Branch and directorate:
The Competition Bureau of Canada (Bureau) contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choice. This project was commissioned by the Bureau's Fair Business Practices Branch (FBPB), which is responsible for the administration and enforcement of provisions of the Competition Act that cover false or misleading representations and deceptive marketing practices. The Branch also administers and enforces the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Precious Metals Marking Act, and the Textile Labelling Act. FBPB officials carry out their investigations through enforcement activities in regional offices across the country, including Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, and Halifax.
As part of its regional participation, the Bureau plays an active role in six regional enforcement partnerships in place across Canada to combat MMF. These partnerships include: the Vancouver Strategic Alliance, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)-led Projects Emptor (Vancouver) and COLT (Montreal), the Alberta Partnership Against Cross Border Fraud, the Toronto Strategic Partnership, and the Atlantic Partnership — Combating Cross Border Fraud. Branch officials support the Bureau-chaired Fraud Prevention Forum, a concerned group of 100 plus members representing private sector firms, consumer and volunteer groups, and government and law enforcement agencies. The Fraud Prevention Forum is committed to fighting fraud aimed at consumers and businesses in Canada through increased public awareness. Additionally, FBPB supports the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre — PhoneBusters (CAFCC), a program located in North Bay, Ontario, and managed on a tripartite basis by the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, and the Bureau. The FBPB is headed by a Deputy Commissioner who currently serves as the federal Co-Chair of a National Mass Marketing Fraud (MMF) Strategy Working Group (WG); the other federal Co-Chair being the Director of Commercial Crime Section, RCMP (Headquarters).
Rationale:
Fraud is an issue of growing concern in Canada and other countries. Despite this, there is no comparative figure cited by Canadian partners in estimating the level of financial losses incurred by victims of Canadian-based MMF operators. MMF operators target individuals through fraudulent schemes ranging from prize pitches, lottery clubs, credit card offers and advance fee loans to credit card protection and health insurance frauds, among others. There is a need to collect data that is empirically sound, that can be systematically monitored on an annual basis or over time to measure changes in the level of fraudulent activity in this country.
Prior research for the Bureau suggests that a general population survey would be beneficial in helping to gain further insights into patterns of victimization in Canada, through self-reported data from Canadian adults who had been victimized or targeted by fraudsters. Should such a general population survey be undertaken, it was deemed important that the survey sample should be large enough and cover the types of frauds most frequently reported by consumers and those investigated by Canadian enforcement partners.
For the purpose of the proposed research, the Competition Bureau defines Mass Marketing Fraud (MMF) in Canada as fraud committed via mass communication media using the telephone, mail, and the Internet. This definition includes instances of deceptive SPAM, but excludes identity theft and phishing activities.
Anticipated Outcomes / Benefits:
The main objectives of this research are as follows:
- To gain a better understanding of the incidence of MMF and, where possible, the level of victim losses resulting from fraudulent operations targeting Canadians. This will be used to inform Canadian enforcement partners as to current profiles of Canadian victims who lost money through a particular scam or scams, as well as those targeted by fraudsters, and to achieve a more accurate depiction of the scope of this problem;
- Complement existing efforts by Canadian partners at the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre — PhoneBusters (CAFCC), Canada's central repository for MMF-related complaints and intelligence information, to achieve the collection of harmonized and national data on MMF through more uniform reporting using common data requirements, entities and definitions; and
- Through the design of the survey instruments, to achieve some degree of harmonization with the consumer fraud data released by the United Kingdom's Office of Fair Trading (December 2006) and the United States' Federal Trade Commission (August 2004 and November 2007).
Research Information:
This report is based on a national telephone survey conducted between June 13 and August 14, 2007 with a representative sample of 6,116 Canadians 18 years of age and over. The margin of error for a sample of this size drawn from the population is plus or minus 1.3 percentage points, in 19 out of 20 samples. The margins of error are greater for results pertaining to regional or socio-demographic subgroups of the total sample.
Contracting:
The work was undertaken by a public opinion research firm meeting the qualifications set out through this project using the Government's Standing Offer Index for quantitative public opinion research.
Research Firm: Environics Research Group
Contract #: U3200-062514/001/CY
Contract issued by: Public Works Government Services Canada
Contract value: to a maximum of $199,910.70
2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey
2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey
POR # 459-06
Any questions regarding this report can be addressed to:
Communications and Marketing Branch
Industry Canada
C.D. Howe Building
Room 204E, 235 Queen Street
Ottawa Ontario K1A 0H5 Canada
Telephone: 613-943-2545
Fax: 613-952-5162
Email: janis.camelon@canada.ca
Final Report
Environics Research Group
Prepared for: Competition Bureau Canada
Report date: February, 2008
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français
Contract number: U3200-062514/001/CY
Contract date: 2007-03-02
Table of Contents
Executive SummaryIntroduction
Awareness and Exposure
Details of Fraudulent Contacts
Victimization
Impacts of Mass Marketing Fraud
Reporting of Mass Marketing Fraud
Exposure and Victimization of Other Household Members
Perceived Seriousness of the Problem of Mass Marketing Fraud
Appendices:
Executive Summary
Competition Bureau Canada (Bureau) is an independent federal law enforcement agency that contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choice. As part of its mandate, the Bureau administers the Competition Act that includes provisions related to the enforcement of some types of Mass Marketing Fraud (MMF). In this capacity, Bureau officials routinely work in partnership with other law enforcement agencies in Canada and across the world to tackle such fraudulent activities. To combat MMF, the Bureau plays an active role in six regional enforcement partnerships in place across Canada.Footnote 1
Objectives
The Bureau commissioned the 2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey with the overall purpose of investigating the experiences and perceptions of a random selection of Canadians related to 12 specific types of consumer MMF activity.
In this survey, MMF is defined as fraud committed via mass communication media using the telephone, mail and the Internet (including deceptive email, but not identity theftFootnote 2 or so-called "phishing"Footnote 3 activities). Targets of such scams that report having paid out money in response to a fraud are referred to as "victims" of MMF throughout this report.
The 12 different types of consumer MMF examined in the study were chosen by the Bureau based on self-reported victim complaint data, as reported to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre — PhoneBusters. The 12 consumer MMFs chosen include: prize lottery or sweepstakes fraud, West African or 419 fraud, employment / work from home fraud, cheque cashing / money transfer job fraud, overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud, advance fee loan fraud, upfront fee for credit card fraud, bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud, bogus health product or cure fraud, advance fee vacation fraud, high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud and investment fraud. (These frauds are explained in further detail in the report.) It is important to emphasize that the focus of this study was solely on Canadian consumers. It did not, for example, examine foreign targets or victims of Canadian-based frauds, nor did it examine MMFs targeting Canadian businesses.
The survey's specific objective was to generate a solid baseline of national data regarding the incidence of the 12 types of consumer MMF assessed and the level of victim losses resulting from these particular frauds. The survey examined in detail Canadian consumers' experiences with the 12 types of consumer MMFs over a 12-month time frame.
Key Findings and Conclusions
What was the Level of Overall MMF Awareness Among Canadian Consumers?
Awareness of the 12 consumer MMFs examined is very high, with nine in ten Canadians familiar. Consumer MMF in general is perceived to be a serious issue by almost nine in ten Canadians and a very serious issue by four in ten.
How Many Canadian Consumers were Targeted by MMF Operators?
Almost six in ten (58%) adult Canadians reported they had been targeted in the past 12 months by one of the 12 frauds. This amounts to some 15 million adult Canadians. The very act of being targeted can have significant impacts, regardless of whether or not the target actually falls victim to the fraud attempt. For example, targets of these MMFs report receiving an average of 16 fraudulent contacts over the past 12 months, with these contacts usually coming by telephone or email. Targets report monetary demands from the fraud artists averaging $4,700.
What Kinds of Impacts were Reported by Canadians as a Result of their MMF Experiences?
The survey findings clearly show that the impacts of MMF go beyond direct financial losses of victims (which the findings indicate for this group of frauds alone are at least $450 million). There is the inconvenience and stress of dealing with many fraudulent contacts over the year. What is also striking is that, for the most part, victims are not reporting these fraudulent contacts: almost nine in ten speak to no one about the fraud attempt. Fully one-quarter (25%, rising to 57% among victims) indicate they have changed the way they shop for things as a result of being targeted by MMF operators. Almost three in ten (28%) have changed the way they pay for things when they shop. Further, over half (57%) of victims report that the victimization has changed their behaviour and attitudes in a more general way, including common tactics like "just hanging up" (mentioned by 15%), and throwing out or deleting junk mail or emails (mentioned by 10%).
About one-third of targets report a change in their purchasing behaviour, and 45% report a change in the way they deal with unsolicited contacts. Ten percent (10%) are now more suspicious or careful in doing business over the phone, mail or the Internet. Clearly, these behavioural changes and choices on the part of Canadian consumers who have been both victimized and targeted by MMF operators can have an impact on legitimate businesses, especially those that operate online or use telemarketing.
How Many Canadians Reported Being Victimized by MMF Operators?
About four percent (translating into one million adult Canadians) have fallen victim over the past 12 months to one or more of the 12 consumer MMFs examined. The survey results debunk the myth that the usual MMF victim is older and poorly educated. In fact, anyone can be a victim: MMF victimization crosses all demographic and socio-economic strata. Victims can be found across the nation and include the well-educated as well as the poorly-educated, the rich as well as the poor, and the young as well as the old. In fact, younger Canadians, including people 18 to 29 years of age (31%) are highly susceptible to being victimized by MMF operators, as are Canadians 30 to 44 years of age (33%), reinforcing the fact that seniors are not disproportionately targeted by fraud artists in this country.
What Differences were Found Between Victims and Targets?
While Canadian targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined report an average of 16 contacts from MMF artists over the past 12 months, this number rises to an average of 21 contacts among MMF victims. On average, victims of the 12 consumer scams examined also report demands from fraud artists averaging $1,900 and direct financial losses ranging from a few dollars to $50,000. The difference between the amounts reported by victims as opposed to amounts that were demanded according to targets may be a function of victims being more likely to recall even the smallest amounts demanded by the fraudsters. As well, fraud targets with higher levels of education tend to report requests for higher sums, rising to a mean of some $6,700 among university graduates.
What are the Implications of the Survey Findings for Canadian Partners?
For Canadian partners involved in the fight against MMF in Canada, this survey represents an important tool to better understand why some people fall victim to these kinds of scams and what distinguishes them from those who do not. It highlights what consumer segments are at particular risk and provides an understanding of what losses and other impacts are incurred by those who fall victim, as well as those that are targeted. The findings will also assist the Competition Bureau Canada in its on-going efforts to inform consumers how to protect themselves against MMF.
Methodology
The research consisted of telephone interviews conducted from June 13 to August 14, 2007 with a representative sample of 6,116 Canadians aged 18 years or older. A national sample of 6,116 provides results accurate to within 1.3 percentage points in 19 out of 20 samples. A more detailed description of the methodology used in conducting this study is presented as an appendix to the report, along with a copy of the questionnaire.
Introduction
Background
The Competition Bureau Canada (the Bureau) is an independent law enforcement agency that contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choice. Its role is to promote and maintain fair competition so that all Canadians can benefit from competitive prices, product choice and quality services. Headed by the Commissioner of Competition, the organization investigates anti-competitive practices and promotes compliance with the laws under its jurisdiction, including the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act and the Precious Metals Marking Act.
One element of the Bureau's mandate is the enforcement of laws against fraudulent practices. With globalization, the growing use of technology and the increased sophistication of certain criminal activities, the issue of fraud has become a growing concern for Canada, as well as other countries. One type of fraud of particular concern is consumer Mass Marketing Fraud (MMF). Frauds within this category are perpetrated on a large scale and use mass media such as telephone, Internet, and regular or electronic mail to target consumers.
At present, there is no widely accepted estimate of the scope of the consumer MMF problem in Canada, nor empirical evidence attesting to its financial impacts and its effects on consumer attitudes and behaviour. Instead, officials tend to focus mainly on financial impacts and to use figures based on extrapolated information drawn from the number of known MMF operations together with estimates of total losses based on amounts actually reported to the authorities. As these figures are not based on empirical observations of the Canadian population as a whole, and as different organizations develop their estimates in different ways, it is difficult to systematically monitor the extent of fraudulent activity over time.
The lack of solid national data on consumer MMF in Canada also means that it is difficult for Canadian partners to develop common messages. This can result in conflicting statements regarding the extent of the problem in Canada which, in turn, can undermine the effectiveness of prevention and public education efforts, as well as the ability of Canadian enforcement partners to demonstrate the seriousness of the consumer MMF problem in this country.
Beginning in 2004, the Bureau considered some possible approaches to improve upon the availability of national MMF data in Canada. One of the approaches considered to be beneficial was the idea of a national population survey that, together with data pulled from closed investigative files, could be used to generate a more accurate understanding of the scope and nature of Canadian-based MMF.
Internationally, two of Canada's partners – the United States' Federal Trade Commission and the United Kingdom's Office of Fair Trading – have both completed consumer fraud surveys, the results of which have proved highly beneficial in demonstrating the seriousness of MMF in those countries.
2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey
The 2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey is the first national exploratory survey of its kind in Canada. The overall purpose of the survey was to investigate the experiences and perceptions of Canadians related to 12 specific consumer MMFs.
For purposes of this survey, MMF is defined as fraud committed via mass communication media using the telephone, mail and the Internet. The reader should note that this definition includes instances of deceptive SPAM, but excludes identity theftFootnote 4 and so-called "phishing"Footnote 5 activities.
The 12 consumer MMFs included in this study were chosen by the Bureau based on self-reported victim complaint data as reported by the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre — PhoneBusters, a joint program of the Competition Bureau Canada, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The 12 most frequently-reported scams were selected for inclusion.
The survey examined in detail adult Canadian consumers' experiences with the 12 types of consumer MMFs over a 12-month timeframe. It is important to emphasize that the study did not examine foreign targets or victims of Canadian-based frauds, nor did it examine the experiences of Canadian businesses targeted by MMF. More specifically, the major objective of this survey is to generate a solid baseline of national data regarding the incidence of the 12 types of consumer MMF assessed and the level of victim losses resulting from these particular frauds. This will be used to generate more accurate estimates on the scope and seriousness of this problem.
The 2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey was based on telephone interviews conducted with a representative sample of 6,116 Canadians, 18 years of age and older. The interviews were conducted between June 13 and August 14, 2007. The sample was stratified to ensure adequate representation by region of residence. A national sample of this size will provide results accurate to within plus or minus 1.3 percentage points in 19 out of 20 samples (a larger margin of error will apply to subgroups of this population). A more detailed description of the methodology used to conduct this survey is presented in Appendix B and a copy of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix C.
Report Synopsis
This report presents a detailed analysis of the survey data in seven sections, addressing results at the national level and for relevant subgroups. The first section examines awareness of, and exposure to, the 12 consumer MMFs examined in aggregate. The next section investigates the details of the fraudulent contacts. The third section examines victimization (defined as paying out money in response to an MMF contact) and includes a profile of targets and victims of the 12 consumer MMFs examined. Following this section is a look at the costs of victimization, including both monetary and non-monetary costs. The fifth section examines how the frauds are recognized and whether or not they are reported (and to whom). The next section examines the MMF experiences of others in the respondent's household. The final section examines the perceived severity of the MMF problem in Canada.
A profile of each of the 12 consumer MMFs assessed in the survey is presented in Appendix A.
Unless otherwise noted, all results are expressed as a percentage. Subgroup differences are noted in the text only when statistically significant.
Awareness and Exposure
The 2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey focuses on Canadians' awareness of and contact with 12 different types of consumer Mass Marketing Fraud (MMF). These were chosen based on self-reported victim complaint data, as reported to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre — PhoneBusters. Brief descriptions of each of the 12 MMFs assessed in the study appear below. These are the same definitions that were read to survey respondents:
Prize, lottery or sweepstakes fraud
The target of the fraud is advised that they have won (or have a chance to win) something, but are required to purchase something or pay an advance fee in order to receive the prize.
West African or 419 fraud
This fraud involves a request for assistance in transferring a large sum of money from another country to Canada. The person is asked to pay a fee before the "fortune" can be released, but the fortune is fictitious and the target of the fraud never receives what was promised.
Employment/work from home fraud
The target of the fraud is offered employment and requested to pay an advance fee to secure the job or to obtain materials to do work from home. The job offer promises more earnings than are possible.
Cheque cashing/money transfer job fraud
The target of the fraud is offered a job evaluating the services provided by cheque-cashing or money-transferring companies. The target is given cheques or funds to cash or transfer, but these turn out to be counterfeit or stolen.
Overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud
The target of this fraud is an individual selling or renting something. The target receives a counterfeit cheque or money order for more than the asking price and is asked to cash the cheque and send the difference back to the sender.
Advance fee loan fraud
The target is offered a loan (regardless of credit rating) for which an advance fee must be paid. The loan is never received.
Upfront fee for credit card fraud
The target is offered a credit card if an advance fee is paid, but the card is never received.
Bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud
The target has ordered something through the Internet or a mail-order catalogue and paid for the item. The item does not arrive, arrives at a very late date or is not at all what was expected.
Bogus health product or cure fraud
The target purchases a health product or cure that does not work as advertised.
Advance fee vacation fraud
The target is required to pay an advance fee to secure or hold a discount or free vacation.
High-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud
The target is offered a free gift or reward to attend a sales presentation where he or she is subjected to high-pressure sales tactics and/or misleading offers.
Investment fraud
The target is offered an investment opportunity promising higher than normal returns, but loses most or all of the money that he or she supposedly invested.
Overall Awareness
Nine in ten Canadians are aware of at least one of the 12 consumer Mass Marketing Frauds examined. Awareness is highest for the high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud.
Overall, nine in ten Canadians (91%) are aware of at least one of the 12 consumer MMFs that are the subject of this study. Awareness of the individual frauds varies widely, ranging from 69 percent for the high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud to only 16 percent for the upfront fee for credit card fraud.
Awareness of Mass Marketing Fraud (%)
2007
Nationally, awareness of these frauds generally increases with education and income. Awareness of the 12 MMFs assessed is also affected by attitudinal factors. Specifically, awareness generally rises with the Consumption Attitudes Index valueFootnote 6 and the level of personal financial concernFootnote 7.
Awareness of all 12 frauds is lowest in Quebec, often by a wide margin. Overall, only 80 percent of Quebecers are aware of at least one of the twelve types of MMF, compared with 91 percent among Canadians generally.
Exposure
Two-thirds of Canadians report having been exposed, through direct or indirect contact, to at least one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined, with just under six in ten targeted over the past 12 months.
Canadians were asked whether they had been exposed to each of the 12 consumer MMFs examined. Depending on the fraud, this contact could be direct (telephone or email, for example) or indirect (such as mass market advertising).
Two-thirds of Canadians (67%) indicate having been directly or indirectly exposed to one or more of the 12 consumer MMFs examined in the study. Just under six in ten (58%) have been exposed in the past 12 months. For most frauds, 78 percent to 88 percent of Canadians who report exposure to a given fraud say that their last exposure was in the past 12 months. There are two notable exceptions: 70 percent of those reporting exposure to the high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud and only 52 percent of those exposed to the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud indicate that their exposure was in the past 12 months.
In terms of individual frauds, the incidence of being targeted in the past 12 months ranges from one-third (34%) for the high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud to fewer than one-in-twenty (3%) for the overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud.
Targeted for Mass Marketing Fraud (%)
2007
As is the case with awareness, reports of direct or indirect exposure (in the past 12 months) to most of the 12 consumer MMFs examined tends to increase with education and income but is substantially lower in Quebec than in other regions of the country.
As with awareness, reported exposure (in the past 12 months) to the 12 MMFs is generally associated with higher Consumption Attitudes Index values and higher levels of financial concern.
Frequency of Contacts Made by Fraud Artists (Last 12 Months)
Canadian targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined report an average of 16 contacts from MMF artists over the past 12 months. This number rises to 21 contacts among victims.
Those targeted for one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined over the past 12 months were asked how many times they had been contacted over that period.
Overall, targets report an average of about 16 contacts in the past 12 months. The median number of such contacts is five. Victims of one or more of the 12 consumer MMFs (i.e., those who paid out money in response to the fraudulent contact) report an average of 21 contacts. While about half (48%) of past-12-month targets report having been contacted five times or less over that period (including indirect contacts such as coming across ads or offers), an equal number (47%) report six or more such contacts.
Number of Times Target was Contacted (Past 12 Months)
2007 All frauds combined (%)
In terms of individual frauds, the mean number of contacts in the past 12 months ranges from about three (for the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud) to about 17 (for the bogus health product or cure fraud).
Details of Fraudulent Contacts
Canadians who were targeted in the past 12 months by one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined were asked a series of questions regarding the details of the contacts made by the fraud artist.
Amount of Money Rrequested by Fraud Artist in Past 12 Months
More than four in ten Canadian targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined indicate being asked to pay a specific amount of money to the fraud artist. The average amount requested is $4,700.
Across the 12 consumer MMFs examined, over four in ten (44%) Canadian targets (over the past 12 months) report being asked to pay a specific amount of money to the fraud artist. Most of the remainder either cannot recall a specific amount or indicate that the fraud did not progress to the point where money was requested. A small number indicate that they refused to give financial information (such as a credit card number) to the fraud artist.
Although most requests for money were for under $1,000, requests for over $1,000 were not uncommon, and requests of $10,000 or more were reported by four percent of targets. On average, those who were asked for money indicate that they were requested to pay approximately $4,700. Victims of the 12 MMFs report an average amount requested of approximately $1,900. The lower average among victims may be a function of their being more likely to recall the smaller amounts requested of them. Fraud targets with higher levels of education tend to report requests for higher sums, rising to a mean of some $6,700 among university graduates.
Amount Demanded as Part of Fraud (%)
2007 All frauds
The extent to which targets report being asked for specific sums of money varies by type of MMF. For example, in the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud, the bill itself is a major element of the fraud attempt. Thus, it is not surprising that more than eight in ten Canadian targets of this fraud (82%) report being asked for a specific sum of money. For the other types of consumer MMF assessed, the proportion of targets asked for a specific sum of money ranges from 27 percent (for the West African or 419 fraud) to 44 percent (for the overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud).
The average amount requested of the target by the fraud artist also varies widely by fraud. For two of the twelve consumer MMFs examined, the mean amount requested was under $1,000 ($183 for the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud and $655 for the advance loan fee fraud). For most of the other frauds, the mean amount requested was between $1,000 and $7,000. The West African or 419 fraud was the only fraud examined where the mean amount requested was over $7,000 ($19,227).
Method of Contact Used by Fraud Artists (Last 12 Months)
The telephone is the most common method by which fraud artists contact their targets, with almost six in ten Canadian targets reporting telephone contact. E-mail is the next most common method (36%).
Overall, telephone is the most common method by which fraud artists contact targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined. Almost six in ten targets of one of these MMFs in the past 12 months (57%) report that they were contacted by telephone. E-mail is the next most common method of contact, with just over one-third (36%) reporting this method.
Other methods of contact are less common. Fifteen percent report contact through the mail, while 10 percent saw a solicitation for a fraudulent scheme on a website. No other method of solicitation is mentioned by more than seven percent of targets.
It is interesting to note that victims of one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined are less likely than are targets to report contact by telephone (47%) or email (27%) and are more likely to report responding to a website (30%), mail solicitation (25%) or television ad (14%).
How Target was Contacted (%)
2007 All frauds combined Top mentions
The method of contact is heavily dependent on the specific type of MMF. Some types of fraud are generally initiated through telephone contact. These include the advance vacation fee fraud (82%) and the high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud (73%). The prize, lottery or sweepstakes fraud (36%) and the upfront fee for credit card fraud (32%) are also most commonly initiated by a telephone contact.
