The bottom line: Paying research participants isn't optional if you want quality insights on realistic timelines. Research from survey methodology experts shows that appropriate incentives increase participation rates by 8-10 percentage points, reduce no-shows from 20-25% down to 5-10%, and help you recruit participants you'd otherwise miss.
The cost: Expect $60-100/hour for consumer participants, $100-200/hour for professionals. A typical 60-minute interview program with 20 participants costs $1,200-2,000 in incentives. See current market rates in Section 3.
The compliance angle: Incentives are not only standard practice, they're expected by IRBs and ethics boards when done right. The key is documenting your rationale and ensuring payments compensate time rather than coerce participation. Read about IRB requirements in Section 4.
The operational reality: Modern platforms handle global payments, tax compliance, and fraud prevention automatically. Learn how Great Question manages incentives in Section 5.
When we don't pay participants appropriately, three things happen:
• Recruitment takes 2-3x longer than planned, delaying insights that inform roadmap decisions
• Sample quality suffers because you only hear from people with extreme opinions or unusual amounts of free time
• No-show rates spike to 20-25%, wasting researcher time and creating schedule chaos
The research is unequivocal. A comprehensive meta-analysis by Singer & Ye (2013) reviewing studies across mail, phone, and web found that monetary incentives consistently increase response rates by 8-10 percentage points. That's the difference between filling your research calendar in 4 days versus 12 days.
The Real-World Impact
Based on analysis of thousands of studies on the Great Question platform, here's what the numbers tell us:
Studies offering $60-80/hour (consumer participants):
• Average time to fill 20 slots: 3-5 days
• No-show rate: 5-8%
• Participant rating (quality): 4.6/5.0
Studies offering $40/hour or less:
• Average time to fill 20 slots: 10-14 days
• No-show rate: 18-25%
• Participant rating (quality): 3.9/5.0
The math: Spending an extra $400 in incentives ($80 vs $60 for 20 people) saves your researcher 5-9 days of recruiting time and reduces wasted calendar slots by 50%. When you consider researcher compensation ($150-200/day), that extra $400 in incentives saves you $1,500+ in labor costs.
Some teams ask: "Our customers love our product. Won't they give us feedback for free?"
Sometimes, yes. But consider:
• Selection bias: People who volunteer unpaid time have systematically different characteristics (more time, stronger opinions, different demographics) than your actual user base
• Reciprocity expectations: Even passionate users expect professional respect. Payment signals their time has value
• Competition: Your users are being recruited by other companies who DO pay. You're competing for the same attention
As Holly Cole, CEO of the ResearchOps community, explains: "If you're not compensating people for their feedback... the feedback that you do get is going to be lower quality, because free information is horribly biased."
There are legitimate scenarios where lower or no payment is appropriate:
• Internal employee research: Payment can feel weird or create pressure. Alternative: Make participation fully optional, during work hours, with manager support.
• Professional community research: If participants get valuable reports/benchmarks in return. If the research advances their field (academic researchers, industry standards bodies). Still offer token appreciation ($25-50 gift card) if possible.
• Beta tester communities: Early access to features has real value. But don't abuse this; even beta testers should get periodic incentives.
Investment: $1,200-2,000 in incentives for a typical 20-participant interview study
Returns:
• Prevents $50-200K in development waste on wrong features
• Reduces time-to-market by weeks (faster recruitment = earlier insights)
• Improves product-market fit (better sample quality = more representative feedback)
Even a single prevented feature failure pays for years of research incentives.
The Industry Has Evolved
Ten years ago, $25 Amazon gift cards were standard. Today, that's what we pay for 15-minute unmoderated tests. Why the increase?
• Professionalization: There are now platforms connecting participants to dozens of studies. People know market rates.
• Opportunity cost: The gig economy means your $25 competes with Uber, TaskRabbit, and freelance work.
• Respect: Lower payments signal lower importance. Your product deserves better data.
Inflation hasn't done us any favors either...
We regularly survey participants about their experience. Here's what drives their decisions:
Top 3 factors in accepting a study invite:
1. Fair compensation for time (cited by 78%)
2. Interesting topic/company (cited by 64%)
3. Convenient timing/location (cited by 51%)
Notice: Compensation is #1, but it's not alone. People want to feel their participation matters. The combination of fair pay + clear purpose + professional treatment is what attracts quality participants.
The Psychology: Why Money Doesn't "Taint" Responses
Legal and compliance teams sometimes worry that paying participants will bias their responses or make them "tell you what you want to hear."
