Postal survey response rates are affected by the intersection of a variety of dependent and independent variables. This paper outlines the response rate variables manipulated in a survey that generated a 75.2% return. The case of a university-sponsored, UK-based postal survey of the general public is documented, with Fox, Crask & Kim's (1988) five key response rate issues - respondent contact, the covering letter, incentives, the questionnaire and postage mailing - providing a framework for discussion. The aim is to provide those conducting future surveys, exhibiting like characteristics in terms of sponsorship, topic and sample population, with an example of response rate success, from which comparative lessons may be learned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BabbieE.. (1990). Survey research methods.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2.
ClarkG.L., & KaminskiP.F. (1989). How to get more for your money in mail surveys.Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6, 3, 45–51.
3.
CrimpM., & WrightL.. (1995). The marketing research process.4th Edition.London: Prentice Hall.
4.
De ChernatonyL.. (1990). Exhuming the low response rate fallacy of postal research.Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 8, 1, 34–39.
5.
De VausD.A. (1996). Surveys in social research4th Edition.London: UCL Press.
6.
DillmanD.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method.New York: John Wiley.
7.
FoxR.J., CraskM.R., & KimJ.. (1988). Mail survey response rate: a meta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response.Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 4, 467–491.
8.
GreenK.E. (1996). Sociodemographic factors and mail survey response.Psychology & Marketing, 13, 2, 171–185.
9.
HarveyL.. (1987). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a comprehensive literature review.Journal of the Market Research Society, 29, 3, 342–353.
10.
KalafatisS., & BlanksonC.. (1996). An investigation into the effect of questionnaire identification numbers in consumer mail surveys.Journal of the Market Research Society, 38, 3, 277–284.
11.
KloseA., & BallA.W. (1995). Using optical mark read surveys: an analysis of response rate and quality.Journal of the Market Research Society, 37, 3, 269–287.
12.
LinB., & JonesC.A. (1997). Some issues in conducting customer satisfaction surveys.Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 3, 1, 413.
13.
MartinC.L. (1994). The impact of topic interest on mail survey response behaviour.Journal of the Market Research Society, 36, 4, 327–338.
14.
MoserC., & KaltonG.. (1971). Survey research methods in social investigation (Second edition).Aldershot: Gower.
15.
NataraajanR., & AngurM.G. (1996). Impact of blocking with prenotification appeal on mail survey response rates.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 4, 4, 106–111.
16.
SchlegelmilchB.B., & DiamantopoulosA.. (1991). Prenotification and mail survey response rates: a quantitative integration of the literature.Journal of the Market Research Society, 33, 3, 243–255.
17.
SchneiderK.C., & JohnsonJ.C. (1994). Link between response-inducing strategies and uniformed response.Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 12, 1, 29–36.
18.
TaylorS., & LynnP.. (1998). The effect of a preliminary notification letter on response to a postal survey of young people.Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 2, 165–173.
19.
TseA., ChingR., DingY., & FongR.. (1994). A comparison of the effectiveness of mail and facsimile as survey media on response rate, speed and quality.Journal of the Market Research Society.36, 4, 349–356.
20.
TseA.C., TseK.C., YinC.H., & TingC.B. (1995). Comparing two methods of sending out questionnaires: e-mail verses mail.Journal of the Market Research Society.37, 4, 441–447.
21.
TurleyS.K. (1997). Image and attraction: the case of traditional UK zoos. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. The Nottingham Trent University.
