%
44%
40%
24%
16%
20%
8%
7%
1%
0%
Full Time Part Time Self-Full

Time
Self-Part
Time
Retired
Not
Employed

Opinion Poll
38
126
Union Membership
No
91%
Yes
9%

Opinion Poll
39
Hom e Internet Account
No
52%
Yes
48%
UW A Research: 2004 P ub lic

Opinion Poll
40
H o m e O w n e rs h ip
Own
7 4%
R en t
26 %
U W A R e se a rc h: 2 0 0 4 P ub lic
O p in io n P o ll
41
Note. The data in Appendix B is from United Way of America Research. (2004, December).
2004 national public opinion poll. Reprinted with permission.
127
128
APPENDIX C UNITED WAY OF PUTNAM COUNTY WEB SURVEY

This surveys purpose is to gather information from Putnam County residents through
the replication of a study that is done annually on a national level by United Way of America.
Survey data will provide in-depth information that will better enable United Way of Putnam
County to develop and implement sound marketing strategies and communication efforts.
Your consent to participate will be indicated by completing and submitting the on-line
survey. Participation is voluntary and no rewards or compensation will be awarded. There are no
questions that identify participants keeping involvement confidential, and the raw data will only
be seen by United Way staff members. Withdrawal from the survey will be identified by your
non-submittal of the survey. Please complete only one survey.
Data obtained through this survey will also be used as part of a doctoral program at
Capella University being completed by Barb Rogers, BS, MBOL.
1. When you think about non-profit or charitable organizations that make a difference in the
community, which organizations come to mind? (ENTER MULTIPLE RESPONSES.)
2A. How much confidence do you have in charitable organizations in general to do a good job?
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all
5. Dont know
2B. How much confidence do you have in United Way to do a good job?
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all
5. Dont know
129
2C. How much confidence do you have in the Salvation Army to do a good job?
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all
5. Dont know
2D. How much confidence to you have in the American Red Cross to do a good job?
4.
3.
2.
1.
A great deal
A fair amount
Not too much
None at all
5. Dont know
3A. To which non-profit or charitable organizations have you contributed money in the past 12
months?
1. American Cancer Society
2. American Diabetes Association
3. American Heart Association/Heart Fund
4. American Lung Society
5. American Red Cross
6. Animal shelters (general)
7. Arts
8. Big Brothers/Big Sisters
9. Boys and Girls Clubs
10. Boy Scouts
11. Camp Fire Boys and Girls
12. Cancer (general)
13. Children (general)
14. Childrens fund
15. Church/synagogue/religious organization (SPECIFY)
16. Civil Rights
17. Community centers (general)
18. Community fire/police/rescue (general)
19. Cultural
20. Disability
21. Disabled veterans
22. Disaster relief
23. Education (miscellaneous)
130
24. Elderly/Aging
25. Environmental organizations
26. Family Planning/Parenting
27. Girl Scouts
28. Goodwill Industries of America
29. Healthcare organizations
30. Homeless charities/missions (general)
31. Humane Society
32. MADD/Mothers Against Drunk Driving
33. Make a Wish Foundation
34. March of Dimes
35. Muscular Dystrophy Association
36. National Easter Seal Society
37. National Wildlife/Wildlife organizations
38. Political/Advocacy organizations
39. Religious charities (general)
40. St. Judes/St. Judes Research/Childrens Hospital
41. Salvation Army
42. School/university alumni (general)
43. Shriners
44. Special Olympics
45. Sports/Recreational
46. United Way
47. Veterans (general)
48. Visiting Nurse Association
49. Volunteers of America
50. Youth (miscellaneous)
51. YMCA
52. YWCA
53. Other (SPECIFY)
54. None
55. Dont know
56. Refused
ASK IF CHARITY IS MENTIONED IN Q3A
3B. Think about all the monetary contributions you made to charitable or non-profit
organizations in the past 12 months, approximately what was the total that you gave or pledged
to all charities? (IF UNSURE, GIVE BEST GUESS.)
$__________
Dont know
Prefer not to say

