How to run a focus group for a new paid event concept

You've described a new event idea, and everyone seems to like it. Someone wants a longer programme. Someone else suggests adding food. Your regulars say they'd definitely come. It's encouraging, but you're still the person who has to pay the venue before finding out whether any of them will buy.

A focus group can help you work out what people understand, what interests them and what would stop them attending. Run it around a few concrete event offers, with people who could realistically become customers, and give them room to disagree. Then use what you learn to improve a small paid test. The discussion itself won't tell you how many tickets you'll sell.

The useful outcome is a better decision about your next commitment. You might change the format, discover that your intended audience needs a different time, or decide the current idea doesn't justify a pilot. Here's how to get that answer without turning the session into an evening of compliments, feature requests and optimistic sales forecasts.

Decide what the discussion needs to change

The first thing you want to do is name the decision you're making. "Find out whether people like our idea" is too loose. You could hear plenty of positive comments and still have no idea which venue to book or what to put on the ticket page.

Try something more specific. You need to choose between a guided beginner workshop and a more social making session. Both would run in the same neighbourhood, but they require different instructors, room arrangements and prices. Before paying for either, you want to understand what customers expect to do and which parts make the experience worth leaving home for.

Write down what can still change. Perhaps the day, session length and level of instruction are open, while your venue choices and available dates are limited. Tell participants about real constraints when those constraints matter to their answer. There's little benefit in developing enthusiasm for an outdoor summer event if your business can only deliver an indoor winter edition.

Also write down what would make you stop. Maybe the only version people understand requires equipment you can't afford. Maybe your concept depends on a late finish that conflicts with the audience's return journey. A useful research plan allows those findings to affect the decision, even when you've already become attached to the original idea.

Keep the questions narrow enough to explore properly. You can investigate how people interpret the offer, what they compare it with and which practical barriers need attention. Trying to settle the brand, venue, programme, sponsorship package and next year's expansion in the same discussion will leave each question barely examined.

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities describes focus groups as facilitated discussions of people's views and experiences. Its guidance concerns digital health products, but the distinction is useful here. You're arranging a conversation that helps explain people's thinking. You're still responsible for turning that understanding into a deliverable event and a workable budget.

Our guide to researching event demand in a new city covers the wider launch question, including local alternatives and realistic journeys. Do that wider work where necessary. This focus group should address the particular uncertainty that remains, rather than repeat everything you could ask about the market.

Before recruitment starts, complete this sentence in your own words. "After these sessions, we need to decide whether to change, abandon or test this specific offer, and the unresolved question is..." If your team supplies several unrelated endings, choose the one that affects the next payment. The others can wait for research designed to answer them.

Use a focus group for the questions it can answer

A group discussion is useful when people can respond to each other's interpretations. One person may assume that a workshop includes personal tuition, while another expects a demonstration followed by independent work. Exploring that difference can expose a promise your event description hasn't made clear.

It's also useful for understanding shared expectations. People can explain what makes an evening feel welcoming, how they decide whether to attend alone, and why a format reminds them of something they've tried before. The disagreement often teaches you more than a quick vote for the most attractive idea.

Choose individual interviews when the subject calls for privacy. Someone may not want to discuss money worries, disability, anxiety about attending alone or an awkward previous experience in front of strangers. A private conversation also gives a quieter participant more time to explain a complicated buying decision. Offer that route when the group would make participation uncomfortable.

If you're testing whether people can understand a booking page, ask them to use it individually. Watching someone interpret the ticket types and find essential information answers a different question from asking a room whether the design looks good. You can combine methods, but keep the result of each activity clear.

The CDC's guidance on qualitative research explains that small, deliberately selected samples don't support statistical estimates for a wider population. It also discusses the social pressure that can affect group responses. For your event, that means six enthusiastic people don't establish a conversion rate for the neighbourhood or your mailing list.

You can record how many people raised an issue within a session. Just describe that limited observation accurately. If four participants misunderstand whether materials are included, you've found a wording problem worth investigating. You haven't established that the same share of every future visitor will misunderstand it.

