research on recruitment 2018 - esomar · research on recruitment 2018 ... networks of recruiters...
TRANSCRIPT
Research on Recruitment 2018Investigating qualitative researchers’ views on the state of research participant recruitment
Introduction
Liveminds commissioned SketchBook Consulting to carry out research benchmarking the views of qualitative researchers on the state of research participant recruitment.
The aim of this research was to recognise and understand the challenges faced by researchers, to explore opportunities for improving recruitment methods within the industry, and to improve Liveminds Behavioural Recruitment service.
Contents
Introduction 2
Who took part? 3
Recruitment methods used 4
Biggest challenges 5
What is effective recruitment? 6
What’s important? 7
Better participants wanted 8
Traditional qual challenges 9
Digital qual challenges 10
Researchers’ views 11
How much is too much? 13
Professional participants 14
Pros and cons 15
Recruitment horror stories 17
Summary 18
Liveminds & SketchBook 19
The study included 100 UK-based researchers who conduct qualitative market
research in the UK or international markets. The online survey was promoted
through industry forums and advertised on social networks.
TYPES OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY COMPANY
Who took part?
3
Director
Senior Management
Middle Management
Junior Executive
Owner /Partner
4
57
17
5
17
Quantitative
Traditional Qualitative(ie focus groups, depths)
Digital Qualitative (ie online forums, communities, mobile)
67
98
76
Q: Which types of research does your company conduct?
Base: All participants - 100
Q: What methods do you use to recruit for traditional qualitative projects (ie face-to-face or
telephone)?
Base: Those who conduct traditional qual - 98
RECRUITMENT METHODS USED FOR DIGITAL QUAL
Q: What methods do you use to recruit for digital qual projects (ie online or mobile)?
Base: Those who conduct digital qual - 76
Recruitment Co. with
networks of recruiters
Client supplied
lists
Direct to recruiters
in field
Online Quant panels
Online Qual
panels
Online / social media advertising
Email marketing
lists
8175
67
3426
18 17
Recruitment Co. with
networks of recruiters
Client supplied
lists
Direct to recruiters
in field
Online Quant panels
Online Qual
panels
Online / social media advertising
Email marketing
lists
67
57
42 41
2924
12
RECRUITMENT METHODS USED FOR TRADITIONAL QUAL
4
Participant quality is the biggest challengeQ
ualit
y of
par
ticip
ants
Ove
rly d
eman
ding
clie
nts
Unc
lear
clie
nt b
riefs
Cos
t of r
esea
rch
Poor
ly ru
n vi
ewin
g fa
cilit
ies
Clie
nt's
trus
t in
resu
lts
Unc
lear
clie
nt s
uppl
ied
stim
ulus
Poor
ly d
esig
ned
plat
form
s
App
licat
ion
of re
sults
Tim
e re
sear
ch ta
kes
Flaw
ed m
etho
ds/a
ppro
ache
s
Slow
ado
ptio
n of
new
met
hods
The Research on Recruitment findings echoed the GRIT report 2017 Q3-Q4 with
‘quality of participants’ seen as the number one challenge facing the qualitative
research industry today.
5
53
3835 35 34
29
24 24 23
1915
4
Q: Which, if any, of these do you consider to be challenges facing the qualitative research
industry in your market today?
Base: All participants - 100
We asked researchers in the study to define ‘effective recruitment’, accounting
for all the factors that go into delivering this. The sample of responses below
shows the range of factors that were expected and also those to avoid.
What is effective recruitment?
6
Effective is just simply accuracy for me. I want to TRUST that people I have in my interview group or community are genuine, interested and are going to add value to a project. For too long recruitment has been unregulated…
Considered, to the brief, properly screened and managed. Quality controlled. Not sending out key screener questions to a huge database and recruiting on a first come basis.
Fresh respondents that are of good quality, recruited to spec and have been recruited 'fresh', having not taken part in research before - not using existing databases / panels to recruit.
Recruiting people who genuinely meet the project specification; giving me warning of any difficulties meeting the recruitment criteria; avoiding people who are frequent attenders.
It's simply getting the right people that client's want to speak to... I don't care how it's done, as long as it's done!
People who are on spec and are who they say they are.
“
Q: Taking everything into account – how would you personally define “effective
recruitment”? Please consider all the factors that might go into delivering this.
Base: All participants - 100
“““
““
Effective recruitment: what’s important?A
ccur
ate
fit b
etw
een
sam
ple
& re
crui
tmen
t crit
eria
Part
icip
ants
are
relia
ble
Part
icip
ants
are
mot
ivat
ed
Resp
onsi
ve p
roje
ct m
anag
emen
t by
recr
uitm
ent p
artn
er
Part
icip
ants
are
art
icul
ate
Rece
ive
regu
lar a
nd a
ccur
ate
upda
tes
on p
roje
ct p
rogr
ess
Few
er re
peat
par
ticip
ants
Recr
uitm
ent i
s co
mpl
eted
qu
ickl
yRe
crui
tmen
t is
chea
p
Researchers in the study told us the most and least important factors for effective recruitment.
