News

Will Online Respondents Give Quality Answers Without Incentives?

Angus Reid, CEO of Vision Critical, and Nick Sparrow, Managing Director of ICM Research, debate the issue in a recent publication of Research Magazine. Here is an abbreviated version of their transcript.

Nick

“[We need to start] by building a contract of trust between researchers and their new part-time employees, the panellists themselves. The contract: fair pay for considered answers.”

Angus

“A recent survey of our Canadian panel revealed that almost half would continue taking surveys even if they weren't paid. That's because at least half of our surveys deal with social, economic and political issues and the commercial content is carefully controlled. Also an increasing number of clients now run their own panels of customers. These clients have a huge incentive to do short, meaningful surveys so as not to annoy their customers. And the customers often have an intrinsic motivation to participate – quite independent of pay.”

Nick

“Heavy survey-takers, interviewed face-to-face, told us they are not motivated by the money, but several had detailed accounts of what panels they were signed up to and how much they had earned. Panellists may say they are not motivated by money – but they don't mean it.”

Angus

“Some panel companies treat respondents as robots, subjecting them to intolerable surveys in exchange for a little cash. No surprise that they get professional respondents. Others are engaging a broader cross section of the market with fewer, better surveys, and enlightened communications….At Vision Critical we support about 250 custom panels for airlines, sports leagues and magazines. Many of these panels have very high levels of participation and very low rewards.”

Nick

“People join custom panels because of their interest in the product or service; there is an obvious benefit for them and therefore little need for incentives. But why should anyone join a general access panel to answer questions on a wide variety of subjects?”

Angus

“In our experience money counts – but only for about a third of our panellists. The rest are motivated by a plethora of factors including a desire to be involved, to make a difference, and to engage with a well-known brand in polling. And nothing can kill these motivations faster than garbage surveys that dish out repetitive questions and grids. If you treat respondents like lab rats most will exit the scene and all you'll be left with are those with an insatiable greed for more rewards.”

Nick

“I think we may be agreeing. General, use access panels will tend to attract those in it for the money. Bespoke panels can rely more on the interest of panellists in the specific subject area.”

See the full discussion here.

Posted on August 11, 2008
Permalink