The West African or 419 fraud is generally initiated via e-mail contact; eight in ten targets of this fraud (81%) report that their most recent contact for this scheme was by e-mail. Most of the other consumer MMFs assessed are most commonly initiated in this manner, but often use other channels as well. An exception is the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud – this fraud is most commonly initiated through a website (48%).
Language of Contact Used by Fraud Artist (Last 12 Months)
More than nine in ten targets report receiving contact in English. In Quebec, just under six in ten report being contacted in French, with 16% reporting a bilingual contact.
Overall, 92 percent of Canadians who were targeted for one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined indicate that the last contact they had was in English. In Quebec, just under six in ten (59%) report that the contact was in French, with an additional 16 percent reporting a bilingual contact.
Language of Approach (%)
2007 All frauds combined
The relatively low proportion of French contacts in Quebec (relative to the francophone population) may be a factor in the low levels of awareness and targeting in that province for the 12 consumer MMFs examined.
Victimization
Those targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined who reported paying out money in response to a fraud attempt in the past 12 months were classified as "victims" of MMF.
Just under one in twenty Canadians (3.8%) report having fallen victim to one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined over the past 12 months. This amounts to some 975,000 Canadians.
While more than half of Canadians have been targeted over the past year by one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined, fewer report that they have actually been victimized. Just under one in twenty Canadians (3.8%) report having been the victim of at least one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined in this study over the past year. This amounts to some 975,000 Canadians. Furthermore, just under one in ten victims (7%) report having been victimized by more than one type of fraud in the past year.
In terms of individual frauds, victimization rates vary substantially. The victimization rate is highest for the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud, with 2.4 percent of Canadians reporting having fallen victim to that fraud over the past year. In addition, 1.9 percent report having been victimized by the bogus health care or cure fraud. It is interesting to note that, for both these types of fraud, victimization rates are highest among those under 30 (4.8% for the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud and 3.3% for the bogus health care or cure fraud) and among those with a high Consumption Attitudes Index value (4.2% and 3.4%, respectively).
| Bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud | 2.4 |
|---|---|
| Bogus health product or cure fraud | 1.9 |
| High-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud | 0.5 |
| Employment/work from home fraud | 0.5 |
| Advance fee vacation fraud | 0.4 |
| Prize, lottery or sweepstakes fraud | 0.3 |
| Investment fraud | 0.2 |
| Overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud | 0.1 |
| Cheque cashing/money transfer job fraud | |
| Advance fee loan fraud | |
| Upfront fee for credit card fraud | |
| West African or 419 fraud | 0 |
A profile of victims and targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined is shown on the following pages. This table shows the demographic and behavioural characteristics of victims, those who have been targeted over the past 12 months, those who have ever been targeted and those who have never been targeted. Bold type is used to highlight significant differences between the characteristics of specific groups and the population as a whole. (Percentages in the table may not add to 100% due to rounding and the exclusion of "don't know" categories.)
Examination of this table reveals a number of characteristics of victims. Demographically, the most striking characteristic of victims is their youth. Almost one-third of victims (31%) are under 30, while only 19 percent of the population as a whole falls into this category. Regionally, victims (along with targets) are more likely to live in Ontario (44%, versus 38% of Canadians as a whole). It is interesting to note that, although victims of MMF are less likely to live in Quebec, the victimization rate in that province, expressed as a proportion of those targeted, is actually somewhat above the national average.
Victims are also disproportionately likely to have annual household incomes between $30,000 and $60,000 (38%, versus 26% in the general population). In addition, victims are twice as likely as the general population to be at home full-time (10% versus 5%, respectively).
Attitudinally, victims are, not surprisingly, more likely to self-assess as more "trusting" than the average Canadian (52% versus 41%, respectively) and are more likely to have contributed to a charity in the past 12 months. In addition, they are much more likely to score as "high" on the Consumption Attitudes Index (44% among victims vs. 27% among Canadians as a whole). Victims are also more likely to have a high level of financial concern (39% vs. 30% in the population at large) and to feel they are carrying as much debt as they can handle (44% vs. 36% among Canadians in general).
In terms of purchase behaviour, victims of the 12 consumer MMFs examined are also much more likely than the average Canadian to buy from telemarketers or over the Internet. Victims are three times more likely to indicate that they have bought something from a telemarketer (9% vs. 3% among the general population). In addition, they have made an average of just over 7.6 purchases using the Internet in the past 12 months, compared to 4.4 among Canadians in general.
Victims are also significantly less risk-averse in their purchase behaviour, relative to the average Canadian. Victims are three times more likely than the average Canadian to have purchased something through a telemarketer from a company with which they had not previously done business (3% vs. 1%). In addition, victims are more than three times as likely as the average Canadian to have made a purchase in response to an unsolicited letter or e-mail (14% vs. 4%, respectively).
| Total | Victim | Target (1 yr) | Target (Ever) | Never Target | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||||
| 18-29 | 19 | 31 | 19 | 19 | 20 |
| 30-44 | 29 | 33 | 31 | 31 | 25 |
| 45-59 | 25 | 20 | 26 | 26 | 24 |
| 60+ | 21 | 13 | 19 | 20 | 25 |
| Education | |||||
| Lea than high school | 25 | 28 | 19 | 19 | 35 |
| College | 30 | 28 | 30 | 30 | 29 |
| Some university | 10 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 8 |
| University graduate | 34 | 33 | 40 | 38 | 26 |
| Employment status | |||||
| Full-time | 55 | 59 | 59 | 59 | 43 |
| Part-time | 8 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 9 |
| Stay at home | 5 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Unemployed | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Retired | 20 | 10 | 18 | 18 | 25 |
| Income | |||||
| Up to $30,000 | 15 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 19 |
| $30,000 up to $60,000 | 26 | 38 | 27 | 27 | 24 |
| $60,000 up to $100,000 | 22 | 18 | 25 | 25 | 17 |
| $100,000+ | 13 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 7 |
| Region | |||||
| Allantic Canada | 8 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 6 |
| Quebec | 25 | 15 | 11 | 13 | 48 |
| Ontario | 38 | 44 | 44 | 43 | 27 |
| Manitoba/Saskatchewan | 7 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 5 |
| Alberta | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 6 |
| British Columbia | 13 | 13 | 16 | 16 | 8 |
| Northern Territories | 1 | * | * | * | |
| Self assessment | |||||
| Trusting | 41 | 52 | 43 | 42 | 37 |
| Cautious/suspicious | 51 | 39 | 49 | 50 | 54 |
| Attitudes towards consumption | |||||
| Low | 32 | 19 | 30 | 30 | 34 |
| Medium | 41 | 38 | 42 | 42 | 41 |
| High | 27 | 44 | 28 | 28 | 25 |
| Financial concern | |||||
| Low | 21 | 12 | 19 | 19 | 25 |
| Medium | 49 | 49 | 48 | 49 | 49 |
| High | 30 | 39 | 33 | 33 | 26 |
| Future income | |||||
| Much higher | 12 | 17 | 13 | 13 | 11 |
| Slightly higher/slightly lower/same | 77 | 74 | 79 | 79 | 73 |
| Much lower | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Debt level | |||||
| More than can handle | 4 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| As much as can handle | 36 | 44 | 36 | 37 | 34 |
| Can handle more | 36 | 35 | 42 | 41 | 27 |
| Charitable giving/purchase behaviours | |||||
| Contributed to a charity in past 12 months | 17 | 23 | 18 | 18 | 14 |
| Contributed to a charity to which had NOT previously donated | 6 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 4 |
| Bought anything from a telemarketer | 3 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Made purchases from a telemarketer from company had NOT previously done business with | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | * |
| Purchased from seller after receiving unsolicited mail, e-mail or spam | 4 | 14 | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Purchases from Internet in past 12 months | |||||
| None | 53 | 34 | 43 | 45 | 68 |
| 1-2 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 13 |
| 3-5 | 13 | 21 | 15 | 15 | 9 |
| 6-10 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 5 |
| 11+ | 10 | 17 | 14 | 12 | 4 |
| Mean | 4.4 | 7.6 | 5.8 | 5.3 | 2.5 |
Impacts of Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud
Victimization (as well as targeting) by MMF artists can have a wide range of impacts on the individual, including financial impacts and impacts on attitudes and behaviour. The study examined these impacts and the results are presented below.
Financial Cost of Victimization
Canadian victims of the 12 consumer MMFs examined report direct financial losses over the past 12 months ranging from $5 to $50,000.
Estimating the extent of direct financial losses from victimization by consumer Mass Marketing Fraud using survey data is difficult. First of all, any estimate of financial losses made must be interpreted with caution, as it is probably seriously affected by under-reporting. Under-reporting affects the estimate in a number of ways:
- Respondents who have been victimized (or targeted, for that matter) may not be aware of this fact.
- Respondents who are aware that they have been victimized may be too embarrassed to report it.
- Those respondents who know they have been victimized and are willing to admit it may be unaware of the true extent of their monetary losses. It should be noted, in this context, that one in five (21%) of those survey respondents who reported victimization were unable or unwilling to put a dollar value to that victimization.
- Those respondents who are fully aware of their monetary losses may be too embarrassed to reveal them, even if they are willing to admit victimization.
Thus, under-reporting likely affects both the estimate of the incidence of victimization and that of the dollar amount lost. This suggests that any survey-based estimate of the extent of direct financial losses to consumers from MMF will be understated.
In addition, the questionnaire used in this study only assesses the amount lost to the most recent attempt at a given type of fraud. Given that about seven percent of victims have fallen prey to more than one of the 12 types of fraud assessed in the past year, it is reasonable to assume that some may be victimized more than once for the same type of fraud within the year. Any financial losses to these repeat frauds would not be included in the estimate.
Finally, it bears repeating that this study only examined 12 specific types of consumer MMF. Losses from other consumer MMFs are not included here.
Even with these caveats, those victims of the 12 consumer MMFs examined who are willing (and able) to reveal their monetary losses report direct financial losses ranging from $5 to $50,000. The average amount reported was $557.
Reported Amount Lost to Mass Marketing Fraud per Victim
2007
Given the incidence of victimization and the reported losses to the 12 consumer MMFs examined, we can estimate that the total amount Canadians have lost in the past 12 months to the 12 consumer MMFs examined is at least $450,000,000Footnote 8. Clearly, losses to all types of MMF (including types not assessed in this study, such as those targeting businesses), as well as multiple victimizations for the same type of MMF will be much higher.
Other Impacts of Contact with Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud
Many targets and victims of the 12 consumer MMFs examined report that the experience has changed the way they approach unsolicited contacts and the way they shop and pay for things, as well as affecting their attitudes in a more general way.
To shed light on the non-monetary impacts of consumer MMF, Canadian targets of MMF in the past year were asked how the experience of being targeted (or victimized) by MMF has changed their behaviour and attitudes.
More than four in ten targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined (45%) indicate that they have changed how they deal with unsolicited contacts. This proportion rises to 57 percent among victims. The most common tactics adopted as a result of the contact with MMF are to "just hang up" (mentioned by 15%) and to throw out or delete junk mail or spam (mentioned by 10%).
Four in ten targets of MMF over the past year also indicate that the experience has changed their attitudes in a more general way. Victims are even more likely (55%) to feel this way. Just over one in ten (11%) among all targets report they are more suspicious and an equal number (10%) report being generally more careful.
Impacts of Targeting for Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud (%)
2007 All frauds combined
In addition, fully one-quarter of targets (25%, rising to 57% among victims) indicate that they have changed the way they shop for things as a result of being targeted by MMF. About one in twenty (6%) indicate that they are more careful and an equal number (5%) indicate that they no longer shop by Internet/phone/TV/ mail.
Just under two in ten (18%) indicate having changed the way they pay for things when they shop. Almost three in ten victims (28%) feel this way. The most common change, mentioned by five percent of targets, is to use cash.
Reporting of Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud
The study examined how targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined recognized the fraud attempt and what, if anything, they did in response.
How Fraud was Recognized
Four in ten targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined recognized the fraud because it was "too good to be true."
