CMOR MONTHLY BULLETIN: RESPONDENT COOPERATION

By Harry Heller, CMOR Director of Respondent Cooperation

Hello Everyone.

Since taking over this position in October of last year, I have received many letters from consumers and members. These correspondences have alerted me to two issues that may be on the plate for the respondent cooperation committee in the coming year. I would like to know how you feel about these.

Issue 1: All of the websites that charge a fee to sign respondents up to register in Internet research panels.

Three problems are linked to this issue: 1) charging to participate in surveys (albeit from a third party that the public may think is part of our industry), 2) exaggerating the money that can be earned (some claim you can earn $40,000 a year by participating), and 3) the growth of misguided “professional” respondents who are armed with 10 email addresses and then registering in 30 panels with each address. (That is potentially 300 interviews per person!)

I am not sure that we can prosecute these companies. They are offering a “search” service for potential respondents. Some even have programs that enable participants for fill out multiple registrations. It is not good research but they are not doing anything illegal. However, any approach that leaves respondents with a negative perception of marketing and opinion research is not good for us. Since we cannot prevent these websites from listing survey research companies, it is up to the online research companies to find a way to prevent multiple panel registrations and multiple registrations in their own panel.

A good model for them to follow is that of the focus group research industry. In some markets, when it was found that panelists were making a lot of money by joining focus group panels under multiple names and across multiple panels, a proprietary technique was developed to compare phone numbers across companies. On-line research companies should find a way to assign potential respondents a unique ID number and share duplication of numbers across and within panels. Is CMOR the organization that should get this initiative going? Let me have your opinion.

Issue 2: Progress with the Industry Identifier

The Respondent Cooperation Advisory Committee has taken a further look at the Industry Identifier seal and has developed a marketing strategy. We are almost ready to take the concept of the Industry Identifier to the CMOR membership and other companies in the industry. The basic positioning of the seal is as follows:

Industry Identifier Positioning

The American public is confused, scared and angry.

They are tired of push polls, don’t know why people are calling them when they are registered on the Do-Not-Call list; they are paranoid about the slip-ups that have permitted people to access their personal data; they are concerned that their identity will be stolen; and they receive spam, phishing, X-rated emails, and invitations to participate in surveys, which then try to sell them something.

But many of them (a majority in our own surveys) recognize that there is a need for legitimate companies to get the opinions of the public so that the products and services they use are what they want. But who is legitimate to them, and how will they know it when they are solicited?

The answer is The Industry Identifier.

We are developing a full-blown concept statement and will be conducting a research study in the coming month to ask your opinions on how the Industry Identifier seal will be distributed and used. How should companies be qualified to use it? Should there be a usage charge? How will we protect it from those who may want to steal it? How should its use be controlled?

If you have any ideas on this issue, please contact CMOR.

Respondent Cooperation Workshop – "Protecting Our Assets"

The Respondent Cooperation Workshop that was scheduled for April 13-15, 2005 in Washington, D.C. has been rescheduled to September 7-9, 2005. The entire set of speakers has agreed to the new date. A quick survey of those who could not attend the April dates suggested that other multiple-day conferences surrounded the week and that the Easter holiday made April 13th-15th a difficult time to schedule.

The rescheduled time will enable us to add a training day, during which companies that conduct interviews can have their key people trained in our three curricular (and qualified to conduct the training sessions): Introduction To Market Research, Interviewer Training and Avoidance Refusal Training. This exciting Workshop is an opportunity to increase respondent cooperation between 5% and 10%. MRA Professional Researcher Certification (PRC) contact hours will be offered for these courses. For more information on MRA’s PRC, please click here.

Top

CMOR, along with a number of other companies and associations in Washington, is focusing on the bill with a keen eye. The bill’s effectiveness in discerning between good and bad actors attracted our attention immediately. For the most part, HR 1263 is narrowly tailored to avoid the common pitfall of accidentally roping in people the bill did not intend to target (i.e., survey researchers).

That said, we do have some concerns about how various aspects of this bill could be interpreted. For example, HR 1263 states that if a data collection organization changes ownership, then the customers whose Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is being sold must be notified of the change in ownership if there is a “material change” in privacy policies.

Upholding the privacy standards listed in the bill, along with recommendations issued in the past by CMOR, would help satisfy this standard. We are more than happy to work with any and all members who need more information to this effect.

However, HR 1263 goes on to say that consumers may “preclude any sale or disclosure” of their PII. Could this mean that a single consumer could prevent the sale of a data collection organization by refusing to permit their PII to be sold? Or do they not even need to be notified of the sale, due to the “material change in privacy policy” clause?

This is one example of how the various sections of HR 1263 need to be clarified in order to reach a distinct, reasonable interpretation of how this law can be effectively implemented and enforced.

Beyond that, we need to clarify certain vague language within the bill regarding telephone surveyors and the ready availability of their privacy policies. Would interviewers be compelled to mention or even read the privacy policy to every respondent? Or, more plausibly, would an interviewer simply have to keep a copy of the privacy policy near his or her desk, to be read upon the respondent’s request?

Top