- Email: [email protected]
A method to improve response to industrial mail surveys
A Method to Improve Response to Industrial Mail Surveys Bruce J. Walker Wayne Kirchmann Jeffrey S. Conant Mail surveys play a critically important role in industrial marketing research. This article reviews previous literature, presents a process model of the major elements involved in constructing industrial mail surveys, and overviews a comprehensive approach to mail survey design known as the Total Design Method (TDM). The TDM is relatively exhaustive and covers all facets of questionnaire design and implementation. The value of the TDM is illustrated by reviewing two industrial marketing studies that attempted to follow the TDM guidelines. The results of a cost-benefit analysis indicate the TDM can provide excellent value to industrial marketing researchers.
2. A problem constantly facing the researcher conducting mail surveys is how to increase the rate of return of questionnaires and thus reduce costs [I 11. 3. The major disadvantages of mail surveys are believed to be their low response rates, with the attendant problems of response bias [lo].
1. Mail surveys are an essential tool in industrial marketing research in spite of the unwillingness sometimes of a majority of the people in the sample to return their questionnaires [7].
As indicated by this sampling of statements spread across three decades, marketing-related mail surveys of industrial populations have been affected by substantial levels of nonresponse. Such nonresponse gives rise to both increased costs and bias. In fact, this bias can create doubts about a study’s findings because nonresponse bias affects most statistical estimates. Given the problem of nonresponse in mail surveys, industrial marketing researchers are still seeking ways to improve response rates in mail surveys. Most of the research concerning techniques for increasing mail-survey response rates has considered individual survey elements. Jobber [9] reviewed this type of research and found:
Address correspondence to Professor Bruce J. Walker, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.
1. Support for: monetary incentives, stamped return envelopes, promised anonymity, certain sized questionnaires , and follow-ups.
The problem of nonresponse is particularly acute in the case of industrial marketing surveys as explained by these three statements:
In&&al Marketing Munugemenr 16, 305-3 14 (1987) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1987 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017
305 0019-8501/87/$3.50
Two phases - the questionnaire and the implementation phase
2. No support for: preliminary mail notification, offering a copy of the completed study, and color of the questionnaires. 3. Mixed findings for: personalized cover letters and the type of outgoing postage. While information of this nature provides the industrial marketing researcher many points to consider, it fails to provide either a supporting theory of response behavior or any indication on how the various components interact when combined in a complete survey. Furthermore, the mixed findings when investigating only individual elements make it difficult for the researcher to decide and justify which response-stimulating techniques to incorporate into a study. One alternative to a researcher wading through the literature on individual components of a mail survey in an effort to identify the techniques to include or exclude is to consider the various elements of a survey as a collective unit. This collective approach would identify interrelated decisions, which then could be made based on estimated cost versus benefit for each element. As a step toward this end, this article has four objectives: 1. To integrate many of the previously mentioned elements of a mail survey into a decision-oriented model for industrial mail surveys; 2. To describe a method for analyzing these elements, called the Total Design Method (TDM) [5];
BRUCE J. WALKER is Professor and Chair, Department keting, Arizona State University. WAYNE KIRCHMANN University.
is a doctoral
student
at Arizona
of Mar-
State
JEFFREY S. CONANT is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the College of Business Administration at Texas A&M University.
306
3. To illustrate the application of the TDM in t industrial marketing surveys; and 4. To discuss a cost-benefit approach for selecting dividual survey elements.
A MODEL FOR INDUSTRIAL
MAIL SURVEYS
Various elements that have been suggested as hav an influence on mail survey response rates are presen collectively in Figure 1. This model represents decis and action areas for the industrial marketing researchc At each point in the model, the researcher considers tematives and decides whether to include or excludl particular element, while considering the cumulative fects of these actions on survey responses. The model consists of two phases. The questionnz phase includes decisions concerning the cover(s), fern questions, and page layout. Two pretests are incorpora to provide partial tests of the researcher’s collect choices throughout the process. The implementat phase includes decisions concerning the appeal for a sponse, cover letter, questionnaire packet, the ini mailing, and any follow-up(s). The model is presented in flowchart fashion not 01 to convey a logical sequence of events but also to str a decision-making process. At each point, the researc! implicitly or explicitly makes a decision; the model intended to prompt explicit decisions.
THE TOTAL DESIGN METHOD The TDM is intended to improve the usefulness, lidity , and cost-effectiveness of telephone and mail s ’ The model assumes the researcher has determined previously the apprc ateness and necessity of a mail survey. It also assumes that the question con has been determined based on the particular issue or problem at hand.
QUESTIONNAIRE -_----___---
IMPLEMENTATION __-_-_-___---_
COVERS
FORMAT
r-
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONNAIRE PACKET
+ FIRST FOLLOW-UP
SECOND FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONNAIRE
THIRD FOLLOW-UP
FIGURE 1.
A Process Model for Industrial Mail Surveys
veys. However, to ensure adequate coverage of the method’s rationale and selected response-stimulating techniques, this overview is restricted to the mail survey version. The TDM is an “identification of each aspect of the
survey process (even the minute ones) that may affect response quantity or quality and shaping them in a way that will encourage good response” [5]. Response rates averaging 74% have been reported for 48 nonbusiness surveys using the TDM in whole or in part [4].
307
Two parts comprise the TDM: a theory of why people respond (or do not respond) to surveys and a detailed administrative plan for survey implementation. Each is discussed below.
Why People Respond The process of mailing a questionnaire to a person and his/her returning the completed questionnaire can be viewed as a special form of social exchange. Extending the work of Homans [S], Blau [2], and Thibaut and Kelly [ 151, Dillman uses social exchange theory to form his theory of response behavior. In relation to mail surveys, social exchange theory suggests that a person is motivated to complete a questionnaire by the return this action is expected to bring. This view complements the opinion of Hansen, Tinney and Rudelius who state, “In the broadest sense, the nonresponse problem in mail surveys can be thought of as a problem of lack of respondent interest” [ 161. In short, targeted individuals evaluate questionnaires they receive in the mail on a cost-benefit basis. A diagrammatic representation of Dillman’s survey response behavior model is presented in Figure 2. According to Dillman [5], the inputs for the cost-benefit analysis are rewards, costs, and trust. Viewing response behavior in cost-benefit terms creates many implications for the researcher. Most importantly, researchers are challenged to minimize the respondents’ costs and maximize their rewards, while establishing trust that the rewards will be received. The model for industrial mail surveys in Figure 1 looks at specific actions or decisions the researcher has available to accomplish this often formidable set of interrelated challenges.
