Audience research
Part of Reputation management audience research: separate the populations
Survey routes for reputation research, tested on the method before the platform
Compare survey routes for reputation research in England using one evidence grid, a manual baseline and an explicit empty product shortlist.
The method test comes before any platform choice. Write the questionnaire outside the tool, run it on synthetic answers, then admit a route only when its dossier clears. For one review-correction workflow, a form plus a controlled spreadsheet is the route to admit first.
What to take away
- Test the questionnaire on synthetic answers before licensing any survey platform.
- "Tested" in this title means a synthetic method test, not a product trial. No supplier funded this work and no product was accessed.
- For a single review-correction workflow, the buyer-built baseline is the route that fits. The four commercial routes add cost without proving more.
- A route fails if privacy, security, accessibility, contract or export evidence is missing for the exact edition.
- Survey software cannot repair a biased sampling frame or a leading question.
Five routes for one questionnaire
Compare routes on the same unit: one questionnaire version, one declared participant population, one field period and one export the buyer controls.
Named candidates
- Manual baseline
- GOV.UK Forms, free for central government, plus a controlled spreadsheet
- Existing approved service
- Microsoft Forms via Microsoft 365 business plans, typically from around £4.60 per user per month as of 2026; Jisc Online Surveys, free for eligible UK education, charity and public-sector researchers
- Licensed self-service edition
- SmartSurvey (free plan limited to 100 responses per survey; paid editions typically £25 to £60 per user per month as of 2026), SurveyMonkey (free plan limited to 10 questions and 40 responses), LimeSurvey (cloud plans from around £20 per user per month)
- Specialist reputation platform
- Qualtrics CoreXM and RepTrak, both quote-based, with annual costs typically five figures in pounds as of 2026
- Managed research service
- YouGov (omnibus fieldwork quoted per question, typically low thousands of pounds), Ipsos and NatCen (quoted per study)
Useful evidence
- Manual baseline
- Buyer owns wording, invitations and the raw record
- Existing approved service
- May reuse known accounts and controls
- Licensed self-service edition
- Could support collection and export
- Specialist reputation platform
- Reputation benchmarks and reporting
- Managed research service
- Recruitment plus fieldwork
Buyer work
- Manual baseline
- Build, secure, test, analyse
- Existing approved service
- Verify configuration and contract
- Licensed self-service edition
- Establish edition, roles, settings and exit
- Specialist reputation platform
- Agree survey wave, benchmarks and data terms
- Managed research service
- Define instructions, roles and hand-back
Main limitation
- Manual baseline
- Version errors and access control need evidence
- Existing approved service
- Prior approval may not cover this population
- Licensed self-service edition
- Public feature pages do not prove configured behaviour
- Specialist reputation platform
- Licence and benchmark scope may exceed one workflow
- Managed research service
- Outsourcing can obscure the sampling frame
RepTrak scores seven reputation dimensions: products and services, innovation, workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership and performance.
Verdict: no platform wins for a single review-correction workflow. The buyer-built baseline is the only route with no unresolved gate today. The four commercial routes stay as planning options until each clears the same dossier.
If you want the reason an empty shortlist can be the honest answer, why no reputation tool has passed our evidence screen sets out the gates we apply.
Example: an England charity on Jisc Online Surveys
Take an England charity that wants feedback on its complaint handling. Jisc Online Surveys is free for eligible UK education, charity and public-sector researchers, so it may already sit inside an approved account.
The catch is scope. Approval for a student or service-user population does not automatically cover complainants or reviewers. Confirm the exact configuration before treating the route as admitted.
The synthetic method test, step by step
Build the questionnaire outside any tool. Give every version an ID and freeze the wording before any participant sees it.
The synthetic method test
- Build the questionnaire outside any tool and give each version an ID.
- Preserve question order, eligibility logic, "do not know" options and withdrawal text.
- Run synthetic answers through branching, partial completion, duplicate handling, correction, export and deletion.
- Keep live review or complaint data out of the trial entirely.
- Report invited, eligible, complete, partial, excluded and withdrawn records separately.
Test the method first
- Build questionnaire outside any tool
- Give every version an ID
- Preserve order, logic, options, withdrawal text
- Use synthetic answers to test branching
- Test partial completion, duplicates, correction
- Test export and deletion
- Report each response category separately
GOV.UK advises early, clear information, minimal recruitment data and controlled access when managing research participants' data. It is public-service guidance, so it informs the procedure without deciding a private organisation's legal position.
If your research recruits distinct groups, separating the populations before recruiting avoids a frame that no export can fix later.
Dossier items that gate admission
The ICO says personal data should be adequate, relevant and limited to the purpose. A product offering many profile fields is not a reason to collect them.
Security claims need proportional assurance, not a badge copied into a scorecard. The NCSC's guidance on choosing a cloud provider separates supplier assertions from stronger validation.
Accessibility sits in the same gate. A route with no accessible completion path cannot be admitted, whatever its reporting.
- Supplier legal entity and the exact UK-available edition.
- Evidence date, questionnaire and response limits, export format.
- Deletion process, support route, terms, privacy notice and processor list.
- Transfer position, security evidence and accessibility statement.
Stop if the buyer cannot verify data recipients, honour withdrawal, provide an accessible route, retrieve a usable export or obtain deletion evidence.
Exact product dossier
- Supplier legal entity and exact UK edition
- Evidence date, questionnaire and response limits
- Export format, deletion process, support route
- Terms, privacy notice, processor and subprocessors
- Transfer position, security evidence, accessibility statement
- Pricecurrency, VAT, unit, billing period, term
Common questions
Which route is best for a single review-correction workflow?
The buyer-built baseline: a form such as GOV.UK Forms, plus a controlled spreadsheet the buyer secures and analyses. It keeps wording, invitations and the raw record in one place and adds no licence fee.
Can I trust public feature pages when comparing survey products?
No. A feature page describes what an edition can do, not how your configuration behaves. Ask for the exact edition, settings and evidence date instead.
When should a route be stopped before admission?
Stop when data recipients, withdrawal, an accessible route, a usable export or deletion evidence cannot be verified. Those gaps outrank any convenience in the builder.
