Content uploaded by Rachel Kennedy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rachel Kennedy on Dec 16, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
MRS Conference
Brighton, March 17, 00
11.01.00/LT
Competitive Brands’ User-Profiles Hardly Differ
Rachel Kennedy, Andrew Ehrenberg, Stephen Long
Summary
It is widely thought that different brands appeal to different types of users, or should do
so. Advertising and other marketing activities are often based on this presumption, and
countless segmentation studies are therefore carried out.
To examine this supposition we have compared the user-profiles of the ten or so leading
brands in each of some 40 industries ― such as Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji for photographic
film, or AA, BA, and UA for airlines ― on their users’ attitudes, lifestyles, demographics,
and media exposures.
The results demonstrate that users of directly competing brands hardly differ in their
profiles. That is, brand segmentation generally does not exist ― substitutable brands
usually compete in what for them is a single unsegmented mass market, whatever its
overall structure may be. Exceptions are rare and generally relate to submarkets which
are functionally different, such as caffeinated versus decaffeinated coffee.
The analysis procedure used here is simple. It is outlined in some detail so that it can be
readily applied to other data.
Implications of the lack of brand segmentation in terms of targeting and advertising are
discussed in the paper: basically that your market is like your competitors’ market.
Introduction
A great variety of approaches to market segmentation have long been discussed and
practiced, as reviewed for example by Dickson and Ginter (1987), Lury (1990), Dibbs
and Simkin (1996), Anschuetz (1997), Cahill (1997), Campbell (1998), Mitchell (1998),
Gunnarson (1999), Kotler (1999), and others. Lilien and Rangaswamy (1992), typically
said that “Segmentation, the process of dividing the market into consumer groups with
similar needs, is essential for marketing success”.
Segments of apparently similar consumers may even be given names (e.g. “Worrier”,
“Sensory”, “Sociable”, or “Independents”) with advertising and products targeted
accordingly: Crest for those who want to stop decay, Macleans for Whiteners, Colgate
(stripe) for those interested in flavour, and so on (e.g. McDonald and Dunbar, 1998).
Cornish (1990) has said that only by observing how interests vary between such groups
can one work out the reasons why people behave the way they do.
Many organisations therefore invest heavily in segmentation studies. Some research
agencies have become specialists, but mostly focusing on new or proprietary
segmentation analysis techniques, as illustrated in the box below. They virtually never
report any real brand segmentation results, i.e. that a named (or coded) brand A in fact
appeals to a markedly different population of consumers than does the competitive brand
B.
“Segmenting Markets . . . the AID Technique” (Assael, 1970).
“CHAID . . . Modelling Segmentation” (Babinec, 1990).
“Segmenting . . . With Conjoint” (Green & Krieger 1991).
“. . . Benefit Segmentation” (Dubow 1992).
“. . . A Canonical Correlation Approach” (Bologlu et al 1998).
“The Car Challenge: 21 techniques compared” (Colombo et al 1999).
“HINoV: Improved Market Segment Definition (Carmone, et al 1999).
And so on.
Collins (1971) however noted long ago that clustering or segmentation techniques
typically ask what is the “best” grouping of the data that can be made, but ignore the
more basic question whether any useful groupings of the data can actually be made at all.
In this paper we therefore ask whether the user-profiles of directly competing brands
really differ. The results say “NO”, i.e. brand segmentation hardly exists, if at all. It is
consistent with that conclusion from our analyses that few if any of the other papers in
the voluminous segmentation literature have actually reported any coherent brand-
segmentation results.
A product may of course have functionally different variants for different needs, e.g. large
and small pack-sizes, tamarind as well as tomato flavours, 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-door car-
models, or other “Stock-Keeping Units” or SKUs more generally (e.g. Singh 2000). And
each of these variants may have its own more or less “segmented” following. But because
of competition all brands as such tend largely to have each of these SKUs (except for
marginal ones). Hence brand profiles as a whole do not differ (Ehrenberg, Barnard and
Scriven 1997, Ehrenberg et al 2000).
