marketing

The marketing essay below has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

The Behavioral Segmentation Examples Marketing Essay

According to Philip Kotler “Market segmentation is sub-dividing a market into distinct and homogeneous subgroups of customers, where any group can conceivably be selected as a target market to be met with distinct marketing mix.” In other words, Market Segmentation is a method of “dividing a market into smaller groupings of consumers or organizations in which each segment has a common characteristic such as needs or behavior.”

“Finding the most revealing way to segment a market is more an art than a science... Any useful segmentation scheme will be based around the needs of customers and should be effective in revealing new business opportunities.”

Peter Doyle

All markets are heterogeneous. This is evident from observation and from the proliferation of popular books describing the heterogeneity of local and global markets. Consider, for example, The Nine Nations of North America (Garreau, 1982), Latitudes and Attitudes: An Atlas of American Tastes, Trends, Politics and Passions (Weiss, 1994) and Mastering Global Markets: Strategies for Today’s Trade Globalist (Czinkotaet al., 2003). When reflecting on the nature of markets, consumer behavior and competitive activities, it is obvious that no product or service appeals to all consumers and even those who purchase the same product may do so for diverse reasons.

Effective marketing and business strategy therefore requires a segmentation of the market into homogeneous segments, an understanding of the needs and wants of these segments, the design of products and services that meet those needs and development of marketing strategies, to effectively reach the target segments. Thus focusing on segments is at the core of organizations’ efforts to become customer driven; it is also the key to effective resource allocation and deployment. The level of segment aggregation is an increasingly important issue. In today’s global economy, the ability to customize products and services often calls for the most micro of segments: the segment of one. Following and implementing a market segmentation strategy allows the firm to increase its profitability, as suggested by the classic price discrimination model, which provides the theoretical rationale for segmentation.

The most common B2B segmentation techniques used by software companies are:

SEGMENTING BY HORIZONTAL DISTINCTION

A horizontal market is a market so diversified that its products and/or services are broad enough to meet the needs of multiple industries. The audience for horizontal markets shares characteristics across industries. Based on the scope of horizontal markets, the marketing efforts that support them must reach this spectrum of buyers and prospective buyers.

Because horizontal markets are broad, marketers often segment them into subsets. These groups are typically based on demographic factors such as the prospect's income, location or job title.

Horizontal Segmentation Example

To use telcos as an example they will even further segment their buyers and prospects to address specific needs. To increase sales of home Internet services, they can target a specific subgroup, such as senior citizens, low income users or parents with school-age children.

SEGMENTING BY SIZE

Because the demands of business-to-business customers are so polarized, a common tactic is to segment markets based on company size. Companies do this because the thinking and strategies behind a larger company is typically radically different from the approach of a smaller business. Larger businesses typically employ a more formal procurement process — seeking the lowest bid possible. Small businesses tend to learn towards a more personal and inclusive type of business arrangement. Sometimes, leveraging basic information like the size of the company, its annual revenues, or the business’ own clientele roster will tell you how you may or may not work together. In some case you can be even more specific and count the number of installs of your software the company could potentially buy.

Size Segmentation Examples

 Targeting companies who see $500 million/year in revenue.

Only targeting the largest companies in your region based on number of employees.

I spent a long time in the contact center software space. We sold by number of agent “seats”. If a company had more than 500 agent seats they were “enterprise” and if they had less than 500 seats, they were “mid-market”.

SEGMENTING BY VERTICAL

If a product fulfills a common need that’s widely seen across an industry then vertical segmenting is used. Ineffective for most consumer markets, vertical segmenting is an effective strategy when working with a niche product geared for a niche industry. Single industries like that and other industries commonly identified by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system are often identified as vertical segments. Determining the end function of business customer tells how and at what level in the supply chain a company’s product will be used. And this knowledge drives how the company positions and marketsits product. It’s a simple question — how and by whom will my product be used? A hanger warehouse may only target companies in the retail industry, a graphic software firm may only target design departments or design houses, while a supply chain management developer may count freight companies among his prospects.

Vertical Segmentation Examples

 A navigation software vendor that only focus on the cruise or trucking industries.

