It's been almost 25 years since I conducted my first telephone
group. I had been an amateur magician all my life, but this was real
magic - strangers from all over the country talking with each
other as if they had known each other for years! I still remember
the feeling of amazement and exhilaration that people talked with
each other more interactively and openly than they do face to
face. I wondered, "Has anyone else noticed this? Why don't
more people use conference calls, especially for other things
than boring sales meetings? How can this undiscovered capability
be used to create valuable products and services which would make
a lot of money?"
I know that you want to get right into the nuts and bolts of
how to use telephone focus groups. But I thought that you'd enjoy
it - and get a deeper understanding - if I first told you about
how I developed this technique.
If you're one of those people who wants to get right into the
machinery, just skip to the next section,
frequently asked questions about Telephone Focus Groups..
I ran my first telephone groups in 1969. Ron Richards - then
President of TeleSession Corp. and now a marketing consultant and
president of Venture Network in San Francisco - and I were trying
to develop a way to bring people together so that they could
learn from each other, instead of from more formal education from
teachers. This is called peer learning. I was Executive Vice
President of the company and also a practicing psychotherapist. I
had been a school psychologist, and had extensive training in
Group Dynamics, a field of study which had just come into its own
in the 1960's. That was the time of the encounter group, the
sensitivity training group and the T-group, among others. Everything in
those days was attempted in groups, and I do mean everything. A
great deal was learned at the time about how groups work, how to
create the right atmosphere for participation, and how to
interpret what was going on in groups.
Our advertising agency ran several focus groups to develop and
refine a previous business concept. The moderation was
unimpressive, to say the least, even though the moderator was a
high level, very bright person in a major agency, later to go on
to become quite well known in the agency business. That lead us
to:
Lesson #1: Not everyone, no matter how bright and
knowledgeable, can - or should - moderate focus groups.
Since I had just spent several years learning how to moderate
groups, Ron and I decided that we would conduct future focus
groups ourselves. We conducted about 50 face-to-face focus
groups, on all aspects of the business: concept, marketing and
advertising, with different possible market segments. It's
interesting to note that we couldn't run telephone groups because
one of the things that we were investigating was people's
attitudes toward telephone groups. If we had run the groups on
the phone, many of their qualms would have been satisfied before
they were expressed.
We eventually developed a concept and an advertising campaign
which offered conference calls to people for the purpose of
exchanging information with each other. The people themselves
would pay for participation, for the fun and information they
would get from talking with people who shared their interests. It
was something like a high-level version of the 900 number chat
lines that later developed, except that the phone company
wouldn't develop such a service at the time. They wouldn't offer
a way to bill customers for services delivered over phone lines,
and they wouldn't sell conferencing equipment. They were making
quite enough money as a monopoly, thank you. They wouldn't even
listen. "We don't do that." Things sure changed when
they became a business! The ordinary conference call: terrible
quality but great dynamics - when they worked.
In the meantime, I had been experimenting with conference
calls set up by the phone company. The experiments convinced us
that the conference call was a superb and totally undeveloped
delivery mechanism for the exchange of information, but that the
phone company's equipment and procedures were woefully
inadequate. About half of the calls broke down from howling
noises, static and other problems. We had outside consultants
develop equipment for us that would allow the kind of interaction
and control that we wanted. That lead to:
Lesson #2: The equipment makes a tremendous difference
But even with the inadequacies of the existing equipment,
I was struck by how much more comfortable and open people were in
phone groups than in face to face groups. More
importantly, I was struck by how much more productive the
discussions were: there was more cognitive information and more
emotional content. I couldn't believe my ears, so I conducted
informal experiments with randomly selected people alternatively
assigned to face to face groups, blindfolded groups and telephone
groups. Independent observers rated the telephone groups to be
much more informative, with the blindfolded groups a close
second. When I told one of my former group dynamics professors
about this, she conducted groups of people alternatively facing
in toward each other (in visual contact) and facing outward away
from each other (not in visual contact). She reported that the
content of the discussion was more to the point, more focused and
more productive when participants were not able to see each
other's faces. However, participants were intensely uncomfortable
being next to each other without being able to see each other.
The phone, of course, eliminated this discomfort. This lead to:
Lesson #3: Discussions are more productive on the phone
than face to face, but the participants don't necessarily realize
it
We started testing our peer exchange service by bringing
together gourmet cooks/cookbook writers, photographers and
international travelers in dozens of conference calls. The
information flow was nothing short of astounding. However, the
participants would not pay for the service at price levels that
would make the service profitable, given our billing costs.
Then, I got the idea: If manufacturers of food products,
photography equipment and providers of travel services could only
hear the sessions we were conducting, they would be able to
respond to their customers' needs better.
Since we had agreed to maintain confidentiality with our
participants, we were just about to ask our participants if we
could run some special, non-confidential sessions when a couple
of people from ad agencies who had heard about our services asked
if we could run focus groups of hard-to-reach, geographically
dispersed people.
Of course, we jumped at the chance. I was open with them about
my lack of marketing knowledge at the time. I said that I could
get virtually any category of people to participate in any
legitimate discussion, and that I was expert at getting
information, even of a deep psychological nature, from people;
however I would need guidance about what information was needed.
Fortunately I had some pretty savvy and patient clients, about
half of the top 20 advertising agencies (the other half thought
the idea of focus groups on the phone was too unusual to try at
first.) and some very large and sophisticated companies. This
lead to:
Lesson #4: If you admit what you don't know, knowledgeable
people may be willing to teach you.
At about the same time, we approached pharmaceutical companies
because their customers, physicians, are among the most
inaccessible people. I had grown up in my father's pharmacies,
always pestering him to explain to me what every drug was for, so
I was knowledgeable about prescription drugs and comfortable with
physicians and medical terminology.I was
selling better groups, they were buying hard-to-get respondents
Trying to sell telephone focus groups was a baptism of fire,
since what I was selling was more interaction, openness,
information and creative ideas. No one believed me, and it
didn't matter anyway since what they were buying was access to
difficult-to-reach physicians, particularly specialists.
Prospective clients would challenge me by asking if I could get
dermatologists specializing in a particular condition, or heads
of burn clinics, or alcoholism specialists, or Parkinsonism
specialists. These were, in fact, our first groups. I would
brashly say, "Sure, even if you want red-headed, left-handed
gynecologists, if you give me a list and I can't get them, you
don't pay." We got a lot of business. This lead to:
Lesson #5: Given the right methods, you can get almost anyone into telephone focus groups.
(More about this later)
We discovered that the additional openness of people in phone
groups was even greater for physicians than for most other
people. Physicians have a lonely job. They operate under
conditions of information overload, high expectations and extreme
ambiguity and uncertainty. They want to, but can't, discuss their
mistakes, knowledge gaps and doubts so that they can learn from
each other. They need to "let their hair down" with
their peers, but can't afford to do so with people in their
immediate area. In telephone focus groups, we discovered that
physicians are routinely willing to even discuss how they have
killed people by using inappropriately high dosages of
medications, how they had incorrectly diagnosed and treated
patients, how they cut corners from accepted practice, and where
they are uncomfortable with the gaps in their knowledge. Most
clients became converts after their first session.
It is also interesting to note that most of my initial
clients, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, who were
among the first to dare to use this radically new technique, are
now among the top people in the industry. When I had to conduct a
focus group of pharmaceutical company presidents a few years ago,
I was able to recruit most of them from former clients. I'm not
claiming that telephone focus groups made them what they are
today, but instead that these were the kinds of people who were
not afraid to take leadership in trying something new.
I have always believed that I'm offering a better group
in the sense of providing more information. My clients are
primarily buying access to difficult to reach and geographically
dispersed people. Since there's no conflict between what I'm
selling and what they're buying, everyone's happy. This lead to:
Lesson #6: What you are selling isn't necessarily what the
customer is buying.
I was selling better groups, they were buying access.
These are the questions that I am most frequently asked. Don't
hesitate to give me a call or drop me a line if you want more
detail or of you have other questions.
Why Run Telephone Focus Groups?
In comparison to face-to face groups, telephone focus groups
deliver:
Difficult-to-recruit people
Higher quality respondents
Lower cost
Greater openness, interaction, focus and intensity. Less
posing.
Wider geographical representation: nationwide, regional or
district
Ability for your highest level people to listen in without
travel
Greater speed from initial order to first groups, and from
first group to completed project.
When should I think of using telephone
focus groups?
Anytime that you are thinking of conducting focus
groups or individual interviews, you should seriously consider
telephone focus groups. Participants are less intimidated and
more open because they can't see each others' expressions of
disapproval, and because they are from different cities (so they
are not actual or potential competitors or colleagues). They are
more willing to disagree with each other. You get greater
frankness and group support on the phone, so that even sensitive
topics - where you would ordinarily think of individual
interviews - can be conducted by telephone focus group. The times
when telephone focus groups are particularly effective are:
- Anytime it is difficult or impossible to recruit people
into focus groups. This includes the obvious
"impossible" people: Experts, physician
specialists, high-level executives, department heads and
store owners. Also, to reach other kinds of
"prescribers" and "recommenders" who
don't necessarily buy directly: Physicians, pharmacists,
nurses, researchers, technicians, consultants, engineers,
architects, store salespeople, chain buyers, managers,
economists, legislators, corporate presidents, hospital
administrators and your own star salespeople.
- When respondents are rare, "low incidence," or
widely dispersed geographically: Heads of various kinds
of clinics, famous thought leaders, users of a prototype,
beta testers, users of a newly introduced product, rural
practitioners, etc.
- When there are issues which are so sensitive that
anonymity is needed, so you must get people from a wide
geographical area: users of stigmatized products, high
income individuals, competitors, people who are doing
something "wrong," etc.
- When speed is essential;
- When people are unwilling to open up;
- When you want greater informality, willingness to
speculate, more creative ideas;
- When you want nationwide or region wide representation;
- When you are testing an unusual concept;
- When you only want to conduct a couple of groups, but
want nationwide representation.
It sounds like you would totally
replace face-to-face groups with telephone focus groups!
No, not quite, I conduct face-to-face focus groups when people
have to "kick the tires," for easier-to-get
respondents, for day-long creativity sessions, with young
children, when video tapes have to be shown during the session,
and when clients have to go to a fun city like San Francisco in
order to get key company executives to come along to listen to
the sessions!
How do telephone focus groups work?
Respondents are invited by phone, from your lists or ours, to
participate in a nationwide group telephone discussion at a
specific day and time. We send them a confirmation letter. We
place a reminder call a day before the session. About 15 minutes
before the session, we call each participant, remind him/her that
we will be calling, and ask the participant to inform any members
of the family that the call will be coming in. At session time,
we call them at their home or office anywhere in the country from
our high-quality, state-of-the-art telephone conference system.
They hear carefully selected music for a few seconds, and the
technical assistant welcomes each participant individually and
checks the line. The music stops and our moderator guides the
discussion using techniques designed to create maximum
interaction between participants. You and your colleagues can
call in from anywhere. You can have notes passed to the moderator
by faxing them, or by pressing *0 on your telephone touch-tone
pad. You can give inputs to the moderator's assistant without
being heard by the participants, as if you were behind a one way
mirror. The sessions last for about an hour and a half and
provide about as much information as a two hour face-to-face
session, because they are more intense, and no warm-up is needed.
But don't you have to see facial
expressions and body language?
No. This is the most misunderstood and hotly debated - usually
before people have heard their first groups - issue about
telephone focus groups.
The phone is hardly an alien mode of communication. Most
people turn gestures and facial expressions into "verbal
gestures" on the phone. Without even realizing it, they make
remarks like, "Uh-huh, yeah, nah, umm," they laugh,
etc. Our conference system allows us to hear these clearly,
unlike others which only allow one voice at a time to be heard.
In fact, there are many advantages to phone groups which arise
from the fact that the participants can't see each other: (1)
People on the phone will usually verbalize in whole sentences
what would have only been a scowl or head nod. (2) The phone is a
very intimate and focused medium, allowing us to cover more in
less time. (3) People don't have a sense of group size on the
phone, so they are less inhibited. (4) Silence is less tolerable
on the phone, which draws people out. We use first names,
encouraging informality and protecting anonymity. Since there are
less social distractions, the participants settle down to a
productive discussion faster. Since people don't usually know
each other, there is less role playing.
