SUMMER 1996
When I was doing CHR in the '70s, our Group P.D. conducted what he called "focus groups" with 30 listeners or more. But these were not focus groups...you can't get spontaneity and depth from groups that large.
And the "focus groups" some stations do with selected listeners after a music test may be somewhat useful, but they're not true focus groups. Respondents hardly come in with a fresh, unbiased point of view after hearing 400+ song hooks!
Here's the "real deal": Focus groups gather 8-12 respondents recruited by telephone, meeting specific qualifications (like demographics, listening behavior, attitudes). For around an hour and a half, the moderator conducts a discussion on topics of concern to the client, usually starting out in a very general way, then "focusing in" on key issues as the session progresses.
The size of a focus group is crucial. "Too small," and they're more easily dominated by one or two members. Fewer respondents also means fewer points of view. "Too large," and they leave respondents frustrated and bored as they wait to get involved. Large groups also preclude the kind of probing follow-up that provides deep insights.
Much has been made of focus groups' disadvantages -- small sample sizes, domineering individuals who can sway an entire group, and respondents who may not be representative of the average listener.
These criticisms miss the point. They are disadvantages only if you use focus groups for the wrong reasons...
Don't use focus groups to decide on your station's format. Don't even adjust its music mix based on focus groups. Don't fire a personality based solely on focus group responses!
Focus groups aren't intended to deliver definitive answers to big questions. Focus groups are an exploratory research tool.. Use them to provide insights into particular issues or even to determine what the issues are.
For example...
One reason focus groups are so powerful as an exploratory research tool is the synergy between respondents. Often, there is a "snowballing" effect -- where a comment by one individual triggers a chain of responses from others. Focus group respondents bounce ideas off of each other, even argue, and in the process come up with issues and insights we might not get at otherwise.
Another reason that focus groups are an excellent exploratory tool is that they provide the opportunity to probe respondents. Telephone interviewers usually don't have the time or ability to follow up comments with further questions that delve into the "why" of what respondents say or do. In focus groups, we can follow up, challenge respondents, play "devil's advocate," watch body language, and in all sorts of ways dig into their attitudes, preferences and perceptions.
There are certain things "everyone" thinks they can do. Everyone thinks they can create ads better than the ones on TV. Everyone thinks they can "pick the hits." Everyone thinks they can pitch better than the Detroit Tigers. (OK...One out of three.)
"Everyone" seems to think they can conduct focus groups. Consultants, P.D.s, G.M.s...you know, "everyone!"
The truth is, conducting focus groups is an ART. Everyone can do it...not everyone can do it well.
So, what makes a great focus group moderator?
A great focus group moderator really listens to what respondents say, so he can probe further. And he rememberswhat they've said (so he can follow up on any inconsistencies later). A great moderator is objective, not leading respondents in any particular direction. He "draws out" shy respondents, and doesn't allow others to dominate the conversation. He never lets the discussion stray from the topic for long, but is flexible enough to abandon "Plan A" and pursue the unexpected if it could be helpful.
In essence, the moderator acts as a "catalyst" for the groups. The best focus groups are "wide open" sessions that stay focused on achieving the client's objectives.
My personal moderating style is to make respondents feel comfortable, relaxed, "loose." I want them to have fun, open up and really speak their minds. It's a waste to run a focus group like a straight, dry "group interview." Spontaneity of the group (and the insights that can result) is what we're after.
All of this time, our clients are observing the process from behind a one-way mirror. It can be fun watching focus groups, munching on goodies from a deli tray and drinking beer or wine. Sometimes, though, I thing it's a mistake to put food in the viewing room, because the clients might choke on some of the things that come out of respondents' mouths!
One of the worst is when respondents credit your $100,000 contest or $500,000 TV campaign to your primary competitor. Yes, it happens, and it's enough to make a G.M. slit his throat. And it isn't very pleasant when they slam your station's morning man, especially if you are that morning man!
(It's a mistake to have talent watch a focus group...the results can be devastating to their egos. But sometimes, the morning talent and P.D. are the same person, and the P.D. really ought to be there.)
One of my most memorable focus group experiences was for a local TV news program. During one session, a female respondent was "slamming" the station's top female anchor -- her voice, her clothes, her hair...everything about her , this respondent hated.
This made the station's G.M., who was involved personallyas well as professionally with the anchor, increasingly angry. Finally, when the respondent said the anchor "looked like a whore," he lost it. Out from behind the mirror came a disembodied voice, screaming: "NO SHE DOESN'T, YOU F***ING B****!!!"
That group didn't proceed much further.
Despite potentially unpleasant moments, observing focus groups can be a very helpful experience for radio managers. Watching respondents talk about radio is one of the best exercises I can think of for getting managers out of "the radio zone" and into the way listeners perceive radio.