The most common reason given by targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined for recognizing the fraud attempt was that it was "too good to be true," with four in ten (40%) citing this reason. Twenty percent cited intuition, while 17 percent mentioned their "naturally suspicious" nature.
How Target Recognized Fraud (%)
2007 All frauds combined
Although the reasons for recognizing specific types of consumer MMF varied, "too good to be true" is the most common reason in virtually all cases. There are two exceptions: targets of the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud became suspicious when the product/service did not arrive (33%) or was not as promised (19%), while targets of the upfront fee for credit card fraud became suspicious based on their natural suspicion (18%) and/or their intuition (18%).
Reporting/Discussion of Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud
Nearly nine in ten victims or targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined did not report the fraud attempt to the authorities or talk about it with anyone. Those who did discuss the fraud were much more likely to talk to family or friends than to the authorities.
Nearly nine in ten victims or targets of the 12 consumer MMFs examined (87%) did not talk about the experience to anyone. Those who did talk to someone were much more likely to speak to a family member or an acquaintance than to the authorities. While 11 percent of targets mentioned the experience to a family member and 10 percent to friends, only one percent contacted the local police and one percent contacted the RCMP.
Reporting of Fraud or Fraud Attempt (%)*
2007 All frauds combined
Quebecers are most likely to indicate that they talked about the fraud experience (only 62% spoke to no one), while Ontarians and British Columbians are least likely to do so (92% and 91%, respectively, spoke to no one). It is interesting to note that, although Quebecers are more likely to talk about the experience of being targeted for MMF, they are no more likely to report the fraud to the authorities. Instead, they generally speak to family (26%), friends (20%) or colleagues (8%).
At the national level, the likelihood of discussing the fraud with anyone else is higher among targets with annual household incomes of $60,000 or higher (91%) than among those with lower incomes (84%).
There is relatively little variation among the specific frauds assessed in terms of the likelihood of discussing the fraud, with one exception: only 59 percent of targets of the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud indicate that they spoke to no one. This fraud was most often reported to the provider of the product or service (13%) and/or eBay or PayPal (12%).
Reasons for Reporting/Discussing Fraud (%)
2007 All frauds combined
Those who talked about the fraud to someone tended to do so in order to warn others (33%) or because the fraud was seen as commonplace (23%).Footnote 9
Those who did not talk about the fraud to anyone tended to cite the banality of the experience (34%) and that it was "not worth it" to report the fraud (19%). In addition, 14 percent were unsure whether the contact they experienced was really a fraud/crime.
Reasons for Not Reporting/Discussing Fraud (%)
2007 All frauds combined
Exposure and Victimization of Household Members
More than eight in ten Canadians report that no one else in the household was targeted for any of the 12 consumer MMF assessed over the past 12 months. Vacation/travel frauds (7%) are the most frequently cited in terms of contact with other household members.
Eighty-five percent of Canadians report that no one else in the household has been contacted in the past 12 months regarding any of the 12 consumer MMFs examined. However, given the reluctance to report instances of MMF targeting and victimization (see preceding section), it is reasonable to expect that other household members often are not aware of MMF activities affecting others within their household. The frauds most commonly mentioned by those reporting targeting of other members of the household are vacation/travel frauds (7%), foreign money offers such as the West African or 419 fraud (2%) and prize, lottery or sweepstakes frauds (2%).
| No one else in household contacted | 85.0 |
|---|---|
| Vacation/travel | 6.7 |
| Foreign money offer (Nigerian/419/West African fraud) | 2.3 |
| Prize, lottery or sweepstakes | 2.3 |
| Deceptive (bogus) health-related products or services | 1.5 |
| Investment | 1.0 |
| Credit card | 0.8 |
| Merchandise purchased (billed for merchandise not received/not what it is suppose to be) | 0.7 |
| Work at home/job opportunities | 0.7 |
| Loan scam | 0.7 |
| Overpayment scam (sale of merchandise by complainant) | 0.5 |
| Other | 1.0 |
In more than half the cases of contacts with other household members, it is the spouse that was contacted most recently (54%). Just over one in ten (12%) report that a parent was contacted.
Among those who report contacts with another member of the household, nine in ten (89%) indicate that no money was lost. The overall mean lost per household to frauds among other household members is $127. This amount should be treated with caution, as it is an estimate that may not be based on first-hand knowledge. In addition, as we have seen, victims of consumer MMF are often reluctant to discuss their victimization.
Amount Lost to Mass Marketing Fraud by Other Members of Household (%)
2007 All frauds combined
Perceived Seriousness of Mass Marketing Fraud
Almost nine in ten Canadians believe MMF is a serious problem in Canada, with four in ten believing the problem to be very serious.
Almost nine in ten Canadians believe MMF is a serious problem in Canada, with 40 percent characterizing the problem as very serious. Albertans (45%), Atlantic Canadians (44%) and Ontarians (44%) are most likely to perceive MMF to be a very serious problem. Perceptions of MMF as a very serious problem are also more common among those with lower levels of education and income.
Perceptions of Mass Marketing Fraud in Canada (%)
2007
In addition, perceptions of MMF as a very serious problem rise with the level of financial concern and top 50 percent (51%) among those who feel their future household income will be much lower than it is today.
Those who have been targeted by one of the 12 consumer MMFs examined in the past 12 months (90%) are more likely than those who have never been targeted (82%) to characterize MMF as a serious problem. In addition, those aware of one of the 12 MMFs examined (89%) are more likely than those who are not aware (71%) to perceive MMF as a serious problem.
Appendix A: Profiles of Specific Frauds
This section of the 2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey profiles awareness, exposure and victimization for each of the 12 consumer MMFs assessed in the survey. The frauds are presented in descending order of incidence of targeting in the past 12 months.
High-Pressure Sales Pitch Vacation Fraud
The high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud has the highest level of awareness and targeting, and the third highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the high-pressure sales pitch vacation fraud, the target is offered a free gift or reward to attend a sales presentation where he or she is subjected to high-pressure sales tactics and/or misleading offers.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in ABFootnote 10, ON (both 83%) and BC (82%); lowest in QC (38%)
- Awareness low among 18- to 29-year-olds (56%)
- Highest rate of overall exposure and targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in AB and ON (46%); lowest in QC (7%)
- Targeting rate lower among 18- to 29-year-olds (24%)
- Third highest level of victimization (0.5%)
- Victimization rate highest among those with annual household income $100,000+ (1.6%) and visible minorities (1.5%)
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: $771 (fifth highest)
- Median: $149
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 4.8
- Median: 2
- Method of most recent contact:
- Telephone – 73%
- Mail – 9%
- E-mail – 7%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $2,680
- Median: $350
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 26%
- Intuition – 11%
- Naturally suspicious – 11%
- Heard of it before – 10%
- Contact reported?
- No – 82%
- Yes, to family – 9%
- Yes, to friends – 7%
- Yes, to local police -
- Yes, to RCMP -
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 28%
- Came up in conversation – 17%
- Anger – 9%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 21%
- Not sure if it was fraud/illegal – 15%
- Not worth it – 12%
Advance Fee Vacation Fraud
The advance fee vacation fraud has the second highest level of targeting, despite having only the fifth highest level of awareness.
In the advance fee vacation fraud, the target is required to pay an advance fee to secure or hold a discount or free vacation.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Fifth highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in MB/SK (73%) and ATL (72%); lowest in QC (26%)
- Awareness low among 18- to 29-year-olds (50%)
- Second highest rate of exposure and targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in MB/SK (47%); lowest in QC (4%)
- Targeting rate lower among 18- to 29-year-olds (27%)
- Fifth highest level of victimization (0.4%)
- No significant subgroup differences
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: $1,069 (second highest)
- Median: $598
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 5.4
- Median: 3
- Method of most recent contact:
- Telephone – 82%
- E-mail – 6%
- Mail – 5%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $1,257
- Median: $400
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 29%
- Intuition – 13%
- Naturally suspicious – 12%
- Wanted money up front – 11%
- Contact reported?
- No – 81%
- Yes, to family – 8%
- Yes, to friends – 7%
- Yes, to local police - 0.8%
- Yes, to RCMP -
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 35%
- Came up in conversation – 11%
- Too good to be true – 11%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 20%
- Not worth it – 15%
- Not sure if it was fraud/illegal – 10%
- Wasn't sure who to report it to/that it could be reported – 10%
Bogus Health Product or Cure Fraud
The bogus health product or cure fraud has the third highest level of awareness and targeting, and the second highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the bogus health product or cure fraud, the target purchases a health product or cure which does not work as advertised.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Third highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in BC (74%) and ON (72%); lowest in QC (51%)
- Awareness low among those 60+ (60%)
- Fourth highest rate of exposure and third highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in BC (35%) and ON (34%); lowest in QC (13%)
- Targeting rate lower among those 60+ (23%)
- Second highest level of victimization (1.9%)
- Victimization rate highest in MB/SK (3.8%), among those who stay at home full time (5.1%), among those with a high Consumption Attitudes Index value (3.4%) and among 18- to 29-year-olds (3.3%)
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: $241 (sixth highest)
- Median: $59
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 17.0
- Median: 6
- Method of most recent contact:
- E-mail – 32%
- Television commercial – 19%
- Magazine – 10%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $1,240
- Median: $55
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 34%
- Intuition – 15%
- Naturally suspicious – 12%
- Contact reported?
- No – 83%
- Yes, to friends – 7%
- Yes, to family – 6%
- Yes, to local police -
- Yes, to RCMP -
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 35%
- Too good to be true – 16%
- To stop it from happening – 9%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 28%
- Not worth it – 13%
- Not sure if it was fraud/illegal – 8%
Prize, Lottery or Sweepstakes Fraud
The prize, lottery or sweepstakes fraud has the second highest level of awareness and the fourth highest level of targeting, but only the sixth highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the prize, lottery or sweepstakes fraud, the target of the fraud is advised that they have won (or have a chance to win) something, but are required to purchase something or pay an advance fee in order to receive the prize.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Second highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in MB/SK (78%), BC (77%) and ATL (76%); lowest in QC (49%)
- Awareness low among 18- to 29-year-olds (62%) and those 60+ (62%)
- Third highest rate of exposure and fourth highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in ATL (34%) and BC (34%); lowest in QC (13%)
- Targeting rate lower among those 60+ (22%)
- Sixth highest level of victimization (0.3%)
- No significant subgroup differences
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: $854 (fourth highest)
- Median: $400
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 7.6
- Median: 2
- Method of most recent contact:
- Telephone – 36%
- E-mail – 30%
- Mail – 22%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $1,990
- Median: $250
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 27%
- Intuition – 14%
- Wanted money up front – 11%
- Naturally suspicious – 11%
- Contact reported?
- No – 78%
- Yes, to family – 9%
- Yes, to friends – 8%
- Yes, to local police - 0.9%
- Yes, to RCMP - 0.5%
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 29%
- Too good to be true – 9%
- Came up in conversation – 7%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 27%
- Not worth it – 15%
- Wasn't sure who to report it to/that it could be reported – 8%
West African or 419 Fraud
The West African or 419 fraud has the sixth highest level of awareness and the fifth highest level of targeting, but the lowest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the West African or 419 fraud, the target is requested to assist in transferring a large sum of money from another country to Canada. The person is asked to pay a fee before the "fortune" can be released, but the fortune is fictitious and the target of the fraud never receives what is promised.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Sixth highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in BC (69%) and the North (68%); lowest in QC (31%)
- Awareness low among 18- to 29-year-olds (39%)
- Fifth highest rate of exposure and fifth highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in the North (36%) and BC (31%); lowest in QC (6%)
- Targeting rate lower among those 60+ (13%)
- Lowest level of victimization (no reported victims)
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: --
- Median: --
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 9.8
- Median: 3
- Method of most recent contact:
- E-mail – 81%
- Mail – 8%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $19,227
- Median: $2,500
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 21%
- Heard of it before – 18%
- Intuition – 16%
- Heard/read warnings in the news – 14%
- Naturally suspicious – 10%
- Contact reported?
