Leaderboard

Folks, I actually had some interaction with Branded and the situation was clarified, both from the reasons for the harassment and the conditions that were promulgated the response from Branded. There was a question that the panelist had to select from 15 national fast food restaurants. None of them fit me, I use a low cost national chain and it did not make the branded cut. Also there wasn't "other", "none of the above" or "prefer not not answer". However, there was this non-de script entry in the list "Burgers-to-go". So, I went with that, and that was a trap question and prompted the harassing language to make appropriate responses. Now, this is a good illustration of how routinely Branded doesn't competently author surveys, or specifically skews results. Creating data to fit an outcome. Why was any panelist member restricted to a fixed list? This survey was biased to specific national brands. I think the reduced selection and no opportunity for alternatives is a clear practice in biasing. This is not the only occurrence, and if you are a panelist member of branded, you can actually review this biased approach. You will find this conduct in the section of your account called "my data" in the links at the bottom of your member dash board. Take a look at it. I say around 5% of the surveys that are used for profiling are structure to give the panelist restricted and non-representational choices. This practice is also duplicated on the internal surveys that Branded fields. I hope some clients of branded take notice of this type of authoring, if you're not getting results from branded that don't fit your reality. This might be a contributing factor.

Out

Take

the also disqualified a 200 pt survey.. that was the final straw

I gave up on branded 6 months ago or so.. They are like slave labor with their payouts

Action

Movie