More about this later.
How do you know who's talking? What
keeps it from becoming a chaotic free-for-all?
Telephone focus groups over our state-of-the art equipment,
using our methods, are more orderly, yet more interactive, than
face-to-face discussions. The participants use their names when
they talk. This becomes quite natural, even during rapid
interaction. If two people try to talk at the same time, our
computer screen indicates who they are, and if one does not defer
to the other, it's a simple matter for the moderator to call on
one of them, then the other. Of course, in a telephone focus
group, all remarks are automatically directed to everyone, so the
conversation never breaks down into side conversations.
Is any kind of special equipment
needed for the participants or the listeners?
No. Any ordinary telephone, cordless phone, or speakerphone is
OK. On our end, we have a state-of-the art teleconferencing
facility specially designed for telephone focus groups. There is
instant dial out to participants so people do not wait more than
a few seconds before being greeted by a live person and beginning
their discussion with the moderator. Our features include the use
of a fiber optic network which maintains the highest possible
fidelity and audio quality. People sound like they are right next
door. There is no voice blocking (where only one voice at a time
is heard, with the others blocked), so barriers between
participants disappear and interactive conversation increases.
The moderator is able to view asterisks on a computer screen
which indicate who is speaking. This enables him/her to respond
instantly to people by name and know where they stand on any
issue. Instant electronic participant polling is possible as well
as instant client contact with the moderator. Clients may
participate from ordinary telephone handsets, or take advantage
of our remote talker ID capability. This lets a client dial into
the conference system by modem, and view the same screen the
moderator is seeing. The client can know at all times who is
talking and who is voicing agreement. For more information on our
system features call me at 914-365-0123. There is also some more detailed information
on the conference system later in this report.
What kind of participant incentives
do you offer?
For 17 years, I offered no monetary incentives, not even to
physicians! The reason they participate is to compare their
experiences with a nationwide group of other people similar to
themselves, and to learn from each other, without any
inconvenience. A major part of the creativity that we bring to
project design is in selecting topics which are interesting
enough to the participants to attract them, yet which serve the
purposes of the research without biasing the results. At this
point, we offer honoraria. When this is done, we get somewhat
higher attendance rates and greater participant cooperation. The
rates are usually a little less that we offer to people to
participate in face-to-face groups.
How does the cost compare with
face-to-face groups?
Telephone groups are usually slightly less expensive, for
comparable respondents and moderators (keep in mind, however,
that we are almost always going after a higher level of
respondent). Sometimes, when you compare the cost of just the
recruiting and facility rental, this difference may be as little
as 10%, or even less.
However, it's in the "hidden costs," which are not
so hidden anymore, that the savings really become important.
Often, because of better geographical representation, you can
conduct less groups. So a six group project on all regions of the
country, may turn into a four group project, or stay at six
groups with more depth (and therefore more value). Then you have
to consider such hidden expenses as travel, extra people wanting
to tag along, and entertainment. When you add up slightly lower
facility, recruiting and incentive cost, no respondent or client
food, no travel, and less groups telephone groups can be
dramatically less expensive, sometimes even 20-40% less. The
research director of one company called me up when I previously
quoted such a figure and said that I was way off base: he said
that he usually has to travel with about 10 other colleagues to
each group. His travel is much more than the price of the groups!
In his case, he can cut his research costs by more than half!
Using the new remote video technology might be an answer, but it
isn't available in many of the smaller towns that he has to
cover, and video has its own severe limitations (such as the
camera often being pointed at the speaker rather than the rest of
the group, or all of the rest of the limitations of face-to-face
groups that are explained later in this report).
This, of course, doesn't take into account the less wear and
tear on the moderator and the client research manager and its
consequent improvement in productivity. You may have to stay on
the phone a few evenings, but there are no plane delays, airline
food, or other travel wear and tear. You can be back at work the
next morning rather than on a plane going to the next city.
Your mileage and savings may vary.
How long does it take to set up
groups?
About two to three weeks is usual, depending on our work load,
types of respondents, complexity of screening, etc. We have
conducted groups in as little as one day after our client was hit
with an emergency. Since we do not have to travel, we can run
more groups per week to get your study done faster.
Can outside moderators use your
facilities?
Yes. If you prefer to use your own moderator, or are a
moderator yourself, we rent our facilities to experienced outside
moderators. We offer a course on how to moderate telephone focus
groups. See the enclosed materials or call our office for details
on live and taped courses. I'm proud to say that some of the best
moderators in the country regularly conduct telephone focus
groups after taking my training.
I've heard telephone focus groups
that were terrible, with little interaction, poor audio quality
and an impersonal feeling from the moderator and the
participants.
I've listened to similar groups, both face to face and
telephone. Unfortunately, not everyone running groups is cut out
for it. Conducting telephone groups requires an extra measure of
sensitivity, together with an ability to project informality,
friendliness, naturalness, openness and psychological safety. The
telephone is an extremely intimate, personal, and informal
medium, but it is also very intense, and tends to magnify and
deficiencies of the moderator. The moderator has to be able to
take advantage of this intimacy, informality and intensity. When
you try telephone focus groups, make sure that you use an
extremely experienced moderator. If you have a favorite
face-to-face moderator, don't judge the entire technique of
telephone groups by that one moderator's first groups.
On the issue of poor audio quality: there is no excuse for it.
The session should sound as least as good as or even better
than, a regular telephone call. With the proper equipment and
training of technical assistants, there is no reason to settle
for anything but perfect audio quality and a high level of
professionalism from the people running the equipment. They
should sound conspicuously not like "operators."
Every detail, even the opening music that is used while people
are waiting for the session to begin, has an effect on the
dynamics of the group.
What do we get?
