Part 2: Online qual methods
The coronavirus pandemic has fast-forwarded agency forays into online platforms. While all panellists already have experience of digital methods – often as a complement to face-to-face – all of our researchers now feel the need to expand their toolkits.
Clearly, online video groups are the standout solution – previously a niche option, they are emerging as the logical substitute for traditional face-to-face methods. And consumers are quickly getting used to video chat during the crisis. Plus they are increasingly willing to participate in research for additional social interaction, as well as to distract themselves from their domestic routines, and the gloomy news from the outside world.
But which types of online tools do our researchers recommend? Is there a preference for those purpose-built market research online group platforms, or have the more mainstream video conferencing services found favour?
Well, for one thing, the former have an edge in that they have been developed by established research suppliers, while they also have the advantage of toting tech support.
“I ran a group on one of these platforms last week,” recounts Alexandre Didier, Research Director at Paris-based Smartfrogs. “The technician was very useful because the respondents often had tech issues. He explained to each respondent how to connect correctly and finally, after 10 to 15 minutes, everybody was onboard and everything was working well.”
But there’s a suspicion that this tech back-up is required to compensate for inherent weaknesses.
“We tested one of those platforms against a video conferencing one and the video platform was much more stable,” says Eva Caspary, Co-founder and Managing Director at Insight Culture in Frankfurt. “Or maybe it was a coincidence and it had something to do with our Internet.”
Dedicated research platforms do have the (seeming) advantage of additional functionality, from silent voting through to marking up concepts and direct-translation options.
However, these go hand-in-hand with a technical complexity that feels somewhat at odds with the humanity needed for top-notch qualitative research.
“Initially, I thought purpose-built platforms were the way to go but I’m finding them over-engineered for our purposes,” states Sabine Stork, Founding Partner of London-based Thinktank International Research. “These services seem to be designed more for conducting UX research. They have a somewhat technocratic interface that I find gets in the way rather than facilitates lively, spontaneous dialogue with consumers.”
Jean Paul Petitimbert, Research Director at Smartfrogs, also feels that all participants in the process – respondents, researchers and clients – are better-served by less obviously high-tech solutions.
“This is a change for both us as researchers and for our clients, so we’re better off focusing on the conversation rather than trying to blind them with technology,” he explains. “We don’t want to experience a learning curve with consumers and clients. I think it’s more reassuring for everyone to use something easy. Technically speaking, I’d say, the simpler the better.”
Silvia Artiñano, Founding Partner at Arpo in Madrid, argues that the technical options with video conferencing sites like Zoom are sufficient for her purposes. And, unlike dedicated platforms, they do not carry a hefty price tag.
“They’re good enough and you do have options like the chat function,” she says. “And the client can view in a simple way with the microphone and the video off, very cheaply… actually at no cost really.”
Price is also an important factor for our Italian researchers, for whom purpose-built platforms are prohibitive cost-wise.
“Viewing facilities in Italy are cheaper than they are, for example, in the UK,” says Frederica Santucci, Founder and Qualitative Director at Lighthouse in Rome. “They cost less than these dedicated services.”
However, as her colleague Nicoletta Sada points out, concern over data protection and confidentiality may still push them towards research-specific solutions.
“If you’re showing stimulus material, clients may be nervous about a video conferencing service,” she explains. “That’s why some of them prefer to pay more for professional platforms”
Eva Caspary adds that Insight Culture is using a professional licence for the webinar functions of a video platform, and reports that, from a technical standpoint, “it has everything we want and it allows us to apply the necessary settings to avoid security breaches. But given the recent negative press about hacks we still have to explain this to our clients – and occasionally to consumers.”
Regardless of the service selected, online groups clearly still have limitations relating to size, length and style. Here our researchers recommend sticking to three key rules. First, ensure that groups are small. Second, make them shorter. Third, ensure they are sharp.
As far as the initial variable is concerned, our panellists recommend a maximum of five participants – a larger group than that has to be managed differently. Nicoletta Sada suggests “for four to five people a webcam works well, but for more than half a dozen we recommend a text chat.”
In terms of length, there’s consensus too.
“It’s not easy to keep consumers’ attention on a screen for a very long time, so we can’t run two-hour long groups – we can’t even go to an hour and a half,” states Silvia Artiñano.
Plus there’s clearly a need to keep the groups more tightly on-subject than with face-to-face – and this can mean deploying supplementary methods.
“We have proposed a split, phased methodology to a client,” explains Thinktank’s Senior Research Manager Keisha Herbert. “Step one is to run an introductory video interview. Step two is to let consumers try a product and upload their experiences to our digital platform in their own time. And step three is re-connecting with them via another video interview to probe on their uploads. It’s a well-rounded method and you do need to keep the interviews themselves quite to the point.”
In a similar vein, Clive Yeung, Managing Director of Shanghai-/Hong Kong-based NuanceTree, recommends increased use of individual pre-tasking.
“We ask them to do more substantial pre-tasks – we actually move all of the red-and-green and U&A parts of the research to pre-task,” he says. “We then conduct pre-analysis and mark all the things that we need to probe when we convene the online groups.”
In fact, it’s all about coming at it with an open mind.
“You need to adapt your methodology,” says Barbara Denneborg, Research Director at Insight Culture. “It means creativity rather than using special tools.”
And this begins with moderation. With online, moderators have to work the groups, using facial gestures and voice in an almost theatrical way. They also need to ensure that they keep the conversation flowing with individual tasks, the liberal use of projective and creative techniques and changes of pace.
Clive Yeung notes there has been a renaissance of that old staple, the friendship group, which has an element of poignancy during lockdown.
“It’s been quite magical as people aren’t able to see each other in person, so they are really happy to take part,” he explains.
And Sabine Stork feels that, while she prefers the directness of face-to-face, online also has some advantages.
“We can absolutely use the fact that consumers are in their homes, they can talk to us – and show us – their kitchens, bathrooms, living spaces,” she says. “For some categories, framing consumer thinking in their own domestics spheres can be an advantage.”
Plus, she adds, in the final instance, the quality of research thinking should transcend method. “We’re still dealing with people, we need to interpret what they tell us, in whatever way we reach them.”
As far as reaching people is concerned, the good news is that China is getting physical once again. Clive Yeung is planning regular in-person focus groups for next week.
“They will be face-to-face,” he states, “or should I say ‘mask-to-mask’.”
Round Table Participants
London: Sabine Stork (moderator) & Keisha Herbert, Thinktank
Paris: Alexandre Didier & Jean Paul Petitimbert, Smartfrogs
Frankfurt: Barbara Denneborg & Eva Caspary, Insight Culture
Rome: Frederica Santucci & Nicoletta Sada, Lighthouse
Madrid: Silvia Artiñano, Arpo
Shanghai: Clive Yeung, NuanceTree