Market Research Saginaw

City of Saginaw Perceptions
Market Research Report

Sophie Adams Carrie Fink Joe Jones Joey Schave
1|Page
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.3
Introduction...................................................................................................................4
Descriptive Statistical Analysis...7
Motivation,Location & Frequency Statistics...16
Hypotheses Analysis..19
Conclusions& Interpretations.......24
StudyLimitations.............................................................................................................27
Appendix.........................................................................................................................29
Sample Questionnaire Coded......................................................................................29
Minitab Statistical Analysis Outputs................................................................................32
Open-Ended Question Word Bank.................................................................................38
Demographic Statistics Graphed.................................................................................43
2|Page
Executive Summary
The mission of this market research study is to gain insights on perceptions of
the City of Saginaw in the Great Lakes Bay Region (GLBR). This report has been
prepared for the City of Saginaw Branding Committee by four Students at Northwood
University. 400 surveys were physically administered to citizens in the GLBR; in public
spaces, local businesses and colleges. The questionnaire consists of three key parts;
an interest and lifestyle analysis, a media consumption evaluation and an assessment
of familiarity with GLBR cities, focusing on the City of Saginaw. Demographic
information was also collected for classification purposes. Respondents were asked
questions relating to city branding initiatives that have proved to be successful in other
metropolitan areas. We also examined what specific activities draw people to a city.
This data will be useful in determining what the committee should pursue in order to
increase traffic and participation. To provide a clear comparison of Saginaw to other
cities in the GLBR, we asked the surveyed population which cities they are most likely
to go to. Respondents were asked to rate the City of Saginaw on aspects such as visual
appeal, business and shopping variety, entertainment, parks, recreation, security and
safety. These insights will be useful in pinpointing which elements the committee should
focus on in their branding efforts to ensure efficiency and success. The data collected
was tested against four hypothesis and the results identify multiple relationships; college
student status and a want for more variety in shopping entertainment, how often people
listen to the radio versus how often people go out to eat at a dine-in restaurant, the
income bracket of $23,999 or less and a need for bike lanes, and people with children
being concerned with safety and security.
3|Page
Introduction
Rebranding initiatives can make a huge difference in the awareness, perception
and success of a brand. It is important to remember, though, that all brands start
somewhere. In order to ensure efficiency and effectiveness when launching a new
branding campaign, one must first analyze the current market situation. This includes
the attitudes about the brand, consumer preferences, and any perceivable trends in the
industry.
A committee has been formed in Saginaw County with the purpose of improving
the image of Saginaw, and it's City Center. Our Market Research group has taken on
the task of gaining a better understanding of the current perceptions of Saginaw, in the
city, and its surrounding areas. To get the most relevant information from the
questionnaire we will be designing to gauge perceptions of the city, we have identified
four key areas to investigate.
First, we will gauge respondent's interest in various city branding elements that
have been used by other cities to increase involvement and traffic. These initiatives
include; farmers markets, co-ops, urban gardening, sustainability, a central gathering
place, food trucks, bike rentals and lanes, a lively art and music scene, clear wayfinding and signage and a large shopping variety. This will identify which elements are
most likely to draw new visitors to the city.
In order to gain a better understanding of the sample, we will look into the
respondents lifestyle. How frequently do they go; out to eat at a dine-in restaurant, to
see a movie at the theater, to a live entertainment event, to have drinks at a bar or
4|Page
utilize public parks. This section will identify which activities get the surveyed out of their
house and into a local business.
Then, we will look into the media usage patterns of respondents. We want to find
out whether they are more likely to utilize traditional or social media, and how frequently
they log on. If respondents favor social media, we will find out which outlet has the most
popularity within the sample. This will allow us to pinpoint the best way to reach the
target market. We will also ask if they have seen the Pure Michigan: Great Lakes Bay
Region advertisements on television, or if they have heard them on the radio. It is
important to know if this campaign is reaching the market.
The next area we will address is the awareness of the Great Lakes Bay Region
in the sample. This section includes a comparison between cities located in the region,
identifying which are most favorable. We will then determine familiarity with Saginaw in
the sample. We will ask if they have heard of it, if they have visited and how often they
go there. Then, we will have respondents rate the city on various aspects; visual
appeal, business and shopping variety, entertainment options, security, safety,
recreation and parks. This will help gauge how informed and involved the sample is,
and identify key features that can make or break a city. Lastly, we will ask respondents
what comes to mind when they think of Saginaw. This will be the only open-ended
question on the survey and it may produce valuable insights.
The collected data will then be processed and tested against a set of
hypotheses. We hope to be able to identify key characteristics of booming cities, and to
be able to pass those trends on to Saginaw, to make it the next big thing. The first
hypotheses we will test is whether or not there is a tendency for college students to be
5|Page
more concerned than other citizens with a large shopping variety. Next, we will test if
people that listen to the radio often also go out to eat at dine-in restaurants often.
Another hypothesis examines the relationship between the income bracket of $23,999
or less and desire to have bike rentals and lanes. The fourth hypothesis will determine
whether people with children are more concerned with safety and security.
The majority of our sample consists of citizens and college students in the Great
Lakes Bay Region. We enacted a discover-oriented approach with the goal of finding
out exactly how people perceive the city. Our face-to-face method of data collection is
structured through the form of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consists mainly of
closed-ended questions, with one exception- respondents were asked what comes to
mind when they hear the word Saginaw. This is an undisguised study, as respondents
are participating on a voluntary basis.
In order to ensure a representative sample, we administered questionnaires in a
natural setting at multiple existing physical locations throughout the region. We believe
that by getting as much information as we can from each respondent, and opening up
the lines of communication by asking them what they want from a city, we will have a
complete picture of Saginaws current position in the perceptual map of this sample.
The final picture will allow the branding committee to concentrate their efforts only on
endeavors that are worthwhile.
6|Page
Descriptive Statistics
Overall, 400 surveys were collected and analyzed, at least 384 were
needed. This number was configured using the following equation:
N=[z^2(p*q)]/(e^2)
p (variance) = 0.5
q (1-p) = 0.5
z (degree of confidence) = 95% confident
e (margin of error) = plus or minus .05
Therefore, N (total sample size) came out to be 384.
Section 1 Descriptive Statistics

The first section of the survey asks participants to rank the importance of the
following factors based on what influences them to visit a new city. The graphs show
the responses we gathered.
1= Not Important 2= Somewhat Unimportant 3= Important 4= somewhat Important 5= Very Important
7|Page
The average importance of Farmers Markets and Co-ops is 2.58 and the median
is 2 (somewhat unimportant). Furthermore, the mode is 1 (not important). Therefore, we
can say that farmers markets and co-ops are not of high importance, although they may
play a small role with our participants when deciding to visit a new city considering the
average is almost 3, which is important.
The results for urban gardening and sustainability initiatives are similar. The
average was 2.29, the median is 2, and the mode is 1. This shows us that people are
not concerned with gardening and sustainability initiatives when visiting a city. The
average is close to two, which is below
important.
The same results can be said for a central gathering place with food trucks
(mean: 2.28, median: 2, mode: 1) and bike rentals and lanes (mean: 2.19, median: 2,
mode: 1). Both have averages close to 2, which is between important and not important.
Therefore, the majority of our participants are not interested in either bike rentals and
lanes, or central gathering places with food center.
Lively art and music scene seems
to be important to our participants when
8|Page
deciding to visit a new city. The amount of people that chose very important and
somewhat important was 50.5%. The average is 3.36, the median is 4, and mode is
4. Therefore, most people take into account the art and music scene when deciding to
visit a new city.
Clear way-finding and signage seems to be perceived as an important factor as
well. The mean of the data is 3.46, the
median is 4, and mode is 4. Therefore, the
factor of clear way-finding and signage is
somewhat important to the majority of our
participants considering 54.75% of them
answered that it is either somewhat
important (4) or very important (5).
The factor of large shopping variety

seemed to be the most important for the
majority of the participants. The total
percentage of people that answered
somewhat important (4) or very important (5) was 65.75%. Furthermore, the mean
was the highest in this section at 3.8. Also, the median is 4 and the mode was the
highest at 5.
It is clear that the factors that were of high importance when choosing whether to
visit a city was large shopping variety, clear way-finding and signage, and a lively art
and music scene. The least important factors to our participants were farmers markets
9|Page
with co-ops, urban gardening and sustainability initiatives, central gathering place with
food trucks, and bike rentals and lanes.
The following graphs are the statistics
of the participants lifestyle analysis on how
often they eat at a dine-in restaurant, see a
movie at the theater, go to a live
entertainment event, go have drinks at a bar, and go to public parks. Participants rated
how often they do the previously listed activities.
1= rarely
occasionally
2= somewhat rarely
4= somewhat often
3=
5= often
Going out to eat at a dine-in restaurant is the most

frequent activity. The mean is 3.4, which is the
highest mean in this section. Furthermore, the
median is 3 and the mode is 3. According to the
data, 46% of the participants answered that they go to a dine-in restaurant somewhat
often or often.
Going to a movie at the theater does not happen often according to our statistics.
The mean is 2.49, the lowest of all the averages in this section. The median is 2, also
the lowest of the section, and the mode is 2,3. Only 17% of the participants answered
that they go to a movie somewhat often or often.
10 | P a g e
Live entertainment events had

about the same results as going to a
movie at a theater. The mean is 2.62, the
median is 3, and the mode is 3. This
shows that people somewhat
rarely/occasionally go to live
entertainment events but not so much that

they would consider going often.
There was a mostly even spread with
the question on how often people go to have
drinks at a bar. The average was 2.91 while
the median is 3 and mode is 1. One fourth
of the participants answered that they rarely go to a bar to have drinks. However, 38%
of participants answered that they go have drinks at a bar somewhat often or often.
The data collected about public
parks also shows no majority of one
answer. However, the mean is 2.72,
median is 3, and the mode is 3.
Therefore, people may not go to a
public park often, but the majority of
participants do go occasionally.
Overall, the two events that are most popular are eating at a dine-in
restaurant and going to have drinks at a bar.
11 | P a g e

The following graphs show the usage of social media channels.
1= rarely
2= somewhat rarely 3= Occasionally
4= somewhat often 5= often
Fro
m
the
data
we
see
that
Facebook is definitely the most popular social

media at 45% of our participants saying they
use Facebook often. The second most popular
social media is Twitter even though only 29%
of participants answered that they use it often.
The mean for Facebook is 3.92 and the mean
for Twitter is 2.85. These two social media sites where the only two that are used often,
the other three are insignificant considering each one has high percentages of
participants that answered that they rarely use that media channel.
The following graphs show the usage of traditional media channels.
12 | P a g e
1= rarely
2= somewhat rarely
3= Occasionally
4= somewhat often
5= often
According to the data collected, television and radio are the most popular
traditional media channels. The average usage for television is 3.7 (almost somewhat
often), median is 4 (somewhat often), and mode is 5 (often). This shows that television
is by far the most used out of the four. Radio is next with an average of 3.14
(occasionally), median of 3 (occasionally), and mode of 4 (somewhat often). Both
magazines and newspapers have very low averages of 2.2 and 2.0 (somewhat
rarely). The median for each is 2 (somewhat rarely) and both have the same mode of 1
(rarely).
The following graphs show the awareness of the Pure Michigan: Great Lakes Bay
Region Ads on TV and radio.
13 | P a g e
The majority of participants have seen and heard the Pure Michigan:
Great Lakes Bay Region ads on both TV and radio.
The following graphs show the likelihood of visiting each city.
14 | P a g e
1= Not Likely 2= Somewhat Unlikely
3= Likely
4= Somewhat Likely 5= Very Likely
15 | P a g e
The important information gathered in this

section is that there is not one city that is
overwhelmingly more likely to be visited than
the others. However, Saginaw has the highest
average rating of 3.41 (Likely). Saginaw also
has the highest median: 4 (somewhat likely);
and one of the highest modes: 5 (very likely).
The following graphs show the results of the questions on the survey asking if
participants have heard of Saginaw, and if they have visited Saginaw.
The results show us that it is very unlikely for people in the GLBR region to have
not heard of Saginaw and it is also unlikely if they have not visited.
16 | P a g e
Motivation, Location and