3C. Have you ever donated to a charity via the Internet?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
4. Do you personally investigate charities to which you donate money?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
5. In general, do you trust charities to do what they say they will do with the donations?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
6. Do you trust United Way to do what it says it will do with the donations?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
7. Do you trust American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the donations?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
8. Do you trust Salvation Army to do what it says it will do with the donations?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ISSUES
131
132
9. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement, I am actively involved in
the community? Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat
disagree, or strongly disagree?
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
6. Dont know
10. Have you volunteered for any type of service in the past 12 months, including helping at
your local church, serving on a neighborhood committee, or donating blood? By volunteer, we
mean work to help others without monetary pay, not just belonging to an organization?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
11. How important do you feel it is that people volunteer in the community?
5. Very important
4. Somewhat important
3. Neither important nor unimportant
2. Somewhat unimportant
1. Very unimportant
6. Dont know
12. How many neighbors or colleagues could you really count on if you needed help, such as a
ride to the hospital or to talk about a problem? (COUNT A HOUSEHOLD AS ONE)
__________ Enter number
1. Dont work
2. Dont know
13A. Have you heard of 2-1-1?
1. Yes CONTINUE
2. No SKIP TO Q13C
3. Dont know SKIP TO Q13C
133
13B. To the best of your knowledge, is 2-1-1 available in your community?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
13C. In the past year, have you needed to get information on how to find help for you or your
family, such as information on daycare, emergency food or shelter, counseling, home healthcare,
after school programs, etc?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
14. Have you heard of United Way?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
15. Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of the United Way?
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Very unfavorable
5. Dont know
16. Have you heard of any of the following:
1. United Ways Success by Six
2. The United Way State of Caring
3. The United Way Draft
4. None
134
17. How important is each item when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable
organization? Please tell me whether the item is very important, somewhat important, neither
important nor unimportant, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant.
How important is it that.
A. An organization lets me know what is being accomplished with my contributions
B. An organization gets visible results in my community
C. An organization brings our community together to focus on solutions for the most
D. An organization makes sure the money I give is well spent
E. An organization enables me to make the greatest difference in improving my community
F. An organization energizes and inspires people to get involved in our community
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
6. Dont know
18. For the next series of statements, tell how much you agree with the statement. Do you
strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly
disagree.?
A. United Way is an organization that lets me know what is being accomplished with my
contributions
B. United Way is an organization that gets visible results in my community
C. United Way is an organization that brings our community together to focus on solutions
for the most pressing community problems
D. United Way is an organization that makes sure the money I give is well spent
E. United Way is an organization that enables me to make the greatest difference in
F. United Way is an organization that energizes and inspires people to get involved in our
community
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
6. Dont know
135
19. Below is a series of adjectives used to describe the United Way, the Salvation Army, and the
American Red Cross, please tell me how much you agree or disagree with each adjective as it
applies to each charity. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree,
somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the adjectives?
United Way
A. Innovative
B. Trustworthy
C. Results oriented
D. Arrogant
E. Collaborative
F. Influential
G. Personal
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
6. Dont know
Red Cross
A. Innovative
B. Trustworthy
C. Results oriented
D. Arrogant
E. Collaborative
F. Influential
G. Personal
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
6. Dont know
136
Salvation Army
A. Innovative
B. Trustworthy
C. Results oriented
D. Arrogant
E. Collaborative
F. Influential
G. Personal
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
6. Dont know
20. Have you been asked to give money to United Way in the past 12 months?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused
21. Regardless of whether you have been asked, have you donated any money to United Way in
the past 12 months?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused
22. Have you given to United Way prior to the last 12 months?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused

ASK IF Q21 IS YES
23. Approximately how much did you give to United Way in the past 12 months? (ENTER
AMOUNT IN DOLLARS).
$__________
Dont know
ASK IF Q21 IS YES
24A. Thinking back on your contribution to United Way, what prompted you to make this
donation? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1. They asked me
2. Boss made me
3. Asked to donate at work
4. Tax benefit
5. Part of financial strategy
6. Acquisition of new wealth by myself or my family
7. An event associated with UW
8. News or media story
9. Response to a specific request (for example, a capital campaign)
10. Involvement of friend, family member, or co-worker with UW
11. Personal experience with UW
12. Family tradition
13. Business connection
14. Health (illnessfamily, friend, or personal)
15. Personal event
16. Atonement for past misdeeds
17. Feel strongly about the cause
18. Religion or spirituality
19. Moral imperative
20. Tithing
21. Other (SPECIFY)
22. Dont know
23. Refused
137

ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS YES
24B. Why did you choose not to donate to United Way this year? (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY).
5. Cant afford to/no money
6. Retired
7. Unemployed
12. Didnt have time
19. Other (SPECIFY)
20. None/no reason
21. Dont know
22. Refused
ASK IF Q21 IS NO AND Q22 IS NO
24C. Why have you never given to United Way? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
4. Not familiar with it
5. No UW office in my area
7. Cant afford to/No money
8. Retired
9. Unemployed
14. Didnt have time
138

