Perceptions of Privatization

Similar documents
Privatization Study Results

Release #2461 Release Date: Thursday, February 20, 2014

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL NOTE. HOUSE BILL NO. 466 PRINTERS NO. 521 PRIME SPONSOR: Turzai

Technical Memorandum: Economic Impact of the Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharoahs Exhibition

Healthy Food Access Policy JOHN WEIDMAN THE FOOD TRUST

Hamburger Pork Chop Deli Ham Chicken Wing $6.46 $4.95 $4.03 $3.50 $1.83 $1.93 $1.71 $2.78

US Chicken Consumption. Presentation to Chicken Marketing Summit July 18, 2017 Asheville, NC

Chicken Usage Summary

18 May Primary Production Select Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington

Americans say Trump Most Likely to Ruin Thanksgiving Dinner; GOP Opposes Obama on Turkey Pardons

Colorado Wine Board Quantitative Wine User Research. Final Report ~ May 24, 2017

A Comparison of X, Y, and Boomer Generation Wine Consumers in California

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY AND COMPANY

Date: April 15, Holly Henry From: Daniel DeVries Results from New York survey.

PENNSYLVANIA & TAVERN ASSOCIATION LICENSED BEVERAGE

Executive Summary. N.C. Customers Give Their Local ABC Liquor Stores High Marks, Identify Ways to Improve Customer Service.

Colorado Wine Board Quantitative Wine User Research II. Final Report ~ August 21, 2015

Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute College of Human Sciences Texas Tech University CONSUMER ATTITUDES TO TEXAS WINES

New from Packaged Facts!

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND VINEYARDS IN NAPA COUNTY

RAISE THE BAR Progress Report

The Grocer: Food-to-go Research on behalf of The Grocer October 2018

Fair Trade C E R T I F I E D

2017 FINANCIAL REVIEW

Looking Long: Demographic Change, Economic Crisis, and the Prospects for Reducing Poverty. La Conyuntura vs. the Long-run

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BEER TOURISM IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

UNIV OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM US10066

RESEARCH UPDATE from Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute by Natalia Kolyesnikova, PhD Tim Dodd, PhD THANK YOU SPONSORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Table of contents

Summary Report Survey on Community Perceptions of Wine Businesses

Sample. TO: Prof. Hussain FROM: GROUP (Names of group members) DATE: October 09, 2003 RE: Final Project Proposal for Group Project

What do we know about fresh produce consumption

EZ Stop N Save Convenience Stores

Ideas + Action for a Better City learn more at SPUR.org. tweet about this #IsDrivingReallyFree?

De La Salle University Dasmariñas

Local Food Action Plan Columbus City and Franklin County, Ohio Consumer Survey Summary. Overview

2016 STATUS SUMMARY VINEYARDS AND WINERIES OF MINNESOTA

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LEGALIZING RETAIL ALCOHOL SALES IN BENTON COUNTY. Produced for: Keep Dollars in Benton County

How Rest Area Commercialization Will Devastate the Economic Contributions of Interstate Businesses. Acknowledgements

Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences

The Grocer : Soft Drinks Research on behalf of The Grocer April 2018

A Profile of the Generation X Wine Consumer in California

Annika Stensson. Director Research Communications National Restaurant Association Washington, D.C. Restaurant.org/Research.

Uruguay Cow Milk Market Production and Fluid Milk Consumption by Volume,

McDONALD'S AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY

The Vietnam urban food consumption and expenditure study

October 27, p.m.

Brazil Milk Cow Numbers and Milk Production per Cow,

GREAT WINE CAPITALS GLOBAL NETWORK MARKET SURVEY FINANCIAL STABILITY AND VIABILITY OF WINE TOURISM BUSINESS IN THE GWC

Final Report. The Lunchtime Occasion in Republic of Ireland and Great Britain

The Impact of Fair Trade: How the Exchange of Goods Links Producers and Consumers. Jessica Stanley-Asselmeier

Since the cross price elasticity is positive, the two goods are substitutes.

