Fraud Prevention Month Post-campaign Public Opinion Research – June 2007

Agency

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act. Its role is to promote and maintain fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality services.

The Competition Bureau chairs the Fraud Prevention Forum, a partnership composed of about 80 private sector, not-for-profit, government and law enforcement organizations who are committed to fighting fraud aimed at consumers and businesses. Since 2004, the Forum has launched an annual Fraud Prevention Month campaign during the month of March to help Canadians protect themselves from becoming victims of fraud by educating them on how to "Recognize it, Report it, and Stop it."

Rationale

Research for and evaluation of programs and services is a requirement of the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada. Public opinion research supports the development and implementation of departmental policies, programs and services designed to meet the needs and expectations of Canadians.

The key objective of this research is to evaluate current fraud awareness among Canadians and the effectiveness of the 2007 Fraud Prevention Month outreach efforts. In April 2007, The Strategic Counsel surveyed 1,000 Canadians to gauge public attitudes and experiences with respect to:

  • awareness of mass marketing fraud and identity theft;
  • perceived seriousness of various fraudulent marketing activities;
  • victimization rates;
  • responses to fraud prevention messages; and
  • awareness of PhoneBusters (the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre).

Results are compared against findings from similar studies conducted in 2005 and 2006.

Anticipated Outcomes

Research results will assist Fraud Prevention Forum partners in identifying target audiences and the necessary outreach efforts for Fraud Prevention Month 2008.

Research Information

Quantitative:

Findings are based on a proportional national telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, aged 18 years and older, conducted April 5 to April 15, 2007. At the national level, findings have an associated margin of error of +/-3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Most questions from this survey have been reproduced from those of the 2006 study, with a few exceptions.

Research Firm: The Strategic Counsel
Contract Number: U3850-062656/001/CY
Contract issued by: Public Works and Government Services Canada
Contract value: $28,871.73 (GST Included)


Final Report to The Competition Bureau — Findings from a Survey of Canadians: Post-Test of the Fraud Prevention Month Campaign, June 2007


Final Report to The Competition Bureau — Findings from a Survey of Canadians: Post-Test of the Fraud Prevention Month Campaign — June 2007

Registration number: POR 555-06
Contract number: U3850-062656/001/CY
Contract award date: 2007-03-27

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

60 George Street
Suite 205
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 1J4
Telephone: 613-236-0296
Fax: 613-236-1290


Table of Contents

  1. Research Process
    1. Introduction
    2. Methodology
  2. Key Findings
    1. Mass Marketing Fraud: Perceptions and Self-Reported Incidence of Targeting/Victimization
    2. Identity Theft: Self-Reported Incidence of Targeting/Victimization
    3. Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft
    4. Awareness of Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft Messaging
    5. Response to Messages
    6. PhoneBusters
    7. Means of Combating Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft
  3. Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft: Awareness, Incidence, Perceptions and Response
  4. Combating Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft: PhoneBusters and Other Means
  5. Appendix A — Record of Contact
  6. Appendix B — Questionnaire

I. Research Process

A. Introduction

Gregg, Kelly, Sullivan & Woolstencroft: The Strategic Counsel is pleased to present to the Competition Bureau the following report of findings from a 2007 tracking study on mass marketing fraud, identity theft and fraud awareness. The principle research objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2007 Fraud Prevention Month campaign and track key measures related to awareness, message recall and response against findings from 2005 and 2006.

As was the case for 2005 and 2006, the survey gauged public attitudes and experiences with respect to:

  • Awareness of mass marketing fraud and identity theft;
  • Awareness of activities intended to focus public attention on the issue of fraud and fraud prevention;
  • Perceived seriousness of various fraudulent marketing/solicitation activities;
  • Household victimization and target rates;
  • Public response (actual, intended, desired);
  • Awareness of PhoneBusters, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre

B. Methodology

Findings are based on a proportional national telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians, aged 18 years and older, conducted April 5th to April 15th, 2007. At the national level, findings have an associated margin of error of +/-3.1%, 19 times out of 20. Margins of error will be higher at the regional level, as shown in the table below, and for demographic breakdowns. Caution should be used when looking at the differences between regions and among particular demographic subgroups, given the higher associated margins of error.

National and Regional Margins of Error
Region Sample Size Margin of Error (19 times out of 20, or 95%)
Canada 1,000 +/- 3.1%
Atlantic 77 +/- 11.3%
Quebec 247 +/- 6.3%
Ontario 379 +/- 5.0%
Prairies 165 +/- 7.7%
B.C. 132 +/- 8.6%

The results are tracked against the survey of 1,000 respondents conducted in March of 2005 and May of 2006. Most questions from all three surveys are identical, with a few exceptions pertaining mainly to the 2005 study. Appendix A contains the record of contact, detailing call dispositions for this survey. The 2007 survey was completed immediately following the advertising campaign on mass marketing fraud and identity theft. By contrast, the 2005 and 2006 surveys were completed after delays of three and five weeks, respectively.

II. Key Findings

A. Mass Marketing Fraud: Perceptions and Self-Reported Incidence of Targeting/Victimization

The vast majority of Canadians across all demographic groups continue to consider mass marketing fraud to be a serious problem. When asked how serious a problem mass marketing fraud was, just over 90 per cent of Canadians said it was either a very serious (40%) or a somewhat serious (50%) problem. This represents an increase over the 2006 result (86%), which was itself an increase over 2005 (83%). While close to nine-in-ten report some level of concern across all demographic groups, younger people aged 18 to 34 are less likely to view mass marketing fraud as a very serious problem (23%), compared to people aged 35 to 54 years old (40%) and those aged 55 years and above (49%). Correspondingly, younger people are much more likely to view mass marketing fraud as only a somewhat serious problem (64%) than those in the 35 to 54 (52%) and 55+ age categories (42%). Regionally, Quebecers are the least likely to think mass marketing fraud is a very serious problem (34%) and the most likely to view it as a somewhat serious problem (52%).

By the same token, most Canadians (82%) believe that mass marketing fraud by phone, regular mail or email is on the rise. This is a larger proportion than was recorded in the previous two years when just over three-quarters of Canadians said they thought mass marketing fraud was on the rise. Similar to the age differences noted for the seriousness of mass marketing fraud, younger Canadians of 18 to 34 years of age (74%) are less likely to consider mass marketing fraud to have increased over the last few years than those in either the 35 to 54 age group (83%) or people of age 55 and above (86%). Across the regions, Quebecers (86%) are the most likely to say that mass marketing fraud has increased in recent years, although, as noted above, they are less likely to see it as a "very serious" problem.

There is a slow rise in the proportion of Canadians who consider different types of mass marketing fraud as serious. The percentage who consider it a serious issue to be asked to donate to fake charities (89%) or to be told that you have won a prize, but only on the condition that you purchase something first (89%), has increased slightly in each of the past two years. Not receiving the product you purchased by phone, internet or mail in a timely fashion is considered to be serious by 79 per cent, while another 86 per cent regard receiving something inferior to what was paid for as serious; this compares to the 84 per cent in 2006 and 82 per cent in 2005 who said not receiving the product or receiving something inferior was serious. Women are slightly more inclined to view each of these problems as serious compared to men. Younger people aged 18 to 34 (38%) are significantly less likely to regard fraud related to prizes as very serious than those in the 35 to 54 age group (55%) while those people of age 55 and above (63%) are significantly more likely to consider this type of fraud as serious. Residents of Quebec are more inclined to say that not receiving the product in a timely fashion is serious.

