This high-security platform for web conferencing is used by fewer than 1% of all accounts. ZoomGov was specifically designed to serve sensitive areas of the US Government. We use this same technology for all our online qual research: online focus groups, virtual IDIs and online dial groups.

Why we use it – Using the same encryption as the Pentagon gives peace-of-mind to our clients. In addition, the video and audio quality is far superior.

How is this different from the standard, commercial web conferencing – ZoomGov is built on a different technology platform, GovCloud, which is used by US intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, the CDC, and many more. ZoomGov is also compliant with FedRAMP, HIPAA, & Dept of Defense security guidelines. 

Why it’s good for our clients – Through us, our clients can confidently and securely conduct any form of online research—including for projects which require a high level of security or confidentiality.

• • • • • Sensitive advocacy and political message testing
        • High-profile litigation and jury research
        • Patient healthcare research interviews
        • Pre-release media research (movies, TV pilots, CEO speeches)
        • Testing of sensitive or copyrighted materials

This robust level of security and encryption is your safeguard. It ensures clients and stakeholders that the important content you are testing will remain under your control.

Do you use the commercial version of Zoom? We have some best practices for you to ensure you are leveraging their security features. Check it out here➤

About FedRAMP

FedRamp is the security standard required across the US government for sensitive information.

It is required by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, the CDC, intelligence agencies and the Justice Department.

Learn more about FedRAMP security and encryption compliance.

About Amazon GovCloud

AWS GovCloud  https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/?whats-new-ess.sort-by=item.additionalFields.postDateTime&whats-new-ess.sort-order=desc

Learn More:

➠FedRAMP compliance for online research https://blog.zoom.us/wordpress/2019/05/07/zoom-achieves-fedramp-moderate-authorization/

➠HIPAA compliance for online research tools https://zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom-hipaa.pdf

➠DoD SRG (Security Requirements Guide) https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/dod/

➠Zoom security whitepaper https://zoom.us/docs/doc/Zoom-Security-White-Paper.pdf

Dial testing is a key part of Engagious’ research approach. And right now many people are asking “Can we do qual research online?”  Yes. We are in the midst of #coronavirus and yet we all still have research to execute and clients who need insights ASAP. Online research options are your friend. And we’ve got you covered. 

Specific questions? Get in touch and we’ll talk it through: hi@engagious.com

Our Dialsmith group has been in the dial testing game for a long time. As the developer of the Perception Analyzer dial testing tools and services for focus groups and surveys, we support global clients with in-person and online research every day. 

Specific questions? Get in touch and we’ll talk it through: hi@engagious.com

So, without further ado, you might be wondering…

What is Dial Testing?

Here’s the deal; if you’re trying to find out what people are really thinking, memory stinks. Asking someone what they thought, or how they felt, about something is bound to give you all kinds of less-than-reliable results. We’ve studied this and with the help of industry and academic experts have tons of resources for you.

So, how can dial testing help? Dial testing is how you overcome the negative impact of flawed memory and recall bias by capturing what people think in-the-moment. This is done two ways; with hand-held dials in focus groups and with an on-screen slider in surveys.

As participants watch your content (online or in person), such as ads, TV shows, presentations, etc., they use in-person dials or an online slider to give continuous, second-by-second feedback. This gives you real-time, gut reactions that you can then use to probe deeper and refine your content.

The second-by-second results are overlaid on top of the content being tested. Colored lines represent different audience segments. 

So, Dial Testing is Just for Media Testing, Right?

Oh, contraire, my friend. Dial testing is used for a heck of a lot more than that! Yes, what makes dial testing most unique is its ability to to capture moment-to-moment reactions through a dial or slider. But, those same devices can be used to ask all kinds of other questions.

For example, in a focus group, participants can use their dials to answer closed-ended questions. Some may be as simple as a gender question to help segment the moment-to-moment ratings, while others may be Likert scale or attitudinal scale questions to gauge feelings and opinions. Most any closed-ended question can be asked with the dials in a focus group.

