monitoring communication impact: tools and public ... communication impact: tools and public ......

Final Version 1 | Public

Monitoring communication impact: tools and public

perceptions of nuclear energy

Robert Knight, Ipsos MORI Technical meeting on stakeholder involvement in nuclear power, Vienna, October 2012

2

Final Version 1 | Public © Ipsos MORI

Agenda

• Measuring public attitudes and

the opinion environment

• Exploring the underlying issues

• Considering opinion-forming

stakeholders

• Into cyberspace

Measuring public attitudes

and the opinion

environment

4


Global reaction to Fukushima – April 2011 global online survey

38 62

54

56

46

44

honestly

on a timely basis

Agree Disagree

Based on what you know, do you think Japanese officials and their government leaders communicated the nature and impact of the mishap to the Japanese people and others . . . .*

Base: 18,787 adults aged 18-64 (in US and Canada), 16-64 (in rest of world) in 24 countries online. 6-12 April 2011

*Base: All seen, read or heard about Fukushima

Support/oppose nuclear energy as a

way of producing electricity

Support Oppose

Among opposers, 26% took this view as

a direct result of Fukushima (16% of all interviewed )

5


-2-2

-14-16

-18-18

-20-20-20-20

-24-24

-26-32-32

-34-36

-42-44

-58-62

-64

+22+14

+4

IndiaPoland

USAGreat Britain

SwedenSaudi Arabia

ChinaHungary

JapanBelgium

South AfricaSouth Korea

SpainRussia

CanadaAustralia

FranceIndonesia

BrazilTurkey

ArgentinaGermany

ItalyMexico

Net support for nuclear energy by country at height of

Fukushima crisis – April 2011

Base: 18,787 adults aged 18-64 (in US and Canada), 16-64 (in rest of world) in 24 countries online. 6-12 April 2011

Net support

Global figure

Net opposition

6


96%

93%

91%

79%

48%

45%

4%

7%

9%

21%

52%

55%

Solar power

Wind power

Hydroelectric

Natural gas

Coal

Nuclear energy

Global support for energy sources September 2012 – change

since Fukushima

Base: 18,680 adults aged 18-64 (in US and Canada), 16-64 (in rest of world) in 24 countries online.

4-18 September 2012

Support

Change from

April 2011

+1 -1

0 0

0 0

+1 -1

0 0

-7 +7

Oppose

Change from

April 2011

Q. Please indicate whether you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose each way of producing electricity:

7


75%66%

59%59%59%

53%52%50%49%47%46%45%42%42%41%41%40%38%37%37%36%

29%29%26%26%

25%34%

41%41%41%

47%48%50%51%53%54%55%58%58%59%59%60%62%63%63%64%

71%71%74%74%

IndiaUSA

ChinaGreat BritainSaudi Arabia

PolandSwedenFrance

South KoreaHungaryBelgium

AustraliaCanada

IndonesiaSouth Africa

RussiaTurkeyBrazilSpainJapan

ArgentinaItaly

GermanyMexico

Support/opposition to nuclear energy by country September

2012

Global figure

Support Oppose

Q. Please indicate whether you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose each way of producing electricity: nuclear energy


4-18 September 2012

8


+36+34

+32+32

+28+20+20

+18+18

+16+16+16

+14+12+12

+10+10+10

+6+4

+2+2

-6-8

-10

USAChina

Saudi ArabiaFrance

IndiaGreat Britain

ItalySouth Korea

TurkeyAustralia

IndonesiaMexico

HungaryBelgiumCanada

BrazilGermanySwedenRussia

South AfricaArgentina

SpainPolandJapan

Degree of improvement in net support since Fukushima,

by country


4-18 September 2012

Change in net support for nuclear energy

April 2011 – September 2012

Global figure

9


Base: All British adults c1,000-2,000

Face-to-face interviews

Support Oppose

Q To what extent would you support or oppose the building of new nuclear power stations in Britain TO REPLACE those that are being phased out over the next few years? This would ensure the same proportion of nuclear energy is retained ie 18%.

Face-to-face survey by Ipsos MORI in the UK showed significant fall in support for nuclear newbuild

* Wording in 2001 was “To what extent would you support or oppose

the building of new nuclear power stations in Britain?”

19%

47%

36%

50%

20%

FUKUSHIMA

28%

10


Base: All British adults c1,000-2,000

Face-to-face interviews

Support Oppose

Q To what extent would you support or oppose the building of new nuclear power stations in Britain TO REPLACE those that are being phased out over the next few years? This would ensure the same proportion of nuclear energy is retained ie 18%.

By end of 2011 British support had recovered and reached a new high point of 50%

* Wording in 2001 was “To what extent would you support or oppose

the building of new nuclear power stations in Britain?”

19%

47%

36%

50%

20%

FUKUSHIMA

28%

11


It is vital that your research has credibility and integrity

• Understand the limitations of methodology

• Compare like with like

• Research should be independent and professionally

executed with best practice in questionnaire design

• Use a respected research organisation with a track

record in publishing public opinion data and

recognised quality accreditation such as ISO 20252

Exploring the underlying

issues

13


Qualitative exploration of underlying attitudes

Familiarity is key issue:

Lower among women

Information vacuum reduces trust; encourages false fears

Men have more faith in scientific solutions. More likely to seek information on nuclear issues

Women more averse to risk and have long term perspectives

Communication to women needs to build familiarity, reassure and break down misconceptions

OUTCOMES

CASE STUDY: Women’s attitudes to nuclear

energy, for Nuclear Industry Association 2009

Unstructured in-depth

discussion

Exploring beliefs and

values

Valuable guide to

messages, channels, tone,

language etc

14


The deliberative approach

Simulation of decision making in a

rigorous research environment

Delivers real insight into what

communication can achieve

CASE STUDY: deliberative forum of

people neutral to or undecided about

support for nuclear power

Subjected to powerful pro and anti

nuclear views in one-day event

Monitored throughout for

reactions and attitude change

Showed basic tendency to

become more positive

Considering opinion-

forming stakeholders

16


What is a “stakeholder” of the nuclear industry?

