The bottom line on online sample routers

So what's the bottom line? I don't think we need to fear routing. Routing is essentially about automating and systematizing what panel companies have been doing for a decade. While some vendors are working on ways to claim greater representivity by the questions they ask in their screeners that's really a separate issue from routing. Likewise, sample quality solutions such as Imperium and TrueSample are distinct from routing.

So routing does not solve, nor does it pretend to solve, the underlying problems of doing research with volunteers, whether on panels or through other online sourcing methods. It probably does not make things worse and may create some significant improvements by bringing more discipline to the online sampling process and making it possible to broaden the sources we can use. What is certain is that the future is one with more routing, not less. My sense is that currently around 40% (give or take 10%) of US online sample is being routed. But I also expect that to continue to increase and eventually dominate.

Of course, the real bottom line is what effects if any we see in survey results using routed sample. It's not clear to me that that research has been done and I'm glad to see the ARF taking this on as part of their larger online sample quality initiative. Clients have made it very clear that the one thing they absolutely must have is reliability, replicability, consistency—whatever you choose to call it. They can't get one result this week and a different result with the same survey two weeks later. They can live without representivity or classic validity, but they must have reliability. I hope the ARF initiative helps us understand the role routing might play in meeting that need.