Sample Report

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Report Issued (DATE)

General Aviation Study

CLIENT

THIS IS A SAMPLE REPORT USING DATA

FROM AN ACTUAL STUDY. SOME OF THE

DATA HAS BEEN CHANGED. THE NAME OF

THE CLIENT COMPANY HAS BEEN

CHANGED TO “CLIENT”. THE PRODUCT

CATEGORY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO

(PRODUCT)

Amy Hoffman

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

2

Analysis Contents

Page #

Introduction 3-4

Executive Summary 6-7

Recommendations 8

Detailed Findings

Awareness and Usage 10-15

Importance and Product Satisfaction 17-21

Image of (CLIENT) 23-26

Purchase Process 28-29

Demographics 32-33

Appendix

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

3

Introduction

Background

(CLIENT) Corporation currently markets the (Product) to general aviation pilots. According to CLIENT, the (Product) is the technology leader in the market and is also the most expensive (Product) available at $XXX. CLIENT would like to conduct a study with general aviation pilots to try to better understand their shopping and purchase behaviors with regards to aviation (Products) with the goal of better understanding how these pilots make their purchase decision. Ultimately, CLIENT would like to know how to increase their market share in this category.

Objectives

The primary objectives of this research are to…

• Measure awareness of the CLIENT brand relative to other (Product) brands among general aviation pilots

• Understand what goes into a general aviation pilot’s decision to purchase one brand of (Product) over another. That is, what are the key drivers for making a (Product) purchase?

• Understand how they learned about the (Product) that they own and what resources are used in making a decision to purchase a new Products.

• Measure interest in the CLIENT (Product) and try to determine what, if any, obstacles exist for this product in the general aviation market

• Identify usage demographics of general aviation pilots

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

4

Introduction

Research Methodology

A sample of pilots from an FAA-sponsored on line data base was utilized by AAA Research Company. Respondents were screened for the following:

• Pilot status verification (Private, Instrument, Multiengine or commercial)

• Between the ages of 25 and 64

• Not competitively employed

• Own at least one pilot (Product)

A total of 500 interviews were conducted via telephone from January 9 – 19, 20XX.

Qualified pilots were asked about their awareness and purchase behavior, satisfaction and likelihood to purchase a new (Products) and a CLIENT (Product), and lastly, demographics.

Reporting Notes

All statistical testing has been conducted at the 90% confidence level. Statistical differences between groups are shown in the report and noted by lower case letters.

Base sizes which are less than 30 respondents should be considered directional.

Executive Summary and Recommendations

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

6

Executive Summary

The CLIENT BRAND commands fairly high awareness in the general aviation market; however, the dominance

of the Competitor A brand name combined with CLIENT’s high price appear to deflate usage of CLIENT’s

(product).

• Competitor A (Products) are the predominant name in the pilot (Products) market among general aviation pilots.

With unequalled top-of-mind awareness, the Competitor A (products) dominate current usage as well.

• While CLIENT has the second highest level of unaided awareness, usage is not commensurate with awareness

with just an 8% awareness to usage conversion, among the lowest of all brands.

• Price is the primary reason for not considering CLIENT’s (Product).

CLIENT users are quite satisfied and to some extent more content than the Competitor A users. Further, the

product has a good reputation in the industry even among non-users.

• Ratings for CLIENT are strong on the important attributes of communication clarity, noise reduction, comfort and

weight. Further these ratings exceed those for Competitor A among their respective users.

• CLIENT’s ratings among non-users tend to parallel users’ ratings on the key dimensions. Price is an area where

the two groups disagree, however.

(Products) with passive noise reduction dominates usage 2:1 over active noise reduction. However, those

owning active noise reduction products tend to be more satisfied. Yet this feature may not be perceived as

enough of an advantage to justify the higher price for CLIENT.

• Although noise reduction is a critical feature in pilot (Products), pilots are generally pleased with their (Product’s)

ability to achieve this attribute. The difference in passive versus active may not be enough to differentiate the

market.

• Competitor C users, and some extent Competitor A users, are more dissatisfied with the noise reduction qualities

of their Products.

• Those who own active noise reduction models tend to have better ratings on three of the top four important

factors (communication clarity, noise reduction, and comfort.)

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

7

Executive Summary

Ability to try on (Products) is important and likely impacts brand purchase, especially in higher priced models.

• Since weight and comfort are two key factors in the purchase of a pilot (Products), trying on the (Products) becomes a critical way to evaluate a product before purchasing it.

