Rationale for choosing a particular technique/s
For determining the level of awareness about the company we will use
Phenomenological Focus group discussion
for the following reasons
We require a general opinion, experience, outlook about the brand, the perceived image of the company. We need to know what the company is
associated with in general like “is it a low cost player or does it cater to the luxury segment?”, “is the brand seen as a macho brand or not?” etc.
The company is known to have high brand value; therefore we can use the Phenomenological Focused Group Discussion to conform to it. We can quickly gather the views and check whether the product is in accordance to the perception of the brand itself or not.
It is more cost effective than In-depth interview which also could have been used for similar purposes.
It is more time effective also than In-depth interview so a lot of data can be gathered in short span of time so that we can move to the next phase of the problem.
For determining the level of awareness about the product we will use
for the following reasons e)
We need to build a better rapport with the participant as we need to delve deeper into his mind and need to know what he thinks about shampoo in general, which ingredients he think is good for hair his connotations about beer etc
The participant is seldom distracted in an IDI as opposed to the FGD and there is no interference of opinions from others which might contaminate his views.
In a FGD there might be a significant amount of non-participation but IDI has no such issues.
With IDIs, each participant has more time and opportunity to share feelings, perspectives, and attitudes. The interviewer has plenty of time to probe and obtain in-depth responses since respondents tend to express themselves more freely. i)
In many projects, researchers make findings during the interview that lead to discoveries. It usually requires only a few IDIs to make the discovery and implement change, where at least one focus group is required to do so, and in some cases two are needed. The sooner researchers can identify an issue, the fewer resources it will spend on a flawed design.