RESPONDENT COOPERATION PAYS! WE HAVE THE PROOF RIGHT HERE!

By Harry Heller, CMOR Director of Respondent Cooperation

Hello Everyone.

As you read this newsletter, I want to remind you that the Early Bird registration deadline for the “Protecting Our Assets” Respondent Cooperation Workshop is July 18 th. Register now and save! The Workshop is being held in Washington D.C. at the Hotel Washington from September 7-9, 2005. You can obtain the full Workshop agenda and the registration materials on the CMOR website - http://www.cmor.org/. Or, simply click here for a registration form.

As I suggest to you that you spend money to improve respondent cooperation, I’d like to apprise you of a study that proves that better respondent cooperation saves money. The study was reported in the Summer 2005 issue of Public Opinion Quarterly, the respected journal of AAPOR. The authors of this study are Larry Hemboff, Debra Rusz and Nathanial Ehrlich of Michigan State and Ann Rafferty and Harry McGee of the Michigan Department of Human Health.

The authors did one simple thing - they tested the impact of advance mailings for a telephone study. They divided the sample into three matched groups: one received a letter advising them of the coming phone call, one received a postcard reminder of the coming phone call, and the third group was just called without prior notification - as most telephone surveys in our profession are conducted. The sample was 1,000 completed interviews for each group. Using one common measure of cooperation, the letter (34.8% cooperation) did better than the postcard (32.0%), which did better than the control group (29.4%).

Although these percentage differences may seem small in an absolute sense, the authors analyzed what the relative costs of the interviews were for each group. They took into account the extra costs of printing, stuffing and mailing the letter or card and of getting addresses from the Random Digit Dial Sample. They also calculated the costs of interviewer time, the extra contacts, the savings in size of the sample drawn, the phone connection charges, etc.

The result is that sending letters cost $5,400 less than sending postcards and $11,000 less than not sending any advance notice. The postcard beats no advance notice by $5,600. These savings are for 1,000 interviews! If you calculate the differences it amounts to about $1,700 saved for each 1% of improved cooperation.

Now, this is only one of many studies done to improve cooperation rates. Many of these studies were presented at previous “Protecting Our Assets” workshops (they are available by request from our website) and some of them will be presented this September.

As you may know, we have found that interviewer training is another major source of increasing cooperation rates and this Respondent Cooperation Workshop features the new CMOR-MRA Interviewer Training Modules! For more information on these modules, click here!

At the Respondent Cooperation Workshop, September 7 th-9 th in Washington D.C., we will be covering these three areas:

1. Training our Interviewers:

We will be introducing three new training modules. This is an opportunity for each company to train the trainers of your interviewers. Among the areas we will cover are:

• Refusal Rebuttals
• Voice Control
• Supervisors and Communication Styles

2. Updating your knowledge of how to increase cooperation rates.

What to expect:

• A panel covering how to increase cooperation among minorities.
• Speakers giving their experience-based advice on how to increase cooperation in polling, on-line, telephone, etc.
• Sharing, networking and discussions about latest cooperation practices.
• New techniques in training supervisors.
• The challenges of sampling portability.
• A summary of the major studies CMOR has presented that increase cooperation.

3. Improving the visibility of the legitimate research industry so that the public knows what the difference is between the real and the phony.

• We’ll be updating the industry on the progress of the Industry Identifier study and the public relations program.
• We hope to be able to report on an industry-wide survey we are doing to measure the potential participation in the Industry Identifier program. We will be circulating that survey (on the internet) to industry representatives of major research trade organizations. I urge you to cooperate with the study. If we do not cooperate with our own surveys, how can we expect the public to?

If you would like to ask me anything, remember, I’m available 24/7 at hheller@cmor.org.

Top

Issues involving political telemarketing, telephone solicitations and facsimiles have also continued to emerge. The legislation that has been introduced, amended or adopted does not currently have any negative implications for survey research.

New York Legislation on Data Issues

New York has introduced legislation that prevents persons from the fraudulent impersonation of others on caller identification. Person has been defined to include a natural person, an association, partnership, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity.

New York has also introduced legislation aimed at protecting consumer email addresses. The legislation prohibits the sale or lease of any consumer’s electronic mail addresses without the affirmative consent of the consumer. Specifically, the legislation states that it is unlawful to lease any consumer’s electronic mail address, social security number, date of birth, current or prior addresses, mother’s maiden name, or any other personally identifiable information, without providing the consumer with a clear and conspicuous notice of the collection of the information and the ability to opt out.

New York Legislation on Telephone Solicitation

New York has also introduced legislation that defines the term “telephone number” for the purposes of the No Telemarketing statewide registry. Telephone number has been defined as “all telephone numbers assigned to a New York state customer and shall include all fixed line, mobile/wireless and internet telephony.” Though the law does not implicate survey research, it is interesting to note the vast array of numbers that have the potential to be covered under this state’s No Telemarketing registry. The legislation will not only cover landlines and mobile phones, the law also will cover all modem connections, including facsimiles. As this legislative session continues and new sessions emerge in the upcoming session, it may become a trend to handle matters involving telephone solicitation by expanding the scope of telephone numbers to include other areas besides landline and mobile phones.

California Legislation on Data Issues

California has amended some of its bills related to data issues. The state has amended a bill to modify criterion for disclosing personal information. The law in its current design prohibits a state agency from disclosing any personal information in a manner that would identify the individual to which it pertains unless the disclosure of the information is to the University of California or a nonprofit educational institution conducting scientific research, if confidentiality requirements are met. The amended legislation seeks to revise authorization to disclose personal information based on set criteria only if the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects approves the request for the California Health and Human Services Agency.

California has also amended two respective bills discussing identity theft. The first bill on identity theft requires an agency, person or business that conducts business in California and owns, licenses, or collects computerized data that includes personal information of a California resident to notify the resident of any breach of the security of the data. The second bill on identity theft prohibits the intention to defraud, acquire, transfer or retain possession of the personally identifiable information of a member of the armed forces who has been called to active duty or service outside the state of California Violators are subject to imprisonment and a fine.

Pennsylvania Legislation on Data Issues

Pennsylvania has introduced legislation to prohibit providers of mobile telephone services from including the dialing number of any subscriber without first obtaining the express consent of the subscriber.

Adopted Legislation in Other States

Texas has adopted legislation related to the regulation of the state’s No Call list. The adopted legislation allows the commission in charge of the registry to contract with private vendors to maintain the state’s No Call list.

Maine has passed legislation to limit the receipt of faxes from telemarketers. The new law was adopted as an amendment to Maine’s previous law that defined automated telephone-calling devices as dialing or calling telephone numbers that must both record and play recorded messages. The law now refers to the use of automated calling devices in facsimile devices. The law does not prevent the use of manual dialing.

Top