In-Home Group Discussions

Recently a reader of the Views called to ask about an exploratory research method she seemed to remember me talking about that was a replacement for focus groups.  I knew immediately what method she was referring to.  It is a method that at one time I called a "Tupperware party" but because there was someone out there in the real world that had been using the name for a long time, I decided to call it something else.  Actually, I really changed the reference name because the Head of my household thought it was in my best interest (for those who have not met my wife, she is the H.H.).  I ultimately renamed the method "In-Home Group Discussions."

I told my friend that surely I have written about the In-Home Group Discussion technique in one of my Views.  The technique is one of my favorites.  After scouring my copies, I could only find one paragraph in a Views written in June of 1998.

The In-Home Group Discussion is a technique that we started in the early 1980s.  At that time we were doing over 60 focus groups a year at a considerable expense.  in an effort to reduce costs, we experimented with what we called at the time, the "Tupperware Approach."  With this approach, we found that there were many benefits and little downside.  Not all our focus group research could be replaced with this approach, but most could.  The only real downside was that the participants knew the identity of the company.

The benefits were many, such as:

The out-of-pocket expense was $150 per group (and not $3,000).

The role playing by the participants was virtually eliminated.

Misleading information (lies) were basically eliminated with the group make-up of friends.

The clients were active participants by the fact that they were in the room and we did not permit them to sit in the corner of the room.

With the client in the room, they could actively participate and thereby obtain immediate clarifications.

At first we met resistance to the idea of using participants who knew one another.  But after our clients participated in a few of these groups, they found that the results appeared more reliable.  People have a tendency to be a little more objective (truthful) when among friends.  We found that there was far less role-playing when friends were involved.

We also found that when the clients are in the room with the consumers, they pay much more attention to the discussion at hand.  They would even participate, which we encouraged.  With the reduced strain on the budget, we found the interest growing rapidly.  Our clients were going out exploring Habits & Practices, attitudes about new brands, trying out new concepts, and what I really found interesting was that the Advertising people were taking portable TV/VCRs into the home to show new commercials to get feedback.

As a result of the demand for this type of research, we built a dedicated staff for the operation and development of the resources.  I have been gone from P&G for almost 10 years and I hear In-Home Group Discussions are still going strong at P&G.

Try it, it is fast, easy, reliable and very inexpensive.