While focus groups have been a standard market research tool for decades, they have become increasingly popular in recent years for research by businesses as well as political candidates, professional and trade associations and others. This article briefly summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of focus groups as a research device compared to the more widely known survey method.

In focus groups between eight and 12 people meet with a group moderator, usually in specially designed facilities that include conference-style seating, a one-way mirror, a taping system and, in many cases, a kitchen. The participants are recruited based on possession of certain traits, depending on the subject of the research. My firm, for example, has conducted focus group meetings of union members, pet store owners, high school English teachers and certain types of voters.

The client is able to observe the proceedings by sitting on the opposite side of the one-way mirror. At the conclusion the client usually receives a copy of the taped proceedings and a report.

There are normally two reasons for conducting focus groups. In advance of a large-scale survey which uses telephone or personal interviews, a series of focus groups will test ideas that are being considered for inclusion in the survey. In addition, the groups can generate some new insights that the researcher and the client had not considered.

The second and more prevalent reason to commission a focus group is because the participants need to evaluate products. They may need to taste a number of sample products, watch a series of commercials or examine varying formats for text books. This would be virtually impossible to accomplish in a usual type of survey. A major advantage of focus groups is the ability of client and researcher to see and hear individuals instead of having their responses abstracted into numbers. Clients are especially interested in watching "real people" respond to their products or ideas.

Listening to individuals can be especially helpful in gauging levels of intensity that could not be communicated through numbers alone. For example, in a survey the client can see that 85 percent of a union's members did not like their working conditions. In a focus group, however, the client could hear the frustration and vehemence of employees when describing their working conditions.

In addition, if the researcher uses a questionnaire throughout the course of the group meeting, it is possible to compare individual responses with the group discussion. These differences can be very important for a researcher and his client when considering various marketing strategies.

One might ask why focus groups aren't always used instead of the usual surveys. After all, they provide:

• an excellent view of the intensity of the responses to various stimuli;

• the ability for participants to evaluate products, whether they be campaign ads or upscale beers;

• instant access by the client to the participants' response;

• the opportunity to watch real people rather than to interpret their actions through the abstraction of numbers.

The factors that make focus groups so useful also create some problems. The first is the cost. While a large scale survey might cost $20-$30 per interview, focus groups might cost $200-$300 per participant. Participants are normally paid to attend these meetings, which last one-and-one-half to two hours. Second, there are more costs: the recruiting process, the rental of the facility, the moderator's time, the design of the materials, the report writing.

What often happens, especially clients who are not very experienced with focus groups, is that one group — or two — provide resounding affirmation or damnation of an idea or a product, and the client says, "I know what people are saying and we don't need to conduct any more groups." The problem is that this conclusion may be based on the responses of people. In a usual survey, a respondible researcher would either ignore the results from only 20 interviews, or would be very leery of their findings since, under the best of circumstances, the margin of error would be + /- 22 percent. Even after conducting 10 meetings with 10 people in each, the findings would be subject to a maximum sample error of + /- 10 percent. While randomness is important in selecting the sample in a usual survey, it is usually ignored in focus group recruitment. One of the dangers is that the attendees, who are often recruited by the specialized facilities designed for focus groups, may be frequent attenders and therefore, not representative of the normal population. The point is that focus group research relies more on intuition and less on mathematics than do usual surveys.

Use of a questionnaire in focus groups can be very helpful in two ways: It requires that the client and the researcher clearly identify the objectives of the study, and it insures that key topics are covered. A questionnaire is also useful in exploring the differences between individual and group responses.

One of the most difficult questions to answer is, "How many focus groups should be conducted?" There is no definitive answer; it depends on their purpose. For example, if the groups are being conducted to test ideas for a survey or if the objectives are very limited, then two groups may be sufficient. If focus groups will likely be the sole source of data, however, or if some very weighty decisions are being based on the results, then the client might consider commissioning the groups in bundles of four. After four groups, the client can evaluate what has been learned and then consider the need for additional work.

Usually, when the findings across four or more groups begin to develop a clear pattern of consistency, the optimal cost-benefit point has been reached. Clients who have a long-term relationship with their product will also have an excellent sense of the point when diminishing returns have been reached with the groups. Like all social science research methods, focus groups should only be used after considering the alternatives. While intimacy is their advantage, their weakness is the inability to generalize.