Dr. Nikolaus Jackob Thomas Zerback M.A. Sampling Procedure, Questionnaire Design, Online Implementation and Survey Response in a Multi-National Online Journalist-Survey Ljubljana, November 11th 2005 Dr. Nikolaus Jackob Thomas Zerback M.A.

Benchmarking in Real Estate-Journalism Goal: Exploring and comparing the status quo of real estate-journalism on an international level Method: Anaysis of the real estate-markets and press structures (qualitative) & Online-survey of real estate-journalists (quantitative)

Benchmarking in Real Estate-Journalism Sponsored by: Scientific Association for Real Estate Journalism (WVFI) Conducted by: Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Mainz Prof. Dr. Hans Mathias Kepplinger Dr. Nikolaus Jackob/Thomas Zerback M.A. ebs Department of Real Estate European Business School, Oestrich-Winkel Prof. Dr. Karl-Werner Schulte HonRICS Dipl.-Kffr. Jenny Arens Duration: 3 Years

Selected Countries

Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation Survey Response

I. Sampling: Intended Press Sample Type of Publication Number of titles Regional Newspapers 20 National Newspapers 6 National Weekly Magazines and Newspapers 6 Business Magazines and Newspapers 6 Special Interest Magazines and Newspapers 10 Intended Sample Size per Country 48

I. Sampling: Realised Press Sample * According to experts only a small number of regional daily newspapers exists in Austria because of the press concentration in this segment of the Austrian press market. But regional weekly news­papers can be considered as an alternative for regional daily newspapers.

Sampling: Journalist Sample 2. Step: Journalist sample Telephone interviews Contacting the editorial offices of the identified newspapers and magazines Identifying real estate-journalists Collecting contact information (e-mail adresses) Duration: December 2004 – February 2005 Conducted by native speakers

I. Sampling: Identified Journalists

Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation Survey Response

II. Questionnaire Design Status Quo of Real Estate Journalism (y1) Job Profile (x1) Understanding of the Occupation (x3) Working Conditons (x2) Interaction with Market Participants (x4) Performance of Real (y2)

II. Questionnaire Design 45 questions in total Maximum standardization, equivalence & comparability Closed-ended questions with carefully worded answer-alternatives Pre-tests with German version Translation in target language text (TLT) by native speakers Pre-Tests with German, English, French and Spanish version Calculated fill-out time approximately 20 minutes German Version Translation in TLT Retranslation (Pre-Test) (Pre-Test)

Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation Survey Response

III. Online Implementation: Pros Cost efficiency Time efficiency Larger samples easy to interview (low costs) Data is coded and saved immediately (no written reply) Design features (sounds, graphics, videos)  compatibility!  If conditions are met online surveys are particularly suitable for multi-national studies! We‘ve chosen the web-survey as a method for several reasons: Journalists are availiable via internet, they all have access to Email and the web. It was possible to generate lists of real estate journalists and their Email-adresses in the nations analysed The pros of the method (cost and time efficiency) were emphasized by the international character of the study Multiple contact startegies are easier to realize! We created one main domain (www.journalist-survey.com) and seven subdomains (e.g. www.journalist-survey.com/deutschland) so every journalist was guided to his nation specific questionnaire. This way answers were also saved in seperate files.

III. Online Implementation: Cons Online surveys only suitable for special populations (internet/e-mail access and skills) Participants have to be motivated (self-selection) Complete lists with e-mail addresses necessary (often not available, except for e.g. Students)  Difficult to draw a representative sample

III. Online Implementation: Screenshot Official logos Screenshot of the „php-surveyor“: Official logos were added to enhance credibility, trustworthiness Questions were presented screen-by-screen because of the questionnaire’s length “Back button” was removed to prevent respondents from scrolling Progress bar was removed: Otherwise dropout-rates are likely to increase in long questionnaires No progress-bar Back button removed

III. Online Implementation: Problems Choosing the right software (costs vs. options)  “php-surveyor” (freeware) Forms have to be computed/displayed identically by different computers/software (no “fancy-designs”)  Pre-testing! Wrong e-mail addresses (spelling, changes, technical reasons) Tokens or not? Passing spam-filters Fear of viruses, dubious content and spam Beside the general problems also linked with traditional mail surveys (lacking control of the interview situation, low response rates), in Web-surveys special problems may occur. „Php-surveyor“ is a very simple provides most of the common question models (ranking, rating, labeled categories, multiple answers) Reasons for pretests: Different display resolutions Different Web-browsers

Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation Survey Response

IV. Survey Response: Multiple Contact Strategy Multiple contacts are considered to raise response rates 6 contacts realized: 1. Pre-notice mail 2. Questionnaire contact 3. Follow-ups (reminders): 2 by e-mail, 1 by telephone 4. Thank-you mail Every contact personalized and nation-specific Containing participating institutions and senior scholars Contact information for troubleshooting Study results offered as incentive Request to send confirmation mail

IV. Survey Response: Response Development During Fieldwork 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 30.05.05 06.06.05 13.06.05 20.06.05 27.06.05 04.07.05 11.07.05 18.07.05 25.07.05 01.08.05 Date Response rate % First follow-up (e-mail) on 07.06.2005 Second follow-up (e-mail) on 28.06.2005 Third follow-up (telephone) on 05.07.2005 Development of response rates: Overall response rate of 40 % was reached (not very high but satisfactory) Individuals react very fast after each contact (approximately within 3 days) followed by a phase of only marginal gains The first mail had the biggest effect (17%), followed by the second one (27%) The gains in response get lower with every further contact Special effect of the telephone contact

IV. Survey Response: Comparison of Response Rates 70,0 60,0 58 % 50,0 48 % 46 % 40,0 Response % 38 % 30,0 32 % Besides the overall development of response rates it is interesting to compare the curves of the six nations: The effects caused by the different contacts can be confirmed: Fast response within 3 days, weaker effects of later contacts, special effect of the telephone contact Very large differences within the 6 nations although the procedures of the sample construction were the same. Possible reasons: Terrorist attacks on the 7th of July, different holiday seasons. (Vortrag am gleichen Tag morgens!!!) 20,0 17 % 10,0 0,0 30.05.2005 06.06.2005 13.06.2005 20.06.2005 27.06.2005 04.07.2005 11.07.2005 18.07.2005 25.07.2005 01.08.2005 Date Switzerland Spain Germany Austria France Great Britain

IV. Response Rates: Reasons for Non-Response Technical reasons Hard- and software problems, spam filters, wrong spelling of e-mail addresses Non-availability Holidays, changed or deleted e-mail addresses Non-compliance/refusal Lack of time, low motivation, fear of viruses, spam, dubious content

V. Conclusion Target population must have access to the web and the capability to use it – e.g. journalists. Pre-testing – in a traditional and technical way – is essential for success. Multiple-contact strategies enhance response and can easily be realized. Recruiting sample members by telephone may lower non-response. Telephone reminders seem to be more effective than mail reminders. Daily e-mail- and internet-usage allows to shorten contact frequency.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!