Hmmm...it seems that few of you have had actual focus group experience — but surely you have an opinion on consumer preferences?

Haven't you ever been accosted by a clipboard-carrying pollster at the mall? Or been lured to attend a usability focus group after work?

Focus groups are great for selling a specific solution. Not necessarily great for arriving at the best solution.

But in consumer marketing, isn't the best solution the one that will sell/be accepted the most?

I know what you're saying Darrel, but expand.

Tan—Focus groups are never quantitative. There is quantitative market research—polls, for instance—but a focus group is a semi-controlled bullshit session. (Not unlike Speak Up.) You can learn a lot from a bullshit session but acting as if it either provides scientific insight into the thoughts of the larger target audience (does a look at a Speak Up thread really tell us anything about what all graphic designers think about a given subject?) or a spoken-from-Mt. Olympus answer is a mistake.

I have a friend who runs a poling company. I heard him make the statement “we can prove that with a focus group.” That confirmed to me that I would never use him or his company if I needed market research.

All a focus group can really accomplish is to provide a check for designers’/marketers’ instincts. They reacted in a way we didn’t expect? We should re-examine our thoughts either by changing them (and then testing more) or by reconfirming them. A focus group can help gather ideas. A focus group can let idea generators relax and say that they don’t have important unanswered questions (or at least none that are worth trying to answer.) A focus group can bring up issues that can be examined by other (specific or quantitative) research instruments. Anyone who tells you that a focus group is quantitative, scientific, or that it “proves” anything should be fired on the spot.

>Anyone who tells you that a focus group is quantitative, scientific, or that it “proves” anything should be fired on the spot.

I agree wholeheartedly. But all clients want measureable results. And in all honesty, you can measure anything. The trick is to interpret those measurements correctly.

Research gurus would disagree that quantitative findings are unachievable. To many, it's the holy grail of focus group research in the first place — to determine a winner, and back it up with some sort of group statistic.

One drawback to focus groups (specifically qualitative) is the group dynamic itself. There's always a more outspoken ringleader that dominates the conversation and tends to sway others' opinions. Aside from time considerations, would individual focus tests work better or worse?

My general view is typically conflicted. I agree on the principal that people should get the products they want, not what designers think they want. On the other hand, revolutionary changes are almost never liked in focus group testing. It's simply human nature to gravitate towards where you are most comfortable and familiar.

Another downside to some focus group testing is that they test disparate parts of a marketing campaign. Example: testing the package without showing the ad campaign. While shoppers certainly are affected by the package design, advertising can predispose them to accept a unique or unusual design.

last weekend i was having dinner with the owner of a company whose niche is helping direct hospitals in their branding and patient experience. his take on focus groups are that the people in them are very rarely equipped with the language and specificity to explain what it is they want. for example, if someone doesn't like the weight of a box, they may say they don't like the color because they don't realize it's the weight that's doing it -- but they still want their opinion heard when expressing there's something wrong.

in my experience, it's nearly impossible to know if the people in your group are truly reacting to a project, or if they're more positive or negative due to the other events in their day. if you're looking for opinions, ask your mom and see what she says. if you're looking for market research with numbers you can depend on, i would give focus groups a thumbs down.

The trick is to interpret those measurements correctly.

Right. But it's hard to interpret bull shit. ;o)

A focus group, IMHO, should be used to simply flush out potential considerations/thoughts/ideas/angles that you may not have explored otherwise. It's more of a brainsstorming session than analysis.

But, like I said, it can be a great bit of data to work with to sell a client on a specific solution. Like you say, they like data, and you can spin focus group tests in pretty much any manner.

And it looks like Gunnar already said that, so...uh...I agree with Gunnar.

All that said, if companies actually did focus groups regarding the actual PURCHASING experience, they might find some real quantitative data. ;o)

>if companies actually did focus groups regarding the actual PURCHASING experience, they might find some real quantitative data

Coincidentally, Walter Landor was one of the pioneers of consumer purchasing research.

In the old days (pre-1940 or so), when you went buy groceries at the local store, you would go up to a counter, tell the clerk what you needed, and he/she would return with that box of baking soda or sack of flour. But then stores began stocking shelves with products and letting customers pick what they wanted, thus, creating retail stores as we know it today. Well Walter Landor thought it'd be a good idea to find out what gets people to choose certain items — so he created a mock store, stocked it with products, and brought in consumers to see what and how they purchased things. Thus, began the field of consumer research, consumer retail marketing, branding, and packaging design.

>While shoppers certainly are affected by the package design, advertising can predispose them to accept a unique or unusual design.

Yes, this is very true Jon. Findings are often tainted by the incompleteness of the studies. The frustrating thing is, often times — packaging design, point-of-sales merchandising, and advertising are all handled by different specialty agencies.

Thus, began the field of consumer research, consumer retail marketing, branding, and packaging design.

Actually, I was referring to things like customer support, service, returns, shipping, etc. It seems that way too much emphasis is put on brand research these days at the expensive of common sense customer support.

Tan—It’s not clear to me if you’re defining “focus group” to mean all market research or just the small group of people in a room reacting to something mode of research. There is not quantitative measurement in the latter and unless there’s an obvious common-sense statistic like “everyone in twelve different groups said the pasta looked like soap and they wouldn’t accept a free sample” then anyone who makes any quantitative claims based on focus groups is a fraud. Simple as that.

Darrel got it right. Brainstorming, not analysis.

Saying “people in the focus groups tended to prefer the design we suggested" may sound less stupid than “I showed it to all my friends and they loved it” but is not much more scientific. If you just make those statements then you’re just bullshitting. No problem. But who’s going to listen to you about what the research showed?

Anyone hired to conduct any sort of research should understand research. That person is, presumably, giving a report. If he sells the client on doing a focus group to prove something or reports on the focus group as having proved something then he should never be allowed to work again.

The single most important thing in research design is to know what you want to find out. Designing research (including choosing the mode of research) to come as close as possible to finding out what you want to find out is vital. Realizing what you did not find out is also vital. Research that clouds the issue is worse than no research at all.

I have very little experience with focus group testing. Watching people from behind one-way glass (two-way glass? two-way mirror? whatever—shows how much i know) sure is fun, though. When asked an opinion, though, people say the darndest things. I think they're all mad.

Everything I've ever heard about focus groups is that you can get whatever information you want from them. Like statistics and all sorts of other research, the results are easily skewed by the approach, the questions asked, and how you interpret the data you receive.

>It’s not clear to me if you’re defining “focus group” to mean all market research or just the small group of people in a room reacting to something mode of research.

By "focus group," I'm referring to a small group of people in a room.

And as to quantitative, it's possible to give participants a written survey before or after the discussion and solicit individual preferences or expectations. That's a quantifiable result. It's arguable if that information was still not group influenced though.

But that's where we get stuff like "4 out of 5 dentists prefer..." It doesn't really mean anything, but it's nevertheless a true result of a study.

>watching people from behind one-way glass sure is fun,

Oh, it's totally voyeuristic fun. People forget you're watching after a while, and they start scratching themselves in places, picking their nose, oogling at cleavage of women in the group, and other gross things.

You wanna tap on the glass, but can't.

What's also true about focus groups is that most participants are regulars. They'll willingly spend 2-3 hours of their evenings with complete strangers for $50. I mean, really, how valuable can such a group of people be?

Hey, wait a minute...isn't that what some of us do here on SU? Shit, and we don't even get paid.*sigh*

Tan—It is possible to give a survey to a very small group of people. The statistical validity of doing so is a question. It is possible to give a survey to a group of people who have just been in a focus group. It has the statistical validity problem plus whatever skewing of results you get from their having just been in a focus group.

Unless you are studying focus groups rather than the ostensible subject matter of the focus group, I can’t think of why you would do that. The “statistical” part of what you are talking about is not a focus group but a very small survey. Whatever you don’t learn from that is quite separate from what you didn’t learn in the focus group.

I don’t like to think of myself as na�ve but does Landor really do this kind of chickenshit research? That is so sad.

“True result of a study” implies “true.” What you are talking about is a crock, fraud, flimflam, horseshit. . . a smoke-and-mirrors show. It’s true or a study like three card montie is a game of chance.

You asked “Do they work?” If “they” is what you are describing then they may work for putting on a show to defraud clients of a bit more money but, at least in the literal sense of your question, no. They do not work. That does not mean that worthwhile research is not worthwhile, just that whoever is doing the research you are describing is a bozo at best and more likely thoroughly immoral.

>I don’t like to think of myself as na�ve but does Landor really do this kind of chickenshit research? That is so sad.

Oh good God, no. We would never dream of validating a quantitative study that small. Landor would have my head if I claimed that.

But Microsoft is a different story. That's all they freaking ask for — quantitative, quantitative, quantitative. But in their case, the research scale is usually much more massive, and usually done online — where quantitative findings are possible and valid.

Let me clarify — I totally agree with you that quantitative findings is totally useless and unreliable with traditional focus groups. I'm not trying to convince you of the value of quantitative focus group studies or claim that we use them to flim-flam our clients either.

But qualitative focus groups, on the other hand, does have its time and place. With the right methodologies, it is worthwhile research.

I've been on both sides of the glass many times. I find that the arrogance and ignorance behind the glass is equally annoying. Ad agency hotshots (and i say this...obviously...with a bit of disdain) tend to think they are right already...and are just looking to validate an idea.

i've watched hours and hours of intelligent criticism of ideas..only to edit out 2-3 minutes of positive reaction to show to a client.

Gunnar, I just re-read my previous post before yours, and I can see how you might think I'm supporting the invalid results of quantitative focus groups.

My fault — that's not what I meant. It's a crappy practice that I've seen results from, instituted by clients and other agencies.

