Certificate of Mailing [TMBP sect. 110.03]
`I certify that this document is being deposited with the United
`States Postal Service as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
`Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive,
`Arlington, VA, 22202-3513 on
`_
`1/ [d ’_-I
`, 2003
`Danielle Ellis 226581 Q Q!’ 3 >
`
`Barry & Associates, 580 California Street, 5”‘ Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104, telephone (415) 398.6600
`Attorneys for Petitionerjacob Zimmerman 805.1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`JACOB ZIMMERMAN,
`
`Petitioner
`
`VS.
`
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
`
`Respondent
`
`Cancellation No. 32,360
`[Re: Realtor, Reg. No. 519,789]
`
`Consolidated with No. 40,141
`[Rez Rea/tors, Reg. No. 515,200]
`
`VQL_ 1, PET1T1QNER’s TRIAL
`EXHIBITS INCORPORATED FROM
`FREEMAN V. NAR, CANCELLATION
`NO. 27,885
`
`___
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`11.27.00 Sullivan declaration
`
`11.27.00 --Sullivan Curriculum Vitae
`
`7.99 --Realtor Brand Awareness Study
`
`11.21.00 Shapiro declaration
`
`12.1.00 McCoy declaration
`12.27.00 Freeman declaration
`
`12.27.00 Barry Declaration
`
`1916 Oxford English Dictionary: “realtor” proposed by Chadbourn; 11 generic usages
`
`1922 Babbit, by Sinclair Lewis
`
`1920’s Federal courts: 12 generic usages
`
`1930’s Federal courts: 21 generic usages
`
`1940’s Federal courts: 30 generic usages
`
`1950’s Federal courts: 60 generic usages projected from 6 instances in 1950, supplied
`
`1960’s Federal courts: 140 generic usages projected from 14 instances in 1960, supplied
`
`1970’s Federal courts: 230 generic usages projected from 23 instances in 1970, supplied
`
`1980’s Federal courts: 360 generic usages projected from 6 instances Jan-Feb, 1980
`
`1990’s Federal courts: 720 generic usages projected from 6 instances in_]an., 1990
`
`‘Vol. 1 Petitioner’s Exhibits re Cancellation of Marks
`
`Cancellation No. 92,032,360
`
`
`
`

`
`O
`
`O
`
`David Barry 70083
`Barry & Associates
`580 California Street, 5"‘ Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 398.6600
`Attorneys for Petitioner Arleen Freeman
`779.]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARLEEN FREEMAN,
`
`Petitioner
`
`VS.
`
`NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
`REALTORS,
`
`Respondent
`
`I, Michael Sullivan, Ph.D., state:
`
`*
`
`'
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`[Re: Realtor, Reg. No. 519,789]
`
`Consolidated with No. 28,047
`[Re: Realtors, Reg. N0. 515,200]
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL
`SULLIVAN IN SUPPORT or
`PETITIONEITS MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANCELING
`TRADEMARKS
`
`1. I am Executive Vice President and a founding member of Freeman,
`
`Sullivan & Company, establishedin 1984. Freeman, Sullivan is a professional
`
`consulting firm specializing in survey research used for corporate strategic
`
`planning, public policy development, economic analyses and market studies.
`
`We provide expert statistical consulting used for decision-making, research
`design and data analysis. We provide primary data collection services using a
`variety of methods including in-person, telephone, and mail. We provide
`technical systems and data collection services fora wide variety of fields,
`
`including health (epidemiology, health services research, behavioral risk factor
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 1
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`
`
`