 Dial testing results for Attitudinal Scale and Discrete Choice questions

This has the added bonus of eliminating groupthink by allowing each participant to answer privately and individually before opening things up to group discussion. You’re paying every respondent, so why not hear from each of them for every question?

How Do Respondents Answer Questions with the Dials?

Good question! The dials use a 0 – 100 numeric range, but can also use any range in-between. So, for instance, for a gender question, respondents would dial 1 for Female and 2 for Male. For a 5-point Likert scale, respondents would dial between 1-5 for the range of Strongly Disagree-Strongly Agree. For a 5-, or 7-, or 10-point attitudinal scale, respondents would dial to the appropriate number based on the scale labels.

For every question, the moderator, as well as colleagues and clients in the viewing room, can see the results charted in real-time to help drive group discussion. Any of those questions can also be used to segment the results of moment-to-moment ratings so you can see how different subgroups reacted to the content.

How Does Dial Testing Work Online?

Online dial testing is very similar to in-person dial testing except respondents use an on-screen slider instead of an in-person Perception Analyzer dial. Video or audio content gets embedded into a survey and respondents adjust the slider continuously as they watch. There is also an optional hotkey that respondents can click to indicate they would take a particular action.

For example, during a TV show they may click a “tune-out” button if at some point during the show they would stop watching if they could. That moment is recorded and the respondent continues rating the show to the end.

Overview of our online dial testing tools and moment-to-moment reporting. 

Want to Learn More About Dial Testing?

Here’s a short video from our in-house Dialsmith group:

And here’s some additional recommended reading:

Dial Testing Group vs Focus Group: How Are They Different?

10 Ways Dial Testing Will Improve Your Research

Moment-to-Moment Research Playbook

Hope that helps. If you have follow-up questions or want to discuss how dial testing can help with your research, please feel free to hit us up.

They’re rituals. They’re religious, cultural, and civic. Every society has them. We do them for our families, for our countries, for our teams. (Just try to neglect them: “But we always have monkey bread Christmas morning!”)

Turns out, these rituals aren’t magic; they’re science. And (no surprise) why we have them and perform them is the subject of studies.

Follow the links for the details, but here’s a glimpse of the findings: Pre-task rituals can reduce anxiety and improve performance. Engaging in a sequence of ritualistic movements tricks the brain into thinking it’s in an arena of stability and predictability. Which is calming.

More on point for the holiday season: Rituals unite us. They solidify and sacralize human bonds. They enhance our sense of belonging. They also can enhance our perception of value: A ritual for eating chocolate can make the chocolate taste even better.

So keep up those traditions, as they feed your soul. Start new ones with extended family and business partners. Traditions transcend family bonds. They reach into your community and your work life. And it is all good–for you and others.

Enjoy the season.

Here are my Top 10 recommendations for How to Hire a Messaging Agency.

Do Your Homework: Keep a running list of agencies and campaigns that impress you.
At least you will have a starting place.

Be Honest with Yourself: How much bandwidth can you commit to managing an outside team?
Know this going into it.

Get Specific: Every agency has a specialty.
Know what you need (advocacy messaging? advertising messaging?) and find the right match.

Find the Right Size: Make sure the agency’s size matches your expectations. You don’t want to be the smallest client, making it easy to relegate your projects to the B-Team.

Go With Experience: If you are looking for a real partner, find a team that has related experience in your field. If you need messaging for B2B, find a team that has done B2B.

Secure Top Talent: Know who will be managing your account. That individual is your lifeline– and can sink a project if they are not strong or experienced enough.

Know Your Status: Know who their big clients are and what % of their bandwidth they occupy. You don’t want to be playing second fiddle to them for the duration.

Be Smart With Money: It’s a major factor and often an agency will cut a deal on the first job. But know that going in so you can prepare
for future projects.

Trust Your Gut: At the end of the day you are choosing a group of humans that you need to work with. Are they switched on? Do they have that sparkle in their eye?

Pull The Trigger: Your final decision will likely involve a leap of faith. If you’ve been diligent, odds are good you will end up with a partner you can work with.

In the end, your success depends a lot on your own preparation. I have faith in you; You can do this! We’re with you all the way.

