Cash, gift cards, points, experiences and donations serve different purposes when recruiting market research participants. NeoCurrency’s February 25, 2025 guidance discusses those options, but the study it links supports a narrower conclusion: financial incentives can increase survey response, without establishing that they improve the accuracy of the answers. [1] [2]
What the response evidence can tell research buyers
The linked PLOS ONE review by Basel Abdelazeem and colleagues, published on January 17, 2023, combined 46 randomized trials involving 109,648 participants in 14 countries. Database searches ran through September 23, 2021, with a manual update through November 2021. The researchers pooled response events and participant totals separately for money, vouchers and lotteries against groups offered no incentive. [2]
Survey response improved in three incentive comparisons
Separate pooled effects of each incentive format versus no incentive in the randomized trials reviewed by Abdelazeem and colleagues.
risk ratio
Tap or hover for details. All values are also available in the data table.
Source
46 randomized trials with 109,648 participants across the whole review, not each bar. The three 95% confidence intervals are 1.16-1.35, 1.08-1.31 and 1.03-1.22. Different trial groups and settings; not a direct ranking experiment, a response-rate percentage or a test of NeoCurrency products. Evidence search ended in 2021.
Show data tableHide data table
| Category | Pooled response risk ratio versus no incentive |
|---|---|
| Money | 1.25 risk ratio |
| Vouchers | 1.19 risk ratio |
| Lottery | 1.12 risk ratio |
A risk ratio of 1.19 for vouchers means a 19% relative increase in response in that pooled comparison, not a 19-percentage-point increase or a 19% completion rate. Money had the largest point estimate, but these are separate pools of trials with overlapping confidence intervals. They should not be treated as a direct, statistically established ranking of the three formats. The voucher category also covers varied gift vouchers, rather than exclusively digital retail cards. [2]
The trials covered different survey modes and audiences, with much of the evidence coming from developed countries and postal surveys. The authors identified unclear allocation concealment in most trials and did not evaluate the accuracy or reliability of answers, or the relationship between incentive amount and response rate. A higher response count alone therefore does not prove better sample representation, more reliable feedback or lower cost per usable response. [2]
NeoCurrency presents digital cards as a way to offer recognizable brands with electronic delivery, and Visa and Mastercard prepaid options as broader spending choices subject to product and market conditions. Its other options address different practical constraints: merchandise requires useful items and fulfilment; points defer redemption; experiences depend on participants’ interests; and donations direct value to a cause. The pooled chart does not establish response or retention effects for those other formats. [1] [2]
At publication, NeoCurrency described bulk ordering, API delivery, customizable email templates and prepaid options in more than 120 countries. Those are supplier capabilities, not measured research outcomes. Buyers still need to match available rewards to participants’ locations, study objectives and budgets, and distinguish invitation response, usable answers and delivery costs when comparing a proposed programme. [1]
In this article
Suzie Elis
Suzie Elis covers gift card products, digital gifting and distribution for Gift Card News.