The psychographic basis is therefore said to have ‘evolved in answer to some of the shortcomings’ of other segmentation bases, because it goes beyond ‘superficial, functional features’ and on to ‘benefits that can be seen to enhance [the customer’s] lifestyle on a much more emotional level’ (Brassington & Pettitt, 2000: 187). In order to appeal to this psychological aspect of the customer’s purchase decision, ‘marketers try to endow their products with brand personalities…designed to correspond with consumer personalities’ (Lilen & Kotler, 1983: 293). The importance of getting this reflection in personalities right is shown in a case study of Dr Pepper, whose sales actually fell as a result of ‘a campaign that appealed to people with traditional values’ because ‘[t]he people that actually drank Dr. Pepper viewed themselves …as being different, innovative and they wanted excitement in their lives.’ (Bobrowski, 2002)
The prominence of the use of psychographic segmentation in the business world, and in academic discussion proves its importance. Wind (1978) wrote that ‘one can hardly find an issue of any of the leading marketing journals which does not include at least one article directly concerned with segmentation’. The practice is not without its problems however. Psychographic studies can be costly to launch, implementation can be difficult and some have their doubts as the usefulness of the data for predicting market behaviour.
As Brassington and Pettitt explain, one of the greatest drawbacks of the psychographic base is that the ‘segments are very difficult and expensive to define and measure’, and that there is no ‘single universally applicable typology of psychographic segments’ (2000: 188, 190). That is to say, there are no ready made solutions that the organisation can pick from the shelf. In contrast with demographic and geographic data, psychographic data will probably have to be obtained ‘from scratch’; there will be little relevant information in the public domain, and the division of customers will probably need to be uniquely created by the organisation, so that it corresponds to their particular market.
Not only this, but some would argue that psychographic information can be useless. Clancy & Robert (1995: 112-4) suggest that ‘personality by itself has nothing to do with market behavior’ and that it ‘does not explain what people buy’. They point to a study among fast food diners which showed that although the customers were split into five psychographic segments, including the extremes of ‘Health Conscious’ and ‘Health Oblivious’, it was found that there was not a large difference in product usage between the five segments, and thus no clearly potentially profitable group could be identified to market to.
The marketer must also overcome the hurdle of creating the optimally sized segment. Ziff (1971) notes that ‘the attitudes or values prevailing in one area are not totally independent of those extending to another’ and whilst there is likely to be a stronger correlation between these ‘attitudes and values’ when the group is smaller, Lord Weinstock warned that niches can become tombs. To concentrate on a niche, or segment which is very small can mean the death of the business because not only have you removed the risk-bearing option for if and when the market fails, but your business may starve to death without the revenue benefits of economies of scale in your production. You must segment the market far enough so as to gain higher revenue from specialising to your psychographic segment, but not go so far as to go against Kotler’s (1980) requirement that the segment must be of an adequate size so as to be potentially profitable.
In conclusion, the psychographic segmentation base has the ability to offer the organisation a way of understanding the consumer, and thus the ability to more convincingly persuade them that buying its product would enhance their lifestyle or achieve their aspirations. The drawbacks of the base, namely the costs of collection and difficulty in applying the information so that the customer will be swayed by it, need careful consideration. The nature of your organisation, and the good or service you trade in will affect whether the base will be worthwhile using. A small business with limited resources may not be able to afford the risk of implementation going wrong, and Brassington & Pettitt (2000) argue that psychographic segmentation will be of more use to those making products which have great psychological benefits like clothing, cars or perfume. I would agree with this, as it seems unlikely that the base would be of much use to those producing goods with mainly functional benefits such as baked beans or tissue paper.
References
Bobrowski, (2002) ‘Understanding and Applying Consumers Psychographic Profiles in Marketing and Advertising’ available at:
Brassington, F, & Pettitt, S (2000), (2nd edition) ‘Principles of Marketing’ (Harlow: Prentice Hall)
Engel J. F., et al., (1972) Marketing Segmentation (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston)
Levitt, Theodore, (1974) ‘Marketing for Business Growth’ (New York: McGraw-Hill)
Lilien, Gary L., & Kotler, Philip, Marketing Decision Making A Model-Building Approach, (New York: Harper and Row)
Wind, Yoram, (1978) ‘Introduction to Special Section on Market Segmentation Research’, Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (August), 315- 316
Wyner, Gordon A., (2002) ‘Segmentation Architecture’, Marketing Management, Vol. 11, Issue 2
Ziff, Ruth, (1971) Psychographics for Market Segmentation, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 11, Issue 2