`
`. \'
`
`. "1
`
`assessment, program evaluation, dietary behavior studies, and health policy
`
`development); electric utilities (resource planning, ratemaking, value of service
`
`studies, new product planning, program evaluation, and demand—side
`management); legal (expert consultation and testimony based on scientific
`
`research leading to statistical conclusions required for litigation support);
`
`environmental (data for emissions inventories for both mobile and stationary
`
`sources, water the studies, and program evaluation).
`
`2. Services we provide include research design, sample design and
`
`selection, questionnaire development and instrument design, computer-assisted
`
`telephone interviewing, executive interviews, field data collection, mail surveys,
`
`non-English and low income surveys, focus group and court data research, data
`
`base management, statistical analysis and interpretation, report writing,
`
`presentation, and expert testimony.
`
`3. A sample of groups surveyed which have been surveyed by Freeman,
`
`‘Sullivan include_the following: general population, low-income, non-English-
`
`speaking, teenagers, company employees, executives, community leaders, public
`
`officials, physicians, lawyers, university professors, farm operators, health plan
`
`members, parents, patients, WIC mothers (for a women, infant, children
`
`nutritional program of the federal government), Native Americans, school-aged
`
`children, homeless persons and non-profit organization members.
`
`__ 4. Freeman, Sullivan has conducted studies that are local, statewide,
`
`national, and international in scope.
`
`5. Our clients include Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies, federal,
`
`state, and local government agencies, universities, and nonprofit organizations.
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 2
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`
`
`

`
`7
`
`6. Included with this exhibit book at Tab 2 is a true copy of my Current
`
`curriculum vitae setting forth my qualifications to conduct and interpret consumer
`surveys. This C.V. reveals:
`I
`
`7. I received a B.A. from University of California, Riverside in political
`science in 1973, and Ph.D. from Washington State University in sociology in
`
`1984. I received the following awards:
`
`Highest Honors, College of Letters and Sciences, U.C. Riverside
`
`(1973)
`
`National Science Foundation Summer Fellowship in Research (1972)
`
`Associate Editor, Western Sociological Review (1975-1978)
`
`My employment history is as follows:
`
`1992-Present
`
`Principal, Freeman, Sullivan & Co.
`
`1984-1992
`
`1984,1988
`
`Senior Partner, Freeman, Sullivan & Co.
`
`Lecturer, Schools of Business Administration;
`University of California, Berkeley
`
`1980-1981
`
`Vice President, Kendall Associates, San Francisco
`
`1979-1980
`
`1978-1979
`
`1974-1978
`
`1972-1973
`
`1966-1969
`
`Program Coordinator, Seattle Ener Office,
`Executive Department, City of Seatt e
`
`Associate Senior Scientist, Kendall Associates, San
`Francisco
`.
`
`]oint Appointment in the Social Research Center and
`Sociology Departments at Washington State
`University, Survey Project Manager and Teaching
`Assistant
`
`Research Associate, Office of Public Affairs,
`University of California, Riverside
`
`ed 1st Brigade, 101st
`US Army, Enlisted: Assi
`Airborne Division, Repu he of Vietnam (1967-1968)
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 3
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`
`
`

`
`0. 5
`
`.
`
`8. I have testified as an expert witness in the following arenas:
`
`California State Senate, Committee on Rules -- Geothermal Development
`
`US District Court -- Research methods, data base development and statistical
`analysis related to employment discrimination and product liability.
`
`Superior Court, California — research methods and statistical analysis related to
`measurement of representativeness of jury venires and discrimination in
`employment and housing.
`
`California Energy Commission -- Research methods and statistical analysis
`related to measurement of utility customer outage costs.
`’
`
`California Public Utilities Commission -- Research methods and statistical
`analysis related to measurement of utility customer outage costs.
`
`9. A sampling of the specific cases in which I have testified, my
`
`publications and memberships in professional societies are included with my
`
`C.V. at Tab 2.
`
`10. During 1999 "I was contacted by David Barry to conduct a survey
`
`regarding brand name awareness for the word "realtor'. Barry said the purpose
`
`of the poll was to find out if 50% or more of the people surveyed understood the
`word the word "realtor" in its brand name sense. I was told that the results of
`
`the survey were needed as evidence in a lawsuit.
`
`I was advised that the
`
`petitioner in this case was Arleen Freeeman. As far as I know, Ms. Freeman is
`
`no relation to __ Freeman, a co-founder of Freeman, Sullivan, and who is no
`
`longer associated with the firm.
`
`11. Payment for our services was not made contingent on the outcome of
`
`the survey. We quoted Mr. Barry a sum for the contract depending on the
`
`scope of the assignment and the number of interviews estimated. We billed for
`
`the work we performed and have been paid in full.
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 4
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`
`
`

