Editor’s note: David Haynes is CEO of Western Wats, an Orem, Utah, research firm.

Survey researchers depend on a common resource: the respondent. This population is a common reserve used by researchers to meet their objectives. In this light, it is a resource with shared stewardship. On the whole, market researchers have done a commendable job sharing and managing this critical resource.

In a Utopian world, this resource is managed by thoughtful stewards interested in the long-term health of an irreplaceable input to the research process. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. The dynamic soiling this idealistic portrait can best be understood through a theory postulated by William Lloyd, a 19th century mathematician, known as the Tragedy of the Commons.

The Tragedy of the Commons is often illustrated in this way: Imagine an open range of lush grassland shared by a number of ranchers. Each rancher places his cattle out to pasture in the shared field to graze. The ranchers, being smart and ambitious, would like to maximize the value of their herd. In order to optimize their return they add cattle to the ranch. For every cow added, the ranchers are returned the full value of the animal at market. The cost is the additional grazing on the range, shared among all users of the grassland. The rancher seeking to maximize his personal gain will add one cow, and then another and another and yet another until over-grazing leads to famine.

Philosophers point out, “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.” This concept can be demonstrated in a number of real-world examples, such as the overfishing of some parts of the ocean, tossing trash out of a car window or e-mail spam. Thankfully this conundrum has a simple solution: temperance. Through mandated or voluntary restraint the tragedy can be avoided. Our industry has a wonderful record of self-regulation and cooperative behavior. With this heritage in mind, I would like to share my thoughts on how we can engage in enlightened cooperative behavior which will move us further from the Tragedy of the Commons.

Responsible predictive dialer use

Predictive dialers are tremendous productivity tools. They remove much of the idle time an interviewer would otherwise spend manually dialing numbers and recording call dispositions, such as no-answer and busy signals. By definition, predictive dialers dial phone numbers ahead of available interviewers, predicting when an interviewer will become available. Adjusting the pacing manually sets the aggressiveness of this dial-ahead capability. Obviously, there is strong motivation for call-center managers to increase the pacing and minimize the time an interviewer spends between calls. However, this action has undesirable consequences because some respondents are contacted before an interviewer is available. In most cases, the dialer then places the respondent on hold or disconnects the call. Both actions decrease respondent goodwill.

The FTC has mandated through legislation governing the activities of telemarketers a number of metrics to assure responsible dialer use. It would be in the best interest of the research community for those who use dialers to voluntarily adopt these guidelines as a baseline. A comprehensive presentation of these regulations can be found in the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule. A brief summary is available online at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/calling.htm .

Survey length

The marginal cost to increase the length of an Internet questionnaire is negligible. It is largely confined to some additional programming and hosting time. However, respondents are annoyed when the instrument runs on for an extended period of time. At the end of the survey, if they finish, these respondents may feel abused and exploited. As a guide, questionnaires with an average time longer than 15 minutes should be carefully examined. Many surveys can be condensed through careful editing or, if needed, bifurcated into separate efforts. Another solution involves increasing the incentive beyond the trivial sum too commonly offered by Internet panel providers.

Respondent fatigue

Due primarily to the availability of new technologies such as IVR and the Internet, there has been a proliferation of very low-cost survey activity. Some of this simple work is of value, thereby justifying the respondent’s time. However, many pop surveys are of nominal value. Often the research design is performed by an uninitiated researcher and the results are of little value. For instance, the newscaster-announced toll-free number to collect responses to a quick survey touted to predict who would win the upcoming Presidential election, or another Web survey to determine the lifespan of Jennifer Lopez’s latest romance. Too often, these quick-and-dirty efforts diminish respondent goodwill and harm the survey research industry.

Better, more frequent incentives

Everyone likes a hardy thank-you for his or her effort. What better way to extend gratitude in a sincere fashion than to offer respondents something tangible for their time? Not only does this action secure cooperation but it makes a deposit into the respondent’s goodwill bank account. There are a number of creative means for offering an incentive to keep costs down and perceived value high. For instance, a number of forward-thinking companies have braided their customer satisfaction survey incentives into well-managed affinity programs.

Diminishing the welfare

The Tragedy of the Commons rests on the fact that when individuals use a public good they do not bear the full cost of their actions. This will lead some naive actors to over-exploit the shared resource, diminishing the welfare of all. Fortunately, the solution is simple: education, cooperation and restraint. In an industry dominated by thoughtful players interested in the long-term sustainability of our craft, I urge a revitalized look at how our practices effect respondent goodwill. I look forward to the thoughts and opinions of my colleagues on this important matter.  | Q