Lots of companies pay consumer respondents as little as possible for research participation.
In doing so, they are doing invisible harm to their findings: they might get something out of that research, but what they can’t see? Is what they aren’t getting.
How do I know they are unintentionally missing out? I once conducted an
‘accidental experiment’ by recruiting for the exact same study, but paying different incentives to different groups, and seeing a very different response quality.
This real-world experiment is how I learned how knotted high quality-of-response is with high incentives paid to respondents. Let me explain the situation…
I had a request from a client for a speedy recruit— one that would test any individual recruiter, so I spoke to two of my favorite recruitment partners who agreed to split duties. One elected to pay the respondents $125 for an hour of their time, and one elected to pay the higher incentive of $225— nearly a hundred dollars more.
The project was so hurried, I barely clocked the difference at the outset— just happy that I could fulfill the client’s need, I rushed off the all-up estimate for approval. (This, by the way, was early in my business almost a decade ago— I’m more thorough now).
On the day of the sessions, the clients and I both noticed an extremely wide swing in group involvement in the topic— some of the groups were incredibly engaged, while some seemed half-as-attentive.
I ratcheted it up to the typical fluctuations that happen in days of focus groups— (e.g., after-lunch groups can always be a bit lethargic) and so on— but as the two days of research crept on, and the chasm between the engaged groups and disengaged groups widened, I took a hard look at the grids.
And you’ve likely guessed it: the higher-paid groups were the far-more responsive groups.
But Megan, you might be thinking— what if that recruitment firm was just better at finding expressive people? Sure, that is a variable I can’t ignore. Except… it happened again, this time under different circumstances.
Clients are never keen to pay high incentives— so they have often asked me to reduce the amount of incentives I recommend. Despite my objections to the contrary, a client once talked me down to paying respondents a rate they typically paid: $75-100 for an hour. They assured me this was going to work, as this was standard practice for them.
This time, the variables were all the same. But reader: the groups were awful. Even my most well-meaning charm offensive couldn’t open people up 🙂
On a rational level, paying respondents is an exchange— we’re often asking them to open themselves up freely to a stranger, in a room (or virtual room) full of strangers. If you’ve ever been underpaid for a job (and I think we all have), aren’t you more likely to clam up, or not share as freely, when the result is a paltry payout?
On a unconscious level, people can feel when their time is being valued, and they respond accordingly. If you offer a value exchange that seems generous to them, people will be generous with their contributions in-turn— this kind of vibe works on a subconscious level, but I’ve seen evidence of it time and time again.
But, you might ask, what about times when budget is too tight to pay higher incentives? Especially if an organization is not used to spending those dollars?
Here’s a couple ways to get around these tough budget conversations:
1. I’d much rather have FEWER respondents that heartily contribute than more respondents that barely speak. Qualitative research discussions are all about ‘quality over quantity’ in my book, and respondents who don’t talk are basically ‘warm chairs’ that just pad the numbers, anyway. So, considering paying higher incentives but chopping back your group size a bit to accommodate a smaller budget
2. Also, show-rate generally INCREASES when the incentives are higher. People don’t want to miss out on a session that pays more, and thus, with more people showing— you can recruit less people at the outset and still get full groups. Respondents don’t want to ‘miss out’ on the research when they are being truly valued for their efforts
Remember, when setting your incentive amounts— you should be as generous as you hope your participants will be with their responses.
Let that be your barometer, and you’ll be pleasantly-surprised to see how much MORE you get out of your qualitative when your quality of response rises massively in-return.
the Insight Inn 