Journal of Advertising

ISSN: 0091-3367 (Print) 1557-7805 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

Online Focus Groups

David W. Stewart & Prem Shamdasani

To cite this article: David W. Stewart & Prem Shamdasani (2017) Online Focus Groups, Journal of
Advertising, 46:1, 48-60, DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288

Published online: 16 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1251

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujoa20
Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 48–60
Copyright Ó 2017, American Academy of Advertising
ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1252288

Invited Article

Online Focus Groups

David W. Stewart
Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, USA

Prem Shamdasani
National University of Singapore, Singapore

criticism focuses on the use of focus-group research when it is

The rise of Web 2.0, the advent of greater bandwidth, and new not appropriate for the research questions under consideration,
technology platforms have made it possible to extend the range of
such as developing projectable point estimates, evaluating
focus-group research to the online environment. This provides
advertising researchers, advertising agencies, and advertisers alternative actions, and forecasting. Nevertheless, the appro-
with opportunities to reach consumers who were heretofore priate use of focus groups for quickly exploring topics about
difficult to reach, to create groups with new and different which little is known is rarely disputed.
compositions, and to use online collaborative tools not readily The dynamics of groups tend to quickly reveal similarities
available in face-to-face groups. This article reviews online focus-
group research, identifies several types of online groups, and
and differences in perspectives, attitudes, preferences, and
contrasts the uses and results of online focus groups with the uses behaviors among group participants (Iacobucci and Churchill
and results of face-to-face focus groups. The article concludes 2015; Stewart and Shamdasani 2014). The focus-group setting,
that online and face-to-face venues for focus-group research are which frequently allows researchers and managers to observe
complementary, with online focus-group research opening new the group discussion through a one-way mirror or through live
opportunities for gathering data to inform advertising research,
or taped video transmission, is also a powerful means for shar-
theory, and decision making. The article also suggests that
differences between online focus-group research and face-to-face ing the “data” obtained in a group discussion and for providing
focus-group research, with respect to group interaction and the creative professionals, advertising researchers, and marketing
ability to obtain information, are being eroded as technology managers with firsthand contact with consumers.
provides greater opportunities to create social presence in an Advertising researchers, advertising agencies, and other
online environment.
marketing organizations have long used focus groups to
develop insights into consumers’ motivations for purchasing
Research using group depth interviews, or focus groups, is and using various products and services. The objective of such
one of the most widely employed research methods in adver- research is often to identify compelling benefits that will make
tising and marketing research, as well as many other disci- an advertising message more persuasive, to identify unmet
plines (GreenBook 2014; Stewart and Shamdasani 2014; needs that may form the basis for new product development or
Morgan 1997). Such research also has a long history with deep the positioning of an existing product, or to explore a topic
roots in the social sciences, advertising research, and market- about which little is known. Focus groups also provide
ing practice (Slurzberg and Rettinger 1994; Stewart and Sham- researchers and agency and advertiser personnel with firsthand
dasani 2014). While focus-group research is not without its experience with consumers that may inform the language,
critics (e.g., see Terlep 2016; Schirr 2012), much of this tone, and affect associated with specific products or services,
which may aid the design of other research or the content of
advertising messages. Finally, focus groups provide a means
Address correspondence to David W. Stewart, College of Business
Administration, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, 319 to engage consumers in the cocreation of research, advertising
Hilton Business Center, Los Angeles, CA 90045. E-mail: david. messages, and other content through the elicitation of new
[email protected] ideas and the evocation of responses to ideas.
David W. Stewart (PhD, Baylor University) is President’s Profes- Until recently, focus-group research was considered a
sor of Marketing and Business Law at Loyola Marymount University. mature methodology with few genuine innovations beyond
Prem Shamdasani (PhD, University of Southern California) is Aca-
demic Director, UCLA–NUS Executive MBA Program, Academic efforts to extend the methodology to teleconferencing (Allen
Director, APEX MBA (English) program, and Associate Professor of 2014). Many of the limitations of focus-group research, its
Marketing at the National University of Singapore Business School. exploratory nature, its use of small convenience samples, and

48
 ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS 49

the influence of contextual cues of the group dynamic are well- cooperation (Eastwick and Gardner 2008). Such research sug-
known (Iacobucci and Churchill 2015; Stewart and Shamda- gests it is possible to replicate the social interaction and bene-
sani 2014). Nevertheless, focus groups have remained an fits of face-to-face focus-group research in an online
important tool for advertising research, because they provide environment. Research also demonstrates that behavior in vir-
an efficient and cogent means for generating consumer insights tual environments can affect how individuals behave in the
that inform response to advertising, facilitate innovation and real world (Yoon and Vargas 2014). Thus, the distinction
creativity in advertising practice, and generate and refine ideas between the “real” world and the “virtual” world is increas-
for the design of research among academic scholars. ingly becoming blurred.
However, a key limitation of focus-group research is that it With Internet penetration growing exponentially from
has tended to be bound in time and space by the need to iden- 400 million people in 2000, largely concentrated in developed
tify, recruit, and assemble a group in a single place for pur- countries, to 3.2 billion people in 2015, a majority of whom
poses of discussion. Many populations of interest to focus- live in developing nations (International Telecommunications
group researchers are difficult to reach and schedule. Such Union 2015), researchers are increasingly adopting the low-
populations can be global, busy, immobile for physical or eco- investment alternative of online focus groups to reach their tar-
nomic reasons, unavailable at comparable times, or otherwise get participants. Indeed, at the end of 2015 it was estimated
difficult to schedule to participate in a focus group at a fixed, that almost half of the population of the earth had access to the
physical location. Technology has reduced, if not entirely Internet (Internet World Stats 2015). This increase in the use
eliminated, this limitation, and made possible a broader use of of online, or virtual, focus groups is corroborated by a survey
focus groups in an Internet-enabled world. Much of the litera- conducted by the Council of American Survey Research
ture regarding the use of remote groups, whether by telecon- Organizations (2010) that found commercial research firms
ference or via the Web, was published prior to the increases in were experiencing either no growth or a decline in location-
bandwidth and the development of specialized platforms for based focus groups and in-depth interviews, but also reported
the conduct of online groups. For this reason a reading of the that revenues from online focus groups had nearly doubled
extant literature often suggests that remote focus groups are (Pope and Kluce 2011).
inherently inferior to face-to-face groups but may be necessary Online focus groups enable researchers to overcome various
for research on some topics and with some populations. This challenges revolving around cost, location, and attracting specific
article focuses on the use of the Internet as a means for con- types of participants, especially teens, low-incidence groups, and
ducting focus-group research in an era in which bandwidth, handicapped individuals. Existing online research communities
even in developing nations, provides a means for online face- can also benefit by further engaging their active participants
to-face interactivity when it is desirable and where specialized through online focus groups to understand perceptions, beliefs,
research platforms provide tools for expanding the ways in attitudes, and sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
which focus-group members, the moderator, and others can Technology has made it possible to link people who are
interact. scattered across very broad geographic regions. This has
made it possible to conduct interviews with highly special-
ized groups that might be difficult to assemble in a single
THE ONLINE WORLD location. The potential anonymity of virtual groups may
Empirical research has demonstrated that many of the same also make participants more willing to participate when the
interpersonal processes and dynamics that characterize face- topic is sensitive or potentially embarrassing. This latter
to-face interactions also characterize online interactions, even advantage needs to be weighed against the prospect that
when the interaction is between avatars rather than face-to- group participants may not be who they represent them-
face among persons. For example, just as eye contact is an selves to be and the concern of some potential participants
important social cue in face-to-face conversations, so too is it about sharing personal information with strangers in an
in online conversations (Bailenson et al. 2005; Garau et al. electronic context. These latter issues are unlikely to be
2001). Similarly, gender, racial, age, and even height and problems when respondents are prerecruited, identities veri-
attractiveness stereotypes in online interaction appear to mir- fied, and topics are not of a sensitive nature. Such circum-
ror stereotypes found in interpersonal interactions (Fiske et al. stances would be typical of focus groups used in many
2002; Fox and Bailenson 2009; Dotsch and Wigboldus 2006, research situations but may not always hold.
2008; Groom, Bailenson, and Nass 2009; Yee and Bailenson Use of virtual groups greatly expands the pool of potential
2007). In addition, numerous studies have demonstrated that participants and adds considerable flexibility to the process of
online interaction tends to be very similar to that in face-to- scheduling an interview. Busy professionals and executives,
face interaction (Hoffman, Novak, and Stein (2012). For who might otherwise be unavailable for a face-to-face meet-
example, the well-known Milgram obedience study (1963) has ing, can often be reached by means of information technolo-
been replicated online (Slater et al. 2006), as have studies of gies. Virtual focus groups may be the only option for certain
interpersonal distance (Yee et al. 2007) and requests for types of samples, but they are not without some costs relative
50 D. W. STEWART AND P. SHAMDASANI