Usually included in our fee is: Design consultation,
recruiting, use of our telephone conference system, participants'
telephone line charges, moderating, summary report, tape
recording, telephone client/moderator debriefing session. The
only thing not included is clients' telephone line charges, since
they call us. Clients usually provide an inviting list. An added
bonus in most projects is a Decision Support Analysis, which is a
detailed breakdown of where the participants are in the decision
making process, including recommendations for how to move them
ahead toward adoption of the product. It is based on the Decision
Map, a flowchart of the product adoption process based upon our
experience with thousands of groups.
What is your background?
I am a completely recovered and reformed psychologist. My
training is in educational and clinical psychology, but my
primary interest is in the psychology of marketing, decision
making and persuasion, for which the formal study of psychology
has not prepared me, but several decades of marketing consulting
has. I have written and lectured widely on marketing and
marketing research, am the inventor of the telephone focus group,
the Decision Map, Persuasion Design Laboratories and The Experts
Exchange, discoverer of Total Decision Support and co-inventor of
the peer word of mouth group. I have been a Founding Member,
Treasurer and member of the Board and Executive Committee of the
Qualitative Research Consultants Association (QRCA), and have
been Chairman of its Professionalism Committee. I co-founded
TeleSession in 1970. As Executive Vice President, I was
responsible for the development of all programs and services for
nine years. In 1979 I founded Market Navigation, Inc. and The
Teleconference Network. I am completing a book on Total Decision
Support. In a strong belief that a marketing consultant needs to
be well rounded, I'm an avid photographer and windsurfer. I'm a
member of the Parent Assembly of the Society of American
Magicians and have appeared in its New York Close-up Magic Show,
and am also a member of the Academy of Magical Arts (The Magic
Castle) in L.A. I just like to do the impossible.
What are the different kinds of research
purposes that can be accomplished by telephone focus groups?
I have conducted PhoneFocus groups for the following purposes:
What is the best way to try them?
Try running a small project of 2-4 sessions, on a subject
where you anticipate having difficulty getting respondents to
participate. That way, the methodology is easy to justify to
skeptics within your organization: it's either telephone groups,
individual interviews (lacking interaction and depth), or nothing
at all. If you can, try it for the first time with a subject
which is a little less important, and thereby a little safer,
because you usually don't want to try any new methodology
on a critically important issue. About half of our new clients
try us in this way. The other half have a crucial issue, with
high level respondents, that must be investigated in a few weeks,
where they want many people from the home office to listen to the
groups. Telephone groups are the only way to go. This last
scenario lets you and us become heroes (we've always come
through), but, if at all possible, it's better to try to get to
know telephone focus methodology under less stressful conditions.
Under normal circumstances, telephone groups are relaxing, with
you at home in comfortable clothes, with your feet up and
favorite drink in hand, and your dog at your side. Also, you can
sleep in your own bed that night, with better research results to
talk with your colleagues about in the morning.
A surprising thing happened as I was writing this report. I
originally intended to write a guide to the telephone focus
group, outlining its specialized uses for difficult-to-reach
people. As I put down in one place things that I had never seen
together before, I began see them in a whole new light. I came to
an astonishing conclusion, which I'll get to in a moment.
After writing the first section on how I developed the
telephone focus group, I examined the conditions under
which both face-to-face and telephone groups are
conducted. In looking back at the thousands of both kinds
of groups I have conducted over the last two and a half decades,
I began to realize that I have been falling into a trap all these
years: I have been defending telephone focus groups as almost
as good as face-to-face groups, assuming with everyone else
that they could never be quite as good because you lose the
visual element which so enhances the ability to interpret what is
being said. The obvious justification of telephone groups, I
thought, was to bring together low incidence, hard-to-reach,
geographically scattered professional and business people.
I was wrong, wrong wrong. (The only other time I was wrong was
in 1972, when I thought I had made a mistake! [Just kidding.])
For me, the amazing and unavoidable realization that has
emerged is:
The telephone is the preferable
way to conduct most focus groups.
This may sound outrageous to you, but let me share some of my
experiences and thinking with you, and see if you arrive at the
same conclusion. Don't accept at face value anything I say. Judge
for yourself. After all, if I'm right, you may be able to cut
down the time you spend on airplanes, in hotels, and
behind - or in front of - one-way mirrors.
What happens when you put a group
on the telephone?
The phone has its advantages and disadvantages. Let's
understand them by first looking at the environment of
face-to-face groups and then comparing what happens when you put
a group of people on the phone.
Face-to-face sessions are the ones
that are unnatural
Most people reading this will have seen so many face to face
focus groups that they no longer notice how artificial the
situation is. As the saying goes, "The fish is the last to
discover water."
Ever since the focus group was moved out of people's living
rooms and clients started tagging along, the whole situation
has become very unnatural. (In fact, focus groups and
individual depth interviews are the only kinds of marketing
research where the client attends the actual the collection of
the data and is therefore able to jump to conclusions in the
middle of the research instead of waiting until after it is over
to jump to the same conclusions.)
Since clients attend focus groups, cities are often selected
according to where the client wants to visit, rather than based
upon strictly research considerations.
Respondents are asked to leave home to go to a facility in a
mall or office building. They often dress up - even professional
people - since they are going to a special place. They are
anxious about what will happen, what people will think of them,
and even if they will find the facility (those few who have not
been there many times before). They walk into a place of
business, with desks, fluorescent lights, a waiting room,
strangers walking around, and some very friendly people trying to
make them "feel at home." They are usually asked to
fill out a questionnaire, then ushered into a room with a table,
or a phony living room, with a big mirror covering one wall, and
microphones hanging down from the ceiling.
A wonderfully engaging moderator welcomes them, tries to get
them to relax, and tells them that there are "no wrong
answers," an obvious lie. In the meantime, they don't know
where to look, how to behave or what will happen. Even before
they introduce themselves, they are trying to size each other up.
During the discussion, they may worry about what will get back to
family, friends, professional colleagues or competitors. It is
usually inadvisable to mix men with women, doctors with nurses,
users with ex-users, or other combinations where people will tend
to intimidate or bias each other.
It is difficult to think of a situation which is It is a real tribute
to the better moderators, who can loosen people up as much as
they do under these trying circumstances.