We build in this paper on previous findings of a lack of brand segmentation which were
based on consumer-panel data (Hammond et al 1996). We now greatly extend these
earlier findings to more categories, far more potential segmentation variables, and a
different type of data. The results agree with the Titford and Clouter (1998) view that for
competition between brands, a buyer is a buyer is a buyer, whosoever he or she may be.
The lack of brand segmentation explains why the real marketing issue is not “who buys”,
but “how many buy”.
Exceptions with distinct sub-markets or functionally different groups of brands can show
up. But they are rare in the extensive brand-data analysed here. We will also note that the
practical sales implications of any brand segmentation may in any case be overblown.
The Data Analysed
Our analyses are based on extensive tabulations from BMRB’s Target Group Index (TGI)
for 42 industries in the UK. The TGI is an on-going self-completion survey of brand-
buying and consumer attitudes across many categories including fmcgs, durables, and
financial and leisure services, together with standard demographic and media usage
information. For each category, respondents state if they buy/use/serve the category, how
often, and which specific brands. Potentially relevant attitudes, opinions and interests are
captured through over 200 attitudinal and lifestyle statements with which respondents
rate their degree of agreement on a 5-point scale. Some examples are:
I loathe doing any form of housework It is important that my family thinks I’m doing well
I love to buy new gadgets and appliances In a job, security is more important than money
I tend to spend money without thinking We normally have roasts on Sundays
It’s worth paying extra for quality items I often enter competitions featured in packets or labels
A real man can down several pints of beer at a sitting People have a duty to recycle products whenever
possible
I listen intently to radio news I make decisions based on gut feel
I enjoy eating foreign food When shopping I budget for every penny
While the standard sample for the survey is 25,000 adults, the cases we had to analyse
varied from about 500 to 100,000 adults/occasions, averaging at over 10,000. Two
batches of TGI data were analysed, with the same outcome. A first batch was for all
brands in 13 industries with 100 attitudinal variables; the second batch of data, some two
years later, compared the top 10 brands in 30 other industries, with over 200 attitude
variables. (Light bulbs were common to both batches and gave very similar findings, as
did everything else.)
As an example of the raw data, Table 1 shows the number of TGI respondents who used
each of the top 10 credit card brands in the UK, broken down by Gender and Age. The
full file is much larger, with 280 such variable-columns (i.e. the other demographics,
media, and attitudes). The brands in the table are ordered by market share, to facilitate
pattern recognition. (Other aspects of data presentation are briefly noted in the
Appendix.)
Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1 Raw Data for Credit Card Holders, by Gender and Age
Gender Age (years)
Credit CardUsersMaleFemale15-1920-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+Barclaycard Visa 3619 1840
1779 45 157 626 832 787 654 518TSB Trust card 1654 848
806 23 43 292 328 347 310 311Access Natwest 1224 655
569 13 23 197 294 276 255 166Access Midlands 1155
598 557 15 37 204 277 243 227 152Barclays MasterCard
1065 639 426 10 30 157 224 249 212 183Access Lloyds
896 486 410 13 26 161 201 196 179 120B. of Scotland
Visa 476 267 209 5 10 80 101 122 90
68Midland Visa 472 262 210 6 30 87 92 97 85 75TSB
MasterCard 471 265 206 7 10 78 79 106 95 96Co-op
Bank Visa 463 243 220 4 7 71 110 112 88 71Total
(10 brands)11495 6103 5392 141 373 1953 2538 2535 2195 1760Source:
TGI
The Analysis: Deviations from the Average Brand Profile
Instead of using the complex but to us opaque segmentation techniques such as AID or
CHAID that are commonly used in segmentation studies, we more simply sought to
contrast the profiles of the different brands in each product category. We did so
parsimoniously by comparing each brand’s profile against the profile of the average
brand in that industry. This is a simple yet effective process that we now explain.
To show the make-up of each brand’s customers, percentages profiles were calculated
from the raw data as in Table 1, together with the profile of the (unweighted) average
brand (in effect a category profile). This is illustrated for Gender and Age again in Table
2.