• One-half of the pilots were able to try on their (Products) before buying it, but this increases to 58% among those with active noise reduction (Products) -- the higher-price models.

• Further, those who tried their current (Products) on before buying it, tend to have better ratings on two of the important factors – noise reduction and comfort.

Cell-phone usage in the cockpit is not very common.

• Currently less than one-third of the pilots use their cell phones in-flight and this could be due to the current inability to interface usage with (Products) or perceptions of legality. The option of Products/cell phone interface appeals to over half of the pilots.

Awareness of CLIENT’s active noise reduction feature is fairly well known, but the higher price appears to deflate purchase. Additionally, installment payment plans hold some merit, but awareness of this option needs to be increased in order to result in additional sales.

• Four in five are aware of the active noise reduction feature of CLIENT (Products). Nevertheless, positive purchase interest is just 29%. Reasons indicate price and a need to compare are the factors holding back interest.

• Less than 10% are aware of the installment billing program by CLIENT. Once made aware, over one-quarter believe this option would influence their decision to buy CLIENT.

At the present time Competitor C is not a major competitor. However, compared to CLIENT, Competitor C has a stronger awareness to trial conversion ratio and a better price perception. If Competitor C increases marketing and sales efforts, CLIENT may be hit hard.

• Competitor C is the only brand with comparably strong ratings,even for noise reduction. Further, their rating on price is much better than CLIENT’s. Awareness is where Competitor C falls short. Therefore, CLIENT should be on the defensive if Competitor C enhances marketing efforts and focuses on noise reduction at a lower price (versus CLIENT).

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

8

Recommendations

Awareness of CLIENT (Products) is not an issue. Converting the awareness to purchase is a major issue, however.

• Trying before buying is a key variable in the purchase process since important factors such as comfort and weight can only be evaluated in this manner. The ability to demonstrate or try on CLIENT (products) in a flight shop would go far to achieve this objective. Perhaps a demo program similar to to the consumer flight noise reduction (Products) trial program should be considered. Additionally, if CLIENT had a presence in Sporty’s –the top retailer – pilots would be able to see, touch, feel and perhaps try the product before buying it.

• Flight instructors tend to be a source of awareness second to magazine ads. This is especially true for Competitor A. Perhaps a demo program among flight instructors would serve to increase awareness among the newer pilots and at the same time allow student pilots or those in the market for a new (Products) the ability to try on the product. This might help displace Competitor A as the recommended brand from flight instructors.

While it is known that active noise reduction is a product differentiating feature for CLIENT, at present this feature is not critical enough to justify CLIENT’s higher price.

• Any R&D studies on noise reduction pointing to a real benefit for active noise reduction might be considered for magazine ads.

• Advertisements featuring testimonials from users might also be another method to increase saliency of this feature.

Cell-phone interface is a concept worth exploring, pending investigation of legal issues.

• Currently in-flight cell phone usage is not very common and could be due to the current inability to interface usage with (Products). The option of (Products)/cell phone interface appeals to over half of the pilots.

Combining the existing features with cell phone interface, marketing the payment plan, creating the ability to upgrade and selling this as a package at the existing price might place more value on the CLIENT (products) and increase usage.

• However, keep in mind that just one in five pilots are in the market for a new (Product) in the coming year, so market potential must be weighted by this variable.

• Instrument-certified pilots represent a slightly more viable target as they have more frequent cell phone usage, pay more for their (Products) and see more value in upgrading but at the same time, they already own more (Products) than others and are more likely to be the CLIENT users.

Awareness and Usage

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

10

Unaided Products Brand AwarenessQ. 2, 3

• More pilots are aware of Competitor A Products than any other brand. They are top of mind for over one-

half of the general aviation pilots. CLIENT is second to Competitor A based on both top-of-mind and total

unaided awareness.

