Long Live Focus Groups!

By Naomi Henderson

 

Last week I read with some interest a Research Access article titled, Are Focus Groups an Endangered Species?” As a seasoned, long time moderator, (having led more than 6,000 focus groups since 1978), a trainer of moderators, and an author, I am obviously quite alarmed at the idea that focus groups should be considered a dinosaur or endangered species.

I will wholeheartedly agree that all focus groups don’t work – they can go wrong for a number of reasons and they can be misused by observers. However, every industry has some flukes; the car industry continues to make cars even though some cars are lemons. They don’t stop making cars because some of them are not working as designed.

The first focus groups were held in America in 1937. In the three-quarters of a century since those first groups, focus groups have undergone a number of transformations as a research methodology as outlined in the chart below:

Chart for 5-28-14

 

The qualitative research game changed a lot over the last seven decades and with the advent of additional technologies, even more adaptations will continue to be made in the qualitative arena.

Every now and then an article comes out in the press entitled: “Is God Dead?” and it goes on to report issues around the moral decay in the world. Those articles seldom report the growth of church membership in times of crisis, the role that religion plays in handling stress, or how religion provides millions with a moral center to face the challenges of a modern world. In the same way, one should be careful in reading a report on the “death of focus groups” as there is always another side to every story. I believe focus groups are, in fact, thriving and will continue to be applied to new situations over the coming years.

Many arguments against focus groups result from a misunderstanding of the limits of focus group qualitative research.

The argument of Inherent bias: I completely agree that there exists a bias in focus groups and that respondents may sway each other. But a skilled moderator knows how to set a context for avoiding bias. Many believe that the purpose of a focus group is to reach consensus…wrong, on every count. Focus groups with 8 participants, handled correctly, can achieve eight different points of view! There is never a reason to reach consensus in a focus group.

The very nature of focus groups is their subjective biases: convenience samples, paid respondents, and a fixed line of questions. So you may wonder, what’s the point? Because what counts in life, cannot be counted. Try to scale or measure love, patriotism, or brand loyalty. Try to count up a tally of what it means to own a dog or keep a Ford Mustang for 40 years. What counts, cannot be quantified and hearing that information trumps any biases that might be present.

The argument of Small sample sizes: There is never a reason to project the findings of 24, 36, or 48 people in focus groups to a universe and make a quantitative summary. The whole point of focus groups is to understand language, motivators, drivers, perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes which then can go into the development of quantitative surveys where projections can be made.

To call “small sample sizes” a fault of focus groups is to misunderstand the role of qualitative research. Quantitative research asks the questions, qualitative research questions the answers and provides insights that help decision-makers see the whole picture. Any client that would make a marketing decision based on 30 people is delusional and any moderator who supports that thinking is misguided at best and harmful at worst. Qualitative and quantitative research are like two sides of a hand. The quant is the back where the bones and sinews can be easily seen. The soft palm is qual research that possesses the ability to hold something with care. Both are critical to the whole picture of market research.

The argument of Time consuming and expensive to do it right. Yes, qualitative research takes time and is expensive – I have no argument with that premise. I also know that some of the finer things in life take time and cost a lot of money. A good example is aged whiskey. Moonshine can be made in one day and aged one night. But a good single malt scotch, aged 12 years or more, is smooth and satisfying. A lump of coal burns fast and hot, but that same lump pressed under tons of earth for centuries will turn into a diamond and is priceless. Qualitative research takes time but when you know how the target market thinks, you can sell more products and services. In the long run, a little more time with consumers at the front end of a process can send huge dividends to the bottom line.

 

Naomi writes more about her experiences as a Master Moderator in her book, Secrets of a Master Moderator.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

9 thoughts on “Long Live Focus Groups!

  1. We said Naomi, I couldn’t have put it better!

  2. Chris Stiehl says:

    Focus groups work really well when you have something to discuss that you can touch, feel, smell, taste or witness. For more more imaginative qualitative research, I prefer IDIs. After all, when was the last time you invited 8 or 12 strangers into your home to discuss how you select what cereal to buy, or which couch? Doesn’t happen. It is not real. One-on-one people can open up and share details that might be uncomfortable to share in a group setting. I agree completely that many corporate management folks do not understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative research, they often think quantitatively about qualitative research. Just read the seminal papers by Abbie Griffin and John Hauser from the early 1990s showing how 15 IDIs can generate as much or more detailed information as 8 or 10 focus groups, cheaper and faster.

    I have moderated focus groups for decades for numerous clients, but usually only when we have something the subjects have all experienced or seen to discuss, in a non-threatening setting, without fear of sharing. I have witnessed far too many where the goal is to build consensus, WRONG. Often, the respondents must feel as though the moderator can relate to the subject (I did some work for Pfizer, as a man who could relate; for women’s issues with insulin pumps, a woman moderator was more appropriate).

  3. Anonymous says:

    Appreciating the persistence you put into your blog and detailed information you offer. It’s awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same outdated rehashed information. Wonderful read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m including your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  4. verena louat says:

    Very good post. I’m facing some of these issues as well..

  5. Troy Bowles says:

    This design is steller! You definitely know how to keep a reader amused.

    Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start
    my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Excellent job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.
    Too cool!

  6. Tomas says:

    Great post. I am going through many of these issues as well..

  7. Tammara says:

    This is a topic that’s near to my heart… Cheers!

    Where are your contact details though?

  8. BernardoZLough says:

    Wonderful post but I was wanting to know if you could write
    a litte more on this topic? I’d be very thankful if you
    could elaborate a little bit more. Cheers!

  9. Caitlyn Stonham says:

    I want to to thank you for this very good read!! I certainly enjoyed
    every bit of it. I have you book-marked to look at new things you post…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s