The World’s Worst Focus Group?

As we are about to start the Conference season, I want to pose the question as to why the “Panel Discussion” is becoming ubiquitous at these events?

Actually, that’s a rhetorical question.

Having been client side for 27 years I was regularly invited on to such Panels, so I already know why:

1. The Conference organizer gets to slap the equivalent brand logos on the pre-event marketing collateral – so if you manage to get four panellists to agree to participate and you get four logos: that’s gold dust for ticket sales.
   
2. It’s an easy sell-in to get panellists to attend – the sales patter goes as such: “no prep from you required; I will send you some questions but don’t worry, there’s nothing to prepare in advance; just pitch up on the day”.
   
3. Therefore, it’s easier to get clients to say yes to be on a Panel Discussion than it is to get them to present. So, more clients attending – gives you more impressive logos to use in your marketing – gives you more agency attendees paying to see what the budget holders have to say.

Everyone’s a winner, right?

Well, no. I don’t think they are. In my humble opinion, Panel Discussions are now the equivalent of the World’s worst Focus Group.

Think about it. The facilitator/moderator/host will think up some easy questions and ask a few of each panellist before running out of time (because one panellist has talked too much). The panellists can make up any answer they want and go unchallenged for fear of causing embarrassment.

As a sector, would we be happy if this were a Focus Group? Are we learning anything from this vanilla group consensus?

We all readily accept that the Say/Do Gap is a killer for the insight sector – just as we would never (we wouldn’t, would we?) ask respondents a blatantly leading question: “do you think being kinder to the environment is important?” and sit and listen to their predictable answers, believing everything they say without challenge. So why do we allow this with Panel Discussions?

Recently, I sat watching one such Panel (names/brands have been redacted) at a major Conference in London:

• I had to pick my jaw up off the floor when a panellist from a Government Department stated that it was her team’s responsibility to “represent the citizen during Covid and we did a damn good job” – the moderator said nothing despite the inevitable sniggering from the audience; no follow ups to challenge, delve deeper or probe.
  
• There was then a question from the audience asking another esteemed client panelist if they were happy to have research briefs challenged by agencies. He enthusiastically answered in the affirmative. At which point the CEO of a large and respected agency, sitting next to me, leant over and whispered, “that’s utter BS……him and his team are our worst clients for telling us to do as we are told; but they’ve got big budgets so what can we do?”

Have we not moved on from these 1970’s style Focus Groups? Have we not learnt ways to overcome the Say/Do Gap? Are we not better than this?

Of course (as in any Focus Group scenario) the moderator/facilitator is absolutely key. Their job is not to ensure everyone has a lovely time. They need to ask probing questions; pointing out the fallacies in responses; challenging and digging further. Their job is not to let the respondent simply say what they believe people want to hear. All the same principles of great qualitative research apply but, in a Conference setting, these principles are seemingly forgotten.

In conjunction with some like-minded colleagues, we have tried to start the fight back against this on-going tide of blandness:

• With my colleagues at FlexMR and Keen as Mustard Marketing, we introduced “Room 101” last year at the MRS Conference and Quirks. Consisting of four clients on stage with myself and Paul Hudson as captains and Lucy Davison keeping order; each team argued for certain topics to be banished, forever, into Room 101. The audience had the final say based on the arguments they’d heard. The sessions were very well attended, hugely engaging and energizing.
  
• With the help of ESOMAR we ran a “Debatable” session (based on the “this house believes” debate style) at Opinium. Two clients and two suppliers argued for/against a topic with the audience encouraged to (literally) move from one side of the room to the other to signify their support or otherwise for the motion. The energy (not to mention heckling!) in the room was amazing.
  
• (Currently, still in the planning stage) A session based on “Learning from failure: How NOT to deliver research impact”. As Bill Gates said: “It’s fine to celebrate success but it is more important to heed the lessons of failure”. Watch this space. Should be fun!

And there are other formats that I have seen work so well in the past:

• “Five in five” where five new starters, (yes, they can be clients, so the organisers get their logos!), who have been in the industry for less than a year, each have five minutes to explain the good/bad of expectations versus reality.
  
• “Pecha Kucha” – 20 slides, 20 seconds each slide. Energy and preparation required in advance, making for a far better attendee experience.

We are an innovative bunch who continuously adapt our methods to overcome challenges and yet the Panel remains at the heart of many Conferences. As we should all be focussed on the customer experience, should we not also be focussed on the attendee experience?

I am convinced we can do so much better.

Or maybe it’s just me?