Base: Total Respondents (500)

First Mention Other Mentions

56

9

5

5

3

2

1

2

75

42

20

13

11

7

6

6

0 20 40 60 80 100

Competitor A

Client

Competitor B

Competitor C

Competitor D

P

So

Si

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

11

Total Brand AwarenessQ. 2, 3, 4

Total Unaided Aided

75

42

20

11

13

7

3

4

96

86

84

74

45

48

38

32

0 20 40 60 80 100

Comp. A

Client

Comp. B

Comp. C

Comp. D

P

S

O


• Virtually all general aviation pilots have heard of the Competitor A brand. CLIENT and Comp. B have

strong awareness levels as well, although not the extent of the leader.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

12

Source of Initial AwarenessQ. 12

31

19

17

4

0 20 40 60 80 100

Magazine

ad

From a

friend

From an

instructor

Store/store

display


CLIENT users: 47%

Competitor A users: 23%

Comp. B users: 14%

Instructors create more

awareness among those

who fly <50 hours (23%)

• A combination of sources create awareness, but magazine ads are most often mentioned. CLIENT users

in particular cite this source. The flight instructors become a more important source among the less active

pilots and the Competitor A users.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

13

Current and Previous Brand Usage

7

8

8

9

45

3

3

3


Q. 6, 7

1

2

3

2

2

8

11

37 Comp. A

Comp. B

Comp. C

Comp. D

Client

S

P

Si

Current Products Used Most OftenPrevious Products Used

CLIENT is most popular

among pilots with Instrument

Certification (11%) and active

type (Products) (17%)

• Not only does Competitor A dominate awareness but also has a decided edge in current and past usage

as well.

• Competitor A exceeds all brands in the ability to convert those aware into users.

Awareness

to Usage

Conversion

Ratio*

46%

11%

12%

18%

8%

NA

6%

NA

% use currently

%Total aware* Calculation =

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

14

(Products): Number, Type, and Trial

• Aaaa

Q. 1, 11,15

61

5032

7

50

Active

Passive

Don’t Know


42

34

24One

Two

Three or

more

Mean = 2.7

(Products)

Who Owns the Most (Products)?

Yes

No

Number of (Products) Owned

Type of Noise Reduction

in (Product)Tried Before Buying

• On average, these pilots own almost three pair of (Products). More sets are owned by pilots with instrument certification,

those in the mid range of flight hours and those with active noise reduction. Passive noise reduction dominates usage,

however.

• Although among the general population trial before buying is split evenly, active noise reduction (Product) owners are more

likely to have tried the product before buying than passive owners.

* Caution very small base

size. Interpret with caution.

Active 58%

Passive 47%

Average No.

of Headsets

Pilot Certification

Private (276) a 2.5

Instrument (70) b 3.2 ad

Multi Engine (18*) c 3.5 a

Commerical (136) d 2.7

Hours Flown Annually

<50 (217) e 2.1

51-150 (187) f 3.0 ej

151-225 (43) g 3.5 efj

226-300 (16*) h 4.6 efj

Over 300 (37) j 2.2

Type of Headset Owned

Active (161) k 3.3 m

Passive (305) m 2.4

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

15

Ability to Connect with Cell Phone/Value/Frequency of Using Cell Phone

48

21

15

16

Frequency of Cell Phone Use

Frequently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never

357

40

Q. 19, 20A, 20B

Don’t Know

See

value

See No

Value

Value of Ability to Connect Cell

Phone to Pilot Products


Just 4% have

have (Products)

with ability to

interface with

cell phones.

Frequent cell phone users are

more likely to be instrument

(21%) and commercial

certified pilots (21%).

• Cell phone usage in flight is fairly uncommon as just three in ten report frequent or occasional usage.

Likewise, the ability of the Products to interface with the cell phone is rare (just 4%). However, over half

see the ability to interface the two devices as valuable.

• During the interview several pilots mentioned that usage of a cell phone in the cockpit is illegal.

Importance and Product Satisfaction

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

17

Importance of Product Features

4.0

4.4

4.4

3.4

5.8

5.2

6.8

7.1

7.9

5.7

7.6

9.2

9.0

4.4

4.5

4.7

4.8

5.2

5.7

6.3

6.4

7.4

7.0

7.4

8.1

8.8

9.39.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Battery life

Auto shut off feature

The way it looks

Recommendation from flight instructor

Ability to try/receive a demonstration

Recommendation from a friend

Warranty

Customer service

Weight

Price

Reputation of the brand

Noise reduction

Comfort

Clarity of communication

Importance of these features was rated on a scale from 10 to 1, where 10 = “Extremely important” and 1= “Not at all important.”

Average

CLIENT usersTotal

Q9

More important to CLIENT

users than pilots in general

• Clarity of communication and comfort are clearly the two most important attributes in pilot (Products).

CLIENT users tend to be like the pilots in general in what they deem important, although they place more

emphasis on noise reduction, customer service and ability to try/demonstrate before buying.

