In the Q3-Q4 2016 edition of the GRIT · 2017-04-25 · In the Q3-Q4 2016 edition of the GRIT Report, we at GreenBook asked participants to rank various factors in importance when

In the Q3-Q4 2016 edition of the GRIT Report, we at GreenBook asked participants to rank various factors in importance when designing a study. Respondent Experience was at the absolute bottom of the list, which we found quite alarming. Participants are the lifeblood of market research, and disregarding the respondent experience in the research process is counter-productive to say the least.

GRIT CPR Report 2017 | GreenBook | Page 3


We weren’t the only ones who found this situation to be cause for concern, so we reached out to

various key stakeholders in the industry and developed a concept for asking consumers directly about their experience participating in research.

AYTM – Ask Your Target Market, Dalia, Focus Pointe Global, G3 Translate, GRBN, the Global Research Business Network, reportbook by IfaD, Lightspeed, Mobile Digital Insights (MDI), Multivariate Solutions, RECOLLECTIVE (Ramius Corporation), Reconnect Research, Research Now, SSI, Toluna, and Virtual Incentives all joined us at GreenBook in fielding this new GRIT CPR (Consumer Participation in Research) study in March of 2017.

The groundbreaking study was conducted in 15 countries and 8 languages among 6,208 consumers via online, telephone, and mobile-only surveys.

A key finding is that, in aggregate, only a quarter of all respondents globally are satisfied with their experience participating in research, indicating researchers lack of prioritizing the respondent experience shows through to respondents.

Additional eye opening findings are: • Over half of all respondents admitted that the design of a survey impacts their

willingness to complete it.• Over 50% of respondents said surveys should be less than 10 minutes in length.• 1/3 of all respondents cite a desire to earn rewards or prizes as their primary reason for

participating.• Cash may be King, but Virtual Cards are Queen: across all sample types, countries and

demographics respondents want incentive flexibility.


The results of the study just reinforced our belief, set forth initially in the GRIT Report, that our industry does a poor job of putting the respondent first, despite having the means and knowledge to do so. We should capitalize on that and bring the participant experience to the forefront.

So what to do? Well, based on these data a “Top 5” priority action list could be: 1.) Go “mobile first” in designing studies. 2.) Stay under 10 minutes. 3.) Think like game designers, marketers, or UI experts when designing research. 4.) Respondents want a fair value exchange: reward them the way they want to be rewarded and give them choices. 5.) Use research as a brand engagement and relationship building opportunity. Other ideas can be found in the recent GRBN Special Report: Improving the online survey user experience.

The GRIT CPR study is a global call to action for the entire industry: clients, suppliers, and everyone in between. We MUST change, or risk losing access to respondents.


http://grbnnews.com/special-report-improving-the-online-survey-user-experience/

The sample was global in nature comprising 15 countries with 8 sample sources contributing sample. Respondents were given the option of choosing English, French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, or Thai for the survey. The total of completed interviews was 6,208 with the per country totals being:

Total Sample By Country

Australia 150 Mexico 250

Brazil 250 New Zealand 100

Canada 686 Philippines 150

Chile 250 Singapore 150

Colombia 250 Spain 253

France 508 Thailand 201

Germany 502 UK 503

US 2005


14.1%13.0%

12.0%

8.0%

16.1%

12.0%

16.3%

8.1%

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

Sample Type by Total n=

N= 6208

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Chile

Colombia

France

Germany

Mexico

New Zealand

Philippines

Singapore

Spain

Thailand

UK

US

Sample by Type & Country

North America Panel 1

North America Panel 2

Europe Panel

North America Qualitative Database

Latin America Panel

Asia Pac Mobile Community

European Mobile Programmatic

Random Telephone


2.6%1.9%

1.3%

2.9%

7.1%

11.0%

23.7%

25.8%

13.6%

9.5%

1 - Not At Allsatisfied

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - Extremelysatisfied

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

N= 6208 GRIT CPR Report 2017 | GreenBook | Page 9

Let’s get to the crux of the matter and the major finding out of the gate: if we give a generous Top 3 Box score for “satisfied” respondents, still more than 50% of respondents remain unsatisfied with their experience.

The rest of this report will delve into the likely reasons based on these data: design, rewards, length, mode, etc… but the bottom line is something we learned in the last GRIT study: WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE RESPONDENT EXPERIENCE. And that is a sad state of affairs.

That is the hard truth, and the CPR study is strong evidence that it shows to the people whom we need to do our jobs. A sea change is required in the industry in order to fix this issue.


55.2%

38.4%

6.2%Yes No I'm not sure

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Why are so many respondents unsatisfied? CPR tells us that a major culprit is bad design, and it does negatively impact completion rates. In fact, an overwhelming majority (55%) of respondents said bad design turns them off. This is borne out in some of the verbatim comments as well.

This is a particular issue for mobile-first respondents, with fully 51% agreeing it impacts willingness to participate.

51%41%

28%33%

26%

23%35%

24%

26%34%

4%5%

5%

8% 5%

22% 19%

43%33% 35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Mobile device PC or laptop In person Telephone Mail

Design by Preferred Participation Method

Yes No Not sure No answer

Yet again we get glaring confirmation that researchers who don’t focus on respondent experience are “poisoning the well” of respondent participation and hurting the industry as a whole, as well as their own studies.

What to do? Take our cues from app developers, especially in gaming and social media. Simple, intuitive, fun, and engaging mobile first designs are principles they use, and we should too.


27.5%

65.2%

7.2%Yes No I'm not sure

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


We also wanted to test the idea that length of interview has an impact on quality of responses and once again our fears were validated. Almost a third of total respondents said time did have a negative impact on the quality of their responses (although the majority said it did not). This finding is validated by other studies, and by anyone who reads verbatim comments in long surveys where there are sure to be respondents who express their displeasure directly or by just not answering so they can get through it.

When looking at responses by sample type one difference jumps out: telephone respondents.

Telephone respondents were more than twice as likely as online panel respondents to admit to “honesty fatigue” with longer surveys. With telephone research continuing to decline in use globally perhaps this is a non-issue, but a hypothesis to consider is that it again is an issue of respondent convenience: telephone by its nature is intrusive and respondents lack control of the interaction.


18.6%

35.6%

27.6%

12.3%

2.8% 2.8%

5 minutes or less 6 - 10 minutes 11 - 15 minutes 16 - 20 minutes More than 20 minutes I’m not sure

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4


The industry has been saying for years that shorter is better, and these data underlines the truth of that, with well over half of respondents telling us that less than 10 minutes is ideal (with 18% preferring less than 5 minutes). Only 18% think over 15 minutes is ideal.

When we look at this by preferred mode of participation, 67% of mobile first participants say less than 10 minutes and for those who prefer not to participate in research at all (our ideal “fresh respondents”) a staggering 83% say less than 10 minutes, with 68% preferring less than 5 minutes!

Preferred Method of Participation

Mobile device

PC or laptop

In personTelephon

eMail

Further participation

not preferred

5 minutes or less 26% 10% 19% 37% 21% 68%

6 - 10 minutes 41% 33% 38% 29% 42% 15%

11 - 15 minutes 22% 34% 19% 20% 19% 5%

16 - 20 minutes 7% 17% 8% 7% 9% 2%

More than 20 minutes 1% 3% 9% 1% 6% 1%

I’m not sure 2% 2% 7% 6% 3% 9%

Clearly, as an industry we need to learn that “less is more” when it comes to length of interview and factor that into our study designs, especially for the ever-growing mobile-first respondent base.