Table 2 Brand Profiles as Percentages
Market Gender Age (years)
Credit CardUsersShare % MaleFemale15-1920-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+Barclaycard Visa 3,600 31%
51 49%141723221814TSB Trust card 1,700 14% 51 49%131820211919Access Natwest
1,200 11% 54 47%121624232114Access Midlands 1,200 10% 52
48%131824212013Barclays MasterCard 1,100 9% 60 40%131521232017Access Lloyds
890 8% 54 46%231822222013B. of Scotland Visa 480 4% 56
44%121721261914Co-op Bank Visa 470 4% 53 48%121524241915Midland Visa 470
4% 56 45%161820211816TSB MasterCard 460 4% 56 4 4% 2 2 17 17 23 20 20 The
Average Brand 1,100 10% 54 46%131722221916The result showed few differences
between the brand profiles. Thus in Table 2, on average 54% of card users were male.
Eye-balling shows that this was much the same for each brand. Again for age, all the
credit cards had very few customers under 24 (4% on average), and about 20% in each of
the five larger 10-year or so age-groupings that the TGI used.
To quantify these brand similarities explicitly, the deviations of each brand’s profile from
the average profile were calculated, as illustrated Table 3. The largest deviation in the
table is 6 percentage points for Barclays MasterCard. A 6-point difference in profile is
however far too small to merit any separate marketing action. (The paradox about
marketing’s passion for segmentation is that the results are seldom implementable, or
indeed implemented.)
To summarise all these deviations, the average size of the deviations (ignoring their sign)
was computed for each measure and for each brand, i.e. the traditional Mean Absolute
Deviation or MAD, as also shown in Table 3. (All individual deviations over 5
percentage points were marked in bold in our computer output, to signal any larger
differences.)
Table 3 Deviations of the Brand Profiles from the Average Brand
Gender Age (years)
Credit CardMaleFemaleMAD*15-1920-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+MAD*Barclaycard Visa -3
330 1 0 1 -1 -1 -1
1TSB Trust card -3 3 300
1 -2 -2 -1 3 1Access Natwest -1 1
10 -1 -1 3 0 2 -2 1Access
Midlands -2 2 20012-2
0 -3 1Barclays MasterCard 6** -6** 6 0
0 -2 -1 1 1 2 1Access Lloyds 0
000011-11-2
1Bank of Scotland Visa 2 -2 20 -1 0 0 3
0 -1 1Co-op Bank Visa -2 2 2
0 -2 -2 2 2 0 0 1Midland Visa
1 -1 10 3 2 -2 -2 -1
01TSB MasterCard 2 -2 20 -1
0 -5 0 1 5 2MAD* 2 2 2
0 1121121* Mean Absolute
Deviation ** Individual deviations of 5+ are also in bold
For the credit card brands here there was virtually no difference by the gender of their
users (an average MAD of 2, even including the larger Barclays value), or by age (lower
MADs of 1, since the absolute numbers were smaller with more classes). Table 4
illustrates this also for five typical attitude/lifestyle variables: most of the MAD’s still
average round 1 or 2 points.
Table 4 Deviations for Five Individual Attitude Statements
Credit
Card
Children
should
express
them-selves
freely
I am happy
with my
standard of
living
I try to keep
up with
technology
I always
look for
special
offers
I can't bear
untidiness MAD
Barclaycard
Visa
0 -1 0 -1 0 0
TSB Trust
card
0 -2 -4 2 2 2
Access
Natwest
1 0 0 -2 1 1
Access
Midlands
-1 0 0 -3 1 1
Barclays
MasterCard
1 1 1 1 1 1
Access
Lloyds
2 2 2 -2 0 2
B. of
Scotland
Vis a
1 0 2 2 2 1
Co-op Bank
Vis a
1 4 2 2 -1 2
Midland
Vis a
1 -1 1 -2 -2 1
TSB
MasterCard
-2 -2 -4 513
MAD 1 1 2 2 1 1
This form of analysis was repeated for every variable, for over 110,000 individual
deviations in the 42 industries.
The Results
Overall, the individual brands’ percentage profiles deviated from each other by an
average of 2 or 3 percentage points, which in our view is small ― in effect zero. Thus the
difference between 15% of users of Card A saying “I try to keep up with technology”
rather than Card B having only 11% technofreaks is not actionable.
