1. 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.

2. 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)

3. 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

4. Selected Countries

5. Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation
Survey Response

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

7. 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.

8. 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 ( adresses)
Duration: December 2004 – February 2005
Conducted by native speakers

9. I. Sampling: Identified Journalists

10. Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation
Survey Response

11. 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)

12. 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)

13. Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation
Survey Response

14. 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 and the web.
It was possible to generate lists of real estate journalists and their -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 ( and seven subdomains (e.g. so every journalist was guided to his nation specific questionnaire. This way answers were also saved in seperate files.

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

16. 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

17. 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 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

18. Steps Sampling Procedure Questionnaire Design Online Implementation
Survey Response

19. 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 , 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

20. IV. Survey Response: Response Development During Fieldwork5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Date
Response rate %
First follow-up
( ) on
Second follow-up
( ) on
Third follow-up
(telephone) on
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

21. 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
Date
Switzerland
Spain
Germany
Austria
France
Great Britain

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

23. 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 - and internet-usage allows to shorten contact frequency.

24. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!