Desired changes

Most Recent Research Type

TotalSurveys or

pollsFocus Groups Communities Product tests Media diaries

Consumption diaries

Oher type

Duration and frequency of survey/ number of questions/ length of questions

24% 23% 7% 22% 25% 21% 31% 18%

Phrasing/ response options/ comprehensibility

14% 13% 4% 14% 12% 20% 24% 8%

Payment/ premia/ points 10% 10% 2% 6% 10% 3% 8% 6%

Screening/ target group selection 10% 11% 5% 4% 7% 7% 9% 1%

Handling/ technology/ mobile availability/ interactivity

10% 10% 3% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5%

Manners/ (personal) contact/ informations 7% 7% 5% 9% 7% 6% 10% 10%

Design/ Layout 6% 8% 2% 5% 4% 7% 6% 5%

Content/ Topics 3% 4% 1% 3% 5% - 4% 3%

Others 2% 1% 3% 4% 3% 5% 3% 5%

Nothing (has to be changed)/ I'm satisfied/ all good

20% 21% 56% 29% 21% 28% 18% 28%

Don't know 5% 5% 3% 4% 3% 6% 2% 14%

No evaluable answer 6% 6% 13% 8% 8% 6% 4% 4%


We asked respondents to help us by suggesting changes in the research process. As usual, they gave us an earful. In coding we broke these responses into a few categories that are enlightening.

Although no overwhelming majorities show up except within Focus Groups and Telephone (folks seem pretty satisfied with those methods overall), issues such as duration, clarity of language, rewards, screening and design resurface repeatedly when we look at these data by both most frequent research type and method of participation.

Respondents are telling us what to do to keep them engaged; will we listen? That is the question we as an industry need to answer.


34.4%

54.0%

11.5%

Yes No I'm not sure

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

N= 6208GRIT CPR Report 2017 | GreenBook | Page 19

We wanted to test the drivers of engagement and had a theory that knowing the sponsor of research might impact willingness to participate due to brand relationships. In aggregate, for over 1/3 of respondents this does make a difference, but for the majority it does not. This finding correlates to the recent GRBN User Experience Survey.

However, when we look at responses by research participation type we see a different picture, especially for Communities where the trend is reversed.

While not as starkly different as in the case of communities, product tests, media and consumption diaries also have much higher rates of brand identification impact than in surveys and focus groups.

The upshot? When possible, researchers should be leveraging brand relationships to help drive engagement with respondents.


36.6%

7.4%

12.6%10.7%

8.9%

6.3% 6.3%

2.5%

7.4%

1.0%

To earn rewards orprizes

To be able to shapeimportant decisions

To supplement myincome

I enjoy doingsurveys

I find the surveysinteresting

I appreciate beingasked for my

opinions

I want my views tobe heard

I like to be ‘in the know’

Learn about newproducts and

services on themarket

Some other reason(please specify)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4


Again, perhaps no surprise since much of the sample came from panels, but almost half (earn rewards plus supplement income) of respondents participate for financial gain. Nothing else even comes close.

Does this mean altruism as a motivation is dead? No, but it does speak to the value exchange expectations for consumers, and in most cases the expectation is that in return for their time they expect something of financial value, not just a good feeling. However, we must design studies that speak to both financial and non-financial motivations.

We can make research fun, socially relevant and financially rewarding all at the same time.


That said, when looking at the type of research our respondents participate in by their motivations we find some interesting differences.

Altruism, or at least a sense of pride in participating in decision making, is alive and well in Qualitative research and is almost equal to financial considerations.

Most Recent Research Type

Surveys or polls Focus Groups Communities Product tests Media diariesConsumption

diariesOher type

To earn rewards or prizes 41% 17% 31% 29% 33% 33% 58%

To be able to shape important decisions 8% 25% 10% 10% 12% 9% 7%

To supplement my income 12% 10% 10% 8% 6% 12% 3%

I enjoy doing surveys 10% 5% 8% 10% 20% 8% 6%

I find the surveys interesting 9% 7% 10% 7% 7% 12% 13%

I appreciate being asked for my opinions 5% 3% 5% 8% 6% 5% 1%

I want my views to be heard 6% 5% 5% 6% 7% 6% 3%

I like to be ‘in the know’ 1% 15% 4% 5% 1% 1% 2%

Learn about new products and services on the market 7% 10% 10% 15% 8% 9% 3%

Other reason 1% 0% 2% 2% - 1% 5%

No answer 1% 3% 4% 1% 1% 3% -


39.6%

10.4%

20.9% 21.8%

1.3%

5.7%

Cash Check Redeemable points Virtual gift card / prepaid card Mobile minutes Some other type (please specify)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45


We’ve already established that almost half of all respondents (except for those do-gooders in qualitative research!) participate out of financial considerations, so an exploration of incentives is appropriate. While generally considered an operational issue, we think the overall evidence of this study indicates that incentives are a vital part of the overall research experience and one that plays a major role in satisfaction with research.