And by "true results" I'll just say that a group opinion is valid on its face value. It becomes "horseshit" only when the agency gives it more weight than it deserves.

Not saying we do that, now.

They do not work. I throw rubbish on that truism, Gunnar. All feedback is good, it's how you utilize it that counts. You can use it poorly, well, or not at all. Then, and only then can you qualify it. Negating or neglecting research before you have the opportunity to analyze it is myopic. Shame shame.

Jason:

Negating or neglecting research before you have the opportunity to analyze it is myopic.

Reread my post that you’re quoting and Tan’s last two posts. I am very glad to hear that he is not advocating the practices that he seemed to be describing.

I am not advocating negating or neglecting research. I am advocating strangling people who do crap under the guise of research. And, yes, there is plenty of that around.

I am not against focus groups. I am not against qualitative research in general. I am not against surveys. I am not against quantitative research in general. I am against people making patently false claims about badly-designed research.

And I am advocating that designers understand research and what various sorts of research can and can’t do.

Thanks. I am not against reading the previous comments.

>i've watched hours and hours of intelligent criticism of ideas..only to edit out 2-3 minutes of positive reaction to show to a client.

I'm shocked. You actually saw hours of intelligent criticism in a focus group?

I'm not against going to eat dinner now. Ooo..and Lost is on tonight! Love that show.

I've never seen a Jack in the Box commercial, and I've never eaten at a Jack in the Box. But I do know the White Castle could give a focus group a case of what my grandpa calls "The Green-Apple Quick Step". He claims it can be avoided by drinking a milkshake with your White Castle's as it will 'coat' the lining of your stomach. Do you think a meeting where people stereotype others is safe to attend past 1hr32min15sec of discussion? Graphic design won't fix heartburn, poorly prepared cheeseburgers, or the 'green-apple quick-step'...

>Do you think a meeting where people stereotype others is safe to attend past 1hr32min15sec of discussion? Graphic design won't fix heartburn, poorly prepared cheeseburgers, or the 'green-apple quick-step'...

Put the bong down ben. What the hell are you talking about?

In short Qualitative Analysis in Direct Interviewing of different communities to messure their visceral and cerebral reaction to a Corporation, Product Design or Brand.

Quantitative Analysis,e.g. and focus group research testing.

It is quite feesible to measure quantitatively.

Meaning, measure recognizability and association.

Certainly, this is the mantra that any Functionalist (market driven) Identity Consultancy would incoporate.

What is difficult to measure is what it may add to people's understanding and feelings about the Company

Product Design or Brand.

You can measure, recognizability and association with any Identity, Product or Brand.

Show three Corporate Identities to a Focus Group:

1. AT&T, Symbol only, without logotype.

2. IBM, Any version, Original City Medium, Outlined and/or stripped.

3. McDonalds

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut. The participants may not know the Designer(s) name.

1. AT&T, will be recognized and associated with telecommunucations. Layman terms making telephone calls.

2. IBM, will be recognized and associate with computer(s) and manufacture.

3. McDonalds, will be recognized and associated will food and/or eating.

Recognizability and Association is all Qualitative Analysis should try to measure or prove.

The economic value of an Identity, Product, and Brand is Elusive.

There vehemently is no systematic means of arriving at a figure. Because, it is difficult to separate the contribution of Identity Design, Marketing, Advertising, Sales Promotion, Packaging, Distribution, and Pricing.

If the Researcher conducting Qualitative Analysis try do more than I stated above.

Gunnar, is positively and absolutely correct in his assessment.

TAN, you've got to add Walter P. Margulies name as a forebearer of Market Research. Along with Walter Landor.

They're much akin to BASS and RAND. They go hand in glove. Can't mention one without the other.

Having said that.

From my Archives:

(Click here to see larger image)

Feast your eyes on this Brand Revitalization of Jack In The Box. Designed by, World Renowned Identity Designer Howard York.

Howard York, has been in the Forefront of Identity Practice approximately forty years.

Began as an entrepreneur in the 1960s. Worked at

Lippincott & Margulies, Anspach Grossman Portugal,

Soyster & Ohreschall, BASS YAGER.

Major Identities and Projects to Mr. York's credit:

Naming just a few.

1. Exxon Petrol Station with SAUL BASS

2. Gulf and Britsh Petroleum with SAUL BASS

3. Original Taco Bell, Identity with Soyster & Ohrenschall

4. Crowne Plaza Hotels, Soyster & Ohrenschall

5. Sanyo, with Anspach Grossman Portugal.

6. Goldman Sachs, with Lippincott & Margulies.

7. American Motors, with Lippincott & Margulies.

Question:

What's the purpose of conduction Market Research ?

i.e.Qualitative Analysis and Quantitative Analysis if the Powers that Be don't listen.

Perfect example of how Analysis can provide you with informative results.

Good Design fall by the wayside because of stupidity

Management.