The research doesn't support this concern. What matters is how you frame the payment:
• Bad framing: "We'll pay you $75 for positive feedback about our app"
• Good framing: "We're compensating you $75 for 60 minutes of your time and honest perspective"
The distinction matters. When payment is framed as compensation for time (like any consulting or freelance work), it doesn't systematically bias responses. When it's framed as payment for specific outcomes, that's where problems emerge.
The academic term for this is "motivation crowding theory," but the practical takeaway is simple: pay for time and expertise, not for opinions.
<a href="https://v0-research-incentives-calculator.vercel.app/" target="_blank" style="display:inline-block; background:#2563eb; color:white; padding:12px 24px; border-radius:8px; text-decoration:none; font-weight:500;">Try the Research Incentives Calculator →</a>
Current Market Benchmarks (2024-2025)
Based on User Interviews' analysis of nearly 20,000 completed studies:
Consumer/B2C Participants (Remote)
Professional/B2B Participants (Remote)
Add 20-40% to remote rates, plus actual expense reimbursement (parking, transit, meals if over 2 hours).
Interactive tool: User Interviews' Incentive Calculator →
Decision Framework: How to Calculate Your Rate
Don't just pick a number from the table above. Work through these factors:
Base calculation: Target hourly rate × actual time required
But also consider:
• Minimum payment threshold: Even a 10-minute study should pay $10-15
• Preparation time: If you're asking participants to gather documents or complete pre-work, that counts
• Travel time: In-person studies require commute time compensation
Adjustment multipliers:
Example: You need CMOs at B2B SaaS companies who have purchased ABM software in the last 6 months. Base rate for executives: $200/hour. Rarity multiplier: 2.5×. Appropriate rate: $500/hour.
Additional compensation for:
• Sharing sensitive information (financial, health, personal): +10-20%
• NDA requirements: +10-15%
• Requiring download of beta software: +15%
• Video recording faces (vs. screen only): +5-10%
• Multiple sessions (even if short): +20% total
Need to fill slots in 2-3 days instead of 5-7 days? Add 20-30% to rates.
This is standard market practice. Participants who can accommodate last-minute scheduling expect premium pay.
If budget is truly constrained:
• Reduce sample size (12 quality participants beats 20 mediocre ones)
• Use unmoderated methods when appropriate (costs 60-70% less)
• Extend timeline to accept lower rates
• Don't underpay significantly. You'll waste more money on failed recruitment
While monetary incentives are the default for most research, non-monetary options can be equally or more effective for certain audiences, particularly B2B professionals who may find cash payments transactional or awkward.
Non-monetary incentives work best for:
• Senior executives and founders: A $200 gift card can feel insulting; exclusive access to research findings or peer networking often resonates more
• Domain experts and thought leaders: Recognition matters: acknowledgment in published research, co-authorship on white papers, or speaking opportunities
• Your power users: Early access to new features, extended trials, account credits, or input on your roadmap
• Mission-aligned participants: Charitable donations in their name work well when participants care deeply about a cause
Effective non-monetary options include: research reports/industry benchmarks (high perceived value for B2B), early feature access (power users, beta communities), account credits/upgrades (existing customers), charitable donations (offer 2-3 charity choices), professional development (courses, conference passes), and peer networking opportunities (exclusive roundtables or community access).
Often the best solution combines monetary and non-monetary incentives. For example: "We'll compensate you $100 for your time, and you'll also receive our annual industry benchmark report ($500 value) before public release." This respects their time while adding differentiated value that cash alone can't provide.
Important: Non-monetary incentives should supplement fair compensation, not replace it. Using "exposure" or "early access" as an excuse to avoid paying participants is a fast path to recruitment problems and sample bias.
The Core Compliance Question: What's "Undue Influence"?
This is what legal teams worry about: Are we paying people so much that they'll participate in something risky that they wouldn't otherwise do?
The regulatory framework:
• U.S. research is governed by 45 CFR 46 (the "Common Rule")
• IRBs (Institutional Review Boards) must ensure incentives don't create "undue influence"
• The HHS Office for Human Research Protections provides guidance
The practical reality: For standard UX/product research with no physical risk, typical market-rate payments are not undue influence. Undue influence concerns apply to:
• Medical research with health risks
• Research with vulnerable populations (children, prisoners)
• Studies requiring participants to reveal information that could harm them
Based on OHRP guidance, here's what makes an incentive plan defensible:
1. Compensation Model
• Frame as payment for time and expertise, not payment for specific answers
• Use hourly rates comparable to unskilled labor ($15-25/hour minimum) with adjustments for expertise
• Document your rationale for the amount
2. Timing and Conditions
• Pro-rate payment for partial completion (e.g., if someone completes 30 minutes of a 60-minute interview, pay 50%)
• Don't require full completion for any payment. This can pressure people to continue when they want to stop
• Small completion bonus (10-15% of total) is acceptable
3. Transparency
• Clearly state in consent documents: payment amount, timing, conditions
• Don't exaggerate the payment in recruitment materials
• Explain what happens if participant withdraws
4. Special Populations
• Extra scrutiny for economically disadvantaged, students, employees
• Consider whether the amount is appropriate relative to their financial situation
• Document why payment is necessary and not coercive
1. Payment structures that pressure continuation
• All-or-nothing payment (full amount only if complete entire study)
• Escalating payments that make it hard to quit (e.g., $50 for session 1, $100 for session 2, $200 for session 3)
2. Recruitment practices that create pressure
• Finder's fees (paying people to refer others)
• Bonus payments to recruiters based on enrollment speed
• Targeting only economically vulnerable populations with high payments
3. Unclear or misleading terms
• Hidden conditions ("payment subject to data quality review")
• Vague timing ("you'll be paid soon")
• Bait-and-switch (advertising $100, then explaining lots of conditions)
U.S. Tax Rules:
• Participants who receive $600+ in a calendar year must receive a Form 1099
• Your company must collect their Social Security Number
• You must report these payments to the IRS
How Great Question + Tremendous handles this:
• Automatically collects W-9 forms when needed
• Generates 1099s at year-end
• Files with IRS on your behalf
International payments: Different rules apply (W-8BEN for non-U.S. individuals). Gift cards often avoid triggering reporting requirements. Consult with tax advisor for large international programs.
What your legal team will want to see:
Incentive Rationale Document
• Why this amount? (market rate, expertise required, time commitment)
• How determined? (benchmarking, previous studies)
• Why this structure? (pro-rating approach, timing)
Consent Language
• Clear description of payment terms
• Conditions for full/partial payment
• Timing of payment delivery
Payment Records
• Who was paid
• How much
• When
• For what study
Great Question provides exportable payment reports, audit trails, consent form templates, and IRB-ready documentation.
Many teams start with "we'll just send Amazon gift cards." Here's why that breaks down:
Problems with manual processes:
• Researcher time: 10-15 minutes per payment to purchase, send, track, follow up
• No international support: Amazon doesn't work in most countries
• Tax nightmare: Spreadsheets of who got paid what, manual 1099 creation
• Fraud risk: No verification, easy for bad actors to game
• Participant frustration: Delays, wrong emails, can't redeem
At 100+ participants per year, you're spending 20-30 hours just on payment logistics.
Global Reach
• 200+ countries supported
• Local currency and payment methods
• Automatic translation
Payment Flexibility
• Participant choice of reward type (2,000+ gift card options, prepaid cards, PayPal, Venmo, bank transfer)
• Both immediate and scheduled payments
• Bulk and individual disbursement
Compliance Built-In
• Automatic tax form collection
• 1099 generation and filing
• Fraud detection
• Audit trails
Integration with Research Workflow
• Trigger payments automatically when sessions complete
• Track who's been paid from research dashboard
• No switching between tools
Great Question's incentive management is powered by Tremendous, providing a fully integrated experience:
1. Study Setup (in Great Question)
• Define incentive amount and conditions
• Choose payment method (gift cards, prepaid cards, etc.)
• Set payment trigger (immediate, manual approval, scheduled)
2. Participant Journey
• Sees incentive clearly in screener and consent
• Chooses reward preference (if offering options)
• Provides tax info if needed (handled automatically)
3. Payment Delivery (via Tremendous)
• Triggered automatically or manually by researcher
• Participant receives email with reward within minutes
• Can choose from 2,000+ options if you offer flexibility
4. Compliance and Reporting
• All payments tracked in Great Question dashboard
• Export for accounting/finance
• Automatic 1099 generation at year-end; tax filing handled by Tremendous
Pricing Transparency
• Great Question: Research operations platform (view pricing)
• Tremendous: Face value of rewards + small transaction fee (~3%), no platform fees
• Total cost: Your incentive amount + ~3%
Example calculation:
• 20 participants × $75 = $1,500 in incentives
• Tremendous fee: ~$45
• Total: $1,545
Compare to: Researcher spending 5 hours on manual gift cards at $60/hour = $300 in labor, plus mistakes and delays.
