Segmentation of Social Media Users: A Means-End Chain Approach

  • Umut AsanEmail author
  • Asli Cetin
  • Ayberk Soyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)


The use of social media has risen dramatically over the past few years, and companies are spending more dollars than ever on social media. It has created great opportunities for users in terms of social interaction, knowledge sharing, entertainment, and online shopping. At the same time, social media has generated a new set of capabilities for marketers to collect data, test propositions, understand consumer reactions and communicate more effectively. Therefore, a better understanding of the profiles and preferences of social media users becomes inevitable for developing effective marketing strategies. This requires a detailed analysis of meaningful differences among segments. Only a few studies have attempted to differentiate among users employing either a customer-based or product-based approach. To address this issue, this study applies the means-end approach along with the laddering technique and cluster analysis for data collection and analysis. The proposed approach can provide a deeper understanding of user perceptions and preferences. The constructed model presents the connections between preferred attributes of social media platforms, the benefits obtained from these attributes and the personal values satisfied by those benefits. The study identified four distinct groups that vary according to their motivations for using social media platforms.


Social media Segmentation Means-end chains Laddering Cluster analysis 


  1. Amaro S, Duarte P, Henriques C (2016) Travelers’ use of social media: a clustering approach. Ann Tour Res 59:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audenaert A, Steenkamp JBE (1997) Means-end chain theory and laddering in agricultural marketing research. In: Wierenga B, van Tilburg A, Grunert K, Steenkamp J-BEM, Wedel M (eds) Agricultural marketing and consumer behavior in a changing world. Springer, Boston, pp 217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker S, Thompson KE, Engelken J, Huntley K (2004) Mapping the values driving organic food choice: Germany vs the UK. Eur J Mark 38(8):995–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bech-Larsen T, Nielsen NA (1999) A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products. J Econ Psychol 20(3):315–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa ADA, Dekker M, Jongen WMF (2004) An overview of means-end theory: potential application in consumer-oriented food product design. Trends Food Sci Technol 15(7–8):403–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eszergár-Kiss D, Caesar B (2017) Definition of user groups applying Ward’s method. Transp Res Procedia 22:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foster M, West B, Francescucci A (2011) Exploring social media user segmentation and online brand profiles. J Brand Manag 19(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gutman J (1982) A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. J Mark 46(2):60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hands S, Everitt B (1987) A Monte Carlo study of the recovery of cluster structure in binary data by hierarchical clustering techniques. Multivar Behav Res 22(2):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. İlk yarı dijital reklam yatırımları açıklandı, 12 April 2018.
  11. Kangal A (2013) Neden–sonuç zinciri teorisi ve basamaklama yöntemi: Tüketici davranışı araştırmalarında kullanımı. Bus Econ Res J 4(2):55–78Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horiz 53:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lennon R, Rentfro RW, Curran JM (2012) Exploring relationships between demographic variables and social networking use. J Manag Mark Res 11:1Google Scholar
  14. Myers JM (1996) Segmentation and positioning for strategic marketing decisions. American Marketing Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Pew Research Center: Journalism & Media Staff (2010) New media, old media, 23 May 2010.
  16. Reynolds TJ, Gutman J (1988) Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation. J Advert Res 28(1):11–31Google Scholar
  17. Reynolds TJ, Olson JC (2001) Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy. Psychology Press, MahwahCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rokeach MJ (1968) Beliefs, attitudes and values: a theory of organization and change. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  19. Tuten TL, Solomon MR (2017) Social media marketing. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  20. Veludo-de-Oliveira TM, Ikeda AA, Campomar MC (2006) Discussing laddering application by the means-end chain theory. Qual Rep 11(4):626–642Google Scholar
  21. Vinerean S, Cetina I, Dumitrescu L, Tichindelean M (2013) The effects of social media marketing on online consumer behavior. Int J Bus Manag 8(14):66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vriens M, Hofstede FT (2000) Linking attributes, benefits, and consumer values. Mark Res 12(3):4–11Google Scholar
  23. Yankelovich D (1981) New rules: searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering Department, Management FacultyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations