Improving mail survey responses from industrial organizations

Improving Mail Survey Responses fromIndustrial Organizations Milton M. Pressley A considerable amount o f evidence has shown that some o f the techniques that enhance response in mail surveys o f industrial respondents differ from those that increase response rates in mail surveys o f the general public. In this article a number o f suggestions are offered f o r obtaining, on a consistent basis, a 50% to 70% response within two to five weeks in mail surveys o f i n d u s t r i a l respondents. INTRODUCTION Although the mail survey method has made significant advances recently, too little of what is known about increasing returns has appeared in literature. The published summaries [1, 2] of the literature lead to the conclusions that 1. there is much contradictory evidence, 2. based only on the publicly available literature very little can be concluded about how to increase industrial returns, and Address correspondence to: Milton M. Pressley, School of Business, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677. *The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Bill Perrault, Dr. Gary Armstrong, Dr. Jay Klompmaker, Dr. James Littlefield, and Dr. C. L. Kendall, all of the University of North Carolina and Dr. Doug Behrman at Florida State University for their thoughtful comments and help in the development of this article. Industrial Marketing Management 9, 231-235 (1980) Elsevier North Holland, Inc., 1980 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, New York 10017 3. there have not been nearly enough interactive factor investigations. A considerable amount of evidence has shown that there are some differences between the techniques that enhance returns from the general public and those that enhance returns from industrial respondents [4]. Yet, a careful perusal of the publicly available literature reveals that a relatively small number of the mail survey response rate studies have dealt with industrial populations. Thus, little can be learned from the publicly available literature regarding which methods will, or will not, increase returns from industrial respondents. This gap in the literature is somewhat surprising in view of the large number of surveys conducted among those in industrial markets. Recent findings show that replies to mail surveys of industrial populations have been declining [3]. There are no magic buttons to push that will guarantee relatively quick, low-cost, 50%-70%, response when conducting mail surveys of industrial populations. Nonetheless, it is possible to consistently achieve such response in industrial mail surveys within a two to five week period---even when mailing comparatively complex 8-10 page questionnaires. There are a number of techniques that help obtain, on a consistent basis, a 50%-70% response within two to five weeks in surveys 231 0019-8501/80/030231-05/$01.75 of industrial populations. I These industrial populations include marketing, finance, production and other management personnel at the executive vice-president level of large and small organizations--including those in the Fortune 500. Also included are purchasing agents, chief hospital administrators, school superintendents and administrators, and other executives or administrators in industry and government. It should be noted that the following " D o s " and " D o n ' t s " are generalities. As such, they are naturally subject to variation, depending on numerous factors, including THE OUTGOING AND RETURN ENVELOPE DO: Consider implementing some type of notice (i.e., postcard, letter, mail-a-gram, or phone)approximately 3-5 days prior to the mailing of the questionnaire. By far, the telephone notification is the most effective. For populations requiring long distance lines, this may be the most expensive method. However, notification and "preselling" the potential respondent consistently increases response. DO: Use good quality paper stock for your envelopes and cover letter. The cost of bond or laid paper is insignificant when compared to the cost of a third and fourth wave follow-up, Alternatively, consider testing the use of 4 x 6 in. or larger "manilla" envelopes. Our tests, though not conclusive, have shown that such oversize envelopes do tend to increase response. DON'T: Try to save a f e w pennies by using cheap paper stock for your envelopes and cover letter. You won't appear to be very important, and it's difficult to make the potential respondent feel important when you use cheap paper stock. DO: Use white or off-white paper for everything in the questionnaire package except, possibly, the return envelope. Your mailing should convey a professional, business-type correspondence. DON'T: Use colored paper for anything in the questionnaire package except, possibly, the return envelope. Colors tend to be associated with "junk mail." Colored paper actually reduced response in the situations we've tested. The one possible exception to this is the return envelope. The best color tested for the return envelope was yellow. DO: If feasible, use the name of a widely recognized and respected sponsor (individual and~or organization) for the return address and for the cover letter stationery. DO: Produce the cover letters in such a manner that they appear to be individually hand-typed. Actual hand typing is hardly recommended because of the expense. Memory typewriter typing is an effective, though somewhat expensive, method of achieving the personalized look. A common and effective compromise is to photocopy the letter on the sponsor's stationery. DON'T: Send out a letter that is easily and readily identified as mass produced. To increase response, it helps to make the recipients feel as if they are important--that their response really is essential. This is hard to convey using an obvious form letter. DO: Individually type the name, address, and salutation on each letter. In this regard, if you utilize the above mentioned photocopy reproduction method, make certain that: ~Since university sponsored surveys typically achieve significantly higher response than proprietary projects, and since the author is associated with a university, it should be noted that he is not writing about mail surveys conducted under university sponsorship. The vast majority of the surveys designed and/or implemented by (insert author's firm) are proprietary in nature. 