Qualitatively Speaking: Don't say the f-word

Editor’s note: Carey Rellis is a moderator-consultant with Primary Insights, a Lisle, Ill., research firm.

Last year, while participating in a trend seminar in New York City I unexpectedly learned something about qualitative research: don’t say the f-word. That is, if you or your consumer insights are going to stand up as being even remotely credible, don’t say they came from focus groups.

Call your research method anything else, call it friendship groups, home visits, round-robins, coffee klatches, but nevermore let us invoke the traditional and omnipresent focus group.

Focus groups have been (and continue to be, I might add) a staple method of conducting qualitative research. But perhaps the very length of their history means that they simply aren’t trendy enough for the cutting-edge crowd of researchers, marketers, and ad agency creatives at the seminar.

Yet the newer terminology - like friendship groups - for a gathering of people who “focus” on a topic of discussion isn’t really all that new. Furthermore, these exciting, supposedly emerging methods are all simply variations on the basic premise of group discussion.

At the seminar, after gaining sufficient courage, I finally raised my hand and asked, “What’s wrong with focus groups?” A stunned silence followed, until the group recognized me as being from the hopelessly untrendy Midwest. The answer left me speechless (no small feat, by the way): “Consumers lie in focus groups.” This gross overstatement brought to mind a rather ugly possibility: consumers might not be 100 percent truthful, regardless of the methodology.

Why do consumers lie? Some blamed the “artificial” environment of a conference table and chairs in a sterile room at some agency in Anytown, U.S.A. After all, what motivation would respondents have for telling the truth to eight or nine perfect strangers?

Now, I’m all for trying new things. I have on several occasions banished the dreaded and intimidating conference table set-up and replaced it with overstuffed chairs, couches, pillows, and beanbag chairs. This was done out of respect for our respondents and to enhance their comfort, not out of distrust of them.

Apparently this isn’t enough. According to my trendy colleagues, friendship (a pre-approved f-word) groups are fine. The respondents know each other and are more relaxed in a familiar (home) environment. They keep each other honest.

However, in defense of qualitative research participants and their generous willingness to disclose information, I submit that there are several occasions in which consumers might be more comfortable (and more openly honest) with the sense of anonymity that comes with having a group of so-called strangers meet in neutral territory (i.e., a focus group). For example, who wants to tell their group of friends about their experiences with incontinence or their shy 7-year-old son’s bedwetting issues?

My experience has shown that consumers feel a sense of catharsis and relief when they can share their stories and concerns with strangers. It creates a bond that did not previously exist. They are more apt to build on each other’s experiences as they learn and disclose together because they don’t already know each other’s habits and stories.

I’m not sure why people are fixated on respondent honesty as a flaw of focus groups. Maybe we blame consumers for our failure to truly understand and meet their needs. I do believe that consumers try their best to please us, and if they do provide inaccurate answers, it is only in their innocent attempt to give us information they simply may not have. Often, such misleading answers may be the result of unfair, leading, or impossible questions (“Would you really pay more for it?”). Or maybe it’s in our interpretation of their answers. Perhaps we oversimplify the consumer psyche. Maybe we don’t really listen.

The way I see it, we as researchers are obliged to help keep them honest. Maybe we should have them place their right hand on the Bible and swear in when they sign the confidentiality agreement. Perhaps we could persuade moderators to be like Wonder Woman, who captured villainous liars with her truth lasso and made them come clean (“I would definitely not pay more for it, even though I just spent 45 minutes telling you how great your idea is.”).

For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the trend: We need insights and information from consumers faster than ever before. We get frustrated when we miss the mark and our prototypes and concepts fall short of consumer delight. We might even be guilty of blaming them for our failures. Did they lie or did we not really listen to what they were trying to tell us? Focus groups do not measure behavior. They are not the place to assess purchase interest or the incremental volume potential of our new ideas.

But let’s at least be honest with ourselves. Whether the participants know each other or not or meet in a conference room or a living room, a GROUP consisting of consumers FOCUSING on a topic is a focus group. The term might be generic, but I believe it’s universal. Maybe my new friends and colleagues from New York are just tired of saying it. Maybe they’re attempting to sound savvy by using new terms to define age-old practices. Maybe we’d be more hip if we called them “discussion groups” with a British accent.

If you want to hear more, you’re welcome to come over for coffee. I’ll invite a few friends. That way you’ll know I mean what I’m saying.