View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Global Patterns in Panel Research
BySteven Gittelman, Ph.D.
and Elaine Trimarchi
Methods
Compared 17 U.S. panels and 25 global panels
Selected demographic quotas (age, income, gender, ethnicity) were used to simulate census.
Median length was 15 minutes.
Questions covered: Technology and the media, Participation in market research, Buyer Behavior, Values and lifestyle, Demographics, Questionnaire Satisfaction.
Respondent Types Professional Respondents fall into four categories:
• (1) Self report taking on‐line Surveys “practically every day”.
• (2) Self report (open ended) taking over 30 online surveys “in the past month”.
• (3) Multiple panel membership > 5 panels.
• (4) Respondent panel tenure.
Percent Respondents Doing More than 30 Surveys/Month
Red = US Panels Green = International Panels
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Singap
ore
Portugal
Hong K
ong
Switzerl
and
Finlan
d
Czech
Rep
Ukraine
Russia
Brazil
Argen
tina
ChinaS. K
orea
Norway
Denmark
Poland
Taiw
anUS11US10
Sweden
Fran
ceSpainIta
lyGerm
any
Canad
aUS16 UK
Australi
aJa
pan
US12US9US6
US17US14US13US7US18US8
Perc
ent 3
0+ s
urve
ys p
er m
onth
US11=RiverUS10= Social Network
Percent Respondents Enrolled in > 4 Panels
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Singap
ore
Portugal
Hong K
ong
Switzerl
and
Finlan
d
Czech
Rep
Ukraine
Russia
Brazil
Argen
tina
ChinaS. K
orea
Norway
Denmark
Poland
Taiw
anUS11US10
Sweden
Fran
ceSpainIta
lyGerm
any
Canad
aUS16 UK
Australi
aJa
pan
US12US9US6
US17US14US13US7US18US8
Enro
lled
in o
ver 5
Pan
els
or M
ore/
mon
th
Max Age on Panel by Panel in the U.S.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M16 M17 M18 GrandTotal
Panel
% o
f Res
pond
ents
0 Months 6 Months 12 Months 18 Months 24 Months
US Sociographic segment distribution by panel and phone.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
US1*US2*US3*US4*US5* US6
US7US8US9US10US11US12US13US14US16US17US18
US Pho
ne*
% o
f Res
pond
ents
in S
egm
ent
High Computer/Stays Informed Happy with Life/Not Computer Opinionated/Not Computer
* EM Algorithm for Missing Data & Logit Model for Segmentation
Social Network
US and Global Distribution of Buyer Behavior among Panels
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
US6US7US8US9US10US11US12US13US14US16US17US18 UKSpain
Germany
FranceIta
lyJapan
Total US Panels
Perc
enta
ge o
f Res
pond
ents
Broad Range/Credit Price Sensitive Shoppers Credit/Environment Domestic/Coupons
Social Network
-10-8-6-4-202468
10
M11 M3 M4 M10 M2 M16 M15 M1 M9 M12 M7 M13 M5 M14 M6 M17 M8 M18
Stan
dard
Err
ors
Conventional Purlchasers On-liners Low Card OL Banking
97%99%
River SocialNetwork
PointSystem
UK Access Panels
Statistical Panel Profiles Against Buyer Segments
The variability between panels is a problem that requires a solution.
• Blending is the solution.• The database is the source of that solution.
• The “Grand Mean” is a new platform for stability.
• Optimization is the road map.
Optimization Profile
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.050.06
0.07
RM
S Er
ror
0%20%
40%60%
80%100%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of M8
Percent of M17
+/-14.8%
+/-10.8%
+/-12.9% +/-14.9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Broad Range/ Credit Price SensitiveShoppers
Credit/ Environment Domestic/ Coupons
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Buyer Behavior Segments
Expected Range of Values for a Random 3 Panel Sample Showing 1.281 Standard Errors (20% of being beyond this range) in the
U.S.
+/- Coefficient of variation
+/-20.8%+/-15% +/-17.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
High Computer/ StaysInformed
Happy with Life/ NotComputer
Opinionated/ Not Computer
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Sociographic Segments
Expected Range of Values for a Random 3 Panel Sample Showing 1.281 Standard Errors (20% of being beyond this range) in the
U.S.
+/- Coefficient of Variation
+/- 22.1%
+/- 18.6% +/- 15.8% +/- 16.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Internet Stay Informed Enjoys Politics Concerned
Perc
ent o
f Res
pond
ents
Media Segments
Expected Range of Values for a Random 3 Panel Sample Showing 1.281 Standard Errors (20% of being beyond this range) in the
U.S.
+/- Coefficient of Variation
We can optimize to the Grand Mean.In this example we show the expected standard error from
the Grand Mean based on the average of all random choices (8.31%).
Based on equal weighting of three panels selected by optimization to the Grand Mean (2.36%)
… and the same three panels blended in proportions to optimize to the Grand Mean (0.40%).
Panels Optimum AverageExpected (1 SE) Inherent (1 SE)
M8 24% 33%M17 26% 33%M12 50% 34%
Root Mean Square Error 0.40% 2.36% 8.31% 2.45%
Two more examples…but here the panel selection is random and not optimized. Only the weightings are
optimized to the Grand Mean.
Panels Optimum AverageExpected (1 SE) Inherent (1 SE)
M8 0% 33%M13 91% 33%M16 9% 34%
Root Mean Square Error 3.6% 7.8% 8.3% 2.4%
Panels Optimum AverageExpected (1 SE) Inherent (1 SE)
M10 8% 33%M13 66% 33%M16 27% 34%
Root Mean Square Error 1.6% 12.3% 8.3% 2.4%
Thank youSteven Gittelman, Ph.D.
and Elaine Trimarchi 200 Carleton Avenue
East Islip, New York 117301‐631‐277‐7000
Recommended