The latest findings of an ongoing study of why respondents participate in focus groups

Money isn't everything Part III

Editor's note: Alice Kodgers is president of Rodgers Marketing Research, Canton, Ohio. The author wishes to thank Southeastern Institute of Research, and especially Rebecca Day, for assistance in data reduction and tabulation; members of the Field Committee of the Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA) for their strong support; and the members of QRCA who participated in this study.

This article reports findings from Phase III of research into why people participate in focus groups. Phase I of this research was a quantitative study of over 600 people who had participated in Rodgers Marketing Research focus groups in 1989. The results were presented in the article "Take the money and run?" which appeared in the May 1990 issue of Quirk's Marketing Research Review (QMRR). Phase II was a qualitative study designed to deter-mine if people would participate in a focus group without being paid. The results of that research were published in the article "Money isn't everything," which appeared in the December 1990 QMRR. That article discussed two focus groups which were held in June, 1990. One group was paid and the other was not.

Phase III is a larger quantitative study. During 1991,1640 questionnaires were completed by respondents after partici-pating in a focus group. Several qualitative consultants (all members of the Qualitative Research Consultants Associa-tion), participated in this phase: Rebecca Day of SIR, Rich-mond, Va.; 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 Con-cepts & Strategies, San Francisco; Susan Saurage-Thibodeaux of Saurage-Thibodeaux Research Inc., Baton Rouge; Mich-elle Zwillinger of Zwillinger Research, Los Angeles; and the author, Alice Rodgers of Rodgers Marketing Research, Can-ton, Ohio.

The questionnaire for Phase III was similar to the one used in Phase I. Respondents were asked how often they partici-pate in focus groups as well as their reasons for participation and, of course, their main reason. They were also asked if they would have participated in the session they had just finished without being paid. Finally, a list of topics was given and respondents were asked if they would participate in future groups on these issues without being paid.

Demographics

There were 343 respondents in the Northeast; 323 in the Southeast; 664 in the Midwest; and 310 in the West. Overall, respondents had participated in I.1 groups in the past year. While 48.4% of the people who participated were "virgins" (first time focus group participants), the average number of groups ever done was 2.1.

To facilitate comparisons by subject, groups were aggre-gated where possible. Thus, the topic areas compared (and the number of participants) were: sporting goods (215); household products (125); charities (47); shopping (44); utilities, barking and insurance (138); lawn care, tires; (112); food, wine, restaurants (132); phone, magazines, writing instruments (367); clothing, cosmetics, hair care (187); ac-cessories (43); new products (58); mothers (20); juice bars, frozen desserts (68); drug store, film processing (64) and condiments/new package design (20).

Note that the number of participants varied significantly from one subject to another. In addition, because of the nature of this research, the results cannot be projected. However, they do provide information of interest to the research com-munity.

Phase III findings

Respondents were asked their reasons for participating in the group they had just attended. The multiple reasons for participating given on the questionnaires in Phase III were:

Comparing these results to Phase I, fewer people in Phase I said a gratuity was one of the reasons they participated (66%) and fewer people also said they were interested in the subject (44% in Phase I). Slightly more people in Phase I said they wanted to participate in research (51%) and slightly more said they enjoyed previous groups (36%).

Note that curiosity was added as a separate reason in Phase III because it was a frequent "other" mention in Phase I. Curiosity was most often mentioned by those new to focus group research ("virgins"). Some comments from "virgins" about their first experience:

- I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. The time went fast.

- I'm very glad I came. It was very interesting. . . I enjoyed the discussion--great group of strangers who I felt at ease with very quickly.

- It was worth my time and effort. I enjoyed seeing the new product ideas.

For Phase III, more people in the lawn care and tires (89%) and shopping groups (96%) said gratuity was one of their reasons for participating, compared to just 53% of the people who participated in a session on charity. One unexpected finding is that nearly all of the people in the shopping groups said that money was a reason for participating, especially as compared to say, 83% of the people in the household products groups. Some participants added notes to the questionnaire to explain the reasons that a gratuity is important to them:

- I enjoyed the session, but this takes time out of your schedule and you have expense in getting here.

