We’ve spent the last decade protecting research data from bad actors. Bots. Farms. People rushing through surveys for the incentive. We’ve built the tooling, raised the bar, and brought partners into the everyday work to keep panellists safe. It’s some of the most important progress the industry has made. At Walr, we’re all in on it – and we’ll keep going.
And, yet.
Somewhere along the way, we forgot to ask whether the surveys themselves were doing the respondent any favors.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. And the more I think, the more I realize we’ve been optimizing for one half of the equation.
We screen rigorously. Then we make people sit through multiple questions that read like a vocabulary test. Did you see a tree, a dinosaur, or a duck 15 seconds ago? Click which one. Drag the slider 4 millimeters to the left if you somewhat agree with this statement that has been engineered for maximum scrutiny.
The methodology bar in our industry is incredibly high, and this is by no means a critique of the work survey writers put in. However, I think we’ve built a system that protects the data and forgets the person providing it. And panellists know. They feel it. They tell us, with their open-ends, with their drop-offs, with the slow draining of goodwill that takes weeks to lose and years to rebuild.
We have to accept there’s a different way to do this. One where we write surveys that talk to people like people. Where the questions sound like questions a colleague might ask. Where the experience leaves the respondent feeling heard, not interrogated.
The story you came to tell with your data doesn’t have to change. The headline insight you need is still right there. But the texture around it – the richness of what people share back, the willingness to come back next time, what your team can actually do with the data when it lands – that’s where I think the real upside lies. And that’s what we’ve been digging into.
What does “respect for the respondent” actually look like when you sit down to write the next survey? What’s on the chopping block, and what stays? What changes about the quality of what comes back?
If you’re going to Quirk’s New York on 29-30 July, come and find us at Booth 809 as we pull on this thread further and share some of our findings.
I’d love to compare notes and discuss what your team is wrestling with when it comes to this big topic.
