Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Access versus dedicated panel: ESOMAR panel conference Dublin 2008
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Access versus dedicated panel: ESOMAR panel conference Dublin 2008

1,113
views

Published on

After the rapid and widespread emergence of online access panels, we are currently witnessing a new trend towards online custom panels that are specifically built, used and managed for research …

After the rapid and widespread emergence of online access panels, we are currently witnessing a new trend towards online custom panels that are specifically built, used and managed for research purposes of one company or its brand(s). This study compares the online access panel ‘XL Online Panels’ with a dedicated and branded online research panel from Heinz, generating conclusions on the relative advantages and disadvantages related to using either of them. Specific attention is paid to panel member conditioning and quality.

Published in: Business, Technology

1 Comment
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Hello my dear
    I am Modester by name good day. i just went to your profile this time true this site (www.slideshare.net) and i got your detail and your explanation in fact the way you explain your self shows me that you are innocent and maturity and also understand person i decided to have a contact with you so that we can explain to our self each other because God great everyone to make a friend with each other and from that we know that we are from thism planet God great for us ok my dear please try and reach me through my email address (modester4life4@yahoo.com) so that i can send you my picture true your reply we can know each other ok have a nice day and God bless you yours Modester
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,113
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. Prof. Dr. Kristof De Wulf Dr. Mike Friedman Bert Borggreve Pavlov revisited Effects of panel method & conditioning on panel member quality & product ratings Prof. Dr. Kristof De Wulf Dr. Mike Friedman Bert Borggreve
    • 2. Contents
      • Background
      • Research propositions
      • Method
      • Results
      • Conclusions
      • Future directions
    • 3. Dedicated panels: the wave of the future?
      • “ People are now demanding more two-way relationships with websites, brands, and with market researchers … The traditional online access panel is largely a one-way relationship, with its paradigm very much fixed in the old world” (Comley & Andersson, 2007)
      • “ The online [dedicated] audience panel has enabled ITV to conduct a much wider range of projects across their different business areas… the sheer speed and accessibility of the panel has meant that the findings now form part of the daily discussions across ITV” (Connor & Scholes, 2007)
      • “ The JD [dedicated] Panel serves as an efficient and effective means to gather customer input, while at the same time strengthening relationships with our key customers” (Dorsey, 2007)
    • 4. Each communication you have with a customer is also a door you open for them within your company. If you do not treat them with respect… they may not only decline to complete your survey, the may also take their business elsewhere. Dorsey 2007 Respect
    • 5. Confidentiality
    • 6. Fast and flexible
    • 7. Contents
      • Background
      • Research propositions
      • Method
      • Results
      • Conclusions
      • Future directions
    • 8. Research propositions
      • Effects of panel group membership (XL Online Panels vs Heinz panel)
      • Effects of conditioning
      • (within Heinz panel)
        • Panel member quality
        • Response rate
        • Open-ended questions answer rate
        • Opend-ended number of words
        • Survey satisfaction
        • Product ratings
    • 9. Contents
      • Background
      • Research propositions
      • Method
      • Results
      • Conclusions
      • Future directions
    • 10. Method
      • Migration of 2.000 panel members from the online access panel of XL Online Panels to a dedicated customer Heinz panel
        • Multi-branded
        • Exclusively available for Heinz
        • Similar incentive scheme as XL Online Panels
      • Longitudinal research design
        • 5 different measurements
        • Concept screening objective
        • Data collection from both panels at the same time
    • 11.  
    • 12.  
    • 13. Method Wave 1: Soup Wave 2: Fruit drink Wave 3: Cereal Wave 4: Soup Wave 5: Cereal Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Heinz total sample n = 697 n = 770 n = 811 n = 1.082 n = 1.210 Heinz fresh sample n = 697 n = 223 n = 221 n = 356 n = 262 Heinz repeat sample n = 697 (1x) n = 553 (2x) n = 384 (3x) n = 288 (4x) n = 213 (5x) XLOP fresh sample n = 301 n = 213 n = 816 n = 218 n = 253
    • 14. Method
      • Significance
        • Effect greater than zero?
        • Is it replicable?
        • Sensitive to sample size
      Testing for effects: significance versus effect size
      • Effect size
        • Magnitude of effect?
        • Is it meaningful?
        • Not sensitive to sample size
    • 15. Contents
      • Background
      • Research propositions
      • Method
      • Results
      • Conclusions
      • Future directions
    • 16. Testing panel method effects
      • Effects of panel method
      • (XL Online Panels vs Heinz panel)
      • Effects of conditioning
      • (within Heinz panel)
        • Panel member quality
        • Response rate
        • Open-ended questions answer rate
        • Opend-ended number of words
        • Survey satisfaction
        • Product ratings
    • 17. Testing panel method effects Wave 1: Soup Wave 2: Fruit drink Wave 3: Cereal Wave 4: Soup Wave 5: Cereal Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Heinz total sample n = 697 n = 770 n = 811 n = 1.082 n = 1.210 Heinz fresh sample n = 697 n = 223 n = 221 n = 356 n = 262 Heinz repeat sample n = 697 (1x) n = 553 (2x) n = 384 (3x) n = 288 (4x) n = 213 (5x) XLOP fresh sample n = 301 n = 213 n = 816 n = 218 n = 253
    • 18. Testing panel method effects – Product ratings Product Rating (Unpriced Buying Intention) Wave 1: Soup Wave 2: Fruit drink Wave 3: Cereal Wave 4: Soup Wave 5: Cereal Sig. difference (95%) Effect size R 2 = .01 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .04 R 2 = .03
    • 19. Testing panel method effects – Panel member quality Overall satisfaction questionnaire Wave 1: Soup Wave 2: Fruit drink Wave 3: Cereal Wave 4: Soup Wave 5: Cereal Sig. difference (95%) Fraction that filled in open ended question (likes) R 2 = .01 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .04 R 2 = .03 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .02 R 2 = .06 R 2 = .03
    • 20. Testing panel method effects – Panel member quality Response rates between groups
    • 21. Testing conditioning effects
      • Effects of panel group membership (XL Online Panels vs Heinz panel)
      • Effects of conditioning
      • (within Heinz panel)
        • Panel member quality
        • Response rate
        • Open-ended questions answer rate
        • Opend-ended number of words
        • Survey satisfaction
        • Product ratings
    • 22. Testing conditioning effects Wave 1: Soup Wave 2: Fruit drink Wave 3: Cereal Wave 4: Soup Wave 5: Cereal Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Heinz total sample n = 697 n = 770 n = 811 n = 1.082 n = 1.210 Heinz fresh sample n = 697 n = 223 n = 221 n = 356 n = 262 Heinz repeat sample n = 697 (1x) n = 553 (2x) n = 384 (3x) n = 288 (4x) n = 213 (5x) XLOP fresh sample n = 301 n = 213 n = 816 n = 218 n = 253
    • 23. Testing conditioning effects – Product ratings Wave 1: Soup Wave 2: Fruit drink Wave 3: Cereal Wave 4: Soup Wave 5: Cereal Sig. difference (95%) Product Rating (Unpriced Buying Intention) R 2 = .01 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .03 Effect size
    • 24. Testing conditioning effects – Product ratings – A zoom on all key scores of wave 5 Product Rating Wave 5: Cereal Sig. difference (95%) R 2 = .01 R 2 = .02 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .02 Effect size
    • 25. Testing conditioning effects – Panel member quality Overall satisfaction questionnaire Wave 1: Soup Wave 2: Fruit drink Wave 3: Cereal Wave 4: Soup Wave 5: Cereal Sig. difference (95%) Fraction that filled in open ended question (likes) R 2 = .01 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .01 R 2 = .06
    • 26. Contents
      • Background
      • Research propositions
      • Method
      • Results
      • Conclusions
      • Future directions
    • 27. Effects of panel method
    • 28. Effects of panel method
      • Panel member quality
        • Much higher response rate in Heinz panel
        • Clearly higher satisfaction scores in Heinz panel
        • More response to open ended questions in Heinz panel
      • Product ratings
        • Frequent and consistent differences between panel types
        • Heinz panel members are more favorable than XLOP members
        • This effect is small; there is variation between waves
    • 29. Effects of conditioning
    • 30. Effects of conditioning
      • Panel member quality
        • Very similar results in terms of overall questionnaire satisfaction. Frequent participation does not lead to diverging satisfaction scores
        • Decreasing number of open ended responses over time
      • Product ratings
        • Frequent participation leads to diverging product ratings.
        • New panel members are more favorable than repeat members
        • There is variation between waves
    • 31. Contents
      • Background
      • Research propositions
      • Method
      • Results
      • Conclusions
      • Future directions
    • 32. Future directions