Fraud Prevention Month Post-campaign Public Opinion Research – June 2006

II. Key Findings

A. Marketing Fraud: Perceptions and Victimization

The vast majority of Canadians across all demographic groups consider marketing fraud to be a serious problem. When asked how serious a problem marketing fraud was, 86 per cent of Canadians said it was either a very serious (35%) or a somewhat serious (51%) problem. These results are slightly higher than for 2005, when 84 per cent of Canadians said the same. Women (90%) are a little more concerned about it than men (83%), while younger people of ages 18 to 34 (80%) are less likely than people 35 to 54 years old (89%) and 55 years and older (88%) to say that marketing fraud is a serious problem.

By the same token, most Canadians (77%) believe that marketing fraud by phone, regular mail or email is on the rise. The results are consistent with the 2005 survey, in which 76 per cent also said that marketing fraud was on the way up. While all demographic groups share this belief, women (81%) are once again slightly more likely to say so than men (74%). Contrasting with the age differences noted for the seriousness of marketing fraud, people of age 55 and above (72%) are less likely to say it is on the rise than those in either the 35 to 54 age group (83%) or those between 18 and 34 years of age (78%). Also noticeable is the fact that residents of Quebec are more inclined to say that marketing fraud is on the rise, with 85% per cent suggesting the trend is toward an increase, despite the fact that those from Quebec reported the lowest incidence of being victims of marketing fraud.

Canadians are also very consistent from year to year in their views on the seriousness of different types of marketing fraud. Indeed, 87 per cent say that being asked to donate to fake charities is a serious problem. This compares with similar numbers (86%) who say that being told that they have won a prize, but only on the condition that they purchase something in return, is also a serious problem and 84 per cent who believe that paying for a product and not receiving it is a serious problem. Once again, these results are nearly identical to the 2005 figures, which stood at 85, 84 and 82 per cent respectively. Demographic and regional differences are also noticeable with respect to perceptions of the seriousness of these three issues, with women being somewhat more likely to rate the issues as serious compared to men and younger people being slightly less likely than older individuals to do so, while younger individuals are less likely to be concerned with marketing fraud in general and with fraud related to prizes or awards. Residents of Quebec are also more inclined to say that these issues are serious compared to those living in other parts of the country. However, none of the gaps in opinion are larger than 10 percentage points.

The victimization rate for 2006 is basically unchanged from 2005 when considering the margin of error (+/- 3.1%) of the surveys, with 31 per cent of Canadians claiming that either themselves or someone in their household have been a victim of marketing fraud in 2006, compared to 28 per cent in 2005. Interestingly, there is once again an age effect visible for this question, with younger Canadians being more likely to say they have themselves or someone in their household has been victimized compared to older Canadians. It is also important to note that one-third (10 percentage points out of the total of 30) report that the incident(s) have happened within the last six months. Nearly twice as many individuals between the ages of 18 and 34 (44%) have been victimized compared to people of either 35 to 54 years of age (32%) or those 55 years and older (23%). This reported level of victimization among younger Canadians is particularly interesting given that it is this group that also expresses a somewhat lower level of concern about the seriousness of marketing fraud.

B. Identity Theft: Victimization

Figures for victimization from identity theft are lower than those of marketing fraud, with 17 per cent of Canadians reporting having been victimized themselves or an incident occurring among someone in their immediate household in 2006. Figures in 2005 (19%) indicate a fairly stable proportion of those reporting having been a victim of identity theft over the last two years. University graduates are more likely than any other educational grouping to report having been victimized. Just over one-quarter (26%) of university graduates report having been a victim compared to only 10 per cent among those with a high school diploma or less and 13 per cent among those with a college education. Residents of the Atlantic region (10%) are also less likely than residents of other provinces to say they have been a victim of identity theft.

C. Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

It remains the case that few people make a significant effort to report or resolve an incident of marketing fraud. As was the case in 2005 (43%), four-in-ten (38%) respondents say that they "did nothing" in attempting to resolve a marketing fraud incident. Accordingly, very few reported the incident to the local police (8% in Canada as a whole and only 2% in Quebec), while three per cent reported having contacted the Better Business Bureau, another two per cent contacted PhoneBusters and less than one per cent contacted the Competition Bureau. A more likely type of response from Canadians is to try to solve the problem on their own by either contacting the company involved (18%), stopping payments or refusing to pay (8%), changing their banking information (3%) or trying to get a refund (2%). Once again, age affects the type of responses taken by individuals, as younger people are more likely to take matters into their own hands by phoning the company directly, with 25 per cent of those between the ages of 18 and 34 years of age having done so, compared to 18 per cent among those 35 to 54 years of age and only 11 per cent among Canadians 55 years of age and older. On the other hand, older individuals are more likely than those in other age groups to simply stop payments or refuse to pay for items sold to them fraudulently, with 14 per cent of them choosing this course of action.

The reasons given for not taking any action reflect Canadians' concerns about the level of effort required to follow up and a general sense that the trade-off between effort/time and payoff does not favour pursuing the matter. Indeed, four of the five most common reasons given for inaction suggest that this is the case:

• Too much effort (15%);
• The amount of money was not worth reporting (12%);
• Did not think it was worth it (12%); and
• Did not care enough or forgot (10%).

A similar pattern emerges for those who have not been victimized but who were asked what their likely response would be. The second most common answer to a question asking them what they would do if they or a member of their household were defrauded was that they would not take any action (21%). Moreover, 18 per cent say that they would simply hang up and another eight per cent state that they would just ignore it. However, the most frequent answer given was that they would contact the local police, with 31 per cent saying so (30% in 2005). This sharply contrasts with the much smaller proportion of actual victims who have indeed phoned the police (8%) in response to an actual or perceived incident. Also contrasting with findings among those who have been victimized is the fact that only four per cent of non-victims say that they would phone the company directly, while 18 per cent of victims took this course of action. This contrast between the responses to the two questions indicates that Canadians, while suggesting that they would take a certain action, in reality are clearly reluctant to do so because they do not believe it is worth the effort. Age is again a factor in deciding what course of action an individual would take if they found themselves in this situation. While 22 per cent of those between the ages of 18 to 34 would contact the police, we note an increase to 29 per cent among those between the ages of 35 to 54 who would take this course of action and a further increase to 38 per cent for people over the age of 54. Also of note is the fact that younger people (15%) are more likely to indicate "don't know," fail to provide an answer to this question or suggest that they wouldn't know what to do compared to older age groups (7% and 6% respectively for those 35–54 and 55 and above).

As was the case for 2005, contacting credit card companies is the most common response to identity theft by those who have been victimized or live with someone who has been victimized. In total, 33 per cent of respondents reported complaining to their credit card company, compared to 26 per cent in 2005. Complaints to the local police come a distant second, at 15 per cent (16 per cent in 2005), followed by reporting the case to their financial institutions at 12 per cent (9 per cent in both 2003 and 2005). Interestingly, the proportion of those who did nothing has dropped somewhat over the past two years, declining from 18 per cent in 2005 and finally, 15 per cent in 2006.

D. Awareness of Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft Messaging

Exposure to messages regarding marketing fraud and identity theft remains high at 73 per cent. This number is somewhat lower than it was in 2005 (78%). Once again, there is clear age effect with regards to messaging on marketing fraud and identity theft messaging, with only 59 per cent of those between the ages of 18 to 34 having seen, heard or read anything about it, compared to 78 per cent and 75 per cent respectively among those 35 to 54 years of age and 55 years of age and older. Similar gaps can be observed for educational levels, as 63 per cent of those with a high school diploma or less reported seeing, hearing or reading anything about marketing fraud and identity theft, compared to 78 per cent for those with a college education and 80 per cent for those with a university degree.

Correct message recall is on the rise relative to 2005. Message retention or comprehension varies with 20 per cent saying they recalled a message related to the importance of protecting your identity, while another 14 per cent said that the messaging was about credit card fraud and nine per cent gave specific examples of fraud prevention issues. Two per cent spontaneously remembered the tagline "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." When all appropriate answers are added up, including those who recalled the exact tagline without being prompted as well as those who recalled that the messaging was about fraud prevention in response to an earlier question, 81 per cent of all respondents are shown to remember the general messaging, compared to 70 per cent in 2005. The reader should note that the 2006 survey contained an additional level of prompting, thus allowing respondents one more opportunity, compared to the 2005 survey, to indicate whether they did or did not recall elements of the campaign. It is also important to note that the time lag between campaign completion and fielding of the survey was slightly longer in 2006 when compared to 2005.

About half (53%) of those who had not identified fraud prevention as the key message based on their response to the unaided questions on campaign awareness and message recall did subsequently say that they had seen, heard or read something when they were asked more explicitly (e.g. on an aided basis) about having seen, heard or read something pertaining to fraud prevention. The results are consistent with those of 2005, when 49 per cent remembered the messaging about fraud awareness. Once more, younger Canadians are less likely to be aware of such messages, with 39 per cent of those between the ages of 18 and 34 saying they recall something, compared to 59 per cent for those between the ages of 35 and 54 and 55 per cent among people 55 years of age and above.