• They place less emphasis on price and recommendation from a flight instructor.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

18

Mean Ratings for Brand UsedQ. 8, 10

Letters to the right of a number indicate a significant difference at the 90% confidence level.

• Generally pilots are satisfied with the brand they use most often. Highest satisfaction levels are for

performance-related attributes (clarity, noise reduction) and aesthetics (comfort, weight).

• CLIENT users tend to be more satisfied overall and on the performance-related and aesthetic attributes

compared to most other brand users, including Competitor A. CLIENT performs poorly on price, however.

• Competitor C users are similar to CLIENT users in their high satisfaction levels, but Competitor C also has

an advantage in price.

Total Client

Comp

A

Comp

B

Comp

C

Comp

DBase: Total Respondents (472) (34) (224) (39) (40) (43)

a b c d e

Overall Rating 8.2 9.2 bcde 8.4 7.5 8.6 ce 7.7

Clarity of Communication 8.6 9.2 bce 8.8 ce 8.1 9.1 ce 8.3

Comfort 8.0 8.6 bce 8.0 c 7.4 8.8 bce 7.8

Noise Reduction 7.9 9.1 bce 7.7 7.6 9.0 bce 7.1

Weight 7.4 8.1 bce 7.3 7.0 8.2 bce 7.3

Price 7.1 5.3 6.6 a 7.7 ab 8.1 ab 7.5 ab

Customer Service 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.9 be 6.2

Warranty 6.9 7.3 e 7.1 e 6.9 7.5 e 5.8

The way it looks 6.6 7.1 e 6.4 7.4 be 6.7 6.1

Battery life 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.6 7.8 b 5.3

More

Less

Imp

ort

an

ce

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

19

Strategic Performance Matrix - CLIENT

High Importance/Low Performance

Low Importance/Low Performance

Low Importance/High Performance

Warranty

Battery life

Price

Customer service

The way if looks

ComfortNoise reduction

Weight

Clarity of communication

Performance

Imp

ort

an

ce

High Importance/High Performance

Q. 9, 10

• Aaaa• CLIENT performs well on the more important attributes. Room for improvement exists in customer service.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

20

Dissatisfaction with Current ProductsQ. 17


Total Client

Comp

A

Comp

B

Comp

C

Comp


a b c d e

Comfort/Fit (net) 17 12 19 d 23 d 5 12

Comfort 6 6 5 8 3 5

Extended flights wear (subnet) 5 3 6 8 -- --Comfort from pressure

for long term wear/flights 5 3 6 8 -- --

Fit around ears 4 3 5 5 3 2

Not enough padding on headband 2 6 3 -- -- --

Need jell ear pads/seals 1 -- -- 5 -- 5

Noise Reduction (net) 16 6 17 23 a 8 14

Like to have active noise reduction 11 -- 13 ad 15 a 3 7

Noise reduction 4 6 3 5 3 7

Weight (net) 11 12 15 c 3 8 7

Weight/heaviness 11 12 15 c 3 8 7

Construction (net) 9 15 b 4 18 b 20 b 21 b

Microphone/mouthpiece 4 3 3 8 5 9

Sturdiness 1 3 -- -- 3 5

• Given the strong satisfaction ratings for CLIENT and Competitor C, current users find little with which to

be dissatisfied. However, construction, especially compared to Competitor A, appears to be an issue for all

brands. Size for CLIENT is also an issue.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

21

Dissatisfaction with Current Products (continued)Q. 17


Total Client

Comp

A

Comp

B

Comp

C

Comp


a b c d e

Sound (net) 3 -- 2 8 -- 9 b

Clarity 2 -- 1 8 -- 9 b

Sturdiness

Size (net) 3 12 be 1 3 5 2

Size too large 2 12 be 1 3 3 --

Price/Cost (net) 1 6 b -- 3 -- --

Too expensive 1 6 b -- 3 -- --

Miscellaneous

Happy with current headset 3 -- 3 3 5 2

Nothing/don't know 50 50 51 38 48 53

Image of CLIENT

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

23

Comparison of User and Non-User

CLIENT Ratings

9.2

9.1

8.6

8.1

7.1

7.3

7.4

5.6

5.3

Overall

Comfort

Noise Reduction

Weight

Customer Service

Price

Warranty

Battery Life

The Way it Looks

8.6

8.7

8.2

7.8

7.6

7.6

7.5

6.5

4.1

Use CLIENT Most OftenAware of CLIENT But Do Not Use

Q. 8,10, 21, 22


• Non CLIENT users have a fairly strong impression of the product. Their ratings generally equal user

ratings, although price is one area where the non-users have a particularly unfavorable impression.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

24

2

18

7989

2

9

69

2

29

Awareness of Noise Reduction, Installment Billand Effect on Purchase Decision Q. 23,24, 25

Don’t Know

Yes

No

Don’t Know

Yes

No

Awareness of Installment

Billing Programs by CLIENT

Would It Influence Decision

to Purchase

Base: Aware of CLIENT/do not currently use most often (394)

Active

Noise

Reduction

Passive

Noise

Reduction

Don’t Know

Awareness of Active vs.

