Focus groups tell you what participants say they feel. EchoDepth measures what they actually feel.
The gap between self-reported emotional response and objective physiological signal is well-documented in consumer research. The question is whether you build decisions on what people report, or on what their body shows.
Side-by-side comparison
| Feature | Focus Groups | EchoDepth |
|---|---|---|
| Measurement type | Self-report | Objective physiological signal |
| Social desirability bias | High | Not applicable |
| Response time | Post-stimulus reflection | Per-frame real-time |
| Sample size | Typically 6–12 | Unlimited |
| Unconscious response | Not captured | Primary measurement target |
| Cost per session | £2,000–8,000 | From £1,500/month pilot |
| Longitudinal tracking | Complex re-recruitment | Same content, repeated measurement |
Common questions
Do focus groups and EchoDepth measure different things?
Yes — they measure at different layers. Focus groups measure what participants consciously think and are willing to articulate about their emotional response. EchoDepth measures the involuntary physiological response that occurs before conscious processing. For decisions where the unconscious response drives behaviour, EchoDepth provides the more predictive signal.
Can EchoDepth replace focus groups entirely?
For some applications — campaign pre-testing, message resonance, product concept evaluation — EchoDepth can provide the primary communication signal data. For applications where you need rich verbal insight into the reasons behind the emotional response, focus groups remain valuable. Many research teams use both.
See the difference in your content.
Submit a recording or document. EchoDepth returns a full scored analysis within 5 working days — free.