r costs
)
1. The degree of detail that characterizes the TI is immediately evident in that Dillman not o recommends that the questionnaire should be booklet format but also specifies the size ; color of paper for the booklet. As with other r ommended details, he has a rationale. The bol let counters such likely descriptions of I questionnaires as, “bulky, long, formidable disorganized, or confusing” [5]. Moreover. strives to present “an attractive, well organi; questionnaire that looks easy to complete. ” There also is a practical concern for the
Cost-benefit analysis by questionnaire recipient
L
Survey responses: * quantity * quality
) c
e
FIGURE
308
The intent of the TDM procedure is to optimize three researcher-controlled variables of content de\ opment, questionnaire construction, and survey imI mentation to improve response rates and quality. focus on selected aspects of the latter two variabl which correspond to the two dimensions of Figure 1 QUESTIONNAIRECONSTRUCTION. The respondent’s itial exposure to the look and feel of the questionn; provides the first of several critical tests that a questi naire must pass if the instrument is going to elici response. As Dillman emphasizes, “the mail questi’ naire . . . requires careful construction, for it alone car under the respondent’s complete control” [5]. Selected recommendations that Dillman has made garding questionnaire construction are presented in Ta 1. The recommendations represent efforts to reduce costs and increase the rewards associated with complet of the questionnaire. Two recommendations listed in Table 1 warrant b: explanation:
t
J
1
Administrative Plan
2.
A Model of Survey Response Behavior
TABLE 1 Belected Elements of the Total Design Method Related to Questionnaire Construction Covers should strive to encourage
further examination
* Front cover: * Should contain; Graphic illustration, directions, and sponsor name and address * Should not conmint Questions or name of researcher * Back cover: * Should confainr Invitation for comments, white space * Should not contain: Questions
thank you, and plenty of
Formar should offer cues to the worth of the questionnaire * Booklet Format: 6%” X 8’/4” in size * Reproduction: Printed or high-quality photography * Paper: White or off-white paper stock Questions should guide respondent
impression
through the questionnaire, of orderliness and ease of completion
convey an
* First question: Forms a mental stepping stone * Should: Clearly relate to survey topic, have socially useful implications, be easily answered, convey a sense of neutrality, be applicable to everyone * Should nor: Be an innocuous ice-breaker or open-ended
and
* Remaining questions: Organized to reduce mental effort * Should: Be ordered in descending social usefulness, grouped by content and type, and end with the most potentially objectionable (i.e., demographic) questions * Should not: Require constant mental swtiching between question types Page formars
should motivate completion
and look easy to do so
* Should: Contain plenty of white space, have directions in parentheses, use transitions for continuity, use lower case letters for questions and upper case. for answers, establish a vertical flow, identify answer categories on the left with numbers, indicate how to skip screening questions, and use words for answer choices and ask only one question at a time for a series of questions * Should not: Contain preceding information Source: Dillman,
1978.
searcher: The recommended size is the largest dimension that will permit a 12-page questionnaire, cover letter, and return envelope to be sent for the standard one-ounce postage. 2. Related to the recommendation that all demographic questions be placed last, Dillman reports that “nonresponse to these items on TDM questionnaires has been found to be as low, and some-
times lower, than for all items placed earlier in the questionnaire” [5]. SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION. Failure in a mail survey can stem from a variety of sources. For instance, Dillman [5] refers to a researcher’s lack of organization concerning important survey details. He also cites reasons beyond the questionnaire’s appearance or content. Among these are a respondent discarding the questionnaire as “junk” mail or only partially completing the instrument. This section concentrates on overcoming these types of difficulties through attention to details and efforts to personalize the survey. Table 2 lists several of Dillman’s recommendations in this area, some of which warrant comment: 1. Dillman [5] favors a social-usefulness appeal rather than the commonly used altruistic appeal (e.g., Would you do me a favor?). His rationale centers around a few key points: (1) answering the questions often demands more effort than a mere favor, (2) follow-ups are not practical since persistent favors must be requested, and (3) even a token incentive pales in comparison to the personal reward of having helped solve an important problem. 2. Various elements of survey implementation are intended to increase the degree of personalization reflected in the survey materials. Support for such personalization flows from the basic appeal of social-usefulness. Personalization provides a more consistent reinforcement of the importance of the problem and the individual’s response, needed for a social-usefulness appeal, than do mimeographed copies. 3. Dillman [5] also recommends numbering the questionnaires, which obviously goes against traditional suggestions to promise anonymity. He found that possible alienation of respondents is mitigated by explaining the numbering code and then promising confidentiality. Furthermore, less than 0.5% of the respondents remove the numbers. Numbering helps to reduce the costs of followup and facilitates identification of early versus late respondents, knowledge of which can be used to evaluate differences in response patterns [ 11.
Use second and third follow-up mailings 309
TABLE 2 Selected Elements of the Total Design Method Related to Survey Implementation
APPLICATIONS OF THE TDM IN MARKETING SURVEYS
~a.+ appeal should convince people to respond
No TDM surveys discussed in Dillman’s book invob business populations or were directly related to mark ing. This leads to a commonly cited concern: Success survey methods for industrial populations are not same as for other populations [6, 7, 9, 121. A sect concern involves a key element of the TDM, namely appeal emphasizing social usefulness seemingly is ml difficult to convey effectively in a industrial marketil related survey of a business population than in pub1 opinion surveys. In a business survey, the benefits n be perceived as only indirectly benefiting a group w which the sample member identifies or, worse yet, bc efiting only the survey’s sponsor and not the responder firm [12]. As a step toward answering the question of whet1 the TDM can be effective in industrial marketing-rela surveys, this section describes two such surveys of bt ness populations that employed the TDM in large pa
* Should; Convince people that a problem exists and is important to a group with which they can identify, their help is needed, and portray the research as an intermediary between them and the problem solution * Should not; Be an altruistic appeal Cover letter should convey appeal and counter anticipated
questions
* Should; Be one page maximum, promise confidentiality, stress importance of individual, mention financial incentive, offer a copy of the results, and be individually typed and signed on 7’/4” X 1CWz” stationery * Should not; Promise anonymity Quesrionnaire
packet should appear organized
and personalized
* Should consist of: * Respondent identification: numbered questionnaire * Token financial incentive (mentioned in cover letter) * Preaddressed, postage-paid business-reply envelope * Transmittal envelope: 37/d’ x 7%” matching the cover letter stationery, individually typed, and hrst-class metered postage * Folded contents: Cover letter on the outside and folded together * Should not contain: * Adverse warnings: “dated material enclosed” or “immediate reply requested” * Separately folded contents * Bulk mail or stamp postage Follow-up mailings should each invoke different appeals * First follow-up one week later-thank you/friendly reminder. * Post card, printed message, individually addressed, and first-class metered or stamp * Second follow-up three weeks later to nonrespondents-insistence. * Letter (shorter than original) and replacement questionnaire, emphasis on social-usefulness of study * Third follow-up seven weeks later to nonrespondents-softer tone. * Letter and replacement questionnaire, emphasis on social-usefulness and importance of individual response, sent certified mail Source: Dillman,
1978.