to more traditional groups. A lack of face-to-face interaction USES AND EFFICACY OF ONLINE FOCUS-GROUP
can reduce the spontaneity of the group and may reduce or RESEARCH
eliminate the nonverbal communication that plays a key role Online focus groups have found application in a wide range
in eliciting responses. Such nonverbal communication is often of settings, including advertising (Campbell, Parent, et al.
critical for determining when further questioning or probing 2011; Kelly, Kerr, and Drennan 2010; Campbell, Pitt, et al.
will be useful, and it is often an important source of interplay 2011), marketing (Sweet 2001; Jiles 2010; Harrison 2010),
among group members. Use of virtual groups may reduce the health care (Adler and Zarchin 2002; Kenny 2005; Tates et al.
intimacy of the group as well, making group members less 2009; Stancanelli 2010), higher education (Rezabek 2000;
likely to be open and spontaneous. However, there is evidence Galloway 2011), basic social science research (Gaiser 2008;
that such limitations were more common prior to the availabil- Stewart and Williams 2005), and computer science (Hughes
ity of significant bandwidth, the availability of specialized and Lang 2004; Parent et al. 2000), among others. Research
platforms for online group interaction, and the widespread has demonstrated that online focus groups perform as well as
familiarity with the online world that now characterizes the face-to-face focus groups with respect to the elicitation of
Internet (Rainie, Anderson, and Connolly 2014). information from group participants (Campbell et al. 2001;
Franklin and Lowry 2001; Schneider et al. 2002; Underhill
and Olmsted 2003; Reid and Reid 2005), though there are
clearly circumstances where one type of focus group may offer
DISTINGUISHING FOCUS-GROUP RESEARCH FROM advantages over the other (Murgado-Armenteros, Torres-Ruiz,
OTHER TYPES OF ONLINE RESEARCH and Vega-Zamora 2012).
There are many ways to obtain data via the Internet. In Surveys of participants in online focus groups have found
addition to the delivery of surveys, these methods include that participants prefer the convenience of online focus groups,
monitoring social media, tracking browsing behavior, lis- including the flexibility in scheduling and the ability to partici-
tening in on the discussion of online communities and pate from home or office (Zwaanswijk and van Dulmen 2014).
forums, following postings on bulletin boards and review Participants also appreciate the greater anonymity they per-
sites, and monitoring behavior in virtual worlds, among ceive to be associated with online focus groups, the greater
others (see Hooley, Marriott, and Wellens 2012; Kozinets ability to contribute, the absence of the visual distractions
2002). Such data collection may or may not occur with the associated with group processes, and the tendency to stay on
permission of those whose behavior is the focus of topic. On the other hand, when compared to face-to-face focus
research, and may or may not occur with the explicit or groups, participants found that the discussion in online focus
implicit knowledge of those who are providing the data. groups did not flow as well. However, Houliez and Gamble
These approaches to gathering data using the Internet often (2012) observe special advantages of online groups, such as
yield interesting and useful data. However, they also raise, collaboration and construction of objects that are more diffi-
at least on occasion, various ethical concerns about related cult in face-to-face group settings.
to privacy, confidentiality, vulnerable populations, consent, Criticism of the use of online focus groups often reflects the
and other issues (Bruckman 2002). same concerns about inappropriate use often found in criticism
It is not the purpose of this article to review the many forms of face-to-face groups. In addition, some criticism of online
of data collection that may employ the Internet. Rather, the focus groups, especially criticism in earlier years, has also
emphasis is the extension of focus-group research into virtual focused on the technological limitations of the online environ-
space. Such an extension does not eliminate ethical concerns, ment (McDaniel and Gates 2002). Many, but not all, of these
but it does place the use of virtual focus groups within an limitations have diminished or been eliminated by advances in
established protocol for research with deep roots in the behav- technology, greater bandwidth, and the availability of special-
ioral and social sciences. Focus groups, in both face-to-face ized software. Greenbook.org, an online resource published by
and virtual contexts involve, by definition, a moderated discus- the New York Chapter of the American Marketing Associa-
sion of a topic under the direction of a skilled moderator by a tion, provides listings of firms that host online focus groups
group of volunteer and informed discussants who have been (Greenbook.org 2016a) and of software for use in the conduct
recruited for purposes of discussion. This means the ethical of online focus groups (Greenbook.org 2016b).
issues raised by unobtrusive behavioral tracking do not gener- The online world represents an expansion of the research
ally arise when conducting online focus groups. Nevertheless, tools available to researchers. Online, or virtual, focus groups
the ethical issues, need for appropriate approval, such as is may be viewed as a substitute for more traditional face-to-face
provided by an institutional review board (IRB), and require- groups, but this is a limited perspective. Rather, it is more use-
ment for informed consent apply to online focus-group ful to consider the two approaches as complements. Both types
research just as they apply to the conduct of face-to-face focus of groups belong in the researcher’s toolkit. There are enor-
groups. mous opportunities to use technology in novel and creative
 ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS 51

ways to gain new insights about consumers. As technology e-mail inboxes of participants, which can be perceived as intru-
evolves, face-to-face and online focus groups may increasing sive and create complexity when participants have multiple e-
look very similar, with the decision about which to use being mail accounts. Ning provides some opportunity for customiza-
determined more by the characteristics and location of the rel- tion of visual design as well as some limited synchronous text-
evant set of consumers and the sophistication and cost of spe- based chatting that helps to support participants with technolog-
cialized tools for enhancing discussion, such as virtual reality, ical issues. Commercial platforms for asynchronous focus
simultaneous translation, and cocreation exercises. group research include QualBoard (http://www.2020research.
com/qualboard/), Dub (https://www.dubishere.com/), Focus-
Vision (https://www.focusvision.com/), itracks (https://www.
TYPES OF ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS itracks.com/), and FocusForums (www.focusforums.net).
“Online” focus groups are not really new, because tele- Madge (2008a) provides further discussion of asynchronous
phonic focus groups have been in use for many years (White, methods and video examples of how they work in practice.
Coverdale, and Thomson 1994; Cooper, Jorgensen, and
Merritt 2003; Allen 2014; Koskan et al. 2014). However, the
ubiquity of the Internet, technologies for sharing information, Synchronous Online Focus Groups
and platforms for interacting with others have dramatically Synchronous online groups are the closest approximation of
increased the versatility and utility of online focus groups. traditional face-to-face focus groups and involve real-time dis-
There are numerous combinations of technologies and cussions led by one or more moderators and usually up to eight
approaches for conducting online focus groups, but there are participants (Poynter 2010; Sintjago and Link 2012). The
three broad approaches for conducting them: asynchronous effectiveness of synchronous groups is highly dependent on
groups, synchronous groups, and groups in “virtual worlds.” the availability of sufficient bandwidth and active facilitation
These three types of groups are defined by the temporal and by a skilled moderator. Synchronous voice and chat technolo-
spatial characteristics of the research, the communication or gies enable the transmission of relatively nuanced expressions
measurement modalities, and the sample selection characteris- and emotions in video mode. Tools like Skype (http://www.
tics of each type of group. Such dimensions are not unique to skype.com/en/), webinar software such as Adobe Connect
online focus groups; they have been widely employed to (http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html), and
describe various types of research designs in the social scien- video conferencing platforms like Gotomeeting (http://www.
ces (Miller 1991; Babbie 2016). gotomeeting.com) and WebEx (https://www.webex.com) are
able to replicate a real-time, face-to-face interaction virtually.
Where bandwidth is an issue, groups can be conducted as
Asynchronous Online Focus Groups audio-only groups, or even typed chat, though such approaches
Also known as bulletin board focus groups (BBFGs), asyn- reduce the flow of discussion and the availability of visual
chronous focus groups are conducted over a period of time information. Skype is one of the most widely used Voice over
ranging from hours to days or even weeks and usually involve Internet Protocol (VoIP) tools and offers a portfolio of modes
only chat-based interactions (Poynter 2010; Sintjago and Link for interaction, ranging from instant text messaging and real-
2012). In such groups the moderator’s role largely involves time voice chat to video and file-share options. However, these
starting a discussion thread, sharing new questions with the features require a high-speed Internet connection, which may
participants at regular intervals, and probing comments to be a drawback in some cases. Skype does not guarantee ano-
keep the participants engaged. An advantage of this approach nymity to users and is often perceived as a more informal com-
is that the participants have more time to process the questions munication tool, which may be disconcerting for some
and reply at their own convenience. As a result, they often participants.
tend to contribute more detailed answers. Platforms such as Adobe Connect, on the other hand, is a webinar tool
Google Groups (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!overview) that allows the moderator to assign different authorization
and Ning (http://www.ning.com), among others, provide a rights to participants and to develop multimedia “pods”
means for setting up asynchronous online focus groups and with different layouts to guide participants through multi-
discussion threads that require quite negligible bandwidth. In ple user experiences within the same virtual meeting
educational settings, collaborative learning platforms such as space. Adobe Connect features include customizable
Blackboard (http://www.blackboard.com) can be useful. These meeting rooms, breakout sessions within a meeting, meet-
platforms provide for some degree of customization and are ing recording, screen sharing, polling, notes, chat, virtual
relatively easy to use by both moderator and participants. Such whiteboards, sophisticated user permissions management,
platforms can be designed to assure respondent anonymity and and audio- and videoconferencing, among other functions.
make it easy to capture the content of the discussion. Similar capabilities exist for various online meeting
A disadvantage of Google Groups, Blackboard, and some and conferencing platforms. Among the commercial
other systems is the need for synchronization with the regular providers of synchronous focus group platforms are
52 D. W. STEWART AND P. SHAMDASANI

itracks (https://www.itracks.com/products-services/video- advantage of focus-group research in virtual worlds is that the

chat/), e-FocusGroups (http://www.e-focusgroups.com/video. use of an avatar requires the respondent to be more engaged
html), FocusVision (https://www.focusvision.com), and Qual- and interactive than might be the case for other online meth-
Board with webcams (http://www.2020research.com/qual ods. Another advantage is that it is possible to create “in-
board/). Madge (2008b) provides further discussion of syn- world” products, advertisements, store designs, and other stim-
chronous online research, along with video examples of the uli with which participants can interact. There is also the
use of such groups in practice. opportunity to engage participants in cocreation activities. On
the other hand, virtual worlds require respondents to have a
virtual-world account and be reasonably knowledgeable and
Focus Groups in Virtual Worlds skilled about how the avatar navigates “in world.” Another
A virtual world, sometimes referred to as a massively multi- potential disadvantage is that it is sometimes difficult to verify
player online world (MMOW), is a computer-simulated envi- the identity or even basic demographic characteristics of group
ronment in which individuals interact through personal avatars participants.
(Bartle 2003). Virtual worlds include many online gaming Table 1 provides a summary of the relative advantages and
environments, such as World of Warcraft (http://us.battle.net/ disadvantages of the three approaches to online focus groups
wow/en/community/) and various simulated worlds, such as relative to face-to-face focus groups.
Virtual World (http://virtualworld.com), Smeet (http://en.
smeet.com/virtualworld), and Second Life (http://secondlife.
com). Virtual worlds provide meeting rooms and other loca- CONDUCTING ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS
tions for interaction among avatars. The interactions may The design and conduct of online focus-group research
occur through typed text or through voice chat. Various collab- share many similarities with more traditional face-to-face
orative tools are also available, such as virtual brainstorming group research. However, the online setting creates unique
tools, document sharing, whiteboarding, flowcharts, 3-D mind problems and opportunities for the researcher, especially with
mapping, collaborative creation, and language translators. respect to recruiting and moderation of the groups.
Although still relatively new, virtual worlds have been used as
venues for focus groups (Turney and Pocknee 2005; Tatar
2008; Houliez and Gamble 2012). Companies have experi- Recruiting Participants for Online Focus Groups
mented with using Second Life as a product design and testing The flexibility associated with online focus groups creates
platform (Lynch 2008), advertising research has been carried opportunities to expand the pool of potential participants and
out in Second Life that examines the roles of virtual spokesper- to conduct groups with individuals that would otherwise be
sons (Jin and Bolebruch 2009), and several retailers have difficult, if not impossible, to bring to a central location for a
experimented with virtual-world stores (Carothers 2008). face-to-face group meeting. It is for this reason that online
Avatars on the Internet are graphical representations of focus groups have found particular application in research
their users and usually take a humanoid form (Nowak and involving handicapped, disabled, and disadvantaged popula-
Rauh 2005; Hemp 2006; Yoon and Vargas 2014). “Avatars tions. This flexibility also makes it possible to construct groups
become the incarnation of the player and convey his or her with participants who would otherwise be difficult to bring
identity, presence, location, and activation with others” together. Thus, opinion leaders and experts who are geographi-
(Annetta 2010, p. 106). Virtual-world users typically interact cally dispersed, or busy executives, professionals, or policy-
with one another using their avatars. They can converse, makers can more readily be recruited for participation.
move, point, touch one another, and engage in other social Finally, online focus groups provide an especially appropriate
behaviors, just as they would in face-to-face interaction. There venue for reaching young people, who are generally quite
is a rich literature on how people create and use avatars (Lup- comfortable and facile in the online world but who are other-
picini 2012). Research has demonstrated that using avatars wise difficult to reach by other means (Fox, Morris, and
increases users’ perceived level of social presence, which Rumsey 2007, Kelly; Kerr, and Drennan 2010).
encourages reciprocity and sharing behavior, two behaviors This advantage of online focus groups extends beyond
critical to the success of focus group research (Teubner et al. merely having such individuals participate. Many research
2014). Groups of avatars can meet in a virtual focus-group questions are better informed when such individuals can inter-
room, where their conversation is not visible to other avatars act with one another and where the interaction itself is a part
that are not members of the group. of the generation of ideas and perspectives. On the other hand,
The virtual world that has seen the most focus group activ- because online groups require access to and facility with tech-
ity is Second Life. Tatar (2008) provides a discussion of the nology, recruiting will of necessity be limited to individuals
use of Second Life as a venue for focus groups (and a video who have access to and skills using whatever technology will
example of a Second Life focus group can be found at https:// be used to conduct the group. Thus, it is necessary to screen
www.youtube.com/watch?vD8mn9A0lOqfs). A potential for uninterrupted access to the Internet and the basic ability to
 ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS 53