Frequency Statistics
According to the data, the
majority of participants are
motivated to go to Saginaw for
shopping.
The statistic data supports
this conclusion because the
mean is 3.19, the median is 3,
and the mode is 3, all of which represent shopping. However, the motivation of
entertainment is not far behind 24%.
The majority of participants
are drawn to the Kochville
(SVSU /Shopping District)
part of Saginaw. The data
supports this conclusion
because the median is 4 and
the mode is 4, both of which
represent Kochville.
Generally, the participants do not go to
Saginaw often, only 19% responded to
the often category. However, if we
look at the amount of people that
17 | P a g e
responded that they at least go to Saginaw occasionally we get a high percentage. 61%
of participants responded that they do go to Saginaw at least on occasion, if not
more. The descriptive stats support this conclusion considering the average rating is
2.94, the median is 3, and the mode is 3, which 3 is the indication for occasionally.
In section 4, question 7, participants were asked which of the following aspects
needs improvement in relation to Saginaw.
1= Needs Improvement 2= Needs Some Improvement 3= Adequate 4= Meets Expectation 5= Exceeds Expectation
None of the results for this section

had a high rating for exceeds expectations.
This shows that the majority of participants
believe that many improvements can be
made in Saginaw. However, the majority of
18 | P a g e
people did respond that the aspects were adequate. Every average was between
2(needs some improvement) and 3 (adequate): refer to appendix for precise numbers.
Furthermore, the medians for visual appeal, business & shopping variety, and
entertainment options were all 3 and the modes were also 3. The medians and modes
for security/safety and parks/recreation were a little lower at 2 (needs improvement).
Therefore, the first aspects that should be taken into the most consideration for
improvement are security & safety and parks & recreation. However, the other aspects
are only adequate, so there is room for improvement there as well in order to help
rebrand the view of Saginaw.
19 | P a g e
Hypotheses Analysis: Inferential Data

Hypothesis #1:
Ho: There is not a relationship between college students and the importance of a
city having more shopping opportunities.
Ha: There is a relationship between college students and the importance of a city
having more shopping opportunities.
When considering our first hypothesis, if there is a relationship between college
students and the importance of a city having more shopping opportunities, we referred
to (part 1-1-g) and part (3-9). Question g refers to our interval scale with respondents
answering whether a large shopping variety is not important up to very important
(continuous). Question number nine asks if the respondent is in college or not
(categorical). For this lot of combined data, our team ran a two sample t-test.
Our findings included:
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: shop-no college, Shopping-college

Two-sample T for shop-no college vs Shopping-college
N Mean StDev SE Mean
shop-no col 118 3.75 1.12 0.10
Shopping-college 282 3.82 1.19 0.071
Difference = mu (shop-no college) - mu (Shopping-college)

Estimate for difference: -0.065
95% CI for difference: (-0.311, 0.181)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.52 P-Value = 0.603 DF = 232
20 | P a g e
These findings prove that we do not reject the null, because the p-value 0.603. This
shows that there is not a relationship between college students and the importance of a
city having more shopping opportunities.
Hypothesis #2:
Ho: There is not a relationship between people who listen to the radio and people
who go out to eat at a dine-in restaurant.
Ha: There is a relationship between people who listen to the radio and people
who go out to eat at a dine-in restaurant.
When considering our second hypothesis, we are referring to part 2 (sec3-2-b:

radio use) and part 1 (sec 2-1-a: frequency of going to dine-in restaurant). Question b
refers the usage of the radio (continuous), and question a, refers to how often people go
out to eat at a dine-in restaurant (continuous). For this lot of combined data, our team
ran an ANOVA test.
21 | P a g e
Our findings included:

One-way ANOVA: eat out-dep versus radio-ind
Source
DF
radio-ind 4
SS
MS
10.809
2.702
Error
395 392.781 0.994
Total
399 403.590
F
2.72
P
0.030
S = 0.9972 R-Sq = 2.68% R-Sq(adj) = 1.69%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on
Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev --+---------+---------+---------+------1 60 3.4667 0.9823 (---------*---------)
2 86 3.1512 1.0119 (-------*--------)
3 69 3.4348 0.8485 (--------*---------)
4 108 3.3426 1.0062 (-------*------)
5 77 3.6494 1.0974 (--------*--------)
--+---------+---------+---------+------3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75
Pooled StDev = 0.9972
Considering the p-value is 0.030, we reject the null. We will consider that there is a
relationship between people who listen to the radio and people who go out to eat at a
dine-in restaurant. This is relevant for the advertising in the area, via radio.
22 | P a g e
Hypothesis #3:
Ho: There is not a relationship between people with the annual income of $23,999
or less and the respondents that are concerned with bike rentals and lanes.
Ha: There is a relationship between people with the annual income of $23,999 or
less and the respondents that are concerned with bike rentals and lanes.
To analyze this information our group used a two-sample t-test and ran information from
(part 1-1-d), a question concerning bike rentals and lanes, and (part 3-10), which asks
for the participants income.
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: $23,999 or less, $24,000 and higher-bikes
Two-sample T for $23,999 or less-bikes vs $24,000 and higher -bikes
$23,999 or less
197 2.14 1.22
0.087
$24,000 and higher -bikes 203 2.24 1.18
0.083
Difference = mu ($23,999 or less) - mu ($24,000 and higher -bikes)