4. Dillman has strong convictions about the effectiveness of follow-up mailings: “Without follow-up mailings, response rates would be less than half those normally attained by the TDM” [5]. Specifically, he reports that the first follow-up generates about as many returns as the first mailing and the third follow-up increases the response rate about 13 percentage points .*
HMO Survey The first study sought to examine the relationship ! tween a firm’s strategic orientation and its market management variables [3]. Input was requested from marketing director of each organization. METHODS. The population was defined as all hea maintenance organizations (HMOs) in the United Stat The questionnaire was targeted to HMO marketing rectors because “they are the personnel within HM who are most involved with the development, i plementation, and control of marketing managem plans and programs” [3]. The population consisted of 418 HMOs. Because the moderate number of HMOs in the population and expectation that responses might be difficult to obta the entire population was included in the survey. The questionnaire, presented as a 16-page book consisted of 72 items. Many of the questions were I atively difficult to answer, requiring considerable thou and arithmetic calculations. A sample question is I sented below:
Pricing-Please 2 Dillman [5] does not report what improvements utable to the second follow-up.
310
allocate 100 points among the foul
in response rates are attrib-
3 Deviations from the Total Design Method are listed in Table 3.
categories listed below to reflect how important you perceive each is in developing your HMO’s pricing strategy. Costs (Both Direct and Indirect) Demand (What the Market Will Bear) Competition (What Prices the Competition is Charging) Legal Requirements (What Regulators Allow) TOTAL POINTS :
OUTCOMES. The original sample of 418 was adjusted downward to 406 due to explanatory notes attached to four of the returned questionnaires. These respondents indicated that they managed the marketing programs of multilocation HMOs from one central office and, as such, should be treated as four (rather than 16) organizations. The survey generated a total of 162 returns, an overall response rate of 39.9%. However, inspection of the questionnaires identified 12 as incomplete. After excluding these 12 questionnaires, the number of usable returns was 150 and the usable response rate was 36.9%. This response rate is not as high as those reported by Dillman. However, it still is quite high considering that the questionnaire not only was lengthy and somewhat complicated but also requested proprietary and potentially sensitive strategic data related to the sample members’ organizations.
Utility Survey The second study was sponsored by a firm that supplies software and manpower to electric and gas utilities [ 171. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the target market’s perceptions of the company and its primary competitors with respect to such factors as overall product quality, range of services, and price competitiveness. METHODS. The population was defined as gas and/or electric utilities with at least 100,000 residential customers. The population included both customers and noncustomers of the survey sponsor. In the case of customer utilities, inputs were needed from two different individuals: an executive involved in purchasing outside marketing-related services and a supervisor involved in program implementation. For noncustomers, input was sought only from an executive involved in purchasing outside marketing-related services. This distinction necessitated two slightly different questionnaires. In total, the population consisted of 90 customer util-
TABLE 3 Deviations from the Total Design Method in HMO and Utility surveys UTILITY SURVEY * Prenotification postcard mailed first class to sample members seven days prior to initial mailing of questionnaire * Different size (7” x 8%“) booklet * First question in the customer questionnaire fairly innocuous (i.e., how long a customer of the company) * Questions not ordered according to social usefulness * Most demographic questions not included on questionnaire (data obtained from industry directory instead) * Vertical flow within questionnaire lacking for most part due to types of questions (e.g., semantic differential) * In some series of questions, abbreviations (e.g., SA) rather than words (e.g., Strongly Agree) used for answer choices with explanations of the abbreviations presented at the outset of the series * One question included on front cover * Debatable whether survey’s importance to a group with which questionnaire recipients identify was established since the survey was proprietary in nature * Two cover letters in the initial mailing: a one-page letter with a formal tone and a social-usefulness appeal from the director of the university agency conducting the survey and a shorter letter with an informal tone and an altruistic appeal (“Will you please do me a favor. ?“) from the president of the company sponsoring the survey * Summary of results not offered to questionnaire recipients * Regular-size stationery and envelopes * Promise of $1 donation to one of three charities of their choice made in shorter cover letter; question regarding which charity included on front cover of questionnaire * No third (i.e., certified) follow-up HMO SURVEY * Different size (5r%” X 8'h")booklet * Questions ordered from most to least difficult * Lower case for questions, upper case for answers not used * Letters used to identify answer categories * Vertical flow within questionnaire lacking for most part * Regular-size stationery and envelopes * Questionnaire (sample member) identified on back of business-reply envelope * No financial incentive * Stamped postage * No third (i.e., certified) follow-up Source: Walker,
1986 and Conant,
1986.
ities (each of which was sent two questionnaires) and 62 noncustomer utilities. Given its limited size, the entire population was included in the survey. The questionnaire, presented as an eight-page booklet, consisted of 7 1 items in the customer version and 80 items in the noncustomer version. OUTCOMES. By the cut-off date for responses, a total of 158 complete and usable questionnaires had been received, for an overall response rate of 65.3%. Furthermore, a majority of respondents within each of the three subgroups completed and returned the questionnaire:
311
TABLE 4 Cost-Benefit
* Metered postage Analysis
DECISION AREA QUESTlONNAlRE PHASE Covers (front & back) * Title
-
+ Conveys
None
business”
Applied to Survey Design * First class postage
-
Money
* Specially contents
- Time, effort
BENEFIT
COST
- Space
+ Positive tirst
* Graphic
-
Money, space
+ Set questionnaire
* Return address
-
Space
+ Can be returned if
impression
folded
apart from others separated from return envelope Consulting approach (reward) Verbal appreciation (reward) Space economy
- Space
+
* Thank you
-
+
* No questions
- Lost interest
+
Format * Size
- Space
+ Postage economy, po-
* Additional
comments
Space
Follow-ups * First
* Second
- Time, effort, money - Time, effort, money
sitive first impression * Third
Questions * Ice breaker * Descending gradient of social usefulness * Group questions
- Time, effort - Time, effort
+ Reduced mental effort + Encourage well-
* Cognitive
- Time, effort
+ Minimize feeling of
- Time, effort
+ Commitment
- Time, effort
+ Impression,
- Time, effort
+
- Time, effort
+
+ Relax respondent + Interest, commitment
- Space
thought-out ties
Page jot-mats * Fitting on page * Distinguish questions from answers * Vertical flow
IMPLEMENTATION Basic appeal * Social usefulness
questions
motivate to complete Fewer omitted questions Fewer omitted or mismarked responses
PHASE
- Time, effort
+ Provides a theme, feeling of being helpful (reward), increase “demands” of questions
+ Builds trust
* Copy of results * Size
- Obligation for researcher - Time, money - Space
* Personalized
- Time, money
* Real signature
-
Questionnaire packet * Numbered questionnaires * Token incentive
-- Time, lack of anonymity - Money (varies)
Cover
letter
* Confidentiality
312
Time
+ Builds trust, reward + Gains attention, impression of brevity + Feeling of importance (reward) + Feeling of importance (reward)
+ Facilitates + Reward.
+ Conveys importanc (reward), facilitates address correction, can be forwarded, I delayed at post offi t Differentiate from mass mailings, increases likelihood c reading cover letter first
+ Thank you (reward increased response (l5-25%) t Importance of individual (reward), increased response, opportunity to reme problems detected i early returns t Importance of individual (reward), increased response (13%). opportunity remedy problems d tected in early retur
answers
“unrelated” * Objectionable last (within groups)
Time, effort, money
a “norma appearan
follow-up builds trust
Source: Based on an interpretation 1978.
of elements recommended
by Dillm
Supervisors in customer utilities: 77.8% response rate Executives in customer utilities: 61. I % response rate Executives in noncustomer utilities: 53.2% response rat A slightly larger proportion of usable questionnairt were returned from customer utilities. In any event, tl response rate of 65.3% provided a sufficient data ba for analysis and certainly suggests the effectiveness 1 the TDM in this type of survey.
COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
The implications of social exchange theory identific by Dillman [5] are summarized in question form belo\ A researcher can use these questions along with Figu 1 to estimate the value of each response-stimulatii technique. 1. Does this element reward the respondent by . . . a. making the questionnaire interesting? [5] b. offering tangible rewards? [2]
The TDM can be time consuming expensive c. supporting his or her values? [2] d. giving written appreciation? [2] e. showing positive regard? [ 151 2. Does this element reduce costs to the respondent by. . . a. making the task appear brief? [5] b. reducing the physical and mental effort that is required? [ 151 c. eliminating chances for embarrassment? [ 151 d. eliminating any indication of subordination? [2] e. eliminating any direct monetary costs? [51 3. Does this element establish trust by . . . a. providing a token of appreciation in advance?
PI b. identifying with a known organization that has legitimacy? [S] c. building on other exchange relationships? [5] As explained earlier in the paper, a questionnaire recipient basically decides whether to respond following an implicit or explicit cost-benefit analysis. In a similar fashion, an industrial marketing researcher can conduct a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to use the TDM in a mail survey. Table 4 lists selected costs and benefits expressed by Dill-an. These are arranged in the same order as the model in Figure 1 to emphasize both the sequential nature and interrelated effects of these decisions. It is apparent from the costs noted in Table 4 that use of the TDM can become (1) time consuming, (2) logistically complex, and (3) expensive. Furthermore, use of the TDM may improve response rates and quality compared to what otherwise would have been achieved, but it still does not guarantee the response rates of 70% and above as reported by Dillman. For example, Conant [3] achieved a 37% final response rate but did not use the third follow-up that is a central element in the TDM. Even if he had used it, Dillman’s evidence on the effects of the third follow-up suggests that Conant would have achieved a response rate in the vicinity of 50%, an im-
and
provement and quite commendable but still some distance from the average TDM response rate of 74%. Despite its potential and actual problems, the logic and survey-response effects of the TDM described by Dillman make the approach appealing. In particular, response rates probably will be increased substantially by using the TDM, an important consideration when (1) the original sample size is small, requiring a high response rate in order to have sufficient responses for meaningful analysis, and/or (2) the survey results are inputs for making strategic decisions. The comparatively high response rates obtained by Walker and Conant in their surveys of business managers demonstrate that the TDM can be effective in marketing-related surveys of industrial populations. The costliness of the TDM, especially with respect to out-of-pocket expenses, requires special consideration when the survey budget is king prepared. However, the results of the Conant and Walker surveys suggest that use of most, but not all, TDM elements still can result in comparatively high response rates. All factors considered, the TDM holds substantial promise for helping to overcome a persistent and serious problem in marketing-related mail surveys, namely low response rates. Therefore, use of the TDM, at least as a theory-based cost-benefit analysis as presented in this article, definitely should be considered by industrial marketers who are planning a mail survey.
REFERENCES Armstrong, J. Scott and Overton, Terry S., Estimating Nonresponse- Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal ofMarketing Research 14,396-402 (Aug 1977). Blau, Peter M., Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964. Conant, Jeffrey Scott, Strategic Organizational Styles and Marketing Management Performance: An Empirical Policy Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Business, Arizona State University (1986). Dillman, Don A., Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response in Large Samples of the General Public, Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 254-257 (Summer 1972).
313
5. Dillman, Don A., Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Toral Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.
11. Kimball, A. E., Increasing the Rate of Return in Mail Surveys, of Marketing 25, 63-64 (Dee 1961).
6. Gentry, Dwight L. and Hailey, William A., Industrial Survey Sampling, Industrial Marketing Management 10,183- 189 ( 198 1)
12. Petty, Glen H. and Quackenbush, Stanley F., The Conservation Questionnaire as a Business Resource, Business Horizons 17,43-50 1974).
I. Hansen, Robert A., Tinney, Cathie, and Rudelius, William, Increase Response to Industrial Surveys, Industrial Marketing Management 12, 165-169 (1983). 8. Homans, George C., Social Behavior: Its Elementary Brace and World, New York, 1961.
Forms. Harcourt,
9. lobber, David, Improving Response Rates in Industrial Indusrrial Marketing Management 15, 183-195 (1986).
Mail Surveys,
10. Kanuk, Leslie and Berenson, Conrad, Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review, Journal of Marketing Research 12, MO-453 (Nov 1975).
314
Jour of (1
13. Pressley, Milton M., Care Needed When Selecting Response Inducemc in Mail Surveys of Commercial Populations, Jourwl of theAcadem. Marketing Science 6, 336-343 (Fall 1978). 14. Pressley, Milton M., Improving Mail Survey Responses from Indusl Organizations, Industrial Marketing Management 9, 231-235 (1980: 15. Thibaut, I. W. and Kelley, H. H., The Social Psychology John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1959.
of Grow
16. Walker, Bruce J., The Opinions of Utility Executives Regarding Service Firms and Utility Trends and Challenges. Unpublished Tempe, Arizona (1986).
Utl rep
2. A problem constantly facing the researcher conducting mail surveys is how to increase the rate of return of questionnaires and thus reduce costs [I 11. 3. The major disadvantages of mail surveys are believed to be their low response rates, with the attendant problems of response bias [lo].
1. Mail surveys are an essential tool in industrial marketing research in spite of the unwillingness sometimes of a majority of the people in the sample to return their questionnaires [7].
As indicated by this sampling of statements spread across three decades, marketing-related mail surveys of industrial populations have been affected by substantial levels of nonresponse. Such nonresponse gives rise to both increased costs and bias. In fact, this bias can create doubts about a study’s findings because nonresponse bias affects most statistical estimates. Given the problem of nonresponse in mail surveys, industrial marketing researchers are still seeking ways to improve response rates in mail surveys. Most of the research concerning techniques for increasing mail-survey response rates has considered individual survey elements. Jobber [9] reviewed this type of research and found:
Address correspondence to Professor Bruce J. Walker, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.
1. Support for: monetary incentives, stamped return envelopes, promised anonymity, certain sized questionnaires , and follow-ups.
The problem of nonresponse is particularly acute in the case of industrial marketing surveys as explained by these three statements:
In&&al Marketing Munugemenr 16, 305-3 14 (1987) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1987 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017
305 0019-8501/87/$3.50
Two phases - the questionnaire and the implementation phase
2. No support for: preliminary mail notification, offering a copy of the completed study, and color of the questionnaires. 3. Mixed findings for: personalized cover letters and the type of outgoing postage. While information of this nature provides the industrial marketing researcher many points to consider, it fails to provide either a supporting theory of response behavior or any indication on how the various components interact when combined in a complete survey. Furthermore, the mixed findings when investigating only individual elements make it difficult for the researcher to decide and justify which response-stimulating techniques to incorporate into a study. One alternative to a researcher wading through the literature on individual components of a mail survey in an effort to identify the techniques to include or exclude is to consider the various elements of a survey as a collective unit. This collective approach would identify interrelated decisions, which then could be made based on estimated cost versus benefit for each element. As a step toward this end, this article has four objectives: 1. To integrate many of the previously mentioned elements of a mail survey into a decision-oriented model for industrial mail surveys; 2. To describe a method for analyzing these elements, called the Total Design Method (TDM) [5];
BRUCE J. WALKER is Professor and Chair, Department keting, Arizona State University. WAYNE KIRCHMANN University.
is a doctoral
student
at Arizona
of Mar-
State
JEFFREY S. CONANT is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the College of Business Administration at Texas A&M University.
306
3. To illustrate the application of the TDM in t industrial marketing surveys; and 4. To discuss a cost-benefit approach for selecting dividual survey elements.
A MODEL FOR INDUSTRIAL
MAIL SURVEYS
Various elements that have been suggested as hav an influence on mail survey response rates are presen collectively in Figure 1. This model represents decis and action areas for the industrial marketing researchc At each point in the model, the researcher considers tematives and decides whether to include or excludl particular element, while considering the cumulative fects of these actions on survey responses. The model consists of two phases. The questionnz phase includes decisions concerning the cover(s), fern questions, and page layout. Two pretests are incorpora to provide partial tests of the researcher’s collect choices throughout the process. The implementat phase includes decisions concerning the appeal for a sponse, cover letter, questionnaire packet, the ini mailing, and any follow-up(s). The model is presented in flowchart fashion not 01 to convey a logical sequence of events but also to str a decision-making process. At each point, the researc! implicitly or explicitly makes a decision; the model intended to prompt explicit decisions.
THE TOTAL DESIGN METHOD The TDM is intended to improve the usefulness, lidity , and cost-effectiveness of telephone and mail s ’ The model assumes the researcher has determined previously the apprc ateness and necessity of a mail survey. It also assumes that the question con has been determined based on the particular issue or problem at hand.
QUESTIONNAIRE -_----___---
IMPLEMENTATION __-_-_-___---_
COVERS
FORMAT
r-
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONNAIRE PACKET
+ FIRST FOLLOW-UP
SECOND FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONNAIRE
THIRD FOLLOW-UP
FIGURE 1.
A Process Model for Industrial Mail Surveys
veys. However, to ensure adequate coverage of the method’s rationale and selected response-stimulating techniques, this overview is restricted to the mail survey version. The TDM is an “identification of each aspect of the
survey process (even the minute ones) that may affect response quantity or quality and shaping them in a way that will encourage good response” [5]. Response rates averaging 74% have been reported for 48 nonbusiness surveys using the TDM in whole or in part [4].
307
Two parts comprise the TDM: a theory of why people respond (or do not respond) to surveys and a detailed administrative plan for survey implementation. Each is discussed below.
Why People Respond The process of mailing a questionnaire to a person and his/her returning the completed questionnaire can be viewed as a special form of social exchange. Extending the work of Homans [S], Blau [2], and Thibaut and Kelly [ 151, Dillman uses social exchange theory to form his theory of response behavior. In relation to mail surveys, social exchange theory suggests that a person is motivated to complete a questionnaire by the return this action is expected to bring. This view complements the opinion of Hansen, Tinney and Rudelius who state, “In the broadest sense, the nonresponse problem in mail surveys can be thought of as a problem of lack of respondent interest” [ 161. In short, targeted individuals evaluate questionnaires they receive in the mail on a cost-benefit basis. A diagrammatic representation of Dillman’s survey response behavior model is presented in Figure 2. According to Dillman [5], the inputs for the cost-benefit analysis are rewards, costs, and trust. Viewing response behavior in cost-benefit terms creates many implications for the researcher. Most importantly, researchers are challenged to minimize the respondents’ costs and maximize their rewards, while establishing trust that the rewards will be received. The model for industrial mail surveys in Figure 1 looks at specific actions or decisions the researcher has available to accomplish this often formidable set of interrelated challenges.