There is a small increase in the proportion of Canadians who report that either themselves or someone in their household have been a target or victimFootnote 1 of mass marketing fraud. The victimization rate slowly rose from 28 per cent in 2005, to 31 per cent in 2006 and finally, 35 per cent in 2007. It is also important to note that two-in-five victims (14 percentage points out of the total of 35) report that the incident(s) have happened within the last six months. Individuals between the ages of 18 and 34 (41%) are more likely to report they, or someone in their household, may have been a victim of mass marketing fraud than those 35 to 54 years of age (36%) or those 55 years and older (29%). This reported level of victimization among younger Canadians is particularly interesting given that it is this group that expressed the lowest level of concern about the seriousness of mass marketing fraud. People with only a high school level of education (27%) are less likely to report being a victim than those who have attended college (40%) or university (37%). Reported levels of victimization increase across the five regions from east to west, with less than three-in-ten (27%) of Atlantic Canadians reporting being a victim of mass marketing fraud and rising to over four-in-ten (41%) of British Columbians.



B. Identity Theft: Self-Reported Incidence of Targeting/Victimization

The percentage of those who say they have either been a target or victim of identity theft is lower compared to the figures for targeting or victimization from mass marketing fraud schemes, with 20 per cent of Canadians reporting an incident affecting at least one person in their immediate household in 2007. Comparable results in 2005 (18%) and 2006 (17%) indicate a fairly stable proportion report having been a victim of identity theft. As with mass marketing fraud, those with an educational attainment of a high school diploma or less (15%) are less likely than those with a college (26%) or university (21%) education to report being a victim of identity theft. Residents of British Columbia (27%) and Ontario (23%) are more likely to say they have been a victim of identity theft than residents of other regions: Atlantic (15%), Quebec (15%), and Prairies (17%).

C. Response to Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

While fewer people are taking no action in response to mass marketing fraud, it remains the case that most do not make a significant effort to report or resolve an incident. In 2007 three-in-ten (30%) victims of mass marketing fraud said they "did nothing" in response. This is down from 2006 (38%) and 2005 (43%). Hanging-up (7%) and refusing to buy anything (3%) were some of the limited actions taken by other victims. Complaining directly to the company involved was the most common response of 18 per cent of victims. Reporting the incident to their credit card company (7%), their bank (4%), the Better Business Bureau (3%), or PhoneBusters (1%) was less common. More robust actions such as calling the police (8%), cancelling their credit card (2%), demanding a refund (2%) or contacting a lawyer (1%) were reported by relatively few. Education level appears to have some level of influence on taking action, with 37% per cent of those with a high school education reporting having taken no action, falling to 35 per cent for those college educated and 24 per cent of those university educated. Complaining directly to the company involved shows the opposite trend with 12, 14 and 24 per cent respectively, indicating they took this 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 the top four most common reasons given for inaction suggest that this is the case:

  • The amount of money was not worth reporting (13%);
  • Did not think it was worth it (11%);
  • Too much effort (8%); and
  • Did not care enough or forgot (8%).

When those who have not been victims of mass marketing fraud are asked to consider what actions they might take if they were to receive a fraudulent solicitation, a similar pattern of responses is observed. Again, one-in-five (19%) say they would not take any action if they or someone in their household were defrauded. This proportion is the same as in previous years (21% in both 2005 and 2006). Moreover, 17 per cent say that they would simply hang up and another 9 per cent state that they would just ignore it. The most frequent answer given was that they would contact the local police (30%). These results have been very consistent over the past two years (30% in 2005, 31% in 2006). As in previous years, intentions contrast sharply with actions, when faced with a real or perceived incident of mass marketing fraud. A much smaller proportion of self-identified victims say they did in fact call the police (8%).

Also contrasting with findings among those who have been victimized is the fact that only 4 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 given by the two groups 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.

Younger Canadians aged 18 to 34 (20%) are less likely to consider reporting the incident to the police than those 35 to 54 years of age (35%) or those 55 years and older (30%). Interestingly, those with higher education levels report a greater propensity to take no action. Of non-victims with a high school level of education, 14 per cent say they would "do nothing" compared to 19 per cent of those who have attended college and 22 per cent of university graduates. This is in contrast to the 37 per cent, 35 per cent and 24 per cent of victims in these groups respectively who did nothing in response to an actual or perceived incident.

British Columbia residents (20%) are much more likely to consider reporting an incident to the Better Business Bureau than individuals in other provinces (2%–8%). Again, a benefit effort trade-off appears to be at work here since none of the BC victims actually made a report to the Better Business Bureau.

As was the case for 2005 and 2006, contacting credit card companies is the most common response to identity theft by those who have been victimized. In total, 23 per cent of respondents reported complaining to their credit card company. This is down from 2005 (26%) and 2006 (33%). By contrast, the proportion saying they reported the incident to their bank or financial institution has increased to 20 per cent from 9 per cent in 2005 and 12 per cent in 2006 and is now the second most common action taken in response to a case of identity theft. Sixteen per cent of respondents noted that they would do nothing, consistent with findings from 2005 (18%) and 2006 (15%). Complaints to police have continued a downward trend over the past two years (16% in 2005, 15% in 2006) and are now at 13 per cent. Rounding out the top five actions taken, changing or cancelling banking and credit card information was mentioned by nine per cent of respondents.

D. Awareness of Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft Messaging

Exposure to messages regarding mass marketing fraud and identity theft remains high at 80 per cent. This number is significantly higher than for 2006 (73%) and is a return to the levels observed in 2005 (78%). Once again, there is clear age effect with regards to messaging on mass marketing fraud and identity theft, with only 66% of those between the ages of 18 to 34 having seen, heard or read anything about it, compared to 83% among both those 35 to 54 years of age and 55 years of age and older. Similar differences can be observed for respondents with varying levels of educational attainment, as 71% of those with a high school diploma or less reported seeing, hearing or reading anything about mass marketing fraud and identity theft, compared to 78% for those with a college education and 87% for those with a university degree.

Among those who recall seeing, hearing or reading something about fraud, including mass marketing fraud and identity theft, 16 per cent specifically recall messages on the topic of "Fraud Prevention". Additionally, 17 per cent recalled messages about identity theft and protecting your identity, and 3 per cent mentioned the need to shred personal information. Many people saw, heard or read information on specific types of fraud such as credit card (17%), debit card (9%), real estate and mortgage (5%) and Internet-based fraud (5%).

More than half (58%) of those who have seen, heard or read something about fraud but did not specifically identify fraud prevention as the key message in their response to the unaided question, agreed that they had seen, heard or read something about fraud prevention when directly asked. Among those who have seen, heard or read something about fraud prevention, nearly half (46%) say it was in news coverage on television, radio or in print. Just over one-third (35%) recall an ad in a magazine or newspaper, and one-in-five (21%) saw a public service announcement (PSA) on television.

When asked to recall the main message of what they had seen, heard or read about fraud prevention, 6 per cent spontaneously recalled the tagline "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." This compared to no one spontaneously recalling the tagline in 2005 and only 2 per cent remembering it in 2006. The relatively low level of recall of the tagline is likely a factor of respondents' exposure to messages about fraud prevention via various channels. As noted in the paragraph above, a plurality recall seeing something on the topic in earned media coverage, where there is less likelihood that the tagline may have been prominently featured as part of the coverage versus advertising or PSAs. Other main messages retained included be careful who you trust (23%), be careful/cautious (14%), do not give out personal information (7%) and be careful about telephone solicitation (7%).

When prompted, 23 per cent said that they did remember the tagline "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it.", for a total of 29 per cent when adding the 6 per cent who mentioned the tagline unprompted in response to an earlier question. This is nearly identical to the 28 per cent aided and unaided recall of the tagline in 2006.

The vast majority (86%) of those who remembered the tagline believe that the message was either somewhat (36%) or very (50%) useful. These results are similar to those observed in 2006 where again 86 per cent of those who remembered the tagline that year found the message either somewhat (41%) or very (45%) useful.

E. Response to Messages

Importantly nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents who recall the tagline "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." say what they saw, heard or read, has made them change the way they respond to possible mass marketing fraud or identity theft incidents. More than one-in three (36%) say that their response to possible mass marketing fraud or identity theft has changed "a great deal" and another 27 per cent said it has changed "somewhat".

When asked which organization they would contact if they wished to report suspicious or fraudulent mass marketing activity or an incident of identity theft, more than half (57%) of Canadians named their local police force, and another 17 per cent mentioned the RCMP; one-in ten (10%) would contact the Better Business Bureau. These numbers are directly in-line with the findings of 2005 and 2006. Only 2 per cent of Canadians suggested PhoneBusters as an organization to which they would report suspected fraudulent activity. Younger Canadians aged 18 to 43 (49%) are less likely to file a report with local police than those in the 35 to 54 age group (56%) or 55 years of age and older (61%).

F. PhoneBusters

One-in-five Canadians (22%) is aware of the organization PhoneBusters. This represents a small increase in awareness over 2006 (19%) levels. As in previous years, the awareness level is clearly lower in the province of Quebec, where only 10 per cent of respondents have heard of PhoneBusters, and in British Columbia where 18 per cent of residents are aware of the organization.

On the other hand, after hearing a description of the organization and its mandate, 83 per cent (81% in 2005, 84% in 2006) of Canadians said that they were likely to call PhoneBusters if they suspected that they had been a target or victim of mass marketing fraud or identity theft. Importantly, 64 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 mass marketing schemes or possible identity theft.

G. Means of Combating Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft

Public education continues to be considered the most effective way to combat fraud such as mass marketing fraud and identity theft in Canada with three-in-five (59%) holding this view. Better enforcement of current laws (20%) and adverting (12%) are supported by far fewer people. Only 7 per cent of Canadians feel there no effective way to combat mass marketing fraud. Of note is the fact that people with a high school diploma or less (46%) are significantly less likely to advocate public education as a solution when compared to those with a college (59%) or university (67%) education.

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

Seriousness of Marketing Fraud

Table showing Seriousness of Marketing Fraud by Gender, Age and Education
 


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

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 91 89 92 87 92 91 91 92 89
A very serious problem 32 35 40 40 41 23 40 49 43 41 38
A somewhat serious problem 51 51 50 49 51 64 52 42 49 51 51
Not a very serious problem 10 8 6 7 5 9 6 4 4 6 8
Not at all serious 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2
NET Not a very/Not at all serious problem 14 10 8 9 6 12 7 6 6 6 9
DK/NA/Ref 3 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 2


Table showing Seriousness of Marketing Fraud by Region
 


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


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 91 95 86 92 93 89
A very serious problem 32 35 40 47 34 44 41 39
A somewhat serious problem 51 51 50 48 52 49 52 50
Not a very serious problem 10 8 6 4 9 4 5 7
Not at all serious 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 2
NET Not a very/Not at all serious problem 14 10 8 5 12 6 6 8
DK/NA/Ref 3 4 2 2 2 1 3



Increase/Decrease in Marketing Fraud Over the Last Few Years

Table showing Increase/Decrease in Marketing Fraud Over the Last Few Years by Gender, Age and Education
 


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

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 82 83 82 74 83 86 81 84 82
Stayed about the same 15 13 13 13 12 19 13 9 12 11 14
Decreased 2 2 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 1
DK/NA/Ref 7 8 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 3 3


Table showing Increase/Decrease in Marketing Fraud Over the Last Few Years by Region
  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 84 86 81 83 77
Stayed about the same 14 11 12 14 14
Decreased 1 1 2 1 3
DK/NA/Ref 2 5 2 5



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
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.3    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 89 86 92 89 91 89 92 90 88
Very serious 61 57 61 56 66 66 61 60 65 61 59
Somewhat serious 24 30 28 30 26 23 29 29 27 28 28
Not very serious 8 7 7 9 5 8 7 7 4 8 9
Not at all serious 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2
NET Not very/Not at all serious 11 10 10 13 7 11 9 10 7 10 11
DK/NA/Ref 4 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1


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


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.3    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 89 95 90 88 89 88
Very serious 61 57 61 69 58 61 63 61
Somewhat serious 24 30 28 26 32 27 26 27
Not very serious 8 7 7 5 8 7 8 7
Not at all serious 3 3 3 2 3 2 5
NET Not very/Not at all serious 11 10 10 5 10 11 10 11
DK/NA/Ref 4 3 1 2 1 1



Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Not Receiving the Product in a Timely Fashion

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Not Receiving the Product in a Timely Fashion, by Gender, Age and Education
 


2005*
(n=1000)
%



2006*
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.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 very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not at all serious? The first is…

Base:   All respondents

* Important note: This question was asked differently in 2005 and 2006, affecting the comparability of the data. The 2005–2006 question read: "Buying and paying for something by phone, Internet or email and not receiving the product or receiving something inferior to what you paid for". In 2007, this question was broken in two separate items (Q.4 and Q.5).

NET Somewhat/Very serious 82 84 79 76 81 81 77 80 79 81 76
Very serious 52 47 37 36 37 34 34 41 39 39 33
Somewhat serious 30 37 42 40 44 47 43 39 40 42 43
Not very serious 8 9 16 17 15 14 19 13 14 13 19
Not at all serious 3 2 3 3 2 5 2 2 4 3 1
NET Not very/Not at all serious 11 11 18 20 16 19 20 15 18 16 20
DK/NA/Ref 7 5 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3


Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Not Receiving the Product in a Timely Fashion, by Region
 


2005*
(n=1000)
%



2006*
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.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 very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious or not at all serious? The first is…

Base:   All respondents

* Important note: This question was asked differently in 2005 and 2006, affecting the comparability of the data. The 2005–2006 question read: "Buying and paying for something by phone, Internet or email and not receiving the product or receiving something inferior to what you paid for". In 2007, this question was broken in two separate items (Q.4 and Q.5).

NET Somewhat/Very serious 82 84 79 78 90 75 72 77
Very serious 52 47 37 42 45 35 28 33
Somewhat serious 30 37 42 36 45 40 44 43
Not very serious 8 9 16 16 8 18 21 17
Not at all serious 3 2 3 5 4 1 3
NET Not very/Not at all serious 11 11 18 21 9 22 22 20
DK/NA/Ref 7 5 3 1 2 3 7 4



Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Receiving Something Inferior to What You Paid for

Table showing Seriousness of Problem: Buying and Paying for Something by Phone, Internet or Mail and Receiving Something Inferior to What You Paid for, by Gender, Age and Education
 


2005*
(n=1000)
%



2006*
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.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

* Important note: This question was asked differently in 2005 and 2006, affecting the comparability of the data. The 2005–2006 question read: "Buying and paying for something by phone, Internet or email and not receiving the product or receiving something inferior to what you paid for". In 2007, this question was broken in two separate items (Q.4 and Q.5).

NET Somewhat/Very serious 82 84 86 83 88 90 84 86 85 86 85
Very serious 52 47 40 39 42 39 39 43 44 44 35
Somewhat serious 30 37 45 44 46 50 45 43 40 42 50
Not very serious 8 9 10 12 8 8 12 9 8 10 12
Not at all serious 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 1
NET Not very/Not at all serious 11 11 12 14 10 10 13 11 13 12 13
DK/NA/Ref 7 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2


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*
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.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

* Important note: This question was asked differently in 2005 and 2006, affecting the comparability of the data. The 2005–2006 question read: "Buying and paying for something by phone, Internet or email and not receiving the product or receiving something inferior to what you paid for". In 2007, this question was broken in two separate items (Q.4 and Q.5).