A focus group also can't settle supplier capability, licensing, safety or the venue's suitability. Participants can tell you what they want to experience. A request for a larger practical activity still needs a production assessment. Keep customer expectations and operational feasibility in separate notes so enthusiasm doesn't quietly become a commitment your team can't fulfil.

The buying question comes later, through an offer people can actually book. Our paid pilot guide explains how to make that next test bounded and useful. Use the focus group to improve what you'll sell and identify what you need to observe. Leave the sales forecast unresolved until you have evidence that supports it.

Recruit people who could buy, including people who don't know you

Start with behaviour and circumstances. For a beginner making event, relevant participants might have recently paid for a creative experience, considered one and declined, or spent on a different local activity serving the same purpose. They need to be able to reach the proposed venue and make the kind of purchase you're studying.

Don't require everyone to have bought your exact event category before. That would exclude people you're hoping to attract for the first time. Instead, decide what each participant can help explain. An experienced workshop buyer can discuss expectations about instruction. Someone who nearly booked can describe the hesitation. A newcomer can show where your description assumes too much knowledge.

Use your existing customers, but identify them as existing customers. They can offer informed feedback and may understand what your team delivers well. They may also interpret a vague promise generously because they trust you. You need to hear what the same promise means to someone who hasn't already decided you're worth supporting.

Recruit through more than one appropriate route. You could approach a local community organiser for permission to share the invitation, ask a relevant venue to circulate it, and invite eligible people from your own audience where contact is permitted. Record the route each person came through. Twelve responses from one close-knit group won't suddenly become a broad view because you divide them into two sessions.

GOV.UK's guidance on finding research participants recommends recruiting actual or likely users and considering the range of people who need to participate. Apply that principle to the purchase you're studying. A convenient room of friends may be easy to assemble, but convenience doesn't make their circumstances relevant to the event you plan to sell.

Use a short screening conversation. Ask what kind of local activities the person has paid for or considered, whether the proposed area is practical, and whether they have a close connection with your team or other participants. Ask only what helps you select the group or arrange participation. You don't need a detailed personal profile to discuss a workshop offer.

Avoid revealing the answer you're hoping to hear. "We're looking for people who love creative workshops" recruits approval. An invitation asking about recent choices around local paid activities gives people more room to explain mixed experiences. State clearly that you're researching a possible event and that joining the discussion doesn't require buying anything.

Be careful about relationships inside the room. A manager and their direct report may not disagree freely about employer-funded conference attendance. A whole friendship group may describe a shared night out while telling you little about someone arriving alone. Where the relationship could affect the answer, recruit separately or run separate sessions with a clear purpose.

For our fictional making event, suppose you plan two sessions with six adults in each. One includes recent buyers of local creative activities. The other includes people who considered such activities but chose something else. That's an illustrative research design, not a minimum sample or a claim that twelve people are enough for every decision. Explain why those two groups address your uncertainty, and recruit further if important circumstances remain unexplored.

Your recruitment brief could be this simple. Find twelve local adults across the two groups, using more than one recruitment route. Ask about a recent paid activity or a booking they considered, whether the proposed area is reachable and any connection with the organiser. Keep recent buyers and people who decided against booking distinguishable. Explain that this is paid research about possible events, with no purchase required, and confirm participation needs privately. Ask the recruiter to flag gaps in the brief instead of filling every place with the first available regulars.

Make participation clear, comfortable and properly budgeted

People need enough information to decide whether to take part. Send a plain invitation describing who is running the research, its purpose, the location or call arrangements, duration, compensation and what you'll ask them to do. Explain who will observe and whether you want to record. Avoid presenting the session as a free version of an event you're actually asking them to critique.

Tell people that disagreement is welcome and compensation doesn't depend on a positive opinion. A payment thanks them for their time. It shouldn't reward a booking, a testimonial or the answer you wanted. Agree how you'll handle cancellation, late arrival or someone leaving early, and communicate those arrangements before they accept.

The government Service Manual's informed-consent guidance sets out the importance of explaining participation, recording and use of the results. Use that as research practice, then confirm the privacy requirements that apply to your business and participants. Agreement to join research isn't automatic permission to publish a person's story or add them to marketing lists.