- No – 74%
- Yes, to friends – 7%
- Yes, to colleagues – 6%
- Yes, to family – 5%
- Yes, to local police - 2%
- Yes, to RCMP - 2%
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 31%
- Too good to be true – 12%
- Came up in conversation – 9%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 36%
- Not worth it – 12%
- Wasn't sure who to report it to/that it could be reported – 9%
Investment Fraud
The investment fraud has the fourth highest level of awareness, the sixth highest level of targeting and the seventh highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the investment fraud, the target is offered an investment opportunity promising higher than normal returns, but loses most or all if the money that he or she supposedly invested.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Fourth highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in BC (73%) and AB (68%); lowest in QC (49%)
- Awareness low among 18- to 29-year-olds (47%)
- Sixth highest rate of exposure and sixth highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in AB (24%) and BC (21%); lowest in QC (5%)
- Targeting rate lower among 18- to 29-year-olds (10%)
- Seventh highest level of victimization (0.2%)
- Victimization rate highest among those with annual household incomes $30,000$60,000 (0.5%)
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: $5,263 (highest)
- Median: $4,000
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 10.4
- Median: 3
- Method of most recent contact:
- E-mail – 46%
- Telephone – 21%
- Mail – 10%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $6,729
- Median: $1,000
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 26%
- Intuition – 15%
- Unknown sender/spam – 12%
- Naturally suspicious – 11%
- Contact reported?
- No – 79%
- Yes, to family – 8%
- Yes, to friends – 6%
- Yes, to local police - 1%
- Yes, to RCMP - 1%
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 33%
- Too good to be true – 13%
- To stop it from happening – 9%
- Anger/fed up/annoyed/scared – 9%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 29%
- Not worth it – 13%
- Wasn't sure who to report it to/that it could be reported – 7%
Employment/Work from Home Fraud
The employment/work from home fraud has the eighth highest level of awareness and the seventh highest level of targeting, but has the fourth highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the employment or work from home fraud, the target of the fraud is offered employment and requested to pay an advance fee to secure the job or to obtain material to do work from home. The job offers promise more earning than are possible.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Eighth highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in ON (49%) and BC (47%); lowest in QC (27%)
- Seventh highest rate of exposure and seventh highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in ON (19%); lowest in QC (5%)
- Targeting rate lower among those 60+ (7%)
- Fourth highest level of victimization (0.5%)
- Victimization rate highest among the unemployed (3.6%) and visible minorities (1.8%)
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: $934 (third highest)
- Median: $190
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 12.5
- Median: 4
- Method of most recent contact:
- E-mail – 38%
- Newspaper ad – 26%
- Website – 12%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $1,134
- Median: $150
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 31%
- Wanted money up front – 17%
- Intuition – 15%
- Contact reported?
- No – 84%
- Yes, to family – 8%
- Yes, to friends – 4%
- Yes, to local police -
- Yes, to RCMP -
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 18%
- Seemed suspicious – 15%
- Came up in conversation – 10%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 26%
- Not worth it – 12%
- Not sure if it was fraud/illegal – 11%
- Wasn't sure who to report it to/that it could be reported – 8%
Bill for Unsuitable Merchandise Fraud
The bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud has the seventh highest level of awareness and only the ninth highest level of targeting, but has the highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the bill for unsuitable merchandise fraud, the target has ordered something through the Internet or mail order catalogue and paid for the item. The item does not arrive, arrives at a very late date or is not at all what was expected.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Seventh highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in AB (56%) and BC (56%); lowest in QC (35%)
- Eighth highest rate of exposure and ninth highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in the North (7%); lowest in QC (3%)
- Targeting rate higher among 18- to 29-year-olds (8%) and those with high Consumption Attitudes Index value (6%), lower among those 60+ (2%)
- Highest level of victimization (2.4%)
- Victimization rate higher in the North (4.6%), among 18- to 29-year-olds (4.8%) and those with high Consumption Attitudes Index value (4.2%)
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: $83 (seventh highest)
- Median: $50
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 3.2
- Median: 1
- Method of most recent contact:
- Website – 48%
- E-mail – 22%
- Mail – 10%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $183
- Median: $60
- How fraud was recognized:
- Product/service did not arrive – 33%
- Product/service not what was promised – 19%
- Naturally suspicious – 7%
- Product/service did not work – 7%
- Contact reported?
- No – 59%
- Yes, to product/service provider – 13%
- Yes, to Ebay/PayPal – 12%
- Yes, to friends – 6%
- Yes, to local police – 0.7%
- Yes, to RCMP – 0.8%
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- Wanted my money back – 58%
- To warn others – 20%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Not worth it – 29%
- Didn't lose any/much money – 10%
- Commonplace/not interesting – 9%
- Not sure if it was fraud/illegal – 7%
Advance Fee Loan Fraud
The advance fee loan fraud has the ninth highest level of awareness, the eighth highest level of targeting and the tenth highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the advance fee loan fraud, the target is offered a loan (regardless of credit rating) for which an advance fee must be paid. The loan is never received.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Ninth highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in ON (33%), AB (32%) and BC (32%); lowest in QC (17%)
- Ninth highest rate of exposure and eighth highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in the North (11%); lowest in QC (3%)
- Targeting rate higher among those with high level of financial concern (8%)
- Tenth highest level of victimization (
- Number of victims too small to assess subgroup differences
- Median: insufficient number of victims
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 12.6
- Median: 3
- Method of most recent contact:
- E-mail – 46%
- Telephone – 16%
- Mail – 15%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $655
- Median: $250
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 25%
- Wanted money up front – 14%
- Naturally suspicious – 11%
- Intuition – 11%
- Contact reported?
- No – 77%
- Yes, to family – 10%
- Yes, to friends – 5%
- Yes, to local police – 0.7%
- Yes, to RCMP – 0.8%
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 46%
- Not sure if it was fraud/illegal – 12%
- To stop it from happening – 9%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 34%
- Not worth it – 13%
- Wasn't sure who to report it to/that it could be reported – 7%
Cheque Cashing/Money Transfer Job Fraud
The cheque cashing/money transfer job fraud has the eleventh highest level of awareness, the tenth highest level of targeting and the ninth highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the cheque cashing or money transfer job fraud, the target of the fraud is offered a job evaluating the services provided by cheque-cashing or money-transferring companies. The target is given cheques or funds to cash or transfer, but theses turn out to be counterfeit or stolen.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Eleventh highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in BC (25%) and ATL (25%); lowest in QC (12%)
- Awareness higher among those who have more debt than they can handle (24%)
- Tenth highest rate of exposure and tenth highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest in the ATL (8%) and BC (7%); lowest in QC (2%)
- Ninth highest level of victimization (
- Number of victims too small to assess subgroup differences
- Median: insufficient number of victims
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 12.7
- Median: 3
- Method of most recent contact:
- E-mail – 57%
- Telephone – 12%
- Website – 10%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $6,335
- Median: $500
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 21%
- Intuition – 14%
- Seen/heard of it before – 12%
- Wanted money up front – 10%
- Contact reported?
- No – 74%
- Yes, to family – 10%
- Yes, to colleagues – 4%
- Yes, to local police – 1%
- Yes, to RCMP – 1%
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 35%
- Came up in conversation – 14%
- Anger/fed up/annoyed/scared – 10%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 35%
- Wasn't sure who to report it to/that it could be reported – 12%
- Not worth it – 12%
- No way to track them down – 10%
Upfront Fee for Credit Card Fraud
The upfront fee for credit card fraud has the lowest level of awareness, the second lowest level of targeting and the second lowest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the upfront fee for credit card fraud, the target is offered a credit card if an advance fee is paid, but the card is never received.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Lowest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in the North (21%) and ATL (20%); lowest in QC (11%)
- Eleventh highest rate of exposure and eleventh highest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate highest among those with more debt than they can handle (7%) and 18- to 29-year-olds (6%)
- Eleventh highest level of victimization (
- Number of victims too small to assess subgroup differences
- Median: insufficient number of victims
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 6.7
- Median: 2
- Method of most recent contact:
- Telephone – 32%
- E-mail – 24%
- Mail – 19%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $1,075
- Median: $200
- How fraud was recognized:
- Naturally suspicious – 18%
- Intuition – 18%
- Too good to be true – 15%
- Wanted money up front – 14%
- Seen/heard of it before – 7%
- Contact reported?
- No – 75%
- Yes, to family – 7%
- Yes, to friends – 6%
- Yes, to local police – 2%
- Yes, to RCMP –
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 21%
- Commonplace/not interesting – 15%
- Seemed suspicious – 11%
- Too good to be true – 11%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 28%
- Not worth it – 18%
- Didn't respond to offer – 12%
- Not sure if it was fraud/illegal – 7%
Overpayment for Sale of Merchandise Fraud
The overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud has the tenth highest level of awareness, the lowest level of targeting and the eighth highest level of victimization among the 12 MMFs assessed.
In the overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud, the target of this fraud is an individual selling or renting something. The target receives a counterfeit cheque or money order for more than the asking price and is asked to cash the cheque and send the difference back to the sender.
Awareness, Exposure and Victimization
- Tenth highest level of awareness among MMFs assessed
- Awareness highest in AB (37%) and BC (37%); lowest in QC (16%)
- Lowest rate of exposure and lowest rate of targeting in past 12 months
- Targeting rate lowest in QC (
- Eighth highest level of victimization (0.1%)
- Number of victims too small to assess subgroup differences
- Mean amount lost to fraud by victims: insufficient number of victims
- Median: insufficient number of victims
Contact Details
- Mean number of contacts (past 12 months): 10.8
- Median: 3
- Method of most recent contact:
- Email – 49%
- Website – 21%
- Telephone – 13%
- Mean amount requested by fraud artist: $4,773
- Median: $800
- How fraud was recognized:
- Too good to be true – 28%
- Intuition – 12%
- Seen/heard of it before – 10%
- Contact reported?
- No – 70%
- Yes, to friends – 10%
- Yes, to family – 5%
- Yes, to local police – 2%
- Yes, to RCMP – 4%
- Reasons contact reported/discussed:
- To warn others – 35%
- Seemed suspicious – 16%
- Anger/fed up/annoyed/scared – 13%
- Commonplace/not interesting – 12%
- Reasons contact NOT reported/discussed:
- Commonplace/not interesting – 37%
- Not worth it – 11%
- Heard about it through the media/authorities – 10%
- Embarrassed – 8%
Appendix B: Survey Methodology
This report is based on a national telephone survey conducted between June 13 and August 14, 2007 with a representative sample of 6,116 Canadians 18 years of age and over. The margin of error for a sample of this size drawn from the population is plus or minus 1.3 percentage points, in 19 out of 20 samples. The margins of error are greater for results pertaining to regional or socio-demographic subgroups of the total sample.
Background
The study was undertaken to investigate the experiences and perceptions of Canadian consumers related to 12 specific types of Mass Marketing Fraud (MMF), defined as fraud committed via mass communications media using the telephone, mail, and the Internet (including deceptive SPAM, but NOT identity theft or so-called "phishing" activities). The 12 specific types of MMF studied were identified by the Competition Bureau Canada (the Bureau) as the most common consumer MMF in Canada, based on information from its own files as well as from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre (PhoneBusters) and the RCMP.
The overall study methodology was designed to effectively address the competing requirement for breadth and depth of information:
- Breadth — producing statistically valid and nationally representative estimates of the incidence within the target population of each of the 12 types of Mass Market Fraud (MMF) studied; and
- Depth — measuring in some depth Canadians' experiences with the MMF they had encountered.
The agreed upon research design maximized the data gathered for the study by optimizing the questionnaire length and sample size within the budget resources available.
Sample Design and Selection
The sample for this study was designed to complete 6,100 interviews with members of the general Canadian population 18 years of age and over. The sample included households randomly selected across the ten provinces and three territories, with oversampling in some regions to ensure sufficient numbers for analysis. The results were weighted to reflect the actual proportion of Canadians. The final sample is distributed as follows.