NET Somewhat/Very serious 82 84 86 83 88 84 85 86
Very serious 52 47 40 39 39 43 38 39
Somewhat serious 30 37 45 44 49 41 47 47
Not very serious 8 9 10 12 9 11 8 11
Not at all serious 3 2 2 3 1 2 4 2
NET Not very/Not at all serious 11 11 12 14 10 13 12 13
DK/NA/Ref 7 5 2 3 2 2 3 2



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
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.6    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 89 85 92 75 92 92 89 92 86
Very serious 52 52 55 53 56 38 55 63 57 61 49
Somewhat serious 31 34 34 32 36 37 37 29 32 31 38
Not very serious 9 9 9 11 6 20 7 4 7 6 11
Not at all serious 4 3 2 3 2 4 4 3 2 2
NET Not very/Not at all serious 13 12 11 14 8 25 8 8 10 8 13
DK/NA/Ref 3 2 1 1 1 1 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
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.6    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 89 95 86 88 93 86
Very serious 52 52 55 66 47 56 61 49
Somewhat serious 31 34 34 29 39 32 32 37
Not very serious 9 9 9 4 11 9 5 8
Not at all serious 4 3 2 1 2 2 2 5
NET Not very/Not at all serious 13 12 11 5 13 11 7 13
DK/NA/Ref 3 2 1 1 1 1



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
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.7    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 35 35 35 41 36 29 27 40 37
Within the past six months 6 10 14 13 14 18 15 10 10 16 15
Six months to one year ago 5 5 6 7 6 9 6 4 5 7 6
One to two years ago 6 7 6 6 6 7 6 5 6 6 6
Over two years ago 11 9 9 9 9 7 9 10 6 11 10
Never 71 69 65 66 65 59 64 71 73 60 63
DK/NA/Ref 1 1 1 1


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


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.7    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 35 27 29 36 39 41
Within the past six months 6 10 14 16 9 13 16 20
Six months to one year ago 5 5 6 5 5 7 7 5
One to two years ago 6 7 6 3 8 5 4 8
Over two years ago 11 9 9 4 7 11 12 8
Never 71 69 65 73 71 64 61 59
DK/NA/Ref 1 1 1



Actions Taken

Table showing Actions Taken, by Gender, Age and Education
 


2005
(n=289)
%



2006
(n=315)
%
2007


Total
(n=347)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=167)
%
Female
(n=180)
%
18–34
(n=75)
%
35–54
(n=162)
%
55+
(n=104)
%
HS or less
(n=76)
%
College
(n=110)
%
Univ.
(n=159)
%

Q.8    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 mass marketing fraud

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Complained to the company 17 18 18 14 21 16 17 22 12 14 24
Complained to the local police 7 8 8 7 9 7 7 12 11 6 9
Complained to credit card company 4 4 7 11 4 7 8 8 5 6 9
Hung up 2 6 7 5 8 7 6 9 5 8 6
Complained to bank 1 1 4 5 3 5 6 1 4 5 4
Did not buy anything/refused 4 8 3 2 5 3 3 5 4 1 5
Complained to Better Business Bureau 5 3 3 4 2 1 2 4 1 4 3
Cancelled credit or debit card 1 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 1 3
Tried to get refund 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2
Sent them a letter/email 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3
Complained to Competition Bureau 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1
Warned family/friends 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1
Called PhoneBusters n/a 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1
Took legal action/called a lawyer 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1
Complained to phone company 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
Contact consumer protection offices (general) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Blocked call/didn't answer 1 1 1 1
Checked to see if it was legitimate/investigated company 2 1 1 1 1
Bound by contract/charged with fraudulent activity 1
Contacted member of parliament (all levels) 1
Other 5 5 13 16 11 16 14 12 12 10 16
No action taken/did nothing 43 38 30 32 28 28 32 28 37 35 24
DK/NA/Ref 7 4 3 3 3 9 1 3 7 3 2


Table showing Actions Taken, by Region
 


2005
(n=289)
%



2006
(n=315)
%
2007


Total
(n=347)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=21)c
%
Quebec
(n=72)
%
Ontario
(n=136)
%
Prairies
(n=64)
%
British Columbia
(n=54)
%

Q.8    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 mass marketing fraud

C   Caution, small base size

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Complained to the company 17 18 18 10 19 17 23 15
Complained to the local police 7 8 8 8 10 8 7
Complained to credit card company 4 4 7 4 10 11 6
Hung up 2 6 7 33 3 4 6 7
Complained to bank 1 1 4 6 4 5 4
Did not buy anything/refused 4 8 3 5 6 3 2 4
Complained to Better Business Bureau 5 3 3 6 2 3
Cancelled credit or debit card 1 3 2 5 1 2 3 2
Tried to get refund 4 2 2 3 2 2
Sent them a letter/email 2 2 5 4 1
Complained to Competition Bureau 1 4 2
Warned family/friends 1 1 1 1 1 3
Called PhoneBusters 2 1 2 2
Took legal action/called a lawyer 3 1 1 2 2
Complained to phone company 1 1 5 1 2
Contact consumer protection offices (general)/Office de la protection du consommateur 2 1 3 1
Blocked call/didn't answer 1 2
Checked to see if it was legitimate/investigated company 2 1 1
Bound by contract/charged with fraudulent activity 1
Contacted member of parliament (all levels) 1
Other 5 5 13 5 18 10 14 17
No action taken/did nothing 43 38 30 29 28 29 30 37
DK/NA/Ref 7 4 3 5 1 4 7



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
(n=114)
%
2007


Total
(n=102)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=52)
%
Female
(n=50)
%
18–34
(n=21)c
%
35–54
(n=50)c
%
55+
(n=28)c
%
HS or less
(n=28)c
%
College
(n=37)c
%
Univ.
(n=36)c
%

Q.9    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

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

The amount of money involved was not worth reporting 20 12 13 19 6 10 20 4 24 11
Didn't think it would be worth it 7 12 11 8 14 14 10 7 14 5 11
Too much effort/difficult to do 7 15 8 8 8 5 8 11 7 8 8
Didn't care enough/forgot/wasn't a big deal 14 10 8 10 6 14 8 4 11 11 3
Didn't know the appropriate authority to report the matter to 6 11 8 6 10 10 8 7 5 17
Wasn't a victim/did not pay for it 2 7 8 6 10 10 2 14 4 14 6
Would have taken too long 5 4 5 2 8 10 4 4 11 6
Too embarrassed at being defrauded 2 1 5 8 2 5 4 4 7 8
Lesson learned/Won't fall for it again 2 3 4 2 4 4 7 3
Didn't believe a crime had been committed 4 4 2 4 5 4 3 3
Legal fees/court costs 2 1 1 2 4 3
I should have known better 3 1 1 2 5 4
They stopped contacting me (e.g., calls, emails, etc.) 4 1
Other 4 5 19 15 22 10 14 36 25 22 11
No/Don't recall 13 11 9 12 6 5 16 11 5 11
DK/NA/Ref 2 4 1 2 2 3


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


2005
(n=123)
%



2006
(n=114)
%
2007


Total
(n=102)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=6)c
%
Quebec
(n=20)c
%
Ontario
(n=37)c
%
Prairies
(n=19)c
%
British Columbia
(n=20)c
%

Q.9    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

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

The amount of money involved was not worth reporting 20 12 13 17 20 11 20
Didn't think it would be worth it 7 12 11 17 5 14 16 5
Too much effort/difficult to do 7 15 8 20 5 5 5
Didn't care enough/forgot/wasn't a big deal 14 10 8 10 11 11
Didn't know the appropriate authority to report the matter to 6 11 8 5 14 5 5
Wasn't a victim/did not pay for it 2 7 8 17 5 8 11 5
Would have taken too long 5 4 5 5 16
Too embarrassed at being defrauded 2 1 5 5 5 5 5
Lesson learned/Won't fall for it again 2 3 5 5 5
Didn't believe a crime had been committed 4 4 2 10
Legal fees/court costs 2 1 1 5
I should have known better 3 1 1 5
They stopped contacting me (e.g., calls, emails, etc.) 4 1
Other 4 5 19 33 10 19 11 30
No/Don't recall 13 11 9 15 8 5 10
DK/NA/Ref 2 4 1 17



