Bryan Urbick Bryan is co-founder, CEO and Chairman of the Consumer Knowledge Centre. He worked previously in marketing and product development in the food industry and the banking/financial services industry. Read the full biography here.

A Modal Model of Mums

Can segmentation models give misleading conclusions?

By Bryan Urbick - 29 January, 2010

Research is one of those disciplines that embraces learnings from a rich variety of sources. It is imperative to maintain a healthy skepticism of research approaches, yet to always keep an open mind about new methods. Otherwise there is a real danger of applying good research the wrong way.

Segmentation modelling is a good example of how good research can be mis-applied.

Like all research tools, segmentations have limitations. It seems we may be forgetting their limitations and perhaps putting too much resource into developing them and believing them to be the panacea for brand, product or company woes.

Segmentations have limitations... we may be putting too much resource into developing them and believing them to be a panacea...

It is easy to see the lure of segmentations, though a few years ago we learned an important limitation to this research method, from an unusual experience. This learning started to develop insight into the way these studies could be taken to the next level and to add even more value to in-depth consumer understanding.

Our client had recently (at that time) completed and sold-in to their organization a bespoke segmentation model. This unique model had been built qualitatively and verified quantitatively, and proved to be quite useful in helping to target certain segments for specific brands. All research was then to be conducted from the segmentation, too, and logically we were then tasked for our projects to recruit consumers based on the target segments.

These segments were based on a comprehensive study that grouped mums into supposedly distinct clusters. We were recruiting mums for qualitative and contextual (ethnographic) work. The overall idea was to talk to mums of the various types – each type together – to be better able to separate the learnings into the segment clusters. Though this seemed rational and could be useful in the right context, we also learned it can be misleading.

As part of our recruitment procedures, we did the recruit in two phases, and had a re-screen of the attitude questions. It was during the re-screening that we hit upon an unusual trend. At first we were quite frustrated, and then our curiosity was aroused: we were finding at the re-screening stage that a significant number of the recruited mums changed from one segment to another. We were particularly concerned that we were somehow creating the erroneous responses, but on further investigation we realized that we were doing things correctly – it was the mums that were changing their answers.

In this particular experience, approximately one third of the mums changed from a segment to another when questioned at a different time. Initially we wondered, because of their eagerness to participate, whether the mums were lying on the initial questionnaire or on the subsequent re-screening interview. On further delving we discovered that they were being truthful and ‘in the moment’.

We explored further and found, depending on the time of day, those one third of the mothers answered the segmenting attitude questions very differently. We began to understand that context was key: when we talked to her in the morning as she was getting her kids ready for school and trying to get them out the door, she was in a pragmatic mindset or ‘mode’ – and this ‘mode’ governed her attitudes; when we conducted the interviews in the evening, when the kids were in bed, she was in a different mode, and had slightly different attitudes. We observed that after the kids’ bath time she was particularly charmed by her young children. Through the process we learned that there are several key ‘modes’, and then we began to explore the triggers that initiated change from mode to mode. Though only on a small scale, we were able to provide our client with an answer as to why certain marketing activities – even though clearly targeted to the specific segments – didn’t work according to plan.

The same can be said for segmentations in other sectors. We worked on a nutritional segmentation model where approximately one quarter of the respondents changed their answers. We now understand why. Even a staunch health conscious individual, when in a ‘treating’ mode will buy a chocolate bar. If this individual was in a controlling mode, she or he may use a treat as encouragement for a child (or him/herself) to exhibit a certain behaviour. If in an educational mode, that same individual may be more likely to call an apple or a box of raisins a treat. The learning is the same: the same individual, in different modes, gives different answers to questions.

Of course it does make complete sense. We all already understand that any time we question research participants, we are exploring a snap-shot of a specific moment in time. The context of the individual’s life at that moment will greatly colour his or her response. As individuals, we have more than one ‘mode’ in which we operate through life, and each of these in context is likely to modify our attitudes. We need to take our segmentation thinking to the next level – from static attitudes to more fluid ‘modal’ thinking. Instead of trying merely to bucket consumers into various segments, we could better also learn to find the triggers that move us from mode to mode. It is the understanding of these triggers that can be very useful as we build our marketing, product development and communication plans.

Instead of trying merely to bucket consumers into various segments, we could also learn to find the triggers that move us from mode to mode...

The learning here for researchers and marketers is the importance of NOT being over-dogmatic, thereby creating limiting segmentation thinking. Brand owners are at risk of being led down a false path if they start focusing only on the new, cool sounding groups arising – and are likely to ultimately see that the oversimplification has not really provided the answer. Segmentation thinking needs to be pushed further to truly capture deep and insightful truths that motivate consumers to adopt our brands. A deeper understanding of consumer behaviour is to refine the model so that it acknowledges the complexity of the consumer’s life, and can adapt as the consumer goes in and out of the various segments.

This doesn’t mean that we need to throw away our segmentation models. Quite the contrary! Segmentation modelling becomes the foundation for this next step of thinking.

Firstly, we must make the assumption that all segments reside in each target. This is a testable hypothesis, and can be conducted using the same base, but contacting them at various times, when they would logically be in different roles or modes.

Second, we need to better understand the transition points. Those triggers – whether they be different day-parts, different sets of needs or even different ways in which we are addressed – need to be understood. In our work with mums we have learned that certain sensory cues can get a mum from controller to bond-er, or indeed teacher. The combination of specific words and imagery can move an office supervisor from manager to mentor. What, we should ask ourselves, are the triggers most relevant in the specific situation?

This leads to the final step: we need to explore and understand how our brand best plays in the various roles or modes, and test ways in which to trigger the trans-modal shifts. These shift triggers can be a range of different things, but to be most useful, need to be appropriate to the wider brand experience.

Perhaps this new thinking adds some complexity, but one can argue that oversimplification of the segmented consumer can lead us down very wrong paths. A consumer insight – a truth – has to be able to stand in the context of consumer lives. And life’s context is more complex than a segmentation model permits. To presuppose that we are two-dimensional creatures is hugely problematic, and misleading. Revising the way we think about segments and how we use them can unleash a powerful understanding that will benefit our projects and brands and take segmentation to the next, more insightful, level.

There is a rich, fulfilling life beyond segmentations.

Bryan Urbick

Comments on this article

Want to share your thoughts...?

Want to share your thoughts?

NOTE: Please note that this board is moderated, and comments are published at the discretion of the site owner.