Market Segmentation Blog

The Windy Road of Travel and Market Segmentation

Segmentation provides a representative framework for unifying a population’s attitudes and behaviors – while elections ultimately segregate - ostensibly for the purpose of achieving broad “representation.”

While data alone can and does provide valuable information and answers to specific business questions, true insight often goes beyond the numbers and advanced calculations – it requires a deeper understanding of the respondents’ context, underlying motivations, and “culture” – not to mention knowing how to go about getting the data in the first place.

I recently had the opportunity to partake in our daughter’s “self” move from Texas to the heart of America’s Dairyland for her first post-college “grown-up” job. While I towed the trailer with her belongings, my wife and daughter caravaned behind. Once our daughter was settled, my wife flew back to Dallas, and I answered the call of filial duty and headed to Northern New England to check in on my mother. The eventual return to Texas was via a more direct Southwesterly route – with brief stops to have lunch with clients along the way. In all, I meandered alone through 4,000+ miles of our great country.

Of course, I could not just disappear from my job to drive 4,000+ miles. Along the way were numerous calls with accommodating and understanding clients and colleagues – as well as a lot of time to think (and time for extended sessions of solo karaoke). Two recurring themes occupied my mind as I drove. One was an ongoing foundational Segmentation project for a client – a large, growing durable goods manufacturer that caters to budding amateurs; small, specialized businesses; large, diversified entities – and everything in between. The other was the current election cycle.

Driving through disparate geographies brimming with current and potential consumers and voters of varying beliefs and backgrounds, my client’s extensive network of dealers and the ubiquitous political ads along the road kept both intertwined - and inescapably in the forefront of my mind.

The Segmentation process (grouping consumers into 4 to 6 manageable, distinct buckets of people who are most like one another – yet meaningfully different from other buckets of fellow consumers based on emotional, behavioral, and other factors) played out over the course of my odyssey, and I was struck by the similarities and differences between conducting Segmentation research and the process, and impact, of voting.

While we were segmenting respondents based on commonalities to “divide” a defined population into addressable markets for our client to target, the election was highlighting and reinforcing the differences between two increasingly antagonistic groups.

George Washington’s warning to avoid a two-party political system recognized that an “either/or” system can leave voters feeling disenfranchised (and adversarial) when forced to choose between “the best choice” in favor of “affiliation.” With only two options available, we are unable to identify the myriad beliefs that can connect us – invariably forcing us to make trade-offs on some beliefs, while we focus on the core tenets of a given Party.

A Segmentation, on the other hand, is designed to establish and classify groups by their homogenizing elements. Ideally, the individual “buckets of humanity” can be aggregated into markets/majorities that can be wooed by a particular brand/product or service. Despite the differences between these buckets that result in them being their own Segments, multiple Segments share an increased likelihood to consume a product or service, making them prime prospects.

I am not suggesting that Segmentation can resolve political differences, make voting painless, or that it would be preferable to straight-ticket voting for candidates. I was merely (repeatedly) struck by how one approach is by its very nature polarizing and divisive, while the other, by finding ways to aggregate distinct groups to a shared purpose (consumption), is more unifying.

How different would the tone of our social discourse be if we had choices that allowed us to be better and more aligned on our shared/common aspirations? Would we then be able to aggregate disparate groups to identify and better pursue our universal interests? Or would our most ingrained, fundamental beliefs keep us from finding (a) bridge(s)?

If you read this far, I thank you for coming along for the admittedly “twisty” ride. Should you wish to discuss Segmentation or how Decision Analyst can assist with any of your business challenges in the U.S.A. or around the globe, please reach out. I promise that there will be no political discussion and that you will be impressed by my amazing Quantitative and Qualitative colleagues.

Perhaps I should stick with the solo-karaoke sessions?

John Gachelin

Senior Vice President Global Research

John has more than 20 years of marketing research experience and has worked at Decision Analyst for over a decade. He has a strong background in Global Research and is currently leading the Global Research Team. In addition to having lived and worked in the U.S., Indonesia, and South Africa, has conducted both B2C and B2B research across a myriad of categories around the world. A dual-national (U.S. and France) who grew up in both the United States and Switzerland, John is a native English and French speaker and has a basic command of German.

• 
•