95% CI for difference: (-0.335, 0.137)
Within the two-sample t-test we discovered a p-value of 0.409, so we do not
reject the null. Therefore, we note that there is not a relationship between people of
annual income of $23,999 or less and the respondents that are more concerned with
bike rentals and lanes.
23 | P a g e
Hypothesis #4:
Ho: There is not a relationship between people with children and respondents
who are more interested in security/safety improvements.
Ha: There is a relationship between people with children and respondents who
are more interested in security/safety improvements.
To analyze this data we, once again, used a two-sample t-test:

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: kids-safety, no kids-safety
kids-safety
49 1.837 0.921
no kids-safety 344 2.20 1.01
0.13
0.054
Difference = mu (kids-safety) - mu (no kids-safety)

95% CI for difference: (-0.651, -0.083)
Within this analysis, we discover a p-value of 0.012, low enough to reject the null
and say that there might be a relationship between people with children and
respondents who are more interested in security/safety improvements.
24 | P a g e
Conclusion & Interpretation

This market research study has produced many useful insights in relation to the City
of Saginaw and perceptions in the Great Lakes Bay Region. The final questionnaire
may have been lengthy but it provided us with a large amount of data to analyze and
draw conclusions from.
As far as the questions regarding branding initiatives, three components were
significantly important to the sample. Respondents rated a large shopping variety as the
most important factor when choosing to visit a new city. The presence of a lively art and
music scene was somewhat important. Clear wayfinding and signage also was shown
to be somewhat important to the surveyed population. Farmers markets and co-ops,
urban gardening and sustainability initiatives, and a central gathering place with food
trucks sparked some interest, but not enough to be statistically significant.
In regards to the lifestyle analysis section of the questionnaire, two activities were
found to be the most often performed in this sample. Going out to eat at a dine-in
restaurant was the most frequent spare-time activity that respondents take part in.
There was also a pattern of going out to have drinks at a bar somewhat often in this
sample. Seeing a movie at the theater, going to public parks and going to live
entertainment events took some of the frequency in this sample, but not enough to be
significant.
When analyzing the media consumption of the surveyed, two social media networks
and two traditional media outlets stood out. Facebook was the overwhelming leader as
far as social media is concerned. Twitter came in second in popularity. Tumblr, Reddit
and Pinterest were not shown to capture a significant amount of this sample. As far as
traditional media is concerned, television and radio reach the majority of our sample. As
25 | P a g e
was expected in this digital age, magazines and newspapers were not effective in
reaching these respondents.
What has been shown to be effective in reaching this sample are the Pure Michigan:
Great Lakes Bay Region television advertisements and radio commercials. The
committee may want to pursue investing in and extending this campaign.
Likely as an effect of the geographical region the questionnaire was administered, a
vast majority of the sample has heard of and visited Saginaw. Respondents rated
Saginaw as the city they were most likely to visit, but Frankenmuth, Freeland, Bay City
and Midland were not far behind.
In the analysis of the motivations behind the sample visiting Saginaw, shopping and
entertainment were shown to be most compelling. Business, school and family also
draw a significant amount of people to the city, but not enough to be statistically
significant in this study.
The geographic area that most respondents reported visiting was Kochville township.
This identifies with the motivator of shopping, as Bay Road and The Fashion Square
Mall were shown to draw an overwhelming majority of respondents to the city. The
majority of the sample reported going to Saginaw occasionally, placing them in the
middle of the road as far as frequency goes.
When asked to rate the City of Saginaw, not a single aspect exceeded the samples
expectations, identifying that there is definitely room for improvement. The areas that
respondents claim to need the most improvement were security and safety, visual
appeal and parks and recreation. Again, business and shopping variety and
26 | P a g e
entertainment options did not exceed, or even meet, the samples expectations, but they
were not prioritized in these results.
Our hypotheses tests analyzed produced interesting results as well. There was not a
relationship between college student status and significant interest in shopping variety.
We assume that there might be a relationship between people that listen to the radio
often and people that go out to eat at a dine-in restaurant often because there was proof
that we reject the null. There is not a relationship between people with an annual
income of $23,999 or less and whether they are interested in bike rentals and lanes.
There was significance in the relationship between people having children and a
concern for the safety of the City. This obviously portrays the dire need for
improvements to security.
This study has highlighted positive aspects that Saginaw already has to offer
citizens of the Great Lakes Bay Region. It also has shown the areas needing
improvement that should be prioritized. Perceptions can change as a result of
marketing, events, and even the smallest changes. It is an ongoing process and we
hope that this study will offer the committee a place to start.
27 | P a g e
Study Limitations
One limitation we had with our research is that we are relying on people
answering the survey honestly and unbiasedly. The questions we asked are to help see
what would bring people to the Great Lakes Bay Region. If people let others influence
their answers, the data will not show a correct representation of what we are trying to
find out. Instead of answering the way they normally would, if they were around their
friends or family while taking the survey they might be influenced by their friends and
family and let their opinions affect how they answered the questionnaire.
A way we could change this in the future is by having people fill out the survey
while they are not around friends and family. We could have people fill it out in front of
us immediately instead of taking it home or somewhere else to complete it before
returning it to us.
Another limitation is that we wanted to survey people from the surrounding areas,
which can present a problem. When going to different areas and handing out surveys
the people you are sampling is just a small portion. Also, depending on where you are
handing out the surveys, the people in that area might not be a good representation of
the whole population.
We could change this in the future by handing out more surveys in different parts
of the city so that way we get data from all areas of the cities we are surveying. This
would give us a better collection of data to interpret. This would give us views and
opinions of a greater variety of people.
Handing out too many surveys in one location was also another limitation.
Surveying too many people from one location can have a great impact on the data. For
28 | P a g e
instance handing out more surveys in Saginaw than any other area would be a bad
idea. We wanted to collect peoples opinions about Saginaw that live in the surrounding
areas of the city. The reason for this is because we were trying to find out what would
bring people to Saginaw that do not normally visit there.
To correct this in the future we could hand out equal amounts of surveys in each
area we are looking to obtain data from. This will give us a more diverse collection of
data to collect and interpret.
29 | P a g e
Appendix
City Branding Questionnaire

We are gathering information on perceptions in the Great Lakes Bay Region and gauging interest on various city branding initiatives.
This survey is completely voluntary and all answers will be kept confidential. Please respond as accurately as possible to all relevant
questions. We thank you for your participation and value your feedback. Call Carrie Fink at 989-525-3324 with any questions.
General Instructions
Please read all questions and subsets from each section carefully.
Circle the appropriate number or use the space provided to fill in your answer.
Part I: Interest/Lifestyle Questions

Section 1 (Gauging Interest):
1. How
This section measures interest in various city branding initiatives
important are the following factors when influencing your decision to visit a new city?
Not
Important
a. Farmers Markets & Co-ops

b. Urban Gardening & Sustainability Initiatives
c. Central Gathering Place with Food Trucks
d. Bike Rentals & Lanes
e. Lively Art & Music Scene
f. Clear Way-finding & Signage
g. Large Shopping Variety
Section 2 (Lifestyle Analysis):
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Important
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Very
Important
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
This section measures activity preferences and patterns
1. How often do you
Rarely
a. Go out to eat at a dine-in restaurant?

b. Go to see a movie at the theater?
c. Go to a live entertainment event?
d. Go to have drinks at a bar?
e. Go to public parks?
1
1
1
1
1
Occasionally
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Often
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Part II: Media Consumption/ Awareness Questions

Section 3 (Media Consumption):
___This section measures your media usage patterns
1. I use the following social media(s) this often

a. Facebook
b. Twitter
c. Tumblr
d. Reddit
e. Pinterest
2. I use the following traditional media(s) this often
a. Television
b. Radio
c. Magazines
d. Newspaper
Rarely
1
1
1
1
1
Occasionally
2
2
2
2
2
Rarely
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
Often
4
4
4
4
4
Occasionally
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
Often
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
30 | P a g e
3. Have you seen Pure Michigan: Great Lakes Bay Region Ads on TV?
(1) Yes (2) No
4. Have you heard Pure Michigan: Great Lakes Bay Region Ads on the Radio?
(1) Yes (2) No
Section 4 (GLBR Awareness): This section measures familiarity with the Great Lakes Bay Region
1. How likely are you to visit the following GLBR cities?
Not
Very
Likely
a. Bay City
b. Birch Run
Likely
1
1
1
1
1
c. Frankenmuth
d. Freeland
e. Saginaw
2
2
2
2
2
Likely
3
3
3
3
3
2. Have you ever heard of Saginaw, MI?
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
(1) Yes (2) No
(If no, skip to Demographics Section)
3. If yes, have you ever visited Saginaw?
(1) Yes (2) No
4. What motivated you to visit Saginaw?

(1) Business
(2) Family
(3) Shopping
(4) Entertainment
(5) School
Other: (6)
5. When visiting Saginaw, where did you go?

(1) Downtown/ Business District
(2) Old Town/ Riverfront
(4) Kochville (SVSU/Shopping District)
(5) Saginaw Township/ Shields

Rarely
6. How often do you go to Saginaw? (Non-Residents Only)
(3) East Side
Occasionally
Often
7. Please rate the following aspects in relation to Saginaw

Needs
Improvement
a. Visual Appeal
b. Business & Shopping Variety
c. Entertainment Options
d. Security/ Safety
e. Parks/ Recreation
1
1
1
1
1
Adequate
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Exceeds
Expectations
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
8. When you think of the City of Saginaw, what comes to mind?

__________________________________________________________________________________
31 | P a g e
Part III: Demographic Information

This section provides background information about respondents for classification purposes ONLY.
All answers will remain strictly confidential.
1. Gender?
(1) Male
(2) Female
2. Are you married?
(1) Yes
(2) No
3. Do you have children?
(1) Yes
(2) No
4. To which racial or ethnic group(s) do you most identify?

(1) African-American
(2) Asian
(3) Caucasian
(4) Latino or Hispanic
(5) Native American
(6) Other
(7) Prefer Not to Answer
5. Where do you currently live?

(1) Midland
(2) Freeland
(3) Mt. Pleasant
(4) Saginaw
(5) Northern MI
(7) Birch Run/ Frankenmuth
(8) Bay City
(9) Thumb Area
Other: (10)
6. How long have you been a resident at your current location?
____ Years
7. How old are you?
____ Years Old
8. What is your highest level of education?

(1) Some high school
(2) High School degree or Equivalent
(4) Associates Degree
(5) Bachelors Degree
(3) Some College, No Degree
(6) Graduate Degree
9. Are you currently in college?
(1) Yes
(2)No
10. Please select your annual household income bracket:

(1) No Income-11,999
(2) 12,000-23,999
(3) 24,000-35,999
(5) 48,000-59,000
(6) 60,000+
(7) Prefer Not to Answer
(4) 36,000-47,999
11. What is your current employment status?

(1) Employed, Part-Time
(2) Employed, Full-Time (3) Not Employed, Looking for Work
(4) Not Employed, Not Looking
(5) Retired
(6) Disabled, Not able to Work
We thank you again for your participation in our survey.

32 | P a g e
Minitab Descriptive Statistics for Survey Questions

11/16/2014 7:10:03 PM
Descriptive Statistics: S1-1a, S1-1b, S1-1c, S1-1d, S1-1e, S1-1f, S1-1g
Total
Variable Count N N* Percent Mean SE Mean StDev Variance CoefVar
S1-1a
400 400 0
100 2.5825 0.0673 1.3464 1.8127 52.13
S1-1b
400 400 0
100 2.2875 0.0599 1.1973 1.4334 52.34
S1-1c
400 400 0
100 2.2825 0.0570 1.1406 1.3009 49.97
S1-1d
400 400 0
100 2.1925 0.0600 1.1996 1.4390 54.71
S1-1e
400 400 0
100 3.3625 0.0596 1.1915 1.4196 35.43
S1-1f
400 400 0
100 3.4675 0.0616 1.2320
S1-1g
400 400 0
100 3.8000 0.0583 1.1655 1.3584 30.67
1.5177 35.53
N for
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
Q3 Maximum Mode Mode
S1-1a
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 4.0000 5.0000
115
S1-1b
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000
132
S1-1c
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000
127
S1-1d
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000
156
S1-1e
1.0000 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000 5.0000
131
S1-1f
1.0000 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000 5.0000
127
S1-1g
1.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000
135
Descriptive Statistics: S2a, S2b, S2c, S2d, S2e

