SECCION CUARTA:

The pilot survey served a number of purposes. It was used to test the questionnaire, to assess whether there was sufficient variation in the data for analysis, to minimise non-response and

46

measurement errors and to estimate the response rate of the survey.51 Non-response error refers to error (or bias) introduced when those who do not respond differ in the characteristic of interest from those who do respond. Measurement error refers to the error (or bias) introduced when inaccurate recording of data occurs through misinterpretation of questions by respondents.

4.4.1 Deciding on a sampling method for the pilot survey

The selection of the sample for the pilot survey followed the sampling method of Reid (1993) and Bewley (2002). The sample needed to provide a view of the likely responses of the population of firms and it was believed that this could best be achieved by focusing on field contacts with a good understanding of the industry. At this stage there was little to be gained from a probability sample with the pilot survey, although the sample needed, as far as possible, to reflect the characteristics of the firms in the population.

A sample of 41 firms was selected from the population for the pilot survey, which represented about 10% of the population. It was anticipated the pilot survey would generate a response rate of about 25%.52 The sample size and expected response rate was consistent with the pilot surveys of Reid (1993) and Blinder et al. (1998). To assure a response rate of at least 20% firms for the pilot survey were approached using contacts from the industry representatives. These contacts were individuals who were involved in industry organisations and were interested in ensuring the survey was effective. The contacts were approached in September 2006 and 48 firm names were provided by these contacts.53 The researcher also had 2 personal contacts, which were added to the list. The 41 firms were selected from this list of 50 contacts with the composition of these firms reflecting the distribution of characteristics in Table 4.1. Nine of the contact names were not used as the firm characteristics duplicated those of firms already selected.

The pilot questionnaire was loaded onto an online survey software platform called QuestionPro enabling ease of completion of the questionnaire by firms. The software also made revision of the pilot questionnaire and analysis of the data from the questionnaire easier to manage than a hard copy questionnaire. It should be noted that 80% of the firms in the

51 _{The questionnaire used in the survey is in Appendix 4.}

52 _{Based on informal feedback from Tourism Tasmania on response rates for the short-stay accommodation} industry.

47

population had an email address and internet access at the time of the pilot survey.54 The pilot survey was conducted over the months of October 2006, June 2007 and September 2007. These periods were selected because they avoided the busy period of the short-stay accommodation year. By running the pilot survey over three periods the questionnaire content and administration process could be modified in an iterative manner resulting in a final version of the pilot questionnaire by September 2007. Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 describe the process of administering the pilot survey and the key issues that arose in this process.

4.4.2 Administering the pilot survey during the October 2006 and June 2007 phases A hard copy of the letter of invitation was sent to 28 of the 41 firms in October 2006 and June 2007 inviting them to participate in the pilot survey.55 Although these firms all had an email address it was decided by the researcher that the initial contact should be by mail.56 The firms were selected so that they represented the population in terms of type, location, size and star rating of firm. The letter was followed up by an email a week later inviting the firms to participate in the pilot survey.57 Those who agreed to participate were then sent the online link to the questionnaire and a consent form was sent in the post. The questionnaire software enabled the researcher to check progress on the questionnaire so the researcher could note whether the invitees had viewed the questionnaire or partially completed the questionnaire. Once the questionnaires were completed the researcher sent the participants a hard copy of their own responses. Six firms completed the questionnaire during the October 2006 and June 2007 phase of the pilot survey.

The key issues arising from this stage of the pilot survey are summarised below. The first issue relates to the content of the questionnaire, the remaining issues to the administration of the questionnaire.

1. In terms of the content of the questionnaire the responses confirmed that it could be used to collect data to test direct (third degree) price discrimination using the distribution channels, corporate, leisure, return-visit and first-visit market segments as identifiable market groups. Firms however found it difficult to provide data on sales and prices for customers purchasing multiple nights. This is

54 _{Information provided by Tourism Tasmania, June 2006.}

55 _{16 firms were approached in November 2006 and 12 in June 2007}

56 _{The decision was based on advice from the industry organisation contacts who recommended that for good} response rates the initial contact be made by letter with follow up contact by email.