Don't promise complete confidentiality within a group. You can restrict your team's access to notes and ask participants not to repeat personal details, but you can't control what everyone remembers or says afterwards. Explain that limit, avoid requesting sensitive disclosures and provide a private way to raise something the person doesn't want discussed aloud.

Make access part of recruitment. Ask what someone needs to participate, then confirm what you can provide. That might mean an accessible room, breaks, readable materials, captions or a different way to respond. W3C's accessible-events guidance covers practical considerations for physical and remote sessions. Don't let an unsuitable research setup exclude the people whose event experience you need to understand.

Now cost the whole exercise. In this fictional example, all amounts are invented USD figures and supplier amounts include any purchase taxes. Twelve participant payments at $35 each total $420. Allow $240 for facilitation, $150 for notes and analysis, $60 for the room and $50 for the particular travel or access support already agreed. The planned research cost is $920.

Those allowances describe this example, not a market rate or a universal access budget. Get your own quotes and confirm actual participant needs. If support costs more, revise the budget before promising it. Also make sure the facilitator's fee includes the preparation you expect. Someone paid only for time in the room may reasonably quote separately for writing materials and reviewing findings.

In this example, every allowance is a cash payment. If you do the facilitation or analysis yourself, show that time separately at a stated internal rate rather than pretending it was free. Keep cash due and the value of your time distinguishable. You need to know both what the bank account must cover and what work the business is using.

Decide whether this amount of research is proportionate to the decision. A modest, reversible workshop change may be better explored through a few individual conversations and an affordable paid edition. A much larger concept change could justify more preparation. The reason to run the group is that its answer could change what you spend next, not that every serious launch must include one.

Show concrete offers without selling the room

People need something specific enough to judge. Prepare a short description of each concept with the intended audience, activity, duration, location, timing, what's included and total buyer price. Make uncertain details visible. If the artist, instructor or venue isn't confirmed, label it as proposed rather than asking people to imagine a named attraction you haven't secured.

For the fictional example, Concept A is a two-hour beginner printmaking workshop with guided practice, materials and one finished print to take home. It would run on a Saturday afternoon, with 24 paid places and a proposed total buyer price of $65. The description explains that no previous experience is required and that participants work at shared tables.

Concept B is a ninety-minute social making evening with a short introduction, shared materials and more independent activity. Its proposed total buyer price is $45. It suits a different reason for attending, so say that clearly. Don't quietly promise the same individual attention at a lower price if the staffing plan can't provide it.

The two offers change several things at once, so a preference won't isolate the effect of the $20 price difference. You're exploring complete offers and the reasons behind the response. If price alone becomes the important uncertainty, design a separate test rather than claiming this comparison answered it.

These are invented offers for discussion, not confirmed events or a comparison of local prices. Keep the presentation equally clear for both. A polished photograph, famous venue name or flattering label on one concept can make it more attractive for reasons unrelated to the format. Use comparable amounts of information and avoid calling either your preferred option.

Give people time to read and record their first reaction privately. Ask what they think happens during the session, what they expect to leave with, and what information is missing. Then open the discussion. You can see which interpretations were present before anyone heard a confident participant explain what the event supposedly means.

Change the order across sessions where practical. If the first group reads A before B, let the next read B before A. That doesn't remove every possible influence, but it helps you avoid treating one presentation order as invisible. Record which materials and order each group received so your analysis can take them into account.

Don't ask people to choose a favourite before they understand both offers. Someone may prefer the social option because they assume a friend must attend the guided workshop with them. Another may prefer the workshop because they think the social event includes a full lesson. Those are important misunderstandings to uncover before counting preferences.

When someone asks for a change, explore the reason before accepting it. A request for food could mean the session crosses dinner time, the buyer expects hospitality at that price, or they want more opportunity to talk. Those explanations lead to different decisions. You might change the timetable, explain what's included or reconsider the format instead of adding a catering bill.

Use a discussion guide that leaves room for the unexpected

Prepare a guide the facilitator can use without reading every question word for word. It should state the research decision, introduction, main activities, possible follow-ups and closing process. Include the materials and practical checks. Test the guide with a colleague to find confusing wording and activities that take longer than you expected.

For a ninety-minute session, you could allocate ten minutes to introductions and participation arrangements, fifteen to recent paid-event decisions, ten to private concept reading, twenty to discussing the two offers, fifteen to price and practical barriers, ten to private reconsideration and five each to a break and closing. That's one proposed agenda, not a recommended duration for every audience.

Begin with something participants can describe from experience. Ask them about a recent local activity they paid for or considered. What started the search? Who else was involved? What did they compare? What made them book or decide against it? You want enough context to understand their reaction to your proposal.

GOV.UK's guidance on in-depth research interviews recommends open, neutral questions and specific examples. Those are useful habits for this discussion too. "Tell me what you thought the guided part included" gives you more to examine than "Wouldn't expert guidance make this better?"

Move into the concepts without announcing which is easier for your business to produce. Ask participants to describe each offer in their own words, then explore what attracts them and what concerns them. Let them discuss different interpretations. The facilitator's job is to clarify what they mean, not correct every response until it matches the sales pitch.

Use follow-ups that connect an opinion to a condition. If someone says the workshop is too long, ask what it would conflict with and which part they expected to finish sooner. If someone calls it good value, ask what they're comparing it with and what they expect for the price. Keep the tone curious rather than asking them to defend their taste.

Leave time for an alternative they would actually choose. Staying home, going for dinner or booking another activity can all be reasonable choices. Include those possibilities without making anyone feel unhelpful. A forced choice between two concepts can make both look more viable than either would be in a real weekend calendar.

Before closing, let participants add something privately. A short written response or a follow-up message can give you a concern they didn't want to interrupt with. Ask what you misunderstood, explain what happens next and thank them. If you'll invite them to a later test, make that a separate, optional choice with clear contact arrangements.

Keep the founder's enthusiasm out of the answers

If you created the event, hearing someone misunderstand it can be uncomfortable. You may want to explain why the programme is better than it sounds or why the venue is worth the journey. Hold that explanation for a moment. A buyer browsing the real event page won't have you standing beside them to repair the message.

Use a facilitator who can listen without needing the concept to win. That could be someone experienced from outside the business or a colleague who didn't design the offer. Brief them on what you need to learn and what remains open. Don't ask them to achieve a particular number of positive reactions.

If you observe, explain your role and stay quiet during the main discussion. Save questions for the agreed point and let the facilitator ask them neutrally. Don't nod enthusiastically at praise and start taking conspicuous notes only when someone objects. Participants can notice what pleases the person paying for the session.

A dominant participant needs a courteous interruption. The facilitator can thank them, note the point and invite someone who hasn't spoken. Avoid letting one person answer on behalf of "people like us" for the rest of the room. Ask others how their own circumstances differ, with the option to pass rather than forcing a response.

Agreement needs examination as well. When several people nod, ask whether they understood the same offer and what would make their answer different. One may like the subject, another the Saturday timing and another the chance to meet a friend. If you report only that everyone liked Concept A, you lose the explanation that would help you produce it.

Keep first reactions and later reactions distinguishable. Someone changing their mind after hearing a useful concern can reveal something important about the offer. It doesn't automatically make the first answer better or the second answer false. Record what changed and why, instead of choosing whichever version supports your preference.

Don't run a hidden sales close at the end. Asking people to buy in front of the group, after you paid them to attend, introduces a different kind of pressure. If you later test bookings, make the invitation separately, describe the real offer and let them decide privately. Keep those purchases identifiable as purchases by research participants when reviewing the result.

For an online session, rehearse the same safeguards. Make sure people can access the materials without a difficult setup, know who's present and have a private way to send comments. Ask participants to write before the discussion rather than posting initial answers where everyone can immediately copy the first response. Technical convenience shouldn't remove the independent thinking you planned to preserve.

Discuss price without pretending you've measured demand

You need to show a realistic price because price changes what people expect. Leaving it out can produce enthusiasm for an event they imagine buying cheaply. Revealing it after a long conversation can also make the exercise feel like a surprise sales pitch. Tell people when you'll discuss the full proposed price and give them enough context to understand the offer.

Ask what the price leads them to expect. For Concept A at $65, does the person imagine a qualified instructor, individual help, specialist materials or a finished piece they can take home? Which of those expectations came from the description, and which did they supply themselves? This helps you identify where the offer and the delivery cost may not match.

