But that is not necessarily the case. There is a complex array of motivations that online panellists cite as being important and motivating to them. A couple of years ago, my firm Prophis Research, building on the academic work of Elisabeth Deutskens, conducted extensive motivational research with its US and Canadian access panel members to dig deeper into its collective psyche. Click on the slideshow below to see the "whole show".
The figure below shows how relatively important various kinds of motivations were found to be among panel members for participating in research via the online panel (the bigger the balloon, the more important it was rated as a motivator to participate in research).
While money (or something like it, or the possibility of it) remained a key motivator for all panel segments, there was only one significant panel segment (i.e. called the "Cash Only" segment) for which this was essentially the only motivator.Much value was also derived simply by curiosity or interest, knowing one was helping organizations and firms improve their offerings, or in seeing how their own responses stacked up against others or in being able to interact with others.
Panels that are able to deliver on a number of these key motivational points have a number of advantageous outcomes:
- it helps keep panel members active and more likely to participate
- helps balance the panel against psychographic and other skews that may arise where motivations are unitary
- promotes positive image of marketing research industry
Obviously the existing and emerging Web 2.0 tools specialize in delivering on precisely the kinds of non-cash motivations that people profess are important too. But much of these motivations can be enhanced with Web 1.0 level expertise -- telling people about the good their feedback is doing, for example, is one such no-brainer too often undeveloped that is worthy of consideration.