Only around 8% of the individual deviations were more than 5 percentage points, and
even these larger deviations averaged at only about 9. Just 2% of individual deviations
were 10 points or more. Noticeable deviations were therefore exceptional, and were still
small even when they did occur. Brands therefore rarely differed from the average brand
in their category, and when they did so it was not by much, nor was it of practical
importance.
Table 5 presents the global results, that is the average MADs for all of the demographics,
all the media variables, and all attitudinal variables, for each of the 42 categories (ordered
on their total unweighted MAD’s for visual convenience). Three of the average MADs
are greater than 3 (for Cigarettes, Tessas and Cat food) but are explained simply by their
being based on relatively small samples.
The central figure is the overall average MAD of 2 (or 2.1 more precisely) in the bottom
right-hand corner. This pinpoints the general lack of effective deviations between the
brand and category profiles.
Table 5 Summary MADS for 42 TGI Categories
Category
Demo
MediaAtti-
tudesAVE-AGE
Category
Demo
MediaAtti-tudesAVE-AGECigarettes 4466Vitamins3122Tessa accounts 6355Washing liquids 3122Cat food
3144Grocers 3122Mints3133Yo g u rt 3 1 2 2Toothbrushes3133Light bulbs (1)2122Private health ins42 33Car
tyres2122Sweets3123Stain removers 2122Crisps3133Light bulbs (2)3112Toilet soap3123Car insurance 3112Packaged
hol3133Coffee 2122Dry batteries3123Home contents 2112Other chocolate3122Paint 3112Kitchen rolls3132Shampoo
2122Nuts3122Airlines 2111Chocolate Bars3122Camera film 2111Toothpaste2122Headache tablets2111Toilet
paper2122Cars 2111Computers 3222Credit Cards 2111Baked beans 3122Mortgages 2111Record shops
3112Fuel2111Store retail cards 3122Retailers 1111Computer games 3122AVERAGE3122The occasional
larger deviations which sometimes occur tend at times to cluster for several brands and
relate to submarkets rather than to a specific brand (as would have had to characterise
real brand segmentation). But such subpatterns are usually already well-known (or are
“as to be expected”).
Regionally for example, there is a Scottish sub-market for three locally-based Scottish
banks (Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Clydesdale). For RTS breakfast
cereals, children somewhat prefer the pre-sweetened types (i.e. “children’s brands” ― see
already Hammond et al 1996, or ask Kellogg’s). This also seems to show up here in slight
preferences expressed by families with children for milk chocolate among different kinds
of confectionery. Some clustering of responses across different categories are also
noticeable for “Green”, for Diet, and for Exercise. Such systematic subpatterns in the data
can be pursued further (best probably someone with specialised knowledge of that
market). But they are small and rare.
Three Technical Questions
Have the wrong Segmentation Variables been used?
It seems highly unlikely that potentially powerful variables have been consistently
omitted in a widely-used and long-running and virtually public measurement tool
such as the BMRB’s Target Group Index. But it is easy to check any new candidate
segmentation measure.
One particularly relevant segmentation variable for any given brand X is the other
brands which buyers of X also buy ― is there any clustering, e.g. buying of brand X
going with buying of brand Y but not with brand Z? This can be well examined with
consumer-panel data, but that has already shown virtually no brand segmentation
(average MADs of 3 points, on somewhat smaller samples than here ― Hammond et
al 1996).
Lack of segmentation has also been the case with very extensive panel-based
segmentation studies of television viewing, e.g. cross-analysing viewers of
programme A by the other programmes they also viewed, whether of the same or a
different genre (Ehrenberg 1986; Barwise and Ehrenberg 1988).
Possible Measurement Biases?
BMRB’s TGI covers many different products and potential segmentation variables in
a lengthy self-completion questionnaire. This could be subject to measurement biases.
Such biases would however matter little here since they would be much the same for
the different brands that are being compared.
Sample Sizes?
Sample sizes of category users in the TGI are mostly large, averaging at 10,000 as
noted above. (They could easily be increased by using TGI data over two or more
years.) But for smaller brands, samples of their users are of course smaller ―
typically they are less than 1,000 for the five smaller brands in Table 2. This shows up
in the slightly larger MADs for these smaller brands as in Table 4 (as was also noted
by Hammond et al 1996), although it is exceptionally not so in Table 3. Typically
also, the three larger MADs in Table 5 ― greater than 3, for Cigarettes, Tessa
accounts, and cat food ― were based on relatively small samples of less than 5,000
category users.
Discussion
Three broad types of possible segmentation need to be distinguished:
Brand segmentation, which refers to possible differences between the users of different
brands, say Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji 35mm film. Such differences are rare as we have seen
here.
Category segmentation (or sub-category segmentation). This is quite common and relates
to differences between users of functionally distinct products (e.g. Cameras versus
Projectors) or sub-types of products (e.g. Professional versus Disposable cameras).
Category segmentation is probably more usefully thought of simply as “knowing
your market” (e.g. that cat food is mostly bought by cat owners, or even perhaps
just by certain discernible types or “segments” of cat owners). Such sub-markets are
usually already well-known and tend to persist. It is rare that “sophisticated”
segmentation or clustering techniques are needed to discover or rediscover them. It
is also rare that use of such techniques has successfully done so in the past (as
noted, no lasting cases seem to have been reported in the literature).
Thirdly, SKU segmentation. Thus different product-variants or Stock-Keeping Units may
each have their distinct followings, i.e. on dimensions such as pack-size, flavour, car-
models, etc. and then myriads of bar-coded interactions of these dimensions (the
1 lb pack-size of unsalted Lurpak butter). Almost nothing systematic seems to be known
about that, i.e. no generalisable results about SKU loyalty, switching, or segmentation
(Fader and Hardie 1996). This is one of the bigger agenda items for South Bank’s R&D
Initiative in the coming 2–3 years.
These three forms of segmentation ― brands, categories and SKUs ― are however
seldom distinguished in the literature (see earlier references). But they should be, because
both for category and SKU segmentation, functional differences are of the essence and
usually totally self-evident (tea differs from coffee, and liquid detergent from tablets). In
brand segmentation on the other hand as discussed in this paper, product differences are
hidden or even almost totally absent.
The key reason for the prevailing lack of brand segmentation is that products which
compete directly (i.e. by definition, brands) generally do not differ much overall in taste,
technical formulation, performance, or any functional feature of importance, including
often even their appearance (subject to the legal limitations on “passing off”).
Competitive brands deliberately aim to be “similar” so as to be able to compete: they
copy each others’ sales-effective attributes and SKUs, rather than seeking to differentiate
themselves on them (e.g. Young 1963, Ehrenberg 1974, Sampson 1993, Ehrenberg,
Barnard and Scriven 1997, Perris 1999, Ehrenberg et al 2000). And most consumers are
highly experienced and hence know that brands are brands. Hence when there is little
functionally to distinguish one brand from another as is so often the case, any reputable
brand “will do for the consumer” (Heath 1999). (The individual consumer does however
tend over time to identify with the brands he or she uses.)
The implications for brand positioning, targeting, and media planning are in our view
simple and positive. Instead of being restricted to a small segment (and even perhaps
enjoying the proverbial monopoly of a tiny niche), marketers can operate in a large,
unsegmented mass market, or at least in a large sub-market like luxury cars or dry cat
food. However, not being limited to a small niche means also that one’s brand has more
direct competitors: there is therefore more scope, and more need, for plain marketing
(e.g. promotion, selling, logistics, quality control, advertising, and brand maintenance
generally).
If your market is limited to cats, it is of course as well to know that. But there is probably
no need officiously to strive to restrict your market if you cannot see it to be so
segmented with your naked eye from well-presented data (without CHAID or conjoint).
Most often one can hardly avoid stumbling across the fact that it is cat owners who
mostly buy cat food. Even a small Usage and Attitude survey would show how far the
new product Nutrigrain is or is not eaten at breakfast time yet only when on the move
(“As Advertised”).
