The Impact of Behavioural Framing Effects on Market Research Conversion Rates

IF 2.4 4区 管理学 Q3 BUSINESS
Christopher Martin, Tom Mathar, Charlotte Duff, Katharine Johnson, Tereza Anderson
{"title":"The Impact of Behavioural Framing Effects on Market Research Conversion Rates","authors":"Christopher Martin, Tom Mathar, Charlotte Duff, Katharine Johnson, Tereza Anderson","doi":"10.1177/14707853221133048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The cause-and-effect relationship between incentives and market research response rates is well documented. In general, we understand that - mediated by factors such as privacy and difficulty - the greater the compensation offered to participants, the greater propensity for task completion. However, there is little understanding of how the way in which an incentive is communicated impacts results. We believe studying this field will help insight industry practitioners who are often challenged by limited or fixed incentive budgets. By exploring and ranking framing methods, we aim to recommend to researchers the tactical options that will maximise return on investment. In this initial exploration, we have narrowed framing choices to a set identified by the field of behavioural economics. In particular, we investigate the relative impact of: (1) financial incentives, (2) the endowment effect, (3) social proof, (4) altruism and, (5) financial incentives plus loss aversion. These conditions can be considered to broadly fit within one of three categories: (a) financial incentives alone, (b) behavioural principles alone, (c) financial incentives plus behavioural principles. To replicate the real-world challenges of insight professionals, this was tested in an experimental design that sought to recruit existing Aegon customers into a new research panel. The experimental case study format also lends itself to high volumes. The results of this study are based on 91,289 recruitment emails delivered to Aegon customers across various weekday mornings. Each email contained either neutral information regarding the incentive to join - the opportunity to win up to £250 - or the same message framed using one of the experimental methods in test. Messages were repeated both in the subject line and the email body. Results were measured and analysed at the points of: (A) email open, (B) email click, (C) conversion as defined by screener completion, (D) conversion as defined by panel account created, and (E) engagement as defined by completing at least one task on the panel eligible for a point reward within 3 months of signup. Additionally, the unsubscribe rate was measured and compared across all messages. Prior to the launch of the study, our hypotheses were that email communications which utitlised the endowment effect, social proof or altruism would lead to higher conversion rates than messages regarding incentivisation. Further, we hypothesised that emails which utilised both financial incentives plus loss aversion framing in an additive capacity would deliver the highest conversion rate. Our analysis led to a rejection of all hypotheses. Ultimately, it was concluded that none of the tested framing effects performed significantly better, as per chi-squared tests, than the financial incentive group across open rate, click rate, conversion rate or engagement rate. However, the addition of loss aversion performed on par with the incentive only group for panel engagement. Further, the use of loss aversion, altruism and the endowment effect all led to significantly lower unsubscribe rates than the incentive only group. This led to a nuanced conclusion which surmised that the loss aversion tactic, when used in an additive capacity to a financial incentive, appears to offer the most balanced risk profile for research professionals, whilst the endowment effect, social proof and altruism offer moderate to worse risk profiles. Finally, we highlight the need for more proof in this field - suggesting that future efforts replicate the study with a general population sample or non-financial services case studies.","PeriodicalId":47641,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Market Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Market Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853221133048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The cause-and-effect relationship between incentives and market research response rates is well documented. In general, we understand that - mediated by factors such as privacy and difficulty - the greater the compensation offered to participants, the greater propensity for task completion. However, there is little understanding of how the way in which an incentive is communicated