r costs
)
1. The degree of detail that characterizes the TI is immediately evident in that Dillman not o recommends that the questionnaire should be booklet format but also specifies the size ; color of paper for the booklet. As with other r ommended details, he has a rationale. The bol let counters such likely descriptions of I questionnaires as, “bulky, long, formidable disorganized, or confusing” [5]. Moreover. strives to present “an attractive, well organi; questionnaire that looks easy to complete. ” There also is a practical concern for the
Cost-benefit analysis by questionnaire recipient
L
Survey responses: * quantity * quality
) c
e
FIGURE
308
The intent of the TDM procedure is to optimize three researcher-controlled variables of content de\ opment, questionnaire construction, and survey imI mentation to improve response rates and quality. focus on selected aspects of the latter two variabl which correspond to the two dimensions of Figure 1 QUESTIONNAIRECONSTRUCTION. The respondent’s itial exposure to the look and feel of the questionn; provides the first of several critical tests that a questi naire must pass if the instrument is going to elici response. As Dillman emphasizes, “the mail questi’ naire . . . requires careful construction, for it alone car under the respondent’s complete control” [5]. Selected recommendations that Dillman has made garding questionnaire construction are presented in Ta 1. The recommendations represent efforts to reduce costs and increase the rewards associated with complet of the questionnaire. Two recommendations listed in Table 1 warrant b: explanation:
t
J
1
Administrative Plan
2.
A Model of Survey Response Behavior
TABLE 1 Belected Elements of the Total Design Method Related to Questionnaire Construction Covers should strive to encourage
further examination
* Front cover: * Should contain; Graphic illustration, directions, and sponsor name and address * Should not conmint Questions or name of researcher * Back cover: * Should confainr Invitation for comments, white space * Should not contain: Questions
thank you, and plenty of
Formar should offer cues to the worth of the questionnaire * Booklet Format: 6%” X 8’/4” in size * Reproduction: Printed or high-quality photography * Paper: White or off-white paper stock Questions should guide respondent
impression
through the questionnaire, of orderliness and ease of completion
convey an
* First question: Forms a mental stepping stone * Should: Clearly relate to survey topic, have socially useful implications, be easily answered, convey a sense of neutrality, be applicable to everyone * Should nor: Be an innocuous ice-breaker or open-ended
and
* Remaining questions: Organized to reduce mental effort * Should: Be ordered in descending social usefulness, grouped by content and type, and end with the most potentially objectionable (i.e., demographic) questions * Should not: Require constant mental swtiching between question types Page formars
should motivate completion
and look easy to do so
* Should: Contain plenty of white space, have directions in parentheses, use transitions for continuity, use lower case letters for questions and upper case. for answers, establish a vertical flow, identify answer categories on the left with numbers, indicate how to skip screening questions, and use words for answer choices and ask only one question at a time for a series of questions * Should not: Contain preceding information Source: Dillman,
1978.
searcher: The recommended size is the largest dimension that will permit a 12-page questionnaire, cover letter, and return envelope to be sent for the standard one-ounce postage. 2. Related to the recommendation that all demographic questions be placed last, Dillman reports that “nonresponse to these items on TDM questionnaires has been found to be as low, and some-
times lower, than for all items placed earlier in the questionnaire” [5]. SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION. Failure in a mail survey can stem from a variety of sources. For instance, Dillman [5] refers to a researcher’s lack of organization concerning important survey details. He also cites reasons beyond the questionnaire’s appearance or content. Among these are a respondent discarding the questionnaire as “junk” mail or only partially completing the instrument. This section concentrates on overcoming these types of difficulties through attention to details and efforts to personalize the survey. Table 2 lists several of Dillman’s recommendations in this area, some of which warrant comment: 1. Dillman [5] favors a social-usefulness appeal rather than the commonly used altruistic appeal (e.g., Would you do me a favor?). His rationale centers around a few key points: (1) answering the questions often demands more effort than a mere favor, (2) follow-ups are not practical since persistent favors must be requested, and (3) even a token incentive pales in comparison to the personal reward of having helped solve an important problem. 2. Various elements of survey implementation are intended to increase the degree of personalization reflected in the survey materials. Support for such personalization flows from the basic appeal of social-usefulness. Personalization provides a more consistent reinforcement of the importance of the problem and the individual’s response, needed for a social-usefulness appeal, than do mimeographed copies. 3. Dillman [5] also recommends numbering the questionnaires, which obviously goes against traditional suggestions to promise anonymity. He found that possible alienation of respondents is mitigated by explaining the numbering code and then promising confidentiality. Furthermore, less than 0.5% of the respondents remove the numbers. Numbering helps to reduce the costs of followup and facilitates identification of early versus late respondents, knowledge of which can be used to evaluate differences in response patterns [ 11.
Use second and third follow-up mailings 309
TABLE 2 Selected Elements of the Total Design Method Related to Survey Implementation
APPLICATIONS OF THE TDM IN MARKETING SURVEYS
~a.+ appeal should convince people to respond
No TDM surveys discussed in Dillman’s book invob business populations or were directly related to mark ing. This leads to a commonly cited concern: Success survey methods for industrial populations are not same as for other populations [6, 7, 9, 121. A sect concern involves a key element of the TDM, namely appeal emphasizing social usefulness seemingly is ml difficult to convey effectively in a industrial marketil related survey of a business population than in pub1 opinion surveys. In a business survey, the benefits n be perceived as only indirectly benefiting a group w which the sample member identifies or, worse yet, bc efiting only the survey’s sponsor and not the responder firm [12]. As a step toward answering the question of whet1 the TDM can be effective in industrial marketing-rela surveys, this section describes two such surveys of bt ness populations that employed the TDM in large pa
* Should; Convince people that a problem exists and is important to a group with which they can identify, their help is needed, and portray the research as an intermediary between them and the problem solution * Should not; Be an altruistic appeal Cover letter should convey appeal and counter anticipated
questions
* Should; Be one page maximum, promise confidentiality, stress importance of individual, mention financial incentive, offer a copy of the results, and be individually typed and signed on 7’/4” X 1CWz” stationery * Should not; Promise anonymity Quesrionnaire
packet should appear organized
and personalized
* Should consist of: * Respondent identification: numbered questionnaire * Token financial incentive (mentioned in cover letter) * Preaddressed, postage-paid business-reply envelope * Transmittal envelope: 37/d’ x 7%” matching the cover letter stationery, individually typed, and hrst-class metered postage * Folded contents: Cover letter on the outside and folded together * Should not contain: * Adverse warnings: “dated material enclosed” or “immediate reply requested” * Separately folded contents * Bulk mail or stamp postage Follow-up mailings should each invoke different appeals * First follow-up one week later-thank you/friendly reminder. * Post card, printed message, individually addressed, and first-class metered or stamp * Second follow-up three weeks later to nonrespondents-insistence. * Letter (shorter than original) and replacement questionnaire, emphasis on social-usefulness of study * Third follow-up seven weeks later to nonrespondents-softer tone. * Letter and replacement questionnaire, emphasis on social-usefulness and importance of individual response, sent certified mail Source: Dillman,
1978.