1. the same typewriter is used for both the original letter and the individual name, address, and salutation, 2. the printer is instructed to match the density of the photocopy ink to that of the typewriter which will 1. 2. 3. 4. the exact populations being surveyed, time constraints, financial limitations, and other factors. It should also be noted that, although the following " D o s " and " D o n ' t s " are presently helping to increase response from industrial populations, they are subject to change and to "seasonal" variation. In order to remain up to date, it is desirable to continually conduct experiments to verify techniques and/or detect changes in the factors that increase or decrease response. In each survey that is conducted, it is necessary to consider the population, time constraint, financial limits, and other factors, such as seasonality and the latest experimental findings. Each design should be modified accordingly--that is, custom designed--to achieve maximum cost and time effective results. The incorporation of some or all of the following " D o s " and " D o n ' t s " into mail surveys of industrial populations should help the reader to substantially increase response. NOTIFICATION 232 be used to type the name, address and salutation, and 3. the typist correctly aligns the copy--both horizontally and vertically. DO: Test the use of a yellow colored return envelope. Though our evidence is not conclusive, this color has increased response in many cases. Perhaps the yellow color helps to keep some of the return envelopes from becoming lost in the shuffle. DON'T: Count on the ability of any other color of return envelope to increase response. Our evidence reveals that other colors generally tend to either reduce response or have no significant effect. DO: Use either a regular issue or a large, multicolor commemorative stamp on the outgoing envelope. In either case, it should be either the very latest issue or a very old issue. Where the questionnaire package weighs more than one ounce, and you are using a commemorative stamp, it is all right to use one or more 15¢ regular issue stamps, as needed, for the extra weight. DON' T: Use preprinted postage paid or metered postage on the outgoing envelope. Neither should you use bulk rate. The regular issue or commemorative generally increases response significantly and is therefore worth the slightly extra trouble. DO: Use a combination of low denomination stamps which total to the amount required for first-class postage on the return envelope. Preferably, at least three (i.e., two 4¢ and one 7¢) stamps should be used. DON'T: Use a commemorative stamp on the return envelope. A fairly significant percentage of these apparently end up in someone's stamp collection. Neither should one use a 15~ stamp, business reply indica, or metered postage. The low denomination combination totaling to 15¢ generally will significantly increase returns. DO: Individually type the name and address of the potential respondent on each outgoing envelope. Your envelope should appear to be a personalized, professional business correspondence. Use hand typing, a memory typewriter, or a computer typewriter so that the name and address typing appears to be identical to hand typing. DON'T: Use labels, addressing equipment or corn- The author teaches at the School of Business at The University of Mississippi. He has published articles in journals such as the Journal of Marketing Research and the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. He is the author of the reference book: Mail Survey Response. A Critically Annotated Bibfiography. puter type that is readily identified as such. Any addressing method that makes the envelope appear to be part of a mass mailing will generally tend to result in a significant percentage of your questionnaire packages ending up (unopened) in the "round file" with the rest of the "junk mail." DO: Consider using some type of "teaser copy" on the outside of the envelope. " P E R S O N A L " tends to increase the probability that your questionnaire will get past the secretary into the hands of the interviewee. Also, curiosity-inducing phrases like " D O NOT F O L D " often tend to increase the likelihood that the envelope will be opened and your cover-letter will be read. THE COVER LETTER DO: Sign the original copy of the cover letter to be photocopied with a black, felt-tip pen. It may be necessary to experiment with several copies--varying the intensity of the signature--in order that the photocopied signature appears to be an "original." DON'T: Sign each individual cover letter. This typically has no effect on response, but it is time consuming and relatively expensive. Neither is printing the signature in blue ink typically worth the extra cost. DON'T: Bother to add an apparent or real handwritten postscript. It typically will not increase response and has actually reduced returns. DO: Sell the interviewer on the benefits of cooperating in your survey. Among other ways, this can often be accomplished by briefly explaining how the respondent's cooperation can benefit him or her. DON' T: Bother to simply ask for the potential respondent's help