CMS-10437.GenIC#21 - Justification for Providing Incentives for Participation in Marketing Research

Overall Comment on Providing Incentives for Participation in Marketing Research. The research in this package is marketing research, designed for fast turn-around to inform key Agency communication decisions. Providing incentives for participation in social research is not uncommon and is being used increasingly as one component of improving overall response rates and reducing non-response bias (see, e.g., Massey & Tourangeau, 2013; Singer & Ye, 2013) even in academic and government-sponsored social research. In the marketing research arena, providing participant incentives is a well-established and accepted standard practice in the healthcare industry. Appropriate incentives are viewed as an important tool in the successful completion of these marketing research studies. In our experience, in order to achieve a representative sample of required participants in a timely and cost-effective manner, projects must provide incentives at levels that attract, retain, and adequately compensate respondents for their time and effort. This is especially true of populations that are hard to reach or hard to engage. The use of incentives to bolster participation applies to both survey and qualitative research. Indeed, incentives improve the quality and efficiency of research in a number of ways, including reducing non-response bias, improving participation by those in hard-to-reach groups, and increasing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of research (e.g., David & Ware, 2014; Singer & Ye, 2013; Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015).

Many marketing research firms have recognized this need and developed participant panels that can provide a sampling source for thematically and methodologically diverse studies. In contrast to ad hoc recruitment, use of such panels can significantly reduce the costs associated with locating appropriate respondents and ensure their immediate availability. Economic and research success with panels is strongly linked with screening, segmentation, and motivational issues which assure panelist availability. Appropriate incentives play a key role in these efforts. The ideal amount of the incentive will vary depending on the target audience and time and effort required for participation. These incentive levels are typically established by market rates for specific audiences in specific locations, and are typically outside the control of the Agency or its primary contract agent. In developing our mini-Supporting Statements, we estimated incentive levels that we believed were reasonable given the goals of our proposed studies and our understanding of market conditions, as indicated in our generic Supporting Statement. As we implement the studies, we may find that there will be some shifts in incentive levels due to evolving market conditions and other aspects of panel maintenance, but we expect these changes to be relatively minor in the overall conduct of any particular study.

References

David MC and Ware RS (2014). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials supports the use of incentives for inducing response to electronic health surveys. J Clin Epidem, 67(11), 1210-1221.

Massey D and Tourangeau R (2013). New challenges to social measurement. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci, 645(1): 6–22.

Singer E and Ye C (2013). The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci, 645(1): 112-141.

Stewart DW and Shamdasani PN (2015). Focus Groups: Theory & Practice, 3^rd Edition. Los Angeles: Sage.

Yancey AK, Ortega AN, and Kumanyika SK (2006). Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Ann Rev Public Health, 27, 1-28.