The response - and engagement analysis for consumer panels in the online era: should the industry apply a more personalised approach?

1. Not just one…
… but MANY Alexs!
Personalising the approach
to engagement and
response analysis in
online consumer panels
advances of model proposal

2. Background
● online panellist more difficult to get
■ panellist becoming ‘extinct’?
● increasing costs invite new approaches
● response & engagement as quality issue
some online references about this topic:
❖ Gittelman & Trimarchi (quirks article) http://www.quirks.com/articles/2010/20101108.aspx
❖ Future Access Panels (quirks article) http://www.quirks.com/articles/2010/20101107.aspx
❖ Greenbook Blog (article) http://www.greenbookblog.org/2012/03/06/access-panel-recruitment-the-real-dirty-secret-2/
❖ Matt Warta (post) http://blog.gutcheckit.com/what-does-the-future-hold-for-market-research-online-communities-mrocs

3. Engagement: Eternal Issue (1)
● widely accepted belief: to improve
their responsiveness / engagement,
respondents should be known
○ The more, the better…
● it is about finding ways to:
○ facilitate the engagement / response
process
○ persuade the respondent to act in certain
way

4. Engagement: Eternal Issue (2)
● battle fronts in the online era:
○ Technological
■ increasing costs tackled with tech…
● eg. routing, fishing
○ eg. effect of routing
○ Humanistic
■ a call for respondents’ personalisation
● a classic: “The Anonymous Elect” (A. Postoaca)
■ begun with direct marketing methods…
■ … through customisation & UX …
■ … while evolving more eCRM-like formulations
● eg. Lightspeed GMI looking for CRM’er (Nov 14)

5. Typifying the Panellists
● An old issue…
■ Eg Edgerton, Britt and Norman (1947)
● some industry-related studies:
■ Postoaca’s studies (IPSOS, ESOMAR)
■ Faber (internet article)
■ Bruggen et al (internet article)
● from respondents thru profiles to
“personas”?
■ a more comprehensive response analysis:
● more demographical, utilitarian and motivational

6. Example of an exercise of the
multidimensional approach
● “Using simulations for consumer panel
operations analysis” (link)
○ An artificial (simulated) consumer panel
■ previous evidences: Neslin et al (abstract)
○ Simulation of panellist’s response dynamics
○ Evaluation of effects of response diversity
and dynamics on panel provider operations

7. Panellist’s behavioural model
(sketched)
Loyalty (desire to
stay)
- Comparison with other
panels
- Quality of service and other
perceived rewards
- Satisfaction; Joy; “What is
there for me?”
- Tenure (proxy)
Response (desire to initiate
and continue)
- Size and type of reward per survey
- Questionnaire length
- Quality of present and previous
questionnaire experience
- Topic, Frequency
Effort (“maximum per
week”; “yield”)
- `Planned´dedication time and
budget; Necessity, Availability
- Channel, Presentation (Exposure;
Accessibility)
- Season or other external events
All proposed variables
could interact to define
the response rate model

8. Remarks
● Simple formulations are preferred, but
the dynamic is actually a complex one
● CRM in panel providers and the future of
response and engagement analysis
○ Is CRM having an influence in panel
m´gment?
○ Main contribution to panel performance
AND quality of research?
● Simulation projects
○ Can they help performance analysis?
○ Gains for CRM´ers and Analysts?
○ Gains for clients?