Archived News

The Making Of A Focus Group

Dated: 01 January 2003

The focus group concept is about 50 years old, and like many modern innovations, its roots date back to World

War II. A group of sociologists was asked to investigate how the military’s propaganda films were being received by the public. The questions were so designed that the participants were able to identify the exact reason certain scenes, lines, or phrases made them think or act in a particular way.

The consumer culture was the next to use focus group technology, turning to academically trained market researchers to determine everything — from packaging and pricing to advertising and marketing. It is now estimated that 70% of all consumer research dollars are earmarked for qualitative research and it is nearly impossible to find a Fortune 500 company that does not use focus groups to develop its corporate image and/or marketing strategy.

The testing of television commercials is also perfectly suited to focus group research. While some companies can play radio ads and the the audio portion of a television directly through the telephone lines, it is impossible to show respondents the visual component through this medium.

Since the goal in any advertising effort is to activate “mental imagery” — the mental images that the messages create in the consumer’s mind — visual analysis is far more effective than auditory processing. Furthermore, scientific studies completed in the past decade using focus group methodology have proven that “how it is said” is more important than “what is said.”
Locally, a few companies have used focus groups, but its use is sporadic rather than being an integral component of marketing strategies. For those who are contemplating the focus group approach, the following should be useful.

Characteristics

A well-run focus group is a laboratory for social interaction. A good focus group requires four simple characteristics — the proper composition, an open environment, a probing moderator and in-depth analysis.

The compostiion of the focus group must be selected strategically, with homogeneity as the key to a successful session. Human behavioral studies have consistently proven that people will reveal their innermost thoughts only to those they believe share a common bond. For example, if your goal is to study the real, in-depth feelings of whites and blacks towards affirmative action, welfare, or crime, you cannot have an integrated focus group. Similarly, women will not talk freely and emotionally about abortion if men (including a male moderator) are present. This is just a fact of life.

The mood of the group is also critical. A single, dominant voice can cripple open, honest discussion by intimidating the other participants. Also, keep food outside It’s simply that continuing participant attention to food is an unnecessary and ill-advised distraction.

The single greatest component of a successful focus group is the moderator. Academics have been justifiably critical of many focus group practitioners because they lack one or more of the following characteristics:

Being a good listener is not enough to moderate a focus group properly. Remarkably few political focus group moderators have been academically or professionally trained to stimulate thorough but balanced discussion in an unbiased faashion. Similarly, all too often, focus group moderators put pressure on respondents to give information that they just don’t have. The fact is, voters are ill-informed about the intricate details of public policy and the loudest and most emtional of respondent often knows the least about what he or she is talking. A professional focus group moderator knows how to keep such an individual from intimidating and biasing the other participants.

Limitations

Despite their star-studded history, the accuracy and legitimacy of qualitaitve research in general and focus groups in particular, are still raised by a small but vocal group in the polling community. Some attacks are legitimate, but most are not.

For example, focus groups have alerted media consultants to the importance of “auditory stimuli” (i.e., background music and sounds) to increase attention, recall and persuasiveness.
On the other hand, however, focus groups have occasional difficulty measuring the “sleeper effect”, a gradual acceptance of a particularly hostile stimulus. People generally have a negative reaction to negative advertising. However, the palpability, and so the persuasiveness, of the information often increases as the viewer sees it multiple times.

To some extent, the problem lies with the consumer. It took years before some groups were prepared to accept the proposition that telephone studies are scientific, reliable and valid. Qualitative research can be just as empirical and objective, but skepticism still persists. A percieved absence of formal structure and “hard numbers” does not make qualitative research unscientific.
But, scientifically derived quantitative data can also misinform and mislead. The reality is that the elements that make up public opinion have changed, so too must its measurement. Unlike traditional, quantitative research, focus groups are centrally concerned with understanding attitudes rather than measuring them. In an academic sense, the goal of the focus group is to gain access to private, non-communicable, unconscious feelings and emotions.

In a real sense, focus group research is a direct, sensitive and interactive method of assessing public opinion, accomplishing what telephone studies cannot do. It approaches attitudes and and priorities tangentially by allowing respondents to talk freely and to choose descriptive categories significant to them (rather than to the pollster, or even the client.)