Unveiling the Market Research Game-Changer: The Disturbing Tactics of "Paid For Your Say"

Editor's Note: During my 30 years in qualitative research, I learned that careful screening of study participants isn't merely helpful, it's crucial. While "cheater and repeaters" might not be new, we are facing a new challenge: a commercial online training program that teaches people how to game the system. The following "expose" article isn't just about a few bad apples; it's pointing out a threat to the integrity of our research on a whole new scale.

I want to share a story with you. Kerry Hecht, of 10KHumans, reached out to the creator of "Paid for Your Say" in a spirit of curiosity and openness. Unfortunately, the response was a door gently closed, with a message that there wasn't enough common ground for a chat. Later, an offer came that Kerry might pay for such a conversation, but she respectfully declined.

Kerry has invited me to facilitate a panel discussion (date and time tbd) to further dissect the techniques in the thoughtfully designed learning course and dive into more actions we can take as an industry to overcome their threats to quality. Greenbook is also bringing this topic to IIEX North America. We urge you to spread awareness of this business model and join us to stay on top of this slippery participant slope before it becomes an uphill battle.

---

As recruiters and researchers for qualitative research, we aim to find the ideal participants for our client's projects and meet their research objectives. We strive to find audiences that align with the necessary criteria and those who are articulate, enthusiastic, and willing. 

Over the years, our Industry’s recruitment and vetting tactics have evolved. Technology has allowed us to create simultaneously more advanced and convenient tactics for participants. Recruitment through social media, socialization, and online database management have many perks. This is coupled with the ability to instantly communicate with participants via email and SMS in tailored rescreening efforts. 

However, on the flip side of this coin, dishonesty and scamming from potential research participants have also become more pervasive and complex. 

Recently, we stumbled across a business called “Paid For Your Say.” 

Paid For Your Say (PFYS) is a thoughtfully designed online learning platform we found on YouTube. It teaches people interested in participating in market research projects – both qual and quant – how to pass the questionnaires used to determine eligibility, regardless of whether they legitimately qualify or not. The primary objective is to teach individuals how to "shape-shift" into whatever is needed for acceptance into a study while stoking their hopes that they'll get into as many as possible (to maximize their potential earnings).

Having recently completed the course, we’ve observed the grim reality of what is being taught. The owner/instructor prides herself on being a long-time participant in Market Research studies, with over 30 years of experience. Her coaching is sophisticated, and she labels her fraudulent answers as “tailoring” instead of “lying.” 

Her years of experience combined with our current screening methods have created a scenario where it's easy to guess what will and won’t qualify you to participate.

Much of her advice can be boiled down to some pretty basic and obvious instructions:

• Never state that you’ve participated in a study in the past 6 months.

• Always state that you have a high income, $75K or higher

• Always state that you’re married and have a child in the household that is under 18.

• State that you work in “None of the above” on any given Industry questions, or give a vague occupation like Real Estate Agent or Realtor

• If you’re 55+, say you’re 45-50 because “they do not check” your DOB on your DL/State ID

The aforementioned list should be unsurprising to industry veterans, whether they’re researchers or participants. We believe individuals on both sides, especially participants, would know how to beat those screening criteria. Most respondents answer honestly and in good faith, but the nefarious intentions of schools such as Paid for Your Say push us to a more defensive position. 

There’s More to This Than Instructing People to Lie

Along with the 15+ hours of training video content, the “Paid For Your Say” group actively meets in real-time to exchange survey links and apply to studies together. Paid For Your Say has cultivated a strong sense of camaraderie among its students and has built a small but mighty community. 

Through a private Facebook group and Telegram account, members actively encourage one another and share success stories. They share photographs of products for studies where proof of product usage is a criterion. They crowd-source studies and share names of specific businesses… many of which are more than well-known but are renowned partners and industry leaders.

They also leverage an affiliate program that encourages students to recruit friends, family, and “followers" to enroll using their own unique affiliate hyperlinks (for sharing on social media). 

By employing her own well-honed recruitment tactics, the owner of Paid For Your Say has ironically succeeded in building a Market Research database. They've done it similarly to how a legitimate recruiting firm would - promoting the chance to make money by participating in research projects.  

Help From the Inside

Throughout the course, the rabbit hole we went down felt even deeper as we witnessed people gaining advice from an industry insider – an individual who, at the time of the recording, was actively working for a Market Research firm in Atlanta. Careful to remain anonymous, this person infamously calls herself “Thee Recruiter” while leading a two-part insider video series. In both videos, “Thee Recruiter” spends time breaking down the recruitment process, explaining quotas, and providing depth and insight into the past participation process, yielding many tips and tricks for the PFYS (Paid For Your Say) community.

At the time of publishing, the Paid For Your Say private Facebook group had approximately 3,600 members and nearly 3,000 members in the private Telegram chat. The PFYS course includes access to an enormous list of Market Research companies, which their members are encouraged to use to apply for studies. The list comprises over 70 companies, from small, localized recruiters to multinational panel companies. To put it bluntly, no Market Research company is out of reach for the Paid For Your Say brigade.

