Breaking the one-way mirror
Measured by the number of times people have tried to kill them off, you’d be forgiven for thinking that focus groups are the least popular of all research approaches. But despite numerous attempts on their ‘lives’, they remain alive and kicking.
Undeterred by such obvious resilience, Tash Walker of The Mix is having a go at putting a stop to them. Walker is fronting The Mix’s Campaign For Real Behaviour and “Death to Focus Groups” is one of its key slogans.
What’s the campaign all about and why are you pursuing this now?
Tash Walker: The campaign is about taking a no-nonsense attitude to research. Often research methodologies have been designed to suit clients and moderators rather than focusing on the best way of understanding how people behave. Behavioural economics has opened up this debate, but it’s really just a fancy way of saying that research tends to over-rationalise people who tend to make decisions in an emotional way.
Many people have tried to kill off focus groups before. What makes you think you’ll succeed?
TW: Before The Mix I didn’t work in research, I worked in packaging and branding so my background is in communications. People have tried to kill focus groups before but without success because they have failed to see the job at hand as a job of communication. The methodology is the hygiene factor. More important is the principle of telling this story in an interesting enough way that people sit up, take notice and see an attractive alternative. You need clients and other agencies to start doing this before you can expect to see traction. Luckily we are starting to see both happening already. We will succeed because there is no other option. Research needs to change if it wants to thrive in the next generation of marketing activity.
What if research buyers are happy with the status quo?
TW: I don’t believe that there really is such a thing as a status quo in research anymore, but I accept that there are clients for whom this won’t be their cup of tea. However, we also know that there are plenty of others for whom research just simply isn’t working anymore.
“Traditional qual research has got away with murder in terms of fees for running mediocre focus groups”
In the campaign literature you say that real life is “alive and messy and social and irrational”. But it’s also complex and takes time to understand properly. How can we, as a sector, produce real insight into real behaviour in a time frame and at a price point that clients are willing to pay for?
TW: One of my biggest bugbears of research when I was working in branding was that the budget for doing validatory research seemed like a massive expense compared to doing the campaign work itself. Traditional qual research has got away with murder in terms of fees for running mediocre focus groups. The solution to this is using lots of digital technology to get into people’s lives over time in a meaningful way.
Instead of an hour, you get two weeks of a person’s life and all of the complexity that goes with it that can give campaigns real tension and strength early on, not just a bit of tinkering around the edges or – worse – meddling halfway through the creative process. In our experience, the price of doing this sort of work is comparable to running a six-to-eight group project, and often comes in a bit cheaper.
This is not a budget issue, this is about understanding how important insight can be when it is real and meaningful and you know what the hell to do with it at the end of the process.

We hope you enjoyed this article.
Research Live is published by MRS.
The Market Research Society (MRS) exists to promote and protect the research sector, showcasing how research delivers impact for businesses and government.
Members of MRS enjoy many benefits including tailoured policy guidance, discounts on training and conferences, and access to member-only content.
For example, there's an archive of winning case studies from over a decade of MRS Awards.
Find out more about the benefits of joining MRS here.
22 Comments
Jeroen Verheggen
12 years ago
I love this website and the stories on here are getting better every day! This person's own company website offers focus groups at the top of their lists of services yet argues they are a waste of time! Brilliant
Like Reply Report
Anon
12 years ago
I think that this campaign is complete nonsense (and especially as the agency in question themselves offer focus groups at the top of the list of their capabilities!). Clients are short-changed when they use sub-standard moderators who in-turn use sub-standard recruitment. There's no status-quo in the industry - the approach must always dependent on the brief. When done well, groups remain hard to beat for value and insight.
Like Reply Report
sam ladlow
12 years ago
I can't see focus groups on the services list? Interesting article, whatever you think, at least they are not sat on the fence. I love the website as well!
Like Reply Report
Brian Tarran
12 years ago
@sam @Jeroen is/was correct. 'Focus Groups' were listed under the services tab an hour ago. They've since been replaced by 'Friendship Triads'.
Like Reply Report
Matt Minns
12 years ago
Some good points and great for their business but I'm surprised at the lack of range in this article. It fails to discuss the many circumstances when digital methods just aren't available or how effective the visceral, human, immediate and creative the discssion format (focus group or otherwise is). And ... just how good 'talking' is at getting at and exploring emotions.
Like Reply Report
Fake Researcher
12 years ago
I think a series of discussion groups would have identified that the website content wasn't appropriate for this article
Like Reply Report
Robert Dodds
12 years ago
A pendant comments: A one way mirror is called, well, a mirror. All the viewing facilities I've ever seen have two way mirrors, with the room on one side in stygian gloom and the other brightly lit. GCSE Physics.
Like Reply Report
Bob Cohen
12 years ago
I'm sorry Tash, but that's a bunch of BS! Your solution to killing focus groups is small types of qualitative research like triads, 2-week ethnographies with a handful of people, and semiotics (which is useless in market research)? I'm sorry, but your firm is serious trouble for the future. You may trick a few clients with big budgets to go for your process and probably a few advertising agencies because they love anything that is anti-research and looks pretty, but this business model won't last. You're simply offering the same things every other qualitative research firm offers and most clients actively choose to ignore because they're not helpful and the sample size is FAR too small to mean much. Also, your hypocrisy in offering focus groups (or now triads) on your site tells me everything I need to know about your knowledge of the industry.
Like Reply Report
Anon
12 years ago
I guess they ran a focus group and renamed their service list
Like Reply Report
John Grono
12 years ago
Interesting choice of wording ... Friendship Triads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_(underground_society)
Like Reply Report
Brian Tarran
12 years ago
@Robert The terms one-way and two-way mirror can be used interchangeably – although it does seem counter-intuitive.
Like Reply Report
Tim Osborn
12 years ago
Using digital to get under the skin of your customers is often about moving closer to the face to face experience of actually talking to them. Often, simple is best (although not necessarily using focus groups).
Like Reply Report
Anon
12 years ago
Hilarious! At least they're quick to act. Otherwise sounds like emperor's clothes ... And shouldn't research mag schecked their methods before giving them such a big PR plug?
Like Reply Report
Anon
12 years ago
Looks like a boutique agency looking for a point of difference without appearing to offering anything new. Video on site is uninformative. Opens up an interesting discussion but does nothing to move it forward.
Like Reply Report
Anon
12 years ago
It sounds like tash has hit a raw nerve judging by the comments. Credit should be given for taking a fresh approach. She certainly got a reaction and is just getting a bigger pr plug from the comments
Like Reply Report
NickD
12 years ago
"Jeroen is/was correct. 'Focus Groups' were listed under the services tab an hour ago. They've since been replaced by 'Friendship Triads'." Ha! So I've yet to read in here what the proposed alternative is and why we should consider it. Not exactly the most compelling case ever...
Like Reply Report
Goeff Bayley
12 years ago
I guess any research method is only as good as it's exponent and this is certainly so with group discussions. A more appropriate campaign is death to bad moderation not death to the focus group. Done properly, groups fulfil Tash's description of life as 'messy, social, irrational' that is precisely the point, while done badly they do frustrate as overly rational
Like Reply Report
Pete Robinson
12 years ago
I think Geoff has hit the nail on the head. There are two decisions that researchers can get wrong: 1. Not being thoughtful enough to apply the right methodology to the brief (and the client). And the industry may have over used focus groups. 2. A lack of creativity and planning in the preparation of the chosen methodology. Appropriate participants and tasks, can make a focus group very messy and social On a side note, Brian - the first edition of the Quarterly mag was a jolly good read, thank you.
Like Reply Report
Brian Tarran
12 years ago
I'm pleased you enjoyed it, Peter.
Like Reply Report
Anon
12 years ago
I suppose they could'nt call the campaign #focus groups are not great. Its intentionally provocative
Like Reply Report
Donna Bonde
12 years ago
I also find it a bit strange that someone who isn't trained in research appears to believe they have the right to comment on the appropriateness of research methodology. And no, a background in packaging is not a research background. Criticizing focus groups criticizes a whole swag of academic disciplines. Focus groups are just one of the many tools and methods that qualitative market researchers have borrowed from psychology practice. Just like a psychologist needs to be properly trained and experienced to get the most out of group therapy, a qualitative researcher needs to be properly trained and experienced to get the most out of a focus group. Basically any kind of research methodology (including quant) is a waste of money if those in charge aren't well trained. No amount of new technology (like the digital methodology referred to in the article) can make up for this. I cringe to think of the quality of research being produced by The Mix and hope their clients aren't blindly following their lead.
Like Reply Report
Marie Lemerise
12 years ago
It is always great to see a heated discussion of discussion groups, aka focused groups. I had to LOL when Brian posted that the company changed the FG listing of services to Friendship Triads - yet another mirror bound method. Tash rightly touts the value of Real Behavior in Real Time (latest buzz words in our evolving industry). Such methods are making a meaningful difference. There will also remain a role for face to face methods as well - whether ethnography or depth interviews or the interaction of a few focused groups. Bashing this old method is tiresome, yawn. What is known generically as "focus groups" still delivers value when done with skill and analyzed by insightful practitioners.
Like Reply Report