Passive Noise Reduction

• Most pilots aware of CLIENT (79%) correctly identify it as a (product) with active noise reduction.

• However, most (89%) are unaware of the installment billing program by CLIENT. Even so, the ability to

spread payment out over time would not likely impact the decision to purchase CLIENT.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

25

Purchase Likelihood Overall/Purchase Likelihood for CLIENT Q. 26, 27

3313

20

7

9

18

2333

9

27Definitely Will Not

Probably Will Not

Probably Will

Might/Might Not

Definitely Will


Likelihood to PurchaseA New Pilot (Product) in

the Next Year

Likelihood to Consider

PurchasingCLIENT Pilot Products

20

29Highest propensity to

purchase new

(Product) is with pilots

who fly more than 300

hours annually (24%).

• One in five pilots are considering buying a new (Product) in the next year.

• Just under one-third would consider buying a CLIENT Products the next time they need a (Product).

• One-third are unsure. A “try before you buy” program may move this group to the positive side.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

26

Reasons for Purchase InterestQ. 28


Total Aware Not Aware Top 2 Box Bottom 3 BoxBase: Total Respondents (500) (428) (72) (148) (330)

% % % % %

a b c d

Positive Reasons 31 32 b 19 77 d 12

Preference (net) 12 14 b 4 30 d 5

Like/good product/headset 12 14 b 4 29 d 5

Product Quality (net) 9 10 4 24 d 3

Top of the line/the best 4 5 1 11 d 2

Quality 4 4 3 9 d 2

Reputation (net) 7 7 13 18 d 3

Reputation/reputable name 7 6 13 18 d 3

Noise Reduction (net) 6 7 b -- 15 d 2

Like active noise reduction 6 7 b -- 15 d 2

Familiarity (net) 4 4 1 9 d 1

Familiar with/own other of Client's equipment/products 3 3 1 7 d 1

Negative Reasons 75 76 71 40 96 c

Price/Cost (net) 37 42 b 7 20 47 c

Expensive/More expensive 26 30 b 6 15 33 c

Price/cost 5 4 1 3 7

Wouldn't spend $1000 for a headset 3 6 1 5

Need (net) 29 27 42 b 9 40 c

Satisfied with current headset 16 14 25 6 21 c

No need 11 10 14 2 15 c

Don't fly often 6 6 8 1 9 c

Familiarity 15 14 22 9 19 c

Need to compare to other brands 10 10 10 6 13 c

Unfamiliar with/Haven't tried/used 6 4 14 b 3 8 c

Preference 3 4 1 4

Prefer/Like Comp. B 2 2 2

Client Awareness

Likelihood to Buy Client's

Product in Future

• Overall, reasons for

interest/disinterest in

CLIENT tend to be

more negative than

positive (because the

purchase intent falls

toward that end.)

• Those more inclined

to buy CLIENT state

reasons related to

product likes (30%),

quality (24%) and

reputation (18%).

• Those less inclined

to buy CLIENT state

negative reasons

largely related to

price (47%), current

Products satisfaction

(21%), or lack of

need (15%).

• Even among those

aware of CLIENT,

reasons tend to be

more negative than

positive.

Purchase Process

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

28

4

4

5

5

6

19Sporty’s

Pilot Shop

Mail Order

FBO (Fixed Based Operator)

Osh Kosh/PA Convention

Manufacturer/Factory

Price Paid/Purchase Source

Purchase Source

25

17

12

11

11

14Less than $150

$150 to under$200

$200 to under $250

$250 to under $300

$300 to under$350

$350+

Price Paid

Base: Did not receive Products as a gift (469)

Q. 13, 16

• Aaaa

Mean =

$311

Who Paid the Most?

• Prices paid for pilot head sets range from less than $150 to more than $350. Private pilots as well as

owners of passive noise reduction products paid the least, on average.

