My qualitative toolbox has grown with current online technologies. And the possibilities promised by evolving technologies are endless.

It’s intriguing to contemplate how these changes influence not only the way I might do research, but no doubt, the way I think about and frame research issues.

Never a dull moment, that’s for sure.

But exciting as it is, it’s always a good idea to stop and think. And here’s something to think about…

Lunch

You catch up with a friend (in real life) for lunch. You talk about this, that, and the other.

While between catch ups you talk on the phone, email each other often, are Facebooked, and have been members of the same online community for over 5 years, sitting down, face to face, puts a whole different angle on your understanding of their life. It provides a completely different context.

Watching their face light up when you ask after their kids, seeing the micro-frown when you discuss topic X, and observing their extended search through their handbag to avoid discussing topic Y; these are all things you could never pick up online.

The conversation takes paths that your online conversation couldn’t have travelled (and this works the other way too, but stay with me here…).

Take this into a research context, and you realise that while you can get some (often surprisingly) deep and passionate reads on emotion through written words, images etc via online methods, there are times when you’re just going to need more.

Springboards

The nuances of body language provide the researcher with cues and real life stimulus. A pause, a frown, half a giggle; all invaluable springboards to discussion.

And this dynamic is something that, quite patently, offline research can provide over and above an online dialogue.

I stress, this is only important if it’s important; it depends solely on the task at hand.

But for the most part, I like a side of offline context to go with my analysis.

And because of the above, I don’t think qualitative market research methods will change quite as fast as one might be led to desire or believe.

At least not the ones that provide the relatively comprehensive insights I need in order to do my job well.

Broadly speaking, and within the context of gathering qualitative consumer insights, online communities fall into two categories of interest;

1. Existing communities: virtual spaces where people with shared interests have gathered

2. Manufactured communities: virtual spaces where people who have been paid, or given some other incentive to offer their opinion come together

Are online communities, as described above, the goldmines for insight they’re being sold as?

Here are my thoughts;

Existing communities

These are communities that have naturally evolved to address member based interests and needs. Sport, parenting, cooking, fashion, music, social media etc – all have online communities that congregate in various virtual spaces across social media land (eg MSN or Yahoo groups, Facebook, blogs etc).

Theoretically at least, existing communities are a great resource for qualitative researchers. ‘Real’ conversations that often happen in relatively real time, minus any research effect. Insight heaven!

But what about in practice? Three key issues come to mind;

1. Sample

My old favourite, sample. Who are the community members? Do they represent the target market? There’s no way of telling.

2. Access

Many existing communities, and possibly the most interesting ones, are private; unsearchable for a start, but also, locked behind membership and passwords. If you can’t see them or hear them, it’s going to be difficult to glean any insights!

3. Professional ethics

Without the context of the market research ‘deal’, where critically, research participants are aware of, understand, and agree to participate in the research process, how should one proceed?

Should the researcher disclose their market research agenda? Is it unethical not to do so?

And if they do disclose their role as research participant/observer, how will the community respond? What effect will the researcher’s presence have on the community’s ecosystem and/or shape of the discussion? These unknowns make analysis a risky business.

Manufactured communities

Many researchers call them communities. They sell them as communities. Quite frankly, I’m not sure that manufactured communities (manufactured for the purposes of market research) should actually be called communities at all. Rather liberal use of the word ‘community’ in my opinion. A more accurate description would be a ‘purpose built environment’.

But notwithstanding the misnomer, from where I sit, manufactured communities are simply an inefficient, high cost, low return version of an online bulletin board focus group.

Here are my questions about manufactured communities;

What’s the cost of manufacturing, hosting, nurturing, monitoring and maintaining them to gather qualitative insights?

Where does analysis begin? Where does it end? What kind of questions are you trying to answer anyway?

You want consumer insights?

I can give you a thousand insights.

You all know how in love I am with BBFGs. Well, here’s another reason to love them: they’re relatively green!

Doing qualitative research online is actually a green step in the right direction carbon-emission wise. No flying or driving around to do fieldwork.

Good one!

Before I wrap up on BBFGs, it’s probably worth noting cases where you wouldn’t use them.

Where you need to observe how people behave, ‘live’ research is obviously going to be a better approach. Other instances where BBFGs aren’t going to work as well as traditional groups are when the segments of interest don’t have access to, or aren’t comfortable using the Internet.  

It’s really just stating the obvious, but deciding when to use, or not use, a BBFG approach is simply a matter of looking at the research objectives and thinking through the sample considerations.

BBFGs open up a whole new world of possibilities. 

No compromise on location, sample or insights. You’re providing respondents with a relatively safe and anonymous environment, conducive to deep thought and honesty. You’re giving them thinking time. You’re giving them air time. It’s a level playing field where everyone looks the same, give or take a font point size.

BBFGs address so many of the compromises we face with ‘traditional’ research: compromises we’ve accepted because there just wasn’t a viable alternative.

Exciting times ahead.

People who buy research are, for the most part, busy individuals. That’s why they commission us to do research (that and the expertise thing).

Despite best intentions, they don’t often attend focus group sessions. Their internal clients might also be pretty thin on the viewing ground.

This is not good for the research output. The methodology and reporting are first in the line of fire for anyone who may not like the findings. The big black research box (of course, it isn’t, but it must seem like it is) can’t be trusted.

In contrast, a fantastic level of client involvement is possible with BBFGs. Every stakeholder can observe the groups. And they’re much more likely to, because they can observe them at their convenience. As they happen, on a Sunday, or at midnight. Whenever they feel like it. And there it will be, in black and white (!). The actual verbatim.

This increases the likelihood of buy in to the research process – and the findings – enormously.  

In the past year or so, it’s tipped: I can’t think of more than a handful of segments of interest to market researchers that aren’t living at least some of their lives online.

And most of these segments not only have access to the web, but are (now) also very comfortable using this medium to communicate.

They write and forward emails to friends who share, or emphatically don’t share their views. They contribute to bulletin boards aligned with, or diametrically opposed to their interests and values. They have their own blogs or comment on others’. They’re likely to be even more comfortable communicating this way than they are in real life.

The point is that often, and increasingly, they’re using these media to voice their opinion: to make themselves heard.

Isn’t that exactly what we ask from respondents in our research focus groups?

BBFGs mirror the way people voice their opinions and communicate with others, including corporations, in the real world. 

We’ve recently been experimenting with over time, online groups, aka bulletin board focus groups (BBFGs). BBFGs are conducted in a virtual group room, using browser based, and usually dedicated, software.

In contrast to real time online groups, the BBFG ‘session’ typically runs for a few days (but could run over several months). The moderator posts questions over time, and respondents have the flexibility of logging on, at their convenience, to answer questions and interact with other respondents.

I think that BBFGs are the most exciting thing to happen in qualitative research in a very long time.