The most important sources of information cited, for those who recall messages related to fraud prevention, are news coverage on television, radio or in print (43%), followed closely by articles in magazines or newspapers (39%). Another 18 per cent mentioned television in general, while another 12 per cent said they had seen something on a Website and six per cent said that they have heard something on the radio.^{Footnote 1}

As was the case in 2005, a total of 89 per cent of respondents gave a description of the messaging they have seen, heard or read. The main message retained from the information they received was essentially to be careful (25% in 2006 and 22% in 2005), followed by not giving out their personal information (15% in 2006 and 12% in 2005) and to not give out their credit card information to someone they do not know (11% in 2006 and 13% in 2005). Most other answers relate to the need to be cautious in some way in order to protect oneself.

When prompted, 26 per cent said that they did remember the tagline "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it.", for a total of 28 per cent when adding the two per cent who mentioned the tagline unprompted in response to an earlier question.

The vast majority (86%) of those who remembered the tagline believe that the message was either somewhat (41%) or very (45%) useful. However, it should be noted that despite the fact that the overall results for usefulness are in line with those from 2005 (90% finding the main message useful in 2005) the proportion of people saying that the message was "very" useful dropped by 11 percentage points from 56 per cent recorded in 2005. The drop in the level of intensity with respect to responses to this question suggests that additional efforts to sustain anti-fraud or fraud prevention messaging may be required in order to maintain public interest, educate Canadians and affect a stronger public response.

E. Response to Messages

Very importantly, 65 per cent of respondents who have seen, heard or read something about marketing fraud or identity theft say that what they saw did make them change the way they did (or would) respond to a possible marketing fraud or identity theft incident. Of those, 41 per cent said that their response has (or would) changed "a great deal" and 24 per cent said it has (or would) changed "somewhat". The proportion of those who changed their behaviour is also on the rise, having increased from 61 per cent in 2005 to 65 per cent in 2006. Noticeably, respondents from all age groups share the same views, demonstrating that younger people may be less worried and less aware about marketing fraud in general, but are still influenced in the same way older age groups are when they do see, hear or read about marketing fraud and identity theft.

F. PhoneBusters

Awareness of PhoneBusters remains the same as in 2005, with 18 per cent indicating that they have heard of the organization, compared to 17 per cent in 2005. The awareness level is clearly lower in the province of Quebec, where only seven per cent of respondents have heard of PhoneBusters. Another two per cent reported having contacted PhoneBusters as a result of a suspected marketing fraud or identity theft incident. Residents of British Columbia (17%) are also less aware of the organization.

Nonetheless, 84 per cent (81% in 2005) of all respondents said that they were likely to call PhoneBusters once having been presented with summary information about the organization. More importantly, 65 per cent said that they were "very likely" to call, compared to only 19 per cent stating that they were "somewhat likely" to do the same. This in turn indicates that an increase in awareness could potentially make a big difference in Canadians' behaviour when faced with suspicious marketing schemes or possible identity theft.

G. Means of Combating Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

Views on the means to combat marketing fraud and identity theft are relatively unchanged from 2005. Public education (53%) remains the favoured course of action, followed by tougher law enforcement (20%) and advertising (15%). Results for 2005 were nearly identical, at 51, 25 and 13 per cent respectively. In both years, another seven per cent stated that there was no effective way to combat marketing fraud.

Of note is the fact that people with a high school diploma or less (39%) are much less likely to advocate public education as a solution when compared to those with a college (55%) or university (65%) education. In this instance, age is not an important factor in views on the best means of combating marketing fraud and identity theft.

III. Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft: Awareness, Incidence, Perceptions and Response

Seriousness of Marketing Fraud

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.1    Overall, how serious a problem do you think marketing fraud is in Canada? Would you say it is…? Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/ Very serious problem	83	86	83	90	80	89	87	88	89	84
A very serious problem	32	35	29	41	18	36	43	38	40	28
A somewhat serious problem	51	51	54	49	62	53	44	50	49	56
Not a very serious problem	10	8	10	5	13	6	6	7	4	10
Not at all serious	4	2	3	1	2	1	3	2	2	3
NET Not a very/Not at all serious problem	14	10	13	6	15	7	9	9	6	13
DK/NA/Ref	3	4	4	4	5	4	4	3	5	4

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.1    Overall, how serious a problem do you think marketing fraud is in Canada? Would you say it is…? Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/ Very serious problem	83	86	90	90	87	82	82
A very serious problem	32	35	39	30	40	33	31
A somewhat serious problem	51	51	51	60	47	49	51
Not a very serious problem	10	8	6	7	7	9	8
Not at all serious	4	2	4	1	3	3	2
NET Not a very/Not at all serious problem	14	10	10	7	10	12	10
DK/NA/Ref	3	4	–	2	3	7	8

---

Increase/Decrease in Marketing Fraud Over the Last Few Years

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.2    Thinking back over the last few years, do you think the amount of marketing fraud by phone, email or regular mail has…? Base:   All respondents
Increased	76	77	74	81	78	83	72	73	81	80
Stayed about the same	15	13	15	10	15	10	14	15	11	11
Decreased	2	2	2	2	3	2	2	2	1	3
DK/NA/Ref	7	8	8	8	4	5	12	10	6	6

	Region
	Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.2    Thinking back over the last few years, do you think the amount of marketing fraud by phone, email or regular mail has…? Base:   All respondents
Increased	75	85	75	76	72
Stayed about the same	16	10	14	15	10
Decreased	4	1	3	3	2
DK/NA/Ref	5	5	8	6	16

---

Seriousness of Problem: Being Asked to Donate to Fake Charities

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Being Asked to Donate to Fake Charities, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.3-5    Now, I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not at all serious? The first is… Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very serious	85	87	82	92	85	91	84	86	92	85
Very serious	61	57	49	66	60	61	51	52	63	57
Somewhat serious	24	30	33	26	25	30	33	34	29	28
Not very serious	8	7	9	5	9	6	7	6	6	9
Not at all serious	3	3	4	1	4	2	3	4	1	3
NET Not very/Not at all serious	11	10	13	6	13	8	10	10	7	12
DK/NA/Ref	4	3	4	2	2	1	6	4	1	4

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Being Asked to Donate to Fake Charities, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.3-5    Now, I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not at all serious? The first is… Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very serious	85	87	91	92	85	84	85
Very serious	61	57	62	59	54	57	59
Somewhat serious	24	30	29	33	31	27	26
Not very serious	8	7	4	5	8	10	10
Not at all serious	3	3	5	2	3	2	2
NET Not very/Not at all serious	11	10	9	6	11	12	12
DK/NA/Ref	4	3	–	2	5	4	3

---

Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Not Receiving the Product or Receiving Something Inferior to What You Paid for

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Not Receiving the Product or Receiving Something Inferior to What You Paid for, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.3-5    Now, I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not at all serious? The first is… Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very serious	82	84	80	87	88	87	78	80	91	83
Very serious	52	47	41	53	49	51	42	45	56	44
Somewhat serious	30	37	39	34	39	36	36	35	35	39
Not very serious	8	9	12	6	10	10	8	10	5	12
Not at all serious	3	2	13	1	2	1	4	3	2	1
NET Not very/Not at all serious	11	11	15	7	11	11	12	13	7	13
DK/NA/Ref	7	5	5	6	1	2	10	7	2	5

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Not Receiving the Product or Receiving Something Inferior to What You Paid for, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.3-5    Now, I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not at all serious? The first is… Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very serious	82	84	81	93	80	84	79
Very serious	52	47	54	49	47	48	41
Somewhat serious	30	37	27	44	33	36	38
Not very serious	8	9	11	5	12	5	12
Not at all serious	3	2	3	1	3	3	3
NET Not very/Not at all serious	11	11	14	6	15	8	15
DK/NA/Ref	7	5	5	2	6	8	6

---

Seriousness of Problem: Being Told You Have Won a Valuable Prize, but Must Purchase a Product or do Something in Order to Claim the Prize

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Being Told You Have Won a Valuable Prize, but Must Purchase a Product or do Something in Order to Claim the Prize, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.3-5    Now, I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be very serious, somewhat serious, not a very serious or not at all serious? The first is… Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very serious	83	86	83	88	81	88	87	84	92	84
Very serious	52	52	47	57	41	53	57	53	52	51
Somewhat serious	31	34	36	31	40	35	30	31	40	33
Not very serious	9	9	11	8	15	11	5	11	6	12
Not at all serious	4	3	4	1	3	1	4	2	1	4
NET Not very/Not at all serious	13	12	15	9	18	12	9	13	7	16
DK/NA/Ref	3	2	2	2	2	1	4	3	1	1

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Being Told You Have Won a Valuable Prize, but Must Purchase a Product or do Something in Order to Claim the Prize, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.3-5    Now, I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be very serious, somewhat serious, not a very serious or not at all serious? The first is… Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very serious	83	86	86	87	86	84	88
Very serious	52	52	55	43	54	59	56
Somewhat serious	31	34	31	44	32	25	32
Not very serious	9	9	7	12	9	9	9
Not at all serious	4	3	5	1	3	5	2
NET Not very/Not at all serious	13	12	12	13	12	14	11
DK/NA/Ref	3	2	3	1	3	2	2

---

Victimization: Most Recent Experience of Marketing Fraud

Table showing Victimization: Most Recent Experience of Marketing Fraud, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.6    To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you personally, or someone in your household, may have been a victim of marketing fraud? Was this…? Base:   All respondents
Yes, victim	28	31	30	32	44	32	23	26	35	33
Within the past six months	6	10	10	10	18	10	6	9	12	10
Six months to one year ago	5	5	5	5	10	5	3	3	6	6
One to two years ago	6	7	7	7	10	8	4	6	6	9
One to two years ago	11	9	8	10	6	9	10	8	11	8
Never	71	69	69	68	56	68	76	74	65	67
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	–	1

