背景:在社交媒体平台上使用有针对性的广告(例如,Facebook和Instagram)在招募在线调查研究参与者方面越来越受欢迎。其中许多调查以礼品卡的形式为完成调查提供金钱奖励;然而,对激励金额是否影响成本知之甚少,速度,和数据收集的质量。
目的:该实验通过研究Instagram上的付费广告活动中的不同激励措施对完成10分钟在线调查的影响来解决文献中的这一差距,招聘广告费用,数据质量,和数据收集的长度。
方法:该实验使用三个Instagram广告系列测试了三种激励条件,每个广告系列都分配了1400美元的预算,最多花费4天;广告针对三个不相邻的指定市场区域中15-24岁的用户,以避免受众重叠。为每个广告系列设计了四个广告创意;所有广告都有相同的图像和文字,但是激励金额各不相同:没有激励,5美元礼品卡,和15美元的礼品卡。所有广告都有一个可点击的链接,将用户定向到资格筛选器和10分钟的在线调查,如果符合条件。每个活动都在分配的全部时间(4天)内进行,或者直到完成150项调查为止。在数据质量检查欺诈之前。
结果:15美元的激励条件导致了最快,最便宜的数据收集,需要17个小时和338.64美元的广告支出才能完成142项调查。5美元的条件花费了两倍多的时间(39小时),花费了864.33美元的广告支出,以完成148项调查。无激励条件持续了60个小时,花费几乎全部预算(1398.23美元),只完成了24项调查。15美元和5美元的激励条件有类似程度的欺诈受访者,而无激励条件没有欺诈性的受访者.15美元和5美元奖励条件的完成率分别为93.4%(155/166)和89.8%(149/166),分别,而无激励条件的完成率为43.6%(24/55)。
结论:总体而言,我们发现,更高的激励导致更快的数据收集,花在广告上的钱更少了,和更高的反应率,尽管一些欺诈性案件不得不从样本中删除。然而,在考虑除广告支出外的总激励金额时,5美元的奖励似乎是最具成本效益的数据收集选择.还应考虑与长期开展活动相关的其他费用。需要进行更长的实验,以确定欺诈是否随时间在不同条件下有所不同。
BACKGROUND: The use of targeted advertisements on social media platforms (eg, Facebook and Instagram) has become increasingly popular for recruiting participants for online survey research. Many of these surveys offer monetary incentives for survey completion in the form of gift cards; however, little is known about whether the incentive amount impacts the cost, speed, and quality of data collection.
OBJECTIVE: This
experiment addresses this gap in the literature by examining how different incentives in paid advertising campaigns on Instagram for completing a 10-minute online survey influence the response rate, recruitment advertising cost, data quality, and length of data collection.
METHODS: This
experiment tested three incentive conditions using three Instagram campaigns that were each allocated a US $1400 budget to spend over a maximum of 4 days; ads targeted users aged 15-24 years in three nonadjacent designated market areas of similar size to avoid overlapping audiences. Four ad creatives were designed for each campaign; all ads featured the same images and text, but the incentive amount varied: no incentive, US $5 gift card, and US $15 gift card. All ads had a clickable link that directed users to an eligibility screener and a 10-minute online survey, if eligible. Each campaign ran for either the full allotted time (4 days) or until there were 150 total survey completes, prior to data quality checks for fraud.
RESULTS: The US $15 incentive condition resulted in the quickest and cheapest data collection, requiring 17 hours and ad spending of US $338.64 to achieve 142 survey completes. The US $5 condition took more than twice as long (39 hours) and cost US $864.33 in ad spending to achieve 148 survey completes. The no-incentive condition ran for 60 hours, spending nearly the full budget (US $1398.23), and achieved only 24 survey completes. The US $15 and US $5 incentive conditions had similar levels of fraudulent respondents, whereas the no-incentive condition had no fraudulent respondents. The completion rate for the US $15 and US $5 incentive conditions were 93.4% (155/166) and 89.8% (149/166), respectively, while the completion rate for the no-incentive condition was 43.6% (24/55).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that a higher incentive resulted in quicker data collection, less money spent on ads, and higher response rates, despite some fraudulent cases that had to be dropped from the sample. However, when considering the total incentive amounts in addition to the ad spending, a US $5 incentive appeared to be the most cost-effective data collection option. Other costs associated with running a campaign for a longer period should also be considered. A longer
experiment is warranted to determine whether fraud varies over time across conditions.