Kevin Hill

Focus groups have long been a sort of generic term for qualitative research. “Let’s do some groups” is often just another way of asking to speak and interact with consumers directly. The use of traditional 8-10 person focus groups seems to on the decline as researchers are more carefully choosing composition and respondent numbers of their “groups.” That being said, full 8-10 person groups do serve a purpose. They are ideal when a broad look at a market, product or category is needed. Skilled moderators can help reduce the likelihood of group think that is risk for larger groups, however it is difficult to obtain great depth of information during large group discussions. Going into depth with a few respondents can sometimes lead to some boredom and disinterest among other respondents so keeping things at a relatively high level gives all respondents a chance to participate and keeps them engaged.

Mini-groups are a great alternative to full groups. Consisting of 5-6 respondents, mini-groups allow clients to observe a good number of people and can also provide more depth of discussion. Mini-groups are also a better alternative when groups will involve projective techniques or extensive flip-chart/white board work. The smaller group size allows respondents to share exercises in some depth without other respondents having to wait too long to share and begin to loose interest.

3-on-1 groups are often used when more focus on a particular detail of a product, service, concept or positioning is needed.Triads allow for some sharing of ideas and building of ideas among respondents, but when looking at stimuli or giving specific feedback on a product or service, a triad begins to resemble three 1-on-1 interviews. This allows for the depth of response one would achieve with a 1-on-1 interview, but the groups are more time and cost efficient as 3 times the number respondents can be seen in essentially the same amount of time.

2-on-1’s are not used extensively in consumer work as they can set up a poor respondent experience by seeming to pit one respondent against another when providing views or feedback. Use of dyads in joint interviewing (parent/child, couples, supplier/customer) can be informative when the objectives dictate their use.

One-on-one interviews, like the term “focus groups,” have often come to mean “we need depth and individual insight.” While IDI’s do provide the means to gain focus and depth in an interview, other techniques can provide for this as well. IDI’s are best used when it is important to limit any outside influence on the respondent. This is most important in areas like usability testing, laddering, food prototype testing or in categories that are sensitive in nature (personal care, financial services, health). The key moderating challenge is making the respondent feel comfortable in the one-on-one environment and ensuring the respondent is giving honest opinions, not modifying response to please the interviewer.

One of the most under used approaches is a technique called laddering. Laddering is an in-depth, one-on-one interview that helps understand the relationship and links between product attributes and a consumer’s core values based on Mean-Ends Theory (Gutman, 1982). After generating a list of key product or service attributes, the technique essentially involves almost continuously asking a respondent “Why is that important” (Moderators experienced in laddering have an almost endless supply of different ways to ask this question). This line of questioning reveals the links between attributes-benefits-values that ultimately connect a consumer with a brand or product. This information typically provides the basis for the development of marketing that is ultimately more personally relevant to a consumer or target group.

Projective techniques help respondents better verbalize attitudes and emotions. From personification (“If Brand X walked into a party…”) to sentence completion and thought bubble exercises, the goal is to help respondents tap into their more creative right brain and better articulate deeper insights. It is key that these techniques not be used as a crutch when other aspects of the interview guide are lacking. Thinking hard about what activities match the objectives of the research is important discussion and should be critically considered.

Another under used technique is giving respondents “assignments” before the interview. While not always appropriate, assignments provided the opportunity to glean additional information that may not be easily obtained during the group, or when gathering basic information during the group would take up valuable time that could be better used in other areas of exploration. Assignments can be as simple as respondents filling out a short questionnaire at home or during sign-in at the facility. More involved assignments might involve diary keeping or collage creation. Depending on the situation, assignments may or may not be shared or referred to during the interview.

For concept and positioning work it is almost always useful to allow respondents to edit and/or mark-up language. “Circle what you like and cross out what you don’t like,” has been said countless times in concept and positioning work. And while this is helpful, often taking things one step further is beneficial. Depending on the nature/subject of the concept work, it often lends additional insight to not only have respondents “circle what they like” but to provide a word or phrase on what attitude, feeling or emotion the word or phrase brings to mind. The same should be done for negative words along with asking respondents for alternative language. This more lengthy process also helps combat group think by making respondents commit to their initial thoughts and feelings.

Use of a flip chart or whiteboard often depend on an individual moderators personal preference, however specific thought on use should be more deliberate. Writing information down allows respondent to better process the conversation and forces them to review and think about what has been stated in the group. The ability to summarize, review and edit the information is also beneficial as it allows respondents to add detail or eliminate ideas or words that initially seemed correct, but on reflection do not fit or accurately portray their thoughts.

The challenge for the moderator with any group discussion is to ensure that what individual respondents are saying represent their true thoughts and feelings and not simply those of the group. Inexperienced moderators who let respondents continually offer “I agree with what she said” or allow respondents to simply repeat other respondents are not getting the most out of their discussion. Even when a respondent does agree with what has previously been said, it is important to have the respondents re-articulate a response in their own words. Using a note pad and having a respondent write down initial thoughts/feelings is a useful way to help combat group think. Again, even if respondents universally agree, it is important to understand the nuance and language a respondent uses in voicing their opinion.

Incorporating the user into the web design process involves engaging users at multiple points during development through various research activities. Good web design does not mandate that every step in the process be tested using discrete research methods; rather good design and user testing process involves using the right techniques – often combing methods – at the right time with minimal impact on development. At a high-level, these research techniques are used to determine: -- How users conceptually group the content and functionality elements that may appear on the site, i.e., how will the information be “bucketed." -- What nomenclature and naming conventions should be used, i.e., how should content and functionality be labeled. -- The prevailing organizing principle for the site, i.e., absent design, how will the site be laid out -- What experience lets users efficiently and intuitively accomplish key tasks, i.e., how does the site work. -- What design best brings to life the brand values and personality, without inhibiting the user experience, i.e. how does the site look.

Through one-on-one interviews respondents sort and categorize index cards (or sticky notes or or other digital technology) labeled with potential site content and functionality; also provides feedback on nomenclature and labeling

One-on-one or small group (3-on-1) interviews; various wireframes (absent design) are exposed to determine which organization potentially best meets their needs; also provides feedback on nomenclature and labeling.

One-on-one interviews where respondents are guided through the site to complete a task using a number of paper wireframes (with little or no design) to simulate a complete user experience; also provides feedback on nomenclature and labeling

One-on-one interviews where respondents are asked to complete a number of predetermined tasks on their own using a functioning prototype (with or without design); also provides feedback on nomenclature and labeling.

Utilizing one-on-one or small group (3-on-1) interviews, fully designed site concepts are exposed either as static pages, or in the context of a prototype, to elicit response about the brand; also ensures that the design does not diminish the site usability.

One-on-one interviews; respondents are asked to perform a number of predetermine tasks on the fully functioning site; respondents are also often given the opportunity to “surf” the site and provide overall feedback on design, layout, etc.