Never Again! No More Focus Groups Please!

I don't know about you, but those focus groups with their instant responses on the screen are driving me nuts. I want the Commission on Presidential Elections to outlaw them next time -- well, it's four years away, but still.... in the second presidential debate I could not keep my eyes off CNN's green and orange lines of men and women responding to the debate second by second. I even thought I could make some sweeping generalizations about the way men and women react to different topics. (It turns out that the only valid take-away was that women seem to react more quickly than men. But any other generalizations are pretty weak.) Bottom line -- it's distracting and completely unscientific to boot.

Nate Silver has a great piece in his website today on the squigglies as he calls them. Focus groups of thirty people are, of course, nearly completely unrepresentative of the voting public at large. They are not randomly selected. They are often paid for their participation. They are not geographically representative. And the potential for one strong participant to influence the others is a factor that distorts the responses. As we watch the debates, we too are influenced by the response lines, and after the debate is over, the influence of these small groups increases disproportionately.

As Nate says:

The problem is that the squigglys may give thirty random strangers from Bumbleweed, Ohio just too damned much power to influence public perception. The squigglys influence the home viewers, the home viewers participate in the snap polls, the snap polls influence the pundits, the pundits influence the narrative and -- voilà! -- perceptions are entrenched.

We are sold the value of focus groups by the TV networks, and indirectly by the Commission on Presidential Elections because they allow them, without being told all the reasons why we should pay no attention to them. Focus groups may be useful for marketing purposes, because the group can be led to a conclusion about cereal or milk that helps the product manufacturer sell more of that product. But what we are almost never told by the networks, is that the quick answer and reaction is "thin sliced", as Malcolm Gladwell would say in his book Blink.. It's a off the top of my head kind of response, whose value is only as good as the top of your head.

All the networks and cable channels are doing focus groups now, so I suppose it is too much to ask them to stop this, but I'd like to give it a try. Please, spare us the embarrassment of listening to people who are still undecided about this election and whose opinions, much like those of Joe the Plumber only represent a n of one person -- themselves.

The answer, of course, is to watch the debates on C-Span. That may be a fine solution for some, but there will be millions still watching on Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN -- all who will be treated to the instant responses of a group of people who most likely know even less than we do about the issues.

Comments

[zanzig]

Linda how can you possibly deprive us of Luntz' focus groups?

[Linda Bergthold - Huffpost Blogger]

I could make an exception for Luntz, now that he appeared on Bill Maher and said Obama would win and by about 5-6 % points! But that raises an interesting question -- what happens to all these focus group leaders like Luntz once the election is over? Is there a future for them? Will they go back to testing opinions about milk and bread? Or PCs and i phones?

[CarmenCameron]

I'd rather have 30 American voters chosen at random influence the viewing public than a handfull of corporate media types doing it - and they do precisely that all the time.

I understand the part of your objection that says the groups aren't chosen "scientifically" BUT neither are the professional political pundits and they have held an enormously disproportionate influence on the American electorate for YEARS.

Where was your (or Nate Silver's) objection to THAT?!?

Personally, I have been absolutely THRILLED that the focus groups and "squigglies" have reduced the MSM to mere observers of people's reactions rather than trying to tell us that what THEY saw was more important that what WE saw, shaping and spinning public opinion to their own perception filters.

If you don't like this system, Ms. Bergthold, I respectfully suggest that you consider the possibility that is the loss of YOUR influence that makes you so opposed to the current influence of this new process.

Make it better? Yes. Of course.

But do away with it? NO WAY! (Just one very happy voter's opinion of the blow the focus groups have dealt to the enormous power of the MSM.)

[HAP]

This is a wise posting. Rather than squigglies and campaign surrogates, we should hear from judicious issue experts who have something to say about the issues discussed. I do think they should keep the squigglies up when the commentators come on afterwards. That might be too cruel, though.

[socalgal59]

My simple solution to the multi-colored worms: change the channel. My channel recommendation: PBS.
CNN = Cursory

[cordyc]

Actually, I kept Faux in a PIP window. Right after the debate, they went to their focus group. Each time, the group was very pro-Obama. The talking heads had no idea what to make of it. It was really funny, maybe they could get an award for best reality comedy! After debate 3 they would not disclose the percentages of who won?

[GaryinToronto]

I found the premise of the CNN show amazingly stupid. They basically said to people:

"So have you made up your minds about a candidate or would you like to appear on national television again during the next debate?"

I mean some of their panel from the first debate hung on to the end and I had to ask myself is this just so they can get their 15 minutes?

[JennyJay]

Linda, what a shame it is that when you bought your TV, you picked a set that didn't have a
channel changer.
The rest of us, we can switch to a different channell if we don't like the squiggles.
You should get your money back on your TV purchase.

[Linda Bergthold - Huffpost Blogger]

No, here's the thing -- I tape the debate on CNN because it's HD and a great picture. But if I switch away from CNN, it stops taping. So that's why I stick with it. Isn't that the most ridiculous excuse for watching CNN you have ever heard! I know. In 2012 we''ll all have HD and ways to TIVO 3 channels at once. We're just too backwards now!

As for all the other comments about the influence of the pundits, it is what it is. They're there and they are going to keep punditing. That is the only reason why the focus groups are helpful, in my opinion. They do focus on different things from the pundits and it causes the pundits to consider their "thin-sliced" thoughts a little more carefully...maybe.

[Kungfublood]

Dear Linda:
Don't watch CNN.

[terragazelle60]

What irritates me the most is that in Oct. after all of these debates and rallies and tv appearances and campaign web sites that there are undecideds. What is it with these people, have they been in a coma or simply dense?

I like the sqiqqly lines...it was interesting to see that negative is not a winner...and that women are quicker then men. Also that on some things men's reactions are totally opposite of women's. I find it to be interesting.

[Academic]

My view is that Soledad O'Brien and the overwhelming majority members of these so-called focus groups that been drummed up are equally intellectually challenged and have nothing of consequence to offer to a truly informed debate of the relevant issues.

Professor Dr. Stanley Collymore
LOndon, England.

[mky267]

What about reporting of exit-polling on the day of the election? Any thoughts on how they influence voters?

[Whinger]

Striking a chord with like minded people, huh?

Whatever next, it shouldn't be allowed!

[Oakland]

Focus groups making it harder for the talking heads to spin? I'll take the reaction of a bunch of dumb Americans over dumb talking heads any day.

[lolola]

I disagree completely. Without the squiggly lines and the snap polls and the focus groups, we are left completely at the mercy of the pundits. For example, in the last debate, the pundits on most of the major stations were falling over themselves about McCain's great ''performance', until they had to consider the actual responses from voters. These voters may not be representative, but they do add a welcomed counterpoint to what has been the media's outrageous power to completely shape the narrative. Without these forms of audience participation, the story would be how McCain 'won' the debate.

Focus groups and snap polls may be annoying, but other people's opinions usually are; the point is that they provide a space for those opinions. And in our media environment, I think that the more points of view, the better.

[BHJensen]

Hey Doc...once again we agree...sorta....here's the problem - and Nate's statement with which you agree:
"As Nate says:
The problem is that the squigglys may give thirty random strangers from Bumbleweed, Ohio just too damned much power to influence public perception. The squigglys influence the home viewers, the home viewers participate in the snap polls, the snap polls influence the pundits, the pundits influence the narrative and -- voilà! -- perceptions are entrenched."

Yeah....just like the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire voters have too damned much power to influence the Democratic party...after all ResumeSpeed,IA is SO much like the rest of America.......the Party, the media, the bloggers (!) all put too much on the 18 farmers from ResumeSpeed who show up on a Monday night in Feb....uh, make that Jan...oops...make that December to dictate who gets to bat in the next game....

This makes my head hurt....:-)

[Linda Bergthold - Huffpost Blogger]

Jensen -- you gotta explain what you're talking about! You lost me! Way too erudite I'm afraid.

[BHJensen]

Ok...you dislike focus groups because 30 random strangers from Bumbleweed Ohio have too much power....well, so do the 30 "party members" from ResumeSpeed Iowa that attend a caucus every 4 years and because of that THEY think someone becomes the "front runner" or worse, "loses" and is never seen or heard of again.

Just like the focus group members these folks are not party activists...they go to one meeting every four years....white, middle-age farmers from Iowa....oh yeah...THERE is a real cross section of America....bah

BHJ the erudite socialist