Menu
Close
.svg)
Over a scrumptious lunch at an old-school Jewish deli earlier this week—lean corned beef, pastrami, turkey on rye, a few too many kosher pickles—the conversation turned from food to fieldwork. My client, a thoughtful insights lead from a mid-sized pharma company, raised a familiar and perennial question: “How do we defend the value of a marketing research study when most (or all) of the respondents are off list?”
In our industry, especially when large dollar promotional investment is on the line, there's often intense pressure to ensure that marketing research respondents come from the official target list. These lists are constructed with care, drawing from a combination of retail and specialty pharmacy prescription-level data, sales rep experience and input, and claims analytics. (Or at least that's my understanding of the sources. Please correct me if I'm wrong or if there are other sources used.)
These lists are critical, and reflect strategic priorities. So when a sample deviates from the list, eyebrows can go up.
And yet, the reality of fielding a survey - qual or quant - often requires more flexibility. Target lists, while important, are rarely complete, perfectly representative or adequate to fill expected sample quotas. Physicians at large academic centers or integrated delivery networks may not appear due to how prescription data is captured—or isn’t. Others on the list may decline to participate in research, can’t be reached, or are unreachable due to outdated contact information. A few doctors on the list may even be deceased. Even the best list can fall short when you're trying to field a study within a specific time frame or sample quota.
That’s where off-list respondents come into play. Are they ideal? Not always. Can they be useful? Absolutely -- when properly screened and aligned to the specific business objectives of the study.
In promotional studies—where you're testing claims, refining positioning, or developing materials for field force use—alignment to the target list is especially important. You want feedback from those you’re actively trying to influence. But not every marketing research study is promotional. In exploratory research, early-stage market development, market expansion, or segmentation studies, you may seek broader input to uncover unmet needs, define opportunity areas, or understand barriers to adoption.
Off-list respondents, when recruited utilizing rigorous screeners, typing tools, and/or whose behavior is somehow validated by Rx or patient volume, can deliver exactly that. The key is to ensure the sample is defensible, not just list-aligned. A well-qualified physician who meets all inclusion criteria but doesn’t appear on the sales roster may still offer highly relevant insight—particularly when the market is evolving, under-penetrated, or not yet fully defined. On many occasions I've finished an excellent interview yielding great insights, and come into the facility back room and heard the marketing director query, "Why isn't this doc on our list?"
As insights professionals and agency partners, we should strive to be transparent about (and set expectations around) sample composition while also educating stakeholders on the "on the ground" realities of recruitment. The right respondent isn’t always on the list. And the right study design balances strategic alignment with operational/procedural feasibility.
I’ll admit, I’ve worked in the phone rooms. I’ve recruited from lists and panels, by hand, with a landline. But that was more than 30 years ago. The game has changed, and the professionals who handle field recruitment today bring tools, reach, and expertise that I genuinely respect. I defer to them on the modern, technology-enabled mechanics.
What I do know is that research only works when it’s in service of real, actionable strategy. So when we find ourselves pushing back on a study just because the sample wasn’t fully “on list,” it’s worth taking a breath—and maybe a bite of lean corned beef—and asking: Does this sample help us answer the question we’re really trying to ask?
I’d love to hear from others—field teams, recruiters, fellow insights professionals—about how they approach this balance. And I look forward to more conversations (preferably over lunch) about how we can help marketers appreciate the strategic value of off-list respondents when circumstances require it.