Jack In The Box current Red Identity is at best Laughable and a Sad Excuse of Management Lack of Understading

of it's Market, Equity, and Core Value.

Please read the right Column of Type. After perusing the Rejected (Kick ASS) Brand Revitalization.

Off the focus group tangent a bit. Am I the only one that thinks the Monterey Jacks redesign looks like dog doo? When was this done? I feel like I am looking at The Best Logos and Letterheads of 1980. Wheres the concept? The intelligence? All I see is a bad rename and even worse typography. Ugh.

Hardly a slam dunk in favor of focus groups.

Sorry

agrayspace

Wheres the concept? The intelligence? All I see is a bad rename and even worse typography. Ugh.

All legitimate questions. But shouldn't you be addressing those questions to the Current Design.? Which was not changed.

For every reason you stated addressing the rebrand. It Baffles me your short sightedness address the Real Problem.

Which is, the Horrible and Amateurish Design of Current Jack In The Box Identity.

Which in actuality look like Dog Poop.

How's the current Design any better ???

The Rebrand Tested better than the Old Brand.

The rebrand is a better and more asthetically pleasing Identity on all Levels.

Hardly a slam dunk in favor of focus groups.

My point exactly. Not for the reasons you may think.

The Revitalization is shown to prove. Regardless of the Analysis and what research document.

Clients (management) ultimately have the last word. Irregardless of their shortsightedness.

Such a good topic, Tan. Another one you have started that is close to my heart.

Qualitative research is a very slippery slope.

It takes enormous talent to be able to navigate through the enormous group politics that emerge in qualitative research.

Some things written here that I agree with:

>One drawback to focus groups (specifically qualitative) is the group dynamic itself

>On the other hand, revolutionary changes are almost never liked in focus group testing. It's simply human nature to gravitate towards where you are most comfortable and familiar.

>if someone doesn't like the weight of a box, they may say they don't like the color because they don't realize it's the weight that's doing it -- but they still want their opinion heard when expressing there's something wrong.

>Anyone hired to conduct any sort of research should understand research. That person is, presumably, giving a report.

>What's also true about focus groups is that most participants are regulars.

The last part is overwhelming true, but I also need to add that some of those people actually make a living

doing focus groups— often when a person gets on a facility’s list, they get called back to talk about just about anything—from macaroni and cheese to snowboards. This is not only because said person may be a “stay-at-home-mom, aged 21-39, living in the midwest.” Forget whether or not she actually eats or serves macaroni and cheese to her family or owns a snowboard, the reason she is being called again is that she showed up for a group last week, and there is a good chance she will show up again. Especially if the money is good. So the relationship that a client might hope that the attendees have with their brand is iffy (at best) because essentially these attendees are what I call "professional focus group participants." Not a terribly effective way to analyze the way folks react to change.

The group dynamic is a tough thing, as most people avoid conflict and if someone is dead-set against something happening (or totally for it) others around him/her might be too timid, tired, or just not care enough to stand up for what they like. It just isn’t worth it. That is where a great moderator helps—someone with a lot of intuition, empathy and insight—so they can gently, but persuasively probe likes, dislikes against the grain of a group dynamic.

When we redesigned a major fast food identity, and first got to the company’s headquarters, we were immediately told by the head of market research that we “shouldn’t get our hopes up about redesigning the logo"—apparently the company had attempted to redesign the logo 6 times in the previous ten years and consumers always picked the old logo in quantitative testing. Now this was not a particularly good logo to start with, nevertheless consumers seemed adamant. We looked at all the previous work, and some of it was good, some not so good. Then we hired a firm to do some eye-tracking and we found that we could have put the words “Speak Up” into the logo and people would have thought they were seeing the actual logo, existing words intact. Sadly, people don’t read anymore. But what those results were also telling us was that the intrinsic integrity of this logo needed to be maintained. And ultimately that is the path we took and lo and behold, we brought a new logo to market.

People are strange animals. They say they want change, then balk. More often than not change is seen as risky. A threat to security. There was research conducted on research (!!!) and the results showed that people will actively fight or resist most new directions they are introduced to. This is ironic, actually, because I have found that people don’t fear actual change, what they fear is a loss of security with any new situation. I have truly found that the easiest way to make enemies is to try and change something.

This I don’t agree with:

>I'm shocked. You actually saw hours of intelligent criticism in a focus group?

I actually have. Done well, research is good for one thing: DIRECTIONAL GUIDANCE.

To understand how much people fear or accept any change and how they viscerally react to what is in front of them.

(Am I getting a little Maveny here with my writing style???)

Putting two designs in front of people and asking them to choose which one they like better is not only dangerous, it is reckless. But probing for what something means to someone—why they feel what they do about a product and its communication, this can be helpful in understanding how people "see" things.