48

an interesting finding, also identified in the semi-structured interviews, because it suggests that firms will first use the information that is least costly to obtain to price discriminate. That is the information on the distribution channel the customer uses and whether they are a corporate, leisure, return-visit or first-visit customer. It appeared that although quantity discounts were being offered at the time of the survey a substantial fraction of firms could not articulate how they arrived at the quantity discount offering. Survey questions on willingness to pay for multiple nights and sales of multiple nights might therefore suffer from low response rates and were not included in the survey questionnaire.

2. The first administrative issue concerned the questions on return on assets and return on equity. These questions require confidential information which has considerable competitive value. It became clear when running the pilot survey that participants would have to be reassured that their data would remain confidential.58. A further issue with the return on assets and return on equity data is that the respondent may not have access to such confidential information if, for example, they are an employee rather than an owner operator. The questionnaire therefore needed to contain a question which asks about the position of the person completing the questionnaire and whether or not they were the owner operator. 3. The second administrative issue related to the software subscription from

QuestionPro that was used for the pilot survey. This version of the software did not allow for either the researcher or the participant to save an electronic copy of the completed questionnaire, although an upgrade to the business version subscription did. The business subscription also allowed the participant to save a partially completed questionnaire electronically and go back to it at a later date or time. It became clear during these waves of the pilot survey that this facility was required if the survey was going to generate a good response rate. The firms often had to be available to deal with customers throughout the entire period of their stay. Hence the operators often had few uninterrupted periods of time to complete a questionnaire. Being able to use the save facility meant the firms were more likely to participate as it allowed flexibility in completion.

4. The third administrative issue that emerged during the waves of the pilot survey related to the timing and process of inviting firms to participate. A number of

58

The requirements contained in the approval obtained from the University of Tasmania Ethics Committee can be used to provide this reassurance.

49

firms responded positively to the email sent after the initial letter of invitation, indicating that they would be interested in participating. However when the questionnaire link was sent to these invitees they declined to participate without viewing the questionnaire. The initial positive response may have been a courtesy email from the firm but may also have indicated some willingness to be involved. It was decided that the email sent after the letter of invitation should contain the electronic link to the questionnaire. This process meant that all invitees would have access to the link and not just those who had indicated an interest in participating. By changing the process in this way the invitee had less chance to drop out and could view the questionnaire immediately in the email following the letter of invitation.

5. The final administrative issue concerned the completion of the consent form. Initially a hard copy of the consent form had been sent to the firm once they had agreed to participate. It was judged appropriate to process the consent form in this way but the second mail out generated delays that, it was believed, discouraged participation. It was decided that the letter of consent would be included in the online questionnaire and the hard copy of the questionnaire ensuring that all invitees received it and no follow up mail out was required ensuring less delay for respondents.

Following revision of the pilot survey questionnaire based on the first two waves of the pilot survey, the questionnaire was presented at a School of Economics and Finance seminar in June 2007. The questionnaire was also discussed in an ABS survey design course which the researcher attended in June 2007.59 The researcher received constructive feedback on both the questionnaire and the preliminary analysis of the pilot survey data. Some of the questions in the questionnaire were simplified following this feedback and the format of the questionnaire re-arranged to make the questionnaire easier to complete. The questionnaire was divided into sections with headings and the branch facility in the questionnaire software was also incorporated into the questionnaire. This facility meant that respondents could answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to questions and, if answering ‘yes’, the respondent would go to an open ended question. If answering ‘no’, the respondent would move to the next branch of the question ordering logic. This procedure enabled a respondent to move more quickly through the questionnaire which, it was believed, would encourage completion.

50

4.4.3 Administering the pilot survey during the September 2007 phase

A final wave of letters of invitation and consent forms was sent to the remaining 13 firms in the pilot survey sample during September 2007 and 5 firms completed the questionnaire. The final wave of the pilot survey demonstrated that the process of inviting participation and the questionnaire itself had been effectively revised. The firms who completed the questionnaire were able to do this without any complication. The response rate for the pilot survey overall was 27% with 11 firms participating from the 41 sent invitations to participate.

4.4.4 Post-pilot survey discussions with industry representatives

One further consultation was carried out with industry representatives as a final check on the questions and responses to those questions from the pilot survey. The questionnaire was discussed with industry representatives during the period November 2007 to June 2008.60 Minor modifications were made to the questionnaire incorporating comments and suggestions from these industry representatives on the help notes.61 The help notes were updated on the online version of the questionnaire and a matching hard copy version of the questionnaire and help notes produced for those firms in the population who did not have email addresses.