Non-Victims: Actions Would Take

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


2005
(n=731)
%



2006
(n=699)
%
2007


Total
(n=664)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=325)
%
Female
(n=339)
%
18–34
(n=113)
%
35–54
(n=283)
%
55+
(n=256)
%
HS or less
(n=207)
%
College
(n=170)
%
Univ.
(n=276)
%

Q.10    If you, or a member of your household, did receive a 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 mass marketing fraud

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Complain to local police 30 31 30 31 29 20 35 30 32 34 28
Hang up/Delete email/Throw mail away 12 18 17 18 16 12 18 18 15 19 17
Ignore it/Would not respond to it 3 8 9 12 6 15 7 8 7 6 12
Complain to Better Business Bureau 7 8 7 5 9 7 6 9 7 8 7
Call the company 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 2 2 5 5
Get company's information 2 3 4 3 5 5 5 2 3 6 3
Warn family/friends 3 2 3 2 4 3 2 4 2 4 3
Complain to RCMP 1 3 3 3 1 4 3 2 3 4
Would say "no/not interested" 5 4 3 3 3 5 2 3 2 2 4
Contact authorities 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 2 2 4
Contact consumer protection/Office de la protection du consommateur 4 1 3 3 2 4 3 2 1 2 4
Contact media 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1
Complain to Competition Bureau 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1
Complained to credit card company 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Go to Internet/website for fraud 1 1 2 1 2 2 1
Call PhoneBusters 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1
Call phone company 1 1 2 1 1 1
Take legal action/call a lawyer 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Relative would deal with it 1 1 1 1 1
Complain to member of parliament (all levels) 1
Give them a piece of my mind/curse at them
Blocked call/didn't answer
Ask to be removed from the list 1
Other 4 2 8 8 9 10 10 7 8 11 8
Take no action/do nothing 21 21 19 18 19 21 18 20 14 19 22
DK/NA/Ref 8 8 7 6 8 10 5 8 14 4 3


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


2005
(n=731)
%



2006
(n=699)
%
2007


Total
(n=664)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=57)
%
Quebec
(n=176)
%
Ontario
(n=248)
%
Prairies
(n=101)
%
British Columbia
(n=82)
%

Q.10    If you, or a member of your household, did receive a 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 mass marketing fraud

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Complain to local police 30 31 30 39 30 31 30 26
Hang up/Delete email/Throw mail away 12 18 17 19 12 19 25 12
Ignore it/Would not respond to it 3 8 9 4 13 10 6 6
Complain to Better Business Bureau 7 8 7 7 2 8 4 20
Call the company 3 4 4 7 6 3 1 6
Get company's information 2 3 4 4 2 6 3 2
Warn family/friends 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 4
Complain to RCMP 1 3 5 2 6 7
Would say "no/not interested" 5 4 3 4 2 3 3 2
Contact authorities 2 3 3 2 5 2 1 1
Contact consumer protection/Office de la protection du consommateur 4 1 3 2 8 1
Contact media 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2
Complain to Competition Bureau 1 2 3 2 2
Complained to credit card company 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Go to Internet/website for fraud 1 1 2 1 2 1
Call PhoneBusters 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1
Call phone company 1 2 1
Take legal action/call a lawyer 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 1
Relative would deal with it 1 2
Complain to member of parliament (all levels) 1
Give them a piece of my mind/curse at them
Blocked call/didn't answer
Ask to be removed from the list 1
Other 4 2 8 7 13 8 7 4
Take no action/do nothing 21 21 19 18 14 19 21 28
DK/NA/Ref 8 8 7 5 7 7 7 9



Incidence of Identity Theft

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


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.11    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 20 22 18 19 24 16 15 26 21
Within the past six months 4 4 5 6 4 7 6 3 3 7 6
Six months to one year ago 3 3 3 4 2 2 4 3 1 6 3
One to two years ago 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3
Over two years ago 7 6 8 9 8 6 10 7 7 9 9
Never 80 83 80 78 81 81 76 83 85 74 79
DK/NA/Ref 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
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.11    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 20 15 15 23 17 27
Within the past six months 4 4 5 4 4 6 4 8
Six months to one year ago 3 3 3 2 5 2 5
One to two years ago 4 4 4 1 3 4 2 5
Over two years ago 7 6 8 10 6 8 9 9
Never 80 83 80 83 84 77 82 74
DK/NA/Ref 1 1 1 1



Actions Taken

Table showing Actions Taken
  2005
(n=201)
%
2006
(n=169)
%
2007
(n=200)
%

Q.12    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:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Complained to credit card company 26 33 23
Reported it to financial institution 9 12 20
Complained to local police 16 15 13
Contacted the company/ (complained to) 8 10 9
Changed bank information/ cancelled credit card 6 9 9
Received phone call from credit card company 3 3 4
Complained to Competition Bureau 4 3
Contacted authorities/ (Revenue Canada, Government) 2 2 3
Equifax/Credit Bureau 2 2 3
Took legal action/called a lawyer 3 1 2
Researched the company 1 1
Called PhoneBusters 1
Contacted media 1
Complained to Better Business Bureau 1
Other 9 7 15
Did nothing 18 15 16
DK/NA/Ref 5 3 2



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
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.13    Have you seen, heard or read anything lately about fraud, including marketing fraud and identity theft?

Base:   All respondents

Yes 78 73 80 81 78 66 83 83 71 78 87
No 22 27 20 19 22 34 17 17 29 22 13
DK/NA/Ref


Table showing Awareness of Information About Marketing Fraud and Identity Theft, by Region
  2007
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.13    Have you seen, heard or read anything lately about fraud, including marketing fraud and identity theft?

Base:   All respondents

Yes 77 76 81 82 81
No 23 24 19 18 19
DK/NA/Ref



Specific Recall of Information

Table showing Specific Recall of Information
  2006
Total
(n=725)
%
2007
Total
(n=797)
%

Q.14    What specifically have you seen, heard or read? Anything else?

Base:   Respondents who have seen, heard, or read anything about fraud, including mass marketing fraud and identity theft

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Fraud prevention 9 16
Winners/Home Sense/TJX data breach 9
Credit card theft/fraud 14 17
Identity theft / Protect your identity 21 17
Newspaper or magazine story 12 11
On TV or TV show 13 10
Debit card theft/fraud 7 9
About fraud (general) 3 5
Real estate or mortgage fraud 2 5
Online or internet fraud 6 5
Banking fraud 3 4
Seniors being the target of fraud 5 4
Prize fraud 4 4
On the radio 1 3
Telephone solicitation fraud 3 3
Charity/donation fraud 3 3
Shredding personal information 4 3
Marketing/billing fraud 4 2
Ontario lottery retailers stealing winning tickets 2
Online/email alert to be aware of fraud 2 2
Do not give out information/be careful about personal information 2 2
SIN card/Birth certificate being stolen 4 2
Email fraud 3 1
Heard from a friend/relative who was a victim of fraud 2 1
Home renovation fraud 1 1
Nigerian/African fraud 1 1
Police/RCMP actions 1 1
Mail fraud 1 1
Fraud is increasing/becoming more common 5 1
How easily/quickly it can be done 1 1
Door-to-door fraud 1 1
Online/phone purchases not received 1 1
Insurance fraud 1
Warnings from companies I deal with
Cheque fraud
Corporate crime (Enron etc.) 1
Sponsorship scandal/Gomery inquiry 1
Long distance fraud
Other 6 12
DK/NA/Ref 7 4



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
(n=934)
%
2007


Total
(n=869)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=422)
%
Female
(n=447)
%
18–34
(n=166)
%
35–54
(n=378)
%
55+
(n=309)
%
HS or less
(n=246)
%
College
(n=236)
%
Univ.
(n=376)
%

Q.15    Did you recently see, hear or read anything about Fraud Prevention [listed as Fraud Awareness in 2005]?