The best possible research that I have encountered is ethnographic research. Ethnographic research is observing people in their homes. There are also behavioral research shop alongs which are very good to determine nascent behaviors. The advantages are that they bring you much closer to reality and you get a deeper profiling of consumers and a better understanding of lifestyle, brand relationships and design sensibilities. Obviously, this helps avoid the unrealistic and forced dynamic of focus groups.

One funny anecdote about ethnography: We were working with a food company probing folks who consider themselves “healthy.” We were talking with one woman who insisted she was a “health nut”—she only ate food that was good for her, exercised all the time, didn’t smoke or drink. Okay, cool. But when we asked to see her cupboards and what was in her fridge we found that there was not a vegetable or fruit to be found, her idea of healthy eating was Power Bars and Healthy Choice and Crystal Light. If she were in a traditional focus group setting, the client would have taken her word pretty much at face value. Kind of makes you go “hmmm.”

Last point: when analyzing research data, always keep this in mind: New Coke scored overwhelmingly well in research and Absolut Vodka failed miserably. Go figure.

It Baffles me your short sightedness address the Real Problem.

Which is, the Horrible and Amateurish Design of Current Jack In The Box Identity.

It baffles my mind that a company would think that is the real problem. The focus group may have indicated that customers thought the current identity was puppy poo, but who cares? Nobody eats there because of the logo. They eat there because of the food.

This goes back to my mini-rant on companies wasting money and time on 'brand research' when customers just want a better product/service.

Yes, yes...brand identity is important in subliminal and other ways, but really, when was the last time you did or did not eat a burger because of the signage on the building? Scratch that. When was the last time a non-graphic-designer did or did not eat a burger because of the signage on the building?

but I also need to add that some of those people actually make a living

doing focus groups

Really!? Are snacks served at these focus groups? Hmm...

Mega dittos, Debbie.

A bit off topic but it’s worth noting that Monterey Jack’s is a design solution that keeps just enough of the brand to signal that these are the same people—it screamed “Jack! Get it?”—without maintaining any actual equity. This was a proposal by people who were saying, essentially, that the client should be a serious, mediocre, medium-priced chain instead of a brash low-priced chain.

If market research showed that people didn’t like the then-current image then the reaction should not have been to change everything but to ask many more questions about what made people uncomfortable and why. Graphic designers keep thinking that the brand is a logo. It ain’t so.

(BTW, I love Jack in the Box’s design and advertising. The logo is wonderful typography. Unfortunately, I don’t care for most of their food so we mainly just get two for 99 cent tacos and chili fries for our traditional Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Year meals to take down to the beach.)

I think a focus group is the best way to stay safe. But if the goal is to create something that’s gutsy or groundbreaking, the focus group can kill you. For example, what would focus groups have said about some of these items?:

1] A potato peeler with a fat, comfortable handle that sells for $7. (They'd have said they'd never buy a potato peeler that costs more than a dollar.)

2] A “walkman” that costs $350. (Can't afford it.)

3] Turkey and Gravy Soda. (Yuck!)

4] Four young lads from Liverpool playing a 7-minute song on the radio. (That's way too long, we'd get bored)

5] And how about that infamous $4 cup of coffee so many drink in the mornings. Would a focus group have given that the thumbs up? Yet all of these (OXO utensils, the iPod, Jones Soda's most successful product ever, Hey Jude & Starbucks) have been more than successful, they've been culture-shifting.

So maybe that's the answer. A focus group will give you more of what you're already getting. If you want to make a difference in the world, you need to lead into uncharted, uncomfortable territory.

I can't remember who said it, but I heard a great quote the other day. “If Henry Ford had used a focus group he would have been asked to build a faster horse.”

not in direct response or rebuttal to anyone...

the friend i mentioned earlier has on the company site 3 Reasons Why Patient Satisfaction Surveys Are Not Enough.

Nobody eats there because of the logo. They eat there because of the food.

I would never eat there because I'm VEGETARIAN.

If I were not Vegetarian. I wouldn't eat there on

name recognition alone. Neither would I take a date (if I were single) nor my wife or a business associates to a place named Jack In The Box.

I would to a eatery named Montery Jack. Adult connotations associated

with the name.

I choose the places I eat that have great ambience, good lighting, great service. And I can have a decent conversation. Without kids screaming and running around the establishment.

Gunnar: I think Soyster & Ohrenschall in San Francisco California (now Addison) is aware the Brand is associated with the Customer Experience. In order to properly present itself to its public.

I love Jack in the Box’s design and advertising. The logo is wonderful typography.

OUI VEY !!!!!!!!!

You're more a ROMANTIC than you let on.

I would to a eatery named Montery Jack. Adult connotations associated

with the name.

Give me a break. If you renamed McDonald's to 'chez paris bistro' or something it's still greasy fries and burgers. As an art director pitching a project, of course you'd say that. As a consumer, they don't give a crap. If they want greasy fries and burgers they'll eat there regardless of the name.

I choose the places I eat that have great ambience, good lighting, great service.

Right. And good food.

