Most focus group discussion videos are boring. Watching behind the mirror is better, but what if you could have a seat at the table? FV360 delivers just that.Some time ago I met FocusVision in Sydney for a demo of their new FV 360 camera setup. FV360 allows the client to see respondents the way the moderator engages them, streamed over the internet. Here is a video of the difference between traditional video capture and with the new FV360 equipment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu2hYAWRxmg

There is no real need to go to the group room facility, as you won’t look through the one-way mirror anymore with this setup. My advice: stream it to your couch at home, the food is better and healthier that way. With FV360, facial expressions, body language and other non-verbal cues truly come to life. Seeing people interact with product packs, marketing materials or other stimuli just became a lot more engaging and immersive.

Reporting insights

Reporting insights back to stakeholders has also improved with FV Video Insights. The template-driven approach to clips will make turn-around faster and reports more engaging. Although this new tech comes at a price, the exciting thing is that it is equally accessible to boutiques as well as larger corporate research providers. I think it will be incredibly useful in consumer health as well as patients and carers’ research.

Protecting privacy

Nearly all of my work is with healthcare professionals, and protecting privacy can be difficult when you work with small populations. For example, there are only 574 Neurologists in Australia registered with the Medical Board according to the December 2016 statistics. Here is what the AMSRS Guideline on observing, recording and handling images of research participants states on this topic:

Researchers have obligations under the AMSRS Code of Professional Behaviour and the Privacy Act.  Video is defined as personal identified information by the Privacy Act and must be used, handled, protected and stored accordingly, and in a way that complies with Rule 10 of the Code, which states that participants’ anonymity must be strictly preserved.

Like other disruptive technology, think Uber and AirBnB, it may be at odds with current legislation and Industry Codes. Having said that, people have shown to trade-off privacy in favour of convenience. In my experience, respondents rarely object to being filmed, as long as the consent form is transparent about the purpose and clear in how the information is used and stored. It would be even better if the research participant had a guarantee that the information would not be stored indefinitely, but would be destroyed after say 30 days.