(September 14, 2010) When the Environmental Protection Agency invited the public a few weeks ago to comment on two proposed redesigns of the traditional new  car window sticker, Edmunds.com launched a poll to determine which sticker is preferred by car buyers. Check out the poll and other related materials.

More than 80 percent of respondents preferred "Sticker 2," which provides a clearer and more complete set of information, rather than the simple letter grade featured in the "Sticker 1" proposal.

From the comments collected in the poll, it appears that many respondents actively voted against "Sticker 1" rather than for "Sticker 2." For example, one person wrote, "Let's present facts, not positive/negative connotation without context."

See the sticker proposal on MotorwayAmerica.

"There seems to be a viscerally negative reaction to the notion of a letter grade," observed Edmunds.com CEO Jeremy Anwyl in a summary he included in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson earlier today. "I am not wild about the letter-grading system either. I understand the attempt to simplify, but this should never extend to dumbing down. What does the letter actually mean? The EPA should use this as an opportunity to think more broadly about how the stickers can really help consumers buying vehicles today rather than in the very different era when EPA window stickers were first conceived."

In the 19070s when the EPA sticker originated, consumers obtained vehicle information by driving from dealer to dealer, asking questions and getting brochures. The sticker played a useful role as a provider of information at the point of decision. But today, consumers largely make decisions about which vehicle to buy before visiting the dealership.

Edmunds.com believes that the EPA can add great value by providing the standards behind the data so that consumers can truly benefit from the development of this valuable policy. The new stickers should cover all vehicles, ensuring apples-to-apples comparisons even across vehicle categories (to assist people considering both SUVs and pick-up trucks, for example.) It should also be clear what the data does not cover, such as the environmental impacts of manufacturing and transporting the vehicle.

And, critically, the EPA should mandate how automakers will be allowed to use the data. One of the survey respondants noted, "Auto companies will start making incredibly fuel-efficient cars to get an A grade, which is good, but the over-all quality of the car itself could be lowered." Someone who voted for Sticker 1 commented, "If changing consumer buying habits is one of the goals here, then the 'letter-grading version' will be more successful," perhaps foreseeing the potential marketing opportunity that the letter grade would provide.

Anwyl's final point to Administrator Jackson was that "it would also make things easier for consumers if the information is expressed in terms of monthly cost. We find that consumers care about emissions and MPG — but generally make purchase commitments based on costs. Monthly fuel cost is probably the data point that is most easily comparable across vehicles."