`
`O>
`
`12. This was the first time Freeman, Sullivan had been asked to do work
`
`for Mr. Barry.
`
`13. Mr. Barry instructed that for the survey to be acceptable for the
`
`Court’s purposes, the survey should be designed as a “Teflon” survey, which he
`
`explained to be a survey in which the survey respondents were asked to classify a
`
`group of words as either brand names or common names. Within the group was
`
`the test word. Under the Teflon survey technique, as he explained it, the survey
`
`respondents were not to know what the true test word was, or that there was
`
`only one test word.
`
`14. I had general design responsibility for sample specification and for the
`
`final design of the interview. I hatl overall responsibility to see that the survey
`
`was administered in accordance with the standards of Freeman, Sullivan and
`
`generally accepted standards of the opinion research community. I also
`interpreted the results.
`i
`
`15. I decided to make the survey double-blind,-meaning the Freeman,
`
`Sullivan surveyors would not know what the true test word was, or that there
`
`was only one test word. I gave instructions to Kristin Shapiro, a Freeman,
`
`Sullivan employee, to design a survey to the specifications I gave her.
`
`16. One specification was to use sample from telephone numbers dialed
`
`randomly, with 100 completed interviews. The random digit approach is the
`
`most widely used approach to obtaining survey information in the industry. It
`
`obtains a representative sample of the live telephone lines in the United States
`
`that are serving primarily residential customers.
`
`17. Mr. Barry stated that a requirement that would be imposed by the
`
`courts was that the survey had to be performed on persons who were in the
`
`market for real estate brokerage services, either recently or prospectively. Mr.
`
`Barry stated that a one-year window would be sufficient for the court’s purposes.
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 5
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`
`
`

`
`O ,1‘)
`
`O
`
`18. An additional specification I gave to Kristin Shapiro was that the
`
`respondents had to have been in the market for real estate brokerage services
`
`within the preceding year, or expected to be in the market for real estate or real
`
`estate brokerage services within the coming year.
`
`19. The qualifying questions relating to respondent market qualifications
`
`are stated at Tab 3, page 9:
`
`S4. In the past year, have you consulted a real-estate
`agent for any reason?
`
`S5. In the next year, do you plan to consult a real-
`estate agent for any reason?
`
`S6. In the next year, do you expect to buy any kind of
`real-estate including a home, apartment or business?
`
`S7. In the next year, do you expect to sell any land of
`real-estate including a home, apartment or business?
`
`S8. In the next year, do you expect a rent any kind of
`real-estate including a home, apartment or business?
`
`20. Note that the question about the past year asked only whether they
`
`had consulted a real estate agent. It was my opinion that it was likely that a
`
`person who consulted a real estate agent would know it. Although it was
`
`possible that some respondents would have dealt with real estate agents without
`
`knowing it (i.e., being shown a rental property without knowing whether the
`
`person showing the property was a licensed real estate agent or not), it was my
`
`opinion that the best way to sample the universe of those who had dealt with a
`real estate agent was to limit the sample to those who knew that their’
`
`consultation was with a real estate agent.
`
`21. Regarding the respondents’ plans for the coming year, the questions
`
`~ are structured differently. Question S5 provides, “In the next year, do you plan
`
`to consult a real-estate agent for any reason?” That question directly tests
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 6
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`

`
`.1)
`
`. “=
`
`whether the respondent will be in the market for real estate brokerage services.
`
`In addition, questions S6, S7, and S8 asked whether the respondent expected to
`
`buy, sell, or rent “any kind of real-estate including a home, apartment or
`
`business?” The reason for those additional questions was that in my opinion, it
`
`would be likely that many survey respondents who expected to be active in the
`real estate market in the coming year would not know or care whether they
`
`would obtain the real estate results they sought through the consultation of real
`estate agents.
`believed that being active in the market for real estate would
`
`make it extremely likely that such respondents would consult a real estate agent
`
`in some capacity. Thus, to avoid biasing the sample of the survey, the qualifying
`questions for prospective activity included prospective activity in the real estate
`
`market as well as prospective activity in the real estate brokerage market.
`
`22. I directed Ms. Shapiro to design the survey with the qualifications as
`
`described above. A true copy of the completed survey instrument is found at
`
`Tab 3 of this exhibit book, at pages 8-11.
`
`23. I directed Robin McCoy, a Freeman, Sullivan employee, to administer
`
`that survey.
`
`24. A true copy of the survey results is shown at Tab 3 of this exhibit book,
`
`at pages 13-17. The printed version of the results is the product of Freeman,
`
`Sullivan. The hand-written test words included at Section D of Tab 3, and the
`
`page numbers, were added by Barry. E.g., while the printed report states that
`
`Q2_l was recognized by 93.8% of the public as a brand name, the hand-written
`
`indication shows that Q2_l was “Century 21.” The hand-written words are
`
`correct translations of the codes we used internally at Freeman, Sullivan.
`
`25. The completed survey results at Tab 3 show 10.4 % of the respondents
`
`surveyed responded that "realtor" was a brand name.
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 7
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`

`
`. \‘~
`
`l
`.
`VI
`
`.
`
`.
`
`l
`
`\
`
`26. It is my opinion that: (a) 10.4% of those active in the market for real
`
`estate brokerage services understand the word “realtor” as a brand name; and
`(b) 89.6% of those in the market for real estate brokerage services understand
`
`the word “realtor” as a generic name.
`
`27. The statistic in the preceding paragraph has a margin of error of plus
`
`or minus 5% with a 95% confidence, In other words, I can state with 95%
`
`confidence that the percentage of those active in the market for real estate
`
`brokerage services that identify the word “realtor” as a brand name lies between
`
`5.4% and 15.4% (i.e., 10.4% plus or minus 5%).
`
`28. Given the above results, Mr. Barry asked: What is the chance that
`
`more than 50% of those in the market for real estate brokerage services
`
`understood the word “realtor” in a brand name sense? To answer Mr. Barry’s
`
`question, I calculated the probability of observing 10 persons who understood
`
`the word “realtor” in the brand name sense, out of a total of 96 persons under
`
`the assumption that the true population proportion was more than 50%. I used
`
`the binomial technique, a widely accepted statistical approach to make this
`
`calculation. As a result of this calculation it is my opinion that there is virtually
`
`no chance that more than 50% of those in the market for real—estate brokerage
`
`services understand the term as a brand name. This is based on the finding that
`
`the probability of observing 10 or fewer persons who view the “realtor” as a
`
`brand name out of a total of 96 in a random sample from a population where
`
`50% or more view the word “realtor” as a brand name is less than one in a
`
`billion. The exact probability of observing such an event is 3.4 x 1047.
`
`29. Freeman, Sullivan purchased a randomly generated set of telephone
`
`numbers, as described above. The total pool of purchased telephone numbers
`
`was exhausted by the time we completed 96 surveys. My initial specification was
`
`for 100 completed surveys.
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 8
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`

`
`.3‘
`
`.>
`
`30. I was‘ consulted by my staff after we completed 96 surveys. I studied
`
`the results quoted above and determined that we did not have to purchase more
`
`telephone numbers to obtain statistically valid results.
`
`31. The reason that we did not need to obtain more surveys was that the
`results were so lopsided. If the results had been closer, say 48% stating “realtor
`
`,3
`
`was a brand name, and 52% statingpthat it was not, I would have ordered more
`
`surveys to be completed. In fact, it- commonly requires hundreds of completed
`
`survey responses to resolve close questions with a 95% confidence level of an
`error of no more than 5%. However, under the mathematics of the binomial
`distribution methodology, since the question posed was whether less than 50%
`of the relevant market identified “realtor” as a brand name, 96 completed
`
`surveys was far more than necessary to definitively answer the question.
`However, given that fewer than 11% of the sample of 96 respondents perceived
`
`the word “realtor” to be a brand name, the addition of 4 sample points was
`
`judged to be unnecessary. Even in the extremely unlikely event that all 4 of
`
`these respondents had perceived the word “realtor” to be a brand name, it
`
`would not have materially changed the result of the survey — that less than 50%
`
`of the market perceives the word “realtor” as a brand name.
`
`The foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury.
`
`Dated //'& 7 ”00
`
`
`
`/
`
`Michael Sullivan, Ph.D.
`
`Sullivan Declaration re Summary Judgment
`To Cancel Marks, Exhibit Book Tab 1
`
`Page 9
`
`Cancellation No. 27,885
`
`

