griecoresearchgroup

Focus group research has been declared dead many times in the past, and the latest grim reaper of the practice comes in the form of Malcolm Gladwell, Author of "Blink" and "The Tipping Point." Gladwell has gained near-cult status through his writings and speeches advocating the abolishment of focus groups in favor of more instinctive, "blink"-of-the-eye decision-making. He characterizes this first-impression, go-with-your-gut approach as "rapid cognition" -- and he espouses its virtues over what he perceives to be the more methodical, rational approach of focus group research.

Gladwell's most famous argument against focus groups concerns the story of Herman Miller's Aeron Chair. According to Gladwell, the Aeron Chair, when in prototype form in the mid 1990s and "tested" in focus groups, met with a "chilly reception" by respondents, specifically concerning its "aesthetics."

As the story goes, Herman Miller nevertheless decided to proceed with the launch of the Aeron -- despite "resistance" observed in focus groups -- because the company believed deeply in the design... and voilà: the Aeron became a best-selling icon of modern chair design. Gladwell uses this tale as evidence that focus groups are unreliable. As he posited in a speech to the American Association of Advertising Agencies' Account Planning conference last year:

"That story tells us something very sobering about the institution of market research. And in particular, the efficacy and usefulness of focus groups. Because the whole point of focus groups is to be able to help us predict what's going to work and what's not. If a focus group cannot do that, then a focus group is actually useless."

This criticism of focus groups is nothing new. In recent years focus group research has taken on the role of "whippin' boy" among many -- an easy target for criticism, as acceptable to attack as oil companies. However, most criticisms are typically superficial and simplistic in nature, and reveal a misunderstanding of the intricacies and rich history of focus group research, the differences between "good" and "bad" focus group studies, and the vital role which the qualitative consultant plays in a focus group study.

Gladwell and other critics use the term "focus groups" in a generic sense and conveniently paint ALL focus groups with the same broad negative brush -- this saves them the time of learning about the field of qualitative research and discovering that no two focus group studies or moderators are alike.

Here's a rebuke of three modern-day criticisms of focus group research:

Criticism #1: Focus group research is unreliable as a means to predict the future success of a product.

This is one of Gladwell's key complaints. The counterpoint: who actually argues that focus groups should be used for this purpose? Anyone in the market research industry knows that findings from focus groups are NOT statistically projectable due to the small sample size; and therefore, it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for focus groups to predict the future prospects of a product. Furthermore, it's a complete misuse of focus groups to rely upon consumers to make final decisions regarding a product or service. Consumers are NOT decision-makers. Focus groups are best employed to learn about the values and attitudes of a company's customers and prospects, and how they interpret, perceive and talk about a given category or subject. Ultimately, focus groups are just one component in a company's decision-making process, and they should never be treated as a magical elixir nor a substitute for sound business decisions.

Criticism #2: Focus groups rely too heavily on rational, deliberate, thoughtful verbal responses -- whereas real-world purchase behavior is more instinctive, emotional, and sub-conscious.

This is the crux of Gladwell's argument in "Blink." While it is true that relying solely on panelists' spoken responses in a focus group is often not a true gauge of their underlying motivations and attitudes, this criticism assumes that all focus groups consist only of straightforward Q & A between the moderator and respondents. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many projective techniques are utilized in focus group research to help overcome this limitation and to explore emotional underpinnings. Exercises such as image sorts, collages, perceptual mapping and storytelling are employed regularly to this end.

Plus, focus group research is not conducted in a vacuum. In the post-group analytical stage, the company sponsoring the research in tandem with the qualitative consultant work to reconcile the learning from the groups with what they already know and instinctively believe to be true about the category and the target. During this process, some of the findings from the group sessions may be discounted while other findings given heightened credence.

Criticism #3: Focus groups can stifle or hijack breakthrough creative ideas.

Here we go again. As already stressed, corporate decision-making should never be ceded to consumers. In the end, the company conducting the research always know MORE than the respondents, and must take responsibility for all decisions made. Sometimes -- as in the case of the Aeron Chair -- management must use its "gut" instincts and trust its creative talent on a new idea, despite what research may suggest; especially if they believe passionately in the idea. Furthermore, focus groups should NEVER be used to gauge the likeability of any creative idea, particularly one which is provocative and forward-thinking. It is true that the typical consumer does not have the progressive vision or language essential to judging such ideas. However, focus groups can be used effectively to explore issues such as comprehension, relevance, potential benefits/pitfalls and credibility with regard to a new idea.