MOST IMPORTANT LEAST IMPORTANTAccurate fit between sample Recruitment is cheap& recruitment criteria
7
95 93
85 8478 76
60
37
12
Q: How important do you think each of these factors are for “effective recruitment”?
Figures shown are the NET rating 4 or 5 out of 5 for importance
Base: All participants - 100
Researchers want better participantsBe
tter
fit b
etw
een
sam
ple
& re
crui
tmen
t crit
eria
Mor
e m
otiv
ated
par
ticip
ants
Few
er re
peat
resp
onde
nts
& p
rofe
ssio
nal p
artic
ipan
tsM
ore
relia
ble
part
icip
ants
Mor
e ar
ticul
ate
part
icip
ants
Fast
er re
crui
tmen
t
Bett
er p
roje
ct m
anag
emen
t
Mor
e fre
quen
t/ac
cura
te
upda
tes
on p
roje
ct p
rogr
ess
Mor
e tr
ansp
aren
t sou
rcin
g of
pa
rtic
ipan
ts
BETTER PARTICIPANTS
8
BETTER SERVICE
49
39 39
35
31
24
20
15 14
Q: Which would you be prepared to pay more for?
Base: All participants - 100
We asked researchers what they would pay more for. The top requests were ‘Better fit between sample and recruitment criteria’, ‘More motivated participants’ and ‘Fewer repeat respondents and professional participants’. The split between ‘better participants’ and ‘better service’ was clear.
Too
man
y re
peat
par
ticip
ants
Bad
fit b
etw
een
sam
ple
&
recr
uitm
ent c
riter
iaPo
orly
mot
ivat
ed p
artic
ipan
tsIn
frequ
ent/
inac
cura
te u
pdat
es
on p
roje
ct p
rogr
ess
Inar
ticul
ate
part
icip
ants
Poor
pro
ject
man
agem
ent
Unr
elia
ble
part
icip
ants
Slow
recr
uitm
ent
Hig
h co
st o
f rec
ruitm
ent
Lack
of t
rans
pare
ncy
with
so
urce
of p
artic
ipan
ts
TOP CHALLENGES1. Too many repeat participants2. Bad fit between sample & recruitment criteria3. Poorly motivated participants
9
Q: Which, if any, of these factors have you personally experienced an issue with on traditional
qual projects recruited in your market in the last 12 months?
Base: Those who conduct traditional qual - 98
5452
41 3937
34
2723
20
37
Traditional qual recruitment challenges
Too
man
y re
peat
par
ticip
ants
Bad
fit b
etw
een
sam
ple
&
recr
uitm
ent c
riter
ia
Poor
ly m
otiv
ated
par
ticip
ants
Infre
quen
t/in
accu
rate
upd
ates
on
pro
ject
pro
gres
s
Inar
ticul
ate
part
icip
ants
Poor
pro
ject
man
agem
ent
Unr
elia
ble
part
icip
ants
Slow
recr
uitm
ent
Hig
h co
st o
f rec
ruitm
ent
Lack
of t
rans
pare
ncy
with
so
urce
of p
artic
ipan
ts
47
42
33
30
26
21 2017 16
10
Q: Which, if any, of these factors have you personally experienced an issue with on digital qual
projects recruited in your market in the last 12 months?
Base: Those who conduct digital qual - 76
21
Digital qual recruitment challenges
TOP CHALLENGES1. Unreliable participants2. Poorly motivated participants3. Inarticulate participants
Base: All participants - 100 Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
Unsurprisingly 97% of researchers in this study believe high quality recruitment
is vital for good qualitative research.
However, half of researchers surveyed have seen repeat respondents in
different research projects in the last year.
97 3
51 19 30
Q: High quality recruitment is vital to good qualitative research
Q: I recognise the same participants taking part in my qualitative research projects
Researchers views on recruitment
Base: All participants - 100
52 24 24
However, researchers trust in recruitment is not completely broken. 54% of researchers who took part agree ‘recruiters know how much research their participants have done’. 68% of researchers agree ‘qualitative recruiters are trustworthy’. 75% of researchers ‘trust their preferred recruiter completely’.
More than half of researchers in the study believe too many participants lie to get recruited.
More than half of researchers surveyed believe some recruiters encourage participants to lie.
Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree
52 24 24
Q: I believe too many participants lie in order to get recruited
Q: Some recruiters encourage participants to lie in order to get recruited
I don
’t ca
re
Onc
e a
mon
th
Onc
e ev
ery
3 m
onth
s
Onc
e ev
ery
6 m
onth
s
Onc
e a
year
Onc
e ev
ery
few
yea
rs
They
hav
en’t
done
re
sear
ch b
efor
e
5 1
28
22
27
9
6
76% WOULD LIKE PARTICIPANTS TO HAVE TAKEN PART ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS OR LESS OFTENMany researchers are concerned that too few participants are taking part in too much research.
