Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul 4:8:e50240.
doi: 10.2196/50240.

The Impact of Incentives on Data Collection for Online Surveys: Social Media Recruitment Study

Affiliations

The Impact of Incentives on Data Collection for Online Surveys: Social Media Recruitment Study

Jessica Sobolewski et al. JMIR Form Res. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Facebook; Instagram; cost; data collection; experiment; incentive; online survey recruitment; online surveys; social media; social media recruitment; survey; users.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of social media advertisements used on Instagram for each incentive condition.

Similar articles

References

    1. Chen J, Wang Y. Social media use for health purposes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021 May 12;23(5):e17917. doi: 10.2196/17917. https://www.jmir.org/2021/5/e17917/ v23i5e17917 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Darko EM, Kleib M, Olson J. Social media use for research participant recruitment: integrative literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Aug 04;24(8):e38015. doi: 10.2196/38015. https://www.jmir.org/2022/8/e38015/ v24i8e38015 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Whitaker C, Stevelink S, Fear N. The use of Facebook in recruiting participants for health research purposes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 28;19(8):e290. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7071. https://www.jmir.org/2017/8/e290/ v19i8e290 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Auxier B, Anderson M. Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center. [2023-06-01]. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/
    1. Guillory J, Wiant KF, Farrelly M, Fiacco L, Alam I, Hoffman L, Crankshaw E, Delahanty J, Alexander TN. Recruiting hard-to-reach populations for survey research: using Facebook and Instagram advertisements and in-person intercept in LGBT bars and nightclubs to recruit LGBT young adults. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 18;20(6):e197. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9461. https://www.jmir.org/2018/6/e197/ v20i6e197 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources