If you use the Internet while doing every day business, then Spyware is an issue that you must know about! On April 15th, CMOR held an definitive Spyware Webinar featuring a panel of experts who presented cutting edge information.

If you missed this Webinar, don’t worry, copies are now available on CD-Rom. That’s right, due to popular demand, we have copies of the live Webinar for sale now!

RATES AND REFUSALS: DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS FOR DIFFERENT PROBLEMS

By Harry Heller, CMOR Director of Respondent Cooperation

Hello Everyone:

On a hot Sunday afternoon in July, I was doing what I always do on summer Sunday afternoons, looking over the last CMOR Respondent Cooperation and Industry Image Study done in 2003. Looking at the study gave me some insights into the challenges we face in improving cooperation rates and how to approach each of them. Let me share these insights with you.

Let’s review the study. Remember these results apply to Random Digit Dialing Interviewing, but the issues I raise apply to all modes of interviewing.

The 2003 study showed an increase in Refusal Rates up to 79% (up from the mid 50%’s in the early 1990’s and the mid-60%’s in the late 1990’s and 2000.)

Taking this 79% refusal rate (RR), we were able to break it down into 3 components:

• Initial Refusals -- those that occur before the introduction: 67% RR
• Qualified Refusals – those that occur after the introduction: 11% RR
• Terminates – those that occur during the interview: 1% RR

Think about how this simple finding helps to develop our respondent cooperation strategy here at CMOR, the organization with the only dedicated respondent cooperation program in our industry.

Since 84% of our refusals occur initially, we have to ask ourselves, “Why should a respondent refuse before the introduction?” Here are some of the reasons:

• I’m too busy. (Schedule the interview at the convenience of the respondent; offer an incentive; pre-alert the respondent with a letter or card; offer to administer the interview in sections; make the respondent feel important and know that his/her contribution is critical, etc.) If you have any other ideas to add to this list, please contact me.
• I don’t like marketing research. (Find out why they don’t like the profession; tell them how we have helped them and the public in the past; acknowledge the opinion, apologize and offer to start out with a clean slate, etc.)
• I think you’re trying to sell me something. (Reassure them, guarantee them that we do not sell anything. Explain to them why the U.S. Government has excluded us from telemarketing laws, and provide them with the CMOR Call CHRIS Hotline number, etc.)
• I am not sure you are legitimate. (Make sure you have given them your name, your company’s name and phone number to reassure them. Make sure that your caller ID has your company name and real phone number as the return number. Be on the alert for and become part of the Industry Identifier program once it is finalized and announced, etc.)

Since 14% of our refusals are qualified refusals that occur after the introduction, we should ask ourselves why should respondents refuse after we explain our study to them. Here are some of the reasons:

• I had problems with the introduction explaining the study. (Make sure you are using the CMOR tested model introductions; ask the respondent whether there was anything you said that turned him/her off to the survey; look into one of the new training modules being introduced in the September Respondent Cooperation Workshop in Washington D.C. dealing with avoidance refusal training, etc.)
• You told me that the interview would more time than I had. (Make sure that you give the respondent an alternative time, or an alternative way to do the interview. Can you divide up the interview and give it in sections? Is there an incentive built into the study? Has your project staff determined that all the questions necessary?)
• The product class you mentioned is of no interest to me. (Make sure the sample design was targeted to people who are likely to use the product class. Make sure that the reason the respondent was chosen for the interview is described in “value terms” for the respondent, etc.)
• The interviewer was hard to understand. (Make sure the interviewer is trained to speak slowly, clearly and in an upbeat voice. Does the interviewer have a strong regional accent or mispronounce words and phrases during the interview?)

Finally, another 1% of our respondents refused into the interview. This may not seem like a lot, but think of how much you have invested in an interview: screening, introduction, and several minutes of time. Why would a respondent stop? Here are some of the reasons:

• You promised me that the interview would take 15 minutes; it’s already gone 23 minutes. (Make sure the times you promise are accurate; make sure the questions are interesting and the interviewer is upbeat; ensure that the pre-study training enables the interviewer to get through the interview smoothly and quickly, etc.)
• The interview is boring. (We know that the product has 35 critical attributes it must be rated on but do we have to do it for 3 brands? Make sure the interview is tested for interest and satisfaction, not just question wording. Discuss at the beginning of the study whether the method you are using to get the interview is the best method for the amount of data you are collecting. Consider, in some cases, “mixed media” interviews -- 10 minutes by phone and 20 minutes by follow-up mail or online. Pre-test and have the people who developed the questionnaire watch the pre-test, etc.)
• The interviewer is hard to understand. (Make sure the interviewer treats each respondent like he/she is the first one they are speaking to that day. Do not hurry through the process because of familiarity; check on factors mentioned previously: speaking slowly, strong regional accents, being upbeat, and pronouncing words correctly, etc.)

So when you think of it, we have a simple job increasing respondent cooperation. It’s just a matter of getting a strong hold on these three factors: Convincing respondents to start the interview, getting them interested during the introduction of the interview, and maintaining their interest throughout the interview.

To help you do this better, I want to remind you about our respondent cooperation Workshop -- “Protecting Our Assets” – September 7-9 in Washington, D.C. This Workshop contains three solid days of increasing respondent cooperation and training to handle these three issues. We can now demonstrate that increasing respondent cooperation pays – in lower sample costs, in interviewer time, in telephone costs and most of all, in better data.