21. Like to have greater control over where the money goes
22. Give directly to organization/person in need
23. Other (SPECIFY)
24. None/no reason
25. Dont know
26. Refused
ASK IF YES CHECKED IN Q21
25. Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship with United Way? Are you very
satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very
dissatisfied?
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very dissatisfied
6. Dont know
ASK OF EVERYONE
26. How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future? (CHECK ONLY ONE).
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
5. Dont know
ASK IF Q21 IS YES
27. Were you thanked for your United Way contribution?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes CONTINUE
No SKIP TO Q29
Refused SKIP TO Q29
139
140
28. Were you thanked by.(MARK ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Your United Way
2. Your employer
3. The United Way agency(ies) to which your contribution was given
29. Once you made a contribution to United Way, how would you most like to be recognized for
this donation? (MARK ONLY ONE).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Letter
Gift
Plaque/certificate
Invitation to a dinner/lunch or party
Mention in a newsletter or newspaper
Personal visit from United Way official
Other (SPECIFY)
Do not want recognition
30. Do you recall receiving information from United Way about how your United Way
contribution is being used?
1. Yes CONTINUE
2. No SKIP TO Q32
3. Dont know SKIP TO Q32
31. As a result of the information you received from United Way, are you better informed about
the results that are being achieved with your contribution?
1. Yes
2. No
4. Dont know
32. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements from the
American Red Cross, the United Way, or the Salvation Army? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
American Red Cross

Salvation Army
United Way CONTINUE
None SKIP TO Q34
141
33A. In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements for United Way?
(MARK ALL THAT APPLY).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

A video or film

33B. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about the NFL? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
NFL players are silly/fun/good sports

NFL cares about the community
Other (SPECIFY)
Nothing
Dont know

33C. How do the UW/NFL ads make you feel about United Way? (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
United Way helps people get involved in the community

UW pays football players to say good things about them
UW does cute commercials
Donor money should not go to pay for these ads
Other (SPECIFY)
Nothing
Dont know
34. In the past year, have you seen or heard the phrase What Matters in(CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In advertising for United Way

On United Way materials
On the United Way Web site
None of the above
Dont know
142
35. Have you ever seen the UW/NFL Thanksgiving Day Half Time Show?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
36. How would you rate United Way as a leader in community impact?
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very effective
Somewhat effective
Neither effective nor ineffective
Somewhat ineffective
Very ineffective
6. Dont know
7. Refused
37. Do you associate United Way with any of the following community issues? (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY).
1. Seniors
2. Early childhood development (birth to six)
3. Affordable housing and homelessness
4. Health care
5. Domestic violence
6. Children and youth (school age seven to 18)
7. Families
8. Civic involvement
9. Safety
10. Economic self-sufficiency
11. None of the above
12. Dont know what United Way does
38. Are you employed with a company that has a United Way fundraising campaign?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes CONTINUE
No SKIP TO Q40
Refused SKIP TO Q40

39. What is your overall opinion of the United Way campaign to raise money?
4.
3.
2.
1.
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Very unfavorable
5. Dont know
6. Refused
40. Please give your agreement level with the following statement. Do you strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the
statement: My companys support of United Way makes me feel good about my company.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
6. Dont know
41. Would you be more inclined to work for a company that supports United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
42. Would you be more inclined to buy a product or service from a company that supports
United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
43. Would you be more inclined to invest in a company that supports United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
143

44A. In the past 12 months, have you felt pressured to give to United Way?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes CONTINUE
No SKIP TO Q45
Refused SKIP TO Q45
44B. Did the pressure that you felt, cause you to want to?
1. Give more to United Way
2. Give less to United Way
3. Have no impact on you
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS
45. What is your gender?
1. Male
2. Female
46. Which of the following best describes your age?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18 to 26
27 to 34
35 to 54
55 and older
Refused
47. What is the highest of education you completed?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
High school
Some college
College graduate
Refused
144

48. What is your current employment status? Are you employed.?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Full time---Not self-employed CONTINUE

Part time---Not self-employed CONTINUE
Self-employed---Full time SKIP TO Q50
Self-employed---Part time SKIP TO Q50
Retired SKIP TO Q50
Not employed SKIP TO Q50
Refused SKIP TO Q50
49. How many employees are at your place of employment?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1 to 50
51 to 250
251 to 999
1000 or more
Dont know
Refused
50. Are you a member of a labor union?