Then ask about the full decision. A participant might accept the ticket price but need to pay for transport and childcare. Another might buy only if a friend agrees. For an employer-funded event, the attendee may need approval from someone who hasn't joined your research. A plausible individual opinion doesn't tell you that the actual payer will accept the purchase.

Avoid asking a whole room to announce the most they would pay. People may be uncomfortable, negotiate down, follow a confident answer or name an amount that has little connection with a future decision. If you ask for a private reaction to a price, use it to explore reasoning. Those reactions won't tell you how many people would buy at each price.

A request for a lower price needs the same care as a request for food. Ask which part of the offer feels insufficient, what else they would choose and whether a simpler version would still serve their reason for attending. You might discover that the right response is clearer instruction information rather than a discount that makes the budget impossible.

Work through the numbers outside the session. Our ticket-pricing guide helps connect the offer to costs and the actual ticket mix. Participants don't need to solve your budget. Your team needs to compare what buyers value with what it costs to provide it, then choose a price worth testing.

In the fictional workshop, suppose a $65 total buyer payment leaves the business $58 after the assumed taxes and transaction charges. These are invented planning figures, not Loopyah fees. Materials and refreshments cost another $12 per paid attendee, leaving $46 toward costs that don't vary with each place sold. If the business needs more than that, enthusiasm about $65 won't repair the shortfall.

You can take a revised offer back into a private booking test. Specify the date, location, contents, complete price and relevant terms. Record real orders and any refunds separately from research reactions. Someone who liked the description and someone who paid have provided different evidence, even if they're the same person at different stages.

Analyse what happened before writing the recommendation

Allow time for review before the next supplier deadline. If you finish the sessions on Thursday and must sign a venue contract on Friday morning, a rushed summary may simply repeat the most memorable comments. Schedule the analysis, check what the team actually observed and write the decision while there's still room to act on it.

Keep notes tied to the participant, session and activity without circulating unnecessary identifying details. Use participant codes in the working analysis, store contact information separately where practical, and restrict recordings to the people who need them. Follow your stated retention arrangements. A transcript can preserve useful detail, but it also creates another record your business has to manage responsibly.

Separate the observation from your interpretation. "Participant A expected materials to be included" is an observation from the discussion. "The offer needs clearer wording about materials" is a proposed response. "Customers won't pay extra for materials" is a much broader claim that the observation doesn't establish.

The government Service Manual's research-analysis guidance recommends recording what was seen or heard before grouping observations and developing findings. For an event concept, that gives you a practical way to keep the recommendation connected to the session instead of relying on whoever tells the best story in the debrief.

Group the notes around the decisions you need to make. For this workshop, that might mean understanding of instruction, expectations about the finished print, reasons for attending socially and practical barriers. Keep unexpected topics too. If several people struggle to understand whether the activity is suitable for beginners, don't bury that under your planned question about the event name.

Read the differences within each group before combining groups. Recent workshop buyers may understand shared tables immediately, while people who decided against previous activities may worry about attending alone. An average reaction would obscure the fact that the same arrangement means something different to each. Your response could involve clearer welcome information rather than changing the physical format.

Keep contradictory evidence in the report. One participant may want more independent activity while another wants continuous guidance. Check whether they want different events, have different experience levels or interpreted the description differently. You don't have to make one format satisfy both. You do need to explain which customer you're choosing to serve.

Our guide to analysing open-ended event feedback goes further into grouping comments without losing their meaning. Apply the same discipline here, and state that these people were recruited to discuss proposed offers. Describe their expectations as expectations. If you use a quotation in the internal report, check it against your notes or recording and retain the context that explains it.

Turn the findings into a bounded paid test

Write a short finding, the evidence behind it and the action it suggests. Suppose, purely as a fictional outcome, the discussion reveals that participants can't distinguish a guided printmaking workshop from a social craft evening. The immediate action is to make the instruction and intended result explicit. Booking a larger room wouldn't answer that problem.

Another invented finding might be that attending alone feels uncertain because the page never explains how people join a table. You could describe the welcome and table arrangements, then watch whether the pilot delivers that welcome. Don't promise that this wording will increase sales. You've identified a concern and a reasonable change to test.

For a serious practical barrier, change the delivery plan before changing the copy. If the likely audience can't reach the venue after work, a more reassuring paragraph won't fix the journey. Check another time or location, cost it and decide whether the revised offer still works. Research is useful when it can change the event itself.

Make the first paid edition small enough to fund without relying on a forecast from the group. In our invented workshop, fixed pilot costs are $900, comprising $180 room hire, $300 instructor pay, $120 assistance, $150 promotion and $150 paid preparation. Variable costs remain $12 per retained paid admission, and the business retains $58 from each $65 buyer payment before those variable costs.

At twenty retained paid admissions, the business receives $1,160 after the assumed taxes and transaction charges. It spends $240 on variable delivery and $900 on fixed costs, leaving $20. At nineteen admissions, it receives $1,102 and spends $228 plus $900, losing $26. Selling all 24 places leaves $204 after $288 variable cost and the same $900 fixed cost.

Those results assume no refunds, no unpaid work, all stated costs paid and no other income. They exclude wider business overhead, financing and income tax. If later costs or refunds occur, update the actual result. Here, the $12 is spent for every retained paid place, including a no-show. The figures illustrate this pilot only; $20 may be far below the profit your business needs.

The earlier $920 research bill still exists. Even a sold-out pilot's $204 surplus leaves the combined research and pilot project $716 down. The pilot can cover its own stated costs while the overall development project remains an investment. Decide explicitly whether you can afford that investment and what further evidence would justify repeating the event.

If the pilot needs another $100 of fixed setup, fixed costs become $1,000. With $46 left per admission toward them, you need 22 retained paid admissions to cover the revised amount, leaving $12. That's possible within 24 places, but it leaves little tolerance for a weak sale or a missed cost. Recalculate before approving the change rather than treating a small extra invoice as harmless.

Use Loopyah's ticket checkout for the booking part of the test. Buyers can see the current price and availability, pay and receive a confirmation linking to their QR tickets. Your team still has to define the offer, fund the test and interpret the result. Checkout records don't turn a small pilot into proof of demand for every future edition.

Write a decision record your team can use

Finish with a record that someone outside the discussion can understand. State the decision you began with, the offers shown, who participated and how you recruited them. Include the practical limitations, such as missing audience groups or a session dominated by people who already knew your business. Those details determine how confidently another person can use the findings.

Describe the changes you recommend and the reasons for each. Keep proposed programme changes separate from wording changes. If you plan to promise more individual instruction, name who will deliver it and show the revised cost. If you're simply clarifying that materials are included, make sure the ticket page and instructor brief say the same thing.

Then state what remains unanswered. For the fictional workshop, you still need to find out whether enough people will book the dated $65 offer through channels you can afford, whether the instruction works for beginners and whether the event can be delivered within the cost allowance. Those are concrete questions for the next test, rather than a vague request for more research.

Assign the next action and spending limit. Name who can approve the pilot, who checks the offer before it goes live and when the decision must be revisited. Keep any participant invitation separate from general promotion, with appropriate contact permissions. Record sales from research participants distinctly so their extra familiarity doesn't disappear into the wider result.

You can use a short handover structure. Write the original decision, the people and materials involved, the findings with supporting observations, the changes agreed, the cost of the next test and the evidence needed before a larger commitment. Attach the fuller notes only for people who need them. A clear recommendation shouldn't require every colleague to watch the entire recording.

Don't ask the group to approve your business decision after the fact. You can thank participants and explain the next step without making them responsible for its success. If you want to publish anything they said, obtain the separate permission you need and preserve their meaning. Research comments aren't automatically testimonials, and participation payments shouldn't become hidden endorsements.

There may be enough evidence to stop before a paid pilot. If the only appealing version needs a price your intended buyers reject, a delivery promise you can't provide or an audience you have no affordable way to reach, revise those conditions first. Another round of compliments won't make the current proposal easier to fund.

For a version worth testing, prepare the actual offer and put its budget beside the research record. Ask whether each promised change is deliverable and whether the next payment buys evidence you still need. Then approve that specific test. The focus group has helped you decide what to try; the next customers get to decide whether they want to pay for it.