TABLE 1
Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Three Forms of Online Focus Groups
Traditional Face-to- Asynchronous Online Synchronous Online Virtual World
Considerations Face Focus Groups Focus Groups Focus Groups Focus Groups

Participant Longer process; More convenient due to Online recruitment Restricted to members
recruiting higher costs; more online recruitment makes it more of virtual world who
reliable as physical processes; convenient, faster and have facility
interviews are comparatively lower easy to coordinate; navigating in world;
possible costs; easier to reach opportunities for participants must have
traditionally involving participants avatar representatives
inaccessible from different in world
participants across the countries/groups;
globe; may be less costs are higher than
reliable, especially as asynchronous but
video interaction is lower than traditional
limited; does not as databases/online
require all group tools may need to be
members to be present installed; reliability
at the same time higher than in
asynchronous due to
real-time interactions
among participants
Cooperation 50% to 80% of < 50%; attrition is Similar to face-to-face Similar to face-to-face
rates recruited higher over time as focus groups but on focus groups but on
participants may drop the higher side due to the low side due to
out without sufficient increased potential technology
engagement/ convenience problems
monitoring
Technological Modest; largely Some challenges related High; need for a high- Requires substantial
challenges confined to video/ to the need for basic speed internet; bandwidth and
audio equipment computer knowledge requires participant virtual-world
among group understanding/ platform; participants
participants navigating the focus- must be
group user interface knowledgeable about
(generally more and skilled in using
sophisticated than the the platform
asynchronous
platform)
Moderation Moderator needs to be Moderator can engage Moderator needs to be Moderator needs to be
skilled in participants more proactive, both skilled in
processing intermittently, may similar to traditional facilitating group
information, also need to focus groups; also discussion and in
simultaneously summarize needs to be adept at using the platform
using visual cues discussions, using online interface technology
and steering encourage
conversation in the participants to
desired direction elaborate answers,
and provide
discussion guides to
drive interaction

(Continued on next page)

54 D. W. STEWART AND P. SHAMDASANI

TABLE 1
Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Three Forms of Online Focus Groups (Continued)
Traditional Face-to- Asynchronous Online Synchronous Online Virtual World
Considerations Face Focus Groups Focus Groups Focus Groups Focus Groups

Participation Participants can be Lack of face-to-face Online platforms are Highly engaging venue
somewhat inhibited contact encourages comparatively more that encourages role
but can get over respondents to informal and hence playing
initial inhibition express true feelings participation is likely
through expert in writing; especially to be richer than
moderation; encouraging for shy traditional face-to-
tremendous participants as they face groups
richness of can take time to
expression is formulate their
possible responses
Sensitive topics People take time to Anonymity and high Anonymity and the Anonymity encourages
open up and share sense of “informal” sharing of sensitive
their honest psychological safety characteristic attached information
opinions on for sensitive topics to online formats
sensitive topics allows participants to coupled with a virtual
speak more freely group support effect
and the comfort of
being located at a
familiar location
allow participants to
be more open than in
traditional formats
Observer Comparatively lower High because observers High (but lower than Similar to synchronous
participation as observers need can log in anytime per asynchronous due to online groups
to physically travel their convenience and real-time nature)
to the different scan the comments because observer can
focus-group submitted by existing log in and listen to
location to monitor participants ongoing interactions
progress; two-way
mirrors and
videotaping can
provide real-time
and delayed
observation
Incentives Need to be higher and Incentives lowest for Incentives can be similar Incentives take the form
in tangible forms asynchronous groups to or slightly lower of in-world money or
because because they provide than face-to-face products
participants are the most convenient groups but are
required to make a form of participation; administered online in
comparatively incentives often take the form of gift cards/
higher time the form of online redeemable coupons
commitment coupons that can be
shared when the
session ends

(Continued on next page)

 ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS 55

TABLE 1
Comparisons of Face-to-Face and Three Forms of Online Focus Groups (Continued)
Traditional Face-to- Asynchronous Online Synchronous Online Virtual World
Considerations Face Focus Groups Focus Groups Focus Groups Focus Groups

Transcripts Need for a dedicated Word-for-word Easy recording is Easy recording of text,
individual to write transcripts are usually facilitated by audio, and in-world
down notes or a available/can be built-in tools in the video
recording device downloaded almost online interface
for putting together immediately
transcripts later
Cost High costs related to Typical bulletin board May or may not be May or may not be
facility rentals, formats generally cost similar to traditional similar to traditional
transportation, one-third of formats based on formats based on
equipment rentals, traditional formats various factors various factors
participant (geographical (geographical
incentives, etc. locations of locations of
participants, sample participants, sample
source, method of source, method of
recruitment, etc.) recruitment, etc.)
Note. Adapted from Stewart and Shamdasani (2014); Silverman (n.d.); and Sweet (2001).