impacts results. We believe studying this field will help insight industry practitioners who are often challenged by limited or fixed incentive budgets. By exploring and ranking framing methods, we aim to recommend to researchers the tactical options that will maximise return on investment. In this initial exploration, we have narrowed framing choices to a set identified by the field of behavioural economics. In particular, we investigate the relative impact of: (1) financial incentives, (2) the endowment effect, (3) social proof, (4) altruism and, (5) financial incentives plus loss aversion. These conditions can be considered to broadly fit within one of three categories: (a) financial incentives alone, (b) behavioural principles alone, (c) financial incentives plus behavioural principles. To replicate the real-world challenges of insight professionals, this was tested in an experimental design that sought to recruit existing Aegon customers into a new research panel. The experimental case study format also lends itself to high volumes. The results of this study are based on 91,289 recruitment emails delivered to Aegon customers across various weekday mornings. Each email contained either neutral information regarding the incentive to join - the opportunity to win up to £250 - or the same message framed using one of the experimental methods in test. Messages were repeated both in the subject line and the email body. Results were measured and analysed at the points of: (A) email open, (B) email click, (C) conversion as defined by screener completion, (D) conversion as defined by panel account created, and (E) engagement as defined by completing at least one task on the panel eligible for a point reward within 3 months of signup. Additionally, the unsubscribe rate was measured and compared across all messages. Prior to the launch of the study, our hypotheses were that email communications which utitlised the endowment effect, social proof or altruism would lead to higher conversion rates than messages regarding incentivisation. Further, we hypothesised that emails which utilised both financial incentives plus loss aversion framing in an additive capacity would deliver the highest conversion rate. Our analysis led to a rejection of all hypotheses. Ultimately, it was concluded that none of the tested framing effects performed significantly better, as per chi-squared tests, than the financial incentive group across open rate, click rate, conversion rate or engagement rate. However, the addition of loss aversion performed on par with the incentive only group for panel engagement. Further, the use of loss aversion, altruism and the endowment effect all led to significantly lower unsubscribe rates than the incentive only group. This led to a nuanced conclusion which surmised that the loss aversion tactic, when used in an additive capacity to a financial incentive, appears to offer the most balanced risk profile for research professionals, whilst the endowment effect, social proof and altruism offer moderate to worse risk profiles. Finally, we highlight the need for more proof in this field - suggesting that future efforts replicate the study with a general population sample or non-financial services case studies.
行为框架效应对市场研究转化率的影响
激励和市场调查反应率之间的因果关系是有据可查的。总的来说,我们明白,在隐私和困难等因素的影响下,给参与者的报酬越大,完成任务的倾向就越大。然而,很少有人了解激励的传播方式如何影响结果。我们相信,研究这一领域将有助于洞察经常受到有限或固定激励预算挑战的行业从业者。通过探索和排名框架方法,我们的目标是向研究人员推荐将投资回报最大化的战术选择。在这一初步探索中,我们将框架选择缩小到行为经济学领域确定的一组。我们特别研究了以下因素的相对影响:(1)财务激励;(2)禀赋效应;(3)社会认同;(4)利他主义;(5)财务激励加损失厌恶。这些条件可以被认为大致符合以下三类之一:(a)单独的财政激励,(b)单独的行为原则,(c)财政激励加行为原则。为了复制洞察专业人士在现实世界面临的挑战,我们在一项实验设计中进行了测试,该实验设计试图将现有的Aegon客户招募到一个新的研究小组中。实验案例研究的形式也适合于高容量。这项研究的结果是基于在各个工作日上午发送给Aegon客户的91289封招聘邮件。每封邮件要么包含关于加入动机的中立信息——有机会赢得最高250英镑——要么包含使用测试中的一种实验方法编写的相同信息。邮件的主题和正文都是重复的。结果在以下几个点进行测量和分析:(A)电子邮件打开,(B)电子邮件点击,(C)通过筛选完成定义的转换,(D)通过创建小组帐户定义的转换,以及(E)通过在注册后3个月内完成至少一项有资格获得积分奖励的小组任务定义的参与度。此外,还测量并比较了所有消息的退订率。在这项研究开始之前,我们的假设是,利用禀赋效应、社会认同或利他主义的电子邮件交流,会比有关激励的信息产生更高的转化率。此外,我们假设,同时使用财务激励和损失规避框架的电子邮件将提供最高的转化率。我们的分析否定了所有的假设。最终,我们得出结论,根据卡方测试,在打开率、点击率、转化率或参与度方面,没有任何一种测试框架效应比财务激励组表现得更好。然而,在小组参与方面,损失厌恶的加入与只有激励的小组表现相当。此外,使用损失厌恶、利他主义和禀赋效应都导致退订率明显低于只有激励的组。这导致了一个微妙的结论,该结论推测,当在财务激励的附加能力中使用损失厌恶策略时,似乎为研究专业人员提供了最平衡的风险概况,而禀赋效应、社会认同和利他主义则提供了中等至更糟的风险概况。最后,我们强调在这一领域需要更多的证据——建议未来的努力用一般人群样本或非金融服务案例研究来复制这项研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Market Research is the essential professional aid for users and providers of market research. IJMR will help you to: KEEP abreast of cutting-edge developments APPLY new research approaches to your business UNDERSTAND new tools and techniques LEARN from the world’s leading research thinkers STAY at the forefront of your profession
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信