`
`779%
`
`/// BARRYSIASSOCIATES
`/ 580 CALIFORNIA STREET, 5” FLOOR
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 / 415.398.6600 / FAX 415.398.6123
`
`November 24, 2003
`
`Cindy B. Greenbaum
`Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks
`
`2900 Crystal Drive
`Arlington, VA 22202
`
`Dear Cindy,
`
`Re: Zimmerman 12. NAR, Trademark case
`Our file no.: 305.1
`Cancellation no.: 92,032,360
`I
`
`A
`
`Il|||||ll||||||li|||||l|l|||||ll|||||||||||||l||||
`
`1 1-28-2003
`
`us. Paunt a TM31¢/TM Mull Rap! 01. 078
`
`As the board requested here is the original record in the Freeman case to be used in the
`Zimmerman case.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Danielle Ellis
`
`11 .24.03
`Encl.
`
`

`
`C,»
`
` C
`
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, PhD.
`Founder, Freeman, Sullivan & Co.
`
`Education
`B.A. University of California, Riverside; Political Science (1973)
`Ph.D. Washington State University; Sociology (1984)
`
`Expert Testimony
`
`US District Court —- Research methods, data base development and statistical analysis
`related to employment discrimination and liability arising from contract violations.
`
`Superior Court, California — research methods and statistical analysis related to
`measurement of representativeness of jury venires and market shares held by
`companies selling pesticides.
`
`Bi—armual Hearings on Electric Reserve Margins before the California Energy
`Commission -— collection and analysis of statistical data and testimony describing
`electric utility customer outage costs.
`
`California Energy Commission -- Research methods and statistical analysis related to
`measurement of utility customer outage costs.
`
`California Public Utilities Commission —— Research methods and statistical analysis
`related to measurement of utility customer outage costs.
`
`California State Senate, Committee on Rules -- Collection and analysis of statistical data .
`and testimony describing ownership of geothermal resources in California geothennal
`development
`
`Involvement in Major Legal Cases
`
`Naef et. al. v. Masonite in Superior Court, County of Mobile, Alabama — collection and
`analysis of statistical information used by defendant to assess the economic risks
`associated with a claims based settlement.
`
`Engalla et. al. v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals in Superior Court, County of Alameda --
`statistical analysis of reasonableness of time to settlement of arbitrated claims.
`
`City of Fresno v. Shell Oil Co. et. al in Superior Court, County of San Francisco -- expert
`testimony regarding estimation of market
`shares held by manufacturers and
`distributors of DBCP and EDB in the area of Fresno, CA; statistical analysis of the
`rate of decay in the concentration of the DBCP and EDB in groundwater under
`Fresno.
`
`
`
`

