Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 453–469 | Cite as

Segmentation in Low-Penetration and Low-Involvement Categories: An Application to Lottery Games

Original Paper

Abstract

Market segmentation is accepted as a fundamental concept in marketing and several authors have recently proposed a segmentation model where personal and environmental variables intersect with each other to form motivating conditions that drive behavior and preferences. This model of segmentation has been applied to packaged goods. This paper extends this literature by proposing a segmentation model for low-penetration and low involvement (LP-LI) products. An application to the lottery games in Chile supports the proposed model. The results of the study show that in this type of products (LP-LI), the attitude towards the product category is the most important factor that distinguishes consumers from non consumers, and heavy users from light users, and consequently, a critical segmentation variable. In addition, a cluster analysis shows the existence of three segments: (1) the impulsive dreamers, who believe in chance, and in that lottery games can change their life, (2) the skeptical, that do not believe in chance, nor in that lottery games can change their life and (3) the willing, who value the benefits of playing.

Keywords

Gambling Lottery games Segmentation Consumer behaviour 

References

  1. Allenby, G., Fennell, G., Bemmaor, A., Bhargava, V., Christen, F., Dawley, J., et al. (2002). Market segmentation research: Beyond within and across group differences. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dibb, S. (2001). New millennium, new segments: Moving towards the segment of one? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 9, 193–213.Google Scholar
  3. Fennell, G., & Allenby, G. (2002). No brand level segmentation? Marketing Research, 14(1), 14–18.Google Scholar
  4. Fennell, G., Allenby, G., Yang, S., & Edwards, Y. (2003). The effectiveness of demographic and psychographic variables for explaining brand and product category use. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 1, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kennedy, R., & Ehrenberg, A. (2001). There is no brand segmentation. Marketing Research, 13(1), 4–7.Google Scholar
  6. Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K., Bernhardand, B. J., & Yoon, Y. S. (2005). Segmenting casino gamblers by motivation: A cluster analysis of Korean gamblers. Tourism Management, 27(5), 856–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McConkey, C. W., & Warren, W. E. (1987). Psychographic and demographic profiles of state lottery ticket purchasers. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 21(2), 314–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Myers, J. H. (1996). Segmentation and positioning for strategic marketing decisions. Chicago: American Marketing Association.Google Scholar
  10. Park, M., Yang, X., Lee, B., Jang, H.-C., & Stokowski, P. A. (2001). Segmenting casino gamblers by involvement profiles: A Colorado example. Tourism Management, 23(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peterson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Quinn, L., Hines, T., & Benisson, D. (2005). Making sense of market segmentation: A fashion retailing case. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 439–465.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, W. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Steenkamp, J. B., & Hofstede, F. T. (2002). International market segmentation: Issues and perspectives. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(3), 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. (2000). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weinstein, A. (2004). Handbook of market segmentation: Strategic targeting for business and technology firms (3rd ed.). New York: The Haworth Press Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Yang, S., Allenby, G., & Fennell, G. (2002). Modeling variation in brand preference: The roles of objective environment and motivating conditions. Marketing Science, 21(1), 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Escuela de Administración, Pontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations