- Email: [email protected]
Aeromedical marketing survey
Hospital Aviation Survey
Aeromedical Marketing Survey Table 1
Activity Affect on Program Utilization yes
no
significant
moderate
little/none
unknown
100% 97% 89% 64%
-3% 11% 36%
64% 44% 61% 2%
24% 28% 24% 14%
6% 14% 7% 52%
6% 14% 8% 31%
95% 85% 89% 86%
5% 15% 11% 14%
44% 27% 34% 9%
30% 38% 34% 14%
5% 18% 12% 44%
21% 18% 20% 33%
91% 82% 82% 45%
9% 18% 18% 55%
13% 13% 11% --
43% 41% 39% 27%
10% 6% 9% 23%
33% 41% 41% 50%
80% 71% 88%
20% 19% 15%
23% 17% 16%
32% 36% 34%
15% 17% 16%
30% 30% 34%
77% 61% 55% 61%
23% 39% 45% 39%
4% -3% 8%
22% 20% 22% 30%
41% 45% 36% 35%
33% 35% 39% 28%
42% 98% 35% 26%
58% 2% 65% 74%
61% 71% 48% 76%
11% 18% 22% 12%
7% ----
21% 11% 30% 12%
53%
47%
63%
20%
9%
9%
PR Flights To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
PR Visits To hospitals To policeflire To EMS agencies To civic org
Direct Mail To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
Press Releases To I V stations To Radio stations To Newspapers
Static Displays Fairs Shopping malls Athletic/Civic Program open house
Telephone Followup to Referring Agencies By receiving MD By flight nurse By program dir Other
Communications Center Dispatcher effect
In December, 1986 a marketing survey was sent by Hospital Aviation to 120 hospital-sponsored helicopter programs. A total of 66 responses were received, for a 55% sampling ratio. The average age for responding programs was 4 years. Table l presents the format and response to this survey. Specifically, the survey asked, "Which of the following marketing/public relations activities or methods have been used by your program; what was their effect on increasing or maintaining program utilization; and what is your average annual utilization of each?" Unlike most Hospital Aviation surveys conducted on an annual basis, our last marketing survey was conducted in June 16 HOSPITALAVIATION,MARCH 1987
1982. With few exceptions, the current survey found little change over that conducted four years ago. Table 2 shows the most successful marketing activities reported by each survey. Specifically we asked, "What are the two most successful marketing activities used by your program in terms of generating support and/or increasing utilization?" Four of the five categories listed in the top five responses in 1982 were repeated in 1986. However, patient follow-up moved into the number one position during the more recent survey, switching places with PR flights. Inservice education went from third to fifth, being edged by site visits and involvement with EMS, a new category reported this year. The use of
direct mail, while achieving significant rankings in Table 1, dropped out of the top five. The average number of public relations flights per program was 59 per year. The Table 2
MOST SUCCESSFUL MARKETING ACTIVITIES
Activity Patient followup PR flights Site visits Involvement with EMS Inservice education Direct mail
1982
1986
#2 #1 #4
#1 - 29% #2 - 19% #3 - 13%
-#3 #5
# 4 - 12% #5 - 10% --
Hospital Aviation Survey minimum for any program was four, while the maximum was 200.
