I am wondering whether a better approach would instead be to randomly sample a subset of potential respondents (say, 4,000 people), and offer to compensate them at a much higher rate (e.g., $100), given this strategy could both reduce costs and improve response rates.
Note that 4,000 * $100 is $400,000 which is higher than the cost you cited above.
FWIW, both of these costs seem pretty small to me.
Note that 4,000 * $100 is $400,000 which is higher than the cost you cited above.
FWIW, both of these costs seem pretty small to me.
No, because the response rate wouldn’t be 100%; even if it doubled to 30% (which I doubt it would), the cost would still be lower ($120k).