The ICG's Jack Murray recently ran a study on inactivity among UK adults.  The results are both reassuring (I am not alone…) and worrying (I really should be doing more…).

One in three feel they don’t get enough exercise and would like to take more

Hearts & Minds from Sport MR and MyCustomerLens today reveals that among UK adults:

• 58% feel that they take enough exercise at present
• 8% feel that they don’t take enough exercise, but have no desire to take more 
• 33% feel that they don’t currently take enough exercise and would like to take more

Physical inactivity is a major threat to the future health of our nation, and a major focus of public sector bodies like Sport England.  The Hearts & Minds finding that 33% of the adult population, translating to more than 17 million people, would like to take more exercise, challenges the belief that the key barrier to leading a more active lifestyle is a lack of understanding of the benefits.

Profile of those who would like to take more exercise

The gender split among those indicating their belief that they take insufficient exercise and that they would like to change this is very revealing.  Women outnumber men almost two to one among those telling us that they would like to take more exercise.  Among younger people, women in this group outnumber men by three to one.

Barriers to a more active lifestyle

A commonly assumed barrier to a more active lifestyle is also somewhat dispelled by the survey findings – 69% of those who would like to be more active tell us that they do not see lack of available time to exercise as a significant barrier. This figure is identical among men and women.

So, what does Hearts & Minds tell us about barriers to participation in sport and physical activity among those who feel that it would benefit them to undertake more than they currently do?  Almost half (45%) tell us that they would feel self-conscious being seen to take exercise. This is true of 50% of women who don’t exercise as much as they would like and 35% of their male counterparts.  Among those aged 16-44, these percentages rise to 56% and 49% respectively. 

This finding is consistent with our qualitative research which has consistently shown that key barriers to participation in sport and physical activity include:

• Concerns about body image ‘I won’t look good in a track suit’, ‘I fear being laughed at’ etc. These fears are most prevalent among younger women, but concern a significant proportion of younger men also.
• Concerns about lack of athletic/sporting prowess ‘I could never catch a ball at school, why would I be able to catch one now’, ‘I’d be out of breath before everybody else’.
• Discomfort at the idea of turning up alone to take part in an organised physical activity with an established group, where a higher standard of ability among existing attendees is assumed.

So, what can be done to break down some of these barriers?  Perhaps:

• Creating environments in which beginners (or those returning to physical activity) feel comfortable.
• Reaching out to groups of people who are currently inactive rather than to individuals.
• Promoting non-competitive forms of exercise or forms of exercise where individuals are competing against their own past achievements – walking, cycling etc.
• Promoting competitive activity that is not over-reliant on speed or stamina.

Assessed against these criteria, the objectives with which Sport England is working in its newly announced 12 key pilot areas look eminently sensible.

“By focusing intensely in 12 areas, we want to identify better ways to address inequalities and break down the barriers that stop people getting active, such as poor transport, safety, cost and confidence.”

England Golf, a major partner in Hearts & Minds, is already working to break down barriers and to welcome new people to the game.  Their Get into Golf initiative seeks to challenge ‘the seven myths of golf’ including the belief that ‘golf won’t keep you fit’.  Actually, it will, and it will provide a relatively gentle, safe (re)introduction to exercise that does not require the donning of a tracksuit and the need to run. https://www.getintogolf.org/

Summary

• There are millions of adults in the UK who feel that they don’t take enough exercise and would like to take more. • Women are twice as likely as men, and younger women three times as likely as younger men, to say this.
• Most of those who would like to be more active feel that they could find time to take more exercise. • We need to create opportunities and environments in which people feel comfortable, welcome and feel that they are in the company of other people like them.
• An environment more conducive to encouraging physical activity for the currently inactive will have significant benefits on both mental and physical wellbeing. This in turn has an economic benefit through reduced healthcare spend and lower rates of absenteeism in the workplace.

Hearts & Minds is a syndicated study which has been developed by Sport MR and MyCustomerLens to meet the evolving insight needs of the sport and fitness industry.  Research is conducted monthly among a nationally representative sample of the population. Unlike many other surveys, it employs interlocking quotas to ensure the representativeness of sub-groups. Hearts & Minds contains a treasure trove of data on sport and physical activity and the barriers to participation in the UK and offers a cost-effective multi-partner approach to data gathering.  For enquiries, please contact: Michael Stone michael@sportmr.co.uk Tel: 07903 352075

When conducting market research, there can be a tendency to take everything that comes out of an interviewee’s mouth as gospel.  Yet it’s not that black and white.

One is not dealing with facts such as 2+2=4, but opinions, future predictions, perceptions and sketchy recollections.  So what respondents say can sometimes be unreliable, and it’s our job as insight specialists to try and minimise this. 

