‘Traditional Group Discussions’ –
Discuss
In the multi-social-media
world in which we live, it’s so easy these days to keep track of one’s
competitors. Indeed some of them make it
even easier, updating you as their ‘close connection’ on LinkedIn with their
latest company presentation, highlighting their new bell, whistle, flugel horn,
vuvuzela et al.
And it’s through a close
connection of a close connection I came across the heading for this particular
piece of bloggage.
Here was a research company
announcing the launch of its latest website, and a very fine job the company
seems to have done with it as well.
On closer inspection, however,
or after further ‘stalking’, as my teenage daughter might say, I clicked on the
qualitative offering for this particular company. And top of the list was the mouth-watering
prospect of ‘traditional group discussions’.
Having been a qualitative
researcher for more years than I generally care to advertise these days, I can
imagine why this particular heading might have been chosen. Group discussions have not had a brilliant
press for years, not helped in my view by programmes like The Apprentice, which
on one level promotes the use of market research, and on another, devalues it
completely by showing it done badly on a regular basis.
John Humphrys has not done
us too many favours over the years either, often using his most disparaging
tone when referring to the use of ‘focus groups’ when testing government
policies and the like.
This having been said,
however, I still don’t quite see why a company presumably trying to ‘sell’
group discussions would preface this term with the word ‘traditional’. Is it just me or does this not sound as
though these particular groups will be conducted by slightly out of touch
researchers, clinging to a method, which the very title of this offering would
seem to undermine.
Because ‘traditional’ to me
suggests an apology for a method, and not one with which I personally would
want to be associated. My groups might
use a ‘traditional’ format at times but these groups sound like they’ll be
formulaic in the extreme. Maybe they’ll
have ‘traditional’ respondents thrown in for good measure too, whatever they
might look like or act like.
Some might argue that my
getting hot under the collar on this topic is my just reward for stalking
competitors online. But my answer to
this is as follows: Just because group
discussions have been around for years, this does not mean we should
potentially start to devalue them by referring to them as ‘traditional’. To me this smacks of apologising for the
technique, as opposed to celebrating and promoting the same.
So what’s wrong with the
term ‘group discussion’, or ‘focus group’ come to that? Done well and done properly, this method has
stood the test of time. So let’s not
start selling it like a quarter of humbugs from a jar, or a loaf of stale bread
from Arkwright’s in Open All Hours.
Group discussions work. It’s official. Be proud.
Celebrate.