Another limitation of segmentation is that even when it does occur, segmentation may not
be of great sales importance. While the TGI data show that 6% more males shop at W.H.
Smith than do so at other retail chains (Smiths being a newsagent), Smiths still has about
as many females shopping there as do at other chains. Smiths should not, we think,
reposition itself towards males.
A more startling example to some occurs in the Luxury sector of the car market, where
BMW gains more sales each year from the dissimilar Renaults in France or Fords in
Britain than from the “closely clustered” Mercedes. That is simply because Renault and
Ford, as local market leaders, are so much bigger than Mercedes (Ehrenberg and Bound
2000).
It is often suggested that advertising can help to create segmentation, by differentiating
your brand from functionally similar competitors and “adding values” (e.g. see Young
1926/1963; Porter 1985; Broadbent 1990; Dickson and Ginter 1987; Perriss 1999;
Ehrenberg et al 2000). But, even the leading brands in a category ― which typically are
heavily advertised ― do not in our experience, here or earlier, attract different kinds of
customers from each other. Hence advertising does not work in the way that is intended,
i.e. to add effectively differentiating values (e.g. Ehrenberg et al 2000). In line with that,
when advertisers risk millions of dollars in considering a change of agency, the major
criterion is usually the agencies’ creative style rather than their motivational logic or
strategic targeting (Moran 1990).
The lack of a unique brand-user profile does not mean that brand marketers (or top
management) can give up on marketing, but the opposite. Marketers still need to
publicise and sell their brand, make it memorable, look and sound interesting, refresh
brand associations, sustain its quality and availability, deal well with complaints, and
generally keep the brand salient with purchasers of the category. Advertising, and
marketing more generally, can help a brand to stand out and maintain some sense of
interest or even excitement, at least among those who are actually marketing the brand.
Len Hardy (former chairman of Lever Brothers UK) interviewed:
Q: “Most brands’ sales seem pretty steady: An 8%
brand then is still an 8% brand now,
±1% or so. And there is nothing much one seems
to be able to do about it.
Do you agree?”
A: “Yee...s. I think that’s mostly right.”
Q: “Why then do you relaunch a brand?”
A: (Quick as a flash): “To encourage the marketing
people”.
In practice, when a segmented product appeal or positioning concept has been developed,
no matter how intensely it may seem to be preferred by one segment of the market,
someone in the company usually sets about broadening that positioning so that the brand
will appeal to a larger group of people and increase its potential market share (Moran
1990 again). Pretty soon, every brand is trying to appeal to every other brand’s
customers. In practice key players seem to know what works to be a brand — mass
marketing. Segmentation and even one-to-one sounds efficient and modern, but old-
fashioned mass-marketing approaches to branding are what have made brands big
(Titford and Clouter 1998). Our analyses here demonstrate why.
Appendix User-friendly Data Presentation
The tables in this paper were set out so as to help both the analyst and the reader see the
patterns in the data, and also any exceptions. In Table 2A patterns are less apparent than
earlier, and no clear exceptions stand out (except perhaps 3619 as the biggest number).
The task of ignoring the decimals when reading down each column is for example
visually quite onerous.
Table 2A Reader-Unfriendly Brand Profiles
(As in Table 2, but not rounded, not ordered by size, and no averages)
Credit CardUsersShareMaleFemale15-1920-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+Access Lloyds896
7.854.245.81.52.918.022.421.920.013.4Access Midlands1155 10.051.848.21.33.217.724.021.019.7
13.2Access Natwest1224 10.653.546.51.11.916.124.022.520.813.6B. of Scotland Visa476
4.156.143.91.12.116.821.225.618.914.3Barclaycard Visa 3619 31.550.849.21.24.317.323.021.718.114.3Barclays
MasterCard1065 9.360.040.00.92.814.721.023.419.917.2Co-op Bank Visa472
4.152.547.50.91.515.323.824.219.015.3Midland Visa471 4.155.544.51.36.418.419.520.618.015.9TSB
MasterCard463 4.056.343.71.52.116.616.822.520.220.4TSB Trust card1654
14.451.348.71.42.617.719.821.018.718.8
In contrast, the earlier Table 2 made it clear to the naked eye that the individual figures in
each column differed little from their average. Hence we can first note and then
remember that there are few differences in the profiles from brand to brand. This was
easy to see, especially once one had been told what story-line to look for. (The detailed
variations in question were brought out yet more explicitly in Tables 3 and 4, and
summarised in Table 5.)
The process which can make such data more user-friendly is at times referred to as “Data
Reduction” (e.g. Ehrenberg 1982 and 1994). This turning of data into information
involves steps such as
1. Rounding ― The guideline is to round to just 2 effective digits. This helps one first to
perceive and then even to remember the numbers better. Here we have used deliberate
over-rounding to just one digit, since the more precise quantities in Tables 3 to 5 do
not matter (e.g. whether the profile percentages in Table 2 are 12.8% or 13.4%, or just
13%. Or whether the deviations in Tables 3 and 4 are 1.2 and 4.3 or just the much
simpler 1 and 4).
2. Ordering by size ― Rearranging the rows of a table by some measure of size (e.g.
here the numbers of users or market-shares), allows one to see visual correlations (i.e.
high in one column tending to go with high in another column — or not — plus
isolated exceptions).
3. Averages ― These provide both a summary and a visual focus. (One can readily see
that the Male %s in Table 2 are all about the same, i.e. close to 54%, the average. That
is easier than comparing all the individual percentages with each other — i.e. the first
with the second, the first with the third, then the second with the third, the first with
the last, and so on — and remembering the results).
4. Layout ― This should be used to guide the eye, e.g. using white space, occasional
rules, somewhat varying type-faces, and so on.
References
Anschuetz, Ned (1997). “Building Brand Popularity: The Myth of Segmenting to Brand
Success”, Journal of Advertising Research, 37, 1, 63-66.
Assael, Henry (1970). “Segmenting Markets by Group Purchasing Behaviour: An Application of
the AID Technique”, Journal of Market Research, 7, 153-8.
ADDIN ENBbu Babinec, T. (1990). "CHAID Response Modeling and Segmentation". Quirk's
Marketing Research Review (June/July), 12-15.
Bologlu, S., Weaver, P. and McCleary, K (1998). “Overlapping Product-benefit Segments in the
Lodging Industry: a Canonical Correlation Approach”. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10/4, 159–166.
Barwise, Patrick and Andrew Ehrenberg, (1988). Television and Its Audience. London: Sage
Publications.
Broadbent, Simon (1990). “How Advertising Affects Brands – an Overview”, In: The Longer and
Broader Effects of Advertising. London: IPA.
Cahill, Dennis J. (1997). “Target Marketing and Segmentation: Valid and Useful Tools for
Marketing”. Management Decision, 35/1, 10–13.
Campbell, Stephanie (1998). “Customer Segmentation in the Post-Modern Era”, Admap, 33, 7,
31-34.
Carmone, Frank, Ali Kara, and Sarah Maxwell (1999). “HINoV: A New Model to Improve
Market Segment Definition by Identifying Noisy Variables”. Journal of Marketing Research
36, 501-509.
Collins, Martin A. (1971). “Market Segmentation – The Realities of Buyer Behaviour”, Journal
of the Market Research Society, 13, 146-157.
Colombo, Richard, Andrew Ehrenberg and Darius Sabavala (1999). “The Car Challenge”. South
Bank University Working Paper.
Cornish, Pym (1990). “Demographics: Not Standing Still”, Admap, 26, 12, 28-30.
Dibbs, Sally and Lyndon Simkin (1996). The Market Segmentation Work Book : Target Marketing
for Marketing Managers. London: Routledge.
Dickson, Peter and James Ginter (1987). “Market Segmentation, Product Differentiation, and
Marketing Stragtegies”. Journal of Marketing, 51, April, 1-10.
Dubow, Joel S. (1992). “Occasion-Based vs. User-Based Benefit Segmentation: A Case Study”.
Journal of Advertising Research. 32, March/April, 11-18.