In fact, it’s likely time that the incentive strategy be considered as strategically important as method, design, mobile optimized, and length of interview.

In a world of almost infinite choice of how people spend their time, especially in a digital environment, research must factor in that people have now been trained to look for 3 basic types of rewards: Fun, Financial, or Friends. Research rarely delivers on any of those, but should work to deliver experiences that can, with financial choice being the easiest to address.


We found that everybody loves cash, of course, however considering the myriad impracticalities of rewarding with cash virtual cards are the strong second choice of respondents, and that is largely true across all demographic cuts and comparisons by other variables in the study.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Total

Rewards or prizes

Shape important decisions

Supplement income

Enjoy doing surveys

Surveys are interesting

Appreciate being asked for opinion

Want views to be heard

Like to be ‘in the know’

Learn about new products and services

Other reason

Motivation by Reward Preference

Cash Check Redeemable points Virtual gift card / prepaid card Mobile minutes Other type


32.6%

54.1%

4.9% 4.2%2.8%

1.0%

On my mobile device On my desktop or laptopcomputer

In person By telephone By mail Some other way (pleasespecify)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


In aggregate, almost a third of respondents report that they usually participate in research via their mobile devices, a number that is in line with data reported by many panel companies and data collection platforms. In a follow up, we asked their preferred method of participation and it was slightly higher (34.5%).

In diving deeper and looking at these data by country and gender they are surprisingly stable, with the biggest differences being in age cohorts. Between 30% and 40% of respondents under the age of 54 usually use their mobile device, while 15% to 20% of those over age 55 report doing so.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

< 22 years 22 - 34 years 35 - 44 years 45 - 54 years 55 - 64 years > 64 years

Method of Participation by Age

Mobile device Desktop / Laptop computer In person Telephone Mail Other

We expect that there is also a high correlation between satisfaction levels (or lack thereof), device usage, and age.

The main message? If you aren’t factoring in mobile-first respondents in your study design and user experience, you are risking many things, especially data quality through disengaged respondents.


N= 6208

45.1%

16.3%

9.1%

6.9%3.4%

7.8%9.2%

1.9%

Once a week or moreoften

Once every 2 or 3weeks

Once a month/every 4weeks

Once every 2 or 3months

Once every 4 to 6months

Once or twice a year Less often than once ayear

Never

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5


Since most of the sample came from panel providers, unsurprisingly in aggregate 45% of respondents report participating in research weekly or more often.

However, when broken down by sample type the story changes significantly, with non-panel sample sources such as qualitative databases, mobile ad programmatic and random telephone having a far less frequent participation rate in research.

Qualitative Mobile Programmatic Random Telephone

Once a week or more often 30% 25% 0%

Once every 2 or 3 weeks 14% 17% 13%

Once a month/every 4 weeks 12% 12% 7%

Once every 2 or 3 months 10% 8% 16%

Once every 4 to 6 months 8% 5% 0%

Once or twice a year 13% 14% 17%

Less often than once a year 12% 19% 24%

Never 0% 0% 24%

This observation has no specific insight attached and is simply a baseline to understand a key aspect of the participants: for the majority of CPR respondents, participation in research is a frequent part of their lives.

We have previously shown the correlation between sample type, frequency of participation and satisfaction levels with the research experience which yields some very interesting take-aways.