Results from the First North Carolina Wine Industry Tracker Survey

House Bills 991, 438, 975 and 1075

Tania Page Interim Sector Head. +44 (0)

Economics Homework 4 Fall 2006

Work Sample (Minimum) for 10-K Integration Assignment MAN and for suppliers of raw materials and services that the Company relies on.

More information from: global-online-food-delivery-and-takeaway-marketanalysis-by-order-type

DELIVERING REFRESHING SOFT DRINKS

Zoning, Manufacturing, and Alcohol, OH MY! Nancy Palmer Executive Director, Georgia Craft Brewers Guild

PMR: Polish consumers still enjoy pizza Author: Zofia Bednarowska, Anna Kleśny

Executive Summary. The Lunchtime Occasion in Republic of Ireland and Great Britain

PROLOGUE MODERN TIMES BEER

Wine and Spirit Trade Association Manifesto General Election

Sportzfun.com. Source: Joseph Pine and James Gilmore, The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press.

NEW LIQUOR LAW CHANGES! A number of significant changes to the Pennsylvania Liquor. Code have been passed recently. On June 28, 2011 Governor

2017 Food Attitudes & Behaviors

Community differences in availability of prepared, readyto-eat foods in U.S. food stores

Starbucks / Dunkin Donuts research. Presented by Alex Hockley and Molly Fox. Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement (CETA)

RESTAURANT OUTLOOK SURVEY

The Economic Impact of Wine and Grapes in Lodi 2009

Lake County in the Marketplace. Christian Miller Lake County Winegrape Commission Momentum Seminar January 23, 2014

Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. Reports 62% Increase in Second Quarter 2008 Diluted Earnings Per Share

Administration Table of Contents

SONOMA COUNTY RESTAURANT WEEK REPORT INDUSTRY REPORT

Call in number: Pass Code: # Mun Adm

MODERNIZATION OF OKLAHOMA S ALCOHOL LAWS: READY OR NOT HERE IT COMES! Presented by the Oklahoma ABLE Commission

Alberta Foodservice Forecast

AWARD: Pulse Hospitality Operations Agreement 2016

OKANAGAN VALLEY WINE CONSUMER RESEARCH STUDY 2008 RESULTS

Table A.1: Use of funds by frequency of ROSCA meetings in 9 research sites (Note multiple answers are allowed per respondent)

Franchise Opportunity

Team Harvard Ecureuils Harvard University

Retailing Frozen Foods

Availability of Healthy Food in Corner Stores in Hartford, CT

The Economic Impact of the Craft Brewing Industry in Maine. School of Economics Staff Paper SOE 630- February Andrew Crawley*^ and Sarah Welsh

Ohio Department of Commerce

Guideline to Food Safety Supervisor Requirements

VQA Wine Sales at Farmers Markets Program. Webcast April 29, 2015

From Selling to Supporting-Leveraging Mobile Services in the Field of Food Retailing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OVERALL, WE FOUND THAT:

Consumer Responses to Food Products Produced Near the Fukushima Nuclear Plant

A Study on Consumer Attitude Towards Café Coffee Day. Gonsalves Samuel and Dias Franklyn. Abstract

Colombia Cow Milk Market Production and Fluid Milk Consumption by Volume,

Food as Placemaking Rail~Volution 2012 Brian Vanneman LELAND CONSULTING GROUP Rail~Volution

Wine On-Premise UK 2016

INTERNATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM BINA NUSANTARA UNIVERSITY. Major Marketing Sarjana Ekonomi Thesis Odd semester year 2007

Future Options for Liquor Retailing in Saskatchewan

Transcription:

Perceptions of Privatization Research conducted on behalf of the Commonwealth Foundation and Keystone Politics September 30, 2013 Contact: Jennifer Airey, Partner, Heart+Mind Strategies 201.670.8261 jairey@heartandmindstrategies.com

