Editor's note: Alice Rodgers is president ofRodgers Marketing Research in Canton, Ohio. She is vice president of the Qualitative Research Consultants Association.

Since 1989, respondents in Rodgers Marketing Research focus groups have completed written questionnaires at the end of each session. Essentially, this questionnaire asks people why they participate in focus groups: that is, what is the main reason and what are their multiple reasons. Additional questions are asked regarding demographics and willingness to participate in future groups without being paid.

The results of this research have been published in Quirk's Marketing Research Review: Phase I was reported on in "Take the Money and Run?" May 1990; Phase II was reported on in "Money Isn't Everything," December 1990, and Phase III was reported on in "Money Isn't Everything - Part III," in June/July 1992.

The findings have been interesting and helpful. For example, knowing that people have a high interest in a topic suggests stressing that topic in the screener. This can make recruiting easier and it can lower incentive fees. A chance to spend an hour and a half to two hours talking about hiking with other bikers is of high interest to most bikers. While some may accept the invitation to attend, in part, because of the gratuity, nearly all come because they want to talk about the subject. Therefore it may be unnecessary to increase the incentive because of low incidence.

Additionally, results from all three phases of this ongoing research indicate it is possible to do focus groups on a pro bono basis, with the moderator, facility and participants donating their time. But because this can be a high risk proposition, it should only be done when the research would not otherwise be conducted. In fact, the author successfully did two sets of pro bono focus groups in the past six months. Neither of these sets would have otherwise been done.

For both sets of groups, recruiting and facility were donated. In one case, there were no incentive fees. In the second instance, respondents were allowed to either take the gratuity or donate it to a charity (the groups were for a charity) - only two of twenty people took the gratuity. Show rates for both sets of groups were good. As is usual, participants in these sessions were also asked why they participated in the sessions.

Serendipitous findings

Asking people why they participate in focus groups during the past 3-1/2 years has yielded some unforeseen benefits. From January through September of 1991, several members of the Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA) participated in Phase III by distributing questionnaires to respondents at the end of their sessions.

Participants included Rebecca Day, formerly of Southeastern Institute of Research (SIR), Richmond, Va., now with RIVA in Richmond; Naomi Henderson of RIVA, Bethesda, Md.; Judith Langer of Langer Associates, Inc., New York; Maria Krieger, of Marketing Visions, Philadelphia; Michelle Kuhn of Viewfacts, Inc., Chicago; Arline Carpenter of Carpenter & Pampalone, Bridgeport, Conn; Suzette deVogelaere, of Concepts & Strategies, San Francisco; Susan Saurage-Thibodeaux of Saurage-Thibodeaux Research Inc., Baton Rouge; Michelle Zwillinger of Zwillinger Research, Los Angeles; and the author.

One participant, Rebecca Day, says she initially had some concerns:

"How will my clients respond? How long will it take? Will I get negative reactions from facilities? Will I remember to do it?"

At the end of the study, Day summarized the feelings of several consultants: "I would never have anticipated the positive response I received from clients, nor the added benefit of the information I gained from participants. Clients were intrigued with the research project and often commented that it was an excellent method to check on past participation.

" . . . The bonus from this research is the opportunity to gain more candid information from participants than they normally share during the screening process with recruiters. At the end of a two-hour session, participants seem willing to share information about the actual number of focus groups they have attended, as well as the topics they discussed. They seem to give honest replies to age, income, education and employment questions, and they share a variety of comments and experiences on an open-ended basis."

Other participants commented on the usefulness of surveying focus group respondents. Naomi Henderson of RIVA Market Research, Inc. says the surveys:

  • show clients you are committed to quality work;
  • show facilities that you are serious about wanting a good and accurate recruit;
  • provide a picture of the focus group study from the respondents' point of view; and
  • provide a document that can be shown to and discussed with facilities if problems arise.

However, on the negative side, Henderson says it is one more thing to do. Plus it takes time to:

  • get permission from client;
  • communicate with the facility about it; 
  • get respondents to complete it; and    
  • review it.

Additionally, surveys can make facilities feel they can't be trusted to be professional, honest, and above board.

Clearly, this is a concern. Therefore, the author asked facilities where the form had been used to share their reactions. All agreed that it is the right of the consultant to do this. However, one candidly said that, "it can put you on the defensive - make you crazy!" Others agreed with this opinion.

Nevertheless, when qualitative consultants shared the results with field facilities, the information was well received. Facility personnel were glad to get the information - both positive and negative - for their own use. Several said this questionnaire might help alleviate the problem of the "professional respondent."

However, in the case of a more frequent than preferred attendee, it can make field facilities wonder how people slip through. It can be embarrassing. And there was concern that it may not be reflect well on the facility. But it must be remembered that the questionnaire is completed after two hours of rapport building. These responses may be information that facilities could not get. In fact, sometimes the replies changed in two hours. That is, in a few cases, some people said one thing on the re-screener just before the group started and something else two hours later.

Consultants and facilities generally agreed that there is the need to work together in this process. And given the heightened concern about "professional respondents," there is a need for new and better methods to make sure that people who participate in focus groups meet the specifications. Using this questionnaire along with SIGMA (the duplicate numbers search) provides consultants with two protective devices.

Accordingly, several consultants are continuing to survey respondents because it provides useful information for both the consultant and the facility.