*At the 95% confidence level. | ||||
| Sample Unweighted | Sample Weighted | Margin of error (%)* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic Canada | 13% | 769 | 471 | ± 3.5 |
| Quebec | 23% | 1,375 | 1,505 | ± 2.6 |
| Ontario | 27% | 1,620 | 2,312 | ± 2.4 |
| Manitoba/Saskatchewan | 8% | 461 | 410 | ± 4.6 |
| Alberta | 11% | 679 | 587 | ± 3.8 |
| British Columbia | 13% | 775 | 807 | ± 3.5 |
| Northern Territories | 7% | 437 | 24 | ± 4.7 |
| Canada | 100% | 6,116 | 6,116 | ± 1.3 |
In addition, two subgroups of the final sample are discussed extensively in the report: those targeted by MMF in the past 12 months (n=3520) and victims of MMF (n=221). The maximum margin of error (at the 95% confidence level) is ± 1.7 for past-12-month targets of MMF and ± 6.6 for victims of MMF.
Environics uses a sampling method in which sample is generated using the RDD (random digit dialling) technique — the most rigorous method for ensuring that sampling frames contain all possible households for potential inclusion in the sample. Samples are generated using a database of active phone ranges. These ranges are made up of a series of contiguous blocks of 100 contiguous phone numbers and are revised three to four times per year after a thorough analysis of the most recent edition of an electronic phonebook. Each number generated is put through an appropriate series of validation procedures before it is retained as part of a sample. Each number generated is looked up in a recent electronic phonebook database to retrieve geographic location, business indicator and "do not call" status. The postal code for listed numbers is verified for accuracy and compared against a list of valid codes for the sample stratum. Non-listed numbers are assigned a "most probable" postal code based on the data available for all listed numbers in the phone exchange. This sample selection technique ensures both unlisted numbers and numbers listed after the directory publication are included in the sample.
In each household with more than one qualified respondent, respondents were screened for random selection using the "most recent birthday" method. The use of this technique produces results that are as valid and effective as enumerating all persons within a household and selecting one randomly.
As is standard practice, the sample was weighted by region based on population data to reflect the actual proportions of each region. The sample was also weighted by age and gender to reflect proportions found in the general population.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire used for this survey was developed in consultation with representatives of the Bureau and Industry Canada. Once the questionnaire was approved, it was translated into French using Environics' professional translators. Both the English and French versions of the final study questionnaire are included in Appendix C.
Given the importance of the data to be collected through this survey, two forms of survey pretesting were employed. The first involved asking participants in a one-on-one interview setting to complete a draft questionnaire administered by the interviewer. The interviewer observed the participant and, after the interview was completed, discussed various aspects of the interview with the participant to clarify exactly what the participant understood from the survey questions. This technique, called "cognitive testing," has been widely used in other jurisdictions when developing major national surveys. This technique helps to ensure that responses offered by participants in the course of a survey interview will indeed be an answer that is within the context intended by the authors of the survey instrument. The focus of this method is on ensuring that respondents accurately interpret the meaning of survey questions and response categories as intended by the client. A total of 11 such interviews were conducted (six in English, and five in French upon translation of the final English survey).
After revisions to the questionnaire based on the cognitive testing, Environics conducted a full standard pre-test in English and French prior to finalizing the survey for field. Pre-test interviews were audited by senior staff members of Environics and the Bureau.
The questionnaire design and testing process was conducted over a three month period (March to June, 2007) and included the following steps:
- An outline of the approach and structure of the questionnaire was proposed and accepted by the client. The proposed approach drew upon prior research undertaken in the UK and US and incorporated strengths from each study (combining a less complex respondent experience with maximum information capture).
- A draft questionnaire was developed and reviewed by the client as well as by a project advisory group established by the Bureau for the study. The project advisory group included Canadian and International experts on consumer fraud surveys and/or the development of MMF data elements.
- Following the review and revision of the draft questionnaire, cognitive interviewing was undertaken in English. Subsequently, revisions were made to the questionnaire in order to clarify language and improve comprehension of the MMF descriptions used.
- Next, the questionnaire was subjected to a full telephone pre-test in English. Thirty (30) pre-test interviews were completed with live respondents.
- Following the English pre-test, additional minor revisions were made to the survey questionnaire.
- The survey questionnaire was professionally translated to French and a comparative reading was undertaken.
- Cognitive interviewing was conducted in French, resulting in minor edits and revisions, which were incorporated into both the French and English questionnaires.
- A second telephone pre-test was conducted in both official languages and final revisions were incorporated into both versions of the questionnaire.
Following this process, the study was launched and data collection took place between June 13 and August 14, 2007.
Interviewing
Fieldwork was conducted at Environics' central facilities in Toronto and Montreal. Field supervisors were present at all times to ensure accurate interviewing and recording of responses. Ten percent of each interviewer's work was unobtrusively monitored for quality control in accordance with the standards set out by the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA). A minimum of eight calls were made to a household before classifying it as a "no answer." The average length of time required to complete an interview was 17 minutes. All surveys were conducted in the respondents' official language of choice. At the outset, respondents were advised of: the purpose of research, the sponsoring agency and research supplier, the voluntary nature of the survey, and the protection of their responses.
Completion Results
From the available telephone numbers for this study, 79,553 were dialled by Environics. 18,749 of the numbers dialled were unresolved (busy/no answer/answering machine). Of the 60,804 calls that were resolved, 14,679 were out of scope (non-residential/not-in-service/fax or modem line), 39,740 were non-responding (refusal/language barrier/missed call-back or broken off), and 6,385 were responding. After excluding respondents due to filled quotas and disqualifications, a total of 6,116 interviews were complete. These completion results give the survey an effective response rate of 10%, on par with industry norms for telephone surveys conducted with the Canadian population. The final disposition is presented in the following table, consistent with the reporting standards of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA).
| N | |
| Total sample dialled | 79,553 |
| Unresolved Numbers (U) | 18,749 |
| Busy | 315 |
| No answer | 7,352 |
| Answering machine | 11,082 |
| Resolved Numbers (Total minus Unresolved) | 60,804 |
| Out of Scope (Invalid/non-eligible) | 14,679 |
| Non-residential | 1,210 |
| Not-in-service | 11,817 |
| Fax/modem | 1,652 |
| In Scope Non-responding (IS) | 39,740 |
| Refusals – household | 25,681 |
| Refusals – respondent | 6,470 |
| Language barrier | 2,323 |
| Callback missed/respondent not available | 5,015 |
| Break-offs (interview not completed) | 251 |
| In Scope Responding (R) | 6,385 |
| Disqualified | 0 |
| Quota filled | 269 |
| Completed | 6,116 |
| Response Rate [R / (U + IS + R)] | 10% |
Appendix C: Questionnaire
Industry Canada/Competition Bureau Canada
2007 Canadian Consumer Mass Marketing Fraud Survey
Final Questionnaire
Introduction
Good afternoon/evening. My name is ____________ and I am calling from the Environics Research Group. Today we are conducting a voluntary survey on behalf of the Government of Canada about issues of importance to consumers. Please be assured that we are not selling or soliciting anything. This survey is registered with the national survey registration system.
This survey is being conducted with a randomly selected group of Canadians, aged 18 and over. All of the answers provided will remain completely confidential and anonymous. The purpose of this research is to better understand Canadians' experiences with a range of sales or marketing techniques that are potentially false or deceptive.
| If asked: | "Canadians" in this context refers to people living in Canada, not necessarily Canadian citizens. |
| If asked: | The survey will take between 10 and 20 minutes, depending on your answers to some of the questions. |
| If asked: | I can give you a contact name at the government of canada at the end of the survey [Provide upfront if respondent insists] |
| If asked: | The National Survey 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 systems toll-free telephone number is 1-800-554-9996. |
| If asked: | To report a fraud you may contact Phonebusters at 1-888-495-8501, or by e-mail at info@phonebusters.com. This service is available in French and English. |
We choose telephone numbers at random and then select one person from each household to be interviewed. To do this, we would like to speak to the person in your household, 18 years of age or older, who has had the most recent birthday. Would that be you?
If person selected is not available, arrange for call-back
If person selected is not available over interview period, ask for person with next most recent birthday
Confirm whether respondent would like to be interviewed in English or French
A. Warm-up/Contextual Items
I would like to begin with a few questions about some experiences you personally might have had as a consumer …
1. In the past 12 months, have you contributed to a charity after receiving a telemarketing call from the charity?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.3 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.3 |
2. (If Yes to Q.1) And after such a call, did you ever contribute to a charity to which you had NOT previously donated?
| 01 | Yes |
| 02 | No |
| 03 | DK/NA |
Ask all
3. In the past 12 months, have you bought anything from a telemarketer who called you?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.5 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.5 |
4. (If Yes to Q.3) Did you make any purchases from a telemarketer who was selling for a company that you had not done business with before?
| 01 | Yes |
| 02 | No |
| 03 | DK/NA |
Ask all
5. In the past 12 months, after receiving unsolicited mail or email or SPAM, have you purchased anything from a seller that you had not done business with before?
| 01 | Yes |
| 02 | No |
| 03 | DK/NA |
6. And how many purchases would you estimate that you have made from the Internet in the past 12 months?
Record exact number; valid range is 0-400. Probe if number is more than 100: "Just to confirm, did you say ### times?"
Specify _____________
99 - DK/NA
B. MMF Awareness, Targeting, and Victimization
Now I'd like to ask you about a number of experiences that some consumers have had. We are interested in knowing which ones you've heard about — whether from a friend, from the news, or somewhere else — and also which, if any, you have had personal experience with …
Select at random 8 of 12 items per respondent from among questions 7 through 18 and randomize their presentation
Interviewer note for Q. 7-18: The (a) question in each of the Q7-18 series is intended to capture general awareness, whether the respondent has experienced the fraud or not. The (b) through (d) questions deal with respondent's personal experiences.
Prize/Lottery/Sweepstakes
7a. Have you ever heard of a Prize, Lottery, or Sweepstakes fraud? Unlike buying lottery tickets, this is when someone is advised either by telephone, mail, or e-mail, that they have won or have a chance to win something but are first required to purchase something or pay an advance fee in order to receive the prize.
If asked: The prize, if received, is not as promised.
If asked: The prize could include cash or goods – travel is a separate type of fraud.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.8 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.8 |
7b. (If Yes to Q.7a) Have you yourself ever been approached or contacted about this type of fraud?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.8 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.8 |
7c. (If Yes to Q.7b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.8 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.8 |
7d. (If Yes to Q.7c) Did you end up purchasing something or paying an advance fee in response to this invitation?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.8 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.8 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.8 |
Foreign Money Offer
8a. Have you ever heard of West African or four nineteen fraud? This usually involves a request for assistance in transferring a large sum of money from another country to Canada.
[Interviewers to pause here and continue only if respondent does not answer with a definite Yes]
The person is asked to pay a fee before the "Fortune" can be released, but the fortune is fictitious and the person never gets what they were promised.
If asked/interviewer note: This does include "Nigerian fraud."