If you want to register, visit www.cmor.org for more information or click here for the registration form! See you in Washington, D.C.

Legislation involving data brokers and protecting consumer interest presents negative implications for survey research. It is important to educate state legislatures on the information obtained for survey research purposes versus their broad definitions of what is considered Personally Identifiable Information. As the concept of Personally Identifiable Information grows, survey research will require a legislative response that ensures protection for the profession. CMOR is ready for this challenge. Our objectives remain clear: to monitor legislation from its introduction, to make the necessary congressional contacts on legislation that will impact the profession, and to conduct the necessary follow up and monitoring to protect the industry’s needs.

Data Brokers

CMOR predicts this area will be a future concern for the survey research industry. The widespread effects of this legislation are severe. Legislative action has already required CMOR to respond specifically to the state of New York. The legislation introduced in New York broadly defines personal information to include plausible demographic information such as income and other important information that survey researchers rely upon for data sampling. Moreover, the law allows consumers to effectively remove all information obtained for data brokers and in essence create a do not disclose list. If this legislation is enacted, survey research would be in a detrimental bind in New York. Imminent action was needed. CMOR responded by contacting the sponsors of the bill and members of the Committee on Assembly Consumer Affairs and Protection; every member was contacted regarding this legislation. CMOR has sent correspondence and is in the process of following up with the sponsors and committee members regarding the negative effects of such legislation. CMOR’s goal is to carve out a reference for survey researchers and other companies that rely on information that has not been considered Personally Identifiable Information in other states to foster some sort of control and reign over the definition of personal information. California has also introduced legislation aimed at Data Brokers, but there is no detrimental impact. This is an area that is sure to grow to other states. By implementing precautions with the state of New York, CMOR is setting the framework for future state action on this issue.

California has introduced legislation that establishes the California Data Brokers Access and Accuracy Act of 2005 requiring data brokers to authenticate their customers before providing them with consumer data files. The Act also allows a consumer who is the subject of a consumer data file to receive, upon request, information contained about him or her in the file. Consumer data file means Personally Identifiable Information about an individual in whatever form or by whatever means it is compiled, maintained or furnished that is retrievable by, indexed by, or includes four or more digits of an individual’s social security number, driver’s license number, non-driver identification number, or biometric identifier.

New York has introduced legislation requiring data brokers and reference service providers to disclose all of the information they have regarding a consumer upon request, and will effectively create a do not disclose list, whereby consumers can mandate that information brokers do not disclose their personal information. Personal information means information relating to an identifiable data subject such as social security information, mother’s former and current names, birth date, non–published telephone numbers, records of telephone calls made and received, income, bank account and investment information, tax information, organization memberships and donations, purchasing information or preferences, medical information, driving record, criminal record, or history of civil actions.

Social Security Numbers

The display of social security numbers also contributes to the idea of protecting personal information. Since survey research does not obtain social security numbers, this information is provided to show the growing trend of legislation and regulation of Personally Identifiable Information.

New Jersey and Pennsylvania have introduced legislation that prohibits the use and display of Social Security numbers for certain identification purposes by public or private entities.

Breach of Security Systems

The actions against breach of security systems in the states have been swift and definite. Notice must occur in a timely manner and an investigation must begin accordingly. These practices include all industries that obtain personal information. The focus on the definition of what is considered personal information is a highly important issue for the industry. CMOR is monitoring each state and each definition provided for personal information. The scope of a broad definition could potentially impact the industry greatly as we have seen in New York with data broker legislation.

Delaware, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Rhode Island have introduced and/or amended legislation relating to computer security breaches. Any individual or commercial entity that conducts business in these states and has personal information about a resident when it becomes aware of a breach must notify the resident. Personal information means a resident’s first name or first initial and last name in combination with a social security number, driver’s license number, account number, credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code.

Louisiana has pre-filed legislation for the next legislative session requiring any person conducting business in Louisiana who owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information to notify any resident of the breach. Personal information has an identical definition to the legislation as discussed in other states (see above).

Identity Theft

State action concerning how data is obtained is increasing. As the legislation suggests, the focus is now on technological advances of obtaining data and creating uniform methods of reporting and fraud alerts to assist consumers with identity theft complaints. CMOR is monitoring the developments and focus on uniform measures and is expecting future impact on the survey research industry.

California has amended its bill on identity theft. The bill, Identity Information Protection Act of 2005, requires identification documents that are created, mandated, pushed or issued by public entitles and that contain a contactless integrated circuit or other device that uses radio waves to broadcast personal information or to enable personal information to be read remotely to meet requirements.

New Jersey has introduced legislation that requires credit reporting agencies to have uniform reporting requirements and effective fraud alerts to assist identity theft victims in repairing and protecting their credit. Personal information means an individual’s first name or first initial and last name linked with a social security number, driver’s license number or State identification card number, account number or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code, access code or password.

Security Freezes

This is also an important issue for the industry. Due to the recent rise in data breaches, states have sought measures to allow consumers to take action against their information being distributed. Though the freeze is currently limited to consumer accounts, it shows the trend in allowing consumers a voice. Consumers want to protect all of their information, even if it is not sensitive. Governments will listen to their constituents regarding this issue. CMOR predicts this is another interesting area that is likely to expand in upcoming legislative sessions.

Kentucky has added a new section to its consumer protection bill allowing for security freezes on consumer accounts.

Top