4. Dillman has strong convictions about the effectiveness of follow-up mailings: “Without follow-up mailings, response rates would be less than half those normally attained by the TDM” [5]. Specifically, he reports that the first follow-up generates about as many returns as the first mailing and the third follow-up increases the response rate about 13 percentage points .*
HMO Survey The first study sought to examine the relationship ! tween a firm’s strategic orientation and its market management variables [3]. Input was requested from marketing director of each organization. METHODS. The population was defined as all hea maintenance organizations (HMOs) in the United Stat The questionnaire was targeted to HMO marketing rectors because “they are the personnel within HM who are most involved with the development, i plementation, and control of marketing managem plans and programs” [3]. The population consisted of 418 HMOs. Because the moderate number of HMOs in the population and expectation that responses might be difficult to obta the entire population was included in the survey. The questionnaire, presented as a 16-page book consisted of 72 items. Many of the questions were I atively difficult to answer, requiring considerable thou and arithmetic calculations. A sample question is I sented below:
Pricing-Please 2 Dillman [5] does not report what improvements utable to the second follow-up.
310
allocate 100 points among the foul
in response rates are attrib-
3 Deviations from the Total Design Method are listed in Table 3.
categories listed below to reflect how important you perceive each is in developing your HMO’s pricing strategy. Costs (Both Direct and Indirect) Demand (What the Market Will Bear) Competition (What Prices the Competition is Charging) Legal Requirements (What Regulators Allow) TOTAL POINTS :
OUTCOMES. The original sample of 418 was adjusted downward to 406 due to explanatory notes attached to four of the returned questionnaires. These respondents indicated that they managed the marketing programs of multilocation HMOs from one central office and, as such, should be treated as four (rather than 16) organizations. The survey generated a total of 162 returns, an overall response rate of 39.9%. However, inspection of the questionnaires identified 12 as incomplete. After excluding these 12 questionnaires, the number of usable returns was 150 and the usable response rate was 36.9%. This response rate is not as high as those reported by Dillman. However, it still is quite high considering that the questionnaire not only was lengthy and somewhat complicated but also requested proprietary and potentially sensitive strategic data related to the sample members’ organizations.
Utility Survey The second study was sponsored by a firm that supplies software and manpower to electric and gas utilities [ 171. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the target market’s perceptions of the company and its primary competitors with respect to such factors as overall product quality, range of services, and price competitiveness. METHODS. The population was defined as gas and/or electric utilities with at least 100,000 residential customers. The population included both customers and noncustomers of the survey sponsor. In the case of customer utilities, inputs were needed from two different individuals: an executive involved in purchasing outside marketing-related services and a supervisor involved in program implementation. For noncustomers, input was sought only from an executive involved in purchasing outside marketing-related services. This distinction necessitated two slightly different questionnaires. In total, the population consisted of 90 customer util-
TABLE 3 Deviations from the Total Design Method in HMO and Utility surveys UTILITY SURVEY * Prenotification postcard mailed first class to sample members seven days prior to initial mailing of questionnaire * Different size (7” x 8%“) booklet * First question in the customer questionnaire fairly innocuous (i.e., how long a customer of the company) * Questions not ordered according to social usefulness * Most demographic questions not included on questionnaire (data obtained from industry directory instead) * Vertical flow within questionnaire lacking for most part due to types of questions (e.g., semantic differential) * In some series of questions, abbreviations (e.g., SA) rather than words (e.g., Strongly Agree) used for answer choices with explanations of the abbreviations presented at the outset of the series * One question included on front cover * Debatable whether survey’s importance to a group with which questionnaire recipients identify was established since the survey was proprietary in nature * Two cover letters in the initial mailing: a one-page letter with a formal tone and a social-usefulness appeal from the director of the university agency conducting the survey and a shorter letter with an informal tone and an altruistic appeal (“Will you please do me a favor. ?“) from the president of the company sponsoring the survey * Summary of results not offered to questionnaire recipients * Regular-size stationery and envelopes * Promise of $1 donation to one of three charities of their choice made in shorter cover letter; question regarding which charity included on front cover of questionnaire * No third (i.e., certified) follow-up HMO SURVEY * Different size (5r%” X 8'h")booklet * Questions ordered from most to least difficult * Lower case for questions, upper case for answers not used * Letters used to identify answer categories * Vertical flow within questionnaire lacking for most part * Regular-size stationery and envelopes * Questionnaire (sample member) identified on back of business-reply envelope * No financial incentive * Stamped postage * No third (i.e., certified) follow-up Source: Walker,
1986 and Conant,
1986.
ities (each of which was sent two questionnaires) and 62 noncustomer utilities. Given its limited size, the entire population was included in the survey. The questionnaire, presented as an eight-page booklet, consisted of 7 1 items in the customer version and 80 items in the noncustomer version. OUTCOMES. By the cut-off date for responses, a total of 158 complete and usable questionnaires had been received, for an overall response rate of 65.3%. Furthermore, a majority of respondents within each of the three subgroups completed and returned the questionnaire:
311
TABLE 4 Cost-Benefit
* Metered postage Analysis
DECISION AREA QUESTlONNAlRE PHASE Covers (front & back) * Title
-
+ Conveys
None
business”
Applied to Survey Design * First class postage
-
Money
* Specially contents
- Time, effort
BENEFIT
COST
- Space
+ Positive tirst
* Graphic
-
Money, space
+ Set questionnaire
* Return address
-
Space
+ Can be returned if
impression
folded
apart from others separated from return envelope Consulting approach (reward) Verbal appreciation (reward) Space economy
- Space
+
* Thank you
-
+
* No questions
- Lost interest
+
Format * Size
- Space
+ Postage economy, po-
* Additional
comments
Space
Follow-ups * First
* Second
- Time, effort, money - Time, effort, money
sitive first impression * Third
Questions * Ice breaker * Descending gradient of social usefulness * Group questions
- Time, effort - Time, effort
+ Reduced mental effort + Encourage well-
* Cognitive
- Time, effort
+ Minimize feeling of
- Time, effort
+ Commitment
- Time, effort
+ Impression,
- Time, effort
+
- Time, effort
+
+ Relax respondent + Interest, commitment
- Space
thought-out ties
Page jot-mats * Fitting on page * Distinguish questions from answers * Vertical flow
IMPLEMENTATION Basic appeal * Social usefulness
questions
motivate to complete Fewer omitted questions Fewer omitted or mismarked responses
PHASE
- Time, effort
+ Provides a theme, feeling of being helpful (reward), increase “demands” of questions
+ Builds trust
* Copy of results * Size
- Obligation for researcher - Time, money - Space
* Personalized
- Time, money
* Real signature
-
Questionnaire packet * Numbered questionnaires * Token incentive
-- Time, lack of anonymity - Money (varies)
Cover
letter
* Confidentiality
312
Time
+ Builds trust, reward + Gains attention, impression of brevity + Feeling of importance (reward) + Feeling of importance (reward)
+ Facilitates + Reward.
