The Cost of Fraud in Primary Research Continues to Grow
Incentivized online surveys have become prime targets for fraudulent activity, where bots and malicious users aim to complete surveys rapidly to claim rewards. These fraudulent actions not only skew research results but also compromise data integrity, leading to poor decision-making and wasted resources. Studies indicate that up to 26% of survey responses may be fraudulent, with bots submitting multiple forms from the same IP address, often using fake or duplicate accounts to inflate their commissions​.
The Problem: The rise in bot-driven fraud is driven by monetary incentives, where bots fill out surveys en masse to collect multiple payouts. Bots tend to provide duplicate or irrelevant answers, complete surveys in unrealistically short time frames, and manipulate open-ended responses with nonsensical text or plagiarized content. These responses degrade the quality of the data and reduce the credibility of the research​.
The Market Need: Researchers and market analysts require robust tools that can filter out these fraudulent responses while maintaining the quality of data. Traditional tools like CAPTCHA have limitations, as more sophisticated bots can bypass these methods. Therefore, the need for innovative validation tools, such as those that incorporate spatial reasoning and personalized interaction, is paramount​.
The exact financial toll of survey fraud in the U.S. is difficult to pinpoint due to its complexity and the evolving nature of fraud tactics. However, studies suggest that survey fraud, particularly from bots, can account for up to 26% of responses in certain surveys. This represents a significant waste of resources in primary quantitative research, where the costs of cleaning and verifying data often escalate due to the prevalence of fraudulent entries.​
In terms of dollars, if a company spends $100,000 on survey research, as much as $26,000 could be wasted due to fraudulent responses. This includes both the direct costs of collecting invalid data and the indirect costs associated with data cleaning, quality assurance, and potential decision-making errors based on faulty insights.​
Ramifications of Bots Answering Surveys: Bots and fraudulent respondents lack the nuanced understanding that comes from life experience. Their answers are often either completely fabricated or lack context, which can misrepresent human perspectives and lead to skewed data. Since they don’t have the years of life experience needed to properly contextualize responses, bots can generate answers that seem plausible but lack depth, ultimately leading to faulty conclusions. For example, when survey questions require emotional or cognitive depth—such as those related to life events or personal preferences—bots will fail to provide meaningful input, leading to shallow or irrelevant data.​
About Cubicon
This information about Cubicon is provided separately from the article to avoid any tainting of the integrity of that information. Now, regarding this BuyFacts innovation, Cubicon addresses this issue with its interactive validation and customization tool. Using spatial reasoning puzzles and cognitive challenges, Cubicon can prevent bots from completing surveys. Bots struggle to pass these puzzles, requiring human-like cognitive abilities, adding a critical layer of defense against fraudulent responses. This method validates real respondents and reduces the workload for researchers in cleaning up fraudulent data​.
