Editor’s note: Pierre Bélisle is president of Bélisle Marketing Limited, a Cantley, Quebec research firm. He collaborated with NFO CFgroup on this combined qualitative/quantitative project.

Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, issued a challenge to researchers at the September 2002 ESOMAR Conference in Barcelona. Taking aim at traditional in-facility focus groups, he said, “If you want to understand how a lion hunts don’t go to the zoo. Go to the jungle.”

A recent case study demonstrated to us that the trophies from such “safaris” can be brought back more easily and less expensively than ever before thanks to current video technology.

Researchers may not wish or need to spend all of their time in the wild. But video safaris may prove to be an exciting occasional outing.

Case study: Canada Post

Our client, Canada Post, Canada’s national postal system, sought feedback from consumers on a redesign of its retail post offices. The client sought to explore the strengths and any weaknesses of the redesign as expressed in a prototype transformation of a flagship store. It seemed clear that only an expedition to this location could answer the client’s information needs. The qualitative portion of the design therefore included on-location, task-based interviews during working hours, on-location mini-groups after hours, and traditional in-facility focus groups with a field trip to the outlet.

We felt that a traditional written report would be an inadequate display for the trophies we were sure our hunt would yield (the client had no need for real-time observation, which could have been provided, however, by a streaming video feed through the Internet). We therefore proposed that the on-location interviews and mini-groups be videotaped and that a video report be produced.

The results were powerful, and we are happy to report that the client has decided to roll out the new design to more outlets, along with many modifications suggested in the video. Indeed, the video was so successful in conveying the feelings of customers in a compelling fashion that it will likely be in demand for internal screenings (and when was the last time you received an enthusiastic round of applause for presenting research results?!).

Outfitting for a video safari

Here are some tips for researchers considering outfitting themselves for a similar campaign.

  • Should I consider becoming the video director/producer?

Why not? In their December 1997 Quirk’s article, “Focus group videos: a survival guide,” Andrew Wright and L. K. Fitkin argued that researchers should “Get involved in the videotape recording.” (Visit www.quirks.com and enter QuickLink number 279 to view the full article.) We would go further. We believe that researchers can become directors of their safari reports; the skills are similar to those required to bring a successful qualitative project to fruition. Alternatively, you can contract with a production house to direct and produce your video safari.

As director or researcher, you must obtain a signed release from participants. This document will determine the circumstances and considerations governing eventual screenings.

  • Can I do the videotaping myself?

Best not. Consider using a professional videographer. While you prepare and conduct the interviews or groups, the videographer rents and manages equipment (lights, camera, tripods), shoots the interviews, shoots the B-roll (the cutaways shots of products, services and scenes that illustrate what the respondents are talking about), and generally helps you recognize and avoid the traps and snares of on-location shoots, such as dealing with distracting backgrounds and noises.

Your first task as director is to hire an experienced videographer equipped for and experienced in location shooting. Get references and check them out.

  • Can we use a consumer videocam?

Perhaps. Although digital consumer videocams have become incredibly sophisticated, many have too many automated features to allow the videographer the control necessary to achieve a professional look. For instance, the videographer may need to manually monitor sound levels, or correct the color balance. These features can generally only be adjusted in a professional videocam.

  • What format should this be taped in?

Record in one of the digital video formats, whether mini-DV, DV, or Digital8. Videos in these formats can be easily downloaded to a computer for nonlinear editing, without loss of quality (and at qualities that exceed those of the analog formats). The analog formats themselves - VHS, SVHS, Beta, and Hi8 - either require conversion to a digital format or editing in an analog suite. They are, in my humble opinion, virtually extinct and should be avoided.

  • Mac or Windows?

Either. We used Windows XP to edit this video, but Mac users will know that Macs continue to be forerunners in multimedia. Indeed, one industry-standard editing program, Final Cut Pro, is currently only available for the Mac platform.

  • Do we need a sound person?

Depends. Individual interviews are usually miked with small wireless microphones connected to the videographer’s camera. If you are conducting groups, however, consider hiring a soundperson (your videographer probably knows a few) who will likely use an off-camera boom microphone to capture quality audio.

  • Can I edit on my home computer?

Absolutely, if you have the interest and the equipment. (The book to get is The Little Digital Video Book by Michael Rubin; his Web site is www.nonlinear4.com.) Digital video, off-the-shelf editing software, and computers - desktops and laptops - have become incredibly powerful and affordable.

Alternatively, you can hire an editor (your videographer undoubtedly knows one or two nonlinear editors).

  • How much does all this cost?

Surprisingly little, and probably less than the travel and time costs of the usual array of observers.

In this study, all video expenses (including travel, but excluding editing, which was done in-house) cost less than $3,000 for three days of shooting.

  • Are participants cowed by the camera?

No. We asked participants their reactions to the filming process and they felt neither intimidated nor swayed by the camera’s presence. Researchers still concerned by the camera’s intrusion might consider conducting off-camera pre-interviews, and then asking participants to repeat their answers with the tape rolling.

  • What will you do differently next time?

More pre-production work, including location scouting, to become alerted to and resolve issues with ambient sound and lighting; the possible use of an on-camera lamp to lighten shadows; and, the possible use of a sound engineer to record group discussions.

  • What is the benefit of video safaris?

In their article, Wright and Fitkin rightly note that video “...gives your report more impact by letting the audience experience the emotions of the respondents. Video captures inflection, body language, facial expressions and tonal variations - details that are lost on paper.”

When it is not practical or sufficient to have real-time observers, modern video captures both the respondent’s emotions and the relevant environment for all eventual audiences.

  • Will you be doing more video safaris?

Definitely. A colleague and technological guru, Betsy Leichliter, predicts that in a few years, qualitative researchers will be expected to have a working knowledge of video and video editing technology. I think she is right - the jungle is waiting. Or, in the words of another great hunter, “Come, Watson, come! The game is afoot!”