Virtual Focus Group Testing
/A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned we would be convening a particularly large virtual focus group and I asked if there were any tricks people wanted us to put in front of them. Unlike the normal focus group testing we do, the virtual focus groups are done… well, virtually. I mean, that’s why I used that adjective.
The individuals that comprised the group are non-magicians from all over the United States.
In the past, we’ve just put out a general call for people to answer a one-hour paid “survey” on places like Craigslist and gathered people that way. For this round of testing, reader Brandon L., who helps conduct similar testing professionally at his job in California, offered to put together a group for us and took care of that as a gift to the site.
In this type of testing, the people will watch a series of videos (in their home) and answer some questions on them. The videos are usually taken from the demos but edited to show just the trick itself. The questions are usually pretty general. Things like, “Describe the trick you just saw.” “Do you have any idea how that trick could have been accomplished?” Sometimes we’ll ask if there was anything that felt unusual or suspicious.
So they’ll watch a video and then answer usually 2–4 questions about the trick in the video.
The Numbers
For this round of testing, we sent the “survey” out to 50 people. 47 completed it. They watched 9 videos and read one trick description.
Here is some of the feedback we got on three of the tricks we had them look at.
My Poker Collection by Martin Braessas
This is a nice packet trick where 10s of Spades change into a royal flush.
Now, here’s the question… out of 47 people, how many of them mentioned “trick cards” or “special cards” or suggested they were suspicious about the cards?
All of them.
Did this surprise me? No, not really. Here’s the deal… If an object changes, if an object floats, if an object appears or disappears, almost everyone will suspect there’s something “tricky” about the object itself. When we accept this truth, then we can seek ways to combat it. But when we say stuff like, “People only suspect the props if you’re a bad magician,” then we just bury our heads in the sand and delude ourselves.
Does that mean this is a bad trick? Not necessarily. It’s bad for some of you.
The truth is, I’m sure none of those 47 people could actually describe how the trick was done beyond just saying “trick cards.” So then it’s a question of how fooling do you need your tricks to be? Are you okay if people have a general idea, but don’t know specifically how it’s done? Or do you want them to not even have any concept of how it could be done? I’m somewhere in between, but definitely more towards the latter.
I’ve never had a situation where a trick really devastated people AND they knew generally how it was done. But I’ve done stuff people have found entertaining, and still had a good idea how it was done. So it’s not like tricks like this are completely useless. But I think they’re ultimately of a more limited impact.
People Power by Andi Gladwin
This was requested by reader, MS. He wanted to know what percentage of the people who watched the trick (starting around 1:20) would know how the winner was predicted.
The participants were asked to watch the video and were given three questions:
Do you know how the magician knew the man would stand behind the red balloon?
Do you know how the magician predicted the winner of the game?
Do you know how the magician knew what prize the winner would want?
The real question we were curious about was #2.
Of the 47 people questioned, 10 of them clued into the general method in regard to how he predicted the winner. I was somewhat surprised it was that low. I thought it was a little more obvious. I think 20% having the general idea is actually a workable number for a stage/parlor routine.
Interestingly, almost twice as many people, 19, guessed that the woman was in on it. That Andi had told her what to do to win the game, and that they had planned what the prize would be.
So if you’re going to do this trick, I suggest having a genuinely random selection of the participants. Bounce ping-pong balls into the audience or something like that. You won’t be able to pre-show the “winner” but you don’t need to. Have each participant randomly select a “prize envelope” and then just force the person who takes the envelope containing the prize you’re set to reveal.
Total Control by Hiroshi Magic
A friend of the site asked us to put Total Control in front of the Virtual Focus Group. He had performed it a few times and wasn’t getting the reactions he expected. In the trick, you control your phone without touching it.
Because we didn’t have access to a full performance video of an uncut performance, we gave them a chopped down version of this video along with a simple written description of the trick. “Without any apps open or Bluetooth connected, the magician is able to control his phone without touching it. He can make music play from nowhere, change the volume, take pictures and post them to Instagram, turn on the flashlight, and more.”
Now, I’m not sure if all of that can actually be accomplished without the Bluetooth on, but I figured it would be better to oversell the effect than undersell it.
After watching the video, the participants were asked if they had any idea how it might be accomplished. Seven of the people stated they didn’t know how this could be done. The other 40 said, essentially, that the phone has been set up to do these things. People mentioned remote controls, NFC tags, Shortcuts, voice recognition, and a couple of people suggested the screen was actually a video. But most often the word they used was “programmed.” As in, “the phone was programmed to do these things.”
In a way, this is similar to the first trick mentioned. People are going to know the general idea, but not exactly how you did it. When it comes to technology-based magic, I don’t know how effective that’s going to be for people. When a card changes, they can say “gimmicked card” but still be kind of amazed because they think they understand the nature of playing cards. But if they say, “You programmed your phone,” that might be more than enough of an explanation. They don’t have to know exactly how it was programmed because most people don’t really understand shit about how their phone works anyway.
I have no doubt people are entertained by this trick, but I don’t think they’re fooled by it (I could be wrong).
To me, it’s sort of like doing this.
You’re taking credit for something that was set up to happen. Most people probably understand that. That can still be kind of fun, but I don’t if it seems that amazing.
We have access to this focus group for almost three more weeks. If there’s a video you’d like us to show them and get their opinion on, pass it my way for consideration.