Methodology and Research Design Methodology: 18 minute RDD telephone and random method cell phone survey N=1,151 Pennsylvania residents ages 21+ MOE +/-3 percentage points Field Dates: September 3 rd through 12 th, 2013 Sample: Pennsylvania residents with quotas set for age and gender by region. Within each household, one adult was designated by a random procedure to be the respondent for the survey. Weighting: Results have been weighted to adjust to State figures for variation in the sample relating to geographic region, age and registered voters by party. Report Notes: Throughout the report, nets may sum to more or less than their individual pieces due to rounding. Pg. 2

Executive Summary (1) Being satisfied with the status quo does not mean the people in PA oppose change to allow the privatization of alcohol sales. Those who shop for wine/spirits or beer show the strongest support. Those who rarely or never shop for alcohol, a much smaller portion of PA residents, are more likely to want to keep the status quo. 6 in 10 Pennsylvanians favor privatization while only 1/3 oppose. Frequent wine/spirits purchasers, Philly suburb residents, and Republicans are most likely to favor privatization. A majority of Union households support privatization Full bipartisan support (Democrats, Republicans and Independents all favor). Over half of residents reported that they purchase alcohol out of state. Consumers believe private retailers would outperform state-owned shops and beer distributors across all attributes if they could sell alcohol in the future. Pg. 3

Executive Summary (2) Most beneficial outcomes of privatization are viewed as: PA consumers won t cross state borders to buy wine and spirits and more money will stay in PA. + This is viewed as especially beneficial by women and those in the Philly suburbs Thousands more private sector jobs will be created. Costs will be lower and more in line with other states. The PLCB will no longer need to spend millions of tax dollars on product advertising. More than half of Pennsylvanians are more likely to vote for their state legislator if they support privatization. Especially Republicans, Independents and those in the Philadelphia suburbs. Pg. 4

Implications Given the findings, privatization appears to be first and foremost a pocketbook issue, not only for an individual, but for their view of the positive residual impact such a move could have on the state of PA. Respondents strongly care about personal and state savings. Less waste on the State s behalf, keeping more money in the state, creating new jobs and small businesses, as well as offering competitive pricing relative to other States. Residents don t want to continue to watch money leave PA, with more than half of residents saying they purchase out of state alcohol, they would welcome the change to get what they needed, when they needed it, right here at home. Pg. 5

Nearly two-thirds would like to change the regulations on the sale and distribution of alcohol to allow private retailers, with the preference going to full privatization, not a half-way measure of just beer distributors View on Where to Shop for Alcohol in PA I'd prefer to have private retailers, such as grocery stores, Beer Distributors and specialty shops sell wine, beer and spirits. 54% I'd prefer if I could purchase wine, beer and spirits from Beer Distributors, but not from other private retailers such as grocery stores or specialty shops. I prefer to keep the system as it is now with wine and spirits sales at state-owned stores and most beer sales at Beer Distributors. Pg. 6 11% 32% 66% prefer change over status quo Most Likely to Prefer Private Retailers Strongly favor privatization: 83% Purchase wine/spirits weekly: 68% 100k+: 65% Independents: 63% 75-100k 62% Purchase beer weekly: 62% Ages 21-34: 62% Philly suburbs: 62% Republicans: 61% College grads: 61% BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS Q230. If people in Pennsylvania had their choice on where to shop for all their alcohol, including wine, spirits and beer in Pennsylvania, which comes closes to your view:

Regardless of satisfaction levels of current wine/spirit and beer retail options, Pennsylvania residents want a change Satisfaction with Wine/Spirit Retail Options Satisfaction with Beer Retail Options Satisfied Not satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied Prefer to have private retailers sell wine, beer, and spirits 47% 51% Prefer to purchase wine, beer, and spirits from beer distributor only 12% 84% 12% 81% Pg. 7 Prefer to keep system as is 39% 7% 7% 35% 5% 11% BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS Q230. If people in Pennsylvania had their choice on where to shop for all their alcohol, including wine, spirits and beer in Pennsylvania, which comes closes to your view:

Perceptions of private retailers, that one would shop at if it could sell wine, beer and spirits in the future, outperform performance of state-owned shops and beer distributors on all attributes. Comparative Performance Scores % Top Box: Extremely Important & Describes Perfectly Importance Perf - Beer Distributor Perf - State Owned Wine & Spirits Perf - Private Retailer 55% 45% 36% 42% 38% 45% Pg. 8 31% 24% I feel safe there 29% 18% 8% 7% Prices are competitive with those found out of state 26% 18% It's a convenient location from my house Note: Competitive pricing is top attribute among those who purchase wine, spirits, or beer weekly, those who purchase wine/spirits outside of PA weekly or occasionally, those who are not satisfied with wine/spirits/beer retailers, those who favor privatization, and Southwest residents 20% 15% 12% 12% 10% 5% 10% It is clean and has modern decor 3% 4% I can purchase other items there such as groceries or other products It is open on most holidays Note: Ability to purchase other items slightly more important among Allegheny residents, Liberals, 100k+, those who are not satisfied with wine/spirit retailers, those who say performance of state-owned retailers is not good, those who favor privatization, and those who are more likely to vote for a state legislator who favors privatization.

More than 6 in 10 Pennsylvania residents favor ending the government sale and distribution of wine and spirits, including bipartisan support. Those who purchase more frequently, live in the Philly suburbs, are Republican and have higher incomes are especially supportive. 61% Favor Proposal to end government sale and distribution of wine and spirits in the state of Pennsylvania 70% Republicans 70% Independents 54% Democrats Somewhat favor 22% Strongly favor 39% Somewhat oppose 15% Strongly oppose 18% Don't know 6% 33% Oppose Proposal to end government sale and distribution of wine and spirits in the state of Pennsylvania Pg. 9 BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS Q250. Do you favor or oppose a proposal to end government sale and distribution of wine and spirits in the State of Pennsylvania?

Majority favor all potential changes to sale and distribution of wine/spirits in PA, except for only allowing beer distributors to sell wine/spirits Oppose 32% Favor or Oppose Changes Removing government from the sale and distribution of wine and spirits by licensing and regulating private retailers. 24% Favor (Somewhat/Strongly) 42% Total Favor 66% 34% Allowing beer, wine and spirits to be sold in supermarkets and specialty stores. 23% 43% 65% 37% Allowing just beer and wine to be sold in supermarkets and specialty stores. 29% 34% 63% 66% Allowing wine and spirits to be sold at Beer Distributors as the only allowable private retailers in the state, but not at grocery stores or other specialty stores. 20% 12% 33%. 10 I think this is halfway towards accomplishing the level of freedom to purchase goods that the citizens of PA are looking for. I think partial privatization would only have PA stuck for another decade in a restricting system. I feel like if it is partial there is not much that would actually change because some people wouldn't go to a beer distributor as is and would be forced to. - Quote from Participant in Online Forum Discussion, September 11 th, 2013 BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS Q260. Please tell me if you would favor or oppose the following changes to the sale of wine and spirits in the state of Pennsylvania. After I read each one, please tell me if it sounds like something you would favor or oppose.