Table showing Victimization: Most Recent Experience of Marketing Fraud, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.6    To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you personally, or someone in your household, may have been a victim of marketing fraud? Was this…? Base:   All respondents
Yes, victim	28	31	30	25	32	31	32
Within the past six months	6	10	10	9	11	6	13
Six months to one year ago	5	5	8	4	4	6	9
One to two years ago	6	7	5	5	8	6	10
One to two years ago	11	9	7	7	9	13	10
Never	71	69	70	75	67	70	58
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	–	1	1	–	1

---

Actions Taken

Table showing Actions Taken, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=289) %	2006
		Total (n=315) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=154) %	Female (n=161) %	18–34 (n=83) %	35–54 (n=131) %	55+ (n=91) %	HS or less (n=89) %	College (n=88) %	Univ. (n=122) %
Q.7    What actions, if any, did you or the member of your household take in attempting to resolve the incident? Did you do anything else? Base:   Respondents who may have been a victim of telemarketing/marketing fraud Note:   Multiple responses accepted, columns may sum to more than 100%
Called the company	17	18	18	17	25	18	11	20	17	16
Complained to the local police	7	8	7	9	5	8	11	8	10	6
Stopped payments/refused to buy/cancelled order	4	8	6	10	2	7	14	6	3	12
Hung up	2	6	5	7	5	5	7	6	9	3
Complained to credit card company	4	4	5	4	6	3	6	5	5	5
Complained to Better Business Bureau	5	3	5	1	2	2	4	3	3	2
Changed bank information/cancelled credit card	1	3	3	3	2	2	6	–	5	4
Called PhoneBusters	n/a	2	–	3	1	2	1	–	1	3
Tried to get refund	4	2	1	3	–	4	1	–	2	3
Took legal action/called a lawyer	3	1	1	1	–	–	2	2	–	–
Checked to see if it was legitimate/investigated company	2	1	1	1	–	1	2	–	2	1
Warned family/friends	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	–	1	3
Complained to bank	1	1	–	1	1	1	–	–	1	1
Blocked call/didn't answer	1	1	1	–	–	1	–	1	–	–
Contact Consumer Affairs Office	2	1	1	–	1	–	–	1	–	–
Sent them a letter/email	2	1	–	1	–	–	1	1	–	–
Said not interested in offer (didn't buy)	4	–	–	–	–	–	–
Complained to Competition Bureau	1	1	–	1	–	1	–	–	–	1
Asked to not be contacted again/taken off list	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Complained to phone company	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Bound by contract/charged with fraudulent activity	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
MP or MPP	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Other	5	5	7	4	7	6	3	7	3	7
No action taken/did nothing	43	38	41	35	36	40	36	40	33	40
DK/NA/Ref	7	4	5	4	4	4	6	7	6	2

Table showing Actions Taken, by Region

	2005 (n=289) %	2006
		Total (n=315) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=23)c %	Quebec (n=61) %	Ontario (n=125) %	Prairies (n=50) %	British Columbia (n=56) %
Q.7    What actions, if any, did you or the member of your household take in attempting to resolve the incident? Did you do anything else? Base:   Respondents who may have been a victim of telemarketing fraud C    Caution, small base size Note:   Multiple responses accepted, columns may sum to more than 100%
Called the company	17	18	Base Size Too Small	21	19	16	13
Complained to the local police	7	8		2	9	8	11
Stopped payments/refused to buy/cancelled order	4	8		10	8	14	4
Hung up	2	6		–	6	6	9
Complained to credit card company	4	4		7	5	6	2
Complained to Better Business Bureau	5	3		–	2	–	11
Tried to get refund	4	2		2	2	4	2
Changed bank information/cancelled credit card	1	3		–	4	–	4
Called PhoneBusters	n/a	2		–	–	4	5
Checked to see if it was legitimate/investigated company	2	1		–	2	–	2
Took legal action/called a lawyer	3	1		2	1	–	–
Complained to RCMP	–	–		–
Blocked call/didn't answer	1	1		–	1	–	–
Warned family/friends	1	1		–	2	–	2
Complained to bank	1	1		–	1	2	–
Complained to Competition Bureau	1	1		–	–	2	–
Contact Consumer Affairs Office	2	1		2	–	–	–
Sent them a letter/email	2	1		–	–	–	2
Said not interested in offer/didn't buy	4	–		–	–	–	–
Asked to not be contacted again/taken off list	–	–		–	–	–	–
Other	5	5		16	2	6	2
No action taken/did nothing	43	38		36	42	28	34
DK/NA/Ref	7	4		5	2	6	9

---

Reasons for Not Taking the Matter Further

Table showing Reasons for Not Taking the Matter Further, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=123) %	2006
		Total (n=114) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=62) %	Female (n=52) %	18–34 (n=30)c %	35–54 (n=48)c %	55+ (n=33)c %	HS or less (n=36)c %	College (n=29)c %	Univ. (n=44)c %
Q.8    Do you recall why you chose not to take the matter further? Base:   Those who did not take any action to attempt to resolve the incident C    Caution, small base size
Too much effort/difficult to do	7	15	13	17	20	17	9	Base Size Too Small
The amount of money involved was not worth reporting	20	12	10	15	13	10	12
Didn't think it would be worth it	7	12	13	12	13	10	12
Didn't know the appropriate authority to report the matter to	6	11	5	17	7	8	18
Didn't care enough/forgot/wasn't a big deal	14	10	11	8	7	13	9
Would have taken too long	5	4	3	6	3	8	–
They stopped contacting me (e.g., calls, emails, etc.)	4	1	2	–	–	–	3
I should have known better	3	1	2	–	–	2	–
Legal fees/court costs	2	1	2	–	–	–	3
Too embarrassed at being defrauded	2	1	2	–	–	–	3
Other	4	5	7	4	3	6	3
Didn't believe a crime had been committed	4	4	5	4	7	2	6
No/Don't recall	13	11	11	10	13	13	6
DK/NA/Ref	2	4	5	2	3	4	3

Table showing Reasons for Not Taking the Matter Further, by Region

	2005 (n=123) %	2006
		Total (n=114) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=12)c %	Quebec (n=22)c %	Ontario (n=49)c %	Prairies (n=12)c %	British Columbia (n=19)c %
Q.8    Do you recall why you chose not to take the matter further? Base:   Those who did not take any action to attempt to resolve the incident C    Caution, small base size
Too much effort/difficult to do	7	15	Base Size Too Small
The amount of money involved was not worth reporting	20	12
Didn't think it would be worth it	7	12
Didn't know the appropriate authority to report the matter to	6	11
Didn't care enough/forgot/wasn't a big deal	14	10
Would have taken too long	5	4
They stopped contacting me (e.g., calls, emails, etc.)	4	1
I should have known better	3	1
Legal fees/court costs	2	1
Too embarrassed at being defrauded	2	1
Other	4	5
Didn't believe a crime had been committed	4	4
No/Don't recall	13	11
DK/NA/Ref	2	4

---

Non-Victims: Actions Would Take

Table showing Non-Victims: Actions Would Take, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=731) %	2006
		Total (n=699) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=353) %	Female (n=346) %	18–34 (n=107) %	35–54 (n=279) %	55+ (n=298) %	HS or less (n=254) %	College (n=169) %	Univ. (n=244) %
Q.9    If you, or a member of your household, did receive a marketing call, email or regular mail solicitation that appeared fraudulent, what action, if any, would you or that member of your household take? Base: Respondents who have not been a victim of telemarketing fraud Notes: "Other" includes mentions of 1% or less Multiple responses accepted, columns may sum to more than 100%
Complain to local police	30	31	29	34	22	29	38	32	36	29
Hang up	12	18	20	17	19	19	18	19	20	16
Complain to Better Business Bureau	7	8	9	8	2	9	10	7	8	11
Ignore them	3	8	9	7	8	10	6	7	7	9
Would say "no/not interested"	5	4	5	4	3	3	5	2	4	6
Call the company	3	4	3	4	4	6	2	2	3	7
Contact authorities	2	3	4	3	6	3	3	4	1	5
Get company's information	2	3	2	4	2	3	3	4	2	3
Warn family/friends	3	2	3	3	6	4	2	2	5	3
Take legal action/call a lawyer	2	2	1	2	2	1	1	2	2	1
Call PhoneBusters	1-	1	1	1	–	1	1	1	–	1
Complain to RCMP	–	1	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
Check to see if company is legitimate	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
Give them a piece of my mind/curse at them	1-	1	-1		1	1	–	–	–	1
Blocked call/didn't answer	1	1	1	1	–	1	1	–	1	1
Contact Consumer Protection	4	1	1	1	2	3	1	1	1	1
Contact media	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1
Complain to Competition Bureau	1	1	1	1	–	–	1	–	–	1
Go to Internet/website for fraud	1	1	1	1	–	–	1	1	1	–
Complain to MP or MPP	1	1	1	1	–	–	1	–	–	1
Ask to be removed from the list	1	1	1	1	1	1	–	–	1	1
Call phone company	1	1	1	–	–	–	1	–	–	–
Other	4	2	3	2	–	3	2	3	2	2
Take no action/do nothing	21	21	22	20	23	19	21	20	18	24
DK/NA/Ref	8	8	6	9	15	7	6	11	10	3