Table 3
1982-1986 MARKETING EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISONS Used 1982 1986
Significant 1982 1986
Unknown 1982 1986
PR Flights To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
96% 96% 96% 58%
100% 97% 89% 64%
76% 56% 64% 6%
64% 44% 61% 2%
0% 0% 4% 27%
6% 14% 8% 31%
PR Visits To.-hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
96 % 81% 88% 81%
95 % 85 % 89% 86%
60% 33% 48% 10%
44% 27% 34% 9%
12% 10% 13% 43%
21% 18% 20% 33%
Direct Mail To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
81% 73% 73% 23%
91% 82% 82% 45%
19% 11% 21% 17%
13% 13% 11% 0%
14% 21% 21% 33%
33% 41% 41% 50%
Press Releases To TV stations To Radio stations To Newspapers
88% 88% 96%
80% 71% 85%
17% 17% 20%
23% 17% 16%
44% 44% 44%
30% 30% 34%
Static Displays Fairs Shopping malls Athletic/Civic Program open house
77% 58% 54% 62%
77% 61% 55% 61%
15% 13% 21% 13%
4% 0% 3% 8%
35% 27% 21% 31%
33% 35% 39% 28%
Telephone Followup to Referring Agencies By receiving MD 54% By flight nurse 88% By program dir 38% Other --
42% 98% 35% --
86% 78% 60% --
61% 71% 48% 76%
7% 4% 20% --
21% 11% 30% 12%
Communications Center Dispatcher effect 73%
53%
37%
63%
26%
9%
Table 4 PERFORMANCE OF PROGRAM MARKETING ACTIVITIES
Position Program Coordinator Combination Program Coordinator/Other Chief Flight Nurse Hospital Marketing Dept. Other combinations
Percent 35% 24% 15% 5% 21%
Four-year comparison In general, respondents in 1986 seemed more unsure of the effectiveness of their marketing when compared with respondents in 1982. This was measured by the higher percentages in the "unknown" classifications in almost every category. It is conceded, however, that the market was much more complex in 1986, with twice as many programs in operation. In addition, higher numbers of shared and competing services exist. Many hospitals are also adding Satellite programs, where a second helicopter is based at an outlying hospital 20 to 60 miles distant from the primary location. With the maturing of the aeromedical industry, the EMS helicopter concept was much more readily accepted by referring agencies in 1986 than it was in 1982. Both categories would probably make the measurement of marketing effectiveness more difficult for many programs. Table 3 shows comparative responses from the 1982 and 1986 surveys. Performance of marketing activities at hospital-based programs is delegated to several combinations of personnel. Table 4 shows the relationship, with the program coordinator performing the marketing role. In second place was the chief flight nurse - understandable since about one-third of all programs are managed by the chief flight nurse. The range of expenditures for program marketing extended from as little as $3,000 per year to $155,000, as shown in Table 5. The average aeromedical program spent $23,478 annually, however. As programs became more mature, a significant decline in marketing budgets became apparent. The cost of printed materials as a ratio of the total marketing budget is expressed as a percent of the total budget. The overall average was 48%0, with 44% being spent on promotional items (keychains, caps, mugs, penlights, etc.) and 8070 listed as "other."
Table 5
AVERAGE MARKETING EXPENSE Program Years One or less Two Three Four-six Seven-n ine
Expense $37,179 $27,818 $19,583 $17,179 $15,745
Average
$23,478
Range 5,000-155,000 3,000-62,000 5,000-32,500 3,500-50,000 3,000-50,000
% Printed
48% HOSPITALAVIATION,MARCH1987 17
Aeromedical Marketing Survey Table 1
Activity Affect on Program Utilization yes
no
significant
moderate
little/none
unknown
100% 97% 89% 64%
-3% 11% 36%
64% 44% 61% 2%
24% 28% 24% 14%
6% 14% 7% 52%
6% 14% 8% 31%
95% 85% 89% 86%
5% 15% 11% 14%
44% 27% 34% 9%
30% 38% 34% 14%
5% 18% 12% 44%
21% 18% 20% 33%
91% 82% 82% 45%
9% 18% 18% 55%
13% 13% 11% --
43% 41% 39% 27%
10% 6% 9% 23%
33% 41% 41% 50%
80% 71% 88%
20% 19% 15%
23% 17% 16%
32% 36% 34%
15% 17% 16%
30% 30% 34%
77% 61% 55% 61%
23% 39% 45% 39%
4% -3% 8%
22% 20% 22% 30%
41% 45% 36% 35%
33% 35% 39% 28%
42% 98% 35% 26%
58% 2% 65% 74%
61% 71% 48% 76%
11% 18% 22% 12%
7% ----
21% 11% 30% 12%
53%
47%
63%
20%
9%
9%
PR Flights To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
PR Visits To hospitals To policeflire To EMS agencies To civic org
Direct Mail To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
Press Releases To I V stations To Radio stations To Newspapers
Static Displays Fairs Shopping malls Athletic/Civic Program open house
Telephone Followup to Referring Agencies By receiving MD By flight nurse By program dir Other
Communications Center Dispatcher effect
In December, 1986 a marketing survey was sent by Hospital Aviation to 120 hospital-sponsored helicopter programs. A total of 66 responses were received, for a 55% sampling ratio. The average age for responding programs was 4 years. Table l presents the format and response to this survey. Specifically, the survey asked, "Which of the following marketing/public relations activities or methods have been used by your program; what was their effect on increasing or maintaining program utilization; and what is your average annual utilization of each?" Unlike most Hospital Aviation surveys conducted on an annual basis, our last marketing survey was conducted in June 16 HOSPITALAVIATION,MARCH 1987
1982. With few exceptions, the current survey found little change over that conducted four years ago. Table 2 shows the most successful marketing activities reported by each survey. Specifically we asked, "What are the two most successful marketing activities used by your program in terms of generating support and/or increasing utilization?" Four of the five categories listed in the top five responses in 1982 were repeated in 1986. However, patient follow-up moved into the number one position during the more recent survey, switching places with PR flights. Inservice education went from third to fifth, being edged by site visits and involvement with EMS, a new category reported this year. The use of
direct mail, while achieving significant rankings in Table 1, dropped out of the top five. The average number of public relations flights per program was 59 per year. The Table 2
MOST SUCCESSFUL MARKETING ACTIVITIES
Activity Patient followup PR flights Site visits Involvement with EMS Inservice education Direct mail
1982
1986
#2 #1 #4
#1 - 29% #2 - 19% #3 - 13%
-#3 #5
# 4 - 12% #5 - 10% --
Hospital Aviation Survey minimum for any program was four, while the maximum was 200.
Table 3
1982-1986 MARKETING EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISONS Used 1982 1986
Significant 1982 1986
Unknown 1982 1986
PR Flights To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
96% 96% 96% 58%
100% 97% 89% 64%
76% 56% 64% 6%
64% 44% 61% 2%
0% 0% 4% 27%
6% 14% 8% 31%
PR Visits To.-hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
96 % 81% 88% 81%
95 % 85 % 89% 86%
60% 33% 48% 10%
44% 27% 34% 9%
12% 10% 13% 43%
21% 18% 20% 33%
Direct Mail To hospitals To police/fire To EMS agencies To civic org
81% 73% 73% 23%
91% 82% 82% 45%
19% 11% 21% 17%
13% 13% 11% 0%
14% 21% 21% 33%
33% 41% 41% 50%
Press Releases To TV stations To Radio stations To Newspapers
88% 88% 96%
80% 71% 85%
17% 17% 20%
23% 17% 16%
44% 44% 44%
30% 30% 34%
Static Displays Fairs Shopping malls Athletic/Civic Program open house
77% 58% 54% 62%
77% 61% 55% 61%
15% 13% 21% 13%
4% 0% 3% 8%
35% 27% 21% 31%
33% 35% 39% 28%
Telephone Followup to Referring Agencies By receiving MD 54% By flight nurse 88% By program dir 38% Other --
42% 98% 35% --
86% 78% 60% --
61% 71% 48% 76%
7% 4% 20% --
21% 11% 30% 12%
Communications Center Dispatcher effect 73%
53%
37%
63%
26%
9%
Table 4 PERFORMANCE OF PROGRAM MARKETING ACTIVITIES
Position Program Coordinator Combination Program Coordinator/Other Chief Flight Nurse Hospital Marketing Dept. Other combinations
Percent 35% 24% 15% 5% 21%
Four-year comparison In general, respondents in 1986 seemed more unsure of the effectiveness of their marketing when compared with respondents in 1982. This was measured by the higher percentages in the "unknown" classifications in almost every category. It is conceded, however, that the market was much more complex in 1986, with twice as many programs in operation. In addition, higher numbers of shared and competing services exist. Many hospitals are also adding Satellite programs, where a second helicopter is based at an outlying hospital 20 to 60 miles distant from the primary location. With the maturing of the aeromedical industry, the EMS helicopter concept was much more readily accepted by referring agencies in 1986 than it was in 1982. Both categories would probably make the measurement of marketing effectiveness more difficult for many programs. Table 3 shows comparative responses from the 1982 and 1986 surveys. Performance of marketing activities at hospital-based programs is delegated to several combinations of personnel. Table 4 shows the relationship, with the program coordinator performing the marketing role. In second place was the chief flight nurse - understandable since about one-third of all programs are managed by the chief flight nurse. The range of expenditures for program marketing extended from as little as $3,000 per year to $155,000, as shown in Table 5. The average aeromedical program spent $23,478 annually, however. As programs became more mature, a significant decline in marketing budgets became apparent. The cost of printed materials as a ratio of the total marketing budget is expressed as a percent of the total budget. The overall average was 48%0, with 44% being spent on promotional items (keychains, caps, mugs, penlights, etc.) and 8070 listed as "other."
Table 5
AVERAGE MARKETING EXPENSE Program Years One or less Two Three Four-six Seven-n ine
Expense $37,179 $27,818 $19,583 $17,179 $15,745
Average
$23,478
Range 5,000-155,000 3,000-62,000 5,000-32,500 3,500-50,000 3,000-50,000
% Printed
48% HOSPITALAVIATION,MARCH1987 17