Focus Groups - Dead or Alive?
What is the future of in-person focus group (or one-on-one) interview research? Now that data is everywhere and easy to generate, will qualitative research like focus groups die? Or will they be needed more than ever to make sense of the never-ending data stream? Or will they simply be replaced by online qualitative tools?
Two things happen in marketing research. Quantitative research guides insights by exposing consumer proclivities, segmentation opportunities, and trends. Qualitative research informs idea generation and creative insights. People who gravitate to data sometimes fail to understand how important leaps of intuition and raw creativity can be to breaking through media clutter and capturing the attention and imagination of consumers. The most effective advertising is rarely the product of number crunching but rather springboards from organic insights garnered through indepth contact with representative consumers. Qualitative research, including focus groups, enables us to ask questions never considered, probe deeper into hidden motivations, and experience spontaneous ah-ha moments based on what group members say and don't say. As a creative director, I would much rather dispense with quantitative research than qualitative research when its time to create advertising strategies that are truly original and buzz-worthy.
i am a 30+ year marketing vetetan who was weaned on research so i feel equipped to answer this query.
focus groups will always be around as thee most useful mkt tool. it is also the most cost effective tool to utilize when in need of qualitative research data quickly and right ftom the horse's mouth.
you can never replace the human element that focus groups provide a client.
One should always remember the purpose of qualitative research and focus groups in particular, when answering this question. Focus groups are designed to elicit individual and group feedback to stimulus and to enable expansive discussion in order for the clients to: (1) rule out bad ideas, (2) develop hypotheses, (3) come up with new and or better ideas, (4) help confirm existing hypotheses.
Focus groups should not be used to make Go/No Go decisions, because they are not statistically valid nor representative.
All of this said, if one uses the research as intended, focus groups provide value and are valuable.
My exceptional qulification is that I am a consumer. I'd go with focus groups continuing to impact marketing. Here are some of the reasons for my response: 1) I don't often find data reflects me well. When results of polls are announced, I frequently wonder "who did they ask to get that answer?" 2) If you want to make me happy or make me buy your product/service then listen to me. Even if you don't listen to me, make me believe you tried to or wanted to. Some highly successful products were poorly supported until consumers made it clear they filled a need/want. 3) The human animal is fickle and illogical, not really all that data driven. In person or one:one electronic interaction give me the chance to tell you what I like and what I'll spend money on.
Focus groups will remain alive and be an important tool to gather consumer attitudes on product concepts, mock ups, and actual products or services. The moderator is a critical success factor... ensuring all participants participate and the group is not hijacked by a vocal member. Lots is quantitaive methods are available for larger scale consumer insight gathering, but focus groups enable marketers to get up close and personal with consumers about their product/service.
In-person focus group are under pressures due to lower marketing budgets and new technologies. There is no question that the personal contact with the group creates faster and more precise results. There is a difference if a human has a potential new product in his hands than seeing this via Virtual Glasses. Furthermore the in-person situation makes it easier for the facilitator to create a trustful situation.
On the other hand, online sessions are cheaper and also deliver solutions. For this it should not be that one replaces the other, but to combine the two instruments. Similar to Virtual Twins. Companies can test ideas first in virtual sessions and if these create positive results, they can go to the next step and discuss the topic in an in-person focus group.
There will always be the need for in person qualitative research. At times can the traditional in person focus group be replaced by an on-line version? Yes. It depends on your objectives, the robustness of information you need, how important the decision is, and what you are researching. If you need to see people's reactions (facial expressions, tone of voice, etc.) or need to physically show them something, for example a new product design language, that's the role of the in person group. If the decision is very important, a lot of communication is non-verbal, that's the role of in person groups. If you just need a quick qualitative read, on-line is fine. Also from experience the sell into major retailers of a product with a new design language and new colors is SO much easier with a video of consumers having their breath taken away when the new product is unveiled to them.
I am in the "focus group should stay" camp!
As Brent Green and others reflected earlier on, qualitative research (of which focus groups remains a key methodology) should be leveraged to explore, understand, identify a direction, formulate hypothesis. They will never replace quantitative research, but they can and should enrich its outcomes.
As with everything, even more because it can be very subjective and misleading, we need to ensure we use the right agencies- better agencies with very good moderators (this also has been said and its absolutely critical).
A bad qual could not only not bring any insights, but actually put you on a wrong path. Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad qual agencies around. In my 20 years career, I can count on one hand the people I would work with around the world!
An additional consideration is: are focus groups the right approach for what you are trying to achieve? Not all the time. When you want to get a real feel of the context and how the context influences decision making, I find ethnography could be much more insightful.
To those raising the challenge of "direct questioning" (which I agree its one of the biggest problems we have with focus groups and qual in general), again a good moderator should be able to adopt projective techniques and other tools to get under the skin of the consumers.
I have experienced very few doing this very well.
I think Focus Groups will remain. However, the long-term survival really depends on the organization/moderator how they want to use them. Meeting in person is always the best, in any case. Objective and Goal are two very important things and here the responsibility goes to the moderator. I mean, what exactly a moderator wants to achieve.
Yes, online sessions make things easy and cheaper but it's like comparing an online course and in-person classroom. I agree with the fact that there will be ongoing challenges like budget etc. Again, moderators will have to convince for budget and support, if they believe in the idea.
Market research fails when the hypotheses or questions to be asked and answered are nonsensical to the reality of the marketplace as it experiences rapid cycle change.
Like actuaries in health care insurance, looking back doesn't work well in modeling where the market is going in an environment of rapid, constant change.
