Category — Focus Groups

I admit it.  Although web surveys are one of our most popular research offerings, I strongly prefer qualitative research (focus groups, in-depth interviews).

I can’t help looking at the findings in web surveys and feel like I want to dig in and ask more questions.  The participants say things that don’t make sense to me and I want to know why.  Or they make short comments responding to open-ended questions that leave me with a dozen follow-on questions I don’t have the opportunity to ask.

When I present qualitative findings, I know I can answer any question that comes up with complete confidence.  With quantitative findings, I always know that there will be questions where the answer is, “We can’t draw any conclusions based on this survey.”

This came up again last earlier this month:  We just did a series of in-depth interviews where we wanted to understand perceptions about the cost of various alternatives.  All the participants in this study had identified themselves as product decision makers who had full visibility into costs – a requirement for the study.   If you had just looked at the first level of answers people gave, you would have thought that one of the tools we were looking at was very inexpensive compared to other options.

But because this was an in-depth interview, I got to ask that all-important “why” question. I quickly realized that while all the participants had been educated on the “line 3” costs that were billed directly to their organization, not everyone was aware of the additional “line 10” costs that had to be added to support this different approach.  When you added both of those up, the tool that originally appeared less expensive turned out to have a similar TCO to other options.

Now, it’s true that we could have found this out by writing a good web survey, but one of the secrets to writing great web surveys is to know the answers to all the questions first.  We continue to recommend web surveys as good vehicles for quantifying concepts that you know well, but want to put an accurate % by each of the options.  This is a valuable thing to do, especially for market sizing, external marketing and PR purpose.

But for finding out the answers that you don’t really know, start with qualitative research – and by all means do a web survey next to put those %s in place once you know the statements to put the %s with.

Scott Anthony recently advised, “In Market Research, Use Numbers with Caution.” He added, “Companies too frequently default to quantitative research because they think there is safety in numbers. It’s a lot easier to justify a strategy by saying, ‘The data suggests’ than by saying, ‘My intuition suggests.’ But sometimes numbers provide false confidence and obscure real opportunity.”

Anthony’s point of view is quite different than the point of view presented by Robb Mandelbaum, who recently said in Inc., “Given limited resources … it generally makes sense to go quantitative.”

Both articles are excellent  – and both present very different points of view.

So how do you choose between quantitative (surveys) and qualitative (focus groups, in-depth interviews) when performing market research projects with technology participants?

Sometimes, quantitative (surveys) research is better

1. When you need data to support a claim with investors, press, or internal stakeholders.  Dimensional Research has done a number of Web surveys that our customers have used for PR purposes, including these recent ones on anti-virus and desktop power management.

2. For trending purposes, quantitative studies are also the best.  Dimensional Research has a number of clients that follow the “Would you recommend this company to a friend?”  question promoted by HBR, and watch the responses to that trend over time.  It’s a great way to track trends in customer feedback.

3. Of course, if time is the greatest consideration and you need some kind of quick feedback – Web surveys have a big advantage.  The are FAST.

Sometimes,  qualitative (focus groups/in-depth interviews) research is better

Numbers can be deceiving and there is no better way to find that out than to talk live to people who give you numbers.  I was recently doing a competitive study, speaking to end users of a client’s competitor’s product.  My client, as is natural, was most interested in the negative feedback about the product.

So to introduce the topic of what was good and bad in the product, we started by asking the customers to rate the product being discussed on a scale of 1-5.  And of course, asked the important market research follow up question, “why?”

I was consistently surprised by users who had raved about the product, saying it was perfect and there was nothing they would change about it given the chance – and they’d assign a 3 out of 5.  And other users who basically spent the whole conversation whining and complaining about the product would give it a 5!

Numeric scales can be misleading and in these cases, qualitative studies such as focus groups or interviews are better.  I would always recommend qualitative studies when you are looking for thoughtful answers including:

-          Messaging validation for products that are new to the market

-          Market validation

-          Understanding objections and barriers

-          Product feedback for enterprise products (web surveys do a better job with consumer products that are simpler to understand)

Qualitative vs. quantitative is a good conversation to have with your market research provider – although of course you should understand their expertise. If you only have a hammer every problem is a nail, so expect a qualitative-focused research house to tell you to survey thousands of prospects, and someone who only does focus groups to emphasize quantitative approaches.