+ Conveys importanc (reward), facilitates address correction, can be forwarded, I delayed at post offi t Differentiate from mass mailings, increases likelihood c reading cover letter first
+ Thank you (reward increased response (l5-25%) t Importance of individual (reward), increased response, opportunity to reme problems detected i early returns t Importance of individual (reward), increased response (13%). opportunity remedy problems d tected in early retur
answers
“unrelated” * Objectionable last (within groups)
Time, effort, money
a “norma appearan
follow-up builds trust
Source: Based on an interpretation 1978.
of elements recommended
by Dillm
Supervisors in customer utilities: 77.8% response rate Executives in customer utilities: 61. I % response rate Executives in noncustomer utilities: 53.2% response rat A slightly larger proportion of usable questionnairt were returned from customer utilities. In any event, tl response rate of 65.3% provided a sufficient data ba for analysis and certainly suggests the effectiveness 1 the TDM in this type of survey.
COST-BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
The implications of social exchange theory identific by Dillman [5] are summarized in question form belo\ A researcher can use these questions along with Figu 1 to estimate the value of each response-stimulatii technique. 1. Does this element reward the respondent by . . . a. making the questionnaire interesting? [5] b. offering tangible rewards? [2]
The TDM can be time consuming expensive c. supporting his or her values? [2] d. giving written appreciation? [2] e. showing positive regard? [ 151 2. Does this element reduce costs to the respondent by. . . a. making the task appear brief? [5] b. reducing the physical and mental effort that is required? [ 151 c. eliminating chances for embarrassment? [ 151 d. eliminating any indication of subordination? [2] e. eliminating any direct monetary costs? [51 3. Does this element establish trust by . . . a. providing a token of appreciation in advance?
PI b. identifying with a known organization that has legitimacy? [S] c. building on other exchange relationships? [5] As explained earlier in the paper, a questionnaire recipient basically decides whether to respond following an implicit or explicit cost-benefit analysis. In a similar fashion, an industrial marketing researcher can conduct a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to use the TDM in a mail survey. Table 4 lists selected costs and benefits expressed by Dill-an. These are arranged in the same order as the model in Figure 1 to emphasize both the sequential nature and interrelated effects of these decisions. It is apparent from the costs noted in Table 4 that use of the TDM can become (1) time consuming, (2) logistically complex, and (3) expensive. Furthermore, use of the TDM may improve response rates and quality compared to what otherwise would have been achieved, but it still does not guarantee the response rates of 70% and above as reported by Dillman. For example, Conant [3] achieved a 37% final response rate but did not use the third follow-up that is a central element in the TDM. Even if he had used it, Dillman’s evidence on the effects of the third follow-up suggests that Conant would have achieved a response rate in the vicinity of 50%, an im-
and
provement and quite commendable but still some distance from the average TDM response rate of 74%. Despite its potential and actual problems, the logic and survey-response effects of the TDM described by Dillman make the approach appealing. In particular, response rates probably will be increased substantially by using the TDM, an important consideration when (1) the original sample size is small, requiring a high response rate in order to have sufficient responses for meaningful analysis, and/or (2) the survey results are inputs for making strategic decisions. The comparatively high response rates obtained by Walker and Conant in their surveys of business managers demonstrate that the TDM can be effective in marketing-related surveys of industrial populations. The costliness of the TDM, especially with respect to out-of-pocket expenses, requires special consideration when the survey budget is king prepared. However, the results of the Conant and Walker surveys suggest that use of most, but not all, TDM elements still can result in comparatively high response rates. All factors considered, the TDM holds substantial promise for helping to overcome a persistent and serious problem in marketing-related mail surveys, namely low response rates. Therefore, use of the TDM, at least as a theory-based cost-benefit analysis as presented in this article, definitely should be considered by industrial marketers who are planning a mail survey.
REFERENCES Armstrong, J. Scott and Overton, Terry S., Estimating Nonresponse- Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal ofMarketing Research 14,396-402 (Aug 1977). Blau, Peter M., Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964. Conant, Jeffrey Scott, Strategic Organizational Styles and Marketing Management Performance: An Empirical Policy Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Business, Arizona State University (1986). Dillman, Don A., Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response in Large Samples of the General Public, Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 254-257 (Summer 1972).
313
5. Dillman, Don A., Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Toral Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.
11. Kimball, A. E., Increasing the Rate of Return in Mail Surveys, of Marketing 25, 63-64 (Dee 1961).
6. Gentry, Dwight L. and Hailey, William A., Industrial Survey Sampling, Industrial Marketing Management 10,183- 189 ( 198 1)
12. Petty, Glen H. and Quackenbush, Stanley F., The Conservation Questionnaire as a Business Resource, Business Horizons 17,43-50 1974).
I. Hansen, Robert A., Tinney, Cathie, and Rudelius, William, Increase Response to Industrial Surveys, Industrial Marketing Management 12, 165-169 (1983). 8. Homans, George C., Social Behavior: Its Elementary Brace and World, New York, 1961.
Forms. Harcourt,
9. lobber, David, Improving Response Rates in Industrial Indusrrial Marketing Management 15, 183-195 (1986).
Mail Surveys,
10. Kanuk, Leslie and Berenson, Conrad, Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature Review, Journal of Marketing Research 12, MO-453 (Nov 1975).
314
Jour of (1
13. Pressley, Milton M., Care Needed When Selecting Response Inducemc in Mail Surveys of Commercial Populations, Jourwl of theAcadem. Marketing Science 6, 336-343 (Fall 1978). 14. Pressley, Milton M., Improving Mail Survey Responses from Indusl Organizations, Industrial Marketing Management 9, 231-235 (1980: 15. Thibaut, I. W. and Kelley, H. H., The Social Psychology John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1959.
of Grow
16. Walker, Bruce J., The Opinions of Utility Executives Regarding Service Firms and Utility Trends and Challenges. Unpublished Tempe, Arizona (1986).
Utl rep