---

Incidence of Identity Theft

Table showing Non-Victims: Actions Would Take, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.10    To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you or a member of your household may have been the victim of identity theft? That is, the unauthorized collection and use of personal identification, such as name, date of birth, address, credit card information, or Social Insurance Number. Base:   All respondents
Yes, victim	18	17	17	16	20	19	14	11	12	26
Within the past six months	4	4	4	4	6	4	3	2	2	7
Six months to one year ago	3	3	4	3	6	4	2	2	2	6
One to two years ago	4	4	4	3	6	4	3	2	2	7
Over two years ago	7	6	5	6	2	7	6	5	6	6
Never	80	83	81	84	79	81	86	89	87	75
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	1	1	1	1	1-	1	1	1

---

Victimization: Most Recent Experience of Identity Theft

Table showing Victimization: Most Recent Experience of Identity Theft, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.10    To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you or a member of your household may have been the victim of identity theft? That is, the unauthorized collection and use of personal identification, such as name, date of birth, address, credit card information, or Social Insurance Number. Base:   All respondents
Yes, victim	18	17	10	15	20		18
Within the past six months	4	4	1	5	5	3	4
Six months to one year ago	3	3	1	3	4	3	5
One to two years ago	4	4	7	2	3	5	5
Over two years ago	7	6	1	5	8	5	4
Never	80	83	90	84	80	84	81
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	–	1	1	–	1

---

Actions Taken

Table showing Actions Taken

	2005 (n=201) %	2006 (n=169) %
Q.11    What actions, if any, did you or the member of your household take in attempting to resolve the incident? Base:   Respondents who may have been a victim of identity theft Note:   Multiple responses accepted, columns may sum to more than 100%
Complained to credit card company	26	33
Complained to local police	16	15
Reported it to F.I.	9	12
Contacted the company/ (complained to)	8	10
Changed bank information/ cancelled credit card	6	9
Complained to Competition Bureau	–	4
Received phone call from credit card company	3	3
Contacted authorities/ (Revenue Canada, Government)	2	2
Equifax/Credit Bureau	2	2
Researched the company	–	1
Contacted media	–	1
Took legal action/called a lawyer	3	1
Complained to Better Business Bureau	1	–
Called PhoneBusters	–	–
Other	9	7
Did nothing	18	15
DK/NA/Ref	5	3

---

Awareness of Information About Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

Table showing Awareness of Information About Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.12    Have you seen, heard or read anything lately about fraud, including marketing fraud and identity theft? Base:   All respondents
Yes	78	73	73	72	59	78	75	63	78	80
No	22	27	26	28	40	22	25	37	22	19
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	1	1	1	–	1	1	1	1

Table showing Awareness of Information About Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft, by Region

	2006
	Region
	Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.12    Have you seen, heard or read anything lately about fraud, including marketing fraud and identity theft? Base:   All respondents
Yes	75	70	70	75	78
No	24	30	29	24	22
DK/NA/Ref	1	–	1	1	–

---

Specific Recall of Information

Table showing Specific Recall of Information

	2006 Total (n=725) %
Q.13    What specifically have you seen, heard or read? Anything else? Base:   Respondents who have seen, heard, or read anything about fraud, including marketing fraud and identity theft Notes: "Other" includes mentions of less than 1% Multiple responses accepted, columns may sum to more than 100%
Identity theft, protecting your identity	20
Credit Card Fraud	14
On television shows	12
Newspaper or magazine story	11
Fraud Prevention (Specific examples)	9
Debit Card Theft	6
Fraud on the rise	5
Online or Internet fraud	5
Seniors as fraud target	5
False prizes claim	4
Marketing/billing fraud	4
SIN number/birth certificate being stolen	3
Charities fraud	3
Bank fraud	3
Shredding personal info	3
About frauds	3
Telephone solicitation	3
Email fraud	3
Real estate or mortgage fraud	2
Hear it from friend or relative that was victimized	2
Remember tagline of "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it."	2
Email alerts to be vigilant	2
Do not give out info/be careful	2
Heard on radio	1
Online or phone purchase	1
Sponsorship scandal	1
Home renovation fraud	1
Corporate crime	1
Insurance fraud	1
How easy it can be done	1
Door to door sales	1
Other	6
DK/NA/Ref	2

---

Seen, Heard or Read Anything About Fraud Prevention

Table showing Seen, Heard or Read Anything About Fraud Prevention, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=702) %	2006
		Total (n=934) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=468) %	Female (n=466) %	18–34 (n=179) %	35–54 (n=377) %	55+ (n=356) %	HS or less (n=319) %	College (n=236) %	Univ. (n=334) %
Q.14    Did you recently see, hear or read anything about Fraud Prevention [Awareness in 2005]? Base:   Those who have not seen, heard or read anything about marketing fraud or identity theft based on their answer to Q13.
Yes	49	53	54	53	39	59	55	49	58	56
No	49	45	44	46	59	41	42	50	41	43
DK/NA/Ref	1	2	2	1	2	1	3	2	1	2

Table showing Seen, Heard or Read Anything About Fraud Prevention, by Region

	Region
	Atlantic (n=74) %	Quebec (n=223) %	Ontario (n=352) %	Prairies (n=158) %	British Columbia (n=127) %
Q.14    Did you recently see, hear or read anything about Fraud Prevention [Awareness in 2005]? Base:   Those who have not seen, heard or read anything about marketing fraud or identity theft based on their answer to Q13.
Yes	50	61	51	54	49
No	50	39	47	43	51
DK/NA/Ref	–	–	3	3	–

---

Source of Information on Fraud Prevention

Table showing Source of Information on Fraud Prevention, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=645) %	2006
		Total (n=564) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=284) %	Female (n=280) %	18–34 (n=78) %	35–54 (n=250) %	55+ (n=224) %	HS or less (n=173) %	College (n=153) %	Univ. (n=217) %
Q.15    And, where did you see, hear or read about Fraud Awareness Base:   Those who have seen, heard or read something on Fraud Awareness (at Q.13 or Q.14)
News coverage on television, radio, or in print	19	43	43	43	35	44	45	46	44	40
An article in a magazine or newspaper	13	39	40	38	23	36	49	38	34	43
Television	53	18	16	20	19	14	21	22	20	13
On a website	7	12	16	9	17	14	8	7	14	15
Radio	13	6	6	5	9	5	5	6	3	7
At/through work	3	4	3	4	5	4	3	2	6	4
An insert included with credit card or other bill	2	4	3	5	5	5	2	3	6	4
Bank	1	4	4	4	9	5	2	5	4	5
Email	3	3	3	3	4	4	1	1	6	2
Word of mouth	3	2	2	2	4	2	2	3	3	1
Internet/Internet provider (unspecified)	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	–	1	2
Flyers	1	1	2	1	–	2	1	3	1	1
Newspaper (all)	22	1	–	1	–	–	1	–	1	–
Poster	1	1	1	1	3	–	–	–	1	–
Other	7	6	4	7	4	2	10	6	2	6
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	1	1	3	2	1	2	1	1

Table showing Source of Information on Fraud Prevention, by Region

	2005 (n=645) %	2006
		Total (n=564) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=40)c %	Quebec (n=159) %	Ontario (n=205) %	Prairies (n=93) %	British Columbia (n=67) %
Q.15    And, where did you see, hear or read about Fraud Awareness Base:   Those who have seen, heard or read something on Fraud Awareness C    Caution, small base size
News coverage on television, radio, or in print	19	43	38	48	45	36	42
An article in a magazine or newspaper	13	39	50	18	46	47	52
Television	53	18	10	20	17	23	13
On a website	7	12	10	11	13	11	15
Radio	13	6	5	4	6	5	8
At/through work	3	4	3	5	3	2	5
Bank	1	4	3	4	3	8	5
An insert included with credit card or other bill	2	4	–	6	3	4	3
Email	3	3	8	3	2	1	3
Word of mouth	3	2	3	2	2	2	3
Internet/Internet provider (unspecified)	2	1	–	–	1	2	2
Flyers	1	1	–	1	2	2	2
Poster	1	1	–	1	1	–	–
Newspaper (all)	22	1	–	–	–	1	–
Other	7	6	13	3	5	9	6
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	3	2	1	1	2

---

Main Message Recall (continued)

Table showing Main Message Recall (continued), by Region

	2005 (n=649) %	2006
		Total (n=564) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=40) %	Quebec (n=159) %	Ontario (n=205) %	Prairies (n=93) %	British Columbia (n=67) %
Q.16    And what was the main message from what you saw, heard or read? Base:   Those who saw, heard or read something about fraud awareness * Sum of all answers that related to the messaging of the advertising in this question, plus individuals who identified fraud prevention or tagline on q13.
Correct combined message recall*	70	81	-	-	-	-	-
Message Recall – Total	89	89	92	82	93	90	92
Be careful/cautious	22	25	23	20	27	26	31
Don't give out personal info	12	15	13	11	16	18	18
Don't give out credit card info to someone you don't know	13	11	8	18	9	9	6
Identity theft is a serious crime	4	6	3	3	6	10	8
Shred personal info	3	5	–	4	3	11	5
Be careful who you trust	6	4	5	–	5	5	9
Internet/email fraud	2	3	–	6	2	–	3
If suspicious call authorities	2	2	3	–	3	4	2
If it's too good to be true, it probably is	2	2	8	–	3	2	2
About people being scammed	4	–	–	–	–	–	–
Be careful about telephone solicitation	3	2	8	3	3	–	–
Investigate the company you are dealing with	3	2	–	4	1	1	2
Be aware of charity fraud	2	1	3	1	–	–	2
About issues involving seniors	2	1	–	–	1	2	–
Be careful around bank machines	2	1	3	2	2	–	–
Fraud is on the rise	2	1	3	1	2	–	2
Be leery about prizes, contests or money you have won	1	1	3	1	–	–	2
How serious it is	1	1	–	–	2	–	–
Small stores/vendor fraud	1	1	3	–	–	–	–
How to defend yourself	1	1	5	1	1	–	–
About how easy fraud can occur	1	–	–	–	–	–	–
Check your bank statements	1	1	–	3	2	–	–
Have insurance (all)	–	1	–	1	2	–	2
Other	1	3	3	5	2	–	3
No message recalled	10	1	3	–	1	1	2
DK/NA/Ref	1	10	5	18	6	9	6

---

Net Recall of Message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it."

Table showing Net Recall of Message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it.", by Gender, Age and Education

	2006
	Total (n=564) %	Gender		Age			Education
		Male (n=284) %	Female (n=280) %	18–34 (n=78) %	35–54 (n=250) %	55+ (n=224) %	HS or less (n=173) %	College (n=153) %	Univ. (n=217) %
Q.17    Do you remember seeing, hearing or reading anything about fraud that contained the message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it."? Base:   Those who have not seen, heard or read something about fraud prevention (Q.13 or Q.14)
Total recall	28	25	30	24	24	33	28	29	24
Unaided recall (Q.13)	2	1	4	1	3	2	4	1	2
Aided recall (Yes to Q.17)	26	24	27	23	21	31	24	28	22
No recall of message	71	73	66	74	73	63	68	69	73
DK/NA/Ref	3	3	4	1	3	4	4	3	3

Table showing Net Recall of Message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it.", by Region

	Region
	Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.17    Do you remember seeing, hearing or reading anything about fraud that contained the message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it."? Base:   Those who have not seen, heard or read something about fraud prevention (Q.13 or Q.14)
Total recall	Base size too small	16	36	28	28
Unaided recall (Q.13)		1	3	2	–
Aided recall (Yes to Q.17)		15	32	26	28
No recall of message		82	61	69	67
DK/NA/Ref		1	3	3	5

---

Perceived Usefulness of Fraud Awareness Messages

Table showing Perceived Usefulness of Fraud Awareness Messages, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=580) %	2006
		Total (n=155) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=70) %	Female (n=85) %	18–34 (n=19)c %	35–54 (n=59) %	55+ (n=74) %	HS or less (n=48)c %	College (n=44)c %	Univ. (n=53) %
Q.18    And how useful did you find this message? Base:   Those respondents who understood the main message C    Caution: small base size
NET Somewhat/Very useful	90	86	86	86	89	83	88	88	87	85
Very useful	56	45	39	51	26	42	51	50	46	36
Somewhat useful	34	41	47	35	63	41	37	38	41	49
Not too useful	6	8	6	9	11	7	7	8	5	9
Not at all useful	4	6	7	5	–	9	5	4	9	6
NET Not too/Not at all useful	10	14	13	14	11	16	12	12	14	15
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	1	–	–	2	–	–	–	–

Table showing Perceived Usefulness of Fraud Awareness Messages, by Region

	2005 (n=580) %	2006
		Total (n=155) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=11)c %	Quebec (n=26)c %	Ontario (n=73)c %	Prairies (n=26)c %	British Columbia (n=19)c %
Q.18    And how useful did you find this message? Base:   Those respondents who understood the main message C    Caution: small base size
NET Somewhat/Very useful	90	86	91	81	89	89	74
Very useful	56	45	36	31	49	58	37
Somewhat useful	34	41	55	50	40	31	37
Not too useful	6	8	–	15	6	8	11
Not at all useful	4	6	9	4	6	4	11
NET Not too/Not at all useful	10	14	9	19	12	12	22
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	–	–	–	–	5

---

Response to Information

Table showing Response to Information, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=649) %	2006
		Total (n=155) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=70) %	Female (n=85) %	18–34 (n=19)c %	35–54 (n=59) %	55+ (n=74) %	HS or less (n=48)c %	College (n=44)c %	Univ. (n=53) %
Q.19    Has what you have seen, heard or read changed the way in which you respond to these types of calls, emails or regular mail solicitations or to instances where you believe you may have been a victim of identity theft? If yes, would that be …? Base:   Respondents who have heard, read or seen information about telemarketing fraud or identity theft. Note:   In 2005, all respondents who had seen, heard or read something about marketing fraud or identity theft were included, explaining the larger base size.
NET Somewhat/A great deal	61	65	64	66	64	68	64	59	61	76
A great deal	37	41	37	45	32	44	41	40	43	40
Somewhat	24	24	27	21	32	24	23	19	18	36
Not very much	14	12	16	9	16	12	11	10	14	13
No	25	21	19	22	16	19	24	31	18	11
NET Not very much/No	39	33	35	31	32	31	35	41	32	24
DK/NA/Ref	1	2	1	2	5	2	1	–	7	–

Table showing Response to Information, by Region

	2005 (n=649) %	2006
		Total (n=155) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=11)c %	Quebec (n=26)c %	Ontario (n=73) %	Prairies (n=26)c %	British Columbia (n=19)c %
Q.19    Has what you have seen, heard or read changed the way in which you respond to these types of calls, emails or regular mail solicitations or to instances where you believe you may have been a victim of identity theft? If yes, would that be …? Base:   Respondents who have heard, read or seen information about telemarketing fraud
NET Somewhat/A great deal	61	65	63	62	66	65	68
A great deal	37	41	36	31	45	42	42
Somewhat	24	24	27	31	21	23	26
Not very much	14	12	18	19	14	8	–
No	25	21	18	15	18	27	32
NET Not very much/No	39	33	36	34	32	35	32
DK/NA/Ref	1	2	–	4	3	–	–

IV. Combating Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft: PhoneBusters and Other Means

Organization Respondents Would Contact to Report Marketing Fraud or Identity Theft

Table showing Organization Respondents Would Contact to Report Marketing Fraud or Identity Theft, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.20    Which organization or organizations would you contact if you wished to report suspicious or fraudulent marketing activity or an incident of identity theft? Base:   All respondents
Local police department	51	59	58	59	48	57	64	55	64	58
RCMP	20	17	19	15	11	18	19	19	16	15
Better Business Bureau	16	12	12	11	10	13	12	9	14	13
Competition Bureau	1	1	1	1	–	1	–	1	1	1
PhoneBusters	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Other	6	26	25	27	28	27	23	21	22	31
None/Nothing	1	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
DK/NA/Ref	14	14	12	15	23	12	12	17	12	12

Table showing Organization Respondents Would Contact to Report Marketing Fraud or Identity Theft, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.20    Which organization or organizations would you contact if you wished to report suspicious or fraudulent marketing activity or an incident of identity theft? Base:   All respondents
Local police department	51	59	33	61	65	58	52
RCMP	20	17	43	4	10	29	30
Better Business Bureau	16	12	20	2	10	16	24
Competition Bureau	1	1	1	1	–	–	–
PhoneBusters	1	1	–	1	2	–	–
Other	6	26	17	32	25	18	30
None/Nothing	1	–	–	–	–	–	–
DK/NA/Ref	14	14	12	18	13	13	8

---

Aided Awareness of PhoneBusters

Table showing Aided Awareness of PhoneBusters, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=994) %	2006
		Total (n=991) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=494) %	Female (n=497) %	18–34 (n=185) %	35–54 (n=402) %	55+ (n=381) %	HS or less (n=335) %	College (n=251) %	Univ. (n=359) %
Q.21    Have you heard of an organization called PhoneBusters? Base:   Those who are not aware of PhoneBusters on an unaided basis
Yes	17	18	19	17	14	18	20	17	17	20
No	82	81	80	82	87	80	79	82	82	80
DK/NA/Ref	1	1	1	1	–	2	1	2	1	1

Table showing Aided Awareness of PhoneBusters, by Region

	Region
	Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=244) %	Ontario (n=373) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.21    Have you heard of an organization called PhoneBusters? Base:   Those who are not aware of PhoneBusters on an unaided basis
Yes	23	7	22	24	17
No	74	93	77	75	83
DK/NA/Ref	3	1	1	1	–

---

Likelihood of Calling PhoneBusters

Table showing Likelihood of Calling PhoneBusters, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.22    You may already be aware of this, but PhoneBusters is the Canadian national deceptive telemarketing and identity theft call centre, operated by the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP and the Government of Canada. PhoneBusters is the central agency that collects information on telemarketing and identity theft complaints throughout Canada and sends this information to the appropriate enforcement agency. How likely would you be to call PhoneBusters if you suspected that you had been a target or victim of phone fraud or identity theft? Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very likely	81	84	81	86	87	88	79	83	85	86
Very likely	62	65	61	68	64	73	59	59	69	69
Somewhat likely	19	19	20	17	23	15	20	24	16	17
Not very likely	9	7	8	5	5	7	8	7	7	6
Not at all likely	9	8	9	7	8	5	9	7	8	6
NET Not very/Not at all likely	18	15	17	12	13	12	17	14	15	12
DK/NA/Ref	1	2	2	2	1	1	3	3	1	1