1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Dont know
Refused
51. What is your marital status?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Refused
52A. Do you have children under the age of five living in your household?
1. Yes CONTINUE
2. No SKIP TO Q53
145

52B. As a parent or grandparent of a young child, do you do any of the following: (CHECK
ALL THAT APPLY)
A. Talk with your child in full sentences, such as Yes thats a big furry dog
B. Wake the child up by 7:00 a.m. every morning
C. Praise your child by saying, Good job
D. Hug or snuggle your child at least four times a day
E. Use flash cards to teach math and letters
F. Read to your child everyday and ask questions about the story
G. Try teaching reading like they do in school
H. Encourage your child by saying things such as, You did that task all by yourself
I. Ask your children questions about what they see
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
No time
Didnt know I needed to do this
53. Do you own your current place of residence?

1. Rent
2. Own
3. Refused
54. Do you have a home e-mail account on the Internet?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know/Refused
55. Did you itemize your deductions on your 2002 tax return?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
No
Refused
Dont remember
146
147
56. Which of the following best describes your households total annual income before taxes?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Under $15,000
$15,000 but less than $25,000
$25,000 but less than $50,000
$50,000 but less than $100,000
$100,000 but less than $150,000
$150,000 or more
Dont know
Refused
57. Which of the following statements best describes how charitable giving fits in with your
estate planning?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I have a will and have included contributions to charities in it

I have a will and have not included contributions to charities in it
I do not have a will
Dont know
Refused
58. Would you consider United Way in your estate or will planning?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
59. What ethnic group would you consider yourself to be?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Asian-American
Native American
Mixed
Other (SPECIFY)
Refused
60. What is your zip code?
148
APPENDIX D UNITED WAY OF PUTNAM COUNTY WEB SURVEY RESULTS

Q2A: How much confidence do you have in charitable organizations in general to do a good job?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)
Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
A great deal
41.4%
41
A fair amount
53.5%
53
Not too much
5.1%
None at all
0.0%
Don't know
0.0%
Not Answered
6
Mean 1.636
Valid Responses
99
Total Responses
105
Q2B: How much confidence do you have in United Way to do a good job?
Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
A great deal
57.1%
56
A fair amount
37.8%
37
Not too much
3.1%
None at all
0.0%
Don't know
2.0%
Not Answered
7
Mean 1.520
Valid Responses
98
Total Responses
105
Q2C: How much confidence do you have in the Salvation Army to do a good job?
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
A great deal
26.5%
26
A fair amount
60.2%
59
Response
149
Not too much
6.1%
None at all
1.0%
Don't know
6.1%
Not Answered
7
Mean 2.000
Valid Responses
98
Total Responses
105
Q2D: How much confidence do you have in the American Red Cross to do a good job?
Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
A great deal
56.1%
55
A fair amount
37.8%
37
Not too much
6.1%
None at all
0.0%
Don't know
0.0%
Not Answered
7
Mean 1.500
Valid Responses
98
Total Responses
105
Q3A: To which non-profit or charitable organizations have you contributed money in the past 12 months?
(Respondents were allowed to choose multiple responses)
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
American Cancer Society
50.5%
53
American Diabetes Association
16.2%
17
American Heart Association/Heart Fund
25.7%
27
American Lung Society
2.9%
American Red Cross
44.8%
47
Animal Shelters (General)
8.6%
Arts
4.8%
Big Brothers/Big Sisters
17.1%
18
Boys and Girls Clubs
3.8%
Response
150
Boy Scouts
30.5%
32
Camp Fire Boys and Girls
0.0%
Cancer (General)
30.5%
32
Children (General)
20.0%
21
Children's Fund
4.8%
Church/Synagogue/Religious Organization Please specify:
67.6%
71
Civil Rights
1.0%
Community Centers (General)
2.9%
Community Fire/Police/Rescue (General)
21.0%
22
Cultural
2.9%
Disability
3.8%
Disabled Veterans
15.2%
16
Disaster Relief
24.8%
26
Education (Miscellaneous)
27.6%
29
Elderly/Aging
12.4%
13
Environment Organizations
6.7%
Family Planning/Parenting
4.8%
Girl Scouts
21.9%
23
Goodwill Industries of America
13.3%
14
Healthcare Organizations
14.3%
15
Homeless Charities/Missions (General)
8.6%
Humane Society
7.6%
MADD/Mothers Against Drunk Driving
0.0%
Make a Wish Foundation
11.4%
12
March of Dimes
13.3%
14
Muscular Dystrophy Association
11.4%
12
National Easter Seal Society
2.9%
National Wildlife/Wildlife Organizations
6.7%
Political/Advocacy Organizations
5.7%
Religious Charities (General)
17.1%
18
St. Jude's/St. Jude's Research/Children's Hospital
22.9%
24
Salvation Army
18.1%
19
School/University Alumni (General)
19.0%
20
151
Shriners
2.9%
Special Olympics
17.1%
18
Sports/Recreational
14.3%
15
United Way
70.5%
74
Veterans (General)
6.7%
Visiting Nurses Association
1.9%
Volunteers of America
0.0%
Youth (Miscellaneous)
14.3%
15
YMCA
18.1%
19
YWCA
1.9%
Other Please specify:
14.3%
15
None
0.0%
Don't Know
0.0%
Refused
1.0%
Valid Responses
105
Total Responses
105
Q4: Do you personally investigate charities to which you donate money?

Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes
53.1%
51
No
44.8%
43
Don't know
2.1%
Not Answered
9
Mean 1.490
Valid Responses
96
Total Responses
105
Q5: In general, do you trust charities to do what they say they will do with the donations?
Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes
37.5%
36
No
2.1%
152
59.4%
57
Don't know
1.0%
Not Answered
9
Mean 2.240
Valid Responses
96
Total Responses
105
Q6: Do you trust United Way to do what it says it will do with the donations?
Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes
94.8%
91
No
2.1%
Don't know
3.1%
Not Answered
9
Mean 1.083
Valid Responses
96
Total Responses
105
Q7: Do you trust American Red Cross to do what it says it will do with the donations?
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes
82.5%
80
No
7.2%
Don't know
10.3%
10
Response
Not Answered
8
Mean 1.278
Valid Responses
97
Total Responses
105
Q8: Do you trust Salvation Army to do what it says it will do with the donations?
Response
Yes
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
64.6%
62
153
No
6.3%
Don't know
29.2%
28
Not Answered
9
Mean 1.646
Valid Responses
96
Total Responses
105
Q13A: Have you heard of 2-1-1?

Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes Continue
28.9%
28
No Skip to question 13C
70.1%
68
Don't know Skip to question 13C
1.0%
Not Answered
8
Mean 1.722
Valid Responses
97
Total Responses
105
Q14: Have you heard of United Way?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes
97.9%
95
No
2.1%
Don't know
0.0%
Response
Not Answered
8
Mean 1.021
Valid Responses
97
Total Responses
105
Q15: Thinking about everything you know, what is your overall opinion of United Way?
Response
Very favorable
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
58.8%
57
154
Somewhat favorable
36.1%
35
4.1%
Very unfavorable
0.0%
Don't know
1.0%
Not Answered
8
Mean 1.485
Valid Responses
97
Total Responses
105
Q16: Have you heard of any of the following:

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
United Way's Success by Six
8.6%
The United Way State of Caring
13.3%
14
The United Way Draft
5.7%
None
73.3%
77
Response
Valid Responses
105
Total Responses
105
Q17_A: How important is each item when deciding to contribute to or volunteer with a charitable organization:
An organization lets me know what

is being accomplished with my
contributions
An organization gets visible results
in my community
An organization brings our
community together to focus on
solutions for the most pressing
community problems
An organization makes sure the
money I give is well spent
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
An organization enables me to make

Count
the greatest difference in improving
% by Row
my community
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Neither
important nor
unimportant
Somewhat
unimportant
Very
unimportant
Don't
know
68
14
80.0%
16.5%
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
63
21
74.1%
24.7%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
53
28
62.4%
32.9%
4.7%
0.0%
0.0%
76
89.4%
10.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
52
30
61.2%
35.3%
2.4%
0.0%
1.2%
Total
85
0.0% 100.0%
0
85
0.0% 100.0%
0
85
0.0% 100.0%
0
85
0.0% 100.0%
0
85
0.0% 100.0%