If you need help with brand messaging or customer insights, we’ve got those chops. So put a check mark in our “been there, done that” column and give us a shout. Happy to talk through whatever you need.

See more of my blog posts here.

In Warren we met July 8 with twelve swing voters—nine who voted for Obama in 2012, and Trump in 2016; and three who voted for Romney in 2012, and Clinton in 2016.

We talked about the weather, and their families (we’re polite, after all). We asked them what they’re looking for in a leader; what issues are important to them; what they thought of President Trump and the Democrats in the hunt for his job. We showed them clips of the recent Democratic debates and asked them to rate with dials how much they liked what was said.

They’re concerned about immigration, health care prices, and retirement. They think the economy is growing, but they wouldn’t describe it as booming. We heard, again, that issues that are important to the 24-hour news stations (like impeachment) aren’t really important to them.

It’s all interesting—read the whole report here—and we’re grateful, as always, to the respondents for letting us take a look under the hood.

Some highlights:

On immigration: They want to take care of struggling Americans first. “I don’t want to be a jerk,” said one female Obama-Trump voter. “I feel terrible for those people, but there are people here in this country that are struggling to survive.”

On Trump: They said they don’t like it. But they like that he speaks his mind, and that he’s getting things done, or trying to. So they’re sticking with him. All nine Trump voters, and one Clinton voter, said they would vote for Trump over Clinton if there were a presidential election between them tomorrow.

On Democratic presidential hopefuls: The current crop doesn’t excite them. They couldn’t identify pictures of most of them; nor could they say much about them. They’d like for Oprah to run.

On the Democratic debate: They didn’t watch much of it. Of the parts we showed them they said the candidates’ positions are too liberal, and would make these voters more likely to vote for Trump.

On large corporations: They don’t believe large corporations care about America’s best interests. As one respondent said, “I’ve been in a lot of meetings where we decide where we put the plants—Korea, China, places like that—and America’s best interest was [never considered].”

On tariffs: They support them, especially on cars and car parts made in other countries. They want to protect American jobs and American wealth.

On climate change: It’s not a top five issue for a little more than half of them (“many other issues matter more to me”), but it wouldn’t cause them to vote against (or for) someone who is vocal about addressing it.

These voters cited a common reason for swinging: a desire for change.

Our eight Erie participants all voted for Obama in 2012, and then switched to Trump in 2016. They voted for Obama because they wanted expanded health care, more fairness, and something different from George W. Bush.

“I didn’t like Bush at all, I thought he did a terrible job,” said one respondent, “and I had hopes that Obama would do better.”

When the change didn’t come after four years of Obama, these change voters . . . stuck with Obama. “In the first four years I thought it was just a leftover from Bush, so I thought, he’s going to make a difference, he’s going to continue doing more things. Which in fact I do not think he did.”

By 2016 they were ready for another change. Trump was different, they said. He wasn’t a typical politician. He wasn’t going to be a pushover with leaders of other nations. He’s willing to be an American, and he wants to take care of America first.

Are they ready to swing to a new partner in 2020? Not really.

“I’m an issue voter,” a respondent said, “and I don’t see it meriting change at this point. When I changed my vote, I gave him eight years.”

Aren’t they tired of Trump’s antics? Not really.

“Sensation sells,” said one. “And there are changes that are happening,” added another: Jobs. Record low unemployment. Rising wages. Good changes in the economy.

But they would like for someone to take away his Twitter account.

Erie swing voters told us their top issues were the economy (they want jobs to come back from Mexico and China), health care, immigration (still waiting for The Wall), education (it really needs improvement, and abortion (they mostly favor restrictions).

They generally like what Trump has done on their top issues, and they’re willing to give him four more years to enact all the changes he promised.

Erie’s part of the Rust Belt, hard hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs. So we asked these voters what they thought of Trump’s trade deal renegotiations and tariffs.

Respondents said they’re hopeful that his trade policy will bring back jobs. It’s too early to tell if it’s working, but they’re willing to wait.

“It kind of sucks while you’re budgeting, but when you buy the car it feels good,” one respondent said. “It’s going to hurt short term, but in the long run it’s going to be better.”

Our voters said they care about climate change and pollution—“We need to take it seriously”—but it’s not a top-five issue.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders were the most recognizable faces on the Democratic side, with Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke, and Kamala Harris rounding out the top tier.

What advice do they have for Democrats considering impeachment? “If you want him out you have to beat him. He’s the best-looking food on the buffet. You’ve got to put out something that’s better.”

Did we leave you wanting more? For video, scores, and a great time the full report, go here.

In our latest episode of “How to Woo and Win a Swing Voter,” there was a plot twist. Maybe you saw it coming:

Swing voters in different segments of the Midwest do not always fall for the same pickup lines.

In Wisconsin, Ohio, and now Iowa, we’ve had conversations with swing voters—people who voted for Obama, and then Trump; or Romney, and then Clinton. And while they’re all flavors of Midwest, we’re learning to distinguish some of the subtler flavor differences.

Engagious is partnering with Focus Pointe Global to hold monthly focus groups in swing districts across the United States. It’s only a couple of hours in an evening, but it’s a way to see the faces and hear the voices of the nebulous and coveted “swing voters.” It’s kind of an exercise in discomfort and vulnerability: They let us pick their brains and share their thoughts with the country; and we (and anyone who follows this project) let them assail our assumptions and biases.

On May 6, in Sioux City, Iowa, Engagious met with 11 swing voters. All 11 respondents voted for Obama in 2012, and Trump in 2016. As in Wisconsin and Ohio, we asked about President Trump, the Mueller report, Democrats running for president, the economy, and other issues in the news. As in Wisconsin and Ohio we heard that what’s really important to the news outlets isn’t always deeply important to the news receivers. They didn’t recognize most of the Democratic candidates for president. They think Congress should move on from the Mueller investigation. They didn’t know about Medicare for All or the Green New Deal.

But there were differences. For instance, in Ohio, most of the respondents voted against “the other guy” in 2016. In Iowa, more than half of the respondents voted for Trump, not against Clinton. In Ohio most of our respondents would vote for Obama in 2020 if the Constitution allowed it. In Iowa all but one of our respondents would vote for Trump over Hillary Clinton, and eight of 11 would take Trump over Barack Obama if there were an election tomorrow and those were the choices.

Unlike Ohio (and Wisconsin), our Iowa swing voters had a longer list of “likes” than complaints about President Trump. Negative press about Trump isn’t going to sway their vote. What will sway it is how the country is doing, and how they personally are doing. They also indicated that far-left policies promoted by Democratic candidates would push them to vote for Trump.

Our Iowa respondents scored 6.7 out of ten that the U.S. is headed in the right direction, but only a 5.2 for Iowa’s direction. Was it a case of “national prosperity isn’t trickling down to the local level”? Maybe. But one respondent said, “I like what Republicans are doing on the national level, but I don’t really like what they’re doing here in Iowa.” So maybe they don’t like Iowa’s leadership. (Hard to say what “right track/wrong track” means to each individual. Economy? Culture? Security? Environment? Something else?)

They didn’t articulate what socialism is, but they don’t want it: “Socialism is going to give us Venezuela.”

As in Ohio, Iowa respondents want President Trump to encourage renewable energy. Wind has been good for Iowa, they observed. And while we usually demand a belief in climate change in order to do something about it, one of our respondents effectively dismissed that notion with this comment: “ I don’t believe that climate change is the big affair that people make it out to be. . . . But I do think Trump should do his best to encourage affordable, sensible, renewable energies.” The other respondents agreed.

Want more? Check the scores and watch the highlights. The drama continues next month, when Engagious travels to Erie, Pennsylvania. What will we find in this former manufacturing and steel powerhouse? Tune in June 3. (Yes, we mixed the sports and telenovela metaphors, and no, we’re not sorry.)

NewMarket Group is really, really good at direct marketing.

Company president Melissa Young wanted it to be even better. She turned to Engagious to find out how.

Rich Thau took a research team to Orlando, Florida, to meet with current NewMarket customers in two focus groups. Melissa and her team were there as well, to observe and occasionally to generate new material as needed.