Table showing Likelihood of Calling PhoneBusters, by Region

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Region
			Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.22    You may already be aware of this, but PhoneBusters is the Canadian national deceptive telemarketing and identity theft call centre, operated by the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP and the Government of Canada. PhoneBusters is the central agency that collects information on telemarketing and identity theft complaints throughout Canada and sends this information to the appropriate enforcement agency. How likely would you be to call PhoneBusters if you suspected that you had been a target or victim of phone fraud or identity theft? Base:   All respondents
NET Somewhat/Very likely	81	84	84	79	88	87	80
Very likely	62	65	64	49	74	69	67
Somewhat likely	19	19	20	30	14	18	13
Not very likely	9	7	7	11	5	4	8
Not at all likely	9	8	9	8	6	9	11
NET Not very/Not at all likely	18	15	16	19	11	13	19
DK/NA/Ref	1	2	1	2	2	1	2

---

Most Effective Way to Combat Fraud

Table showing Most Effective Way to Combat Fraud, by Gender, Age and Education

	2005 (n=1000) %	2006
		Total (n=1000) %	Gender		Age			Education
			Male (n=500) %	Female (n=500) %	18–34 (n=187) %	35–54 (n=405) %	55+ (n=384) %	HS or less (n=337) %	College (n=252) %	Univ. (n=364) %
Q.23    In your view, which one of the following is the most effective way to combat fraud such as marketing fraud and identify theft in Canada? Is it best combated through …? Base:   All respondents
Public Education	51	53	50	55	52	56	50	39	55	65
Enforcement of the law	25	20	22	18	20	20	20	25	19	16
Advertising	13	15	15	16	13	16	16	21	16	11
No effective way to combat marketing fraud	7	7	8	6	11	6	7	9	7	6
DK/NA/Ref	4	5	5	5	4	3	8	7	4	3

Table showing Most Effective Way to Combat Fraud, by Region

	Region
	Atlantic (n=77) %	Quebec (n=247) %	Ontario (n=379) %	Prairies (n=165) %	British Columbia (n=132) %
Q.23    In your view, which one of the following is the most effective way to combat fraud such as marketing fraud and identify theft in Canada? Is it best combated through …? Base:   All respondents
Public Education	58	47	54	55	53
Enforcement of the law	12	17	24	19	21
Advertising	17	23	11	13	16
No effective way to combat marketing fraud	7	11	6	7	5
DK/NA/Ref	7	2	6	6	6

V. Appendix A — Record of Contact

Record Of Contact

Project Name:

Fraud Protection

Call Centre(s)

Project Number:

STRA693FRAUD

Toronto    

Field Start Date:

May 8, 2006

Moncton    

Field End Date:

May 14, 2006

Montreal    

	Total #	%
Total Completes	1,001	7.95%

A. Total Numbers Attempted

	Total #	%
Total Call Records	30,000
Total Unallocated
Quota Full — No Dial	17,403
Total Numbers Attempted (Net Potential Sample)	12,597

B. Total Eligible Numbers

	Total #	%
Number Changes / NIS	1,766	14.02%
Business / Fax / Cell Phone / Computer	336	2.67%
Phone Number Problem
Call Blocked
Quota Full	210	1.67%
Duplicate Numbers
Total Invalid Numbers	2,312	18.35%
Total Eligible Numbers (Net Potential Sample — Total Invalid	10,285	81.65%

C. Total Asked

	Total #	%
Call Back: Hard Appointments	207	1.64%
Call Back: Soft Appointments	731	5.80%
Partial Complete	3	0.02%
Not Available Until After Survey	168	1.33%
No Answer	1,588	12.61%
Answering Machine	2,742	21.77%
Busy	195	1.55%
Language Problem: French	34	0.27%
Language Problem: Other	244	1.94%
Respondent Not Available	106	0.84%
Other Problem	15	0.12%
Didn't Dial	33	0.26%
Total Unreachable	6,066	48.15%
Total Asked (Total Eligible Numbers — Total Unreachable)	4,219	33.49%

Refusals

	Total #	%
Upfront	3,061	24.30%
2nd Refusals	60	0.48%
Do Not Call [22]
Eligible Respondent Refusal	26	0.21%
Middle Refusal	23	0.18%
Total Refusals	3,170	25.16%

D. Cooperative Contacts (Total Asked — Refusals)

	Total #	%
Total Asked — Refusals	1,049
31] Age refusal	18	0.14%
32] 2nd rsp age refusal	25	0.20%
33] Work in industry	1	0.01%
34]
35] Disqualified 5	1	0.01%
Disqualified Reason 36
Disqualified Reason 37
Disqualified Reason 38
Disqualified Reason 39
Disqualified Reason 10
Disqualified Reason 11
Disqualified Reason 12
Disqualified Reason 13
Disqualified Reason 14
Disqualified Reason 15
No Call Status	3	0.02%
Completed Interviews	1,001	7.95%
Total Cooperative Contacts	1,049	8.33%

Response Rate = Cooperative Contacts / Total Eligible Numbers	10.20%
Incidence = Completes / Cooperative Contacts	95.42%
Refusal Rate = Total Refusals / Total Asked	75.14%

Maudits	Number	%
Total Number of Maudits	100	9.99%
Interview Length	Actual	Targeted
Average Interview Length (minutes)	7.92	5.00

Dialing
Quantime Predictive Dialer
Dash Manual Dialing

Supervisor Hours as % of Interviewing Hours:
Misc. Hours as % of Interviewing Hours:

VI. Appendix B — Questionnaire

Draft as at May 4, 2006

Hello, this is ________________ calling from The Strategic Counsel. We're a professional public opinion research company. Today we're talking to a random sample of Canadians about marketing fraud. The study is sponsored by the Government of Canada and all of your responses would be held strictly confidential. I'd like to assure you that we're not trying to sell you anything. This survey is registered with the national survey registration system. (For respondents seeking more information: The registration system has been created by the Canadian survey research industry to allow the public to verify that a survey is legitimate, get information about the survey industry or register a complaint. The registration system 's toll-free telephone number is 1-800-554-9996.)

I'd like to speak to the person in your household who is 18 years of age or older, and who celebrated the most recent birthday. Is that you? (Stay on this screen if they have to get a new person)

New Introduction

1. Marketing fraud is fraud committed over communication media, namely: telephone, mail and Internet. Some of the more common schemes used to defraud victims are: fraudulent prize and lottery schemes, charity scams, fraudulent loan offers, and credit card schemes.

Old Q3

Overall, how serious a problem do you think marketing fraud is in Canada? Would you say it is… (Read list)

A very serious problem	1
A somewhat serious problem	2
Not a very serious problem	3
Not serious at all	4

---

Old Q4

2. Thinking back over the last few years, do you think the amount of marketing fraud by phone, e mail or regular mail has… (Read list)

Increased	1
Stayed about the same, or	2
Decreased	3
Don't know/no answer	4

---

Now, I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be a very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not serious at all? The first is… (Read and rotate Q.3 to Q.5)

Old Q5

3. Being asked to donate to fake charities

Very serious	1
Somewhat serious	2
Not very serious	3
Not at all serious	4

---

Old Q6

4. Buying and paying for something by phone, internet or mail and not receiving the product or receiving something inferior to what you paid for

Very serious	1
Somewhat serious	2
Not very serious	3
Not at all serious	4

---

Old Q7

5. Being told you have won a valuable prize, but must purchase a product or do something in order to claim the prize

Very serious	1
Somewhat serious	2
Not very serious	3
Not at all serious	4

---

Old Q8

6. To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you personally, or someone in your household, may have been a victim of marketing fraud? Was this (Read list)

Within the past six months (Continue)	1
Six months to one year ago (Continue)	2
One to two years ago (Continue)	3
Over two years ago (Continue) or	4
Never (Skip to Q. 9)	5
Don't know/don't remember (Continue)	9

---

Old Q9

7. What actions, if any, did you or the member of your household take in attempting to resolve the incident? Did you do anything else? (Do not read responses… Accept up to three responses)

Did nothing Ask Q.8	1
Complained to local police department Skip to Q.10	2
Complained to Competition Bureau Skip to Q. 10	3
Complained to Better Business Bureau Skip to Q.10	4
Complained to credit card company Skip to Q.10	5
Complained to the company that caused the problem Skip to Q.10	6
Called PhoneBusters Skip to Q.10	7
Other (Specify) Skip to Q.10	8
Don't know/don't remember Skip to Q.9	9

---

Old Q10

8. Do you recall why you chose not to take the matter further? (Do not read list)

Didn't know the appropriate authority to report the matter to	1
Too embarrassed at being defrauded	2
The amount of money involved was not worth reporting	3
Didn't believe a crime had been committed	4

---

Old Q11

9. (Ask only of those who said "Never" at Q.6 or "Don't know/don't remember" at Q.7) if you, or a member of your household, did receive a marketing call, email or regular mail solicitation that appeared fraudulent, what action, if any, would you or that member of your household take? (Do not read responses)

Do nothing	1
Complain to local police department	2
Complain to Competition Bureau	3
Complain to Better Business Bureau	4
Complain to credit card company	5
Complain to the company that caused the problem	6
Call PhoneBusters	7
Other (Specify)	8
Don't know	9

---

Old Q12

10. (Ask all)To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you or a member of your household may have been the victim of identity theft? That is, the unauthorized collection and use of personal identification, such as name, date of birth, address, credit card information, or Social Insurance Number.

