Jargon – the silent killer of research?

As the final article in this trilogy of calling out some of our sector’s worst “jingoisms”, I’d like to spend this time looking at “respondent engagement”.? Sadly – as exemplified below – our sector has generally considered “engagement” to be more about how the respondent feels while completing surveys, rather than the actual experience leading up to the survey.

At the beginning of 2010, Kees de Jong – then CEO of SSI – warned the industry that a new paradigm of respondent care and engagement was needed, if one of the founding principles of our sector (representative sampling) was to be sustained.

Thirteen years on, we are still bemoaning the drop in respondent engagement, the increased costs of achieving effective samples, and the ensuing drop in profitability.? From (if memory serves), about 2012 onwards, SSI hosted a series of awards at Congress, commending those researchers (and agencies) who crafted engaging surveys that maintained the interest of panellists….it was usually one of the least attended sessions in the conference.? Why? Perhaps it was because it dealt with just the survey experience rather than the holistic respondent experience?

With the advent of sample exchanges, the opportunity existed for some players to “up their game” in terms of engagement and potentially lead by example…. Sadly, in the B2C arena, this potential was never fulfilled and today, we regularly hear of panellist horror stories such as: having to transfer between multiple websites, having to repeatedly (often five, six or seven times in a row), enter the same basic demographic information, only then to be told they don’t match the quota or criteria….and we wonder why we are facing fraudsters who try to leverage their membership of multiple panels in order to generate some reward or incentive for wasting their time on such futile registration exercises….

In the B2C space, current “solutions” still tend to centre around the survey experience and adopt technological solutions to deal with the removal of “bots”, identifying “synthetic” respondents, discounting “straightlining” or removing duplicate responses. Little or no concentration is placed on the respondent experience from the moment they receive the invitation to join a panel…..and yet, we very effectively adopt such an approach with our B2B panels!? Reward the participants better; keep them engaged in-between surveys with pertinent newsletters or communications, and offer them engaging “mini-surveys” in-between client surveys to maintain their interest and perhaps even generate some unique content for yourselves!? These are principles that Jon Puleston – through his gamification remit – began to broadcast back in 2013, and which still today, are only rarely implemented.

Cost is usually identified as the primary obstacle; but what will the cost be, once all respondents refuse to participate? Why is it so hard to make a small investment now, to reduce the ever-increasing cost of finding respondents now, because of our lack of respondent engagement focus?? Will synthetic respondents save the day? If respondents keep dropping out, then I doubt it – as there will be no up-to-date information against which to benchmark or create those synthetics…

So, is it all doom and gloom? No.?

There are companies who do things differently, and to whom you should turn to, in order to maintain the integrity and viability of your research, and our profession.

From my personal experience, you will have a very interesting conversation if you speak to:

• RONIN International , for your B2B and niche sample requirements; -
• Bounce Insights , who have a remarkable respondent reward algorithm;
• GMIFY , which is a very interesting engagement platform in development,
• Simantea Ltd , who makes their participants co-shareholders in the research process.

If you use, buy or supply first-party data, now is the time to make an investment into the longevity of customer/consumer insight.? Ensure the respondent experience is up to scratch.? Quality does not come cheap, but it does bring trust and longevity of use/application.? Respect the consumers/customers who help to inform your business decisions and have conversations with companies such as those identified above.