But we're also talking about jack-in-the-box. Fast food is fast food. Price and speed come before ambience and good lighting and what the logo looks like on the mega-sized box of fries. ;o)

Mr. Stealer—Why use a focus group to ask “Here’s a thing. Will you pay $x for it?” or “Here are two things. Which one should we use?” How about a focus group before you design the logo where you ask questions about the activity or the client or their dreams about the subject?

If you are designing a study, a focus group is probably the wrong way to discover how much someone would pay for a potato peeler, a tape player, or a beverage and I have no idea how you'd ask a focus group about playing a song on the radio. These are subjects that various sorts of design research could help with but focus groups would make no sense.

oooo ooooo!

found something else to share!!!

Great points Debbie. I knew you'd be the expert. I agree — the most valuable thing I've ever gained from focus groups is directional guidance. Probing the effectiveness of messaging or the resistance to change is extremely valuable to design development.

I haven't yet been involved with an ethnographic study, but it sounds fascinating. Now I know the term — thanks!

Darrel

I'm speaking as an Adult Man.

Talking about my Customer Experience.

Research aside.

I don't give a Damn if Wolfgang Puck was cooking food at Jack In The Box.

I wouldn't eat there because of the name. It has a childish connotation associated with it.

For the same Reason, I wouldn't eat a a PLACE NAME

SAMBO'S

I wouldn't give a Damn if Julia Child (may her sole rest in peace)

was cooking food at SAMBO'S I wouldn't eat there.

Please, I'm not conducting market research. I speaking of my own disposition and personal taste.

I wouldn't invite Marian, Debbie, Pk, SU, Gunnar, Amrin or TAN; to Washington, D.C. and take them to eat. Fast Food or otherwise to a place named Jack In The Box.

It's my visceral reaction to the name.

What in reference to my Visceral Reaction; to name association don't you understand ???

Gunnar,

Your points are well taken. Perhaps I'm letting the Focus Group be my scapegoat for what I would actually define as general public opinion.

Focus group or no, I think the point that is most important to emphasize is that the voice of public opinion is not the answer when trying to achieve something great.

What in reference to my Visceral Reaction; to name association don't you understand ???

Fine, fine, DM...I'm just saying you're an anomoly. Most folks don't base their fast-food dining decision primarily on the typography in the logo on the sign out front. My point is that we designers (and marketers and focus group worshipping sales managers) forget this at times.

> It is possible to give a survey to a very small group of people. The statistical validity of doing so is a question. It is possible to give a survey to a group of people who have just been in a focus group. It has the statistical validity problem plus whatever skewing of results you get from their having just been in a focus group.

Isn't the assumption of gaining statistical validity in a research group (pre-retail) kind of moot, since there is the pretense that actual market research/data (post-retail) is statistically valid as well (for points of comaprison and reliability, which I am implying that it's not)?

Just asking.

Eh... nevermind, I like the directional guidance resolution better. I've heard that if you find a study proving one thing, someone else can find another study that proves the opposite.

> Neither would I take a date (if I were single) nor my wife or a business associates to a place named Jack In The Box.

I wouldn't bother with fast food joints at all, I'd go to a real restaraunt. Has better adult connotations.

That being said, my initial gut reaction to this "Montery Jack" redesign was identical to agrayspace's. But then I read DM's defense (and then gave it more thought) and realized that while it still looks like a "Best of..." from the 80's, it was Jack and his commercials that I'd miss the most. I never ate there before Jack came along, and I don't know if I would if he left.

Now that I think about it, maybe it's just the colors that bother me about that redeisgn. It has no stimulant colors, as is typical with fast food joints. And those diagonal stripes are killing me. But the logo is nice.

Darrel:

If names don't really mean anything or have visceral connotation associated with them.

Then I really do see you taking your Family to a Restaurant such as Ben's Chili Bowl in D.C.

Or Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles

in South Central or Atlanta.

Michael H.

The Jack In The Box Brand Revitalization was never implemented. Although, it tested well.

Was given more Rave Reviews than the current Prosaic Identity.

Stripes as a general rule, are always used to Break Up Space. Stripes add tension, give another dimension. Without the stripes, it would be just another boring (plain) bag.

The stripes are not an aspect of the Identity and/or Signage.

Stripes are more Dynamic. In reference to said packaging.

Thanks for the info DM.

But...

I'm aware how the stripes were used for the MJ rebrand. However, I think it's just a bad implimentation of diagonal stripes since to me it's still just "another boring (plain) bag".

> The stripes are not an aspect of the Identity and/or Signage.

I'm inclined to disagree. It seems pretty clear that the diagonal stripes are being used as an element within the brand. But I could be wrong, and I realize this because I am only looking at a picture of the packaging.

Sorry to get off-topic Tan.

> Focus group or no, I think the point that is most important to emphasize is that the voice of public opinion is not the answer when trying to achieve something great.