That's the situation. There
are also abuses which should not be blamed on the face to face
situation itself, but which are made easier by the setting:
Respondents often see the clients in the hallway or hear them
behind the one-way mirror. Friends are often invited to different
groups, briefing each other between sessions. Of course there is
the chronic problem of "professional respondents,"
people who attend focus groups on a regular basis to supplement
their incomes.
There is also the overused respondent, which is
unavoidable in some cases. For example, some medical specialists
such as rheumatologists (arthritis specialists) are in short
supply. You have to have a minimum of about 50 in an area in
order to recruit a group. This leaves about 6 cities in which you
can conduct a face-to-face group. The rheumatologists in these
cities use the focus group as a social occasion. They are invited
almost weekly to someone's focus group. They are very selective,
participating every few months. They pick and choose according to
what topic sounds most interesting. In Atlanta, I heard such
comments as, "Hi Joe [another physician], haven't seen you
since the last focus group." "Are we going to be doing
a concept test, or position a product? I hope you have animatics.
I love them." They even stayed at the end of the session,
inviting me to listen while they gave me a "critique"
of my moderating, knowing that my clients were behind the one-way
mirror! Fortunately, I had warned my client that these would be
far from "virgin" respondents. Also, their critique of
my moderation was extremely positive. (They weren't so
complimentary about the food, however. One cupped his hands
around his eyes and pressed them to the one way mirror, enabling
him to see into the observation room. He said, "How come
they get better food that we get?")
I'm not saying that all participants are uncomfortable in
face-to-face groups, although most of them are at least somewhat
wary. Some are excited, and glad to get other adults to talk to.
Some are eager to perform. The point is that they are in a very
unnatural situation which tends to distort their responses.
This is widely regarded as the "regular" and
"natural" way to run focus groups!
Let's contrast this with the phone.
Telephone groups are more natural
The participant is invited, usually from lists provided by the
client, to participate in a telephone discussion on a particular
topic. Participants are selected with a representative mix of
urban and rural participants, from different geographical regions,
in fact, with whatever geographical restrictions are most
appropriate to the research objectives. The participation of professional
respondents and frequent respondents are minimized, since we
have the whole country to pull from and don't have to stay with
the same people in the major cities.
No one has to travel anywhere, since the participant
will use whatever phone he/she designates, usually at home in the
evening, sometimes in the office during the day. There is,
therefore, no anxiety about finding the location, or what
will be found there. Dressing up is obviously inapplicable.
Quite the contrary, people report that they have gotten out of
their work clothes into something more comfortable. An occasional
participant has mentioned participating in his or her pajamas.
They don't have to be made to "feel at home."
They Most people have a
room with a phone extension in which they can participate without
distraction. They are not "eyeballing" each other,
judging how they are dressed, pre-judging who they are and who
they remind each other of. There is no one-way mirror, no special
microphone (it's already there in the mouthpiece of their phone),
no artificiality of any kind.
They feel safer in their own natural environment,
talking into their own phone, eating and drinking their own
snacks, sitting in their own favorite chair, in (or out of!)
their most comfortable clothes. As they look around, they notice nothing
alien or out of the ordinary.
Adding to the feeling of safety is the subconscious
realization that if it gets too uncomfortable, or is not what was
promised, they are secure in the realization that escape is
easy; all they have to do is hang up, which is extremely
rare. No one sees them "walk out." (Of course, my sense
of safety is enhanced by the fact that I can disconnect
any participant who is disrupting the group, without the group
knowing that they have left. I've only had to do this twice in
twenty five years.)
They listen for a while to some music which is known to put
them in the right mood of relaxed anticipation (not
elevator or waiting room music!). A very friendly, and
conspicuously informal moderator gets on the phone with them,
introduces them to each other, gives them some tips on
participating, and starts the discussion. The introduction sounds
so personal that often participants are already responding to the
statements in the introduction as if the moderator is personally
talking to them, saying "Uh, huh," "Sounds
good," "Will do." This is because when the
moderator, or anyone else, is talking, his voice is going into each
and every person's ear as if he is talking directly to
that person. In contrast, in a face-to-face group, when I am
looking at one person, I am perceived as talking to him or her,
since I'm not looking at the others. If I move my eyes to all of
the participants, I'm perceived as not making personal contact
with anyone. So, in a face-to-face group, even though people
are.
Everyone is introduced by first names except for experts, who
are introduced by full names but urged to participate on a
first-name basis. The informality of the telephone
encourages this.
People are freer to interact, especially to disagree
with each other, since they can't see each other and don't
anticipate disapproving scowls from the other people. They
quickly and naturally learn to identify themselves when they talk
by mentioning their first names: "This is Joe, and I'd like
to add to what Mary said..." Also, since they can't see
each other, there is very little perception of group size. An
eight person group usually feels like only about three or four
people. No one is at the head of the table, no one is sitting
closer to the moderator, or next to anyone else. Side
conversations, sitting in the "power chair," passing
notes, and other distractions are eliminated. Also, people are
drawn out even further because silence on the telephone is even
more aversive than it is face to face, so people are quickly
drawn in to fill the vacuum. Yet, interruptions are less
frequent on the phone.
The electronics at our end process every line, dramatically
enhancing sound quality, volume, frequency response and clarity.
At the participants' end, they notice nothing different except an
unusually clear connection. What the participant hears usually
sounds like a normal phone call at its best, as it would be from
a friend down the block. What you hear is the best focus
group tape you've ever heard, since the microphones are an inch
from each participant's mouth!
Our electronics make it very easy for the moderator or
participants to interrupt, so that you can hear grunts, groans,
laughter, etc. This is absolutely necessary for moderator control
and participant involvement.
Since there is less intimidation, heterogeneous groups are
not only possible, they are highly productive. People you
would never mix before, such as surgeons and dietitians, or
cardiologists and nurses, can be mixed as long as they are not
from the same city. A nurse will take on several leading
cardiologists on the phone in ways that are unthinkable face to
face. Of course, you are not restricted only to the major cities
to get medical specialists, or factory managers, or hardware
store owners, or car dealers. Competitive issues are minimized or
eliminated. There are few professional or overused respondents,
since you can reach out into the whole country, rather than be
restricted to the largest cities for certain types of
respondents.
I have conducted extensive post session interviews with both
telephone and face to face focus group respondents. The telephone
respondents do have some anxiety and discomfort, but it
mostly centers around how eight people can possibly interact
naturally on the phone without chaos. There is also some
performance anxiety, just as in face to face groups. But there is
no doubt that telephone participants are more relaxed and
comfortable before and during the session.
In summary, the telephone focus group is characterized by informality
and comfort, coupled with the perception that
"everyone is talking with me," a lack of
visual distractions and intimidation, a feeling of safety
since participants are hiding behind their telephones in their
own natural environments, and a more accepting and intimate
contact. In a word, naturalness. All of these combine
to make people interact with each other more openly. In addition
to the greater interaction, participants can be chosen more
appropriately, since there are no geographical constraints.
This brings us to the conclusion:
The Telephone Focus Group is the more
natural, less artificial, superior "environment" for a
focus group.
It's not "the next best thing to being there."
It's
since it opens people up by removing artificiality and
introducing certain elements which work toward openness.
For years, I have been justifying why telephone focus groups
are almost as good as face to face. People ask me
questions which clearly come from their willingness to believe
that telephone groups can be almost as good, but lacking the
visual element, telephone groups obviously could never hope to be
quite as good. What I have now realized is that it is precisely
the lack of the visual element which creates the conditions that
allow telephone focus groups to be better than face to face.
Interpretation: how to do it when
you can't see facial expressions and body language.
O.K., but the case still needs to be made for telephone focus
groups being the preferred way of running a focus group. I
have established that the environment is more natural and people
are more open, but do you really get more information?
After all, people may be more open, but if you can't access
the information, you haven't achieved anything. Undeniably, you
are cut off from the visual channel in a telephone focus group.
You can't see facial expressions, gestures and body language, so
how do you interpret what the participants are saying?
Non-verbals are the key
Facial expressions, gestures and body language are part of a
more general class of expression called non-verbal
communication. The "non-verbals" as they are called
familiarly, are an essential part of communication. They tell us
a whole range of information, such as emotional content, strength
of beliefs, credibility and sincerity. Certain things like irony,
sarcasm, annoyance and other emotions are usually communicated
entirely non-verbally. Non-verbals are particularly important
when they don't match verbalizations. If you've ever read a
transcript of a group that you have seen, I'm sure you were
amazed at the difference. It just isn't the same group. The
transcript is the pure example of verbalizations without
non-verbals. As such, it is so misleading that it is
completely invalid as a data collection tool. You can't read a
group from a transcript alone.
There are other non-verbals besides
the visual
But facial expressions, gestures and body language are not
the only non-verbals. They are only the ones which are. If you've ever had the pleasure of knowing a
blind person, you know the kind of sensitivity they develop
without visual input. It's uncanny. They often sense emotions and
mood changes before you are aware of them yourself. How? By
hearing nuances in tone of voice, choice of vocabulary, pitch
level, number and kind of hesitations, rate of speed, trailing
off or picking up of volume, and many other speech subtleties.
There are many other non-verbals communicated auditorily, such as
"verbal gestures" like "Uh- huh,"
"Nah," and the like. A blind person can't drive a car,
but in the area of tuning into people, they are far from
handicapped; many can claim the advantage. Just as I have trained
myself to pick up subtle visual variations, such as
changes in skin color, I have trained myself, over thousands of
groups, to pick up auditory variations. I'm not nearly as
skilled as a blind person, but I'm getting there.
Furthermore, most people have learned to control their
visual non-verbals. People practice in front of mirrors.
Also, they have been to school, where they learned to fake
attention and interest so they wouldn't be "called on."
Some people have become very skilled at having a "poker
face." However, two things usually give them away: Their
eyes and their voices. People have even learned to look you right
in the eye when they are lying. But most people have not learned
to control their voices. They certainly don't stand in front of
tape recorders practicing.
In telephone focus groups, it's not only the voices that you
can learn to read. It's also the pace of the session, how fast
people jump in spontaneously, how much they ask questions of and
react to each other, their verbal gestures, laughter, sarcasm,
jokes, and silences. In short, there is an abundance of
non-verbals in telephone groups.
It's even better than that. When people can't see each other,
they translate many of their gestures into words, grunts, groans
and similar auditory communications. It's funny to see a small
child gesturing into the phone. Some adults still do this, but
most have learned to communicate on the phone orally what would
have come out as gestures. People actually change their behavior
on the phone, expressing visual non-verbals into a different
channel (oral/aural).
In addition, I have an indication on my computer screen when
there is the slightest sound on a line. Since the mouthpiece is
so close to everyone's mouth, I can hear and see even
slight intakes of breath, sighs, clearing of throats and other
subtle signs which would be impossible to discern face to face.
I actually use the fact that I can't see participants to
encourage greater expression. I tell them that since I can't see
them nodding or shaking their heads, I have to know whether a
given person is speaking for all of them, or is a minority of
one. But I also don't want them to waste their time repeating
someone else's comments to agree with them. So, I say, I would
appreciate a chorus of "Yeah, uh- huh, I agree," or
"Nah, disagree, nope." They catch on fast, and it is
often easier to tell consensus or disagreement on the phone than
it is looking into a bunch of wooden faces. Of course, when this
doesn't work, a simple "Where are the rest of you on
this?" works just as well as in a face-to-face group.
The fact is that in both kinds of groups, there is an
embarrassment of non-verbal riches - more than you can pay
attention to anyway and certainly enough to read the
group.
To sum up, in a telephone group you get greater openness,
willingness to engage each other, willingness to express
divergent thinking. In short, more information.
You do miss the visual element, but this element,
valuable as it is, is not as essential as one might at first
think.
With skillful attention and probing, you can
"read" a telephone group just as well as a face-to-face
group, sometimes better.
In balance, I firmly believe that you gain more than you lose.
Why they have not caught on more
The main reason that telephone groups have not caught on even
more than they have (their growth has been phenomenal) is that,
while participants are more comfortable on the phone than face to
face, the moderator and the client are not. Most of us have been
trained to rely on the visual element far too much, both for
control and for interpreting events around us. Most of us have
many years invested in learning to "observe." The
observance of "body language" has practically become a
cult, with an almost mystical flavor. No one wants to run a focus
group "blind." Everyone who runs telephone groups,
including myself even after all these years, feels the lack of
the visual channel as a loss.
The other reason that more telephone focus groups are not
conducted, especially in situations where face to face is
adequate, is that "that's the way we do them, that's the way
they've always been done." There is no problem, so "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it." This traditional thinking
makes it very difficult to justify telephone focus groups to
bosses and clients.
When someone wants to try them, they usually wait for groups
that can't be done any other way, since that's what will
rationalize their use. Then everyone at their company gets the
idea that telephone focus groups are for high level, rare and/or
geographically dispersed respondents, a belief which I have
unfortunately encouraged. I don't know of anyone who has heard
telephone groups who has not become a convert to the technique,
but I'm frustrated by how many of them have narrowly positioned
telephone focus groups for only specialized applications. I even
had one client who thought the only use of phone groups was for
in-home taste tests in distant test markets!
Some added benefits
It's much easier to get people back at the home office
interested in listening to telephone groups. There are the people
considered too "low level" to be allowed to attend
face-to-face groups who should (like writers, or assistant
product managers, or trainees) or people considered too
"high level" to travel to groups (like company
presidents, general managers, and directors of R&D). They'll
dial into groups they wouldn't dream of traveling to.
When to use Telephone Focus Groups
I have spent too much time over the years falling into the
trap of trying to justify and defend telephone focus groups. I
realized writing this report that telephone focus groups do not
have to be justified, it is face to face groups that do.
So, the answer to the question "When should telephone groups
be the method of choice?" is: Always, except in the
relatively few places where face-to-face groups are unavoidable.
I can't avoid conducting face-to-face groups when the
participants must actually handle the product (as distinct from
being sent a videotape), when security considerations are such
that you have to show them something that they can't be sent in
the mail, for day-long creativity sessions, and for groups of
young children. For most other sessions, even with relatively
easy-to-get participants, don't ask me to justify why focus
groups should be done on the phone; tell me in any givin
situation why they should be done face to face.
Where it's all going
I remember the days in the late 60's and early 70's when there
was a great debate, believe it or not, about whether you could do
quantitative surveys over the telephone. I'm referring to the
kind of surveys which require yes/no, multiple choice or
numerical answers. Procter and Gamble and others did a great deal
of research comparing sending someone around to ring doorbells
(malls didn't exist in those days, but fortunately people
answered their doorbells) vs. calling them on the phone.
It was found that, if anything, phone surveys were more accurate.
Then the debate turned to whether open-ended, qualitative studies
could be done over the phone. Many experiments found that it is
easier to discern over the phone whether people are lying. It
became acceptable to conduct depth interviews by phone.
Someday, the phone will be just as acceptable, even the
preferred way, to conduct focus groups. Most focus groups will be
conducted that way in the future.
Still Skeptical?
If you're still skeptical, I'll bet it's because you haven't
heard a phone group or you've heard some bad ones.
If you have heard some unimpressive phone groups, let me point
out a few traps.
Not every good moderator is cut out for phone groups. The
major mistake is formality coupled with a failure to get
participants to respond to and talk with each other.
Also, most telephone conference equipment was designed by
engineers to cut down on noise. But one man's noise is another
man's data. You want to hear snickers, titters, grunts and
groans. But most systems are voice blocked, so that you can only
hear the person talking. This inhibits interaction and makes
people feel invisible and ignored. You must be able to hear the
other participants in the background and, above all, the sound
must be natural, loud and clear. The electronics of most systems
shut down the group, rather than make them more accessible and
intimate.
If you've encountered any of these problems, don't blame them
on the telephone focus group technique any more than you would
let poor moderation or an inadequate facility invalidate the
whole face-to-face methodology.
There's no doubt about it: telephone focus groups require an
investment of training in listening skills and moderator
techniques; initial discomfort; and risk in convincing bosses and
clients. However, the gains are worth it.
Those of you who haven't used telephone groups, I urge you to
give them a try. Those of you who keep using them for specialized
applications, think about why you were so impressed. Don't you
think those reasons are enough to justify making telephone focus
groups the rule rather than the exception?
All you have to lose are your airline tickets.
Several telephone conference system capabilities vastly
improve telephone focus groups. I've gone through seven
generations of technology since I began conducting telephone
focus groups. The new generation is a much larger improvement for
the client than all of the other generations put together.
The improvements are the result of a state-of-the-art
teleconference system.
The groups not only sound different; the exciting thing to me
is that they are completely different psychologically. They have
a different flavor: more open, more energetic and more
responsive.
The current generation conference system allows greater
moderator responsiveness and control, more participant
interaction, and several new ways to run groups. Here are some of
these new capabilities:
A New Level of Audio Quality -
barriers between participants disappear
Our conference system uses a digital fiber optic network,
originally designed for high speed computer use, with multiples
more bandwidth than is usually used for voice transmission. This
means that the highest possible fidelity is maintained,
absolutely without static. This makes much more of a difference
than I thought it would. Everyone sounds like they are right next
door. There is a "presence" that has to be heard to be
appreciated. It all sounds so natural that you almost forget that
you are in the phone!
Also, since several people can be heard at the same time, you
can hear people saying "Uh-huh, yeah, I agree." While
this might sound like a disadvantage to the uninitiated, it is
actually a major improvement. I can now hear respondents agreeing
and disagreeing in the background, in contrast to the old voice
blocked systems where you can only hear one person at a time. In
voice blocked systems, there is a feeling of invisibility caused
by the lack of response to someone talking. Now I can even hear
someone clearing his/her throat prior to speaking, so that I know
that the person has something to say because I can hear it in the
background. Sort of the audio equivalent of seeing someone with
her mouth open.
The moderator can see on a computer screen an indication of
who is talking, clearing their throat, chuckling, etc. If several
people try to talk at the same time, the moderator can easily
sort out who is trying to talk. What this all adds up to is a
more relaxed, friendly and interactive conversation, with more
participant, moderator and client energy.
Instant participant polling - an
indispensable tool
It is now possible to poll participants electronically.
I have always been frustrated by the following situation: I
ask a question. The first response is deeply felt and expressed
fervently. That's why it's first! If other people in the group
agree, I don't know if the other participants originally felt
differently, but were swayed by the first remark. It takes time
and special techniques to uncover whether there were opinion
shifts.
With our teleconference system, before I open a topic for
discussion, I can take a poll by asking the question in a form
that can be expressed as a number. For instance, "On a scale
of 1 to 9 (with one the lowest and 9 the highest) how satisfied
are you with product X?" The participants can then press the
appropriate buttons on their phones. I instantly see the votes
next to each name and am able to know the relative degree of
satisfaction. This screen can be printed out at the push of a
button, to be reported later.
This capability has been an indispensable tool in some recent
concept tests, where I was able to quickly zero in on the parts
of the concept that were exciting and the parts that were
problematic to particular participants. At the end of each
sentence of the concept statement I had the participants push
their phone buttons to indicate their degree of enthusiasm. It
took only seconds longer than reading the statement straight
through, but saved about 15 minutes of sorting out individual
comments. I could then probe the problems and the participants in
a much more fruitful way.
Remote Talker ID
Another feature is the ability for the client to dial into the
conference system through a computer modem and be able to see the
same screen that the moderator is seeing. The client can see the
marks that tell the moderator who is talking, and see the results
of the polls. The client can know at all times who is talking and
who is voicing agreement.
Breaking down into smaller groups
A technique frequently used by advanced moderators is to break
a group down into subgroups. For instance, the face-to-face
moderator may have four negative participants and four positive
participants huddle in opposite sides of a room to marshal their
thoughts. They then meet as a large group to have each sub group
try to convince the other side of a particular position. Or,
especially in idea generation sessions, the moderator might have
the participants break off into dyads (two people at a time) to
break the ice and get the ideas flowing. They are then brought
back to report the ideas they think were best and the ideas they
thought were most ridiculous.
This breaking into subgroups can now easily be accomplished
electronically. So, any combination of people can be mixed and
matched instantaneously. A group can even be allowed to listen in
to another group, then the tables can be turned.
Instant contact with the moderator
In the older conference systems, the client had to call out to
get the assistant's attention in order to pass a note to the
moderator. Now, the client can press *0 on their touch tone pad,
and have the assistant come on to their line much more quickly.
Clients can huddle in a completely separate conference.
Instant dial out
Ordinary conference calls from the phone company can take
10-15 minutes to convene 10-12 participants (including client
lines). Before the installation of the current generation of
equipment, we used to take about 3 minutes. It now takes under a
minute, because all of the lines can be dialed at the same time,
rather than sequentially. This means that the first participant
does not have to wait for longer than a few seconds before a live
person greets him or her, and before the moderator starts the
discussion, further reducing the wait and increasing
professionalism.
Other features
There are other future features that are not as relevant to
focus groups, but are major breakthroughs in other applications.
For instance, there is now a question feature that lets people
who are on muted lines listening to experts, indicate by touch
tone that they have a question. Their lines can be un-muted in
order to ask their question. There is even a way to indicate that
their question has already been asked or answered, so that they
are not called on unnecessarily.
Many features for medical seminars and large sales forces are
also being developed.
The old-style telephone groups, especially the ones you may
have heard on other company's conference systems, are a thing of
the past. They started a little more slowly, people couldn't hear
quite as well, you didn't always know who was talking, people
sometimes felt invisible. They have been replaced by a relaxed
and open atmosphere, with absolute clarity, where the moderator
is able to respond instantly to people by name and instantly know
where they stand on any issue. I can go deeper psychologically in
a friendlier, safer atmosphere. It's amazing how a bunch of
seemingly small improvements can make such a tremendous
difference. I invite anyone who is interested in telephone focus
groups to call us and set up a short demo to hear what state of
the art sounds like.
Telephone focus groups can help you get inside the heads of
people who are otherwise difficult to research - people who you
wouldn't even consider researching under most circumstances, let
alone trying to get into focus groups!
This section is intended to stimulate you to think about the
kinds of people who you aren't researching, but should.
Leveraged influencers
Every product that I have ever looked at has people who
influence the ultimate purchaser: People who are up the
distribution chain, or who serve as advisors or who otherwise
influence the decision.
For instance, if a pharmaceutical product isn't prescribed by
physicians, it won't be bought by the patient. And it might not
be prescribed unless it's endorsed by the experts, or chief
pharmacists, or other formulary committee members. A replacement
auto part will not be installed if the technicians or parts
jobbers don't stock it. If a product isn't liked by the store
clerk, the customer might be talked into another product.
These people can have a tremendous effect on how well your
product is adopted. They may persuade, prescribe, endorse,
advise, specify, approve or recommend the product to others. I
call these people "leveraged influencers" because by
concentrating your effort on just the right place, their
decisions are multiplied and amplified. In many
cases, they are actually more important for the marketer to
influence than the ultimate purchaser.
They are very hard to research. They are besieged by requests
for interviews. They don't want to fill out or participate in
surveys. They have very little patience for one-on-one
interviews. Even when you can get them into one-on-one's, their
answers are often very terse, or extremely verbose. You are often
left with a confusing mess of contradictory opinion. You don't
know how they would react to the opinions of others. What you
really need are focus groups of these people, with the richness
and depth that you get from interaction, but focus groups are out
of the question because of the logistics.
These people are too busy and geographically scattered. In the
rare cases where experts agree to attend a focus group, they
often have to be flown to a central location. It's not unusual
for such a focus group to cost tens of thousands of dollars, when
you add up incentives, travel and entertainment. If the people
are from the same geographical area, often they don't want to
talk to competitors. One way to get them is at a convention, but
the people who will attend focus groups at conventions tend to be
a little weird. They are the types of people who will attend a
focus group at six o'clock in the evening in San Francisco. Don't
they have anything better to do? They tend to be the social
misfits. I call them the "plaid pants crowd."
What happens when the irresistible
marketing research technique meet the immovable respondents.
These "inaccessible" people tend to fall into
several categories:
