Marketing Letters

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 21–36 | Cite as

Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study

  • Elisabeth Deutskens
  • Ko de Ruyter
  • Martin Wetzels
  • Paul Oosterveld
Article

Abstract

This study examines the effect of the timing of follow-ups, different incentives, length, and presentation of the questionnaire on the response rate and response quality in an online experimental setting. The results show that short questionnaires have a higher response rate, although long questionnaires still generate a surprisingly high response. Furthermore, vouchers seem to be the most effective incentive in long questionnaires, while lotteries are more efficient in short surveys. A follow-up study revealed that lotteries with small prizes, but a higher chance of winning are most effective in increasing the response rate. Enhancing questionnaires with visual elements, such as product images, lead to a higher response quality and generate interesting interaction effects with the length of the questionnaire and the incentives used. Finally, the timing of the follow-up has no significant influence on the response rate.

online marketing research questionnaire design response rate response quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti, Allan. (1990). Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. Scott and Jerry S. Overton. (1977). “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.Google Scholar
  3. Church, Allan H. (1993). “Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: A Meta-Analysis,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1), 62–79.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, Colleen, Fred Heath, and Russell Thompson. (2000). “A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web-or Internet-Based Surveys,” Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836.Google Scholar
  5. Couper, M. P., M. Traugott, and M. Lamias. (2001). “Web Survey Design and Administration,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(2), 230–253.Google Scholar
  6. Dillman, Don A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys, The Tailored Design Method. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Dillman, Don A., Robert D. Tortora, John Conradt, and Dennis Bowker. (1998). “Influence of Plain vs. Fancy Design on Response Rates for Web Surveys,” Joint Statistical Meetings, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
  8. Everitt, Brian S. (1992). The Analysis of Contingency Tables. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, Richard J., Melvin R. Crask, and Jonghoon Kim. (1988). “Mail Survey Response Rates,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 52(4), 467–491.Google Scholar
  10. Furse, David H. and David W. Stewart. (1982). “Monetary Incentives versus Promised Contribution to Charity: New Evidence on Mail Survey Response,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3), 375–380.Google Scholar
  11. Games, Paul A. and James F. Howell. (1976). “Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures with Unequal N's and/or Variances: A Monte Carlo Study,” Journal of Educational Statistics, 1(2), 113–125.Google Scholar
  12. Goetz, Edward G., Tom R. Tyler, and Fay Lomax Cook. (1984). “Promised Incentives in Media Research: A Look at Data Quality, Sample Representativeness, and Response Rate,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21(2), 148–154.Google Scholar
  13. Greenspan, Robyn. (2002).“E-Shopping Around the World.” Retrieved August 20th, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/retailing/article/0„6061_1431461,00.html Google Scholar
  14. Hansen, Robert A. (1980). “A Self-Perception Interpretation of the Effect of Monetary and Nonmonetary Incentives on Mail Survey Respondent Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 77–83.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen, Robert A. and Carol A. Scott. (1978). “Alternative Approaches for Assessing the Quality of Self Report Data.” In Keith Hunt (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 99–102.Google Scholar
  16. Heberlein, Thomas A. and Robert Baumgartner. (1978). “Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the Published Literature,” American Sociology Review, 43(4), 447–462.Google Scholar
  17. Hupprich, Laura and Maria Bumatay. (2002). “Hong Kong Leads the World in High-Speed Internet Connections,According to Nielsen/Netratings' Global Internet Trend Survey,” Nielsen/NetRatings. Retrieved May 27th,2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_020815.pdf Google Scholar
  18. Ilieva, Janet, Steve Baron, and Nigel M. Healey. (2002). “Online Surveys in Marketing Research: Pros and Cons,” International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 361–382.Google Scholar
  19. Kanuk, Leslie and Conrad Berenson. (1975). “Mail Survey and Response Rates: A Literature Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12(4), 440–453.Google Scholar
  20. Kiesler, Sara and Lee S. Sproull. (1986). “Response Effects in the Electronic Survey,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(3), 402–413.Google Scholar
  21. Linsky, Arnold S. (1975). “Stimulating Responses to Mailed Questionnaires,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(1), 82–101.Google Scholar
  22. Lozar Manfreda, Katja, Zenel Batagelj, and Vasja Vehovar. (2002). “Design of Web Survey Questionnaires: Three Basic Experiments,” Journal of Computer-Mediated-Communication, 7(3). Retrieved January 20th, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue3/vehovar.html Google Scholar
  23. McDaniel, Stephen W. and C. P. Rao. (1980). “The Effect of Monetary Inducement on Mailed Questionnaire Response Quality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17(2), 265–268.Google Scholar
  24. NUA Internet Surveys. (2003). “Nielsen Netratings: Global Net Population Increases.” Retrieved May 27th, 2003,from the World Wide Web: http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905358729&rel=true Google Scholar
  25. Rosenblum, Jeff. (2001). “Give and Take,” Quirk's Marketing Research Review. Retrieved June 14th, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.quirks.com/articles/article_print.asp?arg_articleid=705 Google Scholar
  26. Schaefer, David R. and Don A. Dillman. (1998). “Development of a Standard E-Mail Methodology,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 378–397.Google Scholar
  27. Sheehan, Kim B. (2001). “E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review,” Journal of Computer-Mediated-Communication, 6(2). Retrieved January 15th, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html Google Scholar
  28. Sheehan, Kim B. and S. J. McMillan. (1999). “Response Variation in E-Mail Surveys: An Exploration,” Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 45.Google Scholar
  29. Shermis, Mark D. and Danielle Lombard. (1999). “A Comparison of Survey Data Collected by Regular Mail and Electronic Mail Questionnaires,” Journal of Business & Psychology, 14(2), 341–354.Google Scholar
  30. Solomon, David J. (2001). “Conducting Web-Based Surveys,” Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 7(19). Retrieved January 9th, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7≢19 Google Scholar
  31. Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Warriner, Keith, John Goyder, Heidi Gjertsen, Paula Hohner, and Kathleen McSpurren. (1996). “Charities, No; Lotteries, No; Cash, Yes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 542–562.Google Scholar
  33. Yammarino, Francis J., Steven J. Skinner, and Terry L. Childers. (1991). “Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 613–639.Google Scholar
  34. Yu, Julie and Harris Cooper. (1983). “A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 36–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Deutskens
    • 1
  • Ko de Ruyter
    • 2
  • Martin Wetzels
    • 3
  • Paul Oosterveld
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of MarketingMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoventhe Netherlands
  4. 4.Millward Brown/CentrumAmsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations