The Focus Group Has Decided the Focus Group Is Dead

Careers & More for a Cutting Edge Community

		Fan Page
		@talentzoo
		@talentzoojobs

Employers

Job Seekers

Blogs

	CREATIVE CORNER

	July 12, 2010

The Focus Group Has Decided the Focus Group Is Dead
By: Brad Mislow

Have you noticed the many “deaths” in advertising in recent years? An unofficial tally includes “the death of print," “the death of the traditional agency model," “the death of the 30-second TV spot," "the death of the long-running campaign,” and “the death of Don Draper.” I’m kidding. I’m kidding. I’m just excited for "Mad Men" season 4.

May I nominate one more fatality to the death count? I think it’s time we declare the death of the focus group. It’s time to take it behind the barn; give it a loving scratch behind the ears; aim squarely between its sad, tired eyes; and slowly squeeze the trigger. Bang.

I can see how focus groups were necessary in the golden age of mass media. How else did we really know what real consumers (American stay-at-home women, mainly) were thinking and feeling when they saw a commercial about Dawn, Lux, or Pepsodent? How do what they know what they’re thinking when they see a print ad in Ladies' Home Journal or Life? The focus group told us so. Agencies and clients listened carefully. Focus group participants brought home some extra cash, and it gave people with free time something to do.

Flash forward to the Internet age where feedback is instantaneous. We have comment boards. We have blogs. We have Twitter. We can gauge popularity quickly and accurately. There’s no wishy-washiness or hung juries online. People are honest about what they like and dislike.

When you’re alone in front of your screen, there’s no succumbing to groupthink, a big inherent flaw in focus groups. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen people change their opinion to match the dominant personality in the room. That dominant personality took many forms: men, women, young, and old;it also has killed more campaigns than any creative director or client I know.

Focus groups ask for people’s honesty in an artificial environment. This is a problem. A small group of people is gathered for their opinions on new products, advertising, etc. They are paid to discuss topics ad nauseum, more than any human being would do outside a sanitarium. Tell me, when was the last time you talked about mayonnaise and mayonnaise advertising, for three to six hours?

The result is listening to people exploring parts of their brain normally left for other things, like dreaming and hallucinogenic drugs. I say this because I have seen and heard some crazy stuff fly out of the mouths of people in focus groups. Add bongos, and it would be beatnik poetry. Behind the two-way mirror I’d sit, mouth agape, sitting next to account teams and clients, who would be scribbling down every word as Larry, the Prophet of Paramus, New Jersey, delivers his sermon on breakfast cereals, and why you can’t find a certain brand of milk that hasn’t been available since 1972.

And people will say things despite their own real opinions. I’ve witnessed people say, “I thought the ad was entertaining and informative, but I didn’t like it.” And “I love the ad, except for the headline, photo, copy, and, oh yeah, I don’t like this brand of [whatever].” How is this useful to anyone?

For those who claim focus groups are valuable for research’s sake, let’s have a look. A focus group consists of a select few gathered in on geographic location, who may not be telling the truth, versus Internet-based research, which allows for a larger group in many locations who most likely will tell the truth because there is no dominant personality they feel they have to please. Score one for the Internet.

I realize focus groups aren’t likely to die anytime soon. Clients find them comforting and familiar, like newspapers, another soon-to-be obsolete area of our business. There are companies that love focus groups and can present binders upon binders of research showing how there’s no better way to test a product. Plus, there are free snacks! I suppose some companies will be holding onto this old model as long as they can. Besides, for those with the time, there’s no better way to bring home between $75 to $200 by talking about denture cream, Geritol, and the Rascal scooter than the focus group. That’s the way people like it, and what else is there to do in South Florida on a Tuesday afternoon?

Comments

Add Your Comments

Grant Bergman (www.blmllc.com) (San Diego area)	on 20 Jul 2010 at 10:37 pm

A little late to the party, I know, but just wanted to chime in here as a long time brand management type and now a consultant... I've been fortunate to see great moderators work magic in focus groups, both because their preparation was impeccable and because their active listening skills were outstanding. Most important, the really good ones refuse to do focus groups for the wrong reasons (or at least counsel their clients sternly on the differences between good and bad uses). It's this level of intellectual rigor (and honesty) that seems to have gone missing in recent years. Any sort of focus group that purports to "pick a winner" is an abuse of the methodology. Unless a sizable set of groups has been done with randomly recruited, representative participants - which has always been pretty rare - any "statistics" that result from groups are spurious. If your staff researcher, account planner, marketing manager, etc., have permitted this (without a fight - we recognize corporate politics can override anything), then they need to be fired. I cannot be blunt enough about this. In this light I am upset to hear so frequently the death knell for focus groups followed by examples of horrendous misuses of the tool. The author and other commenters have clearly experienced such abuse, and every good focus group researcher I know would share your frustration with this. But let's not blame the tool for operator error. If you used a hammer to drive a screw, would you blame it for the (likely unsatisfactory) results you got?

Murray (Bozeman, MT)	on 15 Jul 2010 at 12:35 pm

This article makes an interesting and valid point—to a point. Quick responses from the net can give excellent feedback. However, I think the author over emphasizes the truthfulness and value of internet responses and devalues the accuracy and value of focus groups. In any case, he doesn’t touch on the subject of gaining deeper insights during a focus group which can come from the probing questions of the facilitator which does not happen on the internet/ In addition, he seems to consider focus groups out of context rather than as one of a variety of tools that can be used for their strengths with complementary tools offsetting their weaknesses. Group discussions have group dynamics. People, as they live their lives, are not islands but function, to a greater or lesser degree, in a social milieu, which is why influentials are able to influence. So, his points are well taken as long as they are not seen monochromatically in black and white.

rickbuddy (Chicago)	on 13 Jul 2010 at 9:16 pm

I believe the author makes a very good point in using internet chat rooms and forums for generating ideas. The information is as valid as any discovered in focus groups. Like focus groups, the quality of the information is dependent on its interpretation. The quality of the interpretation is where focus groups fail. The companies running the focus group inevitably oversell their services and the importance of their findings. After all, that is where they make their money. Clients who recognize the Wizard of Oz has greater credibility quit using these charlatans, and the ones who are enthralled with the garbage keep using them. Good focus group moderator is an oxymoron. I'm no longer willing to waste client money trying to find one.

Dirk (Chicago)	on 13 Jul 2010 at 4:56 pm

I guess you mean focus groups for the purpose of testing creative concepts, right? Well, there are many more purposes and reasons to do a focus group. For example. if u seek for a new and inspiring insight then u have to make a deep dive into people's mind and mood. For this purpose, you need to come up with interview techniques that help you to overcome people's barriers and that "let u in" as well to decode the output afterwards. I doubt, any online tool enables you to do such an in-depth research interaction. Of course, there might be better ways to do research. But, whether home interviews, focus groups, street interviews or social media research etc. - it always depends on the objective, right?

Mike (Michigan)	on 13 Jul 2010 at 3:03 pm

Many great comments above, esp. the former moderator from Atlanta. Here's my Internet focus group of one responding to this article. Many good points, of course- there usually are. But only creatives like you and, yes, ME, over-dramatize the role of focus groups as idea-killers and CYA-tools for those business types we love to mock - I suspect because they don't always share our opinions of our own brilliance. I've seen more "crazy stuff" from Internet crackpots than I've ever heard in focus groups. So lets hold off canonizing the wonderfully accurate and unbiased opinions rendered by anonymous ravers from mom's basement in Moline and caves in Pakistan. Focus groups have always had weaknesses. We've acknowledged that and attempted to gain some insights from them anyway - and HAVE. Let's improve them. Let's use the new technologies to get more relevant info from our target audiences, as best we can cyber-gather them. But bloggers aren't journalists, and Web site comments aren't legitimate research. Oh, and I will offer the very valid comment from the silver-haired lady at the far end of the table: "I'm sure he thought his analogy of shooting the dog behind the barn was very clever. But do we need the imagery of killing a beloved pet just to discuss focus groups?"

