Mark Goodin is president of Aaron-Abrams Field Services, Las Vegas. The firm specializes in delivering respondents to qualitative marketing researchers. Here he discusses problems he sees in the respondent recruitment business. When he discusses “supplies,” he is referring to firms that recruit respondents. Thus, respondent suppliers may be recruiting for a research supplier, as discussed in the chapter, or a research client, such as a manufacturer like Frito-Lay, which is doing its own qualitative research. 

Over the past few years, I have witnessed a couple of disturbing trends in qualitative research. And I have to believe that if this is happening to me on such a large and consistent basis, then it’s happening to other research buyers in the industry as well— they’re just not talking about it. These trends are not good for the future of qualitative research: 

• The trend of respondent recruiters accepting projects and then forcing changes in vital aspects of the project’s original design once recruiting is underway.

• The trend among recruiters to recruit unqualified respondents and then charge for the recruiting and incentive. 

My belief is that many suppliers simply shut up, take the project, and let the problems unfold. I believe they have adopted the attitude that clients can ask for the moon but in the end they’re going to get what they get. More often than not, that’s what happens once a project goes into the field. I’ve never seen so many projects that are accepted by respondent recruiters as-is— without sharing their concerns or issuing any warnings—only to say later, “We’re not finding what you’re looking for, you’ll need to make relaxations in the qualifications of the type of person that you are looking for.” Or, “We’ve reached our budget, and we’ll need more money if you want us to continue.”

What’s more, it’s even less palatable to accept respondent suppliers’ need for relaxations or additional money when, along the way, they’ve delivered substandard service: 

• Recruiting progress reports aren’t delivered when requested.

• Recruiting progress reports contain errors and misspellings. 

• Respondents don’t qualify when rescreened or revalidated. 

• Screeners have been incorrectly administered.

• Discrepancies in the screener have been overlooked or ignored. 

• Instructions have not been followed. 

• Recruiting hours have been put into the job, but not enough contacts—or calls—have been made.

Questions 

1. Why is it important for respondents to meet the exact qualifications specified for the research project? 

2. Have you ever participated in a research project where you knew that you were marginally qualified to participate? Did you tell the researcher? 

3. Is it unethical for respondent suppliers to charge their clients for unqualified respondents? 

4. Would it be unethical if a recruiter was seeking current cat owners and you said, “No but I had a cat when I was growing up,” to which the recruiter replied, “That will work; just tell them that you still have a cat.”