BA 850
Sustainability-Driven Innovation


Focus Groups


A Common Choice of Less-Experienced Research

Focus groups tend to be one of the "go to" choices for early-phase consumer research, many times because the methodology is common, and resources, such as facilities and moderators, are generally easy to locate. I would argue that focus groups are not well suited to the needs of early-phase innovation research, the type which we would be prone to conduct.

I've spent thousands of hours both "behind the glass" and "in the room" in research facilities conducting fieldwork of various types, and have had the occasion to both observe and participate as a member in focus groups. Even in the well-moderated sessions, I tended to come away thinking about how skewed the discussions tended to become, and how much I would have wanted to interview the participants one-on-one.

The effect of the focus group format on validity of findings as opposed to one-on-one depth interviews have received quite a bit of scholarly attention, and papers have been written exploring methodological issues with focus groups. This abstract from Boateng (2012) summarizes the findings of the overall body of research:

The efficacy of Focus Group Discussion as a qualitative data collection methodology is put on the line by empirically comparing and contrasting data from two FGD sessions and one-on-one interviews to ascertain the consistency in terms of data retrieved from respondents using these two data collection methodologies. The study is guided by the hypothesis that data obtained by FGD may be influenced by groupthink rather than individual respondents' perspectives. A critical scrutiny of the data that emanated from the two organized focus groups discussion departed quite significantly from the data that was elicited from the one-on-one qualitative interviews. The difference in responses confirms that FGDs are not fully insulated from the shackles of groupthink. It is recommended, among others, that though FGD can stand unilaterally as a research methodology for nonsensitive topics with no direct personal implications for respondents; researchers should be encouraged to adopt FGD in league with other methodologies in a form of triangulation or mixed methodological approach for a more quality data, bearing in mind the central role occupied by data in the scientific research process.

Furthermore, in my experiences, the group discussion format of focus groups tends to elicit the following behaviors, each of which has its own way of biasing or eroding the findings. (If the group is composed of 18-35 year-old males and females, multiply the biasing factor by 3):

  • The Domineer. In a group setting, the domineer will tend to overtake the discussion, at times even acting as a deputy moderator. In rare cases, or with an inexperienced moderator, this person can take the discussion entirely off the rails, but the more common form tends to be that of steering the discussion.
  • The Silent One. The polar opposite of The Domineer, this person will simply withdraw from the discussion (sometimes in response to The Domineer). In the research field, these participants are known as "Facility Wallpaper," as they tend to generally blend into the background, and will eat every available snack.
  • The Genius. A close relative of The Domineer, this behavior will also result in overtaking conversations, but typically in very unrelated or odd tangents. This personality tends to want to be right in any discussion, or otherwise prove to be the most knowledgeable.
  • The Critic. If testing prototypes, everything will be "horrible" or "dumb." While specific criticism is a primary goal of research, the critic will tend to wilt when asking for specifics of the criticism. This makes the feedback especially hard to analyze.
  • The Lovefest. The opposite of The Critic, this person will love everything. If a brand is presented, they will go on at (unrelated) length about the brand and how they love everything they do. This person will not react specifically to the stimuli at hand, and tend to work in generalities.
  • The Impractical Inventor. If you blended The Domineer, The Genius, and The Critic, you have The Impractical Inventor. Upon seeing a prototype, they will devise Rube Goldbergian solutions, or the idea that your packaging can be 'fixed' with 3D printing. Cost, practicality, or the current technology available to man are of no concern. Will derail the group into a wild ideation session.
  • The Ad Exec. The blend of The Genius and The Critic, and cousin to The Impractical Inventor. This personality type will devise slogans in the meeting, and will probably be the one to add comments and revisions to your nicely mounted $300 ad concept boards with a Sharpie while you aren't looking.

My overall point with this example is that, much like any social gathering with people who do not know each other, when you get 8-12 people in a room in a single conversation, people "overact" or take on personality traits they otherwise would not. Impromptu caucuses will form before your eyes, as people with similar thoughts will band together.

I offer the following as a humorous example of some of the exhibited traits you might see in a focus group. Interestingly, the morning after this Saturday Night Live sketch aired, the consumer research world exploded in agreement and story as to how realistic "Linda" was! Please watch the following 6:17 video.

Transcript of Hidden Valley Ranch Taste Test

ROGER: Hi there, thank you all for coming in. My name is Roger. I'm going to be running today's focus group.

LINDA: Alright, Wheeww! [CLAPPING] Roger! Roger! Roger!

ROGER: Thank you...hahaha. Ok, the products we are going to be testing today is a new line of dressing from Hidden Valley Ranch.

LINDA: Awesome. Whewww! Awesome! Hidden Valley Ranch! HVR! HVR! HVR!

ROGER: Hahaha, ok. Alright. Ok, we love your enthusiasm.

LINDA: I love your product, man. I love your product. Linda, I'm Linda. Love their product, man. Yes.

ROGER: Ok, alright. Great, Linda.

LINDA: Good stuff.

ROGER: Ok, we're going to put three new dressings in front of you to taste and then we just want your feedback.

LINDA: Alright, well they're going to be awesome, Roger. They really are.

ROGER: Alright, well let's just wait until we taste them and then we can discuss.

LINDA: HA, ok.

ROGER: Ok, let's start with number one.

LINDA:[SPOONS DRESSING INTO MOUTH] I'm getting strawberry. I'm getting kiwi. Man, I'm getting a big can of kiwi. Big can of kiwi. Hi, Kiwi!

MARK: You know what. It just tastes like ranch dressing with bacon to me.

ROGER: Ok, that's right. It's our new bacon ranch dressing.

LINDA: That was really good Mark. Man, what a palette. That was.. You nailed it. That was awesome.

MARK: Thanks.

LINDA: That's nice.

SUE: Yeah, I'm not really tasting the bacon at all.

LINDA: Are you kidding me? It's, It's, It's loaded with bacon. The product is loaded with bacon. Come on. It's in the name!

SUE: I know.

LINDA: God! I just, I think, I mean she's going to ruin it Roger. We have this good thing happening and then your kind... You're going to ruin this for us.


LINDA: She's ruining it for us.

ROGER: Ok, hey Linda everyone's opinion is valid Linda, ok. We just want your honest reactions. Actually one thing we do here for fun is we give an extra 50 dollars to whoever has the best comment today.

MARK: Oh, cool.

SUE: Oh that's fun.

LINDA: Oh my God.

ROGER: Yeah,

LINDA: 50 bucks.

ROGER: You might even hear your quote in the ad campaign. So uh, ok. Let's move onto number two.

LINDA: Man I could really use that cash, Mark. I mean, That cash could really get me out of a couple of jams. I just..alright. Alright. Game on.

ROGER: Alright.

LINDA: Game on.

ROGER: Ok. Alright, so why don't we just get started.

LINDA: There's a Hidden Valley Ranch party in my mouth. Hidden Valley Ranch party in my mouth. Write that down for your... There's a Hidden Valley Ranch party in my mouth. There's a Hidden Valley Ranch party in my mouth. You wanna write that? Party, Hidden Valley Ranch, in my mouth! You wanna write that down for the campaign?

ROGER: I'm probably not going to write that down.

LINDA: Linda, write Linda Hidden Valley Ranch.

MARK: I like this one, it's got a real kick.

ROGER: Oh, ok. Hey I like that. It's got a real kick. That's our new garlic ranch blast.

LINDA: You betcha it's a blast! You betcha its a blast. In lightning bolts. You betcha its a blast! Linda...You betcha it's a blast!

ROGER: Linda, please you haven't even tasted it yet.

SUE: Hey, this could, this could even make my husband eat salad.

ROGER: Hahahaha, ok, I like that. That's a great comment, Sue.

LINDA: Um. Could you garlic ranch blast me now? Could you garlic ranch blast me now? Could you garlic ranch blast me now? Write that down. Could you garlic ranch blast me now?

SUE: Ok, she's just doing the Verizon slogan.

LINDA: It's a hugely successful campaign. She doesn't get it.

ROGER: Ok. Why don't..

LINDA: She doesn't get it.

ROGER: Why don't we just move on?

LINDA: Do do do do do. I'm garlic ranch blasting it!

SUE: Oh, that's McDonalds.

LINDA: Do do do do do. I'm garlic...God. Shut up, Sue. Every...We all hate you. So much. We, We hate you! We hate your guts!

ROGER: Ok, please. Let's just taste the third one. Ok. It's our new pepper jack ranch.

LINDA: That's jack-tastic! That's jatastic! That's Ja-tastic! That's Ja-tastic! Did you write that down? That's Ja-tastic!

MARK: You know, this would be great on a burrito.

LINDA: I'd, I'd put it on a burrito.

ROGER: Ok, that's good. Maybe a little more descriptive.

MARK AND LINDA: Um, it's not just for salads anymore.


LINDA: not just for salads anymore.

ROGER: That is great Mark. That is great.

LINDA: And Linda...and Linda. so we'll split that 50. 50, 25, 25 will get me out of one jam. Group effort, not Sue. Not you. 25, 25. I was telling Sue earlier, you know, Hidden Valley Ranch is not for salads anymore.

SUE: She didn't, she never said that.

LINDA: Yes, I did Ro...she has got to go. Got to go.

SUE: Now, this ones way too spicy for me, I'm sorry.

MARK: Not me, I could eat a whole bottle.

LINDA: I could eat a whole bottle too. See... [LINDA SQUEEZES BOTTLE OF RANCH ONTO FACE]

That's ja-tastic! Do do do do do. That's good til the do do. Good to the last bit.


LINDA: This is awesome,

ROGER: Ok. Ok.

LINDA: This is awesome!

ROGER: Just stop it. Stop it please! I will give you 50 dollars just to leave.

LINDA: Deal. Can we make it 30? Because I'm going to need just a little more of this,

ROGER: Yeah.

LINDA: ...good stuff.

ROGER: Fine. Just go ahead please.

LINDA: Boy, that's real good. Do do do do do ja-tastic!

Where do focus groups "fit"?

If we break apart some of the research "jobs" we would likely need in evaluating ideas or early-phase concepts, the role of the focus group becomes more and more niche.

Exploring the space broadly.

Surveys do a better job at understanding the overall space than focus groups, and are far less expensive. Furthermore, you are receiving "clean data" in a survey, unbiased by social pressures of the group or groupthink.

Exploring the space deeply.

Individual interviews will give you far more depth than any focus group, while allowing the interviewer to explore topics and ideas of interest.

Prototype or usability testing.

Observation and ethnography will tell you more about use phase in real application. Individual interviews will tell you more about initial impressions of a prototype in a controlled environment, free from group biases.

Concept testing.

Message or proposition testing in a live environment will provide far more realistic, specific, and practicable information.

This leaves us with focus groups being used as ideation sessions to generate ideas and creative. Needless to say, in these applications, focus groups may have far more in common with the SNL skit than you might like.

Five word summary - Significantly flawed but still popular