Skip to main content
Log in

Market Segmentation Research: Beyond Within and Across Group Differences

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Market segmentation research is currently focused too narrowly on the task of segment identification as opposed to its strategic relevance within a firm. In this paper we distinguish an ex ante approach to market segmentation research, which begins with studying the motivating conditions that lead people to the tasks and interests in their lives, from an ex post approach which begins with an individual's reaction to marketplace offerings. We argue that the marketing task of guiding managements to ‘make what people will want to buy’ will be more successful in light of a deep understanding of behavior in the context of everyday life and work, rather than a detailed understanding of preferences in the marketplace. Directions for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allenby, Greg M., and Peter E. Rossi. (1999). ''Marketing Models of Consumer Heterogeneity,'' Journal of Econometrics, 89, 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. Brian. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependency in the Economy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, Russell. (1975). ''Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior,'' Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (December), 157–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, Moshe et al. (1999). ''Extended Framework for Modeling Choice Behavior,'' Marketing Letters, 10(3), 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, Peter R. (1982). ''Person-Situation: Segmentation's Missing Link,'' Journal of Marketing, 46 (Fall), 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, Peter R. (1992). ''Toward a General Theory of Competitive Rationality,'' Journal of Marketing, 56, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, Peter R., Paul W. Farris, and Willem J. M. I. Verbeke. (2000). ''Dynamic Strategic Thinking,'' Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(3), 216–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell. (1968). Consumer Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fader, Peter S., and Bruce G. S. Hardie. (1996). ''Modeling Consumer Choice Among SKUs,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (November), 442–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, Geraldine. (1980). ''The Situation,'' Motivation and Emotion, 4(December), 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, Geraldine. (1988). ''Action as Counterchange: Identifying Antecedents of the Domain and Goal of Action,'' in Proceedings, Editor, L. Alwitt, Division 23, 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 122–129.

  • Fennell, Geraldine. (1997). ''Value and Values: Relevance to Advertising.'' In L. Kahle and L. Chiagouris (eds.), Values, Lifestyles, and Psychographics, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 83–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, Geraldine, Joel Saegert, and Robert J. Hoover. (1997). ''Investigating What the Customer Wants: Problems and Promises.'' In Connie Pechmann and S. Ratneshwar (eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Consumer Psychology, Washington, D.C.: Society for Consumer Psychology (Division 23), American Psychological Association, 40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, Geraldine, and Greg M. Allenby. (2002). ''No Brand Level Segmentation? Let's Not Rush to Judgment,'' Marketing Research, 14, 1, 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Ronald E., William F. Massy, and Yoram Wind. (1972). Market Segmentation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley, Russell I. (1968). ''Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented Research Tool,'' Journal of Marketing, 32 (July), 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, John A., and Jagdish N. Sheth. (1969). The Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, Wagner A., and Gary J. Russell. (1989). ''A Probabilistic Choice Model for Marketing Segmentation and Elasticity Structure,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (November), 379–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Rachel, and Andrew Ehrenberg. (2001). ''There is No Brand Segmentation,'' Marketing Research, 13, 1, 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Daniel. (1986). ''The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research,'' Marketing Science, 5 (Fall), 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Kenneth E., and James L. Ginter. (1979). ''An Investigation of Situational Variation in Brand Choice Behavior and Attitude,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 111–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicosia, F. (1966). Consumer Decision Processes: Marketing and Advertising Implications. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, Arch W. (1912). ''Some Problems in Market Distribution,'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, (August), 703–765.

  • Smith, Wendell. (1956). ''Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies,'' Journal of Marketing, 21 (July), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, Michel, and Wagner A. Kamakura. (2000). Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, Michel et al. (1999). ''Discrete and Continuous Representations of Unobserved Heterogeneity in Choice Modeling,'' Marketing Letters, 10(3), 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Sha, Greg M. Allenby, and Geraldine Fennell. (2001). ''Modeling Variation in Brand Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment and Motivating Conditions,'' Marketing Science, 21(1) 14–31.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allenby, G., Fennell, G., Bemmaor, A. et al. Market Segmentation Research: Beyond Within and Across Group Differences. Marketing Letters 13, 233–243 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020226922683

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020226922683

Navigation