Survey Software, Web Survey, Online Surveys, and Enterprise Feedback Management solutions from Vovici

Your email:
   

Welcome to the Listening Post!

Your single source for everything Voice of the Customer (VoC) and Customer Experience (CxP). And, don’t forget you can follow us on twitter @vovici, or come check us out on Facebook and join the Vovici Network on LinkedIn.

 

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Representative Samples Are Attainable! Are Not!! Are Too!

 
marbles

Two of my favorite researchers this week painted extreme visions of my favorite research method.

What happens when The Unstoppable Force meets The Immovable Pundit? Well, in this case, I have to push back.

Before I leap to the defense of online probability samples, let me be fair to the prosecution:

  • "There is no such thing as a rep sample. There are only good approximations of what we think a rep sample would look like." I think Annie's main point is that no technique is 100% foolproof and that some researchers are overly reliant on quantitative methods.
  • When Ray says "online quant" he is talking about the majority of online quantitative research, which uses third-party panels. Ray states that online access panels have two key problems: 
    1. First, they are not probability samples and therefore "online access panels are not representative of anything other than online access panels". (I would argue that, thanks to routers, online access surveys are no longer even representative of panels!)
    2. Only 1% of the population is taking 50% of the online access panels, meaning that the people being interviewed are fundamentally different than the people being studied.

I think both Ray and Annie are overgeneralizing. The research still indicates that random sampling, whether conducted online or by telephone, produces representative samples that can be matched back to demographic benchmarks. It is simply too expensive for most organizations to conduct such research, and online panel surveys are often good enough for general market research. (See Sample Quality of Online Panels: Putting Lipstick on the Piggy Bank.)

Meanwhile, more and more corporations are conducting more and more business online, capturing the email addresses of every single customer, prospect or user they interact with. Few today are empaneling this list but many are emailing the list and often getting optimal response rates. How satisfied were people with that customer service request or the online purchase? Corporations are answering such questions using a representative sample projectable back to their target audience.

To Ray's point of professional respondents, in a presentation yesterday, my co-presenter asked 80 college juniors if they were on a survey panel (after defining what a panel was and listing a few examples). Only one student was. Later I asked them if they were ever emailed and invited to take online surveys by companies they did business with: the vast majority of them raised their hand.

Online quant isn't busted, but it is shifting from access panels to in-house lists and is happening outside of the view of the Honomichl Top 50 market research firms.

Representative samples are 95% attainable, with a confidence interval of plus or minus two pundits.

Comments

Great post Jeffrey! While I perfectly agree with you on this one, I’d say that there’s truth in both Annie’s and Ray’s statements too. As I responded to Annie yesterday however, the degree of compromise varies enormously. In my view access panels represent the ultimate compromise (and yes, particularly so when coupled with a router) and alone the fact that our industry seem to have finally acknowledged that these panels are "different" and generate different results, should be enough for anyone to realize that this obviously does not go hand in hand with representativeness, even if some third-party panel providers still attempt to market their panels as such. What often seems left out from the "panel quality" debate is that there are several market research companies who are recruiting their online panels through probability based telephone sample and/or snail mail. With a few exceptions, such as Knowledge Panel, respondents without internet access are not recruited, but nonetheless, the degree of compromise using this approach does not compare with the fundamental nature of access panels. If not representative of the entire population, such probability based panels do come fairly close to being representative of the online population. The challenge is that, sadly, few clients are willing to pay for accuracy. My overall point here then is that rather than asking whether representative panels are attainable, we should be asking whether they are competitive. On quality, any day. On costs, never. What matters more?
Posted @ Wednesday, March 03, 2010 2:58 AM by Dan Kvistbo
Thanks for the comments -- I do wonder why more panel companies don't try to compete with Knowledge Networks. It is much less expensive today to provide online access than when Knowledge Networks first built their panel: the cost of hardware has come down, and the percent of households not having Internet access has decreased dramatically.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 03, 2010 8:07 AM by Jeffrey Henning
Thank you Jeffrey - you are a pillar of the MR community and one of my favorite bloggers. In-house panels and customer databases are a valuable and cost-efficient sample source for research. They are not the solution for conducting research with a broader scope and cannot/should not replace that type of research. The client/researcher should be aware that these databases are fraught with their own biases. Often the customer database is comprised of those who took the trouble to fill out and return their product registration, made an inquiry to customer service, or became a 'fan'. Is this representative of customers?? Access panels are under such scrutiny that they hire top statisticians to achieve and maintain the representativeness of their panels. In-house panels may not be as closely managed and suffer from all of the same problems that access panels suffer from. There is no perfect sample source. One has to be aware of the biases and view the results with these in mind. If the results will be used to guide decisions regarding large financial investments or crucial brand decisions, the researcher should use a multi-mode approach and not rely on any one sample source. 
 
 
 
Lately I have noticed negativity about Honomichl Top 50 market research firms from fellow researchers as part of their marketing efforts. My answer to this is that there is a reason these firms are successful. They have the expertise, resources, and level of quality that sophisticated clients seek when answering their most challenging business questions. :)
Posted @ Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:00 PM by Cathy Harrison
I apologize, Cathy. It was not my intent to slander the Honomichl 50 but simply to point out that many descriptions of market research are rightfully from their perspective and, therefore, things that are outside their experience don't get discussed much. You are right - there are many, many cases where organizations should use a Top 50 firm rather than try to do the research themselves. 
 
Internal panel quality is all over the place. Many are unrepresentative. But there are also internal panels that are 100% representative of the online channel. 
 
Thanks for the comment and the kind words! 
Posted @ Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:40 PM by Jeffrey Henning
A bit of a tautology isn't it? Is anyone actually suggesting we should be doing less internet and more phone or mail?  
 
While there is a small chance I might take an online survey for you if it is short and relevant, you have pretty much no chance in hell of getting me to fill out and mail you a survey. And if you are able to get me on my phone out of work hours it's likely that it's my cell phone and I may swear at you and say, don't you realize this number is on the do not call list! 
 
That's why we'll be using more not less of online surveys until we find something much better and different. It's also why I was very sad to see LinkedIn give up on MR: 
 
http://www.tomhcanderson.com/2010/03/26/linkedin-says-bye-bye-to-market-researchers/ 
 
@TomHCAnderson 
Posted @ Friday, March 26, 2010 9:22 AM by Tom H. C. Anderson
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Latest Posts

Loading
What's New
Independent Research Report: Why Customer Experience? Why Now?
VoC on Twitter
Verint Blog
Verint Blog: Read the Latest from the Verint Systems Blog