down arrow
three people looking at a document, seeming uncertain

You Have to Pay People for Their Time.

You want to recruit without incentives? Too bad—you have to pay your participants! Here's how to do fair UX research on a shoestring budget.

Participants are the most important ingredient in UX research. If you truly can’t afford to compensate participants, you can’t afford to run studies.

Some of you might be thinking, “well, duh. Incentives are a no-brainer." Unfortunately, even those of you who know you need to pay incentives may be in a position which makes it difficult for you to do so.

Exhibit A, from the Research Ops Slack community:

Screenshot of a Slack message: "Hi all, my company has recently decided I am no longer allowed to incentivize research participants -- b2b customers (existing customers). I normally had paid $50 for 30 minute 1:1 remote sessions, as $30 proved insufficient at first in scheduling folks. I am trying to launch a program of rolling research with weekly recruitments, which will become exponentially more difficult in absence of any kind of incentive. Question: Has anyone done (non-Enterprise) b2b recruits successfully without offering any kind of incentive? "
Question about recruiting without incentives from the ResearchOps Community

Look, I know people are worried about the economy. Businesses everywhere are slashing their budgets. More than 140,000 employees have been laid off in 2022 alone. I get it—people are strapped for cash and looking for scrappy solutions to save money on research. But cutting out incentives isn’t it. 

Before this recruiting-without-incentives nonsense goes any further, let’s talk about:

  • Why incentives are non-negotiable for UX research
  • How to incentivize participants on a shoestring budget

🙅‍♀️ Why incentives are non-negotiable for UX research

In the wake of layoffs and budget cuts across industries, researchers (and stakeholders in charge of research budgets) may be left wondering: “Can I, should I, and how do I recruit research participants without incentives?”

The answer to that is: you can’t, you shouldn’t, and you don’t. 

Incentives are essential because they… 

  1. Improve response rates
  2. Limit no-shows
  3. Reduce bias (when used correctly)
  4. Attract the right audience
  5. Create trust
  6. Enforce equity
  7. Are simply good (and standard) practice
7 reasons UX research incentives are non-negotiable: Improve response rates: Research has shown that incentives significantly increase consent and participation.Limit no-shows: User Interviews’s 2022 Incentives Report found high no-show rates (up to nearly 50%) for studies without incentives.Reduce bias (when used correctly): Eliminating incentives can actually increase bias. If you don’t pay participants, you’ll only attract people who think their feedback is important enough to share for free.Attract the right audience: Different types of incentives can appeal to different audiences, helping target or diversify recruitment.Create trust: Common trust concerns can be overcome with fair incentives: a simple thank-you for participants’ time.Enforce equity: Non-incentivized studies tend to only attract people who can afford to make financial sacrifices to participate, creating an equity gap.Are simply good (and standard) practice: Incentives are almost universal in research (with some exceptions, such as government workers who cannot accept them).Did you know? The first-documented case of a research incentive was paid out in the 1820s for participation in a study about gastric physiology.
7 reasons UX research incentives are non-negotiable

1. Improve response rates

The first and maybe the most practical reason for offering incentives is that they improve response rates to your study invites. 

Most people (just like you) are busy enough, apathetic enough, or resource-constrained enough that they aren’t likely to offer their time for free. There’s plenty of research to back this up, including this systematic literature review and meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of incentives for research participation

“Our meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant increases in the rate of consent and responses from participants when offered even small monetary value incentives. These findings suggest that incentives may be used to reduce the rate of recruitment failure and subsequent study termination.”

2. Limit no-shows

Along with increasing the likelihood that people will apply to your study, incentives also improve the rates of participants actually following through with your study.

User Interviews’s own research about incentives supports this, showing a decline in no-show rates as incentive amounts increase. The data we pulled for this study looked at only closed (successfully recruited and completed) studies—of which there were very few offering no incentives. 

No-show rate by incentive amount for remote moderated studies with B2C participants—note the decline in no-show rates (blue line) as incentive amounts (green bars) increase.

No-show rate by incentive amount for moderated in-person studies with B2C participants. Although no-show rates are higher for in-person studies overall (likely due to the higher commitment required for in-person sessions), you can see a similar decline in no-show rates as the incentive amount increases, starting around the $110 mark. Also, there’s no data for in-person studies that didn’t offer incentives—that’s because we only looked at closed (recruited and completed) studies, and we don’t typically see in-person studies closed successfully without offering an incentive.

In other words: Good luck filling your study without a fair incentive, or any incentive at all. Participants simply don’t apply as often and rarely follow through with studies that don’t offer some kind of incentive, whether monetary or non-monetary incentives like swag or product discounts. 

3. Reduce bias (when used correctly)

If you’re worried about incentives causing bias or altering participant behavior to the extent that it skews your data, you’re not alone. 

See, for example, this Linkedin post from Michele Ronsen, Founder of Curiosity Tank:

Does offering an individual an incentive to participate in a study introduce bias? Does it predispose a participant to tell me what they think I want to hear?  In almost every class I teach, someone raises this question.  The answer is no, not if I’ve done my job properly, which entails selecting the right people a screening out the people who don't fit the criteria.  Then, I set them up for success by creating a safe space, building a rapport with them, clearly explaining what they can expect, and letting them know that whatever we talk about today... there are no right or wrong answers.  We might be testing a hypothesis, a prototype or something else entirely, but we're never testing "them".  I often ask them specifically to talk aloud and to be candid but I also tell them that no matter what they share, they are not going to hurt my feelings. I'm here to learn from them. The more candid they are, the easier my job will be. So I continue to develop that rapport by looking them in the eye, affirming what they say, using positive body language, digging deeper into their responses, & demonstrating my authentic curiosity about them and their opinions.  Thankfully, most of my conversations are successful & enjoyable!
Screenshot of a Linkedin post by Michele Ronsen

Like Michele says in her post, incentives don’t typically cause bias—as long as you’re using them correctly and following the right protocols for recruitment, study moderation, and analysis

In fact, eliminating incentives can actually increase bias. If you don’t pay participants for their time, you’re only going to attract people who feel like their feedback is important enough to share (e.g. people on the extremes, who love or hate your company enough that they want to tell you). 

Nick Baum, Founder of Tremendous, explains this phenomenon on our Awkward Silences podcast

“The best researchers that we've talked to have been adamant that you absolutely have to use incentives. One, of course, it elicits more participation, but free surveys, it's so biased, the data that you get. You are only getting responses from people who are willing to do this for free. You are going to see a drastic difference between the quality of data that you get when you use incentives and when you don't use incentives.”

4. Attract the right audience

We’ve established that you can reduce bias by offering incentives, period. Also, the type of incentive you offer can help you attract your target audience. 

As this study on the impact of incentives on participation bias found:

“We found that a lottery reward attracted participants who held stronger openness-to-change values while a charity reward attracted those with stronger self-transcendence orientation. Further, we found that participation self-selection resulted in differences in the task outcomes. Through attracting more self-directed individuals, the lottery reward resulted in more ideas generated in a brainstorming task. Design implications include utilizing rewards to target desired participants and using diverse incentives to improve participation diversity.”

If you’re genuinely worried about introducing bias or attracting the wrong audience, think creatively about alternative incentive types and different ways to frame them. What incentive types would be most attractive to the audience you’re looking for? How can you present those incentives in a way that supports the best outcomes for your study?

Incentives are supposed to work for you, not against you—but, of course, you have to be willing to offer them in the first place. 

5. Create trust

When someone participates in a study, they’re giving you the gift of their time. Incentives are your way of saying thank you, demonstrating that you value the gift they’ve given you, and assuring them that you’re going to use that gift in a way that’s safe and respectful.

Why would participants trust an organization that doesn’t seem to value them (or their time) as individuals?

Common concerns or trust blockers for participants include:

  • Lack of interest
  • Inability to make extended time commitments
  • Concerns about personal privacy
  • Financial barriers

These concerns (and others) can be overcome with fair incentives: a simple thank-you for their valuable time, attention, and data. 

💡 Learn more about protecting participant trust and privacy: How to Hide Participant Names in Zoom Recordings, Consent Forms for UX Research: A Starter Template

6. Enforce equity

Not everyone has the privilege of carving time out of their day to talk to you.

Whether they’re stay-at-home moms, surgical residents, Fedex delivery drivers, SaaS marketing leaders, or airplane mechanics, people may not be able or willing to make the financial sacrifices required to participate in your study—such as taking time off work or paying for public transportation. 

