Automotive respondent recruitment is rarely a simple matter of finding car owners. When the research question is how people react to vehicle prototypes, the sample has to be exactly right: the right segment, the right model, the right powertrain and the right ownership window. This case study describes how Research and Metric supported a global automotive manufacturer with hybrid and electric SUV research in the United Kingdom, combining a quantitative venue study with a small set of in-depth interviews in central London.
Our role covered recruitment, incentive management, venue scheduling and moderator services. The sections below set out the brief, the way we worked and what was delivered.
The challenge
The client needed a structured consumer research programme to assess reactions to hybrid (HEV) and battery electric (BEV) SUV prototypes across two vehicle segments, referred to here as SUV Type B and SUV Type C. Respondents viewed the prototypes on a large display screen at a central London venue, then completed a self-administered quantitative interview. A smaller group went on to a face-to-face in-depth interview (IDI).
Several requirements made the recruitment demanding:
- Verified current owners of specific models. Respondents had to own or be the primary user of named HEV or BEV models, matched to precise make and model quotas.
- A defined purchase window. Vehicles had to have been bought within the last 3 months to 2 years, and respondents had to be aged 18 to 65.
- Limited availability of some models. A number of models in scope had limited UK retail presence, so sourcing had to be widened without compromising model integrity.
- Flexible ownership rules. Ownership was not mandatory. A primary user whose vehicle was registered to a family member could qualify, provided they could supply documentation.
- Tight quotas. The quantitative sample was n=200, split 100 in SUV Type B and 100 in SUV Type C, with model-level quotas across HEV and BEV models and a minimum of 30% female.
- Logistics at the venue. Sessions ran in batches of 8 to 10 respondents, so attendance across 200 people had to be coordinated closely.
On top of this, six respondents would need to be re-scheduled for a two-hour IDI after completing the quantitative stage.
Our approach
Research and Metric managed the recruitment from start to finish, working to a structured screener. It covered city, SUV type, make and model, year of purchase, primary user status and documentation availability. Each of these fields mattered: together they decided whether a person could be placed in a model quota at all.
Quota design
The quantitative sample was split into model and powertrain groups. In SUV Type B there were six groups across HEV and BEV, with quotas ranging from 10 to 25. In SUV Type C there were four groups, with quotas ranging from 15 to 30. Because the groups were small and specific, a single over-recruited model could not be traded off against another. Each cell had to be filled on its own terms.
Verification before confirmation
Every respondent had to upload or present a photograph of their vehicle registration certificate or purchase document before being confirmed. This applied to primary users with a family member's vehicle as well, who needed to supply documentation to qualify. It meant that ownership or primary use was checked before a respondent was ever given a session slot, rather than at the venue door. This is the core of recruiting verified vehicle owners: the check happens early, and it is recorded.
Real-time quota tracking
Profiles were reviewed against model quotas in real time. The female quota was tracked at both segment level and overall level, so that the minimum of 30% female was met in each segment and not just across the total.
Because some models had limited UK retail presence, we expanded the sourcing routes used for those models. Model integrity was kept throughout: a respondent was only counted against a quota cell if their documented vehicle matched it. For more on how we approach sample building in general, see our respondent recruitment services and our quantitative recruitment offer.
Fieldwork and quality
Good recruitment can still fail on the day if scheduling is loose. For this central London venue research, we treated scheduling as part of quality control.
Batch scheduling
Confirmed respondents were scheduled by phone and email into batches of 8 to 10 at the client's venue. Each slot was managed so that model-level quotas stayed balanced as the programme progressed. That meant looking at who was already booked before placing the next person, rather than filling slots in the order people were confirmed. Reminders were sent ahead of each session, and attendance was tracked on the day.
On-site support
Research and Metric field staff were on site for each batch. They assisted with check-in and managed respondent flow, so the client's team could focus on the prototype viewing and the interviews themselves. Having the people who recruited and scheduled respondents present at the venue also meant any attendance question could be resolved quickly.
The qualitative stage
For the qualitative stage, three respondents from each SUV type were selected from the pool of completed quantitative respondents. Selecting from people who had already taken part in the quantitative interview meant the IDIs built on a verified, already-qualified group. These six respondents were re-scheduled for two-hour IDIs at the same venue.
The interviews were led by a London-based moderator supplied by Research and Metric and briefed by the client team. The discussions covered attitudinal depth, purchase decision-making, prototype reaction and unmet needs, and were conducted in English. Our qualitative recruitment work often pairs recruitment with moderation in this way when a client wants one team accountable for both.
Incentives
Research and Metric handled incentive management in-house across all 206 respondents. Incentives were distributed and tracked against each completed interview, which kept the process clear for respondents and simple for the client to audit.
What the client received
The programme delivered the following:
- 200 quantitative venue interviews, each of 30 minutes, completed across both SUV segments.
- 6 qualitative IDIs, each of 2 hours, completed at the same venue: three with SUV Type B owners and three with SUV Type C owners.
- Documentation-verified respondents. All 200 quantitative respondents were pre-verified with registration or purchase documentation before attending.
- Quotas met. Model-level and gender quotas were met in both segments.
- Smooth venue operations. Batch scheduling of 8 to 10 respondents per slot ran without disruption to the client's venue programme.
- Moderator services. The Research and Metric-supplied moderator delivered all 6 IDI sessions in English.
- Tracked incentives. Incentives were distributed and tracked against each completed interview for all 206 respondents.
Together, these gave the client a documented, quota-balanced sample of owners and primary users for its car prototype research, with both a quantitative and a qualitative read from the same venue and the same respondent pool.
If you are planning research with vehicle owners, you can read more about our automotive market research experience, or talk to us about your sample requirements.
Frequently asked questions about automotive respondent recruitment
How were vehicle owners verified in this project?
Each respondent uploaded or presented a photograph of their vehicle registration certificate or purchase document before being confirmed. This happened before they were given a venue slot.
Could people who did not own the vehicle take part?
Yes. Ownership was not mandatory. A primary user whose vehicle was registered to a family member could qualify if they could supply documentation.
How were the in-depth interview respondents chosen?
Three respondents from each SUV type were selected from the completed quantitative respondents. They were then re-scheduled for two-hour IDIs led by a London-based moderator supplied by Research and Metric.
Client project. Client details are anonymised.