A gauge manufacturer that only services the automotive industry

Selling exclusively to wholesalers in a vertical industry (combined segmenting)

Identifying a department function within a larger corporation

SEGMENTING BY GEOGRAPHY

While geographic segmenting is often used to leverage characteristics shared by a population living in the same region, small businesses, those with capacity limitations, and consumer-driven companies often use geographic criteria to target prospects. As a Silicon Valley-based company, you may not be able to service prospects west of a designated time zone. Or even more specific, you may segment your prospects to a select number of surrounding zip codes. Very plainly, where are your customers concentrated? Once you understand this data, you’ll no longer want to focus on any other geographic information. These same criteria can (and should) be applied to other geographic factors including population growth rates, economic factors, and isolated spoken language.

Geographical Segmentation Examples

 Introducing a unique product for the same unique geographic segment.

A promotional campaign targeting one region to increase sales.

SEGMENTING BY BEHAVIOR

Very simply, this segmenting targets prospect groups based on their buying behavior. How are your customers using your product, how often are they using it, and what is the challenge your prospects face? Those questions, coupled with the propensity of your prospect to actually pull the ‘buy’ trigger, are the cornerstone of behavioral segmenting. Other behavioral segmenting rules may include brand loyalty, order sizes, and any purchase procedure requirements.

Behavioral Segmentation Examples

A software company that releases a product geared for early technology adopters.

A travel agency targeting travelers who prefer vacationing during the Christmas holiday.

Between 80 and 90% of software startups fail within the first three years, depending on how failure is defined. While they mostly run out of money, the root of the problem is often poor marketing, specifically poor segmenting and targeting. Most people think of marketing as promotion through events, advertising, social media, direct email, or viral methods. But those activities, correctly and collectively known as marketing communications, are the very last marketing activities that should be done. Marketing is better described as bringing the right product to the right market at the right price at the right place. If this function is executed poorly, nothing else matters and nothing else can be done to fix the problem. No amount of promotion or creative sales technique will save a company that practices poor segmenting and targeting.

A common mistake, made by open source and proprietary software companies alike, is to create something and then look for a market that will buy it. The company that designs a product and then enters the market looking for a customer will struggle. The company that first asks potential customers about their most pressing problems and then designs a compelling product to solve one of these problems is far more likely to succeed, even more so if the problem is a priority to the customer. Unfortunately, software companies tend to have a technology bias rather than a market bias.

Why do so many software companies get this wrong? And more importantly, what can they do to get it right, or at least as right as possible? There are a number of reasons why poor marketing is prevalent, including technology arrogance, lack of market information, indecision, and ignorance of segmenting and targeting. The latter is particularly common, and in open source and other software communities, it generally takes the form of creating differently priced product feature sets, licensing, and support packages for different target segments. That kind of segmenting only starts to be successful after a company becomes well established and has enough customers that meeting their differing needs becomes a priority. A new open source company trying to go to market for the first time should instead focus on developing a clear idea of who they are selling to, what their customers' problems are and why the customers would use this product over any other. Pricing models should clearly serve the needs and preferences of that single target.

Ideally, a company should identify their target market and the value they bring to it before their product even enters the design stage. But that rarely happens. At a minimum, they should have a market in mind before they take the product to market. It is less important that the target market is the absolute right one than it is to have a target market that is more or less in the right direction. If there is no target to aim for, there is no way to measure progress or success. If there is no target market, it is impossible to build critical mass or penetration. And, trying to sell into multiple segments to see which one works the best usually fails as the company will run out of time and money before finding the answer.

Segmentation Challenges In Business-To-Business Market

Business-to-business markets are characterized in a number of ways that makes them very different to their consumer cousins. Below summarizedare the main differences between consumer and business-to-business markets, and set out the implications for segmentation:

B2B markets have a more complex decision-making unit: In most households, even the most complex and expensive of purchases are confined to the small family unit, while the purchase of items such as food, clothes and cigarettes usually involves just one person. Other than low-value, low-risk items such as paperclips, the decision-making unit in businesses is far more complicated.

Segmenting a target audience that is at once multifaceted, complex, oblique and ephemeral is an extremely demanding task. Do we segment the companies in which these decision makers work, or do we segment the decision makers themselves? Do we identify one key decision maker per company, and segment the key decision makers. In short, who exactly is the target audience and whom should we be segmenting?

B2B products are often more complex: Just as the decision-making unit is often complex in business-to-business markets, so too are b2b products themselves. Even complex consumer purchases such as cars and stereos tend to be chosen on the basis of fairly simple criteria. Conversely, even the simplest of b2b products might have to be integrated into a larger system, making the involvement of a qualified expert necessary. Whereas consumer products are usually standardized, b2b purchases are frequently tailored.

This raises the question as to whether segmentation is possible in such markets – if every customer has complex and completely different needs, it could be argued that we have a separate segment for every single customer. In most business-to-business markets, a small number of key customers are so important that they ‘rise above ‘ the segmentation and are regarded as segments in their own right, with a dedicated account manager. Beneath these key customers, however, lies an array of companies that have similar and modest enough requirements to be grouped into segments.

B2B target audiences are smaller than consumer target audiences: Almost all business-to-business markets exhibit a customer distribution that confirms the Pareto Principle or 80:20 rule. A small number of customers dominate the sales ledger. Nor are we talking thousands and millions of customers. It is not unusual, even in the largest business-to-business companies, to have 100 or fewer customers that really make a difference to sales.

Personal relationships are more important in b2b markets: A small customer base that buys regularly from the business-to-business supplier is relatively easy to talk to. Sales and technical representatives visit the customers. People are on first-name terms. Personal relationships and trust develop. It is not unusual for a business-to-business supplier to have customers that have been loyal and committed for many years.

There are a number of segmentation implications here. First, while the degree of relationship focus may vary from one segmentation to another, most segments in most b2b markets demand a level of personal service. This raises an issue at the core of segmentation – everyone may want a personal relationship, but who is willing to pay for it? This is where the supplier must make firm choices, deciding to offer a relationship only to those who will pay the appropriate premium for it. On a practical level, it also means that market research must be conducted to provide a full understanding of exactly what ‘relationship’ comprises. To a premium segment, it may consist of regular face-to-face visits, whilst to a price-conscious segment a quarterly phone call may be adequate.

B2B buyers are longer-term buyers: Whilst consumers do buy items such as houses and cars, which are long-term purchases, these incidences are relatively rare. Long-term purchases – or at least purchases, which are expected to be repeated over a long period of time – are more common in business-to-business markets. In addition, the long-term products and services required by businesses are more likely to require service back up from the supplier than is the case in consumer markets. A computer network, a new item of machinery, a photocopier or a fleet of vehicles usually require far more extensive aftersales service than a house or the single vehicle purchased by a consumer. Businesses’ repeat purchases (machine parts, office consumables, for example) will also require ongoing expertise and services in terms of delivery, implementation/installation advice, etc that are less likely to be demanded by consumers.

In one sense this makes life easier in terms of segmentation. Segments tend to be less subject to whim or rapid change, meaning that once an accurate segmentation has been established, it evolves relatively slowly and is therefore a durable strategic tool. The risk of this is that business-to-business marketers can be complacent and pay inadequate attention to the changing needs and characteristics of customers over time. This can have grave consequences in terms of the profitability of a segment, as customers are faced with out-of-date messages or benefits that they are not paying for.

B2B markets drive innovation less than consumer markets: B2B companies that innovate usually do so as a response to an innovation that has happened further upstream. In contrast with FMCG companies, they have the comparative luxury of responding to trends rather than having to predict or even drive them. In other words, B2B companies have the time to continually re-evaluate their segments and CVPs and respond promptly to the evolving needs of their clients.

B2B markets have fewer behavioral and needs-based segments: The small number of segments typical to b2b markets is in itself a key distinguishing factor of business-to-business markets. A review of over 2,500 business-to-business studies shows that B2B markets typically have far fewer behavioral or needs-based segments than is the case with consumer markets. Whereas it is not uncommon for an FMCG market to boast 10, 12 or more segments, the average business-to-business study typically produces 3 or 4.

Part of the reason for this is the smaller target audience in business-to-business markets. In a consumer market with tens of thousands of potential customers, it is practical and economical to divide the market into 10 or 12 distinguishable segments, even if several of the segments are only separated by small nuances of behavior or need. This is patently not the case when the target audience consists of a couple of hundred business buyers.

The main reason for the smaller number of segments, however, is simply that a business audience’s behavior or needs vary less than that of a (less rational) consumer audience. Whims, insecurities, indulgences and so on are far less likely to come to the buyer’s mind when the purchase is for a place of work rather than for oneself or a close family member. And the numerous colleagues who get involved in a B2B buying decision, and the workplace norms established over time, filter out many of the extremes of behavior that may otherwise manifest themselves if the decision were left to one person with no accountability to others.

It is noticeable that the behavioral and needs-based segments that emerge in business-to-business markets are frequently similar across different industries. Needs-based segments in a typical business-to business market often resemble the following:

A price-focused segment, which has a transactional outlook to doing business and does not seek any ‘extras’. Companies in this segment are often small, working to low margins and regard the product/service in question as of low strategic importance to their business.

A quality and brand-focused segment, which wants the best possible product and is prepared to pay for it. Companies in this segment often work to high margins, are medium-sized or large, and regard the product/service as of high strategic importance.

A service-focused segment, which has high requirements in terms of product quality and range, but also in terms of aftersales, delivery, etc. These companies tend to work in time-critical industries and can be small, medium or large. They are usually purchasing relatively high volumes.

A partnership-focused segment usually consists of key accounts, which seeks trust and reliability and regards the supplier as a strategic partner. Such companies tend to be large, operate on relatively high margins, and regard the product or service in question as strategically important.

Some Common Traps of Segmenting Customers

Segmentation is the action – not the objective

Segmentation has to stem from clear objectives and strategy. All too many businesses are still picking through the leftovers of static, research-based segmentation projects based on little more than executive philosophy. With no financial modeling to back them up, no wonder these projects failed.

The Smart Marketer’s Handbook (circa 1970) may well say ‘segment or die’ but that doesn’t mean segmentation works - or that it has to be the same for every business.

Too big to handle

To make segmentation easy to grasp, it’s all too tempting to split the marketplace into a few simple customer segments. For instance, five to ten segments makes it all straightforward enough for a business to understand, and large enough
to allow economies of scale in product development. However, it’s no help with customer management or value engineering.

After all, for any large business, some of the segments could contain millions of consumers. That’s hardly ‘getting close to the customer’!

The frozen state

Another key requirement of most legacy segmentation approaches is stability. If an organization is going to create a few large segments and develop propositions for them, the last thing they want is a customer jumping from one segment to another.

That means segments are designed to be static, or frozen. Businesses
can then measure performance over time and be confident about return
on investment. But the awkward customers keep getting in the way. They will insist on changing: age, jobs, homes, marital status, parental status, consumption to name but a few. Fixed state segmentation fails to reflect the dynamic behavior of customers and becomes increasingly irrelevant in marketing campaigns.

Problems with referencing

Market research can be a wonderful thing, but when an individual focus is needed it becomes less helpful. Unfortunately, many companies rush into segmentation by starting with market research. Customers and prospective customers
are asked what they want, need and do, and the research project then builds segmentation models.

However, once a company starts referencing these segments back to the existing and prospective customer databases it hits some serious problems:

The only way to create references, within the rules of the Marketing Research Society on respondent anonymity, is to set up algorithms using common data and recreates the segments on the database. However, if you didn’t start with the database itself, there will be very few common items to draw upon.

The scoring process therefore becomes very unsophisticated and insensitive, and the chance of placing more than 50% of customers into the right segments with anything above 70% probability are quite slim.

That means companies can spend years (and millions) picking up the pieces.

The solution is to start with your own data, and any data from a third party, to build the segmentation upwards. Once you’ve identified the key variables, then you can do the market research.

Differentiation or just different colored envelops?

The best segmentation framework in the world will still not deliver a return if a business cannot conceive and execute worthwhile strategies. After all, what’s the point in having segments if the customer experience is hardly different across each one?

All too often organizations think the best use of segmentation is in creating different communications for different groups of people. Frankly, if that’s the only reason for segmentation, it’s not worth the expense. It creates minimal difference, and won’t justify the cost. At the end of the day segmentation can only pay for itself by delivering lower conversion costs, higher prices and improved margins.

True segmentation means different propositions for different customer groups, not just different colored envelopes in their direct mail.

Poor resource allocation and ROI assessment

All too often organizations allocate resources by product or business function. Yet if you are serious about segmentation, you need to follow a scientific method to allocate resources and assess returns across different segments.

One challenge to this is, of course, the fact that segments are not stable. How can you allocate suitable resources if customers shift segments? The answer for many organizations is to only segment at the macro level, for example:

By geography

By sector

By consumer / B2B

Segment bleed – this sector is not for you

Segmentation may look good on paper, but customers are forever breaking out of their segments. If someone from the ‘Medium Size segment takes a shine to a proposition developed for ‘Small Size Segment,’ you don’t want to turn their business down. Yet this can ultimately damage a brand, particularly in a mature market.