50% of research teams conduct international research. Here's what works:
Payment methods by region:
• North America/Europe: Visa prepaid cards, Amazon, PayPal, direct deposit
• Latin America: Local gift cards (Mercado Libre), PayPal, prepaid cards
• Asia: Local platforms (Paytm in India, GCash in Philippines), prepaid cards
• Africa: Mobile money (M-Pesa), airtime, prepaid cards
Best practice: Let participants choose. What works in Seattle doesn't work in São Paulo.
Currency considerations:
• Don't just convert USD to local currency using exchange rates
• Calibrate to local purchasing power (What's a reasonable hourly wage?)
• $50 USD goes much further in Manila than San Francisco
Creating Internal Guidelines
What your team needs documented:
Standard Rate Card
Adjustment Factors
• Rare audiences: +50%
• Rush recruitment: +25%
• In-person: +30% plus expenses
• Sensitive topics: +15%
Approval Workflow
• Amounts within guidelines: Auto-approved
• 10-20% over guidelines: Manager approval
• 20%+ over guidelines: Finance + legal sign-off
Special Cases
• Government employees: No payment or charity donation
• Internal employees: Optional participation, no payment or $25 token
• Healthcare providers: Case-by-case, $100-200 max without legal review
For research leaders presenting to product/executive leadership:
The ask: $X for participant incentives across Y studies
The business case:
• Speed: "This budget lets us complete studies in 3-5 days instead of 2 weeks, accelerating every roadmap decision"
• Quality: "Market-rate payments ensure we hear from representative users, not just people with unusual amounts of free time"
• Efficiency: "Proper incentives reduce no-shows from 25% to 5%, eliminating wasted researcher time"
• ROI: "A single avoided feature failure pays for an entire year of research incentives"
The comparison:
• Our ask: $X for incentives
• Alternative: Hire a research agency ($50-150K per project)
• Alternative: Build wrong features ($500K+ in engineering waste)
The precedent: "Every major tech company pays research participants. This is table stakes for quality insights."
Annual Research Incentive Budget
Add 10% buffer for rush studies and difficult recruitment: $57,178
Cost per insight: With 50 studies generating 500+ hours of conversations, that's ~$114 per research hour, or ~$1,140 per study. A fraction of agency costs.
From Product Leaders
Q: "Can't we just interview our existing users for free?"
A: Some will participate without pay, but you'll systematically miss:
• People with less time (busy professionals, parents, hourly workers)
• People with weaker opinions (the "silent majority")
• People considering alternatives (at-risk customers)
The $75 you save per interview costs you thousands in biased insights.
Q: "This seems expensive. How do I know it's worth it?"
A: Compare to alternatives:
• Agency research: $50-150K per project
• Engineering time building wrong features: $200-500K
• Incentives for 50 studies: $50-60K/year
The ROI is 10:1 even if incentives prevent a single major feature failure.
Q: "How do I benchmark if we're paying appropriately?"
A: Track these metrics:
• Time to fill: Should be 3-7 days for most studies
• No-show rate: Should be under 10%
• Participant quality ratings: Should average 4.5+/5.0
If these are off, your incentives might be too low.
From Legal / Compliance
Q: "How do we ensure this doesn't create undue influence?"
A: Three key practices:
• Pay market rates for time, not excessive amounts for risk
• Pro-rate for partial completion (never all-or-nothing)
• Document rationale in consent forms
Standard UX research with market-rate payments is low-risk for undue influence.
Q: "What documentation do we need?"
A: Three documents:
• Incentive rationale (why this amount)
• Consent language (clear terms)
• Payment records (who, when, how much)
Great Question generates these automatically.
Q: "Are there people we absolutely can't pay?"
A: Check for:
• Government ethics rules (federal employees often can't accept)
• Healthcare COI policies (depends on context)
• Your company's gift policies (for competitor employees)
When in doubt, consult your legal team. Alternatives exist (charity donations, no payment with strong professional value).
From Procurement
Q: "Why can't we just use our corporate credit card for Amazon gift cards?"
A: Three problems:
• Doesn't scale internationally (Amazon doesn't work in 150+ countries)
• No tax compliance (you'll manually generate 1099s for 100+ people)
• No fraud prevention (bad actors will game you)
At 100+ participants/year, dedicated platforms save money via efficiency.
Q: "What's the total cost of ownership?"
A: Factor in:
• Face value of incentives: $50-75/participant typical
• Platform fees: ~3% transaction fee
• Researcher time saved: 10-15 min/participant (worth $15-25 in labor)
• Tax compliance: Hours saved at year-end (worth $500-1,000)
Net: Platforms cost ~3% more in transaction fees but save 10-20% in total cost via efficiency.
Q: "How do we evaluate vendors?"
A: Key criteria:
• Geographic coverage: Can they pay participants wherever you recruit?
