Respondents' Reactions to Proposed Text Messaging

Respondents’ Reactions to

Proposed Text Messaging

Heather Ridolfo

United States

Department of

Agricultural

National

Agricultural

Statistics

Service

Research and

Development Division

Washington, DC 20250

RDD Research Report

Number RDD-20-04

March 2020

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and should not be construed to represent any

official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1

2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................1

3. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................2

4. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................3

5. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................4

Respondents’ Reactions to Proposed Text Messaging

Heather Ridolfo

Abstract

In 2018, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a test to examine the

feasibility of sending text messages to respondents with known cell phone numbers, notifying

them that the September Agricultural Survey was on its way. As a follow up to this test, personal

interviews were conducted to gather respondents’ reactions to these types of text alerts. In

general, respondents had a positive reaction to text alerts. Respondents indicated that receiving a

pre-notification via text was helpful; however, some respondents indicated that they would rather

receive survey reminders via text. Although, the idea of text alerts was well-received, some of

the message content was off-putting. In addition, respondents felt an opt-out feature was needed.

Key Words: Text messaging, pre-notification, communication

1. INTRODUCTION

In August 2018, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) conducted a test to examine

the feasibility of sending text message blasts to respondents with known cell phone numbers,

notifying them that the September Agricultural Survey was on its way. The text message read:

“USDA Alert: Your NASS Sept Ag Survey is on the way. Please plan 25 minutes to complete

online or return by mail. Questions? 888-424-7828, [email protected].”

As a follow up to this test, nine personal interviews were conducted to gather respondents’

reactions to text alerts. During these interviews, respondents were asked to share their reactions

to this text, as well as their experiences with similar text notifications, and whether they thought

texts from NASS should have an opt-out feature. In addition, respondents were also asked about

their preferences for being contacted by NASS. The following report will present findings from

this research.

2. METHODOLOGY

Nine respondents participated in this research, which was conducted in conjunction with testing

for the 2018 Agricultural Labor Survey. At the end of the evaluation of the Agricultural Labor

Survey, respondents were presented with the text message sent in August 2018, and the

interviewer explained the purpose of the text. Respondents were then asked to provide their

reaction to this text. They were also asked to discuss experiences with similar text notification,

and whether an opt-out feature should be provided in these types of messages. Respondents were

then asked about their preferences for receiving communications from NASS regarding their

surveys.

Heather Ridolfo is an Agricultural Statistician with the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Research and

Development Division, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Room 3031, Washington, DC 20250.

All interviews were conducted via WebEx. Respondents represented different sectors of

agriculture, including nurseries, fruits, vegetables, cattle and calves, and equine, and were

located in several different states (Washington, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, West

Virginia, New York, and New Jersey).

3. RESULTS

The majority of respondents had a positive reaction to the text message. One respondent

indicated that he was indifferent and another respondent had a negative reaction.

Respondents who had a positive reaction to the text message said they liked the idea of being

notified that the survey was coming. Some respondents said it would help them keep an eye out

for the survey: “It wouldn’t have phased me at all… I would also be paying attention for it to

come.” Others said it would give them time to get their records together and set aside time to

complete the survey: “I guess I’d like to know when the survey was coming. To know I have to

spend Wednesday morning to do it, and know it takes more time than they’re saying.” Similarly,

another respondent said that he may have time in the next 10 days to work on gathering

information but by the time the survey comes, he may not. He said the pre-notification “gives

you more of a window to get something prepared.” Others noted that it was just another way

NASS could communicate with them. A few respondents indicated that they receive similar texts

from other organizations and they appreciate them. For example, one respondent indicated that

the Farm Service Agency sends text notifications indicating when deadlines are approaching to

apply for farm programs. One respondent indicated that he liked the idea of a text because it

would save costs by eliminating the need for a separate mailing.

The respondent who was indifferent to this text message indicated that he did not have a strong

opinion about it. He said if he received this type of text, it would “be somewhat in my memory

for a couple days.” However, he also indicated he would prefer to receive an email rather than a

text.

The respondent who had a negative reaction to receiving this type of text said, “[text messages]

don’t really do much for me. I get random texts all the time. I kind of overlook them.” He said

receiving a text notifying him that a survey is coming would not be helpful to him. Instead he

would rather receive a text reminding him to complete a survey and the due date. He also would

not mind receiving a short survey via text. He said, “If you’re looking for some sort of

information, I’d probably do more with it.” He said the survey would need to be short, like one

question.

A few respondents, who did have a positive reaction to the text message, indicated that aspects of

the message were alarming at first. For example, two respondents did not like the use of the word

“alert” in the text. They associated the word “alert” with an emergency. One respondent said his

first reaction would be “Oh [expletive deleted]!” But, once he read the text he would understand

NASS was just contacting him about a survey. Another respondent said, “Everything is good

except for the word alert.” He said “alert” would make him question whether or not this was

spam and if someone was trying to trick him into doing something. He then added that the word

alert “sounds pretty ominous.” A third respondent had an issue with the sentence “Please plan 25

minutes to complete online or return by mail.” She said she would have the following reaction if

she received this text message and it said the survey would take 25 minutes: “I would probably

scream for a minute because we stay so busy and it’s hard to break out or know when we can

break out 25 minutes. Although, it would be a nice alert to know that it’s coming. I’d rather have

it than not.”

A few respondents indicated that they would rather the texts be used for purposes other than pre-

notification. One respondent indicated that he completes NASS surveys online and instead of

receiving a pre-notification, he would rather receive an invitation to complete the survey via text.

Other respondents indicated they would rather receive a text reminding them to complete the

survey with the due date.

Respondents had other comments regarding these types of messages. One respondent said the

message should say “thank you” at the end. Another respondent said NASS would need to be

cognizant of the time zones their respondents reside in when sending these messages. A third

respondent indicated that NASS should be cautious about overusing this avenue of

communication.

When asked if a text message like this should have an opt-out feature, many respondents

indicated that it should. Even if they did not think they would opt out of these messages, they felt

it would be nice to provide it as a courtesy. For example, one respondent said, “I wouldn’t

personally opt out but someone would appreciate the option.” Another respondent questioned

whether NASS was required by law to have an opt-out feature. He said even if they are not,

“being nice goes a long way.” One respondent said while it would be nice to provide this feature,

people should know that if they provide their cell phone number to NASS, NASS will use it to

contact them.

Finally, some respondents mentioned that they would prefer to receive an email rather than a

text. One respondent indicated that a text from NASS would be sent to her personal phone

whereas an email would go to her work email. She said, “I’d rather deal with work at work.”

Another respondent commented that he is more likely to pay attention to an email than a text. He

then cautioned that NASS would need to be careful about how they worded the subject line and

the frequency with which they send emails. He said he gets about 100 emails a day and spends

about half a second looking at subject lines to determine if he should open each email. He said

the subject should say something like “for your attention” or “for you review.” He said

something other than “NASS Ag survey” would get his attention. He also added that he receives

a lot of “junk” from the Food and Drug Administration. He was receiving an email almost every

day from them and now he sends them all straight to junk mail. If he received an email once

every two weeks, he would be more apt to read it.

4. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, text messaging may be an effective tool for NASS to communicate to its

stakeholders, including survey respondents. Respondents were generally open to receiving

information via text from NASS. NASS should continue to explore using text messaging as

another way to communicate with its survey respondents. In addition to pre-notification, NASS

should explore using text messaging as a survey reminder.

Although the text messaging was generally well-received, respondents found some of the content

to be off-putting. Additionally, respondents indicated that an opt-out feature should be provided

in all texts. Finally, some respondents indicated they would prefer to receive emails from NASS

rather than text messages. NASS should also explore the use of email as another avenue for

communicating information regarding surveys.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continue to explore the use of text messaging for pre-notification and/or survey reminders

2. Avoid the use of terminology that could be viewed as ominous or off-putting

3. Provide an opt-out feature on all text messages

4. Explore the use of email for survey invitations and reminders