N= 6208

75.0%

12.6%16.0%

28.4%

11.4%

22.0%

6.8%

Surveys or polls: what youare doing now - a collectionof questions about a specific

topic with a mix of pre-defined possible responses or

open comments

Focus Groups: a gathering ofa few people either online orin a room where a moderator

guides a discussion on acertain topic

Communities: a type ofonline group where you givefeedback to questions on a

site similar to an onlineforum or social media page

Product tests: a type of studywhere you give feedback on

products either at a facility orin my home

Media diaries: a survey youcomplete at least once a day

recording the media youwatch, read and listen to

Consumption diaries: a shortsurvey you answer on aregular basis recording

something you do or buy

Some other type (pleasespecify)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8


CPR respondents report participating in many kinds of research studies, not just surveys and polls, although they are the dominant method by far as expected. However, what is really telling is when we look at satisfaction ratings by method: clearly research has a big issue with making respondents happy with their experience across methods.

42%

42%

46%

51%

52%

61%

69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Product tests

Consumption diaries

Media diaries

Surveys or polls

Communities

Oher type

Focus Groups

Dissatisfaction by Research Particpation Type

As we suspected from the initial GRIT findings related to prioritization of respondent experience, it’s clear that for a substantial segment of respondents we just don’t make them feel warm and fuzzy, especially in traditional qual research, communities, and surveys the three most used methods in our industry.

The story is consistent any way we slice the data. GRIT CPR Report 2017 | GreenBook | Page 32

63.2%

5.7%2.9%

5.7%2.3% 2.9% 2.7%

12.0%

2.2%

Email Text Telephone call Mail In-person Social medianotification

Instant messaging Notification in an appor on a website

Some other way(please specify)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

N= 6208GRIT CPR Report 2017 | GreenBook | Page 33

The reports of the death of email seem to be exaggerated.

Across every sample type (including mobile programmatic and telephone), across all demographics and countries the overwhelming preference for email as the primary way to be invited to participate in research is clear.

There may come a day that in-app notifications or website alerts or messaging requests may gain more traction, but even amongst mobile preferred respondents they remain marginal compared to email.

Our suspicion is that is because email offers a degree of control that other methods can’t: you check it when you want, can quickly read and determine priority levels or relevance and take action based on that when you choose. No other invitation method gives respondents that level of personal freedom and control.

The implications for researchers is clear: we have to be better email marketers to rise above the deluge and clutter and encourage erstwhile participants to give us their time and attention by showing them it’s worth it. That is a philosophical shift for much of the research industry, but the imperative is still true: we need to ACT like marketers and THINK like researchers.


N= 6208

Considered ideal length of survey or polls to participate

Continent

North AmericaMiddle / South

AmericaAsia

Australia / New Zealand

Europe

5 minutes or less

20% 6% 28% 16% 21%

6 - 10 minutes 36% 25% 37% 35% 40%

11 - 15 minutes 29% 31% 20% 30% 26%

16 - 20 minutes 9% 29% 10% 11% 9%

More than 20 minutes

3% 7% 3% 3% 1%

I’m not sure 4% 3% 1% 4% 2%

"The design of a survey affects my willingness to complete it"

Continent


AmericaAsia


Europe

Yes 42% 36% 43% 48% 47%

No 36% 32% 16% 26% 24%

Not sure 6% 3% 2% 5% 5%

No answer 16% 28% 39% 21% 24%

"The time commitment needed to complete the research affects my attention or honesty of responses"

Continent


AmericaAsia


Europe

Yes 28% 15% 48% 26% 29%

No 65% 82% 46% 66% 61%

Not sure 7% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Preferred way of participation in research

Continent


AmericaAsia


Europe

Mobile device 33% 18% 41% 29% 45%

PC or laptop 50% 70% 46% 59% 43%

In person 5% 5% 5% 6% 4%

Telephone 3% 2% 3% 4% 2%

Mail 4% 4% 2% 2% 2%

Further participation not preferred

5% - 2% 1% 1%

Oher way 0% 1% 0% - 0%

No answer - - 0% - 1%


In looking at the results by country we noticed differences along 4 key metrics, mostly in Asia Pac countries vs. others, but not only there.

