The following five tables provide the breakdown of percentages for each recruiter type cited by respondents. For example, in the Recruiter 1 table directly below, 57 respondents indicated that the person who runs the study recruits 100% of the studies in their organizations.???

As shown in the preceding table, 79% of respondents (158 of 201) indicated that the person who runs the study recruits participants for an average of 70% of the studies, and 28% of respondents (57 of 201) indicated that the person who runs the study recruits for 100% of the studies.???

As shown in the preceding table, 36% of respondents (73 of 201) indicated that an outside recruiting agency recruits participants for an average of 61% of the studies, and 9% (19 of 201) indicated that an agency recruits for 100% the studies.???

As shown in the preceding table, 32% of respondents (64 of 201) indicted that someone else within their company recruits participants for an average of 32% of the studies. “Clerical staff” (highlighted in blue) was cited most often (six times), and other support staff, such as “Customer Service” or “Receptionist,” were cited five times (also highlighted in blue).???

As shown in the preceding table, 13% of respondents (27 of 201) indicated that some other person recruits participants for an average of 32% of the studies. “Client” was cited most often (16 times).???

As shown in the preceding table, 12% of respondents (24 of 201) indicated that a dedicated recruiter within their company recruits participants for an average of 67% of the studies, and 6% (13 of 201) indicated dedicated recruiters recruit 80%–100% of the studies.??????

We organized all internal user groups that respondents cited using as dry run, pilot, or regular study participants into four separate categories—general, professional, support / clerical, and technical—as described below. Many respondents provided data about usability studies they conduct with internal users, but did not specify an internal user group.

We organized external user groups that respondents cited into six separate categories—high-end professional, medium professional, low-end professional, technical, consumer, and unpaid / nonprofessional—as described below. A few respondents provided data about usability studies they conduct with external users, but did not specify a user group.

We organized incentives into the broad categories of monetary and non-monetary. Non-monetary incentives fell into four separate subcategories—certificates for merchandise, food and beverages, “intangible rewards,” and tangible gifts—as described below. Some respondents indicted that they provide a non-monetary incentive, but did not specify what it was.

As shown in the preceding table, survey respondents indicated that not everyone provides monetary incentives to participants, especially not to internal participants (generally, employees or closely related contractors of the study sponsors).

The following table provides survey responses for monetary incentives provided, sorted by user group.???

As shown in the preceding table, of internal staff who receive monetary incentives, technical staff receive the lowest incentive rate. (Technical people often are motivated to participate for the opportunity to be involved in technology in a new and different way.) As pilot and dry-run participants, professional staff receive no monetary incentive—perhaps because they may have some stake in the study. Interestingly, support staff are paid as pilot and dry-run participants but not as actual participants.

The above table also indicates that external monetary rates are double that for internal participants, with high-end professionals garnering the highest rate.

The following table summarizes the monetary incentives offered to participants by geographical region and user group.???

As shown in the preceding table, monetary payment trends for internal participants by region are unpredictable. Monetary payments are highest on the US West Coast ($79 per session-hour on average), and lowest in non-European, non-US countries ($27 per session-hour).

Why are incentives twice as high in the United States as compared with Europe? One likely explanation is that Americans tend to feel over-surveyed and require more of an incentive to participate in studies. In contrast, Europeans may not yet be as tired of market research and may show more appreciation for being asked to influence the future direction of technology. It is understandable that the West Coast in the US is more expensive than the rest of the country (because the cost of living tends to be higher on the coasts), but why isn’t the Northeast more expensive as well? It might be because of a similar phenomenon on the West Coast. With its higher number of computer and high-tech companies, the West Coast’s population may simply feel more over-surveyed than people on the East Coast.

The 201 respondents generated 196 non-monetary incentive citations within a total of 560 distinct user-group citations (166 internal dry-run / pilot citations, 134 internal participant citations, and 260 external participant citations).

We provide non-monetary citations by user group and by geographical location.???

As shown in the preceding table, gifts and gift certificates are the preferred incentives, being offered two times as often as other non-monetary incentives for both internal and external groups.

The following table summarizes the non-monetary incentives offered to participants by geographical region.??????

We tested whether survey data would confirm the anecdotal data we received from usability professionals that the no-show rate is higher for professional recruiting agencies than for internal recruiters. The results from our survey tend to back up this claim, although the differences in no-show rates are not statistically significant. Three internal recruiter categories do slightly better, while a fourth—the person who runs the study (presumably a usability professional)—does slightly worse than the world average rate of 10.6%, as described below. The following bullet points summarize the no-show rates from best to worst, for internal and agency recruiters: