When money doesn't talk

Editor’s note: Sharon Funk and Garth McCallum-Keeler are associates at Applied Marketing Science, a Waltham, Mass., research firm.

The advent of online research has brought increasing debate about appropriate incentive strategies and amounts for research participants. At a recent conference on online research, attendees asked:

  • Is it possible to reduce incentives for participation in online research, since the respondent incurs no expenses in getting to a field site (e.g., drive time, mileage, gasoline, etc.)?
  • Is it possible to reduce incentives for participation in online research, since respondents can complete the exercise from the comfort of their own home, at their own pace, and according to their own timeline?

The answer to both of these questions is: yes. In fact, you may not have to pay at all! Response rates are not always contingent upon the cash incentives given to respondents. While cash is often still appropriate and necessary, depending on the target population and the purpose of the research, you may achieve greater cooperation with other types of incentives, or by complementing monetary incentives with other incentive types. Certainly, money continues to be a strong motivator. But in an Internet Age, it is important to think more broadly about effective incentive methods - not only may traditional monetary incentives become an expensive proposition, they may not even be enough!

Because of the speed, potential number of respondents, and convenience of the Internet, it has become easier to conduct many types of research and more and more people are being asked to participate in studies. This results in over-researched populations, making every individual within that population more difficult to recruit (a trend seen in all modes of research). Now, more than ever, researchers must consider who their target populations are and what their specific wants and needs are, so that they can offer incentives that truly persuade.

Considering the various populations one might reach, we sketched a typology of incentives that work well in gaining the highest levels of participation.

Material incentives

The first type of incentive, material incentives, include what we traditionally think of as incentives: money and gifts. The amount of money and the value of the gift can vary greatly, anywhere from a couple of dollars or a set of movie tickets, to a large cash prize or a Palm Pilot. Sometimes respondents are offered a choice from a specified gift list or catalog. Regardless of its value, the material incentive comes in two forms: guaranteed or lottery. With the guaranteed material incentive, the respondent knows that upon completion of the research task, s/he will automatically receive a gift. The lottery material incentive only qualifies the respondent for a chance to win a prize upon completing the research task.

Material incentives appeal to most populations. However, over time, their value and, subsequently, their powers of persuasion, diminish. For example, if you are trying to build and maintain a panel of Internet respondents, a material incentive might not be sufficient to persuade people to continue to participate over time. There is evidence that this is particularly true with lotteries. Over time, these lottery incentives are less and less effective since people are bound to become frustrated if they have participated in 10 surveys and have received nothing. Even with guaranteed gifts, unless a large sum of money is involved, a few dollars is not likely to convince respondents to continue to donate their time to successive research tasks. Similarly, these material incentives are also inadequate for affluent populations, which are less likely to be enticed by a relatively small sum of money or gift.

Altruistic incentives

A second incentive type is an altruistic incentive - this is an incentive that persuades people to participate in research because doing so conveys (both to themselves and to others) that they are performing a good deed. Whether they perform the research task because they are truly altruistic or because it makes them feel altruistic is irrelevant; the outcome is the same. The true motivation is probably a combination of the two - it is the nice thing to do and it makes them feel good about themselves.

As with the material incentive, the altruistic incentive often involves cash, but the money goes to a charitable organization instead of directly to the respondent. When this type of incentive is used, it is a good idea to make the donation in the name of the respondent. The organization will typically send a letter of thanks to the respondent directly, giving the respondent the satisfaction of having done a good deed (of feeling altruistic), not only through the research itself and recognition by the market research firm but also through the direct acknowledgment and appreciation of the charitable organization.

The altruistic incentive is most effective with working professionals, high-level B2B recruits, and older populations. This incentive helps elicit participation from people who might not otherwise participate - those who are not motivated by cash incentives, or who are both weary and wary of market research. It is also a good alternative for populations that feel it is improper to personally accept money or gifts in exchange for participation (e.g., those working for the government, those who do the research on their company’s time).

A very busy professional who earns a significant salary and contributes personally to charities may not be enticed with a traditional material or altruistic incentive. Certainly one approach is to increase the incentive amount (material or altruistic) to a threshold that few would refuse. However, this is likely to be an expensive proposition, and there are other methods of persuasion that go beyond money, which will likely be more practical and just as successful.