Base:   Those who have not seen, heard or read anything about mass marketing fraud or identity theft based on their answer to Q14.

Yes 49 53 58 59 57 45 61 61 51 55 65
No 49 45 41 40 42 55 38 37 49 44 34
DK/NA/Ref 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2


Table showing Seen, Heard or Read Anything About Fraud Prevention, by Region
  Region
Atlantic
(n=69)
%
Quebec
(n=224)
%
Ontario
(n=320)
%
Prairies
(n=138)
%
British Columbia
(n=118)
%

Q.15    Did you recently see, hear or read anything about Fraud Prevention [listed as Fraud Awareness in 2005]?

Base:   Those who have not seen, heard or read anything about mass marketing fraud or identity theft based on their answer to Q14.

Yes 62 56 54 62 64
No 38 42 45 38 36
DK/NA/Ref 2 1 1



Source of Information on Fraud Prevention

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


2005
(n=645)
%



2006
(n=564)
%
2007


Total
(n=634)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=313)
%
Female
(n=321)
%
18–34
(n=89)
%
35–54
(n=297)
%
55+
(n=237)
%
HS or less
(n=157)
%
College
(n=171)
%
Univ.
(n=300)
%

Q.16    And, where did you see, hear or read about Fraud Prevention?

Base:   Those who have seen, heard or read something on Fraud Prevention (at Q.14 or Q.15)

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

News coverage on television, radio, or in print 19 43 46 46 45 43 45 49 57 46 41
An article in a magazine or newspaper 13 39 35 34 36 24 33 41 32 36 35
Television 53 18 21 19 22 12 23 19 27 20 18
On a website 7 12 13 18 8 21 15 7 7 16 14
Radio 13 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 9 8
Word of mouth 3 2 4 5 3 6 4 4 3 6 4
Email 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 5 2
An insert included with credit card or other bill 2 4 3 3 3 5 1 3 4 3
At/through work 3 4 3 3 3 9 2 1 2 4 3
Community event 1 1 3 3 3 2 4 3 1 2 5
Bank 1 4 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 4 2
Flyers 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 4 2
Police 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 5 1
Internet/Internet provider (unspecified) 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
Poster 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
Newspaper (all) 22
Other 7 6 3 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 3
DK/NA/Ref 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


Table showing Source of Information on Fraud Prevention, by Region
 


2005
(n=645)
%



2005
(n=564)
%
2007


Total
(n=634)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=51)
%
Quebec
(n=149)
%
Ontario
(n=232)
%
Prairies
(n=112)
%
British Columbia
(n=90)
%

Q.16    And, where did you see, hear or read about Fraud Prevention?

Base:   Those who have seen, heard or read something on Fraud Prevention (at Q.14 or Q.15)

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

News coverage on television, radio, or in print 19 43 46 33 42 48 45 56
An article in a magazine or newspaper 13 39 35 43 26 35 38 41
Television 53 18 21 25 21 17 26 19
On a website 7 12 13 4 16 17 8 7
Radio 13 6 8 10 6 7 8 13
Word of mouth 3 2 4 3 5 4 4
Email 3 3 3 2 3 6 3
An insert included with credit card or other bill 2 4 3 10 3 2 1 3
At/through work 3 4 3 1 4 4 2
Community event 1 1 3 2 1 5 1 4
Bank 1 4 2 4 2 2 3 1
Flyers 1 1 2 4 2 1
Police 1 1 2 4 1 3 2 1
Internet/Internet provider (unspecified) 2 1 1 2 2 1
Poster 1 1 1 1
Newspaper (all) 22 1
Other 7 6 3 4 2 3 2 4
DK/NA/Ref 1 1 1 2 1 1 1



Main Message Recall

Table showing Main Message Recall (continued), by Region
 


2005
(n=649)
%



2006
(n=564)
%
2007


Total
(n=634)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=51)
%
Quebec
(n=149)
%
Ontario
(n=232)
%
Prairies
(n=112)
%
British Columbia
(n=90)
%

Q.17    And what was the main message from what you saw, heard or read?

Base:   Those who saw, heard or read something about fraud prevention (Q.14 or Q.15)

Note:   Unprompted answers, with only one response accepted.

"Fraud: Recognize It. Report It. Stop It." 2 6 12 8 5 5 6
Be careful who you trust 6 4 23 33 10 22 31 29
Be careful/cautious 22 25 14 6 14 19 8 12
Don't give out personal info 12 15 7 10 8 4 6
Be careful about telephone solicitation 3 2 7 8 8 7 4 6
If suspicious call authorities 2 2 6 10 1 4 10 13
Don't give out credit card info to someone you don't know 13 11 6 8 12 3 4 3
Identity theft is a serious crime 4 6 5 6 1 8 6 2
Shred personal info 3 5 4 4 4 4 5 1
How to defend yourself 1 1 2 3 2 1
About issues involving seniors 2 1 1 3
Investigate the company you are dealing with 3 2 1 1 1
Be careful around bank machines 2 1 1
Fraud is on the rise 2 1 1
If it's too good to be true, it probably is 2 2 1 1
Check your bank statements 1 1
About how easy fraud can occur 1 1
Internet/email fraud 2 3
About people being scammed 4
Be aware of charity fraud 2 1
Be leery about prizes, contests or money you have won 1 1
How serious it is 1 1
Small stores/vendor fraud 1
Have insurance (all) 1
Other 1 3 14 8 15 11 15 19
No message recalled 10 1
DK/NA/Ref 1 10 6 6 8 4 7 2



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
(n=564)
%
2007


Total
(n=634)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=313)
%
Female
(n=321)
%
18–34
(n=89)
%
35–54
(n=297)
%
55+
(n=237)
%
HS or less
(n=157)
%
College
(n=171)
%
Univ.
(n=300)
%

Q.18    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 identified the tagline on an unaided basis (Q.14 or Q.15)

Total recall 28 29 29 28 25 29 31 35 31 25
Unaided recall (Q. 14 or Q.17) 2 6 6 7 4 6 7 7 6 6
Aided recall (Yes to Q.18) 26 23 23 22 20 23 24 28 25 19
No recall of message 71 70 71 70 75 70 69 64 69 74
DK/NA/Ref 3 1 2 1 1 1


Table showing Net Recall of Message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it.", by Region
  Region
Atlantic
(n=51)
%
Quebec
(n=149)
%
Ontario
(n=232)
%
Prairies
(n=112)
%
British Columbia
(n=90)
%

Q.18    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 identified the tagline on an unaided basis (Q.14 or Q.15)

Total recall 39 32 26 26 29
Unaided recall (Q. 14 or Q.17) 12 8 5 5 6
Aided recall (Yes to Q.18) 27 23 22 21 23
No recall of message 59 68 73 73 71
DK/NA/Ref 2 1 1 1



Perceived Usefulness of Fraud Awareness Messages

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


2005
(n=580)
%



2006
(n=155)
%
2007


Total
(n=183)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=92)
%
Female
(n=91)
%
18–34
(n=22)c
%
35–54
(n=86)
%
55+
(n=73)
%
HS or less
(n=55)
%
College
(n=53)
%
Univ.
(n=74)
%

Q.19    And how useful did you find this message?

