Analysis of CRTC Choicebook: Comparison of Panel, Public, and Public Weighted

On the question of the nature of a basicservice, there is little substantive difference between the panel and public view point.

The weighting of the public results narrows the difference between the panel and public result but does not change the overall policy implication.

• Although men are much more likely than women in the public to chose Phan, this is not evident in the panel group.

There is a very large difference between how a representative sample of Canadians (panel) and the self-selected public sample views local news. Participants in the public process were less likely to take the position that local news is important (51%).

The weighting of the public results narrows the difference between the panel and public result from 20 points (71-51) to 14 points.

• Men and women in the panel survey do not differ as much as in the public where men are dramatically more likely to chose Matthew’s position.
• In the panel group, young people slightly favour Matthew but in the public group this difference is large.

The majority choice for the panel sample is “pick a pack” but this is not the majority choice for the public group. Instead, it prefers the “pick and pay” option.

The weighting of the public results narrows the difference substantially between the panel and public result such that the 17 point gap (53-36) for pick a pack is reduced to a 7 point gap. More than half the difference reflects demographic differences in who responded.

• The gender differences that are large in the panel group are also evident in the public: men are more likely to choose pick and pay. It is not surprising that adjusting for gender in the weighting has an impact on the difference between the public and panel.

The representative panel group is more likely than the public group to choose Ethan’s view. That said, a majority of both groups chose the Eva position.

The weighting of the public results does not impact the panel public comparison. This is consistent with the small demographic differences in response within both groups.

There is little difference in the appetite for more direct access to American channels between the panel and the public groups. There is, however, significantly higher interest among the public for direct access to non-U.S. International channels.

The weighting of the public results does not impact the panel public comparison significantly.

• In both samples, men and younger Canadians are more likely to want more direct access.

Among those interested in more direct access to U.S. or International channels, the public group is much more likely to want access even in the face of significant costs either financial or in having less Canadian content.

The weighting of the public results does reduce the difference between the panel and public result, particularly for the impact on Canadian content. Nevertheless, much of the difference between the panel and public is attitudinal.

• Men are more likely to want access, particularly in the public group so it is not surprising that controlling for gender reduces the gap.

A majority (55%) of the representative panel group is willing to pay for a package with more direct access to international channels that includes Canadian channels but only 46% of those who responded to the public Choicebook are willing to pay.

The weighting of the public results reduces the difference between the public and panel by almost half.

• Men and women do not differ within the panel group but men are less likely to like this idea in the public group.
• Younger panelists are more likely to agree but do not differ within the public group.

Signal substitution (63%) is the clear favourite approach among the panel but it is less favoured in the public results. The public is, however, most likely to select this option.

The weighting of the public reduces the difference between the public and panel but the difference does remain.

• Younger members of both groups are less likely to support the signal substitution approach.

Both groups, panel and public, prefer John’s approach. This is somewhat truer for the public. The weighting of the public results narrows the difference between the panel and public result to almost the same proportions.

• Within the panel, men and women do not differ but within the public men are more likely to take John’s position.
• Younger members of the public group also favour John’s position, which is not evident in the panel group.

When it comes to willingness to pay among those who support Jenny’s position, there is virtually no difference across the groups. This reflects the fact that if you agree with Jenny you are likely to support paying for more Canadian content regardless of how you came to complete the Choicebook.

Although a majority of the panel (57%) agrees that there should be CC and standards, only 41% of the public input agrees. This large difference is narrowed slightly with weighting suggesting that fundamentally the public participants are less interested than a representative survey of Canadians. Interestingly, among those wanting to pay, it is the public respondents who are more willing to pay. In both the public and panel groups, women are more likely to favour standards.

Neither the public nor the panel group are supportive of the idea of paying a flat fee for streaming that would then not count against an internet data cap.

The public group is somewhat more likely to be against the idea and weighting the data does not change it. This suggests that the public group does differ somewhat in attitudes about this question.

• Although women are more likely to agree within the panel group, they are not within the public group.
• Younger panel members like the idea more but this is not as evident within the public group.