`
`. ‘i
`
`. "J
`
`Michael J. Sullivan
`
`Founder, Freeman, Sullivan & Co.
`Page 2
`
`Involvement in Major Legal Cases (cont’d)
`
`in U.S. District Court, Texas _-_- development of
`Fibreboard v. Continental Casual
`
`statistical and econometric models forecasting economic liability from diseases
`resulting from exposure to asbestos.
`~
`
`Gold Creek Homeowners Assn. V. Masonite Corp. in Superior Court, County of Alameda
`-- analysis and expert testimony concerning statistical evidence of product failure
`claims made by plaintiffs experts.
`
`Choyce v. City of Oakland, California in U.S. District Court, Northern District —- analysis
`of statistical data regarding employment discrimination.
`
`Evans et. al. v. Marways Steel. in U.S. District Court, Northern District -- analysis of
`statistical evidence of employment discrimination based on race.
`
`General Rate Case of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1993 concerning
`measurement of utility customer outage costs before the California Public Utilities
`Commission.
`
`General Rate Case of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 1996 concerning
`measurement of utility customer outage costs before the California Public Utilities
`Commission.
`
`Maclntosh et. al. v. the East Bay Municipal Utility District in U. S. District Court,
`Northern District -— collection and analysis of statistical data, and testimony regarding
`employment discrimination.
`
`— analysis
`Marin Lagoon v. Southwest Diversified in Superior Court, County of
`and expert testimony concerning statistical evidence of product failure claims made
`by plaintiff’ s experts.
`
`Moore et. al. V. the Alameda Naval Air Rework Faciligg in U. S. District Court, Northern
`District -- collection and analysis of statistical information regarding employment
`discrimination.
`‘
`
`Ow v.— Regents Of The University Of California, U. S. District Court, Northern District --
`analysis of statistical evidence of employment discrimination based on age.
`
`. People of the State of California v. Aldridge Cupry, Superior Court, County of Contra
`Costa, California — consulting, statistical analysis and testimony concerning the
`representativeness of the juror pool used by the Superior Court in a capital trial.
`
`Reasonableness Hearings before the California Public Utility Commission regarding
`Construction Cost of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plan -- analysis and criticism
`of CPUC Public Advocate's statistical methods for estimating reasonable plant
`construction costs.
`
`Riehl v. Transarnerica Financial Services, Superior Court, County of Alameda, --analysis
`of statistical evidence of employment discrimination based on age.
`
`Stephens v. Montgomeg Ward in Superior Court County of Alameda -- analysis of
`statistical data regarding employment discrimination.
`‘
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`0 ‘\
`
`)'
`
`’\‘
`
`‘I
`
`Michael J. Sullivan
`Founder, Freeman, Sullivan & Co.
`Page 3
`
`Involvement in Major Legal Cases (cont’d)
`
`
`Thombe
`et. al. v. Delta Airlines in U.S. District Court, Northern District -— analysis
`and testimony regarding research methods and statistics applied to employment
`discrimination.
`
`Various parties v. various confidential clients in various jurisdications -- collection and
`analysis of statistical information used to assess the economic risks associated with
`claims based settlements related to exposure to asbestos and failure of construction
`materials.
`
`Employment History
`
`1992-Present Founder, Freeman, Sullivan & Co., San Francisco
`1984-1992
`Senior Partner, Freeman, Sullivan & Co., San Francisco
`1984,1988
`Lecturer, Schools of Business Administration; University of California,
`Berkeley
`A
`Vice President, Kendall Associates, San Francisco
`Program Coordinator, Seattle Energy Office, Executive Department, City
`of Seattle
`
`1980-1981
`1979-1980
`
`1978-1979
`1974-1978
`
`1972-1973
`
`Associate Senior Scientist, Kendall Associates, San Francisco
`Joint Appointment
`in the Social Research Center and Sociology
`Departments at Washington State University, Survey Project Manager and
`Teaching Assistant
`.
`Research Associate, Office of Public Affairs, University of California,
`Riverside
`\
`
`Awards
`
`Highest Honors, College of Letters and Sciences, U.C. Riverside (1973)
`National Science Foundation Summer Fellowship in Research (1972)
`Associate Editor, Western Sociological Review (1975-1978)
`
`Publications
`
`“Power Interruption Costs to Industrial and Commercial Consumers of Electricity,”
`with Terry Vardell and Mark Johnson, IEEE Transactions on Industg; Applications, Vol
`33, December 1997.
`
`Modeling Residential Customers‘ Heating System Choices, with Dennis Keane,
`Electric Power Research Institute, Final Report of Project 3902-02, EPRI Technical
`Report 106530, July 1996.
`
`“Power Interruption Costs to Industrial and Commercial Consumers of Electricity,”
`
`with Terry Vardell and Mark Johnson, Conference Record IEEE and Commercial Power
`Systems Technical Conference, May 1996.
`
`