New and innovative market research applications are beginning to be more instructive along with actionable in advising firms how to prepare better for the market. That along with a renewed effort on strategy versus tactics will be more beneficial then relying on traditional market research alone.
I believe focus groups will actually grow. The reason is that Cell Phone use has made it more difficult for pollsters to track the sentiment of the population. Witness the fact that every major pollster predicted a Hillary Clinton victory. I think that until pollsters and market researchers can address this issue, they will take a step backward with focus groups.
I find focus group dead! It is rare that in days and age with social media and such you can get the objectivity desired when running focus group. I prefer survey anonymous and at the leisure of the individual surveyed. We and I never felt that this focus group strategy was productive. The idea of sitting behind a mirror glass like a criminal is stupid. If you do your job right and you remain nimble in your organization you won't need focus group you will be able to adjust everyday!
Agree with most that focus groups don't perform or provide optimal information-typically. It can be an intentional strategy and could be useful but no longer holds the credibility of the past.
Too many focus group efforts are biased on both sides, too costly to hold as a live meeting, and in managed healthcare not really helpful any longer in this new marketplace. Virtual advisory boards and the like are probably just if not more useful.
Another aspect of this is the need for better education and not just typical pharma training on a topic since inadequate time is set aside for real learning on an issue or subject.
Not sure predictive analysis is that simple in healthcare. Changes occur every year since implementation of ACA in 2012. And market forces changing elements with supply chain also impact decision-making by providers or patients as consumers so extremely complex.
That leaves us with no good answer or single solution that is cost efficient, hence the reason why the same old same old continues.
i am a big supporter of focus groups . it might seem useless but its far from it . team collaboration and individual responses are very valuable , i might think i know all answers but every time we do focus groups i am very pleased with individual responses ,they are very creative ,different and disrupt general presentation and valuable as a individual input
Approaches like Design Thinking & Google Sprints (similar) depend heavily on empathy for the end user of the object or service that is designed. Focus interviews (1:1) play a very important role in this, since interviews in groups will always lead to biases: whomever speaks first or loudest, has a disproportional influence on the outcome.
Also, you are looking for a lot of non verbal information which is very hard to get out of online research.
Several years ago, I was a participant in several "product testing and usage" hands-on focus groups. I personally felt my opinions were well received by the focus groups evaluators and organizers. I felt they truly cared what our opinions and comments were on the products we ate, used , operated or watched. Some of the college students in the room were very happy with receiving $75 for 2 hours of "work" evaluating the items. So I feel in person focus groups will continue be a valuable resource for companies to use in the present and well into the future.
This technique for listening to consumers and getting the range of their thoughts on a specific topic will always be relevant. Focus groups have inevitably unearthed insights, phenomenon, possibilities, leads, etc. when the topic has been clearly defined and client and agency both actively joined the process. Sometimes as clients we don't take the critical next step which is quantifying the extent of the ideas and insights in our target segment. When a few stray mentions around a subject validates our preconceived notions or closely held beliefs about the subject at hand, we mistakenly assume this insight or view to be held by and applicable to the entire segment. This can inevitably stunt the degree of learning from the focus groups and worse, lead us to take totally wrong strategy decisions which inevitably prove expensive. Moderator bias, and client bias too, are perhaps the biggest watch out. Per se the technique is solid. It's one more way to listen to the consumer first hand and carefully observe not just what the consumer says but assess non-verbal cues as well which gives a measure of sincerity, involvement, engagement, etc.
Focus group will always be a very relevant marketing tool. From the several enumerated advantages here, the company's learning in contact with the various focus group participants is very useful form point of view. Sometimes the obtained knowledge in these sessions suggests the creation of new products and services that were not initially planned. An issue associated with this topic and that has generated discussion is how to choose the members to participate in a focus groups. Are the techniques used scientifically robust and representative of the population? Should the participants in the focus group be remunerated?
My ten years of experience in market research leads me to believe that focus groups weren't very effective in the first place so, no, I would say they will "die." Both surveys and focus groups (i.e. the "bread-and-butter" of the consumer research industry methodologies) are laden with biases. The industry has tried to address this in a number of ways but in my opinion they are addressing the wrong thing.
Shortening survey length, providing mobile options, allowing online virtual focus groups, etc. all address cognitive stress and respondent fatigue but do nothing to address cognitive biases inherent in directly questioning human participants. Not only do you have the participants' own biases, but you also begin to incorporate the biases of the researchers themselves. Focus groups in particular have serious issues in this regard since the researchers/moderators must interact in real time (with traditional focus group sessions) which can impact the direction of the discussion -- not always in a good way. Furthermore, my experience with focus groups is that typically one or two participants dominate the group which leads to group think. The researcher/moderator is trained to handle this, but in my opinion it's like asking a jury to disregard a piece of evidence that wasn't presented appropriately according to the legal system. You can tell them not to, but you can't just make yourself "forget."
Direct questioning is never the best way to solicit for research data in my opinion. If you must work with human participants then I suggest you revisit grad-school psychology experimental design. Obscure the true nature of the study, or gamify the data collection process, etc.
To the point of using data, however, we can avoid a lot of the biases mentioned above. A savvy data analyst/scientist can tease out a lot of the same information that surveys/focus groups attempt to find. Only these methods are based on hard facts like actual purchase decisions not hypothetical "will you buy this product within the next 6 months" questions. Predictive modeling is designed to do just that -- predict future behavior from past behavior. Today, with techniques like natural language processing we can even tease out insights from written language like product reviews.
Don't get me wrong, data analysts/scientists can incorporate their own biases when analyzing data, but I'd say you are far safer than direct questioning. Follow up with me if you care to discuss further!