The WhatsApp panel also gave
more responses where likes and
dislikes were concerned. Delayed
responses – respondents participate
as they do their daily activities -
make this platform unsuitable for
quick turnaround projects.
On Skype, the responses given
were fewer, but these were just as
revealing as those on WhatsApp,
and with none of the negativity
of the face-to-face group. While
slower, due to spotty internet
connections, Skype provided a slight
edge in terms of time and clarity (no
emoji to interpret).
When both online groups were
compared with the physical focus
group, what stood out was the
higher number of negative responses
given by the face-to-face group.
Clearly, sensitive topics in Africa
are best not raised face-to-face with
strangers.
In all other areas, such as the
number of responses, the traditional
method performed at par with the
online platforms.
Overall, the niche owned by Skype
is real-time on video discussions
with geographically dispersed
respondents, while WhatsApp
instant messaging was the star
of response generation. More
significantly, both platforms proved
themselves better suited to sensitive
topics than the traditional focus
group.
Finally, every qualitative study
is unique, and carries unique
requirements. Whichever platform
– digital or traditional – is selected
to conduct a study, one thing is for
sure: the internet has just given the
focus group a whole new dimension.
Ruth Ruigu is an Associate Research
Director at Consumer Insight Africa.
You can commune with her on this or
related issues via mail at: RRuigu@
ciafrica.com.