Segmentation isn’t monotheism

Segmentation is most powerful when it addresses a specific problem. Moreover, as most businesses face many problems, segmentation must be multi-dimensional. Value, needs, behavior, product, demographics, customer state, preference, credit – segmentation can take any number of approaches, making your organization as flexible as possible to meet business challenges.

One hurdle to overcome is the senior executive’s preference for simpler, easy to understand concepts. Today’s marketer has to be able to explain and demonstrate the benefits of multi-dimensionality against seductively simpler segmentation.

Some examples of failed products because of faulty segmentation:

BPL

Contributor

Jim Lawless.

The product

BPL – Batch Programming Language Interpreter.

Why it was judged a commercial failure

I sold about 10 copies.

What went wrong

I didn’t really do enough research to find out if the target market was in existence. I was hoping that network admins and support staff members would find it easier to use than batch files and less complicated than any of the free scripting language options available. So, I just rushed to get the MVP [1] (Minimum Viable Product) out the door.

I never did provide a compiler that would build a stand-alone EXE. I think that might have met with more success.

I didn’t do much as far as advertising the existence of the product.

Time/money invested

I only spent a few weeks coding and documenting it in my spare time. Support issues sometimes took a whole evening, but nothing major. It did not have any impact on my finances, as I had invested nothing but my time.

Current product status

I will still address support issues with this product for registered users, but I don’t actively sell it. I’ve open-sourced the program and it still really isn’t seeing heavy use.

Comments:

Here the contributor does recognize that there was a need for a proper market analysis before investing time and efforts in developing the product. The product developed did not have a clear market to cater to and had some essential features missing which the segment to which it was marketed needed. Another reason for the failure of the product could be that it was focused on a very small niche.

DRAMA

Contributor

Andy Brice.

The product

DRAMA (Design RAtionaleMAnagement) was a commercialization of a University prototype for recording the decision-making process during the design of complex and long-lived artifacts, for example nuclear reactors and chemical plants. By recording it in a structured database this information would still be available long after the original engineers had forgotten it, retired or been run over by buses. This information was believed to be incredibly valuable to later maintainers of the system, engineers creating similar designs and industry regulators. The development was part funded by 4 big process-engineering companies.

Why it was judged a commercial failure

Everyone told us what a great idea it was, but no one bought it. Despite some early funding from some big process engineering companies, none of them put it into use properly and we never sold any licenses to anyone else.

What went wrong?

Lack of support from the people who would actually have to use it. There are lots of social factors that work against engineers wanting to record their design rationale, including:

The person taking the time to record the rationale probably isn’t the person getting the benefit from it.

Extra work for people who are already under a lot of time pressure.

It might make it easier for others to question decisions and hold companies and engineers accountable for mistakes.

Engineers may see giving away this knowledge as undermining their job security.

Problems integrating with the other software tools that engineers spend most of their time in (e.g. CAD packages). This would probably be easier with modern web-based technology.

It is difficult to capture the subtleties of the design process in a structured form.

A bad hire. If you hire the wrong person, you should face up to it and get rid of them. Rather than keep moving them around in a vain attempt to find something they are good at.

We took a phased approach, starting with a single-user proof of concept and then creating a client-server version. In hindsight it should have been obvious that not enough people were actively using the single-user system and we should have killed it then.

Time/money invested

At least 3 man-years of work went into this product, with me doing most of it. Thankfully I was a salaried employee. But the lack of success of this product contributed to the demise of the part of the company I was in.

Current product status

The product is long dead.

Comments:

In addition to what the entrepreneur mentioned about what went wrong with the product, we can see that the early adopters (4 companies) are not stable customers. From what the entrepreneur has mentioned, it does seem that the four big companies were approached without having a product.

How do you measure the effectiveness of the segmentation process?

Net Marketing Contribution

Marketing profitability is based on an investment in marketing and sales required to achieve certain levels of sales and gross margins. Net marketing contribution is a financial measure of marketing profitability and is computed as shown below:

Net Marketing Contribution = Segment Size x Market Share within Segment x Product Price x Product Margin – Marketing Expenditure

Net Marketing Contribution for Segment

NMC for segment = Segment Size x Market Share within Segment x Product Price x Product Margin – Marketing Expenditure

Marketing Return on Sales for segment = NMC for segment/Sales for Segment

Marketing ROI for Segment = NMC for Segment/ Marketing Expenditure for Segment

How exactly are companies segmenting?