`
`'.’
`4’
`
`l
`
`\
`
`.
`
`Michael J. Sullivan
`
`Founder, Freeman, Sullivan & Co.
`Page 4
`
`Publications (Cont’d)
`
`“Interruption Costs, Customer Satisfaction and Expectations For Service Reliability,”
`
`with T. Vardell, N. Suddeth and A. Vogdani, IEEE Transactions on Power S stems Vol.
`11, May 1996.
`‘
`
`Outage Cost Estimation Guidebook, with Dennis Keane, Electric Power Research
`Institute Final Report of Project 2878-04, EPRI Technical Report 106082, December
`1995.
`
`“Can Dispatchable Pricing Options Be Used To Delay Distribution Investments?
`Some Empirical Evidence” with D. Keane, and R. Cruz,
`in Proceedings Load
`Management: Dy_11amic DSM _O_ptions For the Future Electric Power Research Institute,
`May 1994.
`V
`’
`.
`
`“Reliability Service Options at PG&E,” with Dennis Keane, in Service Opportunities
`For Electric Utilities: Creating Differentiated Products, Schmuel Oren and Stephen
`Smith Eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
`
`“Controlling Non-Response and Item Non-Response Bias Using Computer Assisted
`Telephone Interviewing Techniques,” 1991 Sawtooth Sofiware Conference Proceedings,
`June 1991 Reprinted in Quirks Market Research Quarterly, April 1992.
`
`for Bad Evaluation Research", with Michael
`"Good Organizational Reasons
`Hennessy, Evaluation Practice, September 1989, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 41-50.
`
`"Implementing Dispatchable Load Management Projects", with Michael Hennessy,
`Public Utilities Fortnigl_1t1y, April 1988.
`
`The Development of Social Power Structures in Small Groups, Ph.D. Dissertation,
`August 1983.
`
`"Can You Create Structural Differentiation in Social Power Structures in the
`Laboratory?" with Louis N. Gray, Social Psychology, December 1978.
`‘
`
`"Social Matching Over Multiple Reinforcement Domains:_ An Explanation of Local
`Exchange Imbalance" with Louis N. Gray, Max von Broembsen and Wanda Griffith,
`Social Forces, Vol 61, pp. 156-182, March 1982.
`
`"Group Differentiation: Temporal Effects of Reinforcement" with Louis N. Gray and
`Max Von Broembsen, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 45 pp. 44-49, March 1982.
`
`"Issues of Design and Analysis in Evaluation Research," with Duane Alwin,
`Sociological Methods and Research, August 1975.
`
`Patterns of Geothermal Lease Acquisition in the Imperial Valley, University of
`California Press, 1974.
`
`Professional Societies
`
`American Association of Public Opinion Researchers
`American Statistical Association
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
`
`

`
`Brand Awareness Study
`
`Preparedfor
`
`Barry & Associates
`
`July 1999
`
`(785)
`
`Prepared by
`
`Freeman, Sullivan & C0.
`
`l3l Steuart Street, Suite 500
`
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`(415) 777-0707
`FAX: (415) 777-2420
`e-mail: CorpInfo@FSC-Researclmcom
`
`

`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Summary of Interviewing
`
`Sample Disposition Report
`
`Annotated Questionnaire
`
`Final Data Frequencies
`
`
`
`

`
`\
`
`ug‘_/
`
`Section A
`
`Summary of Interviewing
`
`

`
`Introduction
`
`The Brand Awareness Study was conducted by Freeman, Sullivan & Co. (FSC) on behalf
`of Barry & Associates. The objective for FSC was to interview adults who have used, or
`expected to use, the kind of assistance that requires a real estate brokers license to
`determine how frequently the term realtor is viewed as a brand name.
`
`Sample
`
`Commercially provided Random Digit Dial (RDD) sample was used. A total of 960
`nationwide telephone numbers yielded 96 completed cases. Section B inciud-.:s a
`complete sample disposition report.
`
`Data Collection
`
`Data collection took place over a 2-week period from June 25, 1999 through July 8, 1999.
`All interviews were conducted out of FSC’s computer-assisted telephone interviewing
`(CATI) laboratory. Weekday interviews took place Monday through Friday between the
`hours of 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. respondent time. Weekend interviews were conducted
`Saturdays 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and Sundays between 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
`respondent time.
`
`The screener portion of the survey was designed to find the person who had used, or
`expected to use, the kind of assistance that requires a real estate-brokers license. The
`research sponsor and purpose of the study were not identified. Of the 960 numbers
`called, 49.5% were found to not be valid numbers. Among the total sample, 10%
`resulted in completed interviews, 25.1% were unreachable after a minimum of 7
`additional call attempts, and another 15.4% of all the numbers resulted in some form of
`refusal. All refusals were re-attempted at least once in an effort to convert them to
`"completed interviews.
`
`‘.1A
`
`Barrjv & Associate: — 5'ran<1' .*i¥V£Il'€.'IE.‘.'S Surve_v r785)
`Freeman. Sullivan & Co., San Franczsco. C.-l — O7/28/99 -— Page .-
`
`