Below are just a few of the key causes of the problem and ways to help mitigate them:

Sketchy memories

I was recently tasked with conducting research on some products from last summer's range, in readiness for sprucing up this year's offering.  I asked consumers about their decision process, what they finally chose and why.  Although they had a broad notion of what they probably did based on their personality and preferences, they found it extremely hard to recollect exactly what they were thinking and doing some six months ago with any accuracy.  And while able to comment on their general buying behaviour, they may well have forgotten impulse actions on the day such as ‘I was just in the mood for it’ … ‘I don’t normally buy it but I spotted a great offer’.

I didn't have the luxury of picking the timing on the above occasion, but to get nearer to the truth it’s important, where practical, to time the study as close to the purchase/event as possible.  This might involve undertaking exit interviews as people leave a shop, or customer satisfaction interviews straight after a call to a contact centre.  Otherwise, it’s surprising how much and how quickly people forget. This is especially true if it’s a fairly inconsequential event.  You may remember everything about the excitement of getting your new car, but not the detail of buying a bar of soap or calling to give your meter reading!

Unreliable predictions

I’m often asked to research consumer reaction to a new product, if they’d buy it and how much they'd be willing to pay.  Again, this can be an area fraught with the potential for unreliable feedback unless careful.  One of the reasons is that chatting in a focus group is very different to actually putting your hand in your pocket.  It can be easy to hypothesize about what you might do, but at that point you’re not standing in the shop with a limited budget, competing priorities or other brands to tempt you.

There are several ways to overcome this, largely based on ensuring that answers are put into context and grounded in reality (accepting that there are of course times when we don’t want to constrain people’s imaginations).  For example, if conducting an in-store interview, instead of asking shoppers to select chocolates they ‘would like to buy’, one might ask them to choose based on the budget they usually have, the time they normally take or the occasion they'd be buying for, eg: weekend treat, etc.  Providing a frame of reference means that how they imagine they’d behave is likely to be closer to reality, rather than them thinking: ‘This is a fun exercise, I think I’d have one of those, one of those and one of those!’

The danger of post-rationalising

Experts say that as much as 90-95% of our decisions are made subconsciously.  Even if buying a simple tin of custard, we may think we can easily articulate why we bought it, eg: ‘I saw a good offer’.  Yet a busy shopper will often be making such choices in a nano-second, and their glib post-rationalised explanations often mask a host of other subtle subconscious factors at play.  So, dig a little deeper into the quick custard decision and it could well transpire that ‘Ambrosia was the brand my mum always bought … it’s a comfort food that reminds me of home … the graphics make it look like a quality product … my husband gets cross if I go cheap and buy own label’, etc.

There are various techniques for getting under the skin of what’s really going on in consumers’ minds, too lengthy to go into here.  But a basic principle is not to take their first, top of mind answer at face value.  Aim to scratch the surface and ask ‘Why is that so important?  What difference does that make to you?  What else matters?  Could other brands also do this?’  Are there any you wouldn’t choose, no matter how cheap?  Why not’ etc. 

All in all there can be many reasons why people don’t always say what they mean, or mean what they say, beyond those above. Other factors include …

The ‘research effect’ – eg: analysing a marketing leaflet for an hour in a focus group, when in real life a consumer would ever accord it such scrutiny

Peer group pressure – a desire to please or say the right thing, when this may not happen in reality eg: 'Yes, like you, I give my child a healthy breakfast (I daren’t admit I give them Cocopops!)'

The list of considerations goes on. In all such cases it’s our role as research experts – in both designing the research and analysing the findings – to factor in these pitfalls and find ways to minimise unreliable testimony, ultimately helping our clients get much closer to the truth.

Are Face-to-Face Research Methods Irrelevant?

Is there still a role for focus groups and other face-to-face qualitative research methods, now that we communicate so much online?

Qualitative research, especially the ubiquitous ‘focus group’, has become familiar over the last few decades, not only to professionals working in marketing, advertising, PR and related industries, but also to the general public. However, old misconceptions linger and newer ones develop – here are some examples: ‘how can talking to just eight random strangers tell you anything reliably?’; ‘focus groups are mostly used (badly) by politicians’; and ‘qualitative is only really relevant to and affordable by the big consumer brands’.

Then, the exponential growth of always-online broadband internet is changing our perceptions of what market research is and what it can do. We have become so used to getting a quick ‘heads up’ on almost any subject via Google, social networks and similar, and maybe asking a few questions online via Survey Monkey, that it can seem terribly time-consuming and indeed rather old-fashioned, to recruit and interview a tailored sample, then wait for the results.

The market research industry has, of course, embraced the online world, as witnessed by the many requests we all receive to take part in various online surveys. Increasingly sophisticated software now enables researchers to run online qualitative group discussions using chat-room-style interfaces in real time, and bulletin boards that people can contribute to over days or weeks. It can therefore be tempting to conclude that all research can now be done online, probably more quickly and cheaply than face-to-face, and that it will be at least as informative and insightful as the old methods.