The trends in the product development process of companies as per our survey results is shown below

If we see the result according to the size of the respondent companies the small and medium companies show the below trend

The large companies showed the below trend

The two most important factors when deciding a segment for all the companies were the value proposition fit and then the revenue potential of the segment, the size of the segment in terms of importance came after the aforementioned factors.

The general trend across companies shows that Vertical and Horizontal segmentation are the most important basis for targeting segments, the next most important basis is the size of the clients.

However, there is a clear variation in this trend according to the size of the companies. For the large companies the most important basis for targeting segments is the business vertical, Horizontal distinction and size of the clients share the position of being second most important basis of targeting segments. This is shown in the chart below:

When we look at the small and medium companies the most important basis for targeting segments is Horizontal distinction, the purchase stage and size of the clients together shared the position of being the second most important basis of targeting segments.

When it came to marketing a product to different segments, the trend shows that most of the companies agree that the product is kept the same just marketed differently to different segments. While there is an overall agreement over this trend across small to large companies, if we just look at the small sized companies, there is an even divide. 50% of the small companies strongly agree or just agree to the fact that when selling a product to different segments, the product remains the same but is marketed differently; the rest 50% disagrees or strongly disagrees to this.

45.45% of the large companies remained neutral to the statement that “Segments decided are fixed and do not need to be changed”, 36.26% of th e large companies disagreed on the same statement. 38.8% of all the companies surveyed remained neutral to the statement mentioned above, 44.44% of all the companies disagreed and 5% of all the companies strongly disagreed to the above statement. The small and medium sized companies also showed a similar trend.

On the need for an extensive market-survey for segmentation and targeting different segments, simultaneously being a better approach there was a very strong agreement across all the companies.

On targeting different segments simultaneously, the overall trend shows an agreement on this statement. The large companies clearly follow this trend; however, the small companies are divided on it. 28.57% of the small companies agree with this trend, 28.57% are neutral a majority of 42.86% small companies either disagree or strongly disagree with this trend.

Overall, the two most important achievements that decide the success of a company’s marketing strategy are achieving the revenue and market share objectives on year on year basis. The most important objective achievement for 68.4% of the companies is achieving revenue objective. Companies irrespective of their size do place achieving revenue and market share objectives as the two most important deciders on the success of their product marketing strategy.

GAPS IN THE CURRENT PRACTICES

The product development and planning process has undergone a lot of changes and improvements over a period. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier why do so many products still fail?

From a product planning perspective, we have seen in the previous section that on a macro level 42% of all the companies first define the features of the product, then the segment then formulate the business model and lastly formulate the go-to-market strategy. However, there is a marked difference between the practices of large and small sized companies.

Which of the product planning process from the ones given below seems to be the most correct?

FORMULATE BUSINESS MODEL → DEFINE  SEGMENT → DEFINE FEATURES → FORMULATE GO TO MARKET STRATEGY

DEFINE FEATURES → DEFINE SEGMENT → FORMULATE BUSINESS MODEL → FORMULATE GO TO MARKET STRATEGY

DEFINE FEATURES → DEFINE SEGMENT → FORMULATE GO TO MARKET STRATEGY → FORMULATE BUSINESS MODEL

DEFINE FEATURES → FORMULATE BUSINESS MODEL → FORMULATE GO TO MARKET STRATEGY → DEFINE SEGMENT

If we go by the overall trend of product planning also followed by the large companies

DEFINE FEATURES → DEFINE SEGMENT → FORMULATE BUSINESS MODEL → FORMULATE GO TO MARKET STRATEGY.

As mentioned earlier segments should be homogenous groups exhibiting same characteristics, having same needs and behavioral characteristics. However, different segments will have different needs and characteristics. Different segments will need, want and use different features to satisfy their needs.

Marketing Myopia refers to "focusing on products rather than customers." Companies defining features then defining segments tend to suffer from Marketing Myopia. However, this is a hit and miss scenario. The customers might not need all the features or the features might not fulfill the needs of the customers completely.

We have also seen that a business model for the product is prepared after the features and the segments have been defined. The effectiveness of a business model depends on how effective is the value proposition (which is dependent on the features of a product) of the product is for a segment. When the effectiveness of the features of a product itself is questionable for a particular segment how can the business model be effective! It is not very often a product whose features are defined before defining the segment becomes successful.

