Recruiting: looking to the past to determine marketing research’s future | Articles

SPONSORED CONTENT

Chelle Precht

President/Owner, Complete Research Connection

It is a scary time for marketing research, in my opinion. As marketing researchers, we are offering information that shapes the world and our future. Data obtained from respondents during research is used by companies to formulate crucial business decisions, create new products, etc. Given the stakes involved in our data collection, we must examine the history in order to assess and learn from previous quality measures and standards set forth by industry leaders. It stands to reason that if we don’t apply the best guidelines to data collection, then we’re contributing to the demise of our own industry. Garbage in, garbage out, right?

Over the past 60+ years, literally hundreds of codes of conduct, guidelines, articles and posts about quality recruiting practices have been written. What they all have in common is the basic conviction that it is imperative for care to be taken by those who are responsible for obtaining respondents. Summarized by a line from the Marketing Research Association’s (now the Insights Association) MRA Code of Marketing Research Standards (October 2013): “Accurate data can be obtained only when all parties to the research process are committed to quality.”

There are right ways to recruit and there are wrong ways to recruit. How the respondent is identified and utilized is of utmost importance. Looking to the past and the essential standards set forth by industry leaders for identifying qualified respondents is what will, frankly, allow us to actually have a future for the marketing research industry.

Jay Zaltzman, president of the Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA) says, “As qualitative researchers, we tend to focus on how to be most effective while we’re interacting with participants. But all of our work is based on the assumption that participants really are who they say they are. We need great recruiters to make sure we can all do a great job. Of course, we can write screeners that don’t give away what we’re looking for but we need to make sure recruiting staff actually follow those screeners and don’t tip off potential respondents about which answers will enable them to qualify for a study. Qualitative researchers are well aware of the risk that bad recruiting poses, so when we find a great recruiter, we stick with them and tell all our colleagues. So great recruiting really is a win-win!”

Naomi Henderson, founder and CEO of RIVA agrees, “Regardless of the type of qualitative research event it is important to have the ‘right respondent’ in front of a moderator and that moderator needs to ask the right questions.” (But discussion about moderating’s impact on research is another article to be written).

So, what steps need to be taken to recruit the right respondent and ensure that quality data is being collected?

Jim Berling, managing director of the Burke Institute says, “All too often we don’t spend enough time to determine who we should really be talking with, especially when it comes to B2B research or hard-to-reach B2C customers. Spend the time upfront to determine who you really need to talk with and be prepared to accept the premise that the person actually making the purchase may not be the decision maker.”

While there are a plethora of rules and regulations to be followed when recruiting, the most important from my perspective – and the practices that CRC insists upon when recruiting – are the following:

Do not use the topic or client name for project names. If a study is called the “laundry pod study,” how many respondents are going to say they don’t use laundry pods when asked that question on the screener? We use project numbers and study names that aren’t related to the topic for security.

Have a thorough, non-leading and well-thought-out screener. (Remember, recruiters are to read a screener verbatim so as not to lead respondents, therefore, well-written questions are imperative.) The class I took on screener development years ago at the Burke Institute taught details that are still relevant to quality screener-writing today. An example is: Caution must be used for qualifying behavior that includes timing (such as past three weeks usage) because the respondent may have qualified when originally screened and then two weeks later may not qualify at confirmation (plus, if they haven’t used the product in over five weeks, they may not have enough recollection of usage to have a productive discussion).

Ensure respondents recruited are reviewed in the database for their past participation (not everyone can remember the exact date of the last time they participated). Additionally, CRC ensures that a potential respondent hasn’t participated more than twice in a year and has an overall lifetime maximum of 10 projects.

Speak with potential respondents on the phone or via video chat (vs. recruited and/or confirmed solely online). While it is faster, easier and cheaper to recruit using online methods only, this doesn’t mean it is a quality way of recruiting. Plus, if you aren’t talking with the respondent, how do you know if they are articulate or not? CRC’s policy is to speak with respondents twice before they come to the research session; once during screening to ask the full screener and once during the confirmation process.

Re-screen during the confirmation and check-in processes. This is another potential way of catching someone who wasn’t telling the truth about their qualifying behavior.

We monitor show rates. Higher-than-average show rates (avg. = 80-90 percent) can be a sign of a recruiting issue. Based on my experience, “professional” (money-focused/not necessarily qualified) respondents are more likely to show than are standard participants (who have life situations that pop up, causing them to cancel or not show).

What’s the bottom line? We must take it upon ourselves to ensure that everyone is trained in not only what good recruiting standards are but also how to follow them to ensure a future for the research industry! Contact Chelle at Complete Research Connection if you have questions or would like to discuss the topic further.