Learn how the MR industry can re-build respondent relationships and fight disengagement in a time of fierce online competition. Read Rules of Engagement by Kees de Jong, SSI CEO, in Research World.
Read Simon Chadwick's interview on the "Future of Insight." Then log in and join the discussion!
GfK NOP Embraces Research Voice "The most important challenge...is how to meet people in a progressive research atmosphere..." Mike Cooke, Global Director: Online Development. Read more.


Comments
It seems to me that this is an industry saying what it wants without thinking about what the people want.
Why would members of panels want to agree to be on a central register (and I suspect that European law would require their permission)?
The cheats don't want to be caught.
Honest people might not want to be on a central database. If I sign up to panel company X, in the UK, because I like them, do I want to be on some central list, possibly stored outside the UK? Would I believe the people who might run it when they say my information would be safe with them. In the UK we know our information is not even safe with the Government (they lose CDs storing the data), and companies like Microsoft, AOL, and Google have all had embarassing loses of data security.
We might like a central list to flag up cheats, but would we be able to maintain the legal level of proof to say somebody is a cheat, or perhaps that they do not pay enough attention when they do surveys.
If we find they are on 20 panels, do we reduce the number of surveys they are offered, and if we do might we run the risk of court cases alleging loss of income due to anti-competitive activities.
I think we should start by realising we are not hold the Aces, we need to persuade people to co-operate with us, and we can't regulate our competitors.
A global panel (if I get it right this is what they are discussing about) to which all "players" in market reseach industry have acces is not at all the solution, in my opinion. On top of Ray's arguments, whith which I agree, I would add the competition betweek "players" in this research field. Competition creats inovation, a competition produces good results from which we can all benefit. Some companies really put up a lot of effort to "research" the research industry, to improve and develop. Who will control if all "players" in the field are equally investing (time, money, ideas, etc.) to develop this global panel that we would all benefit from?
Furthermore, a respondent joins a panel for a certain reason; the same reason is the base for not joining other panels at the same time (we are not considering professional respondents). Then he/she discoveres that his/her decision of joining a specific panel was not respected because the information about him/her can be accessed by many other companies. Is this ok?