Rich showed headlines and copy to the customers, then observed and probed their reactions: Which word caught your eye? Why do you trust this and dismiss that? Why wouldn’t you follow that link? He asked questions that Melissa’s team can’t ask in everyday customer interactions, and found answers that a customer survey won’t.

Melissa and her team took the findings, tweaked their offerings . . . and watched their revenue jump 10%, with returns at least three times (or more) the amount they invested in research. Not to mention the time savings. Melissa calls it “invaluable.”

NewMarket Group is a Baltimore-based publishing and supplement company, a division of The Agora, a global network of companies focused on health, finance, and lifestyle.

Read Full Axios article on the swing voter focus groups here: (by midterm political reporter Alexi McCammond)

Read the Washington Post Article Here: (by opinion writer Helaine Olen)

Grab a copy of the full research report here.

In conjunction with media company Axios, Engagious conducted dial tests in Canton, Ohio, with 12 swing voters: six Romney-Clinton voters, and six Obama-Trump voters, all extremely likely to vote in November’s midterm elections. We wanted to get a feel for what they’re thinking about hot topics, and why. Rich Thau, Engagious president, moderated.

To receive a copy of our research write up, go here.

Axios strives to deliver news that’s worthy of attention: important, trustworthy, and efficient. (Check out their website and see how uncluttered and smart it is.)

A preview of the Axios wrap up is below:

The focus-group respondents, five women and seven men, age range 20s to 70s, used hand-held dials to answer a variety of multiple-choice and zero-to-10 scale questions; those scores were used as a touchstone for discussion.

What were they thinking? We found out. Voting, corruption, trade, football—all the things

So many things, we can’t fit them all on one post. In this first post we’ll focus on midterms, President Trump, and more. (Later we’ll hit the economy, climate change, and NAFTA.)

1. Chasm on America’s direction

When asked in which direction America is moving on a scale from zero (“totally wrong direction”) to 10 (“totally right direction”), the average score for “Romney-Clinton” voters was 2.3, compared to 6.3 for “Obama-Trump” voters. By comparison, there was only a modest difference in the perceived direction Ohio is moving: 4.5 for “Romney-Clinton” voters vs. 5.3 for “Obama-Trump” voters.

The evidence cited for America’s right direction: job growth; the economy picking up (from cutting taxes and regulations); reworking trade agreements; and borrowing money from China “has ceased.”

Evidence given for America’s wrong direction: the Trump Administration is unpredictable and thus “frightening,” running the country like a “banana republic”; the tax cuts don’t benefit individuals; Trump is spending on things he shouldn’t be, like bailing out a Chinese company.

2. These swing voters are not sending Trump a message with upcoming U.S. Senate elections

Only two of 12 respondents (both of them “Romney-Clinton” voters) said they plan to convey their feelings about President Trump with their vote in November. They felt a vote for Sherrod Brown sends a message about their displeasure toward Trump (thought both said they would vote for Brown whether Trump was President or not).

3. Democratic control of Congress in ‘19: “Romney-Clinton” voters want it and “Obama-Trump” voters neutral

When asked, “On a scale from zero to 10, how would you feel if in 2019 Democrats were in charge of at least one branch of Congress? Zero is much less pleased; 10 is much more pleased,” “Romney-Clinton” voters scored at 7.8; “Obama-Trump” voters scored at 4.7.

4. More women in office is a good thing, but not terribly important

Eight of 12 respondents perceived that more women were running for office this year than in previous years. On a scale from zero to 10, with zero being having more women run for office is a very bad thing for our country and 10 being a very good thing for our country, the average score was 7.3 (men at 6.9; women at 7.8). Yet when told that “in 2017, 105 women held seats in Congress, which is roughly 1/5 of all 535 seats” and then asked, “How important is it to you that America get to the point where half of all seats are held by women?” they scored on average 4.4 (4.1 for men; 4.8 for women). It was even less of an imperative to have a female president in respondents’ lifetimes (4.2 for women, 3.4 for men).