An organization energizes and
Count
inspires people to get involved in our
community
% by Row
Count
Total
% by Row
155
46
32
84
54.8%
38.1%
6.0%
1.2%
0.0%
358
134
15
70.3%
26.3%
2.9%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0% 100.0%
0.0% 100.0%
0
509
Q18_A: For the next series of statements, tell how much you agree with the statement:
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know
40
27
48.8%
32.9%
9.8%
3.7%
1.2%
37
34
45.1%
41.5%
9.8%
0.0%
1.2%
26
35
12
31.7%
42.7%
14.6%
4.9%
2.4%
37
34
45.7%
42.0%
4.9%
1.2%
2.5%
31
27
14
38.3%
33.3%
17.3%
7.4%
0.0%
24
33
11
30.0%
41.3%
13.8%
8.8%
2.5%
195
190
57
21
40.0%
38.9%
11.7%
4.3%
1.6%
Count
United Way is an organization that lets me

know what is being accomplished with my
contributions
% by Row
United Way is an organization that gets visible

results in my community
Count
% by Row
United Way is an organization that brings our

Count
community together to focus on solutions for
% by Row
the most pressing community problems
United Way is an organization that makes sure
the money I give is well spent
Count
% by Row
United Way is an organization that enables me

Count
to make the greatest difference in improving
my community
% by Row
United Way is an organization that energizes
and inspires people to get involved in our
community
Count
% by Row
Count
Total
% by Row
Total
82
3.7% 100.0%
2
82
2.4% 100.0%
3
82
3.7% 100.0%
3
81
3.7% 100.0%
3
81
3.7% 100.0%
3
80
3.8% 100.0%
17
488
3.5% 100.0%
Q19_A: Below is a series of adjectives used to describe the United Way, Salvation Army, and the American Red Cross. Please tell how much
you agree or disagree with each adjective as it applies to each charity.
United Way is innovative
Count
% by Row
United Way is trustworthy
Count
% by Row
United Way is results

oriented
Count
% by Row
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree nor

disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Don't
know
22
40
13
89
24.7%
44.9%
14.6%
7.9%
1.1%
6.7%
100.0%
57
27
90
63.3%
30.0%
3.3%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
100.0%
36
37
10
90
40.0%
41.1%
11.1%
2.2%
1.1%
4.4%
100.0%
Total
United Way is arrogant
Count
% by Row
United Way is
collaborative
United Way is influential
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
United Way is personal
Count
% by Row
Red Cross is innovative
Count
% by Row
Red Cross is trustworthy
Count
% by Row
Red Cross is results

oriented
Red Cross is arrogant
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
Red Cross is collaborative
Count
% by Row
Red Cross is influential
Count
% by Row
Red Cross is personal
Count
% by Row
Salvation Army is
innovative
Salvation Army is
trustworthy
Salvation Army is results
oriented
Salvation Army is
arrogant
Salvation Army is
collaborative
Salvation Army is
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
Count
% by Row
Count
156
16
16
41
90
6.7%
7.8%
17.8%
17.8%
45.6%
4.4%
100.0%
31
39
10
90
34.4%
43.3%
11.1%
5.6%
0.0%
5.6%
100.0%
24
41
17
90
26.7%
45.6%
18.9%
4.4%
0.0%
4.4%
100.0%
17
32
27
89
19.1%
36.0%
30.3%
7.9%
2.2%
4.5%
100.0%
14
39
24
10
89
15.7%
43.8%
27.0%
2.2%
0.0%
11.2%
100.0%
34
43
90
37.8%
47.8%
5.6%
2.2%
3.3%
3.3%
100.0%
27
33
19
90
30.0%
36.7%
21.1%
3.3%
2.2%
6.7%
100.0%
12
21
13
36
90
1.1%
13.3%
23.3%
14.4%
40.0%
7.8%
100.0%
15
36
23
89
16.9%
40.4%
25.8%
6.7%
0.0%
10.1%
100.0%
26
40
12
86
30.2%
46.5%
14.0%
3.5%
0.0%
5.8%
100.0%
21
35
22
89
23.6%
39.3%
24.7%
4.5%
1.1%
6.7%
100.0%
29
28
10
15
89
6.7%
32.6%
31.5%
11.2%
1.1%
16.9%
100.0%
26
33
14
13
88
29.5%
37.5%
15.9%
1.1%
1.1%
14.8%
100.0%
14
31
24
16
90
15.6%
34.4%
26.7%
5.6%
0.0%
17.8%
100.0%
21
14
30
18
90
1.1%
6.7%
23.3%
15.6%
33.3%
20.0%
100.0%
29
22
19
87
10.3%
33.3%
25.3%
8.0%
1.1%
21.8%
100.0%
33
26
15
90

influential
% by Row
Count
Salvation Army is
personal
% by Row
Count
Total
% by Row
157
8.9%
36.7%
28.9%
7.8%
1.1%
16.7%
100.0%
25
32
16
87
10.3%
28.7%
36.8%
5.7%
0.0%
18.4%
100.0%
404
647
389
124
122
186
1872
21.6%
34.6%
20.8%
6.6%
6.5%
9.9%
100.0%
Q25: Please answer if question 21 is yes.