• Compliance: Automatic tax forms, fraud prevention, audit trails?
• Integration: Works with your research tools or requires manual work?
• Participant experience: How fast do people get paid? How many options?
• Support: What happens when payments fail or participants have issues?
KPIs to Track
Recruitment efficiency:
• Time to fill (days from launch to fully scheduled). Target: 3-5 days for consumer, 5-8 days for professional
• Applications per slot (more = good targeting, less = low awareness or poor incentive)
Participation quality:
• No-show rate (scheduled but didn't attend). Target: <10% with proper incentives, <5% with great ones
• Participant quality ratings (researcher assessment). Target: 4.5+/5.0 average
Sample representativeness:
• Demographics match target population
• Professional diversity (for B2B)
• Geographic coverage (if relevant)
Financial metrics:
• Cost per completed session
• Wasted incentive (paid but no-showed, if prepaid)
• Incentive as % of total research budget (typical: 20-30%)
What Good Looks Like
Mature research team metrics:
• Studies fill in 4 days on average
• No-show rate: 6%
• Participant ratings: 4.7/5.0
• Same-week completion rate: 90%+
• International coverage: 60% of studies include non-U.S. participants
Early-stage team might see:
• Studies fill in 10+ days
• No-show rate: 15-20%
• Participant ratings: 4.1/5.0
• Need 2 weeks for most studies
The gap is often incentive strategy.
For Research Leaders
Immediate actions:
• Audit your current incentive practices against market benchmarks
• Calculate time-to-fill and no-show rates for last 10 studies
• If metrics are off, test higher incentives on next 3 studies
• Document results to build business case for budget increase
This quarter:
• Create internal rate card (Section 6)
• Get approval for annual incentive budget
• Explore Great Question's incentive features
• If using manual processes, request a demo
For Product Leaders
Questions to ask your research team:
• What's our average time-to-fill for studies?
• What's our no-show rate?
• How do our incentive rates compare to market benchmarks?
• What would additional incentive budget unlock? (more studies, faster insights, better quality)
Investment decision:
• Current research budget: $X (salaries, tools)
• Proposed incentive budget: $Y (typically 20-30% of total research spend)
• Expected return: Faster insights, better quality, more representative sample
• Risk of not investing: Biased insights, delayed insights, wasted researcher time
For Legal/Compliance Teams
Compliance checklist:
• Review Section 4 (staying compliant)
• Confirm consent form language includes clear incentive terms
• Ensure payment platform has tax compliance features
• Document special population policies (minors, government, healthcare)
• Create approval workflow for non-standard incentives
• Review vendor (Tremendous) for data privacy and security
For Procurement
Vendor evaluation:
• Request demo of Great Question
• Review incentive management capabilities
• Check integration with Tremendous
• Calculate total cost of ownership including researcher time saved
• Review pricing
Budget planning:
• Incentive face value: $50-75/participant average
• Platform transaction fees: ~3%
• Expected annual volume: X participants
• Total annual cost: X × $75 × 1.03 = $Y
From Great Question
• Incentive Feature Overview: How our platform handles incentives
• Getting Started with Incentives: Setup guide
• Managing Your Incentive Wallet: Admin controls
• Choosing the Right Incentive: Detailed audience guide
• Tremendous Integration: Global payment capabilities
Industry Benchmarks
• User Interviews 2024 Incentives Report: Data from 20,000 studies
• User Interviews Incentive Calculator: Interactive rate calculator
• Tremendous Research on UX Incentives: Practitioner insights
Compliance and Ethics
• OHRP: Payment to Research Participants (Federal guidance)
• 45 CFR 46: Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule full text)
• OHRP: Addressing Ethical Concerns (Detailed guidance on undue influence)
Academic Background
• Singer & Ye (2013): The use and effects of incentives in surveys
• Frey & Jegen (2001): Motivation crowding theory
Great Question is the research operations platform that helps teams recruit participants, conduct studies, manage incentives, and organize insights, all in one place.
Our integrated incentive solution (powered by Tremendous) handles everything from payment delivery to tax compliance, so your researchers can focus on insights instead of logistics.
Ready to streamline your research incentives?
• Explore our incentives feature
• Request a demo
• View pricing
• Read our documentation
Last updated: January 2026
Questions? Contact us at [email protected] or talk to your customer success manager.
Ned is the co-founder and CEO of Great Question. He has been a technology entrepreneur for over a decade and after three successful exits, he’s founded his biggest passion project to date, focused on customer research. With Great Question he helps product, design and research teams better understand their customers and build something people want.
.png)
