Editor’s note: Héctor Lanz is accounts director at Ipsos ASI in Venezuela and market research professor at Universidad Metropolitana, Caracas.
The focus group is probably the concept most frequently associated to market research in popular culture. Focus groups are widely used by well-versed market researchers, often solicited by experienced research contractors and a technique which has indeed contributed extensively to the knowledge we have so far in regards to the consumption phenomena.
In my experience, focus groups are very often suggested – and requested – in an automatic manner as a standard tool for qualitative data gathering. But there are cases when group interviews in general might not be the most convenient method to obtain the kind of information we actually need.
Here are some reasons worth considering if you are thinking of doing market research with focus groups:
Focus groups have to do with qualitative – not quantitative – research
I know this sounds rather obvious for many people but I am still seeing research proposals asking to find out, for instance, brand knowledge levels with a design of five-to-seven focus groups. There are even those who, in search of quantitative validity, keep a count of how many participants during the sessions approved one of the TV commercials or package designs that were tested. As a general rule, I say that anything that could be better answered with a bar chart is probably not a good candidate for the usual spirit of a set of focus groups. Focus groups are a qualitative and exploratory approach and it is very risky to attempt to determine weights of responses from them. If your goal is to generalize findings coming from focus groups or use them to make strategic decisions, you better count on analysts who have a lot of up-to-date and robust background knowledge – and gut feeling – of the market you are in.
You are analyzing groups instead of people
Even when it seems logical to think that you are analyzing people’s behavior in a focus group, in some cases this could be an illusion. In this case, the group is what we researchers call the “unit of analysis” and that means that you are getting responses that belong to “groups of people” or at least to “people, when in groups.” It is very important to bear this in mind, as responses in front of a group (generally comprised of strangers) might not necessarily be the same when interviewed individually, either for the influence of the group leader or because there are behaviors given seeking social acceptance. Unless your goal is to evaluate this social effect, avoid focus groups.
Complex logistics and high costs
I have always compared the preparation for a focus group to that of a concert. There are many things that have to be double-checked and have to come out well for the sessions to please researchers and clients. Audio and video equipment have to be tested; a proper facility be available; snacks served; there is a wait until the minimum amount of people show up and sometimes a wait for the client’s approval of the participants’ profiles minutes before the start. The preparation for a focus group consumes time and money and involves a considerable amount of participants and the organization of complex logistics and pieces of equipment that are not needed in other research approaches such as in-home individual interviews.
They attract professional participants
Professional participants are the headache of market researchers. They make a living by going from one agency to another, pretending to be light-yogurt addicts one day and fast-food fanatics the next. They love focus groups since they are not always held at a place that has the technologies available to verify their true identities. In-home individual interviews, by contrast, can help eliminate this problem, as once a household is visited it is put into a quarantine period.
It is not easy to control groups
Not all interviewers can be group moderators; that requires special training. Keeping a group discussion focused on a certain topic or controlling the enthusiasm/influence of a group leader can be a huge task, especially in groups of children. It is even more uphill when clients or other researchers themselves try to moderate by passing private messages to the moderator. Not everyone can cope with this and still foster fruitful research insights in a group dynamic.
* * *
Focus groups – and group interviews in general – are a helpful tool. They certainly boast some advantages, depending on your research objectives, but in my opinion they are used far more often than is really needed. Consider the points I have raised here to make a critical judgment next time you are facing a research design using focus groups and you might end up obtaining information in a way that is less expensive, faster and more valid.