Non-incentivized studies tend to only attract people who can afford to make those sacrifices, creating an equity gap in your audience. 

By offering reasonable incentives, you enable low-income folks to participate in research, too, leading to a more diverse participant panel and holistic, unbiased insights. 

7. Are simply good (and standard) practice

Researchers have been paying participants for over a century. 💯

In fact, the first-documented case of a research incentive was paid out in the 1820s, for participation in a study about gastric physiology. 

Incentives are almost universal in UX research, market research, and academic research alike (with some special exceptions, such as government workers who aren’t allowed to accept them). 

So… read the room, folks. Millions of intelligent, credentialed researchers must be paying incentives for a reason, right?

💸 How to incentivize participants on a shoestring budget

You can’t cheap out on incentives. 

However, most UX researchers obviously aren’t in a position to offer uber-expensive incentives and generous perks for participating in studies. 

If your budget’s recently been cut or was never that great to begin with, here’s how to continue doing UX research, the right (and affordable) way:

  1. Get crystal clear about your recruitment audience for efficient, effective targeting.
  2. Reduce overall research costs with the right tools and processes.
  3. Do fewer, more focused studies and pay the same incentive.
  4. Make sure you’re not overpaying unnecessarily.
  5. Provide alternative incentives that don’t cost you extra.
  6. Know (and demonstrate) the impact of user research to make the case for a higher budget.

📊 Need to demonstrate the value of UXR to your stakeholders? This article breaks down the 4 most common objections to doing research using cold, hard, stats. These will help you show your team that research is worth the time, budget, and effort—even in an uncertain economic climate.

1. Get crystal-clear about your recruitment audience for efficient, effective targeting.

The worst way to spend money on incentives is to accidentally give them away to low-quality participants. 

Before you even start recruiting, you should be able to clearly articulate who the right audience is and how you plan to reach that audience. 

The process of defining your audience is a standard part of planning for user research, so hopefully you’ve already nailed down an approach to this. If not, head to the How to Create a User Research Plan chapter of the UX Research Field Guide to learn more. 

💡 Pro tip: When possible (and applicable), recruit from dedicated customer panels or customer advisory boards to speed up the process. Building an internal participant panel can be especially useful for researchers who need to target niche, hard-to-reach audiences. 

2. Reduce overall research costs with the right tools and processes. 

All too often, researchers are left to handle incentives payouts themselves, sending gift cards manually via post or email, keeping track of who’s received what in an Excel spreadsheet, and dedicating hours of focus and energy toward one of the most easily-automated tasks in the UX research process. 

There are plenty of tools in the marketplace for streamlining incentives distribution, including:

  • User Interviews (that’s us!): the top-rated panel management and recruitment automation solution for teams that do research at scale. Learn more about how we distribute incentives, including the types of incentives we offer, the currencies we support, and more. 
  • Tremendous: A painless payouts management platform with support for 800+ global redemption options like prepaid cards, gift cards, direct bank transfers, and charity donations. 
  • Giftbit: A rewards platform that lets you buy, deliver, and control digital gift cards via email, text, or in-app. 
  • Tangocard: A Rewards-as-a-Service (RaaS) platform, managing brand approvals, legal agreements, inventory, sending, and tracking of digital gift cards. 
  • BHN Rewards (formerly Rybbon): A digital rewards management platform from Blackhawk Network, the global leader in branded payment solutions. 

🧙‍♀️ Explore these and other purpose-built tools in the UX research armory in the 2022 UX Research Tools Map

3. Do fewer, more focused studies and pay the same incentive. 

The “fairness” of a research incentive doesn’t expand or contract to fit your budget. 

If you can’t afford to fairly pay 10 participants for their time, consider whether you’re able to run the study with 5 participants instead. 

In fact, Zach Schendel of DoorDash explains in Debunking UX Research Myths that just 1 participant may be enough if you’re doing qualitative research:

“In my opinion, sometimes you really only need to talk to one person. I think people might fall into problems with qualitative research where they try to turn it into quantitative research. They try to say things like, oh, most of the people I talked to like this or seven out of eight really thought this person was better than this version. 

