This document presents a framework for understanding how postal contact can be used to gain responses for web surveys. It identifies five key stages in the response process: being motivated to open the mailing, read it, take part in the survey, go online, and complete the questionnaire. Factors like personalization, multiple contact attempts, and device-agnostic design are proposed to positively impact response. Priorities for further research include how to get people to open mailings, what motivates participation, and reducing the effort to respond online. The document concludes by asking discussants for feedback on the identified research priorities and how best practices can be shared with survey agencies.

1. © 2016 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may
not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.
1Document Name Here | Month 2016 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION)
Gerry Nicolaas & Patten Smith
International Workshop on Household Survey Nonresponse,
31 August – 1 September 2017
Utrecht, the Netherlands
A framework for understanding
the process for gaining web survey response
using only postal contact

2. 2Document Name Here | Month 2016 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION)
Background
 Increasing use of push-to-web designs using postal contact
 Highly variable response rates
 Need to understand the process of gaining online cooperation in
order to find effective methods for increasing the response rate
 Framework inspired by TDM to inform discussions with clients

3. 3Document Name Here | Month 2016 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION)
Framework for push-to-web response
Motivated to
read the
mailing
Motivated to
go online
Motivated to
take part in
survey
Motivated to
open the
mailing
Motivated to
complete
questionnaire
Personalisation
Type of mailing;
e.g. envelope with
letter, postcard
Appearance of
mailing before
opening; e.g. logo
Personalisation
Easy to read; e.g.
length, font,
vocabulary
Appearance; e.g.
important,
professional
Clarity about the
purpose of the
mailing
Clarity about the
survey request
Use persuasive
reasons for taking
part
Clear instructions
for logging into
the questionnaire
Minimal effort
needed to enter
login details
Multiple access
methods; e.g. any
internet-enabled
device
Use multiple mailings:
• An optimum number of mailings
• An optimum length of time between mailings
• A diverse and yet coherent package of multiple mailings
Landing page
looks authentic
with clear
instructions
Design for mobile;
e.g. short, reduce
clutter and text
Avoid question
types that are
prone to break-
offs
Reduce cognitive
burden

4. 4Document Name Here | Month 2016 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION)
Fairly confident that the following has a positive impact
on P2W response
 Motivated to open and read mailing
– Personalisation, authoritative logos
 Motivated to take part in survey
– Multiple and varied contact attempts, use of incentives, offer
alternative mode to web non-respondents
 Motivated to go online and complete web
questionnaire
– Device agnostic, avoid use of complex question formats &
cognitively difficult questions

5. 5Document Name Here | Month 2016 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION)
Suggested priorities for further research
 Open the mailing (particularly unnamed samples)
– Type and appearance of mailing
 Selected respondent(s) motivated to take part in survey
– Respondent selection method, type of incentive (incl. cost
effectiveness), persuasive messages
 Selected respondent(s) motivated to go online
– Reducing the effort of moving from postal contact to online data
collection
 The optimal package of multiple contact attempts
– Dillman (ESRA 2017): Too often surveyors focus individually on
these six concerns, and ignore the operational connectivity
among them that is essential.

6. 6Document Name Here | Month 2016 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION)
Questions for discussion
 Based on what you all know about research in this area,
have we identified the right priorities for further research?
 Is a more thorough review of the literature required? If
yes, where can we find the resources to do this?
 Do you know of any unpublished research in this area,
either forthcoming or grey literature?
 This area of research is developing fast. How can we
ensure that evidence and best practice is shared with
survey agencies in a timely fashion?

7. 7Document Name Here | Month 2016 | Version 1 | Public | Internal Use Only | Confidential | Strictly Confidential (DELETE CLASSIFICATION)
Thank you.