Base:   Those respondents who identified the main message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." (at Q.17 or Q18)

Note:   In 2005, all respondents who had seen, heard or read something about mass marketing fraud or identity theft were included, explaining the larger base size.

C   Caution: small base size

NET Somewhat/Very useful 90 86 86 84 88 86 87 84 85 91 82
Very useful 56 45 50 50 49 41 52 51 58 57 39
Somewhat useful 34 41 36 34 38 45 35 33 27 34 43
Not too useful 6 8 9 11 7 14 8 8 7 6 12
Not at all useful 4 6 5 5 5 5 8 7 4 5
NET Not too/Not at all useful 10 14 14 16 12 14 13 16 15 9 18
DK/NA/Ref 1


Table showing Perceived Usefulness of Fraud Awareness Messages, by Region
 


2005
(n=580)
%



2006
(n=155)
%
2007


Total
(n=183)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=20)c
%
Quebec
(n=47)c
%
Ontario
(n=61)
%
Prairies
(n=29)c
%
British Columbia
(n=26)c
%

Q.19    And how useful did you find this message?

Base:   Those respondents who identified the main message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." (at Q.17 or Q18)

Note:   In 2005, all respondents who had seen, heard or read something about mass marketing fraud or identity theft were included, explaining the larger base size.

C   Caution: small base size

NET Somewhat/Very useful 90 86 86 85 89 89 76 85
Very useful 56 45 50 35 70 48 34 46
Somewhat useful 34 41 36 50 19 41 41 38
Not too useful 6 8 9 10 9 3 17 12
Not at all useful 4 6 5 5 2 8 7 4
NET Not too/Not at all useful 10 14 14 15 11 11 24 15
DK/NA/Ref 1



Response to Information

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


2005
(n=649)
%



2006
(n=155)
%
2007


Total
(n=183)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=92)
%
Female
(n=91)
%
18–34
(n=22)c
%
35–54
(n=86)
%
55+
(n=73)
%
HS or less
(n=55)
%
College
(n=53)
%
Univ.
(n=74)
%

Q.20    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:   Those respondents who identified the main message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." (at Q.17 or Q18)

Note:   In 2005, all respondents who had seen, heard or read something about mass marketing fraud or identity theft were included, explaining the larger base size.

NET Somewhat/A great deal 61 65 63 61 65 68 70 55 62 70 58
A great deal 37 41 36 36 36 41 43 27 40 40 30
Somewhat 24 24 27 25 29 27 27 27 22 30 28
Not very much 14 12 15 15 14 14 13 16 18 13 14
No 25 21 20 21 20 18 16 25 18 15 26
NET Not very much/No 39 33 35 36 34 32 29 41 36 28 39
DK/NA/Ref 1 2 2 3 1 1 4 2 2 3


Table showing Response to Information, by Region
 


2005
(n=649)
%



2006
(n=155)
%
2007


Total
(n=183)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=20)c
%
Quebec
(n=47)c
%
Ontario
(n=61)
%
Prairies
(n=29)c
%
British Columbia
(n=26)c
%

Q.20    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:   Those respondents who identified the main message "Fraud: Recognize it. Report it. Stop it." (at Q.17 or Q18)

Note:   In 2005, all respondents who had seen, heard or read something about mass marketing fraud or identity theft were included, explaining the larger base size.

NET Somewhat/A great deal 61 65 63 85 55 56 79 58
A great deal 37 41 36 40 45 30 41 27
Somewhat 24 24 27 45 11 26 38 31
Not very much 14 12 15 5 17 21 10 8
No 25 21 20 5 23 21 10 35
NET Not very much/No 39 33 35 10 40 43 21 42
DK/NA/Ref 1 2 2 5 4 2

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
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.21    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

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Local police department 51 59 57 54 59 49 56 61 59 53 58
RCMP 20 17 17 19 15 12 18 18 18 18 15
Better Business Bureau 16 12 10 12 8 8 11 10 6 13 10
Competition Bureau 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PhoneBusters 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Other 27 26 38 39 38 42 35 40 31 37 44
Bank or financial institution
13
Credit card company
7
Consumer protection agencies
(general mentions)
4
Company or organization involved
3
Government (all)
2
None/Nothing 1
DK/NA/Ref 14 14 9 7 11 15 9 6 11 8 8


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


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.21    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

Note:   Unprompted answers, with multiple responses accepted. Columns may sum to more than 100%

Local police department 51 59 57 47 53 65 51 49
RCMP 20 17 17 40 11 6 32 25
Better Business Bureau 16 12 10 17 3 8 12 23
Competition Bureau 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
PhoneBusters 1 1 2 1 2 3
Other 6 26 38 22 41 41 32 44
Bank or financial institution
13
Credit card company
7
Consumer protection agencies
(general mentions)
4
Company or organization involved
3
Government (all)
2
None/Nothing 1
DK/NA/Ref 14 14 9 8 9 10 8 9



Net Awareness of PhoneBusters

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


2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.22    Have you heard of an organization called PhoneBusters?

Base:   All respondents

Total awareness of PhoneBusters 19 22 29 16 16 26 20 20 22 23
Unaided awareness (Q. 21) 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Aided awareness (Yes to Q.22) 18 20 27 15 14 23 20 18 20 22
No awareness of PhoneBusters 80 78 72 84 85 74 80 80 78 77
DK/NA/Ref 1


Table showing Aided Awareness of PhoneBusters, by Region
  Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.22    Have you heard of an organization called PhoneBusters?

Base:   All respondents

Total awareness of PhoneBusters 40 10 25 28 18
Unaided awareness (Q. 21) 1 2 3
Aided awareness (Yes to Q.22) 40 9 23 25 18
No awareness of PhoneBusters 60 90 75 72 82
DK/NA/Ref 1



Likelihood of Calling PhoneBusters

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


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.23    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? Would you be…

Base:   All respondents

NET Somewhat/Very likely 81 84 83 80 86 86 86 78 82 84 83
Very likely 62 65 64 63 65 58 67 64 64 63 65
Somewhat likely 19 19 19 17 20 28 19 13 18 21 18
Not very likely 9 7 8 9 7 9 7 10 7 9 8
Not at all likely 9 8 9 10 7 5 7 12 10 8 8
NET Not very/Not at all likely 18 15 17 19 14 14 14 22 17 16 16
DK/NA/Ref 1 2 1 1 1 1 1


Table showing Likelihood of Calling PhoneBusters, by Region
 


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Region
Atlantic
(n=77)
%
Quebec
(n=247)
%
Ontario
(n=379)
%
Prairies
(n=165)
%
British Columbia
(n=132)
%

Q.23    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? Would you be…

Base:   All respondents

NET Somewhat/Very likely 81 84 83 79 75 88 84 86
Very likely 62 65 64 64 52 70 65 70
Somewhat likely 19 19 19 16 23 17 19 16
Not very likely 9 7 8 10 12 6 8 5
Not at all likely 9 8 9 6 13 6 8 9
NET Not very/Not at all likely 18 15 17 17 24 12 16 14
DK/NA/Ref 1 2 1 4 1



Most Effective Way to Combat Fraud

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


2005
(n=1000)
%



2006
(n=1000)
%
2007


Total
(n=1000)
%
Gender Age Education
Male
(n=487)
%
Female
(n=513)
%
18–34
(n=181)
%
35–54
(n=444)
%
55+
(n=357)
%
HS or less
(n=278)
%
College
(n=277)
%
Univ.
(n=432)
%

Q.24    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 59 60 58 57 59 59 46 59 67
Enforcement of the law 25 20 20 21 19 19 21 19 20 23 18
Advertising 13 15 12 11 13 13 11 11 17 9 10
No effective way to combat marketing fraud 7 7 7 6 7 10 6 6 13 8 2
DK/NA/Ref 4 5 3 2 3 1 2 4 5 1 2