I partially agree. But sheepstealer, would you rather have something great or something that is greatly recognized?

But I have another kind of question: are focus groups another tool for designers? I don't have much experience with focus groups (once, on the recieveing end, recently during our spinoff) but I would think that if a desgner or group of designers are doing their job appropriately enough (delivering the need of the client), focus groups wouldn't be necessary. This should be a gift or talent we are capable of relying upon on our own.

Or are focus groups driven by the request of the client? If that's the case, then I think I better understand the existence of focus groups altogether.

I woke up this morning and realized why Maven and I don’t see eye-to-eye. I’m a omnivore (or I’d never eat at Jack in the Box) and he’s a vegetarian. JitB’s great design uses lots of Gill Sans which we all know tastes like chicken. The Monterey Jack’s stuff tastes like tofu.

Gunnar:

OLE GREAT MENTOR, from MT. OLYMPUS.

You know the only thing we don't see EYE TO EYE on is David Carson.

Come to think of it. There's one person I would take to Jack In The Box:

William Drenttel

bka: BIG WILLI

aka: Uncle Bill

Uncle Bill: I kid, I kid. Nothing but the best for you !!!!!!

Monterey Jack's or Jack in the Box, it's still fast food. I much prefer an eatery that knows its niche and sticks there visually. I find nothing more disturbing than eating mediocre cafeteria food at a restaraunt that tries to act fancy, high-quality, or hip. I usually never return, if I can help it.

However, fast food places are making most of their money (I'd wager) on the teen and college age markets, and people unable to afford better. I don't think a branding campaign to 'brand up' their chain would've been the right move. As an outsider, I don't see it.

As for focus groups, Darrel's first comment seemed very much on the mark:

"Focus groups are great for selling a specific solution. Not necessarily great for arriving at the best solution."

>> Focus group or no, I think the point that is most important to emphasize is that the voice of public opinion is not the answer when trying to achieve something great.

>I partially agree. But sheepstealer, would you rather have something great or something that is greatly recognized?

Let's further clarify this.

Greatness can come from independence or mass acceptance. It can be marked by fame, or infamy. It can be fleeting or enduring.

Focus groups are tools to gauge public acceptance to an offering — which can be a retail product, a TV sitcom, or a new president.

In the context of this discussion and site, focus group research can be further defined as a marketing tool — which connotates that market penetration and sales revenue is the ultimate gauge of success.

Can successful sales be considered greatness? A Ferrari is a great car, but so is a Honda Accord. It all depends on who you ask, doesn't it?

If names don't really mean anything or have visceral connotation associated with them.

Then I really do see you taking your Family to a Restaurant such as Ben's Chili Bowl in D.C.

Or Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles

in South Central or Atlanta.

I honestly have no idea what any of that means.

this quickly left the realm of focus groups and into food choices.

On the other hand, revolutionary changes are almost never liked in focus group testing. It's simply human nature to gravitate towards where you are most comfortable and familiar.

this is an awesome analysis.

A focus group will give you more of what you're already getting. If you want to make a difference in the world, you need to lead into uncharted, uncomfortable territory.

I can't remember who said it, but I heard a great quote the other day. “If Henry Ford had used a focus group he would have been asked to build a faster horse.”

another great quote.

commenting on something design maven started with:

(putting an IBM, AT&T, and McDonalds logo in front of someone). for a school project i sat my boyfriend's little brothers down in front of a camera, and showed them a series of logos. one was 7 and the other was 5 at the time. the 7 year old recognized all but ONE logo, and the 5 year old missed 2 or 3 of them. (i can't remember the exact logos i used, but mcdonalds, coke, pepsi, and NBC were among them.) the boys made amazing comments on tape, like in reaction to the mcdonalds logo, the 5 year old said "chicken mcnuggets!" and things like that. my point was the fascinating way children associate logos at young ages...

it was their first focus group ;)

I can't remember who said it, but I heard a great quote the other day. “If Henry Ford had used a focus group he would have been asked to build a faster horse.”

Remember when the iPod minis were announced? Every armchair focus group attendee was mentioning on their blog how stupid of a product it was due to the price comparison to the regular iPod.

Had Jobs been insane enough to listen to a focus group like that, I doubt a single Mac product would have been released in the last 5 years. ;o)

Darrel:

I honestly have no idea what any of that means.

Darrel:

You're in good company. Neither does Uncle Bill.

It's nonesense Friday !!!!!!!!

The only one that get anything I say is

Uncle Gunnar.

Cause, we Mind Meld !!!!!

>The only one that gets anything I say is

Uncle Gunnar.

uh...ahem...

Uncle Gunnar

Why do I feel like I’ve been identified as a child molester? How old is Maven?

>Remember when the iPod minis were announced?

Actually Darrel, Apple uses focus group research quite extensively — especially for its industrial design development.