Onc
e a
wee
k
2
Q: Thinking about one of your typical research projects, how often do you
believe the participants will have done research before?
Base: All participants - 100
HOW OFTEN DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR PARTICIPANTS HAVE TAKEN PART IN RESEARCH?51% of researchers in the study believe their participants have taken part once every 3 months or more often. Only 2% believe their participants are fresh to research and 5% don’t care.
13
Participation: How much is too much?
14
No25
I’m not sure17
Yes58
Most researchers surveyed (58%) agree that professional participants are a problem in qualitative research. Although, 25% don’t think they’re a problem. We’ve looked at the pros and cons of using professional participants in the next section.
PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS TAKE PART ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS OR MORE OFTEN
We wanted to understand how often a participant would need to take part for researchers to consider them a professional participant.
84% of researchers surveyed think professional participants take part in research once every 3 months or more often. Over half of researchers believe their participants take part in research with the same frequency as professional participants.
Q: Overall, do you think “professional participants” are a problem in qualitative research?
Base: All participants - 100
Professional participants are a problem
THEY’RE TOO FAMILIAR WITH THE RESEARCH PROCESSSuch as the participant who interrupted the moderator and suggested they should be doing a personification exercise.
THEY’RE MORE LIKELY TO LIE WHEN RECRUITED They’re focused on getting paid for taking part and know what to say to get included.
THEY’RE MORE LIKELY TO LIE IN THE RESEARCHPeople who have done lots of groups start to think like marketers and aren’t
representative of typical consumers.
15
The pros and cons of professional participants
We asked researchers which positive and negative statements apply to professional participants. Most researchers saw problems with using professional participants in their research studies.
16
Too
fam
iliar
with
rese
arch
Mor
e lik
ely
to li
e w
hen
recr
uite
dM
ore
likel
y to
lie
in th
e re
sear
ch
Insu
ffici
ently
mot
ivat
ed
Qui
cker
and
eas
ier t
o fin
dU
nder
stan
d re
sear
ch w
ell
Mor
e re
liabl
e
Mor
e m
otiv
ated
7673
64
17
6459
21
16
Q: Which, if any, of these statements do you think apply to "professional participants”?
Base: All participants - 100
The pros and cons continued...
The advantages of professional participants were around convenience (quick to find, understand what’s required of them) but interestingly researchers surveyed didn’t consider them to be more motivated or more reliable.
WHEN PARTICIPANTS AREN’T REPRESENTATIVE CONSUMERSResearchers gave many examples of participants not matching their specifications, such as a bald man in a shampoo discussion group.
WHEN PARTICIPANTS AND RECRUITERS ARE UNTRUTHFULSome of the researchers surveyed raised concerns about validity as professional participant’s have been known to bend the truth to match criteria or say what they think researchers want to hear to ensure they’re included. One extreme example was a woman with a cushion under her jumper pretending to be pregnant.
WHEN PARTICIPANTS ARE REPEAT RESPONDENTSMany researchers told us they’d seen the same participants regularly turn up for different projects claiming different demographics, ownerships and buying intentions. The researchers found these experiences professionally embarrassing, particularly when the truth was revealed in front of clients, such as the participant who asked when they would be doing a personification exercise.
Read more…
17
Recruitment horror stories...
Researchers in the study told us the main challenges they face when recruiting research participants goes wrong. We heard about repeat respondents, participants not matching the required specifications, and even worse, people lying to get through screening.
Summary
97% of researchers in this study believe high quality recruitment is vital for good qualitative research. Ultimately, if recruitment is not effective the credibility and integrity of the research is compromised. It’s also clear that researchers want better participants than they’re currently receiving.
Effective recruitment means finding participants who:● Accurately fit specifications● Are more reliable and motivated● Are less likely to be repeat respondents
With so many suppliers available, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s fundamental flaws in the traditional database recruitment process which are creating so many negative experiences for researchers. The research industry needs to improve the way recruitment works to enhance the representativeness of the participants. It will be interesting to see how adoption of new technologies changes these experiences over time.
We look forward to reporting again on this subject in Research on Recruitment 2019.
18
19
Liveminds
Liveminds created ‘Behavioural Recruitment’, which is powered by Facebook’s unparalleled data on what people have actually done, rather than what they say they’ve done. People are only invited to take a screener if their online activities have already demonstrated the interests and behaviours required in the project's criteria. There are 2.2 billion Facebook users around the world, in 190+ countries – this greater reach means that participants are typically fresh to research, meaning researchers get the views of real consumers rather than conditioned responses.
If you’d like to find out more click here to visit liveminds.com
SketchBook
SketchBook is the friendly face of quant and technology in research - supporting qual agencies with full service quant, to enable them to respond to integrated briefs. SketchBook also provides guidance on the use of mobile and new technologies for research. Creativity, technology and fun!
If you’d like to find out more click here to visit sketchbook.consulting