Never (Skip to Q.12)	1
Within the past six months (Continue)	2
Six months to one year ago (Continue)	3
One to two years ago (Continue)	4
Over two years ago (Continue)	5
Don't know/don't remember (Skip to Q.12)	9

---

Old Q13

11. What actions, if any, did you or the member of your household take in attempting to resolve the incident? (Do not read responses)

Did nothing	1
Complained to Competition Bureau	2
Complained to local police department	3
Complained to Better Business Bureau	4
Complained to credit card company	5
Complained to the company that caused the problem	6
Called PhoneBusters	7
Other (Specify)	8
Don't know/don't remember	9

---

Old Q14

12. Have you seen, heard or read anything lately about fraud, including marketing fraud and identify theft?

Yes (Continue)	1
No (Skip to Q.14)	2
Don't know/don't remember (Skip to Q.14)	9

---

Old Q15

13. What specifically have you seen, heard or read? Anything else? (Probe: Allow up to three mentions) (Do not read) (Please check how this was set up last wave)

Fraud Prevention

1

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

---

Old Q16

14. (If "fraud prevention" mentioned in Q. 13, go to Q. 15) Did you recently see, hear or read anything about Fraud Prevention?

Yes	1
No	2
Don't know/don't recall	9

---

Old Q17

15. And, where did you see, hear or read about Fraud Prevention? (Check as many as apply)

An ad in a magazine or newspaper	1
An insert included with your credit card or other bill	2
On a Website	3
Television Public Service Announcement	4
Radio Public Service Announcement	6
Poster	7
News coverage on television, radio, or in print	8
Other, specify	9

---

16. And, what was the main message from what you saw, heard or read? (Accept one response only)

__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

No message (Skip to Q. 20)	2
Don't know/don't recall (Go to Q.17)	9

---

17. (If "Recognize, Report, Stop it" or some variation on this message not mentioned in response to Q.16, Ask) Do you remember seeing, hearing or reading anything recently about fraud that contained the message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it."

Yes	1
No (Skip to Q. 20)	2
Don't know/don't recall	9

---

Old Q19

18. And how useful did you find this message? Was it … (Read list)

Very useful	1
Somewhat useful	2
Not too useful	3
Not at all useful	4

---

Old Q20

19. Has what you have seen, heard or read changed the way in which you respond to these types of calls, emails or regular mail solicitations or to instances where you believe you may have been a victim of identity theft? If yes, would that be …Read list

A great deal (Continue)	1
Somewhat (Continue)	2
Not very much (Continue)	3
No	4

---

Old Q21

20. Which organization or organizations would you contact if you wished to report suspicious or fraudulent marketing activity or an incident of identity theft? Do not read list. Accept as many as offered

RCMP	1
Competition Bureau	2
Local police department	3
Better Business Bureau	4
PhoneBusters (Skip to Q.22)	5
Other (Specify)	6
Don't know	9

---

Old Q22

21. Have you ever heard of an organization called PhoneBusters?

Yes	1
No	2
Don't know/don't remember	9

---

Old Q23

22. You may already be aware of this, but PhoneBusters is the Canadian national deceptive telemarketing and identity theft call centre, operated by the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP and the Government of Canada. PhoneBusters is the central agency that collects information on telemarketing and identity theft complaints throughout Canada and sends this information to the appropriate enforcement agency. How likely would you be to call PhoneBusters if you suspected that you had been a target or victim of phone fraud or identity theft?

Very likely	1
Somewhat likely	2
Not very likely	3
Not at all likely	4

---

Old Q24

23. In your view, which one of the following is the most effective way to combat fraud such as marketing fraud and identify theft in Canada? Is it best combated through … (Read list. Accept one response only)

Public education	1
Enforcement of the law	2
Advertising	3
or
Is there no effective way to combat marketing fraud	4

---

Demographics

In order to help us group your answers with those of other people in this survey, we would like to ask you some general questions. Please be assured that all responses will remain completely anonymous and absolutely confidential.

24. Age
25. Education
26. Household income for year ending 2005
27. Gender (by observation)
28. Region (coded)
29. Language (coded)

Thank You

---

Findings From the 2006 Fraud Awareness Tracking Study
A Presentation to The Fraud Prevention Forum — June 13, 2006

PDF Version
(396 KB, 29 pages)

Gregg, Kelly, Sullivan & Woolstencroft:
The Strategic Counsel
www.thestrategiccounsel.com

21 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario M4T 1L9
Telephone: 416-975-4465
Fax: 416-975-1883

440 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 200
Ottawa, Ontario K1R 7X6
Telephone: 613-751-2855
Fax: 613-751-2852

---

• Research Objectives and Methodology
• Exposure to and Perceptions of Marketing Fraud and Identify Theft
• Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft
• Awareness and Impact of Information on Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft
• Awareness of PhoneBusters
• Combating Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft
• Insights and Recommendations

---

Research Objectives and Methodology

• Principle research objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2006 campaign and track key measures related to awareness, message recall and response against findings from 2005.
• The survey gauged public attitudes/experiences with respect to:
  
  
  • Awareness of marketing fraud and identity theft
    • In general
    • Of fraud prevention awareness-raising activities
  • Perceived seriousness of various fraudulent marketing/solicitation activities
  • Victimization rates
  • Public response (actual, intended, desired)
  • Awareness of PhoneBusters
• Findings are based on national telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, aged 18 years and older, conducted May 8^th to 14^th, 2006
  • At the national level, findings have an associated margin of error of +/-3.1%. Margins of error will be higher at the sub-national level

Exposure to and Perceptions of Marketing Fraud and Identify Theft

Most Canadians continue to view marketing fraud as a serious problem

And the majority of respondents believe all types of marketing fraud are a serious problem

 

% Saying
"Very Serious" Problem

Being asked to donate to fake charities

Buying and paying for something by phone, Internet or mail and not receiving the product or receiving something inferior

Being told you have won a valuable prize but must purchase a product or do something in order to claim the prize

Q1. Marketing fraud is fraud committed over communication media, namely: telephone, mail and Internet. Some of the more common schemes used to defraud victims are: fraudulent prize and lottery schemes, charity scams, fraudulent loan offers, and credit card schemes. Overall, how serious a problem do you think marketing fraud is in Canada?

Q3-5. Now I'd like to know how serious a problem you consider each of the following types of marketing fraud, that is do you consider it to be a very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not serious at all.

Base: All respondents

---

The majority of Canadians also continue to feel that the amount of marketing fraud by phone/email/regular mail is on the rise

• 77% say amount of marketing fraud is on the rise (76% in 2005)
• 13% say amount of marketing fraud is about the same (15% in 2005)

Q2. Thinking back over the last few years, do you think the amount of marketing fraud by phone, email or regular mail has … increased, stayed about the same, or decreased?

Base: All respondents

---

Overall, reported rates of victimization remain relatively unchanged from last year, with a slight decline in ID theft victimization

Q6. To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you personally, or someone in your household, may have been a victim of marketing fraud?

Q10. To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you personally, or someone in your household, may have been a victim of identity theft?

Base: All respondents

---

The Age Effect: Younger people are less inclined to view marketing fraud as a "very serious" problem, although more are reporting victimizationcompared to those aged 35 and older

% Saying Marketing Fraud is a "very serious" problem: increasing with age

% Reporting Victimization: decreasing with age

Q1. Marketing fraud is fraud committed over communication media, namely: telephone, mail and Internet. Some of the more common schemes used to defraud victims are: fraudulent prize and lottery schemes, charity scams, fraudulent loan offers, and credit card schemes. Overall, how serious a problem do you think marketing fraud is in Canada?

Q6. To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you personally, or someone in your household, may have been a victim of marketing fraud?

Q10. To the best of your recollection, when, if ever, was the last time that you personally, or someone in your household, may have been a victim of identity theft?

Base: All respondents

Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

There is a difference between what people say and what they actually do in response to marketing fraud. Although the plurality say they would contact the local police if suspicious …

Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

	2005 (%)	2006 (%)
* a significant proportion would still do nothing
Complain to local police	30	31
Hang up	12	18
Complain to Better Business Bureau	7	8
Ignore them	3	8
Would say "no/not interested"	5	4
Call the company	3	4
Contact authorities	2	3
Get company's information	2	3
Take legal action/call a lawyer	2	2
Warn family/friends	3	2
Contact Consumer Protection	–	1
Call PhoneBusters	1	1
Contact media	1
Contact RCMP	–	1
Consult relatives	1	1
Complain to credit card company	1	1
Other	5	3
Take no action/do nothing	21	21 *
DK/NA/Ref	8	8

Q9. If you, or a member of your household, did receive a marketing call, email or regular mail solicitation that appeared fraudulent, what action, if any, would you or that member of your household take?

Base: Those who report not being a victim at Q.6 or don't recall actions taken in response to victimization in Q.7

---

For those who have been victimized, many don't bother to follow up. The most common action taken remains calling the company that committed the fraud.

Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

	2005 (%)	2006 (%)
Called the company	17	18
Complained to the local police	7	8
Said not interested in offer (didn't buy)	–	8
Hung up	2	6
Complained to credit card company	4	4
Changed bank information/cancelled credit card	–	3
Complained to Better Business Bureau	5	3
Called PhoneBusters	–	2
Tried to get refund	4	2
Took legal action/called a lawyer	3	1
Checked to see if it was legitimate/investigated company	2	1
Warned family/friends	1	1
Complained to bank	1	1
Other	6	5
No action taken/did nothing	43	38
DK/NA/Ref	7	4

Q7. What actions, if any, did you or the member of your household take in attempting to resolve the incident? Did you do anything else?

Base: Victim of fraud (n=315)

---

Increasingly, Canadians don't wish to invest the effort, don't believe it would lead to a resolution, or are uncertain who they should contact

Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

	2005 (%)	2006 (%)
Too much effort/difficult to do	7	15
The amount of money involved was not worth reporting	20	12
Didn't think it would be worth it	7	12
Didn't know the appropriate authority to report the matter to	6	11
Didn't care enough/forgot/wasn't a big deal	14	10
Wasn't a victim/did not pay for it	2	7
Didn't believe a crime had been committed	4	4
Would have taken too long	5	4
Company based in U.S.	–	2
They stopped contacting me (e.g., calls, emails, etc.)	4	1
Legal fees/court costs	2	1
Too embarrassed at being defrauded	2	1
Other	4	5
No/Don't recall	13	11
DK/NA/Ref	2	4

Q8. Do you recall why you chose not to take the matter further?

Base: Has or may have been victim of marketing fraud and did nothing (n=114)

---

Credit card companies are most often pursued in response to an incident of identity theft

Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

	2005 (%)	2006 (%)
Complained to credit card company	26	33
Complained to local police	16	15
Reported it to financial institution	9	12
Contacted the company/(complained to)	8	10
Changed bank information/cancelled credit card	6	9
Complained to Competition Bureau	–	4
Received phone call from credit card company	3	3
Contacted authorities/(Revenue Canada, Government)	2	2
Equifax/Credit Bureau	2	2
Terminated call	1	2
Took legal action/called a lawyer	3	1
Researched the company	–	1
Contacted media	–	1
Other	8	8
Did nothing	18	15
DK/NA/Ref	35	3

Q11. What actions, if any, did you or the member of your household take in attempting to resolve the incident?

Base: Have been victim of identity theft (n=169)

Awareness and Impact of Information on Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

General recall of messaging related to fraud remains strong, although lower among the 18-34 age group

Recall of general messaging or information on marketing fraud or identity theft

Note: Lower general recall in 2006 may be a factor of the timing of the survey following completion of the campaign (about a 5-week gap versus a 3-week lag in 2005)

Q12. Have you seen, heard or read anything lately about fraud, including marketing fraud and identity theft?

Base: All respondents

---

Notably, correct message recall shows an increase over 2005

Combined Correct Message Recall

Correct Message Recall

	2005	2006
Be careful/cautious	22%	25%
Don't give out personal info	12%	15%
Don't give out credit card info	13%	11%
Theft is a serious crime	4%	6%
Be careful about who you can trust	6%	4%
Internet/email fraud	2%	3%
Investigate the company you are dealing with	3%	2%
Be aware of charity frauds/watch our for door-to-door canvas	2%	1%
Be careful about banking machines/ATMs/scanners at ABMs	2%	1%
Other correct message	10%	13%

Q16. And what was the main message from what you saw, heard, or read?

Base: Have seen, heard or read something on Fraud Prevention at Q12, Q13, Q14

---

Aided awareness is also up from 2005

2005
Recall of Fraud Awareness

2006
Recall of Fraud Prevention

Q14. Did you recently see, hear or read anything about Fraud Prevention [Fraud Awareness in 2005]?

Base: Fraud Prevention [Awareness] not mentioned in Q13 (n=934)

Note: "Don't Know" and "Refused" excluded.

---

News coverage and print advertising are the predominant sources

	2006 (%)
News coverage on TV, radio, or in print	43
Ad in a magazine or newspaper	39
TV public service announcement	18
On a website	12
Radio public service announcement	6
Bank/ATM/Financial institution	4
Insert included with credit card or other bill	4
Work/job related	4
Emails	3
Word of mouth	2
Flyers/something in mail	1
RCMP/Police	1
Seminar centre/community meetings	1
Internet/Internet provider	1
Telephone	1
Other	4
DK/NA/Ref	1

	2005 (%)
Television	53
Newspaper (all)	22
Media coverage	19
An article in a magazine	13
Radio	13
On a website	7
Word of mouth	3
At/through work	3
Email	3
An insert included with credit card or other bill	2
Internet/Internet provider (unspecified)	2
Poster	1
Other	7
DK/NA/Ref	1

Q15. And where did you see, hear or read about Fraud Prevention ["Fraud Awareness" in 2005]?

Base: Have seen, heard or read something on Fraud Prevention (n=564)

Note: Other includes mentions of less than 1%

---

Among those reporting awareness of the issue/campaign, just over one-in-four recall the slogan "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." (aided and unaided combined)

Q17. Do you remember seeing, hearing or reading anything recently about fraud that contained the message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it."?

Base: Those who have seen, heard or read something on Fraud Prevention (n=564)

---

Anti-fraud messages continue to be viewed as useful and as having animpact on behaviour

Useful?

Usefulness of Anti-Fraud Messages

% Saying "Very Useful" — By Age

	2005	2006
18-34	41	26
35-54	58	42
55+	62	51

Motivational?

Motivation to Change Behaviour Based on Messages

Q18. And how useful did you find this message?

Q19. Has what you have seen, heard, or read changed the way in which you respond to these types of calls, emails or regular mail solicitations or to instances where you believe you may have been a victim of identity theft?

Base: All respondents

---

The local police remain the first point of contact for those who suspect fraudulent marketing activity or an incident of identity theft

Q20. Which organization or organizations would you contact if you wished to report suspicious or fraudulent marketing activity or an incident of identity theft?

Base: All respondents

Multiple mentions.

Awareness of PhoneBusters

Awareness of PhoneBusters is stable, but still much lower in Quebec

Aided Awareness of PhoneBusters

Likelihood of Calling PhoneBusters, once aware

Q21. Have you ever heard of an organization called PhoneBusters?

Q22. You may already be aware of this, but PhoneBusters is the Canadian national deceptive telemarketing and identity theft call centre, operated by the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP and the Government of Canada. PhoneBusters is the central agency that collects information on telemarketing and identity theft complaints throughout Canada and sends this information to the appropriate enforcement agency. How likely would you be to call PhoneBusters if you suspected that you had been a target or victim of phone fraud or identity theft?

Base: All respondents

Combating Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

A combination of activities, with emphasis on public education, is seen as the most effective approach to combating marketing fraud and identity theft in Canada

Q23. In your view, which one of the following is the most effective way to combat fraud such as marketing fraud and identity theft in Canada? Is it best combated through …?

Base: All respondents

Insights and Recommendations

Insights — sustained campaign is having a positive impact

• Messages about marketing fraud/identity theft are filtering through and showing signs that regular, annual campaigns are having a positive effect
• Paid and unpaid media are combining effectively to penetrate public consciousness
  • PSAs and information on websites have had a modest impact
• Continued efforts are still required to raise broader awareness of the issues of marketing fraud and identity theft
  • Notably, awareness is lower (and declining) among those aged 18 to 34
  • Across all age groups, however, we note that among those who report some awareness of the issue/campaign, message recall has improved from (70% in 2005 to 81% in 2006)
• The public continues to support education and improved enforcement measures

Insights — but action is lagging

• Rates of victimization are similar to 2005, with Canadians still more susceptible (and increasingly so) to marketing fraud versus identity theft
  • Younger Canadians (aged 18 to 34 years) are less likely to view marketing fraud as a "very serious" problem (18% compared to 35% on average), BUT
  • Are more likely to report being a victim of marketing fraud (44% compared to 31% overall)
• Inertia and the perception that pursuing the matter is not worth the effort remain a formidable hurdle to action in the face of fraudulent activity
  • While many say they would contact local police, substantially fewer actually do so (31% versus 8%)
  • And, almost four-in-ten victims of marketing fraud don't take any action

Recommendations — awareness

• Sustained awareness-raising and public education activities continue to be advisable
  • An integrated communications strategy employing multiple communications channels and tools (paid and unpaid) is showing the potential for results
  • But some demographic groups need new approaches
• Key target audience for information and education: Younger Canadians (aged 18 to 34)
  • Less likely to cite TV/radio news and ads
    • Possible need for more innovative approaches: on-line and peer-to-peer campaigns
  • More information required on this age group
    • Are they increasingly a target for marketing fraud? If so, what is at the root of this trend?
    • What does this demographic understand/know about the impact/consequences of marketing fraud and identity theft?
    • Do they accept such activities as a fact of life? If so, why?
    • What are their motivators/barriers to action?
• Continue efforts to raise the profile of PhoneBusters across the board, but specifically in Québec
  • Does the term have resonance? In both languages?

Recommendations — understanding and action

• Some progress is being made on drawing attention to the issue and increasing awareness
• Over time, broadening/deepening awareness will lead to better understanding and then action
• Possible approaches
  • Empowerment — increase amount of information on how to take action
  • Confidence — tell success stories
    • Real stories, of real people, helped by "the system"
  • Broaden and deepen partnerships
    • Build anti-fraud skills/actions into education and financial services