Contemporary Research in E-Marketing_12

276 Mason, Davis and Bosley The interactions among our scales tell us certain things about each of the consecutive sections of an online group. In effect, they identify sections that warrant a closer look, for different reasons. In this focus group, sections 5, 7, 11, and 17 stand out for positive reasons, and 9 and 10 stand out for negative reasons. Section 5 asks participants to focus on how safe they think their financial situation to be. It includes the following questions from the moderator: mod: Many of you mention your investments and the economic downturn. Do you think that your investments will be enough to weather this storm? Why or why not? mod: Michael, good question. I was wondering if you felt secure with your investments. mod: I`ve heard some ideas about what to do in the face of the current economy. What, if anything, have you done about your current financial concerns? The scales that highlighted section 5 presents groupings of features that were one or more standard deviations above or below the mean for their scale. The section shows participants voicing • fairly strong opinion [Scale: 7.58] • strong information and strong action [Scale: 7.68], but • little active personal engagement with an issue or stimulus [Scale: .39] • above-average conditions on or qualifications about the opinion [Scale: 1.12], and • above-average face-saving or backpedaling [Scale: 1.28] This combination suggests caution on the part of the participants. When we look at the actual text, we see participants using predictive “will,” private verbs like “hope,” qualifying adverbs like “maybe” and “enough,” and a slight drop in idea ownership through a less-than-usual number of first-person “I” pronouns. Participants are reporting concerns about the future in response to questions about financial security, and their concerns are strong, but they are not offering—or are reluctant to identify—personal solutions or experiences. Section 7 completes the group of segments discussing current financial concerns for the future. Participants are actively sharing their personal opinions, giving specifics, and elaborating them. In the text itself, we see numerous “mays” and “mights” and “wills,” with adjectives such as “better” and “worse” battling each other as optimists and pessimists square off—but very politely. Of special interest to the Very Large Bank: in this section, participants used the adjectives Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. Stance Analysis: Social Cues and Attitudes in Online Interaction 277 to identify the types of sources these participants look to for news and information. Section 11 is the “hottest” section in terms of integrating a number of factors: strongest of all groups in information, in predicting action, and in generalizing what anybody and everybody might do/think. It is the second strongest in personal engagement, off the charts in opinion projection, and low in presenting qualifications restricting opinions and involvement. Participants know what they think and are confident in their assertions. The moderator asks: Mod: What`s the first thing that you would do with your winnings? Why? The “wish list” offered by the participants is important in its detail, as is their action list. Initially, these participants predict they would spend money on “home” (key nouns include patio, car, kitchen, children) and give many details about their desire to keep or invest at least half of any “win”: members of this focus group have been burned in a market downturn. Leisure, travel, and vacation come “second.” Example 2: Female Teen Shoppers. Each focus group is different, of course, as we illustrate with our second example. This focus group of teens was convened the same year as that of the Very Large Bank, in December 2000. It offers an interesting validity check for our approach in that it helps differentiate an age cohort by language behavior. The scales identify some crucial sections for opinions and plans from this group, but not as many sections as we typically see. The teens in this group were extremely adept at keyboarding, and self-reported their habit of daily online chats with friends. They were accustomed to, and conversant in, the “fleeting speech” of the online chat universe, as characterized by Neuage (2003): Online fleeting text affects discursive connectiveness. Spoken lan-guage is dynamic, fleeting, irreversible speech, but printed lan-guage breaks the strictures of time and leads to permanence. The two together in an online environment has elements of both—what has been said can be “revisited” as long as the chatroom is showing previous turn takings. As we illustrate, they carried on a running series of quips, questions, and comments that included the moderator but were not always focused on the task Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 278 Mason, Davis and Bosley Table 2. Teen shoppers Segment 3 4 5 6 Scale 1 Other-Directed Information 18.69 21.78 25.64 15.55 Scale 2 Generalized Rationale -1.91 -4.37 -6.38 -12.88 Scale 3 Personalized Negative Opinion 8.30 9.17 8.68 21.33 Scale 4 Waffling & Hedging 9.54 12.24 11.50 12.59 Scale 5 Projected Probabilities -1.56 -0.16 -0.03 -2.31 of responding directly and exclusively to questions. Their language usage was often more like a chat group on a topic with some substance, such as books or religion, than like focus groups on banking and financial services made up of older adults. Table 2 displays a selection from the full set of scales for the teen shoppers. Segment 5 of the online transcript using our expanded scales for online focus groups. The scales identify segment 5 as offering strong, elaborated reports and opinions about actions or products but not signaling strong personal engagement with any particular one. It illustrates a rolling interaction where teens finish their conver-sations with each other, en route to answering questions. To understand it, we must find its start in the preceding segment, segment 4. As a topic switch in segment 4, the moderator keys to recent news stories, asking mod: Can you think of any brands that were so popular that kids would get mugged just for wearing them? A lively conversation ensues about one formerly popular brand now seen as fallen from favor. The moderator tries twice to introduce a new topic, and with her third question, tries tweaking the discussion about muggings, asking whether public service announcements might caution teens and slow the pace of muggings for jackets. On the screen, each line follows another; we have modified font and spacing slightly, to display efforts of the moderator to get the group back on her track. Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. Stance Analysis: Social Cues and Attitudes in Online Interaction 279 mod: So public announcements and things along those line wouldn`t do any good in your opinion? C__: i dont like starter either R__: i got disconnected, sorry J__ i doubt it L__: starter isn`t hot here in VA T__: nah... no one listens to those things J__: who wears Starter anymore? A__: no, i don`t think they would R__: starter`s era has passed J__: i wore a starter jacket 6 years ago C__: not really...none listens mod: It wouldn`t have to just be Starter we`re talking about K__: ah J__: when i was in the 5th grade A__: i think public announcements and stuff would just make the items more desirable mod: Okay, topic switch... J__ i just can`t see someone getting mugged for their clothes mod: When you go shopping, do you like to hang out with your friends—make it a social thing, or do you get in, get out, get it over…. T__: like i said before, no one ever listens to those announcements. I honestly leave the room when they`re on TV or something C__: yeah people are just that way After a sizable number of teen turns and two more efforts at switching the topic, the moderator is able to elicit information about teen retail preferences. Other segments with significant scores for strong positive opinions (segments 29 and 31) identify brand names in clothing and the names of stores that attracted teens because they were unique in concept, as well as in the brands stocked, which lead to their being seen as trendy and trend setting. Such sidebar conversations or continued, overlapping threads seldom surface in segments whose participants predict, project, or hedge in significant ways. For example, negative opinions surfaced several times throughout the focus group, often accompanied by predictions of what others do or think. Segment 6 shows all the teens reacting immediately to the first in a set of three related questions about parental influences on teen clothing choices; in the next part of the segment they explain parents’ desire for their respectability through coverage of body parts such as bellies. Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. 280 Mason, Davis and Bosley mod2: Do you ever wear the brands or clothes that your mom wears? L__: I`m very picky in clothes! C__: if i didnt have time J__: some of the time T__: There are some things my mom and i disagree upon (my clubbing clothes) but we mainly have the same tastes C__: yes L__: NONONONONONONO A__: no, my mom and I dress completely different Implications for Marketing and Consumer Research The methodology and results of stance analysis have implications for both marketing and consumer research in that each scrap or fragment of online interaction can be scrutinized with greater confidence. Previously, qualitative analyses of ftf focus and online groups have focused almost exclusively on the content of the participants’ remarks. Using stance analysis, we now have a method to focus on meaning by how the participants express themselves. Although online focus group writing appears fragmented and occasionally random, it is not without meaning. A single word can have great significance to the “speaker” and the “listener.” Participants express their concerns, want to be heard, expect to be responded to, all the while forming opinions about products, services, or whatever the topic at hand. We have “unpacked” the cues and clues to understanding the language interaction in environments far more interactive than traditional face-to-face focus groups. Stance analysis allows us to answer this question: “How do you know what people mean beneath the surface?” Our combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches gives an interpretive method that points to places in the text where statistical significance indicates what they mean, and how much they meant it, which suggests whether they are likely to act upon their opinion. The language they choose to use (whether consciously or unconsciously) implies much about their stance toward the product, service, or topic being discussed. In addition, stance analysis lets us understand how people express evaluation in Web-based interaction. It moves us closer to understanding how people suggest intention—critical to understand-ing feedback comments on Web sites, open-ended responses to online surveys, and other ways that people signal attitudes through language in online environ-ments. Yardena Rand, in “Revisiting Online Focus Groups,” suggests that online focus groups offer much for market researchers: (1) increased information from respondents, (2) efficient, to-the-point conversations, (3) increased methods for Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited. ... - tailieumienphi.vn