Overall, how satisfied are you with your relationship with United Way?
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Very satisfied
56.8%
46
Somewhat satisfied
28.4%
23
12.3%
10
1.2%
Very dissatisfied
0.0%
Don't know
1.2%
Response
Not Answered
24
Mean 1.630
Valid Responses
81
Total Responses
105
Q26: How likely will you be to give to United Way in the future?
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Very likely
68.5%
63
Somewhat likely
22.8%
21
Somewhat unlikely
0.0%
Very unlikely
6.5%
Don't know
2.2%
Response
Not Answered
13
Mean 1.511
Valid Responses
92
Total Responses
105
158
Q32: In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements from the American Red Cross, the United Way, or the Salvation
Army? (Check all that apply)
Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
American Red Cross
61.0%
64
Salvation Army
29.5%
31
United Way Continue
66.7%
70
Don't know Skip to question 34
7.6%
Non Skip to question 34
6.7%
Valid Responses
105
Total Responses
105
Q33A: In the past four months, have you seen, heard, or read any advertisements for United Way? (Check all that apply)
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
34.3%
36
19.0%
20
42.9%
45
27.6%
29
11.4%
12
A video or film
2.9%
Response
Valid Responses
105
Total Responses
105
Q37: Do you associate United Way with any of the following community issues? (Check all that apply)
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Seniors
53.3%
56
Early childhood development (birth to six)
42.9%
45
Affordable housing and homelessness
23.8%
25
Health care
30.5%
32
Domestic violence
40.0%
42
Children and youth (school age seven to eighteen)
58.1%
61
Families
61.0%
64
Response
159
Civic involvement
27.6%
29
Safety
16.2%
17
Economic self-sufficiency
16.2%
17
None of the above
2.9%
Don't know what United Way does
5.7%
Valid Responses
105
Total Responses
105
Q45: What is your gender?

Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Male
26.9%
25
Female
73.1%
68
Not Answered
12
Mean 1.731
Valid Responses
93
Total Responses
105
Q46: Which of the following best describes your age?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
18 to 26
4.2%
27 to 34
12.6%
12
35 to 54
61.1%
58
55 and older
22.1%
21
Refused
0.0%
Response
Not Answered
10
Mean 3.011
Valid Responses
95
Total Responses
105
160
Q47: What is the highest education you completed?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
High school
10.5%
10
Some college
14.7%
14
College graduate
50.5%
48
24.2%
23
Refused
0.0%
Response
Not Answered
10
Mean 2.884
Valid Responses
95
Total Responses
105
Q48: What is your current employment status? Are you employed...?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Full time--Not self-employed Continue
73.7%
70
Part time--Not self-employed Continue
11.6%
11
Self-employed--Full time Skip to question 50
6.3%
Self-employed--Part time Skip to question 50
0.0%
Retired Skip to question 50
7.4%
Not employed Skip to question 50
1.1%
Refused Skip to question 50
0.0%
Response
Not Answered
10
Mean 1.589
Valid Responses
95
Total Responses
105
Q50: Are you a member of a labor union?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes
5.4%
No
94.6%
88
Response
161
Don't know
0.0%
Refused
0.0%
Not Answered
12
Mean 1.946
Valid Responses
93
Total Responses
105
Q51: What is your marital status?