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.24    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 71 57 57 55 64
Enforcement of the law 12 16 25 21 15
Advertising 5 18 8 14 14
No effective way to combat marketing fraud 10 6 8 5 3
DK/NA/Ref 1 2 2 5 4


V. Appendix A — Record of Contact

Record Of Contact

Project Name:
Competition Bureau
 
Project Number:
 
No
Field Start Date:
Thursday, April 05, 2007
No
Field End Date:
Sunday, April 15, 2007
No

  Total # %
Total Completes 1,002 6.02%

A. Total Numbers Attempted
  Total # %
Total Call Records 29,683  
Total Unallocated 0  
Quota Full — No Dial 13,039  
Total Numbers Attempted (Net Potential Sample) 16,644  

B. Total Eligible Numbers
  Total # %
Number Changes / NIS 3,334 20.03%
Business / Fax / Cell Phone / Computer 984 5.91%
Phone Number Problem 27 0.16%
Call Blocked 0 0.00%
Quota Full 191 1.15%
Duplicate Numbers 4 0.02%
Total Invalid Numbers 4,576 27.49%
Total Eligible Numbers (Net Potential Sample — Total Invalid Numbers 12,068 72.51%

C. Total Asked
  Total # %
Call Back: Hard Appointments 153 0.92%
Call Back: Soft Appointments 1,178 7.08%
Partial Complete 6 0.04%
Not Available Until After Survey 45 0.27%
No Answer 1,400 8.41%
Answering Machine 2,315 13.91%
Busy 100 0.60%
Language Problem: French 315 1.89%
Language Problem: Other 304 1.83%
Respondent Not Available 10 0.06%
Other Problem 46 0.28%
Didn't Dial 30 0.18%
Total Unreachable 5,902 35.46%
Total Asked (Total Eligible Numbers — Total Unreachable) 6,166 37.05%

Refusals
  Total # %
Upfront 4,763 28.62%
2nd Refusals 6 0.04%
Do Not Call [22] 120 0.72%
Eligible Respondent Refusal 176 1.06%
Middle Refusal 65 0.39%
Total Refusals 5,130 30.82%

D. Cooperative Contacts (Total Asked — Refusals)
  Total # %
Total Asked — Refusals 1,036  
31   No 18+ 19 0.11%
32   Wrong HHDD 10 0.06%
33   Occupation 0 0.00%
34 3 0.02%
35   #value!
36    
37    
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
No Call Status 2 0.01%
Completed Interviews 1,002 6.02%
Total Cooperative Contacts 1,036 6.22%


Response Rate =
Cooperative Contacts / Total Eligible Numbers
8.58%
Incidence =
Completes / Cooperative Contacts
96.72%
Refusal Rate =
Total Refusals / Total Asked
83.20%

VI. Appendix B — Questionnaire

Competition Bureau — Fraud Prevention Tracking 2007

Final as of 2007-04-04

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 Industry Canada, a department of the Government of Canada. This is a voluntary survey which will take about 8 minutes to complete. All of your answers will be treated with the strictest confidence in accordance with the Government of Canada's privacy policy. Copies of the report will be posted on Industry Canada's website following the completion of this study. (For respondents seeking more information: website URL is www.ic.gc.ca)

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)

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. Overall, how serious a problem do you think marketing fraud by telephone, email and mail 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


Thinking back over the last few years, do you think the amount of marketing fraud by phone, email 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.6)

3. Being asked to donate to fake charities

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


4. Buying and paying for something by phone, Internet or mail and not receiving the product in a timely fashion.

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


5. Buying and paying for something by phone, Internet or mail and receiving something inferior to what you paid for

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

6. 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


7. 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. 10) 5
Don't know/don't remember (Continue) 9


8. 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.9 1
Complained to local police department Skip to Q.11 2
Complained to Competition Bureau Skip to Q. 11 3
Complained to Better Business Bureau Skip to Q.11 4
Complained to credit card company Skip to Q.11 5
Complained to the company that caused the problem Skip to Q.11 6
Called PhoneBusters Skip to Q.11 7
Other (Specify) Skip to Q.11 8
Don't know/don't remember Skip to Q.10 9


9. 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
Do not recall 5


10. (Ask only of those who said "Never" at Q.7 or "Don't know/Don't remember" at Q.8) 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

11. (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.13) 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.13) 9


12. 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


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

Yes (Continue) 1
No (Skip to Q.15) 2
Don't know/don't remember (Skip to Q.14) 9


14. 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
Winners/HomeSense/TJX data breach 2

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

15. (If "fraud prevention" mentioned in Q. 14, go to Q. 16) Did you recently see, hear or read anything about Fraud Prevention?

Yes 1
No (Skip to Q.21) 2
Don't know/don't recall 9

16. And, where did you see, hear or read about Fraud Prevention? (Do not read list. 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
Community event 9
Other, specify X


16a. In addition to those you've mentioned, have you seen, heard or read anything about Fraud Prevention in any of the following … How about … (Programming note: Read only those not checked in Q.16. Check all that 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
Community event 9
Other, specify X

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

__________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

Correct message recall (Skip to Q. 19) 1
Don't know/don't recall (Go to Q.18) 9


18. (If "Recognize, Report, Stop it" or some variation on this message not mentioned in response to Q.17, 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. 21) 2
Don't know/don't recall 9


19. 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


20. 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

21. 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, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre (Skip to Q.23) 5
Other (Specify) 6
Don't know 9


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

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


23. (Read only if "yes" to 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? Would you be …

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


24. 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.

25. What is your year of birth    _ _ _ _
(e.g. 1943, 1931, 1965 )

If refused to answer, Please read list
1 - 18 to 19
2 - 20 to 24
3 - 25 to 29
4 - 30 to 34
5 - 35 to 39
6 - 40 to 44
7 - 45 to 49
8 - 50 to 54
9 - 55 to 59
10- 60 to 64
11- 65 to 69
12 -70 to 74
13 - 75+


26. What is the highest level of education you have completed? Read — code one only

1 - Some high school or less
2 - Completed high school
3 - Some college /CEGEP
4 - Completed college/CEGEP
5 - Some university
6 - Completed undergraduate degree
7 - Completed Professional Degree (such as Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer)
8 - Some or completed a Post Graduate Degree
Volunteered
9 - No schooling
10 - Other [Specify]:_____________________


27. What is your marital status? Are you…? Read — code one only

1 - Married
2 - Living common law or partnered
3 - Single
4 - Widowed
5 - Divorced or separated


28. Would your annual household income from all sources before taxes be under $50,000 or $50,000 or more per year?

1 - Under $50,000 (Go to Q28a)
2 - $50,000 or more (Skip to 28b)


28a. Is that… Read

01 - Less than $5000
02 - $5000 to just under $10,000
03 - $10,000 to just under $15,000
04 - $15,000 to just under $20,000
05 - $20,000 to just under $25,000
06 - $25,000 to just under $30,000
07 - $30,000 to just under $35,000
08 - $35,000 to just under $40,000
09 - $40,000 to just under $45,000 or
10 - $45,000 to just under $50,000


28b. Is that… Read

01 - $50,000 to just under $55,000
02 - $55,000 to just under $60,000
03 - $60,000 to just under $65,000
04 - $65,000 to just under $70,000
05 - $70,000 to just under $75,000
06 - $75,000 to just under $80,000
07 - $80,000 to just under $85,000
08 - $85,000 to just under $90,000
09 - $90,000 to just under $100,000
10 - $100,000 to just under $125,000
11 - $125,000 to just under $150,000
12 - $150,000 to just under $200,000 or
13 - $200,000 and over?


29. Gender (by observation)
30. Region (coded)
31. Language (coded)

Thank you