ADDIN ENBbu Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1974). "Repetitive Advertising and the Consumer". Journal
of Advertising Research 14, 2, 25-34.
⎯ , Neil Barnard, Rachel Kennedy, and Helen Bloom (2000). “Brand Advertising as Publicity”,
Journal of Marketing (submitted).
⎯ and John Bound (1999). “Customer Retention and Switching in the Car Market”, The R&D
Initiative. London: South Bank University.
⎯ , Neil Barnard and John Scriven (1997). “Differentiation or Salience”. Journal of Advertising
Research, 37, 7-14.
⎯ (1994). A Primer in Data Reduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
⎯(1986). “Advertising or Viewers Paying”. Admap Monograph, London: Admap Publications.
⎯ (1982), “The Problem of Numeracy”. Admap 17, February, 37-40.
Fader, Peter S. and Hardie, Bruce D. (1996). “Modelling Consumer Choice Among SKUs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, 33, (November), 442-452.
Green, Paul E. and Abbe M. Krieger (1991). “Modelling Competitive Pricing and Market Share”.
Journal of the European Operational Research Society, 60, 31-44.
Gunnarsson, A (1999). Portfolio-Based Segmentation and Consumer Behaviour. Stockholm
School of Economics, Doctoral Thesis.
Hammond, Kathy, Andrew Ehrenberg, and Gerald Goodhardt (1996). “Market Segmentation for
Competitive Brands”. European Journal of Marketing 30 (No 12), 39-49.
Heath, Robert (1999a). “Can Tracking Studies Tell Lies”. International Journal of Advertising,
19, 164-184.
⎯ (1999b). “Just Popped Down to the Shops for a Package of Image Statements”, Journal of the
Market Research Society, 41, 153-169.
Kotler, Philip (1999). “Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control” (9th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lattin, Jim and John Roberts (1992). “Consideration: Review of Research and Prospects for
Future Insights”, Journal of Marketing Research 34, 405-410.
Lilien, Gary and Arvind Rangaswamy (1998). Marketing Engineering. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Lury, Adam (1990). “Demographics Tell Me Nothing I Want to Know”. Admap, 26, 12, 31-32.
McDonald, Malcolm and Ian Dunbar (1998). Segmentation: How to Do It, How to Profit from It
(2nd ed). London: MacMillan Press.
Mitchell, V.W. (1998). “Do Consumers’ Stars Signs Influence What They Buy?” Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, 16, 249-259.
Moran, William T. (1990). “Brand Presence and the Perceptual Frame”. Journal of Advertising
Research, 20, Oct/Nov, 9-16.
Perriss, John (1999). “Zenith’s Global Advertising Spending Forecasts”. Paine Webber Annual
Media Conference, Dec. 6, New York.
Porter, Michael E. (1985). Competitive Advantage : Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. New York: Free Press.
Sampson, Peter (1993). “A Better Way to Measure Brand Image”, Admap, 35, July.
Singh, Jaywant (2000). “Examining Buyer Behaviour for Stock-Keeping Units (SKUs)”. EIASM
Seminar on Marketing, Brussels, February.
Titford, Roger and Roy Clouter (1998). “The Case for Mass Marketing in an Increasingly
Segmented World”. Admap, 33, 10, 37-39.
Young, James Webb (1963). How to Become an Advertising Man, Chicago: Advertising
Publications. (Based on his lectures in 1923).
We are indebted to BMRB International for supplying extensive TGI data for this study.
We also acknowledge the earlier interest shown by David Mercer of the Open University.
The paper is part of South Bank’s R&D Initiative, a programme of basic research into marketing which is
supported by over ninety American and European companies.
Data for segmenting specific markets need never be truly confidential – anybody can ask a sample of
consumers some appropriate questions.
In being able to avoid the cost of doing so here – with BMRB supplying us with the TGI profiles – we
have maintained a degree of confidentiality by not citing the dates of data.
A complication in quite a few cases is that a differentiated product-variant may in fact have a singular
brand name (e.g. Kellogg’s All Bran, usually because the item was not large enough to attract a me-too or
two, or because of patents with pharmaceuticals).
PAGE 8
