A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a couple of gas stations across the United States that were marketing themselves by selling “Terror Free” gasoline. Essentially, the stations were claiming to sell gasoline that was produced from oil that originated from countries and/or companies that don’t support or fund terrorism.
It certainly seemed like a pretty catchy gimmick, and if it was true, would probably be something worth supporting. That being said, would the idea be enough to get people to change their buying habits?
Apparently not.
According to a survey on Daily Fuel Economy Tip, most people seem to not particular care about “Terror Free” gasoline. When asked, “would you go out of your way to buy ‘Terror Free’ gasoline?,” 52% of respondents stated they would do so only if the gasoline was less expensive, 33% stated they would go out of their way to purchase the gas and 14% stated they wouldn’t go out of their way to purchase the gasoline.
In thinking about the results, it really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that the driving factor behind whether or not people would purchase this “Terror Free” gas was the price of the fuel. It seems to me that the two major factors that drive purchasing decisions are 1) price and 2) convenience. Of the two, I believe price to be the overriding factor, which is illustrated in the answers of the poll – people were willing to be inconvenienced in going out of their way to purchase the gasoline only if it were less expensive.
Aside from the price and the convenience, people who stated they would only purchase the “Terror Free” gas if it were less expensive, or flat out said they wouldn’t purchase the gas, may believe that the gasoline is actually no different from that of regular gas stations and the whole “Terror Free” marketing is simply a ploy to try and get people to switch.
No matter which way you look at it though, it looks like these “Terror Free” gas stations are going to have a tough time catching on and stealing people away from their local Exxon or Shell stations.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Obviously you meant to say:
“That being said, would the idea be enough to get people to change their buying habits?
Apparently!”
According to your numbers, a full third of consumers will go “out of their way” in order to make a purchase of this product. That is great success, particularly considering we’re talking about something as ubiquitous as fuel. The business owner’s marketing plan has changed a third of his market share’s buying habits to “go out of their way” to purchase this product. Obviously, people do indeed care, enough so that even if this were a town of 10,000 people, 3,333 would be willing to go out of their way to go to his station… and those are great numbers.
Now, 52% said “they would go out of their way if it were cheaper,” but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t buy it if it were “on their way,” increasing his already substantial client base that will go “out of their way.”
I guess your “apparently not” is the 14% who said they wouldn’t “go out of their way,” but again, that’s not the same as “I don’t care” or “I won’t buy it,” they just said that they wouldn’t go out of their way to buy it.
Try being a little more honest next time. One-sidedness is no virtue.
If you look at the argument I make regarding prices and convenience, I have stated that the overriding factor in all of our purchases is price. Therefore, when people state they will only go out of their way to purchase something – whether it’s fast food or “Terror Free” gas – if it’s less expensive, to me that says they could care less about the product.
Yes… “to you that says they could care less about the product.” However, to those of us who aren’t trying to push a one-sided agenda, those of us with intellectual integrity and those of us who use critical thinking instead of fear mongering as a tactic to compel others to see our side of an argument, you’re supposition and the faulty logic you used to get to that point are laughable.
The numbers speak for themselves. 33% of that businesses local population are actively changing their buying habits in favor of this particular product. That’s successful marketing, regardless of the specific widget they’re buying, and it shows, despite your claim, that people do, in fact, care… for what that’s worth.
But I digress…
Since you put so much credence in your thesis, then THAT should have been the title of your article, something to the effect of: “Price Determining Factor in Terror Free Gas Sales.” That maintains a bit more journalistic integrity. Instead, you opted for the Fox News approach, smugly (and incorrectly) stating an subjective value judgement: “People Don’t Care About Terror Free Gas,” which is a ridiculous thesis, based on the objective data you show.
If you want people to take you seriously, how about some integrity? Otherwise, you’re just another scare happy pseudo-journalist with an agenda driven blog who thinks that because you have an honorable opinion, people should laud you as an expert, despite your lack of honest reporting.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t have an agenda, and I don’t care whether or not “Terror Free” gas succeeds. I think you and I are just interpreting the numbers differently.
It seems to me that you’re seeing the answer of “I would only buy the “Terror Free” gas if it were less expensive” as an endorsement of the product, while I see the response as something that’s certainly not an endorsement, but isn’t completely dismissive either.
33% of people stated that they would go out of their way to buy the “Terror Free” gas; that’s not exactly a staggering amount of people.
I look at that number and see the 67% (well over half) that wouldn’t go out of their way to buy the fuel.
While I think we could probably sit here and go back and forth regarding whether or not my argument is correct (and it very well may be incorrect), I don’t think you should question my integrity because I happen to see the data in a different light than yourself.
Most oil in the U.S. still comes from the United States. Our largest imports come from (in order) Canada, Saudi Arabia, then Mexico.
99.99% of the U.S. population (including environmentalist bike-riding whackos like me) are absolutely dependent on oil. The concept of terror-free gasoline is a good one, but shifting a few gallons to “terror-free” gasoline does absolutely nothing to reduce U.S. demand for foreign oil overall.
Agreed, but I don’t think the point of labeling gas “Terror Free” was to help reduce dependency on foreign oil, just to reallocate where the oil came from.
i think that gas prices are way to high..and i have written an editorial on it, so you should see me sometime in the newspaper, read it, its all TRUEEE.
muahahahahahaa..