• As a purchase location, Sporty’s is the largest single retailer mentioned.

Average

Price Paid

Pilot Certification

Private (258) a $285

Instrument (68) b $342 a

Multi Engine (17*) c $419 a

Commerical (126) d $336 a

Type of Headset Owned

Active (161) e $447 f

Passive (305) f $236


Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

29

Value in Upgrades vs. New PurchaseQ. 18

4

66

30

Yes

No


Don’t Know

• Two-thirds of the general aviation pilots like the idea of the upgrading their current Products for greater

functionality rather than having to buy a new one.

• Instrument-certified are more likely than commercial pilots to see value (79% vs. 62%).

Demographics

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

31

Demographic Profile

Type of Product Used

Total Active PassiveBase: Total Respondents (500) (161) (305)

% % %

Age a b

18-34 12 11 13

35-54 49 51 49

55 + 39 39 38

Average Age 49.9 50.1 49.5

Gender

Male 96 96 97

Female 4 4 3

Income

Under $75,000 32 24 35 a

$75,000 to under $150,000 34 32 36

$150,000+ 14 23 b 9

Average Income ($000) 100.5 114.6 b 94

Online Visits/Purchases

$0 to under $500 36 47 53

$500 to under $1,000 15 14 17

$1000 to under $2,000 12 16 12

$2,000 to under $10,000 7 9 7

$10,000 or more 3 5 2

Regularly view QVC, Shop NBC, or

other home shopping network 7 5 9


Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

32

Demographic Profile (continued)

Type of Product Used

Total Active PassiveBase: Total Respondents (500) (161) (305)

% % %

Highest Level Certificate Held a b

Private 55 47 60 a

Commercial 27 28 27

Instrument 14 20 b 10

Multiengine 4 5 3

Type of Aircraft Primarily Flown

Single-Engine Piston 85 78 89 a

Multi-Engine Piston 5 11 b 2

Single-Engine Turbo Prop 3 5 b 1

Own vs. Rent Aircraft

Own 56 65 b 49

Rent 28 21 32 a

Owned by Company 15 12 18

Longevity of Pilot's Certificate

Less than 10 years 35 35 36

10 years to less than 15 years 14 14 14

15 years to less than 25 yers 21 24 20

25 years or more 29 27 30

Average (years) 14.8 14.8 14.7

Hours Flown Per Year

0-50 43 30 49 a

51-150 37 43 b 33

151-225 9 14 b 7

226-300 3 5 2

More than 300 7 7 8

Average number hours flown per year 95.2 112 b 90Letters to the right of a number indicate a significant difference at the 90% confidence level.

Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

33


Aware of

Use Client but do not

Total Most Often use ClientBase: Total Respondents (500) (34) (394)

% % %

Age a b

18-34 12 15 12

35-54 49 41 50

55 + 39 44 37

Average Age 49.9 50.0 49.5

Gender

Male 96 97 96

Female 4 3 4

Income

Under $75,000 32 9 34 a

$75,000 to under $150,000 34 29 34

$150,000+ 14 35 b 13

Average Income ($000) 100.5 138.5 99.8

Online Visits/Purchases

$0 to under $500 36 21 36

$500 to under $1,000 15 6 17

$1000 to under $2,000 12 21 13

$2,000 to under $10,000 7 12 7

$10,000 or more 3 9 3


Sample Report

Amy Hoffman

34


Aware of

Use Client but do not

Total Most Often use ClientBase: Total Respondents (500) (34) (394)

% % %

Highest Level Certificate Held a b

Private 55 35 56 a

Commercial 27 32 28

Instrument 14 24 13

Multiengine 4 9 3

Type of Aircraft Primarily Flown

Single-Engine Piston 85 59 86 a

Multi-Engine Piston 5 15 4

Single-Engine Turbo Prop 3 18 b 2

Own vs. Rent

Own 56 76 b 54

Rent 28 3 30 a

Longevity of Pilot's Certificate

Less than one year-less than 10 years 35 29 36

10 years to less than 15 years 14 15 14

15 years to less than 25 yers 21 24 22

25 years or more 29 32 29

Hours Flown Per Year

0-50 43 12 44 a

51-150 37 47 38

151-225 9 21 b 7

226-300 3 12 b 3

More than 300 7 9 8

Average Number hours flown per year 95.2 146.4 b 94.3


Appendix

Sample Report

Documents

Transcript of Sample Report