That's not really what qualitative research is for. That's what quantitative research is for.”

Also ask yourself: Do I even need to talk to participants in the first place? You might find the answers you’re looking for:

These are all sources of user insight that allow you to save costs for bigger, more impactful studies with participants. 

💰 What is a fair incentive range for your specific study and audience, based on market rates for successfully completed studies? Get a data-backed recommendation from our User Research Incentive Calculator.

4. Make sure you’re not overpaying unnecessarily.

You might not need as much budget for incentives as you think you do. 

In fact, our 2022 Research Incentives report, based on data from nearly 20,000 projects completed with User Interviews in the past year, found that most studies required a minimum incentive amount to get people in the door.

By looking at the most common, second most common, and average amounts offered, we were able to identify a market rate range for attracting qualified applicants for different study types:

Summary of incentive market rates for moderated B2B and B2C studies

Incentive market rates for unmoderated B2B and B2C studies by study length

Depending on what you’re studying and the audience you’re trying to reach, it’s rare that you’ll have to pay above these ranges for a successful recruit. 

Along with saving you money, it’s also worth noting that overpaying can theoretically become a form of coercion which can interfere with your study’s results and ethics. For example, an outsized incentive might encourage a reluctant participant (or one who’s only in it for the payout) to agree to a high-risk study that they wouldn’t have otherwise felt comfortable with. 

Becky Stewart, Chief Practice Officer at the Improve Group, discusses the ethics of research incentives in this article:

“We must also consider the quality of information received from an unwilling participant whose only motivation is the incentive and not the desire to give their perspective on an issue or feedback to improve a program. In this scenario, offering an incentive may be ethical, but could jeopardize the results of the study. This is why we aim to provide incentives that are appropriate for overcoming hesitation and not acting as a large gain.”

5. Provide alternative incentives that don’t cost you extra.

Even if you're user testing with your mom, you owe her a nice cup of coffee or an extra long phone call. Compensation doesn't have to be cash but it does have to be valued by the participant—and not all participants are equally motivated by cash-based incentives. 

Consider other, non-monetary types of compensation you can offer participants, such as:

  • Company swag
  • Access to beta features
  • Product discounts
  • Lottery-style rewards 

If you’re able, you may find the best results by allowing participants to choose from a variety of different types of incentives, as Nick Baum of Tremendous suggested on Awkward Silences:

“The best solution, really, is to turn on an entire catalog for your recipients, give them as much optionality as possible.”

Some participants might prefer lower-cost incentives like company swag or access to beta features, saving you money in the long run. It’s a win-win. 

6. Know (and demonstrate) the impact of user research to make the case for a higher budget.

UX research can impact product and business decisions that save time, effort, and cost. It can lead to higher revenue, more loyal customers, and competitive market advantages. 

If your research is successful, these payoffs typically exceed the costs of research. If you can track, measure, and clearly demonstrate this value to your stakeholders, then you’ll have a much easier time advocating for an increased budget to support fair incentives. 

🧠 Learn How to Track the Impact of UX Research

📣 Incentives don’t have to cost you time, too

TL;DR—you have to pay people for their time. Yes, that’s an extra cost to your research practice, but that cost is ultimately made up for with higher-quality participants from a more diverse pool of applicants, faster time-to-match with those participants, and more accurate data.

But incentives don’t need to be an added time-cost as well. 

User Interviews is the fastest and easiest way to recruit (and incentivize) quality participants for research. Get insights from any niche within our pool of over 2 million participants through Recruit or build and manage your own panel with Research Hub, the first CRM designed for researchers. 

Our tools simplify all of the most tedious and time-consuming aspects of research recruiting, from sending study invites to distributing incentives after the study is completed. 

Learn more about our pricing packages for varying research needs or start building your first project today (it’s free to sign up!). 

Lizzy Burnam
Product Education Manager

Marketer, writer, poet. Lizzy likes hiking, people-watching, thrift shopping, learning and sharing ideas. Her happiest memory is sitting on the shore of Lake Champlain in the summer of 2020, eating a clementine.

Subscribe to the UX research newsletter that keeps it fresh
illustration of a stack of mail
Table of contents
down arrow
Latest posts from
Recruiting Participantshand-drawn arrow that is curved and pointing right