Phone Survey
Opening disclaimer: my first post-college job was in a survey-taking operation. Lots of radio surveys, Sara Lee product surveys, Pennzoil oil surveys, and as it was the '88 election season, lots and lots of political surveys. So I don't mind answering tedious questions, because I remember what it was like being on the other end of the wire. It's almost fun, pretending that my opinion means anything to anyone.
Tonight I participated in a strange one: 'Just three or four minutes of your time, ma'am,' he said.
Ok, go for it. (I'm whispering, because I've got laryngitis.... )
Tell me your opinion of the following persons or groups in your community - Highly Positive, Somewhat Positive, Neutral, Somewhat Negative, Highly Negative:
Xcel Energy
People who live in Jamestown
People who have houses and property in the mountains (by now I'm thinking "huh?")
People who have suffered damage from wildfires
Next, the inquisitor related two sides of a story, and I was to indicate which side I believed more: Side 1) The Overland Fire of 2003 was caused by the failure of Xcel Energy to cut down a dead tree that was just 20 feet from the powerline. Because it was dead, it fell on the line, and safety shutoffs failed for two hours, creating the firestorm. Side 2) The tree wasn't dead, and high winds pushed the tree into the line.
I told the poor guy that there just wasn't enough information to decide which story was more believable.
Then, "Do you think Xcel Energy should pay All, Some, or None of the damages for:
People who lost their homes.
Loss of personal items
Enjoyment of property
Time off from work
Emotional suffering.
Wait a minute, sir. We haven't established that Xcel is at fault. Why are we talking about all, some, or none of the damages? And shouldn't some of these things be covered by insurance?
If you were on a jury making this decision, to which opinion are you more inclined:
To make sure victims are fully compensated for their losses.
To cut back a little on the award so that the settlement isn't excessive.
If I were on a jury... wait a minute sir, I am a member of the potential jury pool. Isn't this messing with the jury's mind a little bit? Just who commissioned this survey?
Sorry, I don't know that information. Those are all the questions I have for you.
Wait a minute... aren't you going to ask any demographic questions? You gotta have some demographic questions to help make sense of your data...
Thank you for your time. Click.
***
Ok, so what was that about? Is there a multi-gazillion dollar lawsuit about to take place between the damaged property owners (or more likely, their insurers) and Xcel Energy? What are the lawyers playing at here? Am I, as a utility customer/ insurance participant gonna eat the cost of this (you bet! no matter how it comes out)?
Tonight I participated in a strange one: 'Just three or four minutes of your time, ma'am,' he said.
Ok, go for it. (I'm whispering, because I've got laryngitis.... )
Tell me your opinion of the following persons or groups in your community - Highly Positive, Somewhat Positive, Neutral, Somewhat Negative, Highly Negative:
Xcel Energy
People who live in Jamestown
People who have houses and property in the mountains (by now I'm thinking "huh?")
People who have suffered damage from wildfires
Next, the inquisitor related two sides of a story, and I was to indicate which side I believed more: Side 1) The Overland Fire of 2003 was caused by the failure of Xcel Energy to cut down a dead tree that was just 20 feet from the powerline. Because it was dead, it fell on the line, and safety shutoffs failed for two hours, creating the firestorm. Side 2) The tree wasn't dead, and high winds pushed the tree into the line.
I told the poor guy that there just wasn't enough information to decide which story was more believable.
Then, "Do you think Xcel Energy should pay All, Some, or None of the damages for:
People who lost their homes.
Loss of personal items
Enjoyment of property
Time off from work
Emotional suffering.
Wait a minute, sir. We haven't established that Xcel is at fault. Why are we talking about all, some, or none of the damages? And shouldn't some of these things be covered by insurance?
If you were on a jury making this decision, to which opinion are you more inclined:
To make sure victims are fully compensated for their losses.
To cut back a little on the award so that the settlement isn't excessive.
If I were on a jury... wait a minute sir, I am a member of the potential jury pool. Isn't this messing with the jury's mind a little bit? Just who commissioned this survey?
Sorry, I don't know that information. Those are all the questions I have for you.
Wait a minute... aren't you going to ask any demographic questions? You gotta have some demographic questions to help make sense of your data...
Thank you for your time. Click.
***
Ok, so what was that about? Is there a multi-gazillion dollar lawsuit about to take place between the damaged property owners (or more likely, their insurers) and Xcel Energy? What are the lawyers playing at here? Am I, as a utility customer/ insurance participant gonna eat the cost of this (you bet! no matter how it comes out)?
Comments