Sample is cheap, but at what cost?
It is now cheaper to complete an interview than it has ever been in the history of survey research. Costs are now so low that it is possible for more people to do more research than ever before. But as costs have spiraled downward, have there been implications for quality?
In order to cut costs, the industry has turned to river sample, routed sample, sample recruited from loyalty based single sources, click-through sample and even samples of people who misspell URLs. While the sample sources we can tap into virtually gush with respondents, are these sources reliable? Are they representative? What are implications for decision making, based on the answers derived from these sources?
In this paper we draw on an extensive body of research on research regarding recruitment, sample quality and. Comparing river sample, social media and sample from loyalty and App driven panels, we report on variation between panels in the data collected, variation in answers from wave to wave and the effects of recruitment source on representativeness.
Since sample is the soil and water of market research, it is critical that we pay attention to quality of the source from which our research springs.
The quality of a sample source determines the validity of the answers we derive and the decision business leaders make. If the sample we use is unreliable or biased, can we consider quantitative market research to be a science and a reliable guide to decision making? This paper provides powerful and provocative evidence regarding these critical questions.
Managing Director, Vision Critical
In submitting my candidacy for the "at-large" board of director position for the MRIA, my focus will be on assisting and helping the MRIA navigate the rapidly changing MR landscape in Canada and around the world. Being a senior management leader at Vision Critical gives me the background and expertise to bring to the MRIA board, the insight and knowledge into how technology firms like VC and others are creating a revolution in the MR space. My extensive experience in the past 20 years in operations, sales and technology development will provide the MRIA with a new perspective in how insight communities and technology are increasingly being blended with traditional research to change how our clients listen to the voice of the customer and market. I am passionate about the industry, where it's been and where it is going. I look forward to serving the industry for the next 2 years on the MRIA board of directors.
Chief Research Officer, Vision Critical
A thirty year research veteran, Andrew leads Vision Critical in the development of innovative and informative analytics and approaches to research. Andrew is the author of numerous research products and measurement scales, with applications in a wide range of areas including health, branding, social capital, and religion. Andrew has published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, in the areas of sociology, research methods and medicine and has been quoted in numerous publications including The Economist.
His most recently published peer reviewed publication is Chakravarti, A., Grenville, A., Morwitz, V., Tang, J., and Ulkumen, G., “Malleable conjoint partworths: How the breadth of response scales alters price sensitivity”, Journal of Consumer Psychology (2012). Other publications are currently is press. I have also spoken at research-related conferences organized by the MRIA, the ARF, the AMA, the ASA, AMSRS, SSR, PMRG and ESOMAR.