Alison (Avon CT)	on 13 Jul 2010 at 1:21 pm

Video killed the radio star. Not necessarily, it just reinvented him. The internet (social media, online surveys, etc) are all tools but can't replace the face-to-face of a focus group. It's just another dimension. I agree with "former planner/moderator," focus groups have their place and an intelligent marketer should manage to extract the value and recognize the inherent flaws of every methodology. That is why including multiple methods of research is critical when using research to evaluate and decide your course. Having worked in creative, account and client-side, I've developed great respect for talented researchers. Of course, the quality of the researcher is to par with the talent of everyone on the team. Sloppy research yields poor strategy which yields ineffective creative. As a side note: It's unfortunate to see posts that are client-bashing. My clients have always been very bright and insightful professionals who recognize the limits of all research. Why would anyone treat their clients like wind-bags with deep pockets? If someone treats their clients like that, they don't deserve the account and if their clients are lacking knowledge about the pros and cons about a methodology, shame on the agency for not taking the time to explain it! Brad, great headline. You have some valid points about focus group flaws, but I wouldn't call them obsolete...but then again I love a strong cup of Joe with my newspaper in the morning ;-)

Craig	on 13 Jul 2010 at 11:17 am

Focus groups aren't for learning. They are for client-side ass-covering -- which means, sadly, that they won't be going away.

Todd Wilson (Atlanta)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 3:33 pm

Thanks Brad (and hi from a classmate at North Springs), I've never been a fan of focus groups. I think the commenter's point above about how the data is interpreted is a good one - I've seen focus groups used simply to validate a predetermined direction created by misguided PR and marketing agencies on more than one occasion. The end result in each case was less than optimal (and in one case, a disaster). Observation has always been more powerful to me - watching what others do in a non-controlled environment versus asking them what they think seems to always generate more honest and useful results. The Henry Ford line that Steve Jobs loves to quote says it all: "If I'd have asked customers what they wanted, they would have told me, 'A faster horse!' "

Lisa (Boulder)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 3:13 pm

I think this discussion highlights one of the key issues around market research -- its lack of innovation. Today, consumers are so much more sophisticated that the focus group environment has become less productive for getting at true consumer understanding. However, just plugging in online solutions is not the only way to evolve. We need to harness technology and engage consumers in environments that will encourage true participation not just passive respondents. We need to be smarter with the methods we utilize and product more than a nice powerpoint for our clients and instead garner actionable insights that provide answers to problems. There may be occasions when focus groups still have a role, but the way in which they're administered has got to change to remain relevant.

Lisa (Atlanta)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 1:11 pm

I don't think focus groups are dead, but social media has changed the way brands deal with consumers. It's all about transparency and talking with the consumers. Not talking TO the consumer. And social media has allowed for a certain level of transparency. Having been in a few focus groups myself, you see that consumers will tell you anything you want to hear, not what you NEED to hear. I think that is where the artificial environment comment comes into play. http://jumplittlelisa.wordpress.com/

Georgette Asherman (www.directeffects.net) (East coast)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 1:08 pm

The perfunctury focus groups your describe are probably dead. But they are a valid qualitative research tool of value with complex, high-involvement products in both consumer and business-to-business marketing. Marketers have a 'best case' secenario for their products. A good focus group will identify less obvious features, flaws of interest to the customer but missed by designers, etc. and how the product is used in context with others in the activity or organization. The concepts obtained can be used in mining of internet discussion and other quantitative projects.

JVT (Boston)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 12:33 pm

As a participant of a few focus groups, I've always been amazed at the two most overlooked issues: the quality of the moderator and the quality of the actual location. A great moderator is tough to find, and many moderators I've experienced are a bit biased or overly leading in their questions. It's crystal clear they're trying to steer the answers in a definitive direction. That screws the whole concept of what a focus group is supposed to be. As far as environment, what is up with the effin flourescent lights and formica conference table? This is so not a natural environment. If it's a focus group for alcohol, have it in a bar. If it's a focus group for cars, have it at a dealership. If it's a focus group for pet supplies, have it at the zoo. (Flourescent lights should be banned from focus groups, restaurants, and dressing rooms.) The focus group should be a part of the mix--and the not majority weight--of research. Internet + focus group can work together. www.trem007.com

SC (Atlanta)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 12:09 pm

I wouldn't say that focus groups should be killed. I think the biggest issue with focus groups is the client. Client's aren't very good at interpretation. They will latch on to a comment made by a person in a focus group and say "this should be our direction!!" instead of hearing a comment and asking the question, "how do we interpret this insight?" I guess you could say that's the job of the creative agency, to do all the interpreting. But it would be nice if the client would think of the insight that focus groups provide as inspiration instead of direction.

Summer (Atlanta, GA)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 11:29 am

I agree with some of your points, Brad. Thanks for writing this. Very thought-provoking. However, the Internet is an artificial environment as well. How natural is it to communicate without actually seeing or being around people? Yes it provokes honesty, but much of the feedback doesn't translate into how people act once they're in the real world, surrounded by others. The truth is, when people shop they are surrounded by people - mainly strangers - and the friends/fam they're with. Dominant personalities (like pushy salespeople or a persuasive friend), what others are buying (think of the intrigue surrounding long lines at a store!), "sales" displays and the like all impact our buying behavior. How does the Internet reconstruct such environments when you're home alone at 11 pm watching Hulu in your bed? Internet has its place - but it doesn't replace face-to-face. No, not even Skype or iPhone 4's face-talk! Thanks for listening! Summer

Former Planner / Current Moderator (Atlanta)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 11:16 am

Wow! This is so unusual. A creative blasting a research methodology? That's about as original as me (a consumer insights researcher) saying "creatives" don't care about strategy.. they just care whether or not people like their ads. Brad, the classic mistake you and so many other people behind the glass are making is this: it's not WHAT the consumers say in Focus Groups, it's the INTERPRETATION of what consumers say in Focus Groups that really counts. Smart creatives get involved with the research, push for what they need to know, and pay more attention to why things are being said (for reasons other than to bash the methodology). If you're victim to moderators, clients or account people directing you based on verbatims by consumers in a focus group, you're probably limited more than you're liberated. I agree. It's crap. So push back. Fix it. Better yet, get in there and do some moderating yourself. But don't put yourself in a position that makes you look like yet another creative professional who doesn't like research. Another mistake you're making is the assumption that internet/digital research is better. What's so great about "instantaneous?" I agree research shouldn't push respondents into over-thought responses. But doesn't a concept or a strategy deserve a little more consideration than a rapid-fire answer typed into a computer or smartphone? You think internet-input equals the truth? There's no better way for a respondent to falsify their criteria and bull$hit their way through a research project than on the internet. One can be anyone they want to be on the internet - often someone they're truly not. Quick story... I had a respondent in an internet study that was phenomenal in every way - thoughtful, responsive, engaged. She matched the screening criteria perfectly. I decided she was so good during the online phase of the research I would do an ethnography with her. She turned out to be a shut-in. She never left her home (hence her perfection as an internet-based research respondent). She lived with her mom who was a hoarder. It was a hard lesson... perfect on the internet doesn't mean perfect respondent. Bottom line is this - most research tactics are viable and helpful if conducted and considered correctly. It's the practitioners and the viewers that usually compromise them. So don't blast focus groups (or any other methodology) for what they are - blast the people who are turning them into things they aren't supposed to be, and using the results in the wrong way. Final thought... you might want to listen a little closer to those "Larrys." There's more of them than there are of us.

Lorne Daniel (western Canada)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 10:30 am

Good points Brad - and an entertaining read. While there is, I believe, still value in getting together groups to share ideas and perspectives (particularly stakeholder groups), I agree that there are more effective (and honest) feedback mechanisms for marketing and advertising concepts. Focus groups have always been problematic in that what people say (especially in a group) and what they do (ie. buy or not buy products or services) are two very different beasts.

Annie Pettit (www.conversition.com)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 10:25 am

Oh goodness gracious, focus groups are not dead and will never die, nor should they. They do not continue to exist because they are comfortable for researchers and they provide good snacks. There is a solid place for them in legitimate research. While they may move around from board rooms to webcams, they aren't going anywhere.

kentzhu (Washington)	on 12 Jul 2010 at 10:20 am

Great place to know in here. - www.coinempire.net

About the Author
Brad Mislow

Brad Mislow is a New York-based freelance senior copywriter in both traditional and digital media. He has worked on Toyota, AT&T, Mercedes-Benz, the U.S. Army, American Express, Hershey Foods, Unilever, DHL, Kraft Foods, Kodak, Amtrak, Miller Lite, and Post Cereals. For a look at his work and more articles like this one, go to bradmislow.com.