Let’s start with a little prologue: This is my second attempt at writing this post. I handed the first iteration to our brand new Projects Coordinator, Dani Guerrero, to proof read. In doing so, I actually thought I was doing her a favor.
My thinking was that it would be an opportunity for her to work directly with the owner of the firm and to learn a little something from a guy who’s been in the business for 35 years.
Imagine my surprise when she handed me a printout of my post, covered in red ink with lengthy comments that soundly and thoroughly trashed much of my logic. To liberally paraphrase the entirety of her comments, she said something along the lines of, “The first paragraph and the last paragraph are ok. The other four pages…”
My initial reaction to those comments was one of mild bemusement. I enjoyed the chutzpah it took for her to tear my writing to shreds the way I would tear a new producers script apart. I had vainly assumed she read my post “The Red Pen” and was now attempting to make a point. The question, of course, was, “What point was she making?”
So I asked her.
The audio of that conversation can be found here
I also rewrote the post.
In reading through Dani’s comments, it became clear that she had made assumptions about what points I was trying to make. It is fair criticism to say that readers can be distracted by both the style and color of my writing. Similarly, it has not escaped me that I come from a family of storytellers who consider coherent points and clarity secondary to a good punch line.
With that in mind, there is one big point and two basic critiques I’d like to levy about how many organizations choose to use focus groups. Both of which come from recent experiences with M Network clients who shall remain nameless (but you know who you are):
The Big Point
Many organizations are on a quest to come up with big, bold, new and disruptive ideas. To do this they throw time, manpower, and money at the problem. Many times this includes the forming of committees and, especially in marketing, the conducting of focus groups. The goal of this often seems to be to get the greatest number of minds focused on coming up with the “next big thing.”
This brings me to my two basic critiques of this approach.
- In Branding and Marketing, Focus Groups are Often Misused and/or Misinterpreted
Focus groups have long been a very important tool in branding and marketing. They still are. Recently, however, many have lost sight of how to appropriately use focus groups. They don’t seem to distinguish between questions that are better answered by experts and questions that are appropriate for focus groups. They also fail to understand what a focus group is actually saying. Because of this, they risk turning the opinions of focus groups into branding decisions that can ultimately hurt or even kill a brand. - This Dynamic Is Not Relegated Solely To Formal “Focus Groups”
Many organizations use committees and teams in the same way. It’s a perfectly logical approach being that there is ample research to demonstrate that a group of people will generally make decisions that are less risky than those made by an individual. The limitation of this approach is that groups of people also generally come up with fewer innovations or radically disruptive ideas.
So, let’s start with my first critique, breaking it down into its sub points.
Focus groups are incredibly important:
Imagine walking into a restaurant. The waiter seats you, pours you a glass of water, and then proceeds to tell you that you’ll be having the liver and onions. He never gives you a choice. He doesn’t hand you a menu. He just brings you liver, onions and a bill.
That would be pretty presumptuous, right? How does he know what you want? What makes him think you like liver and onions? Does he even care?
As ridiculous as this scenario may seem, this is how many companies treat their brand. They don’t ask what the customer might want; they just start trying to sell stuff to them.
“Go with your gut,” some say.
“If you build it, they will come,” others opine.
“I know my customers,” many more spout confidently.
In truth, and in practice, the only thing statements like these serve is someone’s ego.
But there’s nothing new here.
Analogies similar to this have made their way into books, blogs, white papers and seminars throughout the branding and advertising world. In fact, so much has been both said and written about the need for quality, consistent audience insights that many industries have moved to the opposite extreme — so much so that a different commentary might now be necessary.
Many organizations have lost sight of how to appropriately use focus groups.
Close your eyes and imagine the restaurant scene again. You walk in. The waiter seats you and pours you a glass of water. This time, however, he just asks you what you want. He doesn’t hand you a menu. He doesn’t talk about the specials. He just asks what you’d like. And not just about food. He asks what color tablecloths would look best and whether or not the wait staff ought to wear black or something more colorful. He then brings a host of spices for you to try, asking which, if any, you’d like your meal prepared with and in what amounts and combinations. He peppers you with questions about recipes and décor and asks about prep time and how many busboys should the restaurant employ. Then he shows you the advertisements for the restaurant and asks if they’re the right color and use the right font.
You look around and notice that the place is filled with people, none of whom have ever run a restaurant, all giving different answers to their waiter’s questions. In response, furniture is taken away and replaced with different styles. People run out to shop for different ingredients. Chefs get fired and hired with each new piece of information. And ultimately the staff is so burdened with different responses that no one actually gets fed.
While ludicrous on the surface, this is how too many organizations think branding is done. They ask representatives of their desired audiences to define who their organization should be, what the organization should offer, how it should communicate, and to codify fundamental aspects of the organization’s mission, vision, expression and attitude. All of this input would be better gained by asking experts — both experts in your industry, as well as marketing and branding experts.
Unfortunately, for many organizations, branding is the act of ceding near complete control of how they communicate to a small, randomly picked contingency of potential customers of whom they know precious little about.
That won’t go very well… for a lot of reasons.
For starters, focus groups, people taking surveys, executive interviews, etc. don’t know what they want. They only know what they don’t want. If you show a focus group a product that is green and they say, “We’d rather see that in blue,” they don’t know that. They’ve never seen it in blue. What they are really saying is that they don’t like it in green. They may be saying they don’t like that particular shade of green. Furthermore, they might not like it in any other color either — because they haven’t seen it in any other color — but they know they don’t like it in that green.
An expert in branding might understand that the reason a particular color green has been chosen has little to do with it being “liked.” In the world of design, “liked” is subservient to being noticed, evoking a reaction or being remembered. Those are different, and more important, than “liked.”
We watched this unfold recently with an ad-testing project. We created an ad using a very strong, very distinct image of a child. She was wearing loud, clashing colors along with a rather smug, precocious grin. She evoked incredibly strong reactions from our focus groups, both positive and negative. When asked which ad they remembered, most participants could describe that girl, although many added, “I remember her for all the wrong reasons.”
That ad was passed over by the client in favor of a very similar concept featuring a girl that more people “liked” but fewer people remembered.
And this brings me to the second of my two critiques — also broken into sub points:
Many organizations use committees and teams the same way marketers use focus groups.
In 1907, a guy named Francis Galton witnessed a “guess the weight of the ox” competition at a county fair. He noted that the average of all the entries was more accurate of most of the individual guesses AND also it was more accurate than all of the cattle experts. Galton, who was also a cousin of Charles Darwin, published his observations and “the wisdom of crowds” theory was born.
After this, focus groups became widespread in academia and quickly came to be understood as a “scientific” process. By the 1940’s, academics — working for the U.S. government — were busy using focus groups to figure out how to best sell entry into WWII to the American people. From that point on, focus groups became a staple of persuasive communication strategies, not the least of which was advertising.
Throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, Madison Avenue’s utilization of public opinion research drove billions of dollars in revenue and, in doing so, created a near mystical perception of the efficacy of focus groups. Soon other business sectors began adopting the tactic to better hone their other business strategies and idea generation.
Not surprising, this also coincides with the rapid proliferation of both “corporatization” and “templatization.” These two concepts are often blamed for pulling America away from the age of invention and into an age of conglomeration.
That’s because:
Groups of people also generally come up with fewer innovations or radically disruptive ideas.
In James Surowiecki’s book, “The Wisdom Of Crowds,” the author cautions against how “herd behavior,” acts on the consensus or average of many opinions. “Paradoxically, the best way for a group to be smart,” Surowiecki asserts, “is for each person to think and act as independently as possible.”
He notes that herd behavior, while a good strategy to keep the individuals in the herd safe, also stifles any risky behavior such as innovation, imagination and creativity. Instead, the herd tends to eliminate any idea that isn’t proven, familiar or comfortable.
So what is the practical application?
Obviously this is not a claim that focus groups and committees are useless. In fact, it is quite the opposite. As stated earlier, they are incredibly valuable. However, focus groups and committees should not be confused with or weighted the same as the opinions and advice of experts.
When using a focus group or committee approach, it’s important to go in with very narrow and clear objectives for the group to achieve objectives that the individuals in the group are qualified to meet.
They are generally not qualified to create your brand or to dictate the mission, vision, and values of the organization. They can inform those decisions but they should not be used to make those decisions.
It’s also critical to clearly explain to the group, especially if it’s an internal working group, how the information you get from them will be used. Remember a committee brings suggestions; a focus group gives opinions (and a commission does stuff unilaterally). If you lead people to believe that you are going to do whatever they tell you to do, it can lead to disappointment, hurt feelings, and ultimately, distrust.
Finally, you’ll need to understand what the data that comes out of a focus group or committee really means. This starts by having clear goals for what you are trying to achieve with the group. It also requires a firm understanding of what the individuals in the group know, and, more importantly, what they don’t know.
The Big Finish
Focus groups and committees are useful to marketing, branding, and business in general. They help to inform decisions and test the impact of ideas.
That said, bold, new, innovative or disruptive ideas are rarely generated in groups and committees. Instead, they are most often conceived by desperate individuals working in dark rooms under intense pressure. Committees often direct these individuals. They may be informed by focus groups. They nearly always have a deep understanding of the topic, organization, or product with which they are working. And brave leaders with unflinching vision always support them.
So, if you’re looking for the “next big thing,” don’t form a committee. Find some smart individuals and allow them to shock you.