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.9 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.9 |
8b. (If Yes to Q.8a) Have you yourself ever been contacted or approached about this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.9 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.9 |
8c. (If Yes to Q.8b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.9 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.9 |
8d. (If Yes to Q.8c) Did you end up paying an advance fee in response to this invitation?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.9 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.9 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.9 |
Work at home/job opportunities
9a. Have you ever heard of a fraud where someone is offered employment and requested to pay an advance fee to secure the job or to obtain materials to do work from home? These job offers promise more earnings than are possible.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.10 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.10 |
9b. (If Yes to Q.9a) Have you yourself ever been contacted or come across ads or offers related to this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.10 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.10 |
9c. (If Yes to Q.9b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.10 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.10 |
9d. (If Yes to Q.9c) Did you end up paying an advance fee to get the job?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.10 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.10 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.10 |
10a. Have you ever heard of a fraud in which people are offered jobs evaluating the services provided by cheque-cashing or money-transferring companies. The person is given cheques or funds to cash or transfer, but these turn out to be counterfeit or stolen.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.11 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.11 |
10b. (If Yes to Q.10a) Have you yourself ever been contacted about or come across ads or offers related to this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.11 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.11 |
10c. (If Yes to Q. 10b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.11 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.11 |
10d. (If Yes to Q.10c) Did you end up taking the job?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.11 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.11 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.11 |
Overpayment Scam (Sale of Merchandise by Complainant)
11a. Have you ever heard about a fraud where the victim is a person selling something and they receive a cheque for more than the asking price? They are then asked to cash the cheque and give the difference back to the sender. In this fraud, the cheque turns out to be counterfeit or stolen, and the seller is held responsible to pay back the funds sent after cashing the cheque.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.12 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.12 |
11b. (If Yes to Q.11a) Have you yourself ever been contacted about or come into contact with this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.12 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.12 |
11c. (If Yes to Q.11b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.12 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.12 |
11d. (If Yes to Q.11c) Did you end up cashing the cheque and sending money back to other person?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.12 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.12 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.12 |
Loan Scam
12a. Have you ever heard of loans that are offered regardless of the borrowers' credit rating, but for which an advance fee must be paid? In this fraud, the borrower sends the advance payment, but never receives the loan.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.13 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.13 |
12b. (If Yes to Q.12a) Have you yourself ever been contacted or come across ads or offers related to this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.13 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.13 |
12c. (If Yes to Q.12b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.13 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.13 |
12d. (If Yes to Q.12c) Did you end up paying an advance fee in response to this invitation?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.13 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.13 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.13 |
Credit Card
Interviewer note: If asked/mentioned, the recent winners/homesense credit/debit card security breach is not applicable / relevant for this question.
13a. Have you ever heard of a fraud in which a consumer is offered a credit card if they pay an advance fee, but they never receive the card?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.14 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.14 |
13b. (If Yes to Q.13a) Have you yourself ever been contacted or come across ads or offers related to this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.14 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.14 |
13c. (If Yes to Q.13b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.14 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.14 |
13d. (If Yes to Q.13c) Did you end up paying an advance fee in response to this invitation?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.14 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.14 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.14 |
If asked: To report a fraud you may contact Phonebusters at 1-888-495-8501, or by e-mail at info@phonebusters.com. This service is available in French and English.
Merchandise Purchased (Not Received/Not What It Is Supposed To Be)
14a. Have you ever heard of a situation in which someone buys something, either through the Internet or a mail order catalogue, pays, and then either the product received is not at all what was expected, never arrives, or arrives at a very late date.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.15 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.15 |
14b. (If Yes to Q.14a) Have you yourself experienced this type of fraud?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.15 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.15 |
14c. (If Yes to Q.14b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.15 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.15 |
14d. (If Yes to Q.14c) Did you end up paying something in response to this fraud?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.15 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.15 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.15 |
Deceptive Health-Related Products or Services
15a. Have you ever heard about health products or treatments that do not work as advertised, if at all? For example, cures for diseases, weight loss products, and so on.
Interviewer – If asked: This does include TV infomercials, as well as ads in Newspapers, Magazines, Offers on the internet or by e-mail, and telemarketing solicitations.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.16 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.16 |
15b. (If Yes to Q.15a) Have you yourself ever come into contact with or seen ads or offers related to this type of fraud?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.16 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.16 |
15c. (If Yes to Q.15b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.16 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.16 |
15d. (If Yes to Q.15c) Did you end up making a purchase or paying anything in response to this offer?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.16 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.16 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.16 |
Vacation/Travel
16a. Have you ever heard of a fraud in which a telemarketer calls offering a vacation, but requests that a payment be made before it can be booked? The accommodations turn out to be of significantly lower quality than those promised.
Interviewer notes / if asked: After the advance fee has been paid, the person's preferred dates for the vacation are often not available, or additional fees are charged to book the reservation. If a vacation is actually received, the accommodations are typically substandard.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.17 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.17 |
16b. (If Yes to Q.16a) Have you yourself ever been contacted or come across ads or offers related to this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.17 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.17 |
16c. (If Yes to Q.16b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.17 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.17 |
16d. (If Yes to Q.16c) Did you end up paying an advance fee or purchasing something in response to this offer?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.17 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.17 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.17 |
17a. Have you ever heard about vacation or travel frauds where misleading offers of free gifts or rewards are made to convince people to attend sales presentations where they are subjected to high pressure sales tactics and, or misleading offers?
Interviewer notes: This is often related to time share accommodations or vacation condos.
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.18 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.18 |
17b. (If Yes to Q.17a) Have you yourself ever been contacted or come across ads or offers related to this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.18 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.18 |
17c. (If Yes to Q.17b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.18 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.18 |
17d. (If Yes to Q.17c) Did you end up paying an advance fee or purchasing something in response to this offer?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue with Q.18 |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.18 |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue with Q.18 |
Investment
18a. Have you ever heard about investment frauds, often promising higher than normal or true monetary returns, in which consumers lose most or all of their money that is supposedly invested?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Section C |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Section C |
Interviewer: If asked this does include Spam/Mass e-mail stock tips (or "Pump and dump" e-mails).
18b. (If Yes to Q.18a) Have you yourself ever been contacted or come across ads or offers related to this type of scheme?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Section C |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Section C |
18c. (If Yes to Q.18b) Was this within the past 12 months?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Section C |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to Section C |
18d. (If Yes to Q.18c) Did you end up losing any money in the investment fraud?
| 01 | Yes | Victim for Section C – Continue to Section C |
| 02 | No | Target for Section C – Continue to Section C |
| 03 | DK/NA | Target for Section C – Continue to Section C |
C. Follow-up with Targets and Victims
If no instance of target or victim in Q. 7 - 18 skip to Q.27.
Ask Q.19 to Q.26 for each of up to three frauds [Fraud = victim or target, but victim always takes priority over target].
For respondents with up to three instances of victim and/or target in Q.7 to Q.18 — Select all frauds
For respondents with more than three instances, randomly select three fraud categories.
I would now like to ask you about a few of the details of [if one fraud the fraud or scheme /if two fraud: two of the frauds or schemes/if three or more fraud: three of the frauds or schemes] you mentioned. [If more than three frauds mentioned: We will just select three of the frauds or schemes you mentioned at random.]
Let me ask you [if more than one fraud: first/second/third] about [scheme/fraud one/ two/ three: ] …
Fill scheme/fraud one/ two / three based on the following:
If Q7d: [The prize, lottery, or sweepstakes fraud] [if asked: This is when someone is advised that they have won or have a chance to win something but are first required to purchase something or pay an advance fee in order to receive the prize]
If Q8d: [The West African or four nineteen fraud] [if asked: This usually involves a request for assistance in transferring a large sum of money from another country to Canada. Continue only if necessary: The person is asked to pay a fee before the "fortune" can be released but the fortune is fictitious and the person never gets what they were promised]
If Q9d: [Employment/work from home fraud] [if asked: This is when someone is offered employment and requested to pay an advance fee to secure the job or to obtain materials to do work from home. These job offers promise more earnings than are possible.
If Q10d: [Cheque cashing/money transfer job fraud] [if asked: This is when someone is offered a job evaluating the services provided by cheque-cashing or money-transferring companies. The person is given cheques or funds to cash or transfer, but these turn out to be counterfeit or stolen].
If Q11d: [The overpayment for sale of merchandise fraud] [if asked: That was the situation in which an individual selling or renting something receives a counterfeit cheque or money order for more than the asking price and is asked to cash the cheque and send the difference back to the sender].
If Q12d: [The advance fee loan fraud] [if asked: This is when loans are offered regardless of the borrowers credit rating, but for which an advance fee must be paid, and the loan is never received]
If Q13d: [The upfront fee for credit card fraud] [if asked: This is when consumers are offered credit cards if they pay an advance fee, but they never receive the cards]
If Q14d: [The bill for merchandise not ordered or received fraud] [if asked: This is the situation in which something was ordered, either over the Internet or through a mail order catalogue, paid for, and then either the product received was not at all what was expected, never arrived, or arrived at a very late date]
If Q15d: [The bogus health product or cure fraud] [if asked: This is when a health product or cure does not work as advertised]
If Q16d: [the advance fee vacation fraud] [if asked: This is when an advance fee is required to secure or hold a discount or free vacation]
If 17d: [The high pressure sales pitch vacation fraud] [if asked: This is when free gifts or rewards are offered to convince people to attend sales presentations where they are subjected to high-pressure sales and, or misleading offers].
If Q18d: [The investment fraud] [if asked: That was investment opportunities, often promising higher than normal or true monetary returns, in which consumers lose most or all of the money that was supposedly invested]
19. How many times in the past 12 months did you come across ads or offers or were you contacted about this type of fraud?
Record exact number. If range, probe for exact number.
If number is more than 10, probe: "Just to confirm, did you say ### times?"
Specify _____________
If zero, skip to next section
99 - DK/NA
20. Thinking about the most recent time, how were you contacted or where did you come across the ad or offer about this scheme?
Read if necessary, until option selected: was it:
| 01 | By telephone or telemarketing |
| 02 | By e-mail |
| 03 | By mail |
| 04 | On a website |
| 05 | Through a newspaper advertisement |
| 06 | From a television commercial |
| 07 | From someone who came to your door |
| 08 | When you received the bill |
| 09 | From a poster or flyer |
| 10 | Friend or family member |
| Volunteered | |
| 97 | Other, Specify __________ |
| 99 | DK/NA |
21. And in which language was that specific approach or solicitation made?
| 01 | English |
| 02 | French |
| 03 | Bilingual (English and French) |
| 97 | Other, Specify __________ |
| 99 | DK/NA |
22. Still thinking about that most recent time, how much was the bill or amount that you were requested to pay?
| Specify $ | ____________ |
| 999997 | Didn't get to that point / go that far / didn't notice an amount / hung up on them / Price or amount not specified or mentioned |
| 999998 | Would give credit card number / information |
| 999999 | Don't know/cannot recall |
Victims only — Targets skip to Q.24
23. And how much money did you pay out or lose as a result of that scheme?
| Specify | ____________ |
| 99 | DK/NA |
24. How did you recognize that this was a fraud or scam?
Do not read – Code all that apply – If unsure enter verbatim
| 01 | It was too good to be true/too exciting/you don't get anything (or: something) for nothing |
| 02 | Naturally suspicious |
| 03 | They wanted money up front |
| 04 | They wanted more money |
| 05 | They wanted my bank / personal information |
| 06 | If so good why share it, why not keep it to themselves |
| 07 | I had not contacted them or requested anything |
| 08 | I was warned by other people |
| 09 | Heard or read about warnings in the news |
| 10 | Received warnings from other sources (e.g. bank, eBay, TV, email, website) |
| 11 | I had seen / heard of it before |
| 12 | I was approached again (for the same thing) |
| 13 | They tried to pressure me |
| 14 | They / the offer was too slick |
| 15 | The bill arrived |
| 16 | Checked bank account/ statement |
| 17 | Not worth the money spent (on product/ service) |
| 18 | Did not work (product/ service) |
| 19 | Not what I was promised (product/ service) |
| 20 | Did not arrive (product/ service/ winnings) |
| 21 | They rejected the work I had done and sent to them (e.g. work from home) |
| 22 | I was unable to reach / get a hold of them |
| 23 | No further contact received after initial contact |
| 24 | I had not entered any competitions/ lotteries/ prize draws |
| 25 | I just knew/intuition/had a feeling |
| 97 | Other (specify __________ ) |
| 98 | Can't remember |
| 99 | DK/NA |
25. Did you talk about or report this to anyone?
Do not read - Code all that apply – If Yes, prompt: And who was that?
| 01 | Family |
| 02 | Friend(s) |
| 03 | Colleague(s) |
| 04 | Other person |
| 05 | Local police |
| 06 | OPP / Ontario Provincial Police |
| 07 | Sûreté du Québec |
| 08 | RCMP |
| 09 | Phonebusters |
| 10 | Competition Bureau |
| 11 | RECOL (RCMP's web-based program: Reporting Economic Crime Online) |
| 12 | Better Business Bureau |
| 13 | Office de la protection consommateur (Quebec government consumer protection office) |
| 97 | Other, Specify _________ |
| 98 | No, no-one |
| 99 | DK/NA, skip to Q.27 |
26. (If Q25 = 01 to 97) What prompted you to talk about or report this scheme?