One “Romney-Clinton” female explained: “I am very much for women’s rights. . . . However, when it comes to the political arena, I don’t care whether you’re male, female, or chimpanzee. I care about your competency and what you’re going to do.”

5. Two of 12 swing voters would change their 2016 vote

If another election were held today, of our evenly-split sample of 12, one “Romney-Clinton” voter would vote for Trump, and one “Obama-Trump” voter would shift to Clinton.

The respondent who would vote for Trump this time, instead of Clinton, told us there’s “a lot more corruption” with Clinton, and he does not see as much with Trump. He believed more of her corruption has been exposed by the media since the 2016 election.

The respondent who would switch from Trump to Clinton voted for “the lesser of two evils” in 2016. He believed Trump takes credit for his successes and blames everyone else when something doesn’t go his way—and he’s sick of it. He thought Trump can’t take the blame for anything he has done.

6. Trump viewed as having failed to drain the swamp in DC

On a scale from zero to 10, with zero being “totally failed” and 10 being “totally succeeded,” “Romney-Clinton” voters gave Trump a 1.7 on his success in “draining the swamp” in DC; “Obama-Trump” voters gave Trump a 4.3. The latter group said they hoped he would do it, but originally had low expectations he’d be successful; Trump has met those low expectations.

7. They are paying attention to news about the Mueller investigation, and disagree when Trump calls it a “witch hunt”

On a scale from zero to 10, with zero being “not paying any attention” to the investigation, and 10 being “paying close attention,” “Romney-Clinton” voters scored 7.3; “Obama-Trump” voters scored 5.7. As for the witch hunt, “Romney-Clinton” voters strongly disagreed, scoring it at 1.5; “Obama-Trump” voters averaged at neutral, scoring it at 5.2.

“I look at the evidence that is surfacing and it’s never-ending. I fully expect that the Republican Congress will ignore the facts that Mueller reveals in his report. Based on the convictions, based on the indictments—to say that this is a ‘witch hunt’ is nonsensical.” – “Romney-Clinton” Male

One “Obama-Trump” respondent strongly agreed that it is a “witch hunt.” He argued people were paid to find “dirt” on Trump, and the people associated with Trump have not been tried on anything related to the Russia investigation, only on personal matters.

8. Trump Administration viewed as more corrupt than Obama Administration

When asked, “On a scale from zero to 10, in comparing the last two administrations, would you say: Zero is ‘The Obama Administration was much more corrupt than the Trump Administration’ and 10 is ‘The Trump Administration is much more corrupt than the Obama Administration’?” “Romney-Clinton” voters scored this at 7.8; “Obama-Trump” voters scored it at 5.5.

9. “Romney-Clinton” voters were much more likely to vote for 2018 candidates advocating Trump’s impeachment; “Obama-Trump” voters were much less likely

On a zero-to-10 scale, “Romney-Clinton” voters scored this at 8.0 (much more likely to vote for a candidate advocating impeachment); “Obama-Trump” voters scored this at 2.7 (much less likely).

Respondents who would be much more likely to vote for someone who advocates for impeachment suggested Republicans impeached President Clinton for less. One “Romney-Clinton” female remarked, “I don’t care for Trump and I want him out of there.”

We asked why they would want to vote for someone supporting impeachment knowing it is very unlikely Trump would be removed from office, given the likely composition of the Senate in 2019. The group was split—6 to 6—as to whether it is okay under some circumstances to use the impeachment process to highlight what a President has done wrong, knowing very likely actual removal is remote.

One “Romney-Clinton” voter said proceeding in this fashion would be a “moral correction” for this country. Those objecting to the idea cited the cost of going through the process and the harm it could do to the President in his role as Commander in Chief. They believed the charges are likely political—pursued by his opponents to harm him, rather than having valid proof the President has done something wrong.

Ten of 12 respondents—including all the “Romney-Clinton voters”—said they believed Democrats would file articles of impeachment if they were to win the House in 2019. They also said Democrats have it already set in their mind that they will do that if they gain control.

Wait, there’s more

Women, fake news, and football: our Axios findings to be continued in the next post.

To get the write up of results, go here.

To see how Axios interpreted the research, take a look at their article here.