The When and Why of Focus Groups

Focus Groups can do one thing better than any quantitative research technique: observe human emotions.  They are the technique of choice when the understanding of feelings, perceptions, opinions and attitudes are the research objectives. Individuals, not companies, departments or committees, make decisions about what products and services they buy. People vote, veto and influence each other to form consensus positions. Yet, the basic component of these buying processes remains the individual, and the individual is always most highly motivated by personal agenda.

The subjective evaluation of risk versus reward most often shapes a person’s true position in many buying situations. The individual will evaluate the consequential risks and rewards of voting, vetoing or otherwise going on record in the buying process, all of which will affect his/her next performance and salary review, internal prestige and future marketability.  Focus Groups are vastly superior to other data gathering methodologies in yielding the truth about what people really feel and, therefore, may be expected to act on. This deeper level of understanding stems from a number of attributes and characteristics of focus group methodology

Establishment of a Controlled Environment: Since the research takes place in a focus group facility, not the individual’s office, interruptions and other disruptions are eliminated. More important, removed from the inhibitors of the workplace, the individual can be much more effectively encouraged to express personal opinions, which are often at odds with organizational policy and procedure.

Invoking Adversarial Conditions: The merits of ideas and opinions as well as the degree to which individuals will cling to those ideas can be effectively tested by subjecting them to peer review and criticism. The forming of consensus positions forged through debate accurately simulates the evaluation and decision making process that occurs within the buying organizations in the marketplace. The dissenting or outlier opinions are often of more value to the client than the consensus.

Exploring Causal Relationships: The questioning and challenging process leading to consensus is most powerful in its ability to tie opinions and positions to real issues and concerns. Desired features and functions can be linked to real or perceived benefits, while surface issues are often symptomatic of more fundamental technological, organizational or individual problems.

Simulating New or Hypothetical Scenarios: Assessing the new and unfamiliar often requires a preliminary interactive educational or explanatory effort. Focus Groups easily support this requirement by enabling a more accurate evaluation of the level of interest of new product or service concepts or hypothetical market, industry, technological or economic conditions.  This is especially true for emerging products and services.