The mini iPod is selling well probably because of focus group findings that said — a) people want customized, cool colors; b) people wished the iPod was smaller, so they can go jogging with it; c) about 1,000 songs or 4MB was the average user requirement; and d) people were willing to pay up to $299 for 4MB.

Sure, Apple probably came up with the stategy and just used focus groups to validate. But nevertheless, you can be certain there was market research involved.

I do understand what you're saying, Darrel — I just disagree with your example.

>“If Henry Ford had used a focus group he would have been asked to build a faster horse.”

As to the Ford quote, it's cute, but let's look at the facts.

In 1900 the average household income was about $800, yet automobiles cost an average of $1,500. Henry Ford took a look at the market and surmized that if he could build a car and sell it for around $500, he could sell millions. Furthermore, he designed the car to seat 4, because he wanted them to be practical, family transportation, not impractical 2-seater toys for the rich. And thus, he created the Model T, a car "for the great multitude."

So to suggest that Ford would've ignored consumer research is incorrect. Clearly, he paid close attention to market conditions such as consumer income levels and consumer use.

Why do I feel like I’ve been identified as a child molester? How old is Maven?

JESUS CHRIST:

How does one transcend from having FUN.

Joking and Playing and associate that will child molestation.

To say the least I'm Baffled.

Is there nothing Sacred Anymore !!!!!!

Designer(s) no longer have a sense of Humor.

Pull my coat; because I miss that Memo.

Heather:

Your comments are astute. Works everytime.

It is amazing to say the least. I'm sure everyone has witness this.

Quite frankly, I never understood it. Must be the power of the Brand, the music or whatever.

I've watched my children when they were young. As well my friends children.

Children who can barely speak an utterance will run to the TV when certain commercials are on.

They sing the songs. They know the Brand. When in the Supermarket they point to the Brand or ask for it.

It totally boggles my mind. Each child respond to their own commercial. I've watched them through many commercials. Every day a certain commercial comes on. The child will run up to the television. Or happily get up and Dance or sing the jingle.

I'm talking about 3-8 year old children.

After all these years. I'm continued to be amazed.

My attorneys tell me not to worry about any creepy inference I might draw from being called “Uncle Gunnar.” Maven is old enough that the statute of limitations would apply and they don’t believe the polaroids will be admissible in court. Also on their advice: I have reconsidered my statements associating the Uncle sobriquet and creepiness of any sort and extend my apologies to Design Maven, his family, and the families of Milton Berle and Ho Chi Minh for any pain my comments may have caused.

That said, I don’t think that Ben’s Chili Bowl and Roscoe’s Chicken and Waffle are off the point of some assumptions about market testing in general and focus groups in particular. My experience with Roscoe’s was bad bland food and worse bland service. I would try Ben’s based on the way it looks. (I suspect that the closest thing to an L.A. equivalent since the demise of the Chili Bowl chain is Tommy’s at Rampart and Beverly.)

I think most designers fear that market research will inevitably lead to bland design a la Monterey Jack’s. Not necessarily ’80s design. That had more to do with that design being done in the ’80s. Just the idea that tested means safe.

Some of that probably has to do with the sort of projects that get market tested. Nobody is going to market test a one-up hipster cafe (not that we’d all be Tibor without focus groups getting in our way.) Some of the best things don’t travel well. Not even down the road to Hollywood. So focus groups mean a world of TGIFriday’s and Applebee’s.

Great new things make people uncomfortable at first. First glances drive everything toward white bread. (Twenty minutes in a room full of Dockers-clad suburbanites might have left people thinking that even “Friends” was a bit edgy, with all that purple and what’s up with the picture frame?)

So market research done out of fear—letting the process get near an end and then asking whether people like the design or the placebo—seems fairly destructive. Research that invites new information in early in the process, reassures everyone that they’re on the right track (is this different from done out of fear?), or answers specific questions about people’s motivations seems damned useful.

I’m curious whether anyone has found the difference to lie in whether the designers had a part in shaping the research. Has research done before designer involvement been generally useful and research done after designer involvement been generally restrictive? Have you found specific ways of making research serve design rather than water it down?

Gunnar:

That comment almost made me want to SCOWL. (laughs)

Apology, For What???

JESUS CHRIST, GUNNAR !!!!!!

Not necessary. We're Family.

Just trying to keep Ashcroft

from Shutting us Down.

That said. Back to Breaking Balls and having Mucho Fun.

I make it a point to never dine anywhere whose name includes the following words: shack, hut, box, pit, hovel or hole. Pita Pit? No thanks! Just my 2�

Focus groups can be useful. I think that with the right group of people one can create a successful product/design. But, there is that chance that the product/design will fail no matter how many or what type of people you have in your focus group(s). One group of people are not necessarily going to represent the entire economy. Everyone has a different opinion, belief, values, etc. Once again, focus groups do help, but only to a certain degree. And as far as the Jack in the Box commercial..maybe everyone that participated in the focus group were on the Atkins diet and were worried about consuming too many carbs, hence, not wanting a bun.