Total
S2a
400 400 0
100 3.3950 0.0503 1.0057
1.0115 29.62
S2b
400 400 0
100 2.4975 0.0546 1.0922
1.1930 43.73
S2c
400 400 0
100 2.6275 0.0592 1.1842
1.4022 45.07
33 | P a g e
S2d
400 400 0
100 2.9075 0.0721 1.4419
2.0791 49.59
S2e
400 400 0
100 2.7200 0.0633 1.2651
1.6006 46.51
N for
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
S2a
1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
156
S2b
1.0000 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000 2, 3
123
S2c
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000 5.0000
118
S2d
1.0000 1.2500 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
100
S2e
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
102
Descriptive Statistics: S3-1a, S3-1b, S3-1c, S3-1d, S3-1e

Total
S3-1a
400 400 0 100.00 3.9150 0.0626 1.2517 1.5667 31.97
S3-1b
400 399 1
S3-1c
400 400 0 100.00 1.5650 0.0536 1.0717 1.1486 68.48
S3-1d
400 400 0 100.00 1.4625 0.0500 1.0005 1.0011 68.41
S3-1e
400 400 0 100.00 2.0675 0.0756 1.5128 2.2887 73.17
99.75 2.8546 0.0859 1.7157 2.9436 60.10
N for
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
S3-1a
1.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000
179
S3-1b
1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 5.0000 5.0000
154
S3-1c
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 5.0000
286
S3-1d
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000
307
S3-1e
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000 5.0000
239
Descriptive Statistics: S3-2a, S3-2b, S3-2c, S3-2d, S3-3, S3-4

Total
S3-2a
400 400 0
100 3.7075 0.0629 1.2573 1.5809 33.91
34 | P a g e
S3-2b
400 400 0
100 3.1400 0.0678 1.3565 1.8400 43.20
S3-2c
400 400 0
100 2.2050 0.0595 1.1902 1.4165 53.98
S3-2d
400 400 0
100 2.0200 0.0615 1.2302 1.5134 60.90
S3-3
400 400 0
100 1.1900 0.0203 0.4054
0.1643 34.06
S3-4
400 400 0
100 1.2425 0.0215 0.4291
0.1842 34.54
N for
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
S3-2a
1.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000
136
S3-2b
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
108
S3-2c
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000
152
S3-2d
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000
193
S3-3
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 3.0000
326
S3-4
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000
303
Descriptive Statistics: S4-1a, S4-1b, S4-1c, S4-1d, S4-1e, S4-2, S4-3

Total
S4-1a
400 400 0
100 3.3150 0.0686 1.3713 1.8805 41.37
S4-1b
400 400 0
100 3.2250 0.0661 1.3224 1.7487
S4-1c
400 400 0
100 3.2100 0.0669 1.3380 1.7904 41.68
S4-1d
400 400 0
100 2.3875 0.0670 1.3405 1.7968 56.14
S4-1e
400 400 0
100 3.4100 0.0690 1.3808 1.9067 40.49
S4-2
400 400 0
100 1.0525 0.0218 0.4361
0.1902 41.44
S4-3
400 400 0
100 1.0825 0.0213 0.4256
0.1811 39.32
41.00
N for
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
S4-1a
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000 5.0000
108
S4-1b
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
105
S4-1c
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
97
35 | P a g e
S4-1d
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000
129
S4-1e
1.0000 2.0000 4.0000 5.0000 5.0000
119
S4-2
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000
394
S4-3
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000
379
Descriptive Statistics: S4-4

Total
S4-4
721 710 11 98.4743 3.1930 0.0508 1.35331.8315 42.39

N for
Variable Minimum
S4-4
Q1 Median
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 6.0000
226
Descriptive Statistics: S4-5

Total
S4-5
756 742 14 98.1481 3.1456 0.0534 1.45482.1164 46.25

N for
Variable Minimum
S4-5
Q1 Median
1.0000 2.0000 4.0000 4.0000 5.0000
277
Descriptive Statistics: S4-6, S4-7a, S4-7b, S4-7c, S4-7d, S4-7e

Total
S4-6
400 395 5
98.75 2.9443 0.0695 1.3804 1.9055 46.88
S4-7a
400 393 7
98.25 2.3995 0.0511 1.0130 1.0262 42.22
S4-7b
400 393 7
98.25 2.9160 0.0522 1.0354 1.0720 35.51
S4-7c
400 393 7
98.25 2.6692 0.0519 1.0289 1.0587 38.55
S4-7d
400 393 7
98.25 2.1578 0.0506 1.0028 1.0057 46.48
S4-7e
400 393 7
98.25 2.3919 0.0921 1.8264 3.3359 76.36

N for
36 | P a g e
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
S4-6
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
120
S4-7a
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000 5.0000
146
S4-7b
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 5.0000
159
S4-7c
1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000 5.0000
145
S4-7d
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 5.0000
140
S4-7e
1.0000 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000 33.0000 2, 3
130
Descriptive Statistics: D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5

Total
D-1
400 400 0
100 1.3950 0.0250 0.4996
0.2496 35.81
D-2
400 400 0
100 1.8975 0.0160 0.3198
0.1022 16.85
D-3
400 400 0
100 1.8775 0.0164 0.3283
0.1078 17.48
D-4
400 400 0
100 3.0025 0.0494 0.9874
0.9749 32.89
D-5
400 400 0
100 3.320
8.333
0.144 2.887
86.95
N for
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
D-1
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000
244
D-2
1.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 3.0000
355
D-3
1.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000 2.0000
351
D-4
1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000 7.0000
316
D-5
1.000 1.000 1.000 7.000
9.000
216
Descriptive Statistics: D-6, D-7