Anybody who can influence, or

who is affected by, the industry

17


The first task is to build a stakeholder map

UK energy industry

MEDIA

INDUSTRY

INSIDERS

INDUSTRY

OUTSIDERS

SCIENTIFIC/

ACADEMIC

FINANCIAL

COMMUNITY

LOCAL COMMUNITIES

REGULATORY

POLITICAL

NGOs/PRESSURE GROUPS

Greenpeace

FOE EIUG

MEUC Green

Alliance WWF

EST

Carbon

Trust

RIBA WI

Ofgem

DECC

DEFRA

Environment

Agency

HSE

UKTI

Crown

Estates

Regional

Development

Agencies

Ministers

Select

Committees

Gov’t

MPs

Key

Peers

Welsh

Assembly

Key

Advisors

Opposition

MPs

Local

Authorities Scottish

Parliament

News

media

Specialist

media

Local

media

Local Pressure

Groups

Residential

Neighbours

Local

Opinion

Formers

Inst.

Investors

Analysts

Financial

Media

Private

Investors

UKERA Warwick

Uni.

East Anglia

Uni.

Cambridge

Uni.

Sussex

Uni.

Dalton

Business

School

Southampton

Uni.

CBI

British Chambers

Of Commerce

COGENT

PÖYRY

OXERA

BITC

OFWAT

ERA

ENA

ERP

Renewable UK

AEP NIA

Renewable

Energy

Assoc.

Peers/

Competitors ACE

18


Opinion former research uses small, high quality samples

and requires special expertise

E.ON UK

Opinion Leader

Survey 2010

(139 interviews)

Content:

National policy issues

Support for energy sources

E.ON’s reputation

E.ON’s communications

Civil servants/

regulators

(13)

Members of

UK Parliament

(20)

NGOs

(25)

Financial

analysts

(12)

Journalists

(41)

Influential

Individuals

(28)

Trained telephone

interviewing team

Proven contact process

and incentive structure

Well known research

organisation

Establish importance of

the survey to national

policy issues

19


Focus groups with top opinion formers

Politicians, heads of trade associations,

professors, journalists, NGO directors,

financial analysts, senior civil servants...

It is possible!

Private dinner group in prestigious

landmark venue

Guarantee high status participants

Pursue them relentlessly to ensure they

attend on the evening in question

“Chatham House rule”

Interpret outcomes carefully

Into cyberspace

Social media is growing

In the UK:

79% are now online

44% visited a social networking site

in the last three months

44% Use Facebook

44% Use You Tube

13% Use Twitter

22


Ipsos MORI’s Reputation Council and Social Media

91% of senior

communicators think

social media has a

direct impact on

reputation and licence

to operate

Based on August-September 2012 conversations with 45 Directors of Communications

in Europe and the Americas

23


What can we monitor from “internet buzz”?

• Volumes of mentions (of the

industry or specific issues)

• Sentiment analysis (are

comments positive or negative?)

• Sources of conversations

(website type, or drill down to

individual sites, individual

contributors)

• Sources of conversations by

country (and by language)

• Main themes of conversations, by

country

• Interpret what and who is driving

the peaks in activity

CASE STUDY: Nuclear energy

pre, post and during

Fukushima incident

25


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Volume of mentions about nuclear energy – Jan 2011-Sept 2012

Number of mentions

Fukushima incident has only a temporary effect on volume of mentions.

“As a result of the disaster at

Fukushima, I am no longer

nuclear-neutral. I now support

the technology.”

The start of George

Monbiot’s infamous article in

the Guardian

16m followers

400k followers

26


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Blog Forum Facebook News Twitter Video

Mentions of nuclear energy by day in March 2011, with sources

Earthquake and

Tsunami strikes

Unit 1 explodes

Unit 3 explodes

Unit 2 explodes

MARCH 2011

27


Safety has become the main issue following the incident

15 18

11 10

19

5

22

5

17

7

42

12

8 5

7

12

17 15

13

3

38

24

14 14 12 11

9 9 8

1 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Safety Generalpro-nuclear

Technology Generalanti-nuclear

Comparisonto fossil

fuels

Internationalrelations

Efficiency Cost Wastedisposal

Nuclearweapons

Pe

rcen

tage

Topic areas; what people are talking about online

Pre-Fukushima During crisis (June 2011) Present day

Based on a random selection of 100 verbatim mentions from each time period. Pre-Fukushima (11 February 2011 –

10 March 2011), During crisis (1 June 2011 – 30 June 2011), Present day (1 September 2012 – 29 September 2012)

28


Some final

thoughts on

monitoring

communication

impacts

• Identify and prioritise your

stakeholders. Maximise your budget

• Conduct professional and

independent research, with

appropriate techniques

• Understand the underlying drivers

of opinion – what really matters?

• Don’t forget the internet: it will grow

in importance

Thank you

Robert Knight, Ipsos MORI ([email protected]) +44 (0) 207 347 3082

monitoring communication impact: tools and public ... communication impact: tools and public ......

Documents