A good research firm will know if they don’t have a fit with your needs and will point you in a better direction.  For example, Dimensional Research does not do conjoint analysis, but we have a great partner that we can refer you to if that’s what you need.

One of the real strengths of focus groups – in person or online – is the opportunity for a bunch of people to see a live discussion, and even ask a few additional questions.  (Yes, Dimensional Research always leaves a few minutes at the end of a focus group session for the observers to ask a follow-on question or three.) 

It can be extremely powerful to expose people who work in corporate roles and don’t get out into the field – marcom managers, R&D, developers, etc. – to direct customer and prospect feedback. Often operational people (finance, legal) pick up something important by watching their target market discuss their jobs.

 Dimensional Research always encourages as many people as possible to listen into focus groups, or to watch the videos that we record when they’re done.

 However, sometimes “listening in” is a bad idea. It basically boils down to this:  If you only see part of a project, don’t assume that’s all there is. There is a reason why you conduct 8 focus groups, not just one.  Or why you conduct 25 interviews, not just 3 or 4.

Don’t let these scenarios happen to you:

• Attend two focus groups in New York and project that experience onto Chicago, Paris, Singapore, and Tokyo.
• Listen in on only one call of a 20-call interview project.

If you decide to listen in on market research, I strongly recommend the following:

1. Do read the final report and attend the presentation of the report.  You might as well enhance your limited experience with the full power of the overall project.
2. Don’t attend just one focus group or listen in on just one call!

Real life example

We recently conducted a series of 15 customer interviews about a client’s new initiative. It has been progressing for about a year and they wanted to know what messages their customers had absorbed. We spoke to 15 of their very best customers – the kind who spend lots of money every quarter, attend the user groups, and give references. It was a good study, and very helpful in finding out what parts of the new initiative were gaining traction and what parts needed even more evangelism.

There was one of the 15 interviews where the participant absolutely “got” it. He could have given the company’s pitch, including now and vision, with no problem at all.  It was delightful.  However, he was the ONLY one of the 15 participants who did that. The rest of the participants clearly struggled with some of the visionary aspects of the messaging. As luck would have it, that was the only interview that one of the project stakeholders listened in on. Unfortunately, during the report presentation he kept interrupting to talk about how the market “really got it.” We had to very strongly emphasize that the whole project needed to be considered – not just this one guy. The company had plenty of work to do to reach their entire customer base. They were not done.

Focus groups are ideal when you want to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting.

However, one of the things that can happen in focus groups is “group think.” The first person starts off on a tangent – good or bad – and then the entire room goes along with that first opinion. This is a dynamic that every good researcher is aware of. 

So does groupthink invalidate a focus group? Of course not, and in fact it can be very useful as long as you know it’s happening and stop it when necessary. Here are a few tips:

1. First, establish if group think is a good or a bad thing for your project.  Depending on your goals, group think can be a very bad thing. For example, in message testing you’re usually evaluating the kinds of pain/benefit statements that someone experiences in isolation. Groupthink is very damaging in that kind of environment because you end up seeing only one participant’s uneducated, unguided reaction to messages.  In this case, maybe focus groups are not the right medium – in-depth interviews or a Web survey may give you better results.
2. Remember that group think can be very good.  If you’re trying to brainstorm an idea, having somebody to kick off the conversation and then see where the group goes with it is a very good thing. A smart moderator will encourage this kind of thinking for a while and see where it goes. The most creative ideas from focus groups I’ve been in did not come from one single individual. They came from the group members inspiring each other to build off of each other’s experiences and ideas and come up with something more powerful than any of the individual input. When one participants says “what if …”, and then the next participant says “cool idea, but how about this…” and then yet another participant says “or even better, you could take that idea and try…”.  Now you’re cooking!
3. Be prepared to funnel groupthink.  When you see it happening, a good moderator will challenge the group with the opposite assumption.  Prompt some “group think” around the positive ideas, and then redirect the group to talk about the negative ideas. Insist that the group gives you multiple perspectives.

