Online platform still booming – in sponsorship research, too
Am I already online, or what? Those were the days, when AOL still had to teach the German population how easy it is to go online in its commercials. Today, the internet is almost taken for granted. Three quarters of German adults are already online. Of course, market and opinion research has also been affected by this development. Online surveys were often viewed with criticism in the past regarding their representative character and the quality of the market research they deliver, but today – at least in the industrialised western markets – nobody seriously questions their inclusion in the standard market research portfolio.
On the contrary: Online research is all the rage as a survey method for many providers and clients. The lower costs, short fieldwork period and direct access to results, usually even during the investigation, are the main arguments of online research. Of course, this is also relevant in the investigation of questions in the scope of sponsorship research. Therefore, online surveys are also gradually playing a more significant role in this sector, too.
However, an important question arises: how can results from online research be viewed in comparison to those obtained using classical methods, in particular telephone interviews? Without tangible studies comparing them, it is difficult to provide a qualified answer.
Online vs. Telephone: Structurally similar, specific differences
In the scope of its international Football Monitor study (a tool for measuring the impact of football sponsorship), SPORT+MARKT implemented a comparable study of this kind. For this purpose, the Football Monitor, which is usually implemented using telephone surveys, was conducted in the Netherlands using an online survey. The battery of questions was identical and 600 representative football-interested persons were interviewed.
The structure of the two sample groups match: the distribution of age, gender, education and income was virtually identical. In addition, for many questions, the distribution of answers was very similar – for example, in response to the question whether a professional football match had been attended in the past 12 months.
Nevertheless, several significant differences occurred. Various questions made it clear that online, more club fans responded / a much higher affinity to Dutch club football existed amongst the sample. In contrast, in the telephone sample, interest in major international events such as the FIFA World Cup or UEFA EURO was stronger.
Therefore, there were differences in the club and sponsor-related questions. A good example is provided by the open question on the most disliked domestic football club (see graph 1). The ranking of clubs was identical amongst both samples, but online, more respondents named clubs. Thus, here, the investigation method seems to provoke responses to open questions more strongly than telephone surveys. All in all, the respondents in the online sample seemed to have both a stronger club and media affinity, as they stated that they inform themselves about their club and football in general more intensively.
Similarly, there were differences between telephone and online investigations in studies conducted in the scope of the UEFA Women‘s EURO 2009. In various investigations (the target groups were always quoted identically, therefore with no socio-demographic differences) e.g. the fit of certain statements with the event was investigated. The rankings of the statements were largely identical in the telephone and online investigations; however, the levels amongst the online sample were often somewhat higher. In addition, the studies were each conducted in six different European countries, which leads to the conclusion that the differences from the previously-mentioned example from the Netherlands do not represent the characteristics of a particular country.
In summary, it should be noted that online and telephone-based investigations cannot be compared 100%. Although demographic differences can be levelled (e.g. using quoting guidelines), online, a target group not exactly the same as a telephone sample with regard to content.
Online or telephone? Not just a question of price
Online interviews are important in sponsorship research. However, this is only the case if they answer the relevant questions without bias and efficiently. If results representative for the population are required (e.g. surveys on the national football team), online surveys are not (yet) suitable. Online studies are also not recommended for small target groups with strictly limited time periods for the survey (e.g. day-after recall of onsite spectators at a Bundesliga match), as implementation via telephone is usually more efficient.
On the other hand, an online study can always provide benefits if a particular topic must be investigated in detail amongst a target group easy to reach (e.g. the attitude of heavy users of a brand on its sponsorship engagement). Online is often chosen if visual elements are required in a study. These specifications make it clear that the decision between online and telephone studies should never be taken lightly and should definitely not be reduced to the factors of speed and price. An experienced market research partner can help you to avoid making the wrong investments.
Contact:
Ibrahim Köse
Senior Project Manager SPORT+MARKT
ibrahim.koese@sportundmarkt.com
Telephone: +49 - (0) 221 - 430 73 194