`
`O ,>
`
`Section B
`
`Sample Disposition Report
`
`

`
`Barry & Associates — Brand Awareness
`
`Disposition Report
`
`Start Date
`
`06/25/99
`
`Complete Date
`
`07/08/99
`
`Elapsed Survey Time (in weeks): 1.9
`
`TOTAL SANLPLE
`FREQUENCY
`PERCENT OF
`
`TOTAL SAMPLE
`
`
`DISPOSITION
`
`NOT PART OF SURVEY POPULATION
`
`Number Not in Service/No New Number
`
`_
`
`\’
`
`Screech /'No New Number
`
`Duplicate “Sample
`Language Barrier
`Business Number
`
`Wrong Number
`
`lll/Hard of Hearing
`
`No ‘Real Estate Contact
`
`l8
`93
`
`123
`
`15
`
`150
`
`-1.90.
`9.7%
`
`12.3%
`
`1.7%
`
`15.6%
`
`
`
`USABLE SALVIPLE
`FREQUENCY PERCENTOF
`
`
`
`49.7%
`
`31.8%
`
`2.9%
`
`12.0%
`
`‘l.6%
`0.0%
`
`1.4%
`
`)
`
`7
`0.7%
`No One Over 18 in Household
`Quota Full
`
`
`
`
`INCOMPLETE-"VIAXIMUM ATTEMPTS
`No Answer‘
`
`Busy
`
`Answering Machine
`Callback
`
`Callback In Progress
`Not Available Until Study Over
`
`
`REFUSALS
`
`
`
`Refusal Slams
`Refused at Intro
`
`Refusal in Progress
`
`X
`
`C0MPLETES
`
`ll
`
`TOTALSAMPLE LOADED
`
`950
`
`“moo/,,
`
`I
`
`1
`
`E?
`
`3arr_v Associate: — Brand .-hvarenesx Survey (785)
`.’:.reeman. Sullivan C.2.. San Francisco, CA — 7/26/99 —- Page I
`
`96
`
`i 19.8%
`
`435
`
`|
`
`100.0% I
`
`
`
`

`
`O ;
`
`Section C
`
`Annotated Questionnaire
`
`3'1;
`
`

`
`
`
`.3
`
`0»
`
`Barry & Associates -- Brand Awareness Survey
`
`INTRO Hello, my name is
`in San Francisco.
`
`and I'm calling from Freeman, Sullivan & Co.,
`
`00\lC'\LI|-P~l.aJl\)r-'
`
`PROCEED TO NEXT QUESTION
`No answer
`
`Normal busy
`-
`Answering machine
`Do not wish to dial this number (Null attempt)
`Callback
`
`Non-Working Number
`Business Number
`
`S1
`
`We are not selling anything. We are conducting a public opinion interview about brand
`awareness. This interview will only take about 5 minutes.
`
`The information you provide is completely confidential. Is this a good time to do the
`interview?
`
`1
`
`4 2
`3
`
`~
`Yes, respondent available
`Respondent available, but can't talk now (SCHEDULE CALLBACK)
`No, refused (TERIVIINATE)
`
`INTERVIEWER: IF UNSURE ASK:
`
`Are you 18 or over?
`
`DJI\)v—I
`
`Yes
`No
`
`(SKIP TO S4)
`
`No, refused (TERMINATE)
`
`May I speak with a person 18 or over who lives in your household?
`
`.12DJIx)r-‘
`
`Respondent is available and coming to phone (SKIP TO S2)
`Respondent not available (SCHEDULE CALLBACK)
`No person over 18 (TER_-’\/IINATE)
`No, refused (TERMINATE)
`
`\
`
`Barry & Associates — Brand .-Iwareners Survey _{ 78 5}
`Freeman, Sullivan 6": Co , San Francisco, C.-I — 07/'26/9,0 -- Page /
`
`33
`
`

`
`
`
`O»
`
`O
`
`\_/'
`
`S3
`
`In the past year, have you consulted a real estate agent for any reason?
`
`\oO0l\)v—4
`