Sample Marketplaces, Programmatic Sample and the Economy of Fraud

While under many guises, there can be little doubt that sample marketplaces and programmatic sampling are the backbone of the online industry. If we assume the results reported in Insights’ Hottest Methods! for “marketplaces, such as for sample, talent, software, etc.” apply only to sample marketplaces, then these are expanding their footprint further and further, continuing to replace direct-to-panel source relationships at pace.

The good and the bad of that paradigm shift, which has been happening for years, is subjective. The one thing that isn’t, however, is the economy of fraud. On one side of the coin, the debate against sample marketplaces is the reverse auctioning of legitimate panel assets, creating an environment that allows fraudulent or poor-quality suppliers to compete on an apples-to-apples basis (where it’s more like apples to rotten prunes). On the other hand, it creates a much broader market to sell one’s panel ‘wares’.

Sample marketplaces and programmatic samples are essential to the online research space, regardless of whether you like them or not. Yes, they absolutely 100% unequivocally created a sizeable conduit for fraud that has absolutely 100% unequivocally damaged our industry in ways that I don’t think many people fully realize. But are the smartly built technical solutions and companies at fault? Absolutely not.

Is it the shady small aggregator who repackages panels known to be fraudulent as something of quality? Let’s call him ‘Bob’ – the guy who finds 200 US cardiologists for a 30-minute survey for $15 who, by the way, happen to be members of a foreign panel? Yes, and well not really. ‘Bob’ is just an opportunist without a soul taking advantage of a system ‘Bob’ didn’t actually create.

So, who’s to blame for the economy of fraud? Well, simply put, all of us to a degree. Inflation has run amok post-COVID in most industries. It’s hard to find any area that hasn’t dramatically increased in cost for most of the 2020s. Except, of course, the cost of online data. Many of us, in one form or another, have been continuously pushing down the price of data acquisition. Amazingly, our industry believes that people, real people, are somehow willing to give their time for less post-Covid.  With the simple tenet that ‘someone’ is going to sample it. Ultimately, our industry is normalizing poor-quality data.

Squeezing supply chains isn’t exactly a novel idea. It ultimately runs its course with predictable results. Usually with an ‘event’. The results are clear now – end clients simply do not trust data. Shocking, I know…

How do we reverse course? It’s simple really.

Step one: Use tech (I’m biased there so I won’t name-drop), but seriously, look for a great quality data platform and use it.

Step two: Demand transparency and ask questions. Where was this data that we are basing our research or decisions on collected? By whom and, maybe most importantly, how much did it cost?

By adopting smart technology, upping transparency, and stunting the economics of fraud, things can and will change for the better…. Well maybe not for ‘Bob’.