Adam Portner - Research Now Steven Gittelman Ph.D. - Mktg ...Optimum Blending of Panels and Social Network Respondents Adam Portner - Research Now Steven Gittelman Ph.D. - Mktg, Inc

Optimum Blending of Panels and Social Network Respondents

Adam Portner - Research NowSteven Gittelman Ph.D. - Mktg, Inc.

CASRO Online Research Conference, Las VegasMarch 2011

Social media video

2© 2011 Research Now

The online population and social media


Extend our sampling universe

Engage social media

Include to provide a richer, more comprehensive and inclusive sample

All sources are different!Modal differences in buying behavior segmentations


What are the differences?


Blending social media sample


Different sample sources possess different characteristics

Important to ensure consistency – results must be repeatable

To avoid variability social media respondents must be blended by design with panel sample

A scientific blend


A scientific blend seeks to achieve a standardIt must be transparent, documented and repeatable

Blending is different from “mixing” which lacks precision Blending is a robust process

Minimum measurable difference


The threshold at which we begin to detect statistical difference at a level so low that it represents a conservative measure of similarity

Requirements A system of measurement – metrics

Tools to measure with – segmentations

Precision - minimum measureable difference

Standard - have a plan for what you are building, and what the sample will represent

Model based sampling

Methodology


Sample sources: Valued Opinions Panel and Peanut Labs in the United StatesSample size: VOP - 4009 respondents

Peanut Labs - 3887 respondents TOTAL of 7896 Respondents

Fieldwork: 9/14/2010-12/19/2010Survey length: 17 minutesQuotas: Gender, age, household income & ethnicityGenerates ten segmentations:

• Buying behavior, 37 variables • Socio-graphics, 31 variables • Media, 31 variables• Plus seven other market segmentations

Structural segmentations


By identifying groups of respondents who answer similarly across a broad array of behavioral items, we divide them into ‘segments’

The segmentations allow for behavioral standards by which to compare different sample sources. We call it a behavioral fingerprint; it is an important measurement tool


What are the differences between social network and panel respondents?

Marital status was similar across sources


Panel respondents are better educated


Social network respondents use the internet more broadly and own more hi-tech devices


Social network respondents use the internet more often for connecting with others


Social network respondents use the internet for entertainment and news gathering more often


Yes, they are different...



An absence of detectable difference implies similarity

Establishing a threshold


A change in the assumed sample size alters the number of social network respondents that can be blended


α=0.32

The greater the similarity found within demographic groups the more liberally we can blend them


Maximum blending ratioAfter making conservative assumptions on income and segments these are the final blending ratios for each sex by age group

22© 2011 Research NowNote – this is subject to change pending future blending analysis

The final sample at maximum blending percentage has barely changed the observed behavior of the VOP sample


The blend and VOP also remain similar on socio-graphics


Media preferences remain similar at the maximum blending percentage


Respondent engagement remains the same at the maximum blending percentage


Panel tenure, an important diagnostic, tends to decrease after blending


Conclusion


Social media respondents represent a considerable and growingproportion of the global population

Social media respondents are different to panel respondents –opportunity to be more inclusive but must be able to deliver consistent data

Through comparative research we established the minimum measurable difference, in order to determine the maximum blending ratio

Transparency is essential – researchers must be confident that changes are real, not due to sample source

Blending analysis must be an ongoing process, blending ratios are not static and will change as sources evolve

Summary video


Thank you!


Adam PortnerSenior Vice President, Client Development220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1058San Francisco, CA 94104Direct: (415) [email protected]

Steven Gittelman, Ph.D. President200 Carleton Avenue, East Islip, NY 11730Phone (631) 277-7000Cell (631) 466-6604 [email protected] www.MktgInc.com

Documents

Adam Portner - Research Now Steven Gittelman Ph.D. - Mktg ...Optimum Blending of Panels and Social Network Respondents Adam Portner - Research Now Steven Gittelman Ph.D. - Mktg, Inc