When we see the process followed by 50% of the small companies and 18% of the large companies when planning for a product they FORMULATE BUSINESS MODEL → DEFINE  SEGMENT → DEFINE FEATURES → FORMULATE GO TO MARKET STRATEGY. This approach is the most effective in terms of planning for new products. By formulating a business model in the first stage a company gets a clear view of how it plans to earn revenue from the product. In the process of defining the business model the company also gets a clear idea of the value proposition of the product. The company can then check for which segment/segments the value proposition fits the best. Based on the segments needs the product features can then be defined and developed. When the features of a product are developed keeping into mind the segment and the value proposition the success rate of the product will tend to be much higher.

As mentioned earlier two most important basis for targeting segments for most of the companies are Horizontal distinction and Business Vertical followed by Size of the client. A major reason for segmenting based on the mentioned factors is that it is easier for the sales department of an organization to identify potential clients. Finding companies based on the purchase stage is still a difficult task and that is a major reason why many companies do not use the purchase stage parameter in targeting segments. However, will the segments be homogeneous? The problem here is that targeting segments based on this approach will lead to a big segment. Within these segments also there will companies, which show different characteristics of purchase stage. There are companies that come under the Early Adopters, Early majority, late majority and Laggard category even if they are under the same Vertical or Common Horizontal Solution. Each of the Early Adopters, Early majority, late majority and Laggard category display different characteristics and buying behavior and buying decision-making pattern. In effect, what the companies will end up with is a big segment with perceived common characteristics, which however might not be the reality.

Most of the companies did agree to that fact that segments decided are fixed and do not change. However, this is not necessarily a good practice. Many a times a product might not work for the decided segments, but instead be accepted by some other neglected segment if the features of the product are tweaked a little.

Looking at the previous section and looking at the results of the survey, we see that most of the large companies believe in keeping the product the same but marketing it differently to different segments. However, we did see a difference in the practices of small and large companies. If we look at the practice of keeping the product the same and marketing it differently to the customers there are high chances that the product might sell in just one segment and not in the other. Because different segments have different needs, characteristics and look for different strategic advantages the same product might not fulfill the needs of the customer. Ideally when targeting different segments the product features need tweaks according to the needs of a segment. This also calls for modification of the business model. An approach that companies can follow is productizing various features according to the needs of the segment and then marketing them to the different segments.

For a new product, large companies because of the abundance resources in terms of labor and money available with them prefer targeting different segments simultaneously. However small and medium sized companies do not have that privilege. Being sales driven is a pure financial motivation and focuses on the short run. Like any action being sales driven has consequences and these consequences are more profound when a company is bringing in a new product. The consequences of being sales-driven during the new product introduction period are, to put it simply, fatal. Here's why: The sole goal of the company during this stage of market development must be to secure a beachhead in a mainstream market—that is, to create a pragmatist customer base that is referenceable, people who can, in turn, provide us access to other mainstream prospects. To capture this reference base, we must ensure that our first set of customers completely satisfy their buying objectives. To do that, we must ensure that the customer gets not just the product but what we will describe in a later chapter as the whole product—the complete set of products and services needed to achieve the desired result. Whenever anything is left out from this set, the solution is incomplete, the selling promise unfulfilled, and the customer unavailable for referencing. Therefore, to secure these much needed references, which is our prime goal in crossing the chasm [2] , we must commit ourselves to providing, or at least guaranteeing the provision of, the whole product. Whole product commitments, however, are expensive. Even when we recruit partners and allies to help fulfill them, they require resource-intensive management. And when the support role falls back on us, it often requires the attention of our most key people, the same people who are critical to every other project we have going. Therefore, whole product commitments must be made not only sparingly but strategically—that is, made with a view toward leveraging them over multiple sales. This can only happen if the sales effort is focused on one or two niche markets. More than that and you burn out your key resources, falter on the quality of your whole product commitment, and prolong your stay in the chasm. (Moore, 2002)

http://yavvy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/crossing_chasm2.jpeg

http://yavvy.com/blog/tag/early-adopters/

The two important parameters of measuring success of a product and the marketing strategy is achieving the revenue and market share targets. Taken together the measure is correct but if revenue objective is the most important criterion deciding the success of a product and its marketing strategy, it can lead to an incorrect and distorted view. A company will have higher growth and earnings from the early adopters; however, this high rate of growth of market share and revenue will slow down when moving from early adopters to the early majority and so on.

If we look at the recent trends, we have seen that there have been many acquisitions of small companies by the larger companies. The large companies after acquiring the small companies launch either the product of the small companies with slight or no modifications or kill the products of the small company altogether and release their products in the market. From our survey, we can see that the practices of half of the small companies are better than those of large companies. A major reason why the large companies tend to follow a more product centric approach is that they rely on their highly experienced and skilled workforce to deliver successful products, the abundance of money that they can put in for the marketing of the product and lastly their brand equity to attract customers. However, in today’s world not only the small companies but also the big companies need to be agile with their practices.

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

Ideas about a new product come to the company either internally or externally to a company. Whether a company follows a Market to Product approach or Product to market approach it needs to make sure that it segments its market properly. The company should first identify the value proposition of the product that will be developed from the idea.

Let us look at the scenario when the idea of the product is generated internally in a company. How can the company segment its market?

An idea of a product can either be specific to an industry or a common solution across industries. If the idea for the product is specific to an industry then the product development company can segment the market of that industry according to the size of the clients and the value proposition fit. Doing so will result in three segments namely

Large Companies

Medium Companies

Small Companies

After going through the above step, the companies can then look at the purchasing stage and pattern within these segments. The companies can then look for Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late majority and the Laggards. To do this the companies can look into the following aspects

Which of the companies have been the ones to adopt the latest technological advancements in their organization?

Which are the companies, which are the trendsetters in the industry?

Which of the companies have been involved in the development and funding of products purchased from other companies?

Which of the companies have needed services around their purchase the most?

Which of the companies do not refer to the practices of other companies within the industry for validation before buying a product?

Which of the companies have bought products only from the companies that were well established at the time the product was purchased?

In the order of spending on technology, categorize the companies.

After the companies have the data for the above-mentioned questions ready, they should ask the following questions

To which of the following segments will the product provide the maximum strategic advantage?

What are the pain points of our product?

What level of service will we be able to provide?

Do we have products competing from other companies that satisfy the same needs of the customer?

What are the channels of product distribution available to us?

How much of education will have to be given to the customers for the product?

What is the budget available for the product development?

How quickly do we need to bring the product to the market?

What is the design architecture of the product? Is it modular around core functionality or is it a totally integrated product?

Companies should answer these questions honestly, because these will form the basis of segmenting and valuation of the product concept and determine the effectiveness and sales of the product.

After answering the questions, a company can then group the companies of the above segment in the as per the answers into Early adopters, Early majority, Late Majority and the laggards.

Sub Segment

Characteristics

Early Adopters

Looking for a fundamental breakthrough for a business goal: order-of-magnitude return

•Least price sensitive segment-a source of capital on early projects

•Easy to sell, hard to please (dream vs. reality)

–Need to carefully manage expectations

•Project oriented, structure each phase so:

–It can actually be accomplished quickly

–Results in a marketable product

–Provides a concrete return on investment to be celebrated

•They find you through innovator referrals – The sales team will have to visit the technical conferences and

Early Majority

•Goal is to make a % improvement

•Hard to win, loyal once won

•Care about the company they buy from

–Standardization

–Support infrastructure

–Reliability of product and service

•Dilemma: won’t buy until you’re established, but you can’t be until they buy from you

•Prefer to buy from VARs

•Do not take reference from Early adopters. They take reference from within the group.

Late Majority

•Against discontinuous innovation; believe more in tradition established by Early Majority

•Tend to invest near end of tech lifecycle when product is an extremely mature commodity

–Buy pre-assembled packages

–Products dedicated to a single function

–Heavily discounted pricing

•Opportunity to create a business repackaging low-cost, trailing-edge technology into a single-function system for a specific business need

•Prefer to buy from VARs

Laggards

•Only buy if new technology is deeply embedded

•Tend to be naysayers that block purchases

–Marketing program must neutralize them

–Continually point out the discrepancies between the sales claims and delivered product

When the idea of the product is of a common solution across different industries or if the idea is external then the first step that the companies should do is segment the market into verticals first, then according to size of the companies. After doing so they company can subdivide the verticals into sub segments according to the size of the companies and finally follow the steps above to create sub segments of early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards.

However, a company must keep in mind the different needs and characteristics of each segment will need tweaking of the product and service offerings. Companies can put the segments in the below matrices and then take a decision on which segment to target to get the maximum results.

Strategic Advantage

Segment Size

Value Proposition fit

Value Proposition fit

Segment Size

Segment Size

Cost Sensitivity

Value Proposition fit


Request Removal

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please click on the link below to request removal:

Request the removal of this essay


More from UK Essays