Archive for the ‘focus groups’ Category

By Robert Relihan, Senior Vice President

I was talking with some young men several evenings ago.   Yes, it was a focus group, and I was the moderator.  The topic was something of general interest, so I had also been conducting groups among older men as well as younger and older women.

The group began well with a bit of the typical bluff you expect from younger guys.  Then something interesting happened, something I had not seen quite so strongly.  A couple of the guys began alternately posturing and complaining about their incomes and job prospects. Suddenly, from that side of the table, every topic was dismissed as too expensive, or worse still, a rip-off.  At the same time, there was another guy who bragged about his recent activities, with a tone that approached condescension.  A gulf has split the group which I spend a good deal of time trying to heal when I should have been drilling down on the topic at hand.

Of course, in designing the project, I “knew” that group dynamics and commonality of interests dictated that I separate men from women and younger participants from older participants.  Being attentive to lifestage is crucial to developing a meaningful atmosphere in a focus group.  But, as one often does, I was willing to accept a “mix of incomes.”

I mention this incident because of a new report from the Pew Research Center on the perceptions Americans have of class conflicts in the country.

“About two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.”

“Not only have perceptions of class conflicts grown more prevalent; so, too, has the belief that these disputes are intense. According to the new survey, three-in-ten Americans (30%) say there are “very strong conflicts” between poor people and rich people. That is double the proportion that offered a similar view in July 2009 and the largest share expressing this opinion since the question was first asked in 1987.”

What is even more remarkable, this is a larger percentage than those who perceive conflicts between the young and old, or blacks and whites.

Now, this does not say that there are actual differences in outlook and beliefs between the affluent and the less so.  Although common sense suggests there are certainly behavioral differences.  But, if those of us who conduct qualitative research are going to engage groups in meaningful conversations, perhaps we need to think just as seriously about constituting separate groups on the basis of income levels as we do splitting males and females or younger and older respondents into distinct groups.

By Robert Relihan, Senior Vice President

Traditional qualitative research methods like focus groups and individual interviews have often been conceived as a first step.  I need to explore a new category.  I need to develop hypotheses.  Even, on a more rigorous and technical level, I need to pre-test a questionnaire.  In all of these cases, qualitative research served to point a brand or product team down the path that led to a new product, positioning, or campaign.

Over the past few years, we have seen growth in methods that put us in immediate contact with consumers.  Often consumers are in the moment of the experiences and behaviors in which we are interested.  So, we have seen the mining of social media, the creation of online communities of users, and various forms of mobile data collection.  All of these approaches have engaged marketers and given them exciting pointers to the future of their brands and products.

But these activities produce a wealth of observations and data.  They are capable of stimulating a mound of hypotheses.  It is possible to mine through the comments on a brand’s Facebook page or listen to days of Twitter feeds and come away with directions going various ways.   Now, what to do?  How does the marketing team get the targeted direction it needs?

The answer may well be several well-designed focus groups.

• The focus groups will permit exploration of each of those directions with consumers in real time.  It is possible to hear how they view the strengths of each and the problems they see.  The brand team is right on the spot with the moderator crafting rejoinders and alternatives, pushing the consumers to a place they might not have taken themselves.
• While there can be a ton of conversation in social media, it may not focus on areas that are of most interest to the brand team.  Focus group can force conflict and debate among the participants on those specific areas that can grow the brand or create the positioning.
• And, ultimately, hearing all of this discussion face-to-face from consumers “in the flesh” will galvanize the brand team like no other exercise.  In fact, when focus groups are conducted at the end of the process, there is much less need to observe the research niceties.  Why not have the consumers and the brand team face off in the same room?  Focus group steel cage?

So, savvy marketers will re-think how focus groups can help can help them in their development processes by saving the best for last.

By Robert Relihan, Senior Vice President

If you do focus groups long enough, you will end up having to defend them. In fact, you will end up having to defend them many times. And, so I was sitting this week listening to someone who was tired of focus groups. He wanted something new, different, something that put him in touch with real people.

Much of what passes for focus group criticism is simply wrong-headed; it is based on poorly conducted and poorly interpreted research. But, it is also fair to respond to the notion that focus groups are tired and old, that fresh insight require fresh methods.

Just like a good bath, everyone needs something new once in a while, but let me point out the three things that only focus groups can do.

• Embrace the debate. Don’t worry about the one guy who dominated the group. The world is awash in conflicting messages. If your idea can’t stand the assault in a group, how well will it do in the real world? Last night I observed seven people who praised the taste and quality of one product be brought back down to earth by that one woman who said all she cared about was price. Perhaps, that’s the right proportion — one price message out weighs seven quality claims. My client and I certainly will be thinking about it.And, remember that an effective moderator can stimulate this kind of back and forth. No other method yields this kind of debate.

• Embrace the artificiality. When you are in someone’s home watching them prepare dinner, only you can see what they are doing. You are stuck with their reality. It can be marvelously illuminating. But, within reason you cannot swap out the entree on the fly. You can’t see what isn’t there. You can’t understand the meal ritual without seeing the meal ritual.But, in a focus group I can use a bit of misdirection. I can turn what I really care about into a dependent variable. I can present packaging variations and have consumers taste the different product (all the same, of course). They discuss the “different” taste experiences. Voila, they have distinguished among packaging variations without knowing that was my purpose.

• Embrace the chaos. My last group in a series is almost never like my first. Part of this is simple mechanics. I learn the questions that work and the questions that fall flat. I pick up on consumer language and integrate it into my probes. But the real source of the change from beginning to end is that the team is constantly thinking and retooling our hypotheses and stimulus. Concepts are revised. New ones are created. To be sure, this is more productive. We are not simply collecting data, amassing observations. We are growing and changing.

If you accept these three unique qualities of a focus group, you will be well rewarded and realize the well-conducted focus group study will always have a place in your research toolbox.

By Robert Relihan, Senior Vice President

…is that they get it so wrong. I just read another indictment of marketing research as that great stifle of creativity and innovation. Trotted out were those ever popular examples of the focus group dominator and the poorly selected sample that both lead marketers to make bad decisions. I have heard these stories so many times that I am convinced they are urban legends. I wouldn’t have been surprised if a third example in the piece had been about Chicago’s most famous ghost, Resurrection Mary, directing a media plan.

Would anyone really adopt a package design because one person in one focus group really liked it? Are business plans ever driven by a customer survey with a poorly designed sample? Well… But, this isn’t about research; it’s about bad research. It isn’t about decision making; it’s about poor decision making.

Complaints about marketing research always seem to emanate from the perfect storm of poorly designed research and uninquisitive managers. So, the next time you read someone telling you to be skeptical of research, look at the examples:

• Is there a hypothesis in the house? Not to sound hopelessly fussy, but criticism of research with examples that never seem to have hypotheses can’t be about serious research. Without hypotheses, any conclusion is possible, and no discipline is applied to decision making.
• Research never “says “what to do. Criticism of marketing research always contains some phrase like “the research said.” Research may be actionable, but it never demands action. Research provides thoughtful managers evidence from which they can draw conclusions on which action can be based.
• Analysis speaks, not consumers. These critiques of research are often couched in the terms of the consumer voice. “But, in the research consumers said…” If you wish to listen to consumers, go to a neighborhood barbeque and act upon what you hear at your peril. Good research provides the discipline and structures to help us recognize what consumers mean beneath the chaos of what they “say.” Don’t confuse listening to consumers with understanding them.

So, remember these guidelines the next time you hear someone criticize marketing research. In all likelihood, he is complaining about “bad” research, or some fantasy of bad research a million miles from reality.