Didactic incentives

Sometimes, sharing top-line information gleaned from a study is the most enticing incentive for participants, particularly in B2B studies. The didactic incentive provides respondents with something that benefits them - information and knowledge, things especially valued among certain populations. The didactic incentive is rarely on its own a sufficient motivator, but it provides legitimacy and serves to distinguish your study from others. A physician, for example, who might not ordinarily participate in a study (because of lack of time and no real need for a few extra dollars) may be more inclined to participate when told that, along with a cash incentive, s/he will also be provided with a report summarizing the central findings of the study and how other physicians responded to the same questions. This report is attractive in that it offers insights into what other physicians are doing, information on the future prospects of some new technology, or information that might help the physician treat patients and keep her/him current on new findings and new information in the field.

Likewise, managers in companies are often forbidden from or feel uncomfortable accepting money for participating in studies. However, receiving a report that outlines how other managers in their own industry are dealing with a certain issue or how they view the “state of the world” is quite enticing. They can then justify their participation and the time it will require since they will not only be doing a good deed (charitable donation), but they will also receive tangible, meaningful results (i.e., competitive intelligence, benchmarking data) that will assist them in their job. Of course, it is necessary to gain the client’s approval prior to offering such information. However, we have found that a short, one- or two-page report that identifies the purpose of the study and includes a few bullet points outlining interesting information relevant to the population will suffice, and need not reveal any proprietary data.

Integrative incentives

Finally, the integrative incentive is one that helps to promote a sense of community - as such, it creates feelings of obligation and commitment that can be very effective in motivating people to participate, or, for panel members, to continue to participate. This strategy can be used when studying both homogeneous and heterogeneous populations, although different strategies should be employed. When a homogeneous population is being studied, a common thread that connects the pool of respondents already exists, for example, they are all nurses, they are all contractors, they are all SUV owners, they all suffer from the same illness. In each scenario, a somewhat unique attribute common among them is leveraged to encourage participation. The study may be introduced as one that will ultimately benefit all nurses/that will help to better define the needs of contractors/that will lead to a better SUV/that will help to find a cure for a specific disease. The respondent is often motivated to participate in a forum for people in the same profession/situation because it “helps others who are similar to me in some way.”

Very often, however, the group may be a heterogeneous population with no common interest or occupation, or whose commonality is too broad to support the notion of a community. For example, an omnibus household survey about consumer products must likely use other integrative strategies to compensate for the lack of a unifying thread connecting respondents. Many research companies have been incredibly successful in building and maintaining the membership base of their panels simply by sending out periodic newsletters, which report topline findings from surveys that members participated in and which spotlight a “member of the month.” These strategies create and reinforce the notion of a virtual community, all working together to help companies shape their products and services. A commonality is created around the fact that all members are participating in surveys - the community is the “surveyed.” Also, many established consumer goods companies have in-house research teams that have developed their own panels for their exclusive use. At a recent conference, a representative from a large consumer packaged goods company spoke about the success they were having with their customer advisory panel. Panel members participate, he stated, because they feel they have a relationship with the company and they are part of a special group. The need for incentives among this group is rare, since members are enthusiastic about helping a well-known company develop new products.

Strategies to augment the newsletters described above include personalized letters, professional-looking materials, and responsiveness to member queries. All of these actions help to convey to panelists that they are valued members of the community, and that the research organization or company is willing to expend real effort to maintain the relationship.

The various types of incentives outlined above should serve as a conceptual framework for researchers thinking about how to package the things that will get the greatest response, most efficiently, and for the least amount of money. One type of incentive, two types, or more, may be the best tactic for a project, depending on who is being studied. Combining a nominal monetary or an altruistic incentive with a didactic incentive may work well for one study, while an integrative incentive in combination with an altruistic incentive may work equally well for another.

Some examples

We recently conducted a study in which we were attempting to recruit 40 energy managers at large commercial and industrial companies to participate in 30-minute open-ended telephone interviews. Because of the restructuring of the electric industry, these high-level respondents were being called to participate in research on a regular basis, and were highly over-researched. We were successful in reaching them by packaging multiple incentive types - a generous monetary incentive for either themselves, their company, or the charity of their choice, coupled with an executive summary of the study results. The study results proved to be a powerful motivator. Due to extreme uncertainty in the industry, respondents were very interested in learning the responses of their peers.

In another setting, a national research organization has sustained an enormous Internet panel of consumers (heterogeneous group) by creatively combining an integrative incentive with a form of altruistic incentive. By providing members with quarterly newsletters and periodically giving them the opportunity to vote on which charities the organization will contribute to, the organization has created a panel of over half a million respondents - all with no monetary compensation to the respondent! The success of non-monetary incentives in this example is a striking counterpoint to the questions we heard posed by researchers at the aforementioned research conference. The next time someone asks you, “Is it possible to reduce incentives for online research?”, your answer should be, “You may not have to pay at all!”