Above all – don’t be scared of negative group think! It’s very good to hear every possible objection your target audience can make about your solution BEFORE you start selling, so you can be prepared with the products, messages, and objection handling you need to be successful.

Negative feedback is good for you. 

Seriously.

While it’s very human to only want to hear how wonderful your solution is, you need to learn about any objections to your product NOW. Not later, when you have to deal with an entire slipped pipeline, because you didn’t realize there was a deal-breaker.

You need honest feedback, and you need it now.

But how do you ensure feedback that is real? Very few people, no matter how stupid they think your idea is, will actually tell you that. You have to create an environment that allows people to tell you about the downside. 

One of the more painful exercises you can go through is to put a group of people together in a focus group and ask “what DON’T you like about this solution?” Once you ask them this question, and give them permission to be brutally honest, they WILL tell you about everything they don’t like. And the list of things they don’t like will be very long. And their list will inspire the other participants to think about even more things that they don’t like.

But as I said, this is GOOD FOR YOU!  If you know about the objections, you can prepare for them in advance. In the long run, this will save you significant amounts of time and money.

The answer is “enough to represent your market.” This number varies significantly according to the type of market research you’re conducting.

Web Surveys

For Web surveys this is a pretty straightforward question to answer. You will use quantitative methods to determine a sample size.

There are standard ways to calculate statistical validity, and a very easy-to-use calculator and descrition of the underlying statistics can be found here. You can use it to determine how many people you need to respond to a quantitative study in order to get results that reflect your target population.

You will need to know the population size of your audience - the total number of people  in the group your sample represents. Even if you don’t know the exact population size, this is not really a problem. The mathematics of probability allows you to make a pretty good guess as long as you have some kind of basic idea. The number of participants needed is not linear. As your audience gets much larger, your sample size doesn’t increase very much.

For example, to get a result that is accurate 95% of the time within 5%, you need:

Qualitative Studies – In-depth Interviews and Focus Groups

But enough statistics homework for now. The question that is less straightforward to answer, and so is asked all the time: “how many participants do I need for a qualitative study?” such as focus groups or a series of in-depth interviews.

The first thing to do when answering this question is to figure out segmentation. How many types of participants do you need to represent? This can include verticals, countries, roles, years of experience, customers vs. prospects vs. competitor customers vs. partners, and so on.  The most common segmentation when working with Corporate IT is to have two groups: “technology decision-makers” and “economic buyers”.

Once you figure this out, and map any overlap between these areas (for example, partners may also be end-users), you’re ready to go.

In my experience, with corporate IT you need about 8-10 participants of each “type,” with a minimum of 10 participants, to produce a valid study. The only exception is studies with competitor’s customers, where you typically need more participants.

Note that most market research companies, including Dimensional Research, base pricing for qualitative work on the number of participants, so doing a good job right-sizing your project will give you the most bang for your buck.

So, to be honest- it really depends.  But I know that’s not an answer to a very pragmatic question, so let me give more details here, bearing in mind that it really does depend on your specific project. 

A typical market research project takes six weeks. This is pretty standard for a small to mid-sized project, say 10-30 in-depth interviews or 4-8 focus groups.  Larger projects take longer, of course.  And we’ll talk about Web surveys later.

Here’s a pretty typical schedule for a single stage project with one series of focus groups or in-depth interviews - excluding unforeseen “bumps” or unique requirements:

Week 1: Project go-ahead. Write and approve recruiting guide. Identify source for recruiting participants - internal or external.

Week 2-3: Recruit participants. Write and approve interview guide or moderator’s guide.

Week 4-5: Conduct research. This may take less than two weeks, depending on your goals. Four to six focus groups all in the US are usually done in just one week.

 Week 6: Write and present market research report.

WARNING: The biggest schedule slippage that happens, aside from getting all the approvals in place for the project go-ahead of course, is with identifying internal participant contacts.  Using in-house lists or asking account managers to give us their contacts for recruiting may be time consuming and the schedule should be adjusted as needed.  

Web surveys are usually faster. A typical schedule for a web survey project is three weeks:  

Week 1: Project go-ahead. Determine goals. Identify lists for participation.  Write and approve questions. Upload them to survey tool.

Week 2: Field survey.

Week 3: Close survey. Do analysis including filtering and correlating findings. Write market research report.

If the survey is being conducted as a collateral piece to support outbound marketing efforts such as PR or lead gen, add another week for copy-editing and layout.

Online focus groups are a highly effective market research tool.  My clients love them.  They save the time and cost of travel while making it easier for participants and observers.

Most importantly, these benefits don’t require you to tradeoff for lower quality research. Online focus groups still facilitate the “brainstorming” dynamic that you get at an in-person focus group, where one participant’s comment sparks a comment by another participant and so on. The brainstorming dynamic enables the group to dig deep into an issue, so that the client can get a very clear picture of market acceptance of their product and of any issues they need to deal with.

Participants love online focus groups too, because they give them an opportunity to listen to the feedback of others in the industry. This is an important benefit for participants, especially in customer advisory boards, which encourages them to join.

Online focus groups are conducted using conference calls and Web-based meeting technology such as WebEx, GotoMeeting, etc.  In many ways they’re similar to traditional face-to-face focus groups, except you’re not in one room. We recruit participants in the same way, set a time for the meeting, and prepare a moderator’s guide. If relevant, we can review a presentation with the participants. Just as in a traditional focus group, where the client can listen in through a one-way window, the client can listen to an online focus group on a muted phone line. And we can use Web technology to poll participants similarly to a visual “show of hands” or “nod of heads” in an in-person group.

Despite the many similarities between in-person focus groups and online focus groups, there are also a few differences. The most obvious one is that you don’t get the non-verbal clues from the participants. Because of this, the moderator needs to make an extra effort to draw out all the participants and balance the input. To facilitate this, we typically have a smaller group (4-6 participants per group rather than 6-8 for an in-person group) for the same amount of time. We may do more groups as a result – 5 instead of 4 for example. 

Of course, there is also the option of conducting video online focus groups.  As technology evolves, these are becoming more common and are easier to set up.

Another major benefit of online focus groups is that they reflect the majority of real-life interactions with customers. When selling to Corporate IT buyers, more and more meetings are being conducted online rather than in person, so online focus groups reflect that same scenario.  If your messages work in an online focus group, they will translate well into an online sales call or a Webinar.

When doing qualitative research, we need to decide which is right for the client: in-depth interviews, focus groups, or maybe a combination of both. This depends on the client’s goals.

 When are focus groups better?

Dimensional Research recommends focus groups when the client wants to gain multiple perspectives in an interactive group setting.

One of the main benefits of focus groups is that they get the participants brainstorming. When one participant’s comment feeds off of another comment and so on, the group can really dig deep into an issue. When trying to evaluate market acceptance, capture challenges and issues, or understand objections to new technologies or processes, the focus group dynamic is ideal.

Focus groups have another great benefit – the client can sit behind the glass or on a conference call and hear the direct, unfiltered feedback of a large number of participants with no distractions. Focus group sessions are also recorded for further observation.  If your goal is to expose the maximum number of your team to direct input from the market, this is a very efficient way to do it.

When are interviews better?

In-depth, one-on-one interviews with technology professionals can be conducted in person or over the phone. These are appropriate when the client wants to identify detailed perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes.

In-depth interviews are particularly effective in the following scenarios:

1. When the client’s goal is to capture feedback on experiences that occur in an isolated way, such as product messaging or product usability testing.
2. When there is anything sensitive about the feedback that participants may not feel comfortable sharing in front of other people. For example, if there has been a performance issue with a sales rep, a customer may not feel comfortable sharing details if they suspect the rep might be “behind the glass” and could hear him. The customer would feel much more comfortable sharing this information confidentially talking only with the researcher.

Two things that should NOT drive this decision are:

• Travel – Sometimes the decision is driven by the geographical locations of participants. If you’re doing customer research with customers located in diverse locations or if you want global representation in the groups without the cost of travel, you still have a choice. The one-on-one nature of a phone interviews is an easy option, or for the group dynamic choose online focus groups.
• Cost – An important consideration, of course, is cost. As a rule of thumb focus groups and interviews cost about the same per participant, so with the exception of travel – not a consideration for phone interviews or online focus groups – cost should not be the driving consideration in choosing the research approach.