navigate through the research platform or tool with support Association 2015). In addition, online commitments to partici-
from the researchers. For this reason, participants may also be pate in a group are not as compelling as verbal commitments
asked to register and log in to a research website created for to a person. Without regular follow-up during and after the
the study to confirm their technological proficiency. recruitment process, participants may be more likely to drop
Other benefits of online focus groups that are related to out of online focus groups. Some people will agree to take part
recruiting include cost savings and reductions in lead time. in a group but then not register; others will agree to participate
Online focus groups lend themselves to a recruiting process and register but then either not take part at all or take part only
that is entirely online, an option that leads to considerable sav- to a small degree. Thus, it is generally necessary to substan-
ings compared to traditional focus-group recruiting, especially tially overrecruit the number of potential participants relative
when an e-mail database of potential participants is readily to what is necessary when recruiting for face-to-face groups. It
available. In addition, while the lead time for organizing face- is also important to make sure that potential participants
to-face focus groups can be as much as several weeks, the lead understand clearly when the research will take place and what
time for online focus groups can be significantly reduced, it will involve.
often to just a few days, due to the enhanced flexibility and Synchronous online groups and virtual worlds require the
accessibility that the Internet offers. The popularity of online availability of significant bandwidth, as well as a working
focus groups has also led to a rise of companies offering online knowledge of navigation within online platforms. This means
recruiting services and other support functions for conducting an additional filter is necessary when screening participants.
online focus groups. Utilizing the services of companies that Ideally, this screening should involve some type of verification
have a preregistered list of volunteers or a comprehensive of the bandwidth available to a potential participant and the
database of potential participants can also be an effective participant’s facility with whatever technology platform will
approach to recruiting for online focus groups. be used to conduct the group. These technological require-
Despite these advantages, researchers recruiting for online ments may be a challenge, especially when recruiting partici-
focus groups also confront unique challenges related to recruit- pants from third-tier cities who may not necessarily have
ing participants. When recruiting is done online, the absence access to a high-speed Internet connection.
of direct verbal contact with potential participants either by
telephone or in face-to-face interaction reduces the ability to
screen participants for obvious qualifications or disqualifica- Moderating Online Focus Groups
tions, such as age and gender. Use of commercial consumer Facilitation of productive face-to-face focus-group discus-
panels that use double opt-in recruiting methods can overcome sions requires a skilled moderator. The skill of the moderator
much of this disadvantage, however (Marketing Research of online focus groups is no less important, and the level of
56 D. W. STEWART AND P. SHAMDASANI

skill required for success may be even greater in the online the discussion along, in calling on specific respondents, and in
context. On the other hand, the online environment can pro- probing and following up answers to questions with requests
vide tools to assist the online moderator that are not generally for additional information, for clarification, and for responses
available to moderators of face-to-face groups. These tools from other members of the group.
include time-tracking monitors that inform the moderator While engaging group participants is essential to the suc-
about which group participants have contributed, how long cess of a focus group, it is also important for the moderator to
each participant has talked, and the time since a participant’s stay engaged to show that the discussions are being evaluated.
last contribution. They also include the feature of allowing This is especially important for asynchronous focus groups
respondents to raise their hands to be recognized. Most of the that are conducted over a longer duration. In such cases, par-
tasks of a focus-group moderator are similar whether the group ticipants are more likely to drop out if they are not engaged or
is conducted in a face-to-face format or online. Nevertheless, do not perceive the moderator as being involved. Sharing sum-
the mechanics of the tasks of the moderator are different for maries, providing feedback, and offering encouraging com-
online groups and are different from one type of online group ments on a regular basis are means by which a moderator can
to another. communicate interest and involvement.
Face-to-face focus groups begin with the arrival and wel- As with face-to-face focus groups a discussion guide is crit-
coming of the participants to the focus-group facility. The ana- ical for the success of a focus group and prevents the discus-
log to the focus-group facility in the online world is the online sion from deteriorating into an unfocused set of rambling
research site where participants go to register for the group in thoughts. In some cases, the interview guide might be shared
which they will participate. It is crucial that the online research with participants in advance of an online focus group so that
site includes a welcome message along with an overview of participants can give thought to their responses prior to the
the process for first-time users. Similar to face-to-face interac- group. Such sharing of the discussion guide is rare in face-to-
tions, it is the moderator’s responsibility to put the participants face groups, but it may be helpful in online groups by giving
at ease and build rapport. One of the easier options that online participants a sense of the focus and direction of the discus-
focus groups allow includes regular follow-ups between the sion. It may also afford participants time to review records,
registration time and the start of research. This can easily be consult others, or gather other information that can help inform
done via personalized or mass e-mails but should not intrude the discussion. On the other hand, it may reduce spontaneity
on the privacy of participants or spam their mailboxes; such and produced biased answers, especially to questions dis-
intrusions can potentially discourage participation. cussed later in the group.
As with face-to-face interviews, it is usually best to begin Stimuli for facilitating discussion. Products, packages,
the group discussion with simple and easy questions. Subse- print and television advertising, and other stimuli are com-
quently, depending on the responses and without disrupting monly used in face-to-face focus-group research to facilitate
conversation flow, the moderator can seek elaboration by discussion. The use of physical objects, like products, is diffi-
probing with more specific questions. In all focus-group cult and usually impossible in an online context. However, pic-
research, asking fewer questions, allowing adequate time for tures of products can be employed, and it is certainly the case
participants to offer detailed responses, and following up with that package designs and advertising can be used to stimulate
probes and requests for elaboration and clarification is prefera- discussion in online focus groups. Of course, in an online envi-
ble to asking numerous questions. Indeed, long lists of ques- ronment, pictures of products lack sensory information related
tions in an online environment often signals to participants to touch, smell, and taste. This is a limitation of online focus
that the moderator wants short answers and the discussion can groups. On the other hand, the online environment, and espe-
quickly degenerate into an online survey. cially virtual-world contexts, provides opportunities for the
For both asynchronous and synchronous formats, avoiding use of stimuli that would be difficult to use in face-to-face
a long list of questions is critical to the success of the online groups. Tools for collaborative design and cocreation are rela-
focus group. Depending on the subject of research, 12 to 15 tively easy to implement in a virtual world, and a variety of
questions is ideal. Moderators should be careful to present other visual tools can be used in asynchronous and synchro-
questions as general requests for information designed to open nous online groups.
up discussion of a topic rather than a checklist of direct ques- Image boards are an effective way of innovatively probing
tions requiring a quick answer. Like face-to-face focus groups, brand associations or other preferences depending on the
questions should be asked in a way that facilitates and encour- research subject. The moderators can present a number of dif-
ages ongoing discussion. ferent mood boards or images to the participants and ask them
In face-to-face group discussions the moderator and group to choose the image they best identify with or that makes them
participants rely on a wide range of visual and other nonverbal think of the brand/topic being discussed. The participants are
cues to manage the discussion. Such cues are not as readily then asked to explain the rationale behind their choice in a bid
available, if present at all, in the online environment. This to uncover often subconscious perceptions associated with the
means the moderator must be especially proactive in moving brand/subject. Such image boards can be and are used in face-
 ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS 57

to-face groups, but the online setting affords the opportunity about the unique potential online platforms offer for connect-
for creating a larger number of variations. In addition, espe- ing focus-group participants in ways that were not possible
cially in asynchronous groups, images may be modified over before the advent of Web 2.0. Fully integrated mobile applica-
time and responses obtained from participants regarding the tions with video, discussion board software, and multiuser
modifications. capabilities will take online focus groups to a whole new level.
A variation of the mood-board technique involves asking As the capabilities of online translation software increase, it
participants to choose an item from their own home, work- will be possible for respondents who speak different languages
place, or other relevant setting that best describes them or the to participate in the same group discussion using simultaneous
subject of the focus-group research. Online platforms allow translation. Such capabilities have the potential to expand the
the participants to upload a photograph of that object and frontiers of global marketing research (Harrison 2010).
describe the rationale behind their choice along with other rel- Online focus groups provide academic advertising
evant detail, such as the location of that object in their house, researchers with a new tool for examining research questions.
what they use it for, and so on. Focus-group research is a common precursor to other types of
Response elicitation techniques. An advantage of face-to- academic research (Stewart and Shamdasani 2014). Online
face focus-group participation is that such groups tend to be fun focus groups widen the range of such exploratory and prepara-
and involving for participants. This should be no less the case for tory research by extending the number and diversity of
online focus groups. Effective moderators do not mechanically respondents available at a modest cost. Equally important, if
ask questions. Rather, they engage participants and frequently not more so, the use of online focus groups provides a means
employ techniques designed to deepen responses to questions. to create hypothetical stimuli, products, and advertising in an
These same techniques can be adapted to the online environment. efficient manner and to modify the stimuli in real time based
Among these techniques is asking the group participants to come on input from focus-group respondents. Thus, online groups
up with a single word to describe their association(s) with the are especially useful for studying processes and outcomes
subject, brand, product or people. Online platforms enable mod- associated with the cocreation of advertising. The online envi-
erators to present these words in innovative visual ways depend- ronment is also especially conducive to research involving
ing on the options available. information acceleration (Urban et al. 1997). The ability to
Another common technique that can be adapted from the create groups that persist over time, rather than meet once, as
face-to-face setting is sentence completion. Rather than ask a is common with face-to-face groups, opens up the opportunity
direct question, the moderators can position the question as an to examine processes that unfold over time, such as message
incomplete sentence and encourage the participants to fill in repetition and advertising wear-out.
the blank. The moderator can subsequently direct the discus- For advertisers and advertising agency personnel the online
sions based on the responses submitted by each participant. environment provides new opportunities to collaborate with
Some examples of this technique: consumers in the creation of advertising messages and execu-
tion. As the speed of information flow in markets increases,
“For me, Brand X means . . .” the importance of obtaining real-time, or near-real-time, feed-
“People who use Brand X are . . .” back from consumers also increases. Online focus groups pro-
“Some people may not identify with Brand X because . . .” vide one means for such feedback. To the degree that
advertising creativity involves the novel combination of ideas
While response elicitation techniques are an important and and perspectives, online focus groups provide the opportunity
useful set of tools when conducting face-to-face focus groups, to create more diverse groups for purposes of ideation. Finally,
they may be even more important and useful in the context of online focus groups provide the opportunity to provide adver-
online focus groups. This is because these techniques help cre- tising professionals and other managers a more immediate and
ate a sense of engagement and participation among group intimate exposure to the full range of consumers they are seek-
members in an online environment that can otherwise be ster- ing to serve and influence.
ile and passive, in contrast to a face-to-face group setting. Online focus groups also have clear advantages relative to
face-to-face focus groups. They expand the geographic range
of the participant pool and provide the opportunity to use
THE FUTURE OF ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS IN larger samples and/or more diverse groups. The potential for
ADVERTISING RESEARCH anonymity within online groups and the ability to participate
The global population is progressing toward a truly mobile from home or other known and comfortable environments
life, with technology at their fingertips, thanks to the Internet may make participants more relaxed and more willing to share
and smartphone revolution. Researchers, businesses, and other information. They are generally lower in cost and faster to
organizations will tap into this trend with online focus groups completion. The online environment provides a means for
that allow participants to connect from anywhere, at any time, demonstrating products, ideas, and messages, and for allowing
from their mobile phones. Much still remains to be discovered participants to engage in cocreation.
58 D. W. STEWART AND P. SHAMDASANI

Realization of the potential advantages of online focus- Campbell, C., M. Parent, K. Plangger, and G.M. Fulgoni (2011), “Instant Inno-
group research does involve some sacrifices relative to face- vation: From Zero to Full Speed in Fifteen Years,” Journal of Advertising
to-face groups. There are technical issues to be overcome, and Research, 51(1, 50th Anniversary Supplement), 72–86.
———, L.F. Pitt, M. Parent, and P.R. Berthon (2011), “Understanding Con-
participants must possess some degree of skill in navigating sumer Conversations around Ads in a Web 2.0 World,” Journal of Adver-
the online environment. It is not possible to engage all senses, tising, 40 (1), 87–102.
so when taste, smell, or feel are important issues, online Campbell, M.K., A. Meier, C. Carr, Z. Enga, A.S. James, J. Reedy, and B.
groups will not be optimal. Moderators have to expend more Zheng (2001), “Health Behavior Changes after Colon Cancer: A Compari-
son of Findings from Face-to-face and On-line Focus Groups,” Family
effort to engage participants. It is also inevitable that some
Community Health, 24 (3), 88–103.
populations will be difficult or impossible to reach in an online Carothers, Leslie (2008), “Sligh-Second Life?,” Furniture Today, November
environment. Thus, as with any research method, there are 25, http://www.furnituretoday.com/blogpost/12242-sligh-second-life.
trade-offs to be made. Cooper, C.P., C.M. Jorgensen, and T.L. Merritt (2003), “Report from the CDC:
While it is inevitable that online and face-to-face focus Telephone Focus Groups: An Emerging Method in Public Health
groups will often be seen as substitutes for each other, each Research,” Journal of Women’s Health, 12 (10), 945–51.
Council of American Survey Research Organizations (2010), 2010 Financial
method of group interviewing has unique capabilities and Survey.
advantages. A more appropriate perspective would be to con- Dotsch, R., and D.H.J. Wigboldus (2006), “Prejudice at a Virtual Bus Stop:
sider face-to-face and online focus groups as complementary The Interplay of Affect, Behavior, and Cognition,” presented at Kurt
research methods. Online focus groups appear to be particu- Lewin Institute Conference.
larly promising for engaging otherwise difficult to reach con- ———, and ——— (2008), “Virtual Prejudice,” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44 (4), 1194–98.
sumers; for keeping users at the center of product, service, and Eastwick, P.W., and W.L. Gardner (2008), “Is It a Game? Evidence for Social
communication design decisions; for testing social media; for Influence in the Virtual World,” Social Influence, 4 (1), 18–32.
conducting longitudinal studies; for time-sensitive information Fiske, S.T., A.J.C. Cuddy, P. Glick, and J. Xu (2002), “A Model of (Often
needs; and for discovering new areas for research. Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow
from Perceived Status and Competition,” Journal of Personality and Social
As technology evolves and consumers become ever
Psychology, 82 (6), 878–902.
more comfortable interacting in an online environment, it Fox, F.E., M. Morris, and N. Rumsey (2007), “Doing Synchronous Online
is likely that online focus groups, and other forms of Focus Groups with Young People: Methodological Reflections,” Qualita-
online research, will play an increasing role in informing tive Health Research, 17 (4), 539–47.
marketers, advertisers, and others about consumers. Much Fox, J., and J.N. Bailenson (2009), “Virtual Self-Modeling: The Effects of
of the work with online focus groups to date has revolved Vicarious Reinforcement and Identification on Exercise Behaviors,” Media
Psychology, 12 (1), 1–25.
around the computer. Still on the horizon is harnessing Franklin, K.K., and C. Lowry (2001), “Computer-Mediated Focus Group Ses-
mobile technologies in service of research. There are enor- sions: Naturalistic Inquiry in a Networked Environment,” Qualitative
mous opportunities for creativity and innovation in the Research, 1 (2), 169–84.
online and mobile world of research. Gaiser, T.J. (2008), “Online Focus Groups,” in The Sage Handbook of Online
Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 290–307.
Galloway, Kristin L. (2011), “Focus Groups in the Virtual World: Implications for
the Future of Evaluation,” Really New Directions in Education: Young Evalua-
ORCID tors Perspectives, S. Mathison, ed., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass and Amer-
ican Evaluation Association, 47–51. New Directions for Evaluation, 131.
David W. Stewart http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6196-9355
Garau, Maia, Mel Slater, Simon Bee, and Martina Angela Sasse (2001), “The
Impact of Eye Gaze on Communication Using Humanoid Avatars,” Pro-
ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-
REFERENCES tems, March, 309–16.
Adler, C.L., and Y.R. Zarchin (2002), “The ‘Virtual Focus Group’: Using the GreenBook (2014), GreenBook Research Industry Trends Report, Winter,
Internet to Reach Pregnant Women on Home Bed Rest,” Journal of Obstet- New York: GreenBook, New York AMA Communications Services Inc.,
ric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 31 (4), 418–27. http://www.greenbook.org/PDFs/GRIT-W14.pdf.
Allen, Mary Dallas (2014), “Telephone Focus Groups: Strengths, Challenges, GreenBook.org (2016a), “Online Focus Groups and Interviews—Hosting,”
and Strategies for Success,” Qualitative Social Work, 13 (4), 571–83. Online Focus Group Hosting Providers, http://www.greenbook.org/mar
Annetta, L.A. (2010), “The ‘I’s’ Have It: A Framework for Serious Educa- ket-research-firms/online-focus-hosting.
tional Game Design,” Review of General Psychology, 14 (2), 105–11. GreenBook.org (2016b), “Online Focus Groups and Interviews—Software,”
Babbie, Earl R. (2016), The Basics of Social Research, 7th ed., Thousand Online Focus Group Hosting Providers, http://www.greenbook.org/mar
Oaks, CA: Sage. ket-research-firms/online-focus-software.
Bailenson,J.N.,A.C.Beall,J.Blascovich,J.Loomis,andM.Turk(2005),“Transformed Groom, V., J.N. Bailenson, and C. Nass (2009), “The Influence of Racial
SocialInteraction,AugmentedGaze,andSocialInfluenceinImmersiveVirtualEnvi- Embodiment on Racial Bias in Immersive Virtual Environments,” Social
ronments,” HumanCommunicationResearch,31,511–37. Influence, 4 (1), 1–18.
Bartle, Richard A. (2003), Designing Virtual Worlds, Indianapolis, IN: New Harrison, Mathew (2010), “Why Online Focus Groups Can Work for B2B
Riders. Research,” Quirk’s Media, March, http://www.quirks.com/articles/2010/
Bruckman, A. (2002), “Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Dis- 20100305.aspx?searchIDD622320847&sortD5&pgD1.
guising Data Collected on Human Subjects on the Internet,” Ethics and Hemp, Paul (2006), “Avatar-Based Marketing,” Harvard Business Review,
Information Technology, 4 (3), 217–31. June, 48–57.
 ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS 59

Hoffman, Donna L., Thomas P. Novak, and Randy Stein (2012), “The Digital Nowak, K.L., and C. Rauh (2005), “The Influence of the Avatar on Online Percep-
Consumer,” in The Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption, Russell tions of Anthropomorphism, Androgyny, Credibility, Homophily, and
Belk and Rosa Llamas, eds., New York: Routledge, 28–38. Attraction,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11 (1), 153–78.
Hooley, Tristram, John Marriott, and Jane Wellens (2012), What Is Online Parent, M., R.B. Gallupe, W.D. Salisbury, and J.M. Handelman (2000),
Research? Using the Internet for Social Science Research, New York: “Knowledge Creation in Focus Groups: Can Group Technologies Help?,”
Bloomsbury. Information and Management, 38 (1), 47–58.
Houliez, Chris, and Edward Gamble (2012), “Augmented Focus Groups: On Pope, Duston, and Jennifer Kluce (2011), “The ‘Virtual’ Reality of Focus
Leveraging the Peculiarities of Online Virtual Worlds When Conducing Groups,” Survey Magazine, March 17, http://surveymagazine.org/the-vir
In-World Focus Groups,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic tual-reality-of-focus-groups/.
Commerce Research, 7 (2), 31–51. Poynter, Ray (2010), The Handbook of Online and Social Media Research,
Hughes, Jerald, and Karl R. Lang (2004), “Issues in Online Focus Groups: Les- New York: Wiley.
sons Learned from an Empirical Study of Peer-to-Peer Filesharing System Rainie, Lee, Janna Anderson, and Jennifer Connolly (2014), “Killer Apps in
Users,” Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2 (2), 95–110. the Gigabit Age,” Pew Research Center, October 9, http://www.pewinter
Iacobucci, Dawn, and Gilbert A. Churchill (2015), Marketing Research: Meth- net.org/2014/10/09/killer-apps-in-the-gigabit-age/.
odological Foundations, 11th ed., Nashville, TN: CreateSpace. Reid, D.J., and F.J.M. Reid (2005), “Online Focus Groups: An In-depth Com-
International Telecommunications Union (2015), “ICT Facts and Figures, The parison of Computer-Mediated and Conventional Focus Group Dis-
World in 2015,” http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/ cussions,” International Journal of Market Research, 47 (2), 131–62.
default.aspx. Rezabek, Roger J. (2000), “Online Focus Groups: Electronic Discussions for
Internet World Stats (2015), “Internet Growth Statistics,” http://www.internet Research,” Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1 (1), art. 18, http://www.
worldstats.com/emarketing.htm. qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/1128/2509.
Jiles, Tonya (2010), “The Virtues of Virtual Focus Groups,” GreenBook.org, Schirr, Gary R. (2012), “Flawed Tools: The Efficacy of Group Research Meth-
November 23, http://www.greenbook.org/marketing-research/virtues-of- ods to Generate Customer Ideas,” Journal of Product Innovation and Man-
virtual-focus-groups-04157. agement, 29 (3), 473–88.
Jin, Seung-A Annie, and Justin Bolebruch (2009), “Avatar-Based Advertising Schneider, S.J., J. Kerwin, J. Frechtling, and B.A. Vivari (2002),
in Second Life: The Role of Presence and Attractiveness of Virtual “Characteristics of the Discussion in Online and Face-to-Face Focus
Spokespersons,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10 (1), 51–60. Groups,” Social Science Computer Review, 20 (1), 31–42.
Kelly, L., G. Kerr, and J. Drennan (2010), “Avoidance of Advertising in Social Silverman, George (n.d.), “Online Focus Groups vs. Face-to-Face and Tele-
Networking Sites: The Teenage Perspective,” Journal of Interactive phone Focus Groups,” George Silverman’s Marketing Strategy Secrets,
Advertising, 10 (2), 16–27. http://mnav.com/focus-group-center/online-focus-group-htm/.
Kenny, A.J. (2005), “Interaction in Cyberspace: An Online Focus Group,” Sintjago, Alfonso, and Alison Link (2012), “From Synchronous to Asynchro-
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49 (4), 414–22. nous: Researching Online Focus Groups Platforms,” Cultivating Change
Koskan, Alexis M., Janique Rice, Clement K. Gwede, Cathy D. Meade, Ivana in the Academy, June 21, https://cultivatingchange.wp.d.umn.edu/from-syn
Sehovic, and Gwendolyn P. Quinn (2104), “Advantages, Disadvantages, chronous-to-asynchronous/.
and Lesson Learned in Conducting Telephone Focus Groups to Discuss Slater, Mel, Angus Antley, Adam Davison, David Swapp, Christoph Guger,
Biospecimen Research Concerns of Individuals Genetically at Rick for Chris Barker, Nancy Pistrang, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives (2006), “A
Cancer,” The Qualitative Report, 19 (22), 1–8. Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments,” PLoS
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), “The Field behind the Screen: Using Netnography ONE, 1 (1), e39. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.
for Market Research in Online Communities,” Journal of Marketing Slurzberg, Lee, and Charlotte Rettinger (1994), “A Review of Focus Groups
Research, 39 (1), 61–72. for Advertising Agencies,” Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, 8
Luppicini, Rocci (2012), Handbook of Research on Technoself: Identity in a (March), 10–14.
Technological Society, Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Stancanelli, Jeanine (2010), “Conducting an Online Focus Group,” The Quali-
Lynch, C.G. (2008), “Companies Explore Virtual Worlds as Collaboration tative Report, 15 (3), 761–65.
Tools,” CIO, February 6, http://www.cio.com/article/2437194/collabora Stewart, David W., and Prem Shamdasani (2014), Focus Groups: Theory and
tion/companies-explore-virtual-worlds-as-collaboration-tools.html. Practice, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Madge, C. (2008a), “Asynchronous Online Methods,” http://www.youtube. Stewart, K., and M. Williams (2005), “Researching Online Populations: The
com/watch?vDbRm4ttUSJDo Use of Online Focus Groups for Social Research,” Qualitative Research, 5
——— (2008b), “Synchronous Online Methods,” http://www.youtube.com/ (4), 395–416.
watch?vDjlwqkamNGX8 Sweet, Casey (2001), “Designing and Conducting Virtual Focus Groups,”
Marketing Research Association (2015), “IMRO Guidelines for Best Practices Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4 (3), 130–35.
in Online Sample and Panel Management,” October 13, http://www.market Tatar, Jack (2008), “Focus Groups on Second Life,” presented at the 2008
ingresearch.org/issues-policies/best-practice/imro-guidelines-best-practi Qualitative Research Consultants Association, Barcelona, www.qrca.org/
ces-online-sample-and-panel-management. associations/6379/files/SecondLifeFINAL.doc.
McDaniel, Carl, and Roger Gates (2002), Marketing Research: The Impact of Tates, Kiek, Marieke Zwaanswijk, Roel Otten, Sandra van Dulmen, Peter M.
the Internet, Mason, OH: South-Western Publishing, 125, 140–47. Hoogerbrugge, Willem A. Kamps, and Jozien M. Bensing (2009), “Online
Milgram, Stanley (1963), “Behavioral Study of Obedience,” Journal of Abnor- Focus Groups as a Tool to Collect Data in Hard-to-Include Populations:
mal and Social Psychology, 67 (4), 371–78. Examples from Paediatric Oncology,” BMC Medical Research Methodol-
Miller, Delbert C. (1991), Handbook of Research Design and Social Measure- ogy, 9 (15), http://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/
ment, 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 10.1186/1471-2288-9-15
Morgan, David L. (1997), Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Thousand Terlep, Sharon (2016), “Focus Groups Fall Out of Favor,” Wall Street Journal,
Oaks, CA: Sage. September 18, http://www.wsj.com/articles/focus-groups-fall-out-of-
Murgado-Armenteros, Eva Maria, Francisco Jose Torres-Ruiz, and Manuela favor-1474250702.
Vega-Zamora (2012), “Differences between Online and Face-to-Face Teubner, Timm, Marc T.P. Adam, Sonia Camacho, and Khaled Hassanei (2014),
Focus Groups, Viewed through Two Approaches,” Journal of Theoretical “Understanding Resource Sharing in C2C Platforms: The Role of Picture
and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7 (2), 73–86. Humanization,” presented to the 25th Australasian Conference on Information
60 D. W. STEWART AND P. SHAMDASANI

Systems, December 8–10, Auckland, New Zealand, https://aut.researchgate Yee, N., and J.N. Bailenson (2007), “The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Trans-
way.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/8101/acis20140_submission_352.pdf. formed Self-Representation on Behavior,” Human Communication
Turney, Lyn, and Catherine Pocknee (2005), “Virtual Focus Groups: New Fron- Research, 33 (3), 271–90.
tiers in Research,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4 (2), 32–43. ———, ———, M. Urbanek, G. Chang, and D. Merget (2007), “The Unbear-
Underhill, C., and M.G. Olmsted (2003), “An Experimental Comparison of able Likeness of Being Digital: The Persistence of Nonverbal Social
Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Focus Groups,” Social Science Norms in Online Virtual Environments,” Journal of CyberPsychology and
Computer Review, 21 (4), 506–12. Behavior, 10 (1), 115–21.
Urban, Glen, John R. Hauser, William J. Qualls, Bruce D. Weinberg, Jonathan Yoon, Gunwoo, and Patrick T. Vargas (2014), “Know Thy Avatar: The Unin-
D. Bohlmann, and Roberta A. Chicos (1997), “Information Acceleration: tended Effect of Virtual-Self Representation on Behavior,” Psychological
Validation and Lessons from the Field,” Journal of Marketing Research, Science, 25 (4), 1043–45.
34 (1), 143–53. Zwaanswijk, Marieke, and Sandra van Dulmen (2014), “Advantages of Asyn-
White, G.E., J.A. Coverdale, and A.N. Thomson (1994), “Can One Be a Good chronous Online Focus Groups and Face-to-Face Focus Groups as Per-
Doctor and Have a Sexual Relationship with One’s Patient?,” Family Prac- ceived by Child, Adolescent, and Adult Participants: A Survey Study,”
tice, 11 (4), 389–93. BMC Research Notes, 7, 756.