Marketing research methods and applications

Marketing Research

After carefully reviewing the case study "Boston Fights Drugs"

, it is apparent that there were some fundamental mistakes made in this process. The mistakes ranged from research methodology (focus groups), the design of the pre-screening questionnaires, the design of the focus groups themselves, the interview protocols, and the sampling plan. In fact, no part of the case study was free from mistakes, making the design so fundamentally flawed that they were absolutely unreliable. In fact, these mistakes caused the researchers to fail to capture the views of all the customers and did not allow the researchers to develop a successful de-marketing campaign, which was the goal of the research. Therefore, this case provides a useful point of reference for any person seeking to study marketing and gain a greater understanding of how focus groups should operate.

The researchers were already in possession of previous studies garnered from qualitative methodology obtained by social workers, teachers, and counselors who had spent a great deal of time working with kids in need of help. The overall theme of this information was that younger and younger children are getting involved with drugs. Since this information had already been gathered it seems redundant to search for qualitative information. Rather, to determine the extent that this was true, the research team would have been better aided by conducting a much larger investigation by administering a large scale quantitative survey. By doing so, the team may have been able to obtain objective data to determine the number of children currently being affected by drug use in the Boston area, what types of messages regarding drugs have meaning to them, and most importantly what would make them try drugs.

Further, the design of the pre-screening questionnaire was flawed from the third sentence. By telling the subjects that if they answer the questions "correctly," they may be eligible to make money, the researchers have automatically impacted the results. The respondents will not give honest answers. Rather, they will answer the questions in such a way as to be chosen, and, therefore get paid. This format sets the stage for failure and invalid data. The respondents are looking for the reward. Furthermore, it was written in such a way, that many of the volunteers didn't understand the questions and had to rely on the recreational leaders interpretations of the questions. Obviously, these interpretations could have varied, thereby changing the screening process (and therefore the focus group) according to who was reading the questionnaire.

Additionally, the interview protocols were flawed or lacking as well. Based on the exhibits provided, it does not appear that the interviewers were adequately trained. In fact, it is unclear at times if they were even asking the same questions or steering the groups toward the same discussion, making between-group variation a probability. In fact, it seems evident also that at least one group of girls was treated quite differently, by being asked the question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Without extensive training and strict adherence to the questionnaire, the outcomes of interviews can vary greatly and are less than objective, making it impossible to rely on the results of those interviews. Were the subjects giving their answers or the answers that the interviewers were trying to elicit? The lack of uniformity in the interview process makes that an impossible question to answer.

The focus groups themselves also had some basic problems. Besides being relatively small, they were not anonymous. In fact, each participant's name was recorded on a note card at the onset of the discussion. According to the case study, only the community school leader knew their actual identities, but their identities were not anonymous. Given the nature of this study, that was not a sufficient amount of protection for their identities. With regard to drug use and interaction, it would seem that the participants would want anonymity from this individual above all others. With that it mind, it seems clear that not all responses recorded were as honest as they might have been with the guarantee of anonymity. This is another factor that makes one question the utility of the research design.

The sampling plan has inherent flaws as well. By eliminating all of the population of Boston except for the small groups from the community schools, the results cannot be construed as representative of the population as a whole. It was clear from the beginning that previous information indicated that younger and younger children were becoming involved with or affected by drugs. Yet, in their infinite wisdom, the research group did not target anyone under the age of ten. How then were they going to determine the age bracket that is most influenced by drugs and the de-marketing of drugs? As one can see, the sample was skewed by selection constraints including a very small sample of individuals, the wrong individuals, and a very selective group of individuals.