Response
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Married
86.0%
80
10.8%
10
Separated
1.1%
Divorced
1.1%
Widowed
0.0%
Refused
1.1%
Not Answered
12
Mean 1.215
Valid Responses
93
Total Responses
105
Q52A: Do you have children under the age of five living in your household?
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes Continue
18.9%
18
No Skip to question 53
81.1%
77
Response
Not Answered
10
Mean 1.811
Valid Responses
95
Total Responses
105
162
Q53: Do you own your current place of residence?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Rent
4.3%
Own
93.6%
88
Refused
2.1%
Response
Not Answered
11
Mean 1.979
Valid Responses
94
Total Responses
105
Q54: Do you have a home e-mail account on the Internet?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Yes
69.1%
65
No
25.5%
24
Don't know/Refused
5.3%
Response
Not Answered
11
Mean 1.362
Valid Responses
94
Total Responses
105
Q56: Which of the following best describes your household's annual income before taxes?
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
Under $15,000
1.1%
$15,000 but less than $25,000
3.2%
$25,000 but less than $50,000
10.8%
10
$50,000 but less than $100,000
55.9%
52
$100,000 but less than $150,000
12.9%
12
$150,000 or more
3.2%
Don't know
0.0%
Refused
12.9%
12
Response
Not Answered
12
163
Mean 4.505
Valid Responses
93
Total Responses
105
Q59: What ethnic group would you consider yourself to be?

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Frequency
Count
96.8%
90
0.0%
2.2%
Asian-American
0.0%
Native American
0.0%
Mixed
1.1%
Other Please specify:
0.0%
Refused
0.0%
Response
Not Answered
12
Mean 1.097
Valid Responses
93
Total Responses
105
164
APPENDIX E INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPATION AND CONSENT TO

PARTICIPATE
This surveys purpose is to gather information from Putnam County residents through
the replication of a study that is done annually on a national level by United Way of America.
Survey data will provide in-depth information that will better enable United Way of Putnam
County to develop and implement sound marketing strategies and communication efforts.
Your consent to participate will be indicated by completing and submitting the on-line
survey. Participation is voluntary and no rewards or compensation will be awarded. There are
no questions that identify participants keeping involvement confidential, and the raw data will
only be seen by United Way staff members. Withdrawal from the survey will be identified by
your non-submittal of the survey. Please complete only one survey.
Data obtained through this survey will also be used as part of a doctoral program at
Capella University being completed by Barb Rogers, BS, MBOL.
165
APPENDIX F PUTNAM COUNTY SENTINEL ADVERTISEMENTS INVITING SURVEY

PARTICIPATION
Community Matters
Putnam County Residents:
United Way of Putnam County needs
your help!
Please visit the following Web address to complete an online survey being conducted by United Way:
http://www.unitedwaypc.com
Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on click
here to complete the survey.
Your participation in this survey is important and will allow United Way of Putnam County to focus its efforts
where it is needed most in our community.
Your participation is voluntary and will be kept confidential.
United Way of Putnam County
118 N. Hickory St.
Ottawa, OH 45875
419-523-4505
166
APPENDIX G E-MAIL INVITING SURVEY PARTICIPATION
Putnam County Residents:

United Way of Putnam County needs your help! Please visit the following Web address to
complete an on-line survey being conducted for United Way:
Survey Link
Your participation in this survey is important and will allow United Way of Putnam County to
focus its efforts where it is needed most in our community. Your participation is voluntary and
no rewards or compensation will be awarded. There are no questions that identify participants
keeping involvement confidential, and the raw data will only be seen by me.
Data obtained through this survey will also be used as part of my doctoral program at Capella
University. The survey being conducted is a replication of an annual survey that is done by
United Way of America.
Please send this to your co-workers and ask them to participate in the survey, also.
Your support of United Way and my dissertation work is greatly appreciated!
Thank you!
Barb Rogers, BS, MBOL

Out 3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Out 3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ASSESSING BRAND MANAGEMENT:

A REPLICATION OF UNITED WAY OF AMERICAS NATIONAL SURVEY

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

UMI Number: 3263157

UMI Microform 3263157

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Barbara Rogers, 2007

ASSESSING BRAND MANAGEMENT:

Assessing Brand Management

Figure 1. Growth of non-profits from 1993 to 2003

Figure 2. Philanthropic giving 5-year periods from 1993 to 2002

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Way organizations. Each is independent, separately incorporated and governed by local

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

According to Cynthia Round, Executive Vice President of Brand Management at UWA,

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Figure 3. Top of mind awareness trends for various non-profits

Figure 4. Effectiveness of United Way as a leader in community impact

United Way of Putnam County

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Limitations of the study included:

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

of advertising and logos, touching practically every area of an organizationfrom

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

computer so it became an automated process. According to Andrea Brunk, former Director of

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Table 1. Putnam County Demographics

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

3. It takes technical as well as research skill to field a Web survey

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

Assessing Brand Management

2. Advertisement published or flier inserted in Putnam County Sentinel

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS