Focus on an online future

The introduction of the Betamax videocassette in 1975 was seen as a revolution in home entertainment. Yet, over time, it was superseded by VHS, laser discs, DVDs, Blu-ray and now IPTV, Video on Demand (VoD) and other hard-drive-based solutions. Despite all these changes in platform, however, the function - watching entertainment at your own convenience - has remained essentially the same.

From letters to email to Facebook and Twitter, the Atari to the Wii, the quill to the ballpoint pen, steam to solar power, ape to man - the underlying functional objectives have stayed largely the same, but small developments have delivered disproportionate and sometimes world-changing results.

The same evolutionary process is occurring in the field of qualitative research - while the function remains roughly the same, a number of small evolutions at a technical level have produced a genuinely revolutionary business solution, enabling banks to conduct qualitative research faster and more conveniently, to better quality and much less expensively.

Market research is well established in the financial services sector. Quantitative research, with millions of surveys and interviews conducted each year in the UK alone, is the bedrock of any new product launch, any change in messaging and any advertising campaign. It underpins short- and long-term business planning, customer satisfaction and retention strategy. Today, more and more quantitative research is conducted online, driven by increasing internet penetration and the inherent benefits in cost and timeliness - online quantitative research has become mainstream and it's saving companies fortunes on their research budgets.

Qualitative research, vital in shaping quantitative research and in helping to answer the 'why?' questions that it brings up, is also well established in financial services, and up and down the country hundreds of face-to-face focus groups are conducted each week.

However, online methods in this area are still relatively new and uncommon.

Staying focused

Focus groups are a familiar technique to any market researcher, and the online variety are directly comparable with their face-to-face predecessors. However, rather than travelling to a viewing centre and sitting on either side of a one-way glass mirror, with online groups observers, attendees and moderators all sit at home, or in the office, in front of their computers. Participants are recruited in much the same way as they would be for a face-to-face group. The moderator shows stimuli, manages group dynamics, asks questions using a topic guide and probes interesting comments. On completion, transcripts are provided, and the findings written up into a report, just as with face-to-face. A wide range of subjects can be covered within the online focus group, and the researcher can ask for feedback on a new current account, a new mortgage, a new ad campaign, or it can show a new website design and ask consumers to highlight the areas they like and don't like on the screen, and then probe why.

Addressing concerns

While conducting online qualitative research has been around for years, it's still relatively new to many. Some clients cling to face-to-face methods, viewing the online approach with more than a little scepticism. Why, when getting more for your budget is critical, do
they continue to opt for the 'traditional' offline option? The answer is that there's always been something 'touchy feely' about focus groups, and traditionalists feel that there's something essential about the face-to-face aspect when conducting qualitative research. If you're one of those people, ask yourself the following questions:

• How many times when writing or reading a qualitative report do you refer back to body language in the group? Be honest: on the whole, how much do visual responses really affect your analysis and presentation? How reliably do you really capture it? Video, scrawled note, imperfect memory? How rigorously do you review, verify, analyse, what you've recorded? When iCD Research probed researchers on the specific importance of non-verbals, 'managing the group' was mentioned a great deal more than 'adding crucial insight'.
• Is the presence of one good-looking person in the group affecting your discussion? We've heard all the positives of non-verbals, but what about the negatives? The plummy accent, tattoos, condescending laugh, broad shoulders, roll-of-the-eyes, Savile Row suit, long legs, piercings, seating choices and so on are all subtle signals that can have incalculable, harmful effects on group outcome. Some of these have been highlighted simply by virtue of their absence in online groups.
• Is the gentleman in the corner squirming because the idea tested makes him uncomfortable or are
  his piles playing up? The basic emotions aside, there are no well-established meanings for non-verbal signals. 'Incredulity' for the participant might be 'shock' for the researcher, and 'pleasant surprise' to the designer behind the one way mirror. Interpretation often says more about the observer than it does about the actor.

Face-to-face reactions, non-verbal signals and spontaneous group interactions are essential for a small number of subjects, but on the whole they are simply a security blanket and don't really affect the business and research objectives of traditional and mainstream qualitative research. It's in these areas where there are significant advantages to online.

The advantages

iCD's typical approach with new clients is to first run a small demonstration, to familiarise them with the methodology. The second step is to run online groups in parallel with face-to-face groups, comparing the results obtained by each method, and giving clients confidence that they are getting the quality of insight they require and aren't missing anything by using the new methodology. After that, the benefits of convenience and cost mean our clients quickly move more of their qualitative research online.

Quality

iCD's experience of running parallel groups online and offline demonstrates that the quality of insight delivered, for most topics, is at least as good online and sometimes much better. Respondents are more likely to discuss sensitive items freely in an online environment. Whether it's because they're in a more comfortable environment, or the format makes them feel more anonymous or secure, participants are less inhibited discussing difficult issues, and feel less inhibited by the potential judgement from the other people in the room. Online focus groups give better results for questions such as: How much can you afford to set aside for your children each month? How do you feel about falling into arrears on your mortgage? What is your credit card debt and how would you reduce it?

In a face-to-face focus group one person can sometimes dominate the discussion - they may know a little more about the subject area, or they may just be loud. Sometimes this can intimidate others in the group and their true feelings may not be uncovered. The online environment removes this issue as well. When the question is asked, all respondents start typing at the same time. No one is intimidated and no-one is spoken over.

Furthermore, client observers can easily converse with the moderator during the focus group without interrupting the flow of the session (they don't have to call the moderator out of the room for five minutes - they can just type a quick question or comment). They can specify which answers should be probed further or add new questions into the topic guide on the fly. It makes the whole study more adaptable, and more directly relevant to the needs of the client.

Speed and convenience

Face-to-face groups typically take weeks to arrange. When required, online focus groups can be turned around, from commission to completion, in 48 hours or less. Face-to-face focus groups require people to travel to the viewing facility, and that's a significant investment of time. Removing that travel time, for participants, observers and moderators alike, means that sessions are easier to schedule, more convenient and less expensive (there's no unproductive 'dead' travelling time, and no travel expenses need to be paid - see 'Cost', below).

As a client, imagine the relative impact on your diary of a) travelling to a viewing centre in London on Wednesday, in Birmingham on Thursday, perhaps staying over before going to Manchester on Friday or b) observing three focus groups from your desk at lunch time. Then multiply that by all the other observers. Then consider that the only reason you normally have a small number of observers is this level of inconvenience. With online focus groups you can have as many observers as you like, helping to spread the impact of the research through your organisation if you wish, helping to democratise research and making it easier for your internal clients to engage if you see fit.

Cost

The costs of online focus groups are much lower than face-to-face - there's no need to pay for travel time or travel expenses, and since it requires less time from respondents, incentive and recruitment costs are lower. There's no need to pay for viewing facilities or refreshments, either, and there's less need to pay for printing up media or other stimuli, since they can typically all be shown online. These reduced costs mean you can either reduce your overall research budget, or indeed do more research to a much deeper level, or with a much wider sample, for the same cost.

In a world where clients are looking for ways to maximise the insight they get from their research and marketing budgets, online focus groups give great bang for the buck. While some still cling on to face-to-face, the cost and inconvenience of that approach only makes it suitable for few, very specific types of research. Indeed clients, who often start off sceptical, are quickly converted once they compare results between online and offline groups, and the undoubted cost and convenience benefits mean they move more and more of their qualitative research online. The move from face-to-face to online focus groups is akin to the move from VHS to VoD, in that the same goals are met, but in a more convenient and less expensive manner.

Case study: face-to-face versus online

In 2007, a leading high-street bank set iCD Research a simple challenge: to prove that an online group would match the findings from traditional face-to-face qualitative research. The objectives of the research were centred on a new credit card proposition and the client wanted to explore consumer interest and potential adoption, opening up suggestions for improvements to the proposition and communication of the proposition.

To make it a fair test, iCD matched recruitment from its consumer panel for both methodologies, using the same moderators and exactly the same discussion guides as in the offline groups. It then conducted a two-stage online focus group, at 8pm
on Tuesday and Wednesday nights.

When comparing the results from the online and face-to-face groups, the key themes, initial feedback and suggested user improvements were completely consistent for both methodologies. Furthermore, the client viewed the online methodology more positively because it was faster, and the client was able to refine and test its proposition in real time and actively contribute to the session.

iCD has since run more than 500 groups for this client, across eight countries.