Qualitative market research is more than just ‘focus groups’

Qualitative has its roots in motivational psychology, and is concerned with exploring the nature of the relationships people have with products, brands, services, organisations and environments. Sample sizes are small, although certainly not random, as they are usually structured to reflect key audiences e.g. users of a particular service, people in a demographic group, or brand loyalists. The interviewing style is conversational and non-directive, and aims to explore attitudes, motivations and behaviour in some depth; it looks at the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ that quantitative research measures. Usage of qualitative is not confined to FMCG brands and politics, but has broad applications across the private and public sectors and amongst employees and business audiences as well as consumers. These days, qualitative research interviews are therefore as prevalent amongst charity supporters discussing how they chose their favoured charities or IT managers discussing employee laptop purchasing, as they are amongst people talking about detergents and cleaning.

Depending on the market, service, question areas and the like, a qualitative researcher will recommend the best interviewing structures and environments to talk to people in. The focus group has become extremely popular because it combines a creative atmosphere, where the participants share experiences and spark off of each other, with being reasonably cost-effective because several people are interviewed simultaneously. In the UK, we usually prefer to use the description ‘group discussion’, to reflect a more free-flowing and deeper-probing facilitation style than is often used in the USA, where the ‘focus group’ description originated. A ‘conventional’ group consists of 7-8 people, although smaller groups are sometimes convened, for example if there is a lot of individual detail to cover, as are much larger ones such as public consultations, which might consist of 100 or more people and several facilitators.

However, qualitative researchers also interview people one-to-one, sometimes because the nature of the target audience makes it hard to gather several of them together e.g. senior businessmen, or because the subject matter is highly personal and people might be unwilling to reveal much in front of others e.g. staff responses to a proposed organisational restructuring. Individual in depth interviews also include accompanying people and observing them in the environments where decision making takes place, which might be a shop, an office, when cooking at home, or when shopping over the internet.

In the overall context of our busy lives, online is just another environment and means of communication and economic activity. So, much as a qualitative researcher might accompany people when making a train journey, or while watching TV at home, we now find ourselves both interviewing remotely online, and sitting with someone at their computer (and/or with their mobile), and exploring with them how they use the internet for different things.

Online and face-to-face qualitative methods are complementary

Face-to-face and online qualitative methods are therefore not an either/or choice, with only one method of being the ‘right’ one. Both styles have advantages and disadvantages, both may be more or less appropriate for a particular project, and they can also work well side by side.

Traditional face-to-face methods allow the researcher to explore and understand people’s responses more fully than by any other method, simply by virtue of being in real time and in person. Experienced moderators are very attuned to listening to the pauses and what is not said, as well as what is articulated and the tone of voice used, plus interpreting body language and involvement. Typing into a chat room interface cannot provide this richness and even video conferencing style interviews give less clues than face-to-face. Additionally, broadband does have technical problems so online sessions do get interrupted by hitches, whilst not everyone is online that frequently, nor are they necessarily fast typists, nor feel entirely comfortable outside of email and some simple web surfing. Being interviewed online in the comfort of one’s own home can all too easily turn into an off-putting technical nightmare!

Online comes into its own when the potential participants in a group are geographically spread, perhaps because they are experts in a particular subject, and it would be prohibitively costly to bring them all together, even if feasible. Here, an online group, either in real time or as an ongoing bulletin board, can generate a sense of community between like-minded experts and produce a huge amount of depth and detail. Online can also work well for some personally sensitive subjects because of the level of anonymity, and for audiences and subjects where the internet is a key communications medium e.g. online dating. It also works very well as a complement to face-to-face interviews, for example keeping diaries online plus perhaps uploading photos before or after a group discussion or individual interview, and running a chat space for participants in a group to carry on the discussion in and perhaps cover additional ground afterwards.

How do the costs compare?

A common claim and fallacy is that online is much cheaper because participants and the researchers don’t have to travel to a mutual destination. The costs in recruiting and incentivising are similar to that of face-to-face interviewing, and reliable, intuitive software interfaces are not cheap. Additionally, much of the value of qualitative lies in the interpretation, where the researcher reviews and analyses in depth what has been said, then makes concrete marketing and business recommendations. This process is similar (and similarly time-consuming) whether the data has been gathered in text online or via a sound or video recording of a real life interview.

There is also a fear that any qualitative research will simply be prohibitively expensive for a small business or start up. Whilst it is certainly not as cheap as a few questions on an online survey (which you are unsure who has responded to anyway), it is usually possible to devise a small scale study that can provide genuine insights and direction for a fairly modest fee.

In summary, qualitative research can contribute significantly to deeper understanding of a specific market, service, audience or subject area. An experienced qualitative researcher will always be able to advise which mix of methods, including online, is most appropriate, and to design a study to meet a reasonable budget and timescale.

Lesley Thompson | Changes Research and Consultancy