While all support statements were viewed as beneficial to Pennsylvania, those that saved costs for the state and its citizens are deemed most beneficial The PA Liquor Control Board will no longer need to spend millions of tax dollars on product advertising. PA consumers won't cross state borders to buy wine and spirits and more money will stay in PA. Very beneficial 31% 32% Extremely beneficial 36% 34% 67% 66% Thousands more private sector jobs will be created. 33% 32% 65% Costs will be lower and more in line with other states. 32% 32% 64% New small businesses will be created in the state. 30% 32% 62% Millions of new dollars every year in state revenues for licensing fees and corporate income taxes and property taxes. 33% 28% 62% There will be more choice of where to shop for wine and spirits. PA will no longer be one of only two states, the other being UT, that has complete govt control of wine and spirits sales and Pg. 11 There will be a wider selection of wine and spirits available. Pennsylvania's Prohibition-era liquor law system will be modernized. Beer distributors will be allowed to sell wine and spirits to their customers along with beer. 33% 27% 30% 30% 31% 28% 31% 27% 27% 23% 61% 58% 57% 57% 54% Note: Ages 21-34, Republicans, those who purchase wine, spirits, or beer weekly, and those who favor privatization are more likely to find all outcomes to be beneficial BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS Q290. Now I ll read some possible outcomes that have been suggested if the state of Pennsylvania allows private retailers, such as grocery stores or specialty stores with state approved licenses, to sell wine and spirits. Please tell me how beneficial you believe these

Majority favor privatization after hearing support and opposition statements 62% Favor Supporters say state government should not be selling wine and spirits to citizens but should be focused on regulating alcohol sales and enforcing the law. In addition, they say privately run wine, spirits, and beer stores will provide consumers with greater choices, more convenience and better prices, while generating millions of dollars for the state that could be used for education, public safety, health care or our roads, bridges and other important infrastructure. Strongly favor 43% Somewhat favor 19% Somewhat oppose 12% Strongly oppose 24% Don't know 2% 35% Oppose Opponents say privatizing the state s Wine and Spirit Shops would destroy more than 5,500 familysustaining jobs, endanger our neighborhoods and put more than 500 million dollars a year in state revenues at risk. In addition, the one-time financial windfall realized from the sale of the state s Wine and Spirit Shops will not offset the long term loss of revenue, and that privatization has led to higher rates of alcoholism, underage drinking, drunk driving and more traffic accidents, which is why the U.S. Center for Disease Control recommended against further privatization of alcohol sales. Pg. 12 BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS Q300. Having heard these statements, do you favor or oppose ending government sale and distribution of wine and liquor in the State of Pennsylvania?

Majority are likely to vote for state legislator who supports ending government sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages, especially Republicans, those in the Philly suburbs, those with higher incomes and shopping frequency Most Likely to Vote for State Legislator Who Supports Privatization Favor privatization: 75% Purchase wine/spirits weekly: 66% 100k+: 62% Independents: 62% Republicans: 61% Philly suburbs: 61% Somewhat more likely 31% 55% More Likely Much more likely 23% Somewhat less likely 15% Much less likely 16% Makes no difference 12% Don't know 2% 32% Less Likely Least Likely to Vote for State Legislator Who Supports Privatization Oppose privatization: 68% Never purchase beer: 42% Never purchase wine/spirits: 40% Pg. 13 BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS Q320. If you knew that your state legislator supported ending government sale and distribution of wine and spirits in the State of Pennsylvania, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for your state legislator?

Pg. 14 Respondent Profile Political Outlook Liberal NET 31% Very Liberal 9% Somewhat Liberal 23% Moderate 23% Libertarian 4% Conservative NET 38% Somewhat Conservative 24% Very Conservative 14% Political Party Republican 37% Democrat 50% Independent 7% Libertarian 1% Green/Something else/ 5% Not sure/declined Likelihood to Vote Definitely/Probably Vote NET 85% Definitely vote 68% Probably vote 17% 50-50 7% Definitely Not/Probably Not Vote NET 7% Probably not vote 4% Definitely not vote 4% Labor Unions Member NET 29% Self 9% Family member 16% Both 4% No 70% Education Grades 1-8 * Grades 9-12 2% HS Graduate 21% Some college 22% College Graduate 32% Post-Graduate 22% Income <$25,000 7% $25,000 to less than $35,000 7% $35,000 to less than $50,000 11% $50,000 to less than $75,000 21% $75,000 to less than $100,000 18% $100,000 or more 27% Race/Ethnicity White 85% Hispanic 2% African-American/Black 7% Asian 1% Other 3%