In the charts on the previous slide, we rolled the results up into regions for ideal length, time vs. quality, design impact, and preferred method. In all 4 cases we see striking differences between Asia Pac and Latin America in comparison to North America, Europe, and Oceania, and in most instances almost diametric differences between Asia Pac and Latin America directly. We might sum them up this way:

- Asia Pac wants mobile-first surveys of less than 5 minutes. They can tolerate poor design overall, but the longer the survey is, the less quality their response will be.

- Latin America is more tolerant than anywhere else for surveys of over 15 minutes and will take them with no degradation in quality, and designed for a PC is just fine.

- Every other region fell somewhere between these extremes, but in general were more alike the average aggregate than not.

The lesson here is localization is important: different cultures expect different things in the research experience. GRIT CPR Report 2017 | GreenBook | Page 36

What is the “so what” in all of this? We as an industry must change our ways, and respondents have just given us a pretty clear set of directions on how to do that. The way we have always conducted research may have met our needs in the past, but the world has changed and people simply expect more from their relationships, including research.

We’ve distilled the message from the GRIT CPR study into a blueprint for success: a three-part action plan that we believe will go far in helping the industry capitalize on these learnings and overcome the challenges we have identified.


Finally, what isn’t measured isn’t managed, so we encourage everyone to participate in the GRBN TRUST & PARTICIPANT ENGAGEMENT Initiative for UX benchmarking. You can find out more here: http://grbnnews.com/pei_partners_set_goals/

If you want to explore the results of this study on your own, you can do so here: https://www.reportbook.de/index.php?page=sharelink&tk=f35eb0a31e687c2b57b1233c9a3d0ab3c5ccc11d


http://grbnnews.com/pei_partners_set_goals/

https://www.reportbook.de/index.php?page=sharelink&tk=f35eb0a31e687c2b57b1233c9a3d0ab3c5ccc11d

39.1%

4.7%

47.9%

8.1%

Mobile phone Tablet Desktop / Laptop computer Land line phone

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


32.2%

11.0%

8.1% 8.0% 8.1%

4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

2.4% 2.4% 1.6% 2.4% 3.2%4.0%

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35


56.8%

11.6% 8.0%

4.0%

16.1%

3.2%

English French German Portuguese Spanish Thai

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


Gender by Country

USA CAN BRA CHL COL MEX PHL SGP THA AUS NZL FRA GER ESP UK

Female 56% 49% 51% 58% 51% 53% 50% 49% 61% 52% 51% 47% 47% 51% 48%

Male 44% 51% 49% 42% 49% 47% 50% 51% 39% 48% 49% 53% 53% 49% 52%


0.7%

6.7%

22.3%

44.0%

18.6%

7.4%

Under 18 18-22 years 22-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51-60 years

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5


2.8%

26.4%

35.1%

28.5%

6.9%

I don’t have a formal education

I have some high school orsecondary school

education

I completed high school orobtained an equivalent

diploma

I have completed auniversity or equivalent

degree

Other/I'd rather notanswer this question

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4


67.8%

City Rural

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

32.1%


65.3%

6.7% 5.3%

8.5%

2.4%6.5% 4.9%

Surveys or polls: what youare doing now - a collectionof questions about a specific

topic with a mix of pre-defined possible responses

or open comments

Focus Groups: a gathering ofa few people either online

or in a room where amoderator guides a

discussion on a certain topic

Communities: a type ofonline group where you givefeedback to questions on a

site similar to an onlineforum or social media page

Product tests: a type ofstudy where you give

feedback on products eitherat a facility or in my home

Media diaries: a survey youcomplete at least once a day

recording the media youwatch, read and listen to

Consumption diaries: a shortsurvey you answer on aregular basis recording

something you do or buy

Some other type:

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7


Documents

In the Q3-Q4 2016 edition of the GRIT · 2017-04-25 · In the Q3-Q4 2016 edition of the GRIT Report, we at GreenBook asked participants to rank various factors in importance when