- I would not participate if there were no gratuity, because even though I was curious, and the session was interesting, I had to take off from work and drive for a half-hour.

- Not only do I not have the time, but why should I pay a sitter to come here for no gratuity?

Thus, not surprisingly, comparing the several reasons for attendance for all groups, gratuity was mentioned more often, except for sessions with mothers and the utilities, banking and insurance groups.

All of the mothers (100%) said they came because of the subject, while 71% said they came because of the gratuity. Nearly three-fourths of the people in the utilities, banking and insurance groups said they came because of the subject (74%), but almost that many (71%) said it was the gratuity. Even though the percentages were close, it was unexpected to find subject interest mentioned more often than gratuity for the utilities, banking and insurance groups.

Subject was also a reason for participation by high numbers of people in Phase III in the following groups: clothing, cosmetics, hair care (68%); phone, magazines, writing instruments (68%); sporting goods, DIY, luggage (67%); and drug stores, film processing (66%). Some comments from participants:

- The subject was something I have always enjoyed, so I enjoyed coming. Plus I f eel I have some sort of input about products.

- It was nice being in a group of people with children the same age as mine talking about something we are all interested in.

Fewer people gave subject as a reason for participating in groups about household products (42%), charities (43%), and food, wine and restaurants (52%)--the latter being somewhat of a surprise.

Geography had little effect on responses: 81% in the Southeast said one of the reasons they came was the gratuity as compared to 78% in the Northeast and Westand 75% in the Midwest.

By age, more people under age 25 (82%), but fewer people over age 65 (56%) said that gratuity was one of the reasons they participated. (Note, however, that the sample size for those over 65 was small.)

The percentage of people who gave gratuity as one of the reasons for participating varied from moderator to moderator. It ranged from a low of 61% to a high of 83%, whereas by subject it ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 96%.

Main reason for participation

Comparing Phase I (one moderator) versus Phase III (several moderators) indicates some differences in the main reasons these people participated in their focus group. The results:

The percentages citing gratuity or interest in subject were virtually identical in Phases I and III. More people in Phase I gave "want to participate in research" or "enjoyed previous research" as their main reason as compared to Phase III. However, note that curiosity was added as a reason in Phase III.

For those who said gratuity was the main reason in Phase III, there was little difference by gender: 44% of the men and 46% of the women gave this as their main reason. Money was mentioned less often as a reason by those over 65 (31%), as compared to between 42% and 47% of the other age categories. (Again, recall that the sample size for those over 65 was small.)

By moderator, the percent saying that the gratuity was the main reason ranged from 34% to 57%. This compares to a low of 26% and a high of 61% by subject.

Geography made little difference, but more people in the Midwest mentioned gratuity as their main reason (47%) as compared to 46% in the West; 44% in the Southeast and 41% in the Northeast.

More people in the shopping (61%), sporting goods (57%), household products (57%), and lawn care and tires (56%) sessions said that money was the main reason they attended. Fewer participants in the mothers groups (26%), the charities sessions (36%), utilities, banking and insurance groups (36%) and the phone, magazine and writing instruments groups (36%) said that gratuity was the main reason for participation.

More people in the mothers groups (42%), the accessory groups (33%), and utilities banking and insurance groups (30%) said that interest in the subject was their main reason for participating as compared to all the other sessions. One comment may summarize many feelings:

- I enjoy participating in a group on a subject that I have an interest in.

More people in the mothers groups (21%) and the drug store/film processing sessions (22%) said that wanting to participate in research was their main reason as compared to all the other groups. It was lowest for those who were in the shopping groups (5%). Some comments:

- I love the idea that consumers have this kind of input.

- I would like to see more opportunities for people to let companies know how we feel.

Curiosity was cited more often by the groups which had high percentages of first time participants (65% or more "virgins"): 18% in the charities; phone, magazines, and writing instruments; and the new products groups said curiosity was their main reason for coming. Some comments from first-time attendees:

- It was nice to share ideas. I enjoyed the group experience.

- I really liked it because it gave me a chance to express my feelings.

- I felt privileged to participate.

- I really enjoyed it. This is a good way to get consumers' opinions.

Participation without incentive?

The people who completed the questionnaires distributed by several moderators in Phase III were asked if they would participate in the session they had just completed without being paid: 30% said yes; 34% said no; and 37% were not sure. This compares to responses given on questionnaires distributed by one moderator in Phase I in which 33% said yes; 30% said no; and 38% were not sure.

For Phase III, people in the Southeast (32%) were more likely to say yes as compared to 26% in the Northeast and 30% in the Midwest and 29% in the West.

Many of those over 65 (40%) said they would have done the session without an incentive, as compared to 30% of all the other age categories.

Slightly more of those earning under $25,000 and those earning $25,000 to $35,0000 (32%) said they would have participated without being paid as compared to 28 or 29% of those earning $36,000 to $50,000 and over $50,000.

More women (31%) than men (28%) would have done the group without payment.

A high number of those who participated in the session on charities (62%) said they would have done that session without being paid, while just 17% of those who did groups on lawn care or tires said they would have.

Between about a third (36%) and a fourth (26%) said they would have participated in the groups with various moderators without being paid.

Potential for using unpaid respondents

Respondents in both phases were given a list of topics and asked if they would participate in a focus group session without being paid. The percentages in each phase responding yes were:

For the most part there was very little difference in the percentages of people in Phase I (one moderator) versus Phase III (several moderators) that were willing to participate in a focus group without being paid.

There were two exceptions. Substantially fewer people in Phase III (24%) said they would participate in a do-it-yourself, automotive, or sporting goods session without being paid as compared to 36% in Phase I. And substantially fewer people in Phase III (32%) said they would participate in a household products session without being paid as compared to 41% in Phase I.

Otherwise, the percentages are fairly close. Slightly more of the people who participated in the original study (Phase I) with the author (2% to 4%) said they were willing to participate in a session without being paid as compared to the multi-moderator percentages.

It is interesting to note that even the rank ordering of the percentages in Phase I and Phase III would be nearly the same.

Opportunity for pro bono work

Two topics are of particular interest: public service and community issues. In Phase I, 45% said they would participate in a group on public service issues without payment as compared to 42% in Phase III. For community issues, 44% in Phase I would participate without a gratuity versus 40% in Phase III.

So, as noted in previous articles, there may be some potential to do public service or community issues focus groups pro bono. However, it must be noted that the risk of no-shows is high. Probably the best application would be for research that would not otherwise be done. This gives moderators, focus group facilities and respondents an opportunity to contribute to a worthy cause. Naturally this must not take the place of research that would ordinarily be paid.

Rebecca Day of SIR and one of the QRCA consultants who participated in this survey, provides some insights into an experience she had using unpaid respondents:

"Toward the end of my involvement with Alice Rodgers' project, I had the opportunity to conduct groups for two separate not-for-profit organizations. In both situations, the decision was made to waive the gratuity normally given to respondents. Although one group had an extremely low turnout (4), the other was well attended (10). One difference was virgin recruits for the first versus name bank recruits for the second. This situation convinced me that some focus groups do not require a gratuity, but many factors should be considered before that decision is made."

Serendipity!

The act of surveying respondents at the end of a focus group session had some unexpected benefits.

• Since the survey form asks about previous focus group experience and demographics, it can validate recruiting.
• Since the survey form has space for comments, it gives respondents an opportunity to comment on their experience with the process.
• Since it can also be a "post-group rescreener," it demonstrates the consultant's commitment to quality work.

Because of these benefits, several of the consultants who participated in this research are continuing to use the survey form.