(If Q25 = 98) Is there any particular reason why you didn't report this incident to the authorities or talk about it?
| 01 | No way to track them down |
| 02 | Not worth it |
| 03 | Its commonplace/see or hear about it all the time/not interesting… |
| 04 | To warn others/So that they will be careful |
| 05 | Not sure if it's a fraud / illegal |
| 97 | Other, Specify _________ |
| 98 | No, no-one |
| 99 | DK/NA, skip to Q.27 |
Ask all
Moving on…
27. During the past 12 months, has anyone else in your household been contacted about or experienced any of the fraud schemes we have been discussing?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to section D |
| 03 | DK/NA | Skip to section D |
28. (If Yes to Q27) Which scheme was it:
Read list if necessary – Use same list and order as presented for Q.7-18 code all that apply
| 01 | Prize/Lottery/Sweepstakes |
| 02 | Foreign Money Offer (Nigerian/419/West African fraud) |
| 03 | Work At Home / Job Opportunities |
| 04 | Overpayment Scam (Sale of Merchandise by Complainant) |
| 05 | Loan Scam |
| 06 | Credit Card |
| 07 | Merchandise Purchased (bill for merchandise not received/not what it is supposed to be) |
| 08 | Deceptive (bogus) Health-Related Products or Services |
| 09 | Vacation/Travel |
| 10 | Investment |
| 98 | Other, specify _________ |
| 99 | DK/NA |
29. Which member of your household was contacted or experienced a fraud scheme most recently?
| 01 | Spouse |
| 02 | Child |
| 03 | Parent |
| 04 | Cousin |
| 05 | In-law |
| 06 | Roommate |
| 07 | Brother / Sister |
| 98 | Other, specify _________ |
| 99 | DK/NA |
30. And again thinking of that most recent situation, do you recall if any money was lost?
If Yes (others skip to section D): Do you recall how much?
| Specify $ | ____________ |
| 999999 | DK/NA |
D. Changes / Impacts of Victimization
Ask all victims or targets
31. As a result of your contact or experience with the types of fraud discussed, have you changed:
Read in sequence
- The way you shop for things?
- The way you pay for things?
- How you deal with unsolicited contacts such as phone calls, mail or e-mail?
- Your attitudes generally?
If "Yes" to (a), probe: In what way have you changed the way you shop?
If "Yes" to (b), probe: In what way have you changed the way you pay for things?
If "Yes" to (c), probe: In what way have you changed the way you deal with unsolicited contacts?
If "Yes" to (d), probe: In what way have you changed your attitudes?
| 01 | Specify how ______ |
| 02 | No |
| 03 | DK/NA |
E. General Attitudes
Moving on…
Ask all
[From 06 fraud prevention campaign post-survey]
32. Mass marketing fraud is fraud committed by telephone, mail, and Internet. Some of the common schemes used to defraud victims were described earlier in this survey, such as prize and lottery schemes, loan offer schemes, and credit card schemes.
Overall, how serious a problem do you think mass marketing fraud is in Canada? Would you say it is very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious, or not at all serious?
Interviewer note: for this study, "Mass Marketing Fraud" does not include identity theft or phishing, but it does include deceptive SPAM.
| 01 | Very serious |
| 02 | Somewhat serious |
| 03 | Not very serious |
| 04 | Not at all serious |
| Volunteered | |
| 05 | Depends |
| 99 | DK/NA |
F. Respondent Characteristics
Turning to a different topic…
33. In general, thinking about how your close friends or family would be most likely to describe you, would they be more likely to describe you as being…
Read and rotate
| 01 | Trusting and Friendly …or… |
| 02 | Cautious and Suspicious |
| Volunteered | |
| 03 | Both |
| 04 | Neither |
| 99 | DK/NA |
34. Please tell me if you totally agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or totally disagree with each of the following statements.
Read and rotate A-F
- Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
- I am the kind of person who gives in easily when someone is pressuring me.
- I try to resist the tempting packaging and advertisements that attempt to make me buy things I don't really want.
- It is very likely that, if a product is widely advertised, it will be a good product.
- Most of the time advertising is lying.
- I am very concerned that I will not have enough money to live comfortably in the future.
Repeat scale if necessary
| 01 | Totally agree |
| 02 | Somewhat agree |
| 03 | Somewhat disagree |
| 04 | Totally disagree |
| Volunteered | |
| 05 | Neither agree nor disagree |
| 06 | Depends |
| 99 | DK/NA |
35. Next, I will read a short list of impressions and experiences some people have as consumers. For each one, please tell me whether this has happened to you in the past few months:
Read and rotate
- The urge to buy more
- Looking for promotions or discounts
- Being on the lookout for new things
| 01 | Yes |
| 02 | No |
| 03 | DK/NA |
G. Demographics
To finish up, I'd like to ask a few final questions to help us analyze the survey. Please be assured that your answers will remain completely confidential.
A. In what year were you born?
___________ Year
99 - Refuse/NA
B. Were you born in Canada or in another country?
| 01 | In Canada |
| 02 | Another country |
| 99 | Refuse/NA |
C. Would you consider yourself a member of a visible minority?
| 01 | Yes | |
| 02 | No | Skip to Q.E |
| 99 | DK/NA | Skip to Q.E |
D. Could you please tell me your ethnic or cultural background?
| Group | Includes |
| Aboriginal | Indian, Inuit, Metis. If even part aboriginal, respondent is considered aboriginal |
| Chinese | China, Hong Kong, Taiwan |
| East Asia | Japanese, Korean |
| South Asian/ East Indian | Bangladeshi, Bengali, Brunei, Gujarati, East Indian, Indo Pakistani, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mongolian, Pakistani, Punjabi, Singhalese, Sri Lankan, Tamil |
| South East Asian | Vietnamese, Cambodian, Malaysian, Laotian, Indonesian, Singaporean, Burmese, Kampuchean, Thai |
| Filipino | Philippines |
| Black (Africa, Caribbean) | Angolan, Anguillan, Antiguan, Aruba/Netherlands Antilles, Bahamian, Barbadian, Belizean, Benin, Bermudan, Botswanan, West Indian, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde Islands, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros Islands, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopian, Gabonese, Gambian, Ghanaian, Grenadian, Guadeloupe, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyanese, Haitian, Ivory Coast, Jamaican, Kenyan, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Martinique/French Guiana, Montserrat, Mozambique, Namibian, Nevisitian, Niger, Nigerian, Rwandan, Vicentian/Grenadines, Saint Lucian, Senegalese, Trinidadian, Tobagonian, West Indian, Other Caribbean, Other African |
| Latin American | All Central and South American countries, including Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico |
| West Asian/North African/Arabs | Afghan, Algerian, Armenian, Bahrain, Bhutanese, Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Jordanian, Kurdish, Kuwaiti, Lebanese, Libyan, Maghrebi origins, Mauritanian, Moroccan, Nepalese, Oman, Palestinian, Republic of Yemen, Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Turk |
| Pacific Islands | Fijian, Melanesian, Micronesian, Polynesian, Tonga, Tuvalu, Wake Island, Western Samoa, American Samoa, Coral Sea Islands, Territory, Kiribati, Nauru, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Island, Tokelau, Pitcairn Islands, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna Island, Cook Islands, Johnston Atoll, Guam, Midway Islands, New Caledonia |
| Other Visible Minorities | Record _________________ |
| White | Non - Visible Minority |
| Refuse/No answer |
E. What is the highest level of education that you have reached?
Do not read - Code one only
| 01 | Some elementary (Grades 1-6) |
| 02 | Completed elementary (Grade 7 or 8) |
| 03 | Some high school (Grades 9-11) |
| 04 | Completed high school (Grades 12 or 13 or OAC) |
| 05 | Some community college, vocational, trade school (or some CEGEP) |
| 06 | Completed community college, vocational, trade school (or complete CEGEP) |
| 07 | Some university (no degree) |
| 08 | Completed university (Bachelor's Degree) |
| 09 | Post graduate/professional school (Master's Degree, Ph.D., etc.) |
| 10 | No schooling |
| Volunteered | |
| 99 | DK/NA |
F. Which of the following best describes your current marital status:
Read – Code one only
| 01 | Married or living as a couple |
| 02 | Single |
| 03 | Widowed |
| 04 | Separated or |
| 05 | Divorced |
| Volunteered | |
| 99 | NA/Refuse |
G. How many children, aged 18 or younger, if any, are currently living in your household, or are you otherwise supporting financially?
_____________ Number of children
99 - NA/Refuse
H. Which of the following best describes your own present employment status?
Read – Probe full or part-time hours – Code one only
| 01 | Working full-time (30 hours or more per week) |
| 02 | Working part-time |
| 03 | Unemployed or looking for a job |
| 04 | Self-employed |
| 05 | Stay at home full-time |
| 06 | Student, or |
| 07 | Retired |
| Volunteered | |
| 08 | Disability pension [Programmer : if code 08, select 01 at Q.I and skip to Q.J] |
| 99 | Refusal |
I. Have you or others in your household received social assistance or housing supplements in the past three years? [Includes disability pension/benefits]
| 01 | Yes |
| 02 | No |
| 99 | Refuse/NA |
J. Does a physical or mental condition or health problem reduce the amount or the kind of activity you are able to do?
| 01 | Yes, sometimes |
| 02 | Yes, often |
| 03 | No |
| 99 | DK/NA |
K. For statistical purposes only, we need general information about your household income. Please tell me which of the following categories applies to your total household income for the year 2006?
Read - Code one only
| 01 | Less than $30,000 |
| 02 | $30,000 up to $60,0000 |
| 03 | $60,000 up to $80,0000 |
| 04 | $80,000 up to $100,0000 |
| 05 | More than $100,000 |
| Volunteered | |
| 99 | DK/NA/Refuse |
L. Thinking ahead to three years from now, how do you think your household income will compare to today? Do you think it will be …?
| 01 | Much higher |
| 02 | Slightly higher |
| 03 | About the Same |
| 04 | Slightly lower |
| 05 | Much lower |
| Volunteered | |
| 99 | DK/NA |
M. And thinking for a moment about your personal debt on which you currently make interest payments. I am talking about your debts you partially pay-off each month for things like mortgages, credit cards, personal loans or car loans. Would you say the amount of debt you currently have is…
Read in sequence
| 01 | More than you can handle financially |
| 02 | About as much as you can handle financially …or… |
| 03 | You could handle more debt than you currently have |
| Volunteered | |
| 04 | Do not have any personal debt |
| 99 | DK/NA |
N. And to better understand how results vary by region, may I have your 6-digit postal code?
Accept first three digits if that is all respondent is willing to give
_______________
999999 - DK/NA
This completes the survey. On behalf of the Government of Canada, thank you very much for your time and cooperation.
In case my supervisor would like to verify that I conducted this interview, may I have your first name?
First Name: ___________________
If respondent asks for information about this survey: You can get more information about this research by contacting the Information Centre at the Competition Bureau Canada at 1-800348-5358.
If asked: to report a fraud you may contact Phonebusters at 1-888-495-8501, or by e-mail at info@phonebusters.com. This service is available in French and English.
Record:
O. Gender
| 01 | Male |
| 02 | Female |
P. Language of Interview
| 01 | English |
| 02 | French |
Q. Province
| 01 | Newfoundland |
| 02 | Prince Edward Island |
| 03 | Nova Scotia |
| 04 | New Brunswick |
| 05 | Quebec |
| 06 | Ontario |
| 07 | Manitoba |
| 08 | Saskatchewan |
| 09 | Alberta |
| 10 | British Columbia |
| 11 | Northwest Territories |
| 12 | Yukon |
| 13 | Nunavut |
R. Community Size
| 01 | One million + |
| 02 | 100,000 to one million |
| 03 | 10,000 to 100,000 |
| 04 | 5,000 to 10,000 |
| 05 | Less than 5,000 |