Or, how to make $75 feel like more than $50 + $25

Editor's note: Ken Berwitz is president, Ken Berwitz Marketing Research, Marlboro, N.J., and president of National Qualitative Centers, Chicago.

Times have changed. A lot. In 1970, when I started conducting qualitative research, a focus group "suite" often consisted of the recruiter's living room and kitchen. If you were lucky, there was a tiny two-way mirror installed between the rooms, and two or three observers could huddle in the dark with their heads together, watching the sessions while trying to discuss them quietly enough not to be heard by the group members next door (no small accomplishment). Audio equipment usually consisted of a Wollensak 3000 tape recorder - which outweighed some moderators - that had to be lugged to and from each session. Soundproofed observation rooms, built-in audio systems, videotaping, etc., were the stuff of fantasies, not unlike space probes to another universe.

In those days, recruiting was pretty straightforward. There were no databases (or, at any rate, none that a client was supposed to know about), so potential group members were found in local telephone directories, using the most basic of sampling procedures. There were four dispositions of all calls: "answered," "busy signal," "not at home," and "phone disconnected." Among those who did answer, the refusal rate hovered around 10 percent. A promise of $10 or $15, plus a plate of cookies with coffee and soft drinks to wash them down, was a major incentive, guaranteed to get even the most sedentary people off their couches and into the facility/living room.

But that was then. And this is now.

Today, prospective group members are far harder to reach. Voice mail, answering machines, and various other call-screening techniques minimize the number of people who actually answer their phones. Refusal rates are dramatically higher, as are incompletes (i.e., a respondent does not finish the screening questionnaire). Incentives usually start at $50-$60 per person for consumers, and can run well into the hundreds for doctors, business executives, etc. Needless to say, qualitative researchers have to be far more resourceful today than "way back when."

Unfortunately, some types of resourcefulness are not very desirable. In this connection, the issue of "professional group members" quickly comes to mind. If you've been in research for any length of time you probably have experienced this unpleasant little phenomenon. And don't think it's new either: About 25 years ago, I had to stop using a facility after the same insurance agent showed up in three consecutive studies - for the same client! I suppose things could have been worse; the facility could have claimed he was three different people, that his mother had triplets and they all went into the insurance business. Come to think of it, I'm lucky they didn't tell me he was a quintuplet. I could have been stuck with him twice more.

On the positive side, though, there are perfectly legitimate, easy-to-implement ways of improving recruiting. Over the years, I've accumulated a number of them. Maybe they'll be of value to you.

With this in mind, I now offer my Top 5 list. (I'd have made it a Top 10 list but, given the title of this article, I'd probably be sued by David Letterman. If I do five, maybe he can still sue me, but I think it would only be for half the amount.) In any event, here goes.

1. The two-part income question: or, how to make a specific, offensive question into a general, non-offensive one.

You're coming down the home stretch. The respondent has answered all those qualifying questions correctly, even wading through that complex series on brand awareness, and you're licking your chops at getting a live one for the currently under-recruited session that is only a couple of days away. Just one more bridge to cross: the income requirement. There has to be a yearly total household income of $50,000 or more. The interviewer asks "Which of the following categories best describes your total yearly household income? Under $50,000? $50,000 or over?" A piece of cake, right? Wrong.

The respondent, who until this point has been friendly and accommodating, suddenly morphs into a raging monster, only marginally less threatening than that angel-turned-devil at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

He not only refuses to answer the income question on the grounds that you're nosing into the family's personal business, but suggests a final resting place for it, the mechanics of which would make for a pretty good pay-per-view telecast, and then hangs up.

There has to be a better way.

Well, actually there is. Instead of the high hard one down the middle of the plate, try using a two-part question, which you can then back away from if there is resistance from your respondent.

Part A would consist of asking for an income breakdown that is appreciably more detailed than you actually need. Illustratively, for $50,000 or more, you might use this type of scale:

Under $20,000

$20,000-$49,999

$50,000-$99,000

$100,000 or more

If the respondent answers, all is fine and well. But if there is a refusal, you can now go to part B. This takes the form of a yes/no question, asked as follows:

"We understand that some people do not like to answer income questions which are this specific. So would you just tell me, more generally, whether your total yearly household income is at least $50,000?"

In reality, all you have done is fall back to the information necessary to meet your study requirement. But the perception is that you have asked a much less specific question than you started with. Now, many of the same people who wouldn't give you the time of day income-wise feel a sense of personal vindication because you have backed off, and will happily tell you exactly what you wanted to know in the first place.