without telling him or her what's in it for them. DO: Include a 10¢ incentive when surveying those in a commercial population along with a brief explanatory phrase related to its inclusion. Increase the incentive to at least 25¢ when surveying a consumer or general public population. DON' T: Include incentives which would be of interest or perceived value to only a small portion of your sample. DO: Let the respondent know that their answers will be held in absolute confidence by the researcher. Stress that under no condition will answers be linked with individual names or firms to anyone outside of the research finn or department. DON'T: Promise anonymity if you assign code numbers to the respondents and then place these on the 233 questionnaires. Such a practice is not only unethical, but possibly illegal according to a recent FTC ruling. THE QUESTIONNAIRE DO: Design the questionnaire so that it looks, and is, relatively easy to complete. Lots of white space and alternating styles of type help in this regard. DON'T: Squeeze a six-page questionnaire onto four pages. You'll typically get better response with the uncluttered, open look---even if the questionnaire is longer. DO: Use both sides of the paper for the questionnaire. Six or eight pages appear to be less formidable than twelve or sixteen. Using both sides generally won't reduce returns, but it will save paper expense. Also the weight savings might reduce postage--thus saving even more money. DON'T: Typeset the questionnaire unless it's necessary to achieve the "easy to complete" look or you have some special reason for doing so. Neatly typed and photocopied questionnaires will generally get equal response, and they cost less. DO: Design the questionnaire so that it looks like a serious, professional data collection instrument. DON'T: Reduce the apparent importance of your effort or emulate advertising by using either cartoons, illustrations or colored paper----unless, of course, their use is necessary. DO: Use the "Room Number" technique if you code the respondents and their questionnaires. After the questionnaire has been typed and photocopied, type " R O O M X Y Z " directly under the address of the sponsor on the questionnaire. The XYZ, of course, should be the respondent's code number. DON'T: Handwrite the respondent' s code number on the questionnaire. It can easily be identified for exactly what it is, and this typically--though not a l w a y s - reduces response. DON'T: Place the respondent's code on the return envelope. Respondents too often use their own envelopes to return the questionnaire. THE FOLLOW-UP DO: Mail a reminder postcard about two or three days after the questionnaire is mailed. DO: Begin your first follow-up, if one is necessary, two weeks after the questionnaire is mailed. DON'T: Wait for three or four weeks before starting your follow-up. Generally, about 90% or more of your 234 responses will be returned within two weeks. The only exceptions to this that the author has personally witnessed has been during severe snow storms which literally close down much of the northern United States and disrupt the schedules of both the respondents and the mail service. Even then about 95% of the returns have been received within two and a half weeks. DO: Follow a two-week schedule, under normal conditions, on subsequent follow-up efforts. DO: Send the nonrespondents another cover letter, questionnaire and return envelope in follow-ups. DON'T: Assume that nonrespondents still have your questionnaire and return envelope. DO: Consider using telephone to solicit cooperation from non-respondents when speed is an important criteria and~or response is significantly lower than expected. CONCLUSION Different populations often react differently to the various techniques or factors employed in attempts to increase returns to mail surveys. The fact that there are no set rules that apply in every situation can't be overemphasized. Generally, however, attention to the above "Dos and D o n ' t s " will probably enable the reader to achieve a response from executive or technical individuals approaching, or in, the 50%-70% range. This is especially true when using prenotification and/or following up by phone--both relatively expensive, but very effective, response building techniques. With some trial and error experience in a given situation among a given population, the reader can learn how to customize his or her own mail survey procedures and more than likely achieve a 50%-70% response rate on a consistent basis. Of course, among certain populations this may not be realistic. The publicly available literature may contradict some of the above suggestions. These suggestions are based on a great deal of recent, proprietary research and personal experience. If the reader's recent personal experience contradicts one (or more), then disregard that (or those) suggestion(s). By doing so, the first step toward the more effective design will have been taken. REFERENCES 1. Kanuk, Leslie and Benenson, Conrad, Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review, Journal of Marketing Research 12, 440-453 (November 1975). 2. Linsky, Arnold S., Stimulating Response to Mail Questionnaires: A Review, Public Opinion Quarterly 39, 82-101 (Spring 1975). 3. Petry, Glen H. and Quackenbush, Stanley F., The Conservation of the Questionnaire as a Research Resource, Business Horizons 17, 43-50 (August 1974). in Mail Surveys of Commercial Populations, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 6, 336-343 (Fall, 1978). and Tullar, William L., A Factor Interactive Investigation of Mail Survey Response Rates from a Commercial Population, Journal of Marketing Research 14, 108-11 (February 1977). _ _ 4. Pressley, Milton M., Care Needed When Selecting Response Inducements 235