Market Research 101: Focus Groups vs. One-On-Ones, or, the bar vs. the couch

Posted May 31, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

I spent a few days last week in Manhattan on business (this is still a funny idea to me considering I prefer to spell “business” as “bznz”), meeting some wonderful new people at different ad and marketing firms, talking about effective qualitative research and eating a lot of bagels and cupcakes.

I also got to spend time with some old friends from college — sharing Bánh mì (Denver, get me some Vietnamese Sandwiches to nosh on!) and talking about our career and life goals. Since I went to school in upstate New York (ITHACA IS GORGES!), dozens of my friends are in the city and surrounding boroughs, so I was able to meet up with a large group of people even though I was only in the area for a short amount of time.

The thing about meeting people in groups, though, is that there isn’t really that opportunity to talk about what you’ve been doing, your serious goals, your relationships, or all you’ve learned in the years since you’ve seen them. You end up all talking on the surface of topics, bringing up shared group jokes, smiling a lot, and then splitting into twos and threes for the real talk — the talk about anxiety, fear, what is truly making you happy, and your ideas for the future.

After spending an hour on my friend Kate’s couch, talking about our days, our careers, and what we find fulfilling, I realized that this dynamic is exactly the difference between conducting one-on-one qualitative research and focus groups. Focus groups or bulletin boards allow for that initial get together and catch up — everyone gets to talk if they want, everyone gets to add something to the conversation, and you leave feeling as though you got in some great experience with your audience.

One-on-ones, however, allow you to kind of sit across from one person in your audience, asking them things you might not bring up in a crowd, and, as would be expected, getting the kind of candid real talk you might not get around a larger group.

Edward Hopper, “Chop Suey” 1929.

There’s a saying that politics, religion, and money do not make good dinner conversation. Either that’s “a saying” or it’s something someone said to me once, I actually don’t know. But the same can happen in focus groups — sometimes people do not want to speak candidly about sensitive issues, or polarizing philosophies, around a big group of people. People end up dominating the space, they demean viewpoints, and not everyone’s voice is heard. In those cases, one-on-ones can be better suited for learning about individual beliefs and the WHYS behind them. Some other places where one-on-ones can be a better method for your project than a focus group?

1. With topics not suitable for a group, or where a respondent values anonymity

2. To avoid groupthink

3. To follow-up on quantitative results

4. When a topic needs personal rapport

5. For a pilot study to test questions/wording before a survey or larger focus group

When people ask me if GutCheck is a replacement for focus groups or bulletin boards, I honestly say no. There are plenty of awesome tools available out there for online focus groups or bulletin boards (we love the people at Crowdtap, for example). But there’s a time and place for meeting your friends at a weird ping pong bar, laughing and taking photos, and there’s also a time and place to sit on the couch and talk about feeling neurotic, lifestyle changes, and personal philosophies. A good researcher (and a good friend) knows when to make time for the right method, and ends up with the best results (and the longest lasting friendships).

101 is an on-going series on how to effectively use qualitative methods in market research. Up next: Who is a moderator?

Posted in focus groups, Market Research 101, qualitative research | Bookmark Bar

From triathlete to professional moderator, practice makes better

Posted May 23, 2011 by Matt Warta | Permalink

I am an amateur triathlete…about as amateur as you can get.  I have never been even close to the professionals in any of events (swimming, cycling, or running), but I keep after it.  I leverage a lot of training tools from experts, and by training and exercising the different muscles for each event, I have gotten very comfortable with all facets of the triathlon and am proficient at all of them.  So much so that I am doing my first half ironman in a couple of weeks.
 
You are probably asking yourself (or should be asking yourself), what does this have to do with performing research?  The answer is you need to build up muscle memory in order to be successful at research just as you need to build up muscle memory around sport or anything else that is important to you.  
 
There are a couple of ways of building up muscle memory in this case.  The first is to get educated.  At GutCheck, we provide this education in a number of ways, including providing some thoughtful education on our site; by publishing discussion guide templates which our qualitative-expert-friends at iModerate developed for our customers; and we also have our own qual coach, Elizabeth T., who is more than happy to walk customers through the finer points of creating a solid discussion guide. (BTW – users love her.)

 If you are at a bigger company, you might have internal or external market research resources you can lean on to gain some great training, direction, and oversight.  The fact of the matter is, you’re not going to become a better athlete if you’re not looking for ways to improve, and you’re not going to become a better researcher if you aren’t open to asking about different methods or ways to improve your interviewing techniques.
Once you have received the appropriate amount of education, go for it.  Go exercise those research muscles you are developing.  Just like your first training run won’t be as good as your last run before the race, your first interview won’t be as good as your second, and your second won’t be as good as your third. Continuous learning, just like continuous training, will make your research (and your performance) the best it can be. And, as it tends to happen, the better you become at research, the more you’ll want to incorporate it into your projects.
 
What advice do you have for someone performing DIY research? How did you get comfortable as a moderator?

Posted in DIY Research, qualitative research, quantitative research | Bookmark Bar

Taylor Swift, Danzig and the art of segmentation

Posted May 20, 2011 by Matt Warta | Permalink

I talked with the wrong person.

Have you ever found the perfect moment to drop a movie reference – except no one in the crowd high-fives you because none of them have any idea what you’re talking about?

What about mentioning a topic important to you during a business meeting, expecting an excited validation or interested rebuttal– only to see the look of “meh” cross the other person’s face?

That’s not the best use of anyone’s time (and sometimes it’s just plain embarrassing). However, there is a way to avoid it.

Speaking with the right person by targeting demographics, behavioral preferences, interests or product usage makes the conversation more beneficial for all parties involved.

Would Taylor Swift’s camp want to advertise to Lil Jon fans or fans of Danzig?
Look at theFacebook advertising or the recently discussed “filter bubbles” at TEDx.
Targeting and understanding what people “Like” will very likely get your message to the right crowd based on how they’ve previously behaved online. There’s no sense in advertising Taylor Swift’s fan page or album to fans of Lil Jon.

Similarly, why ask non-Smartphone users about how they respond to a new app idea? It’s not the best use of money and resources, simply because the product is not targeted for them.

In consumer insights business, you could speak with random folks about your product or service and not learn much. Net result, maybe someone who could use your product/service learns about it and you learn that you’re not speaking with the right person.

Now, if you could quickly target someone – say your consumer audience – and pull someone in for a conversation based on purchase frequency, preference for brand or whatever you needed to talk to them about, you could glean a lot.

Likewise, adjusting factors like household income, age, and ethnicity can give you access to different segments so that you may get a better all-around understanding of how people react to your concepts, ads, packages, websites, etc.

Altering your segments — seeing if 18 – 24 year olds feel the same or intend to purchase the same as 32-44 year olds – can help a business learn if what they’re selling or advertising will work across various segments of their target market, leading to a successful campaign.

So if you’re talking about an advertising campaign or messaging that doesn’t resonate with the right audience (*ahem – Skechers – ahem*) or launch a re-branding effort that fails (*cough – GAP – cough*), you can lose a lot. Business, consumers, revenue take a hit an ensuring that you’ll get the feedback you could have heard if you had originally talked to the right people.

Posted in Uncategorized | Bookmark Bar

Domino’s Pizza: Market Research Superfan

Posted May 13, 2011 by Adam | Permalink

In my experience, market research isn’t always viewed as the most hot and exciting industry, and sometimes we take a back seat to our more attractive sibling: Advertising. So while most folks value the importance of understanding consumers’ attitudes and emotions toward their product or brand, the actual research doesn’t have quite the same wow factor as a beautifully constructed piece of creative.

But beginning last year, market research finally got its moment in the sun!

Domino’s Pizza launched a big-budget ad campaign that was mostly memorable for saying their own product tasted like crap. But what got me excited was how they learned that they had been pushing inferior pizza for all these years — good old-fashioned qualitative research. The TV spots featured focus group participants telling Dominos executives that their crust tasted “rubbery” and that the pizza was “low-quality and forgettable.” They quoted other unhappy critics saying the pizza was like “cardboard” with “processed cheese.”

While the campaign (created by our friends at Crispin Porter up in Boulder, CO) was pretty unorthodox, Domino’s credited the honest approach with doubling their profits in the quarter after it came out.

But Domino’s promotion of qualitative research didn’t stop with the initial campaign. Late last year they came out with yet another commercial starring a focus group, this time featuring participants talking about the lack of real cheese before being surprised to find themselves on the real-life dairy farm of one of Domino’s suppliers.

And if you’re still not convinced of the trend, just two months ago Domino’s came out with an ad featuring the chef behind their new chicken recipe. In the ad, CEO Jim Doyle shows us the delivery box for the chicken that has market research built right in! “It’s not great until our customers tell us it’s great,” he tells us.

(Quick aside – what kind of strange methodology have they invented here? Have garbagemen been enlisted to collect the results one greasy response at a time? How representative is pizza box sampling? So many questions…)

While most products that make it to market are tested against a target audience, I believe Domino’s is unique in highlighting this bit of sausage making in the ads themselves (pun intended). Perhaps they just hit on an advertising gimmick to help them stand out, or maybe some rouge researcher has infiltrated and overtaken the marketing department.

But one thing is clear: Domino’s Pizza loves them some market research.

Posted in Advertising, Branding, focus groups, Just for fun, qualitative research, quantitative research | Bookmark Bar

On The Road: Using objectives to map your discussion

Posted May 10, 2011 by Elizabeth Taddonio | Permalink

“You’re letting the consumer drive the conversation. You’re just keeping them on the road.”

Starting out on a qualitative research project can be a little daunting, especially when you’re coming from a quantitative background and you’re used to thinking in terms of scales and measured responses. Since qualitative responses can’t be measured (though data visualization or infographics do wonders!), researchers have to think about their research in terms of management, pacing, and goals. And since two of my favorite things in the world are metaphors and puns, I’ve opted to write about The Road (NOT the post-apocalyptic Cormac McCarthy kind! the Jack Kerouac kind!) — the process of getting from start to finish during your 30 minutes, one-on-one, with a respondent.

Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassady: Research-piration? Yes! (image via)

When I was teaching public speaking in graduate school, without a doubt the biggest problem I saw with my students’ outlines and preparation was lack of a thesis with main objectives previewed and reviewed. Without this information, the audience didn’t know where the speaker was going, and listeners were forced to make logical leaps and fill in blanks. The same is true of a researcher taking a respondent on their journey without main objectives in mind. Without the destination point,  moderators can confuse not only themselves but also their respondents, meaning a derailed discussion that could end up a sixth of the way across the country in the wrong direction, so to speak.

In order to avoid this situation, ALWAYS take a few minutes before developing your chat guide to write down your main objectives. You may have them swirling around in your head, but articulating them on paper is crucial, as it forces you to hone in and really think about the project at hand. For example, a package test might mean your main obectives are to:

1.Understand respondents’ overall reactions to the package, specifically highlighting their likes and dislike.

2.Explore what message respondents feel the package is communicating

3.Gauge respondents’ likelihood to purchase the product based solely on the package

With GutCheck, moderators can usually get through about 2-4 objectives in 30 minutes, giving each objective a good amount of attention. Additionally, once a researcher has written down his/her specific objectives, s/he can now choose questions that specifically relate back to these points, since every question should be related to a researcher’s main objectives. In doing this, chat guides are streamlined and no time is wasted, since 30 minutes can go by pretty quickly.

Keep in mind, though, that there are multiple ways to get to any destination. This is where your Kerouac research-piration should kick in. Allowing a respondent to drive the conversation by taking different routes, making new connections, and bringing up reactions related to the topic that might not be in your original line of questions will give you the best insights while keeping your destination in sight (pun intended).

On The Road is an on-going series on how to conduct one-on-one qualitative interviews. Next up: Pacing and precision.

.

Posted in DIY Research, On The Road, qualitative research | Bookmark Bar