Total
D-6
400 400 0
100 7.465
0.455 9.108
82.947 122.01
D-7
400 400 0
100 24.503
0.411 8.214
67.474 33.52
N for
37 | P a g e
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
Q3 Maximum Range Mode Mode
D-6
0.000 2.000 4.000 10.000 62.000 62.000
62
D-7
3.000 21.000 22.000 25.000 65.000 62.000
21
91
Descriptive Statistics: D-8, D-9, D-10, D-11

Total
D-8
400 400 0
100 3.5700 0.0523 1.0454
1.0928 29.28
D-9
400 400 0
100 1.2950 0.0228 0.4566
0.2085 35.26
D-10
400 400 0
100 3.395
5.352
D-11
400 400 0
100 1.9625 0.0589 1.1788
0.116 2.314
68.14
1.3896 60.07
N for
Variable Minimum
Q1 Median
D-8
1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 4.0000 6.0000
214
D-9
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 2.0000
282
192
D-10
1.000 1.000 3.000 6.000
7.000
D-11
1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 6.0000
125
38 | P a g e
Perceptions Word Bank
Violence
Unsafe and Lame
That's where I live
Shopping
Emergency Management
I go to SVSU
Danger!
Crime- Sagnasty
I think of mall, movies, Sam's

Club, and restaurant variety
I've only been once and I'm

from out of state, was run
down and not appealing
Scary in some places
Apparently it's scary

Be aware of your
surrounding
Gang and crime

Violence
SVSU
Sagnasty-SVSU
Danger, black people,

shopping
It sucks!
SVUS Saginaw Spirit
Middle of no where
its similar to Detroit
A lot of violent crimes
Better than Midland, more

happening
SVSU, Dow Event Center
Unsafe
A lot of potential, but

problems with crime and
poverty
I think of the shopping mall

but I also think of how
dangerous part of Saginaw
are
Crime - it has some great
things to offer but some are
out of the way and not
convenient to get to and its
always in the back of your
mind that something bad can
happen when you're there
SVSU
Fashion Square Mall
A crumbling city, full of
urban blight, and gang
bangers. Out by the mall is
decent.Only reason I ever
dive across the river is for
Saginaw Sting.
Rundown, downtown, SVSU
Crime Saginaw Spirit Hockey

Sagnasty
violence
Largest city than our tri
cities, meaning offering more
stores for me. Yet, I know its
not a safe city for my family.
It is good to shop in and visit
for entertainment.
Ghetto, trying to be Birch

Run
I love Saginaw, I believe it is
severly underrated but it is
making strides to change
that. I love the recent
additions to downtown, and I
will look for more to come.
UhhhSagnasty
SVSU - rival school, and good
facilities
A populated city with a lot to
do, but nothing very special
Crime, gangs
Crime
My Church (VBM)
Crime and church I attend
SVSU
It's home so I am used to the
city
Traffic
Crime
Sagnasty
Sagnasty
SVSU
Nexteer Automotive
dj vu, lack of safety, crime
Crime
Danger
How I describe where

Midland is
Crime,saftey issues.
Unfortunetly that's about it.
39 | P a g e
SVSU
Crime
Violence stereotype
A bigger mall than Bay City
Ghetto
Crime
High school
Shopping
Crime, dirty, industrial
Nothing to do like the rest of

Michigan
I think of a city that has a

nice area, but it's overall not
a nice area. Crime.
Food
Svsu, Spirit
Only decent shopping
besides outlets, thirty
minutes from home,
dangerous.
The Spirit. Don't go there too
often, and when I do, I have
no clue where I am.
My home town, Friends,
family, school.
People get shot on occasion.
It's not as bad as people
think.
Svsu, Chipotle Deje Vu

Ghetto, dirty
My girlfriend
SVSU - rival school
Down town is kinda sketchy,
but around SVSU isn't bad.
Sagnasty
Where I work
many great restaurants
Shopping, Sagnasty, scary
dj vu
Needs safety improvements
Well I live there so
Saginaw Spirit Hockey
Gangs
Bigger than Midland,

shopping venues,resturants
Bay City
Sagnasty
Dow Event Center
Ghetto
SVSU
bad roads, stop lights
Saginaw Spirit Hockey
Bleh, not much better than

flint
Downtown-despite knowing
better.
Their mall
The downtown needs redoing, very run down and
looks like a ghost town. And
need some safety!
People who are years behind

in respects to fashion.
Conveniently close for more

shopping options than
Midland
Crime, Saginaw Spirit
Sagnasty, SVSU, Mall
Not safe
Murder city
High crime
Chipotle, Hobby Lobby, and

other stores
Crime
Lack of saftey
Sagnasty
Violence
My home town
SVSU
Crime, robbery, poverty
Murder capital
The Saginaw mall offers

more than Midland
Urban city with developing

sports and entertainment
markets
School and Mall
Maybe crime?
Previous knowledge of it
being a bad town. And the
strip club.
Not as nice as Midland, but

still a nice city.
Entertainment
Slutty college girls

40 | P a g e
Boring, not many things to

do
Not as safe
Murder
Many closed down
businesses and high crime
rate. We stay away from
downtown and old down as
much as possible
SVSU, Ghetto
Not safe
SVSU
Downtown Saginaw
Downtown and SVSU
SVSU, Saginaw Spirit, Murder
SVSU
SVSU
Ghetto
Crime
The main strip of shops and

restaurants
A city that has some issues,

but is still making
improvements
SVSU and trash
Crime
SVSU
Mall
SVSU
I meant to play volleyball
SVSU, work
Variety of food places
Shopping center, SVSU,
Saginaw Spirit
SVSU
Crime, shooting, getting
robbed
I think Saginaw is an okay
city at some parts, but I
mostly think of all the
violence when I think of
Saginaw.
SVSU, mall, shopping district,
area by Saginaw Heritage
Crime and shopping
Largest city. Parts to stay

away from at night. More
options than Midland
Crime rate
Not very safe, but lots to do
Not the best place for me
SVSU
Sketchy
Rival School
More businesses than
Midland
SVSU
SVSU
A place to shop for specific
items not available in
Midland
SVSU and one of the highest

crime rates
Bay road strip
mall/resturants
haunted saginaw
svsu
it's quiet
gun violence
crime,welfare
crime,wild dogs,abandon
houses
coffee,music,drugs
hamilton street
mall
violence,hope,rescue
mission, ymca
lack of job oppurtunities
paris of the midwest
marshall federicks sculpture
museum
rundown but tons of
potential
shopping
Dow Event Center
high crime rate
mall,bay road
shopping,crime
Dirty and crime
shopping, resturants
Saginaw Spirit, SVSU,

violence, hood
problems
SVSU
crime to high, economy bad

not safe, nice places
41 | P a g e
kinda safe
crime
old time, court street bridge
parks,music
the ghetto
rather go to Frankenmuth
unemployement
positive growth,excitement
black hole
the nasty
shooting,boarded up houses
popeye's,panda
express,shopping,busy,dirty,
populated
growth in business
good place,bad people
sagnasty
malls,bad neighborhoods
crime,drugs
theater
dowtown
shopping, the spirit
trash,shootings
news,shootings,crime,shoppi
ng
drugs,poverty,romance
shopping
svsu,delta
Violence
dirty,shopping
crime,slums,drugs,best buy
lots of bad
movie theater
shithole
hometown,downtown,
boring
bars,shopping
low budget
shopping,saginaw spirit,svsu,
z bridge
nothing good at least at first
shootings,crime,shopping
home
shopping
gang violence
metropolitan,entertainment
crime,sagnasty,the ghetto
one of the worst cities in the
U.S.
saginaw spirit
hamilton street
Dow Event Center
hamilton street
bars
Fashion Square Mall
cardinals
hamilton street,svsu
covenant
Fashion Square Mall
Fashion Square Mall,Cabelas
fashion square mall, chain
resturants
retro rocks
svus
svsu,hamilton street
fashion square mall
retro rocks, saginaw spirit
Dow Event Center
svsu
fashion square mall
sagnasty
hamilton street
variety
saginaw spirit
crime,ghetto
svsu,dow event center
getting shot
fashion square mall
sagianw spirit
rum rush
cardinals,spirit
the spirit,svus
crime
fashion square mall
svsu
famous daves
42 | P a g e
fashion square mall
crime
Work
woody's
shoppping
Resturants Shopping
the spirit
spirit, svsu
Dow Event Center
svsu,hamilton street
svsu
Hamilton St
hamilton street
hamilton street
Resturants Shopping
svsu
spirit
Problems
fashion square mall, the

spirit
Dow Event Center
Shopping Crime
shopping
shootings
shopping, svsu
The mall and Bay road
violence
High Crime rate
svsu
SVSU
spirit
Bay road strip

mall/resturants
cardinals,delta
saint marys
saint marys
Dow Event Center
fashion square mall,svsu
the spirit,cabelas
delta,svsu,dow event center
wnem
fashion square mall
svsu
hamilton street
hamilton street
violence, fashion square mall
svsu
shopping
hamilton street
crime
shopping
spirit
movie theater
low budget
Shopping Spirit, SVSU, Z
bridge
Resturants Shopping
overblown mediaheadlines,
people being pepper sprayed
in the mall
43 | P a g e
Graphed Demographic Statistics for Survey
44 | P a g e
45 | P a g e

Market Research Saginaw

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Market Research Saginaw

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

City of Saginaw Perceptions

Market Research Report

Section 1 Descriptive Statistics

important (4) or very important (5).

The factor of large shopping variety

Going out to eat at a dine-in restaurant is the most

Live entertainment events had

entertainment events but not so much that

Section 3 Descriptive Statistics

2= somewhat rarely 3= Occasionally

4= somewhat often 5= often

Facebook is definitely the most popular social

1= Not Likely 2= Somewhat Unlikely

4= Somewhat Likely 5= Very Likely

The important information gathered in this

Motivation, Location and

None of the results for this section

Hypotheses Analysis: Inferential Data

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: shop-no college, Shopping-college

Difference = mu (shop-no college) - mu (Shopping-college)

When considering our second hypothesis, we are referring to part 2 (sec3-2-b:

Our findings included:

395 392.781 0.994

S = 0.9972 R-Sq = 2.68% R-Sq(adj) = 1.69%

197 2.14 1.22

$24,000 and higher -bikes 203 2.24 1.18

Difference = mu ($23,999 or less) - mu ($24,000 and higher -bikes)

To analyze this data we, once again, used a two-sample t-test:

no kids-safety 344 2.20 1.01

Difference = mu (kids-safety) - mu (no kids-safety)

Conclusion & Interpretation

City Branding Questionnaire

Part I: Interest/Lifestyle Questions

This section measures interest in various city branding initiatives

a. Farmers Markets & Co-ops

Section 2 (Lifestyle Analysis):

This section measures activity preferences and patterns

1. How often do you

a. Go out to eat at a dine-in restaurant?

Part II: Media Consumption/ Awareness Questions

___This section measures your media usage patterns

1. I use the following social media(s) this often

(1) Yes (2) No

(1) Yes (2) No

2. Have you ever heard of Saginaw, MI?

(1) Yes (2) No

(If no, skip to Demographics Section)

3. If yes, have you ever visited Saginaw?

(1) Yes (2) No

4. What motivated you to visit Saginaw?

5. When visiting Saginaw, where did you go?

(2) Old Town/ Riverfront

(4) Kochville (SVSU/Shopping District)

(5) Saginaw Township/ Shields

6. How often do you go to Saginaw? (Non-Residents Only)

(3) East Side

7. Please rate the following aspects in relation to Saginaw

8. When you think of the City of Saginaw, what comes to mind?

Part III: Demographic Information

2. Are you married?

3. Do you have children?

4. To which racial or ethnic group(s) do you most identify?