Any professional in the industry has likely encountered a dishonest participant at one point or another. However, what’s unsettling about this school is that they’ve nearly perfected the formula for “tailoring” their answers. Consistent screener patterns and repetitive verbiage have paved the way for this type of behavior.

What Does the Discovery of Paid for Your Say Mean for Qualitative Research?

What does this mean for those of us working in Qualitative recruitment? Has the integrity of Qualitative research been compromised? Should we be worried?

We don’t think the industry is any more compromised than it has been previously. As we mentioned earlier, we’ve seen cheating before in a variety of iterations - including The Learning Annex launching a course on this exact issue.  

Paid For Your Say isn’t the first and it won’t be the last so it’s incumbent upon us to change the game.  

Throughout the recorded group sessions, Paid For Your Say members discuss their successes and failures by company name. They admit that they don’t attempt applying with certain companies because their “security is too tight”. Unfortunately, while these screening measures haven't been universally applied, these statements assure us that there are successful tactics against professional participants.

We observed PFYS members' discussions about their current and future use of AI tools like ChatGPT. As technology around accessibility and communication improves rapidly, it’s imperative, now more than ever, for players in our industry to come together and raise the bar for recruitment standards. A team is only as strong as its weakest link. If we don’t work together as an industry to up the ante, groups and individuals like this will only continue to migrate from one company to another and flourish.

We Have More Control Than We Think We Do

The operations team at 10KHumans and Catherine “Mickey” Hill of Advanced Insights are brainstorming solutions to combat what is being taught. In this article, we’ve pulled them together based on what we’ve seen in the Paid For Your Say program.

We see some easy wins through short-term solutions and then some that require more coordination and a longer and more strategic plan that aims to address what we see as our role in this debacle.

What Can We Do Immediately? Short-Term Advice for Qualitative Recruitment Vetting

1. Collect a photocopy of state or federal ID showcasing an applicant’s photo and date of birth – for online and in-person. This will prevent anyone from “tailoring” their age or address to fit into a study.

2. Identify and track Google Voice numbers by entering them into a Google search. Many of the professionals in PFYS have created duplicate phone numbers to fly under the radar.

3. Take verification one step further with photo collections. Instead of asking them to send a photo of the product or verification item ask them to send the photo selfie style.  Have them send a photo with the product in hand or of them holding their car title, for example.  We know they pass photos back and forth in the groups - so eliminate that as an option by having them, the product, and their ID all in one shot and then VERIFY it.

a. If you receive a photo that seems questionable, plug it into TinEye.com. This free online tool will flag any stock photos or shared images on search engines. 

4. Track IP addresses and become comfortable with the various security features offered by your survey programming platform. Duplicate, bot, and VPN detection are standard measures that should be considered when reviewing a respondent’s profile.

5. Add a clear and concise fraud warning within your screener. Outline the legal and civil implications of the respondent giving fraudulent answers to qualify and collect an incentive. Ask that they agree and confirm that all information shared within the screener is truthful and warn that they may be liable for damage if they’re found to be tailoring information to qualify. 

6. Turn your client’s screener into a series of open-ended questions that you pre-screen with. It makes it harder to guess the right answers.  

Looking Ahead, the Long-Term Changes to Implement as an Industry in Recruiting

As an industry, we need to revisit our best practices and come to some consensus. It benefits all of us and further supports what we’ve listed above.

1. Revamp Survey Questions: Move away from traditional multi-select and grid questions to avoid predictability. Behavior and attitude is essential, but they can easily be captured in an open-ended way. Consider getting rid of questions entirely around past participation.  

2. Adjust Language: Modify recruitment language to be vague and avoid leading respondents. Consider what the most important thing is for you and our client. Is it that the person can speak eloquently about a product or articulately about a component of a topic - then get them to show you that?

3. Biometric Verification: Implement biometric verification for enhanced screening.

4. AI Facial Recognition: Embrace AI facial recognition tools to spot repeat professionals.

5. Routine Database Maintenance: Regularly update and maintain databases and communities.

We’ve been in this place before.  More than once but the true awakening never seems to happen. Data quality is an issue in all areas of market research and it should be our highest priority to fix. It is the cornerstone of what we sell.

What’s Next for the Future of Qualitative Research Data?

Professional participants are nothing new to our field of work. One could argue that if managed the right way, there could even be a benefit to our industry if the answers are honest.

Over time, recruiters have diversified their sources and strengthened their vetting techniques to move with the times. While the revelation of Paid For Your Say’s sophisticated curriculum has come as a shock and a stark reminder of why vigilance matters, it’s important to remember that this is a small pool of people. We choose to remain optimistic about the partners we work with and the people we talk to in our studies. We don’t believe this is the norm.

We can’t let Paid For Your Say or companies like them undermine the good and important work we do. However, the uncovering of this course should be taken seriously by those working on all levels of the industry. If we’re not proactive in cutting the lawn to find the snakes, we risk ending up at the bottom of a pit in the long run.