Do not trust "people of the people"

“Crucify him, crucify him!” (C) the most famous negative review of the focus group in history

In my first post, I talked about the need for “reform of television control,” but did not raise a much more relevant and ambitious topic — the harm that the traditional scheme of organizing television work causes. To begin with the fact that the repertoire of TV channels is determined not by the target audience (millions of viewers), but by focus groups (which, as it were, should be fairly representative, but in fact are not).



The world is very different and people live in it are different - there is no guarantee that a housewife from Vladivostok will like what a housewife from Bryansk likes. The result is an average result, "neither ours nor yours." Moreover, according to a survey conducted by Gerald Zaltsman in his work “How Customers Think” (How Customers Think), 80% of all products and services that successfully pass the focus group test fail safely within 6 months of entering the market. There are several reasons for this.

First, most people participate in focus groups for the promised pay or the opportunity to simply communicate with other people (and even for the cookies, which are always abundant at such events) - but not for the sake of expressing their consumer preferences, which, by the way, they may be shy. For many, the question “Did you like the character X?” Asked directly in a close small space is identical to the question “Did you take drugs as a student?”.
')
With specific examples, Zaltsman shows that there is always a small% of people who deliberately make negative reviews, because they are damn trolls in their lives, they have a particularly evil mindset. Others lie because by nature a person is often inclined to say what he thinks they expect from him.

Even the situation with the focus group from the position of an ordinary participant causes some confusion: strangers pay him for sitting in a room with strangers, where other strangers ask him different questions. This is not conducive to open expression, because the leaders of the group have too little time to create a trusting atmosphere. And when the raised question is too acute (interethnic relations, the emancipation of women, politics) - the overwhelming majority of people in the focus group express only “politically correct” opinions, for which they will not receive “public censure”.

Again, as I said at the beginning of the post, not a single focus group will be representative enough. The Russian example may be too simple - try to create a product that will appeal to both the American and Chinese viewers. The task is almost impossible. By the way, a special Chinese version of “Iron Man 3”, which successfully passed all the test views, after the cinema release came under a barrage of criticism in the PRC. Although the fees there were still large - but could have been more if the moviemakers were not looking for "an average Chinese in a vacuum."

And, most importantly, that Salzman proves: the most important process takes place in the viewer’s subconscious, which he will throw out in front of strangers only under the threat of torture or execution. And maybe even in this case, not to issue. Why, for example, do viewers like Joker Ledger and Captain Sparrow Depp? "Well played"? Well, they also played well in “Brokeback Mountain” and “Until Night Comes On”, only for some reason the mass audience did not appreciate it.

I firmly believe that all data should be based on data obtained from each individual viewer "in the field", here and now. Already on their basis it will be possible to make the following releases. This information can be obtained by improving the interfaces and data collection techniques. For example, creating an algorithm for customizing a television program for each user.

However, focus groups are an annoying nuisance, but not the main cause of the existential crisis of television. I would like to tell about this some other time.