2. The multiple incentive; or, how to turn the same amount of money into more than it is, even though it isn't.

You have a qualified respondent who is interested in attending your session. So your recruiter offers the $75 incentive and waits for him/her to stop drooling long enough to gasp out a delighted "Yes!" But that "Yes!" doesn't come. Instead there is a refusal because the money isn't enough, along with comments like "It's too far to drive," or "Do you realize how much parking costs in that part of town?"

What do you do? Well, here's something that has worked for me many times: Offer them a different $75. You do this by splitting the total into two components: an incentive and an allowance for gas and parking. At $75, a logical breakdown would be $50 incentive and $25 travel.

The reason this works is because prospective group members see it as being two payoffs instead of one. They get an amount of money that, by itself, is not enough to entice them (in this regard, $50 is no different than $75). But they also get a second amount of money for gas and parking that almost certainly will exceed their actual out-of-pocket expenditure. Suddenly they're hitting for the daily double, and it feels really good. Your show rate goes up, and it didn't cost a penny more.

3. Stealth qualifiers.

A very easy and very effective recruiting trick that I've used for many years is to get at least one or two qualifying criteria out of the way before the screener is actually administered.

Let's say you need to recruit female heads of household, 25-49 years of age, who are employed outside the home, drink at least two cups of coffee a day, and use a certain brand most often.

You certainly don't want to ask about the coffee usage before a security screening has been performed. That would, er, spill the beans, so to speak. But what in the world would prevent you from determining age and employment status before that security screening takes place?

The way you do it is via judicious use of the introduction statement. Instead of simply asking to speak with the female head of the household, you would say "We are conducting a study among female heads of household, 25-49 years of age, who are employed outside their homes. If the female head of household fits this description, may I speak to her for just a few moments?"

Voila! If there is such a person in the household, you have met the age and employment criteria before you ever speak to her. Now you can ask all those other questions, without the prospect of losing your potential group member at the end because she is the wrong age or has the wrong employment status. And security has not been breached in any way. This makes recruiting faster, less expensive, and doesn't in any way compromise quality. Win, win and win.

4. Make THEM pay (honest!).

Here's a little reverse psychology trick I tried, with surprising success, some years ago. As you will see, it can't be used very often, but when it can, it just might save your study - and lower your costs in the bargain.

I was conducting research for a high-end cruise line, and the client wanted participants with a net worth of what, in today's dollars, would be in the millions. So I started thinking about the kind of incentive that would entice people this wealthy, and the number was astronomical. Plus, I've always had a personal aversion to paying group members more than I earn for the entire study.

This being the case, I thought some more about how to get them into the session, and hit upon what I hoped would be a successful strategy. Instead of offering prospective group members an incentive, they were told that, as a condition of attending the group, each participant would be required to sign a pledge, which committed them to pay $100 to the charity of their choice. Out of their own pocket.

And, believe it or not, it worked! Not only did the recruit succeed, I was told there were several comments along the lines of how much participants enjoyed being "forced" to pony up the C-note for a good cause.

However, a note of caution: I strongly suggest that you think twice before trying this on some types of recruits (generic beer drinkers come to mind). If you do, though, be sure to wear sneakers with lots of tread. You'll need the running head start.

5. A lottery that you always win.

I cheerfully concede that I did not personally come up with this technique. But it's so good I decided to pass it along anyway.

You nervously check your watch again. It's 5:58 p.m., two minutes to show time. And you have three, maybe four group members in the reception area. The client is starting to throw funny looks your way, and you're reduced to asking the hostess if she is sure your people were properly re-screened, or that they were told the right time and day, or that they weren't inadvertently spirited into someone else's group, etc.

What's happening is that you're suffering through the fabled 6:00 p.m. Lateness Syndrome. There are a hundred excuses for people to stroll in after the start of that early-evening group - "There was too much crosstown traffic," "I had a last-minute office crisis," "I was abducted by Venusians" - and you've heard them all (well, maybe not the last one).

Want to avoid this? Spring for one extra incentive and you are likely to at least lessen the problem, or even make it go away altogether. Here's how:

After a screening questionnaire has been successfully administered, interviewers, of course, tell recruited group members what day and time the session will take place. But, instead of ending with "Thanks, we'll see you at the group session," they are also told that "For everyone who shows up 15 minutes or more before the session starts, their names will be put into a bowl and there will be a drawing. The winner gets a second incentive, and winds up with double the amount."

The result is astounding. Suddenly crosstown traffic evaporates, office work is completed at 5:00 p.m. on the button, the Venusians declare a general amnesty, and you have the maximum number of people who really, truly could get to the facility on time. Is this worth an extra incentive? You tell me.

Less stressful

Well, there you have them. Five not-so-stupid tricks, which - I hope - will make your recruiting a lot easier and less stressful.

Now, if you have any that you're willing to tell me, I'm all ears!