The relative merit of two segmentation approaches: executives views and a cost-benefit analysis

IF 3.1 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Journal of Social Marketing Pub Date : 2022-07-21 DOI:10.1108/jsocm-01-2022-0026
Ali Ibrahim, S. Rundle‐Thiele, K. Knox, Ra'd Almestarihi
{"title":"The relative merit of two segmentation approaches: executives views and a cost-benefit analysis","authors":"Ali Ibrahim, S. Rundle‐Thiele, K. Knox, Ra'd Almestarihi","doi":"10.1108/jsocm-01-2022-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to capture the views of executives about the merit of using the two segmentation approaches (quantitative vs qualitative). Furthermore, this study aimed to examine costs and benefits for two different segmentation approaches, using a minimax simple cost-benefit analysis (CBA) matrix.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA total of 16 semistructured interviews were conducted with executives within the University of Sharjah (UoS). Furthermore, a minimax approach was applied to the CBA study.\n\n\nFindings\nEvidence in this study found that the financial cost of quantitative segmentation approaches was higher than qualitative approaches. However, the decision-makers trusted the quantitative approach more regardless of the incurred costs. The study also found that there was a limited knowledge about social marketing and segmentation among executives.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nLimitations of this study relate to the methodology applied, the sample selected and the lead research. Another factor is selection bias, which limited this study to one organization’s executives. It is conceivable that middle-level management would have had the desire to participate because they make the recommendations to top management in decision-making. The researcher did not collect precise data on time taken to design, implement and analyses the two segmentation studies, which qualified the precision of the CBA. Also, the fact that the sample includes participants from a relatively narrow range of disciplines should be noted as a limitation of the study.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe current study provides a case study demonstrating how CBA provides a dollar amount estimate permitting alternate segmentation approaches to be compared and contrasted, assisting in the value estimation of any social marketing project.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThe paper draws upon two streams of the literature: social marketing and CBA. The paper focused on the understanding of the literature, CBA offers a technique applicable to demonstrating cost savings that can be derived from choosing one method over another. Moreover, CBA assists in understanding the benefits or potential opportunity cost both financially and nonfinancially.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper presents one of the first studies conducting a CBA to compare and contrast two segmentation approaches in social marketing. The study provides interesting insights into the perceptions of management executives over alternative research methods, although the results are limited to a case study.\n","PeriodicalId":51732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jsocm-01-2022-0026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to capture the views of executives about the merit of using the two segmentation approaches (quantitative vs qualitative). Furthermore, this study aimed to examine costs and benefits for two different segmentation approaches, using a minimax simple cost-benefit analysis (CBA) matrix. Design/methodology/approach A total of 16 semistructured interviews were conducted with executives within the University of Sharjah (UoS). Furthermore, a minimax approach was applied to the CBA study. Findings Evidence in this study found that the financial cost of quantitative segmentation approaches was higher than qualitative approaches. However, the decision-makers trusted the quantitative approach more regardless of the incurred costs. The study also found that there was a limited knowledge about social marketing and segmentation among executives. Research limitations/implications Limitations of this study relate to the methodology applied, the sample selected and the lead research. Another factor is selection bias, which limited this study to one organization’s executives. It is conceivable that middle-level management would have had the desire to participate because they make the recommendations to top management in decision-making. The researcher did not collect precise data on time taken to design, implement and analyses the two segmentation studies, which qualified the precision of the CBA. Also, the fact that the sample includes participants from a relatively narrow range of disciplines should be noted as a limitation of the study. Practical implications The current study provides a case study demonstrating how CBA provides a dollar amount estimate permitting alternate segmentation approaches to be compared and contrasted, assisting in the value estimation of any social marketing project. Social implications The paper draws upon two streams of the literature: social marketing and CBA. The paper focused on the understanding of the literature, CBA offers a technique applicable to demonstrating cost savings that can be derived from choosing one method over another. Moreover, CBA assists in understanding the benefits or potential opportunity cost both financially and nonfinancially. Originality/value This paper presents one of the first studies conducting a CBA to compare and contrast two segmentation approaches in social marketing. The study provides interesting insights into the perceptions of management executives over alternative research methods, although the results are limited to a case study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种细分方法的相对优点:高管观点和成本效益分析
目的本研究旨在捕捉高管对使用两种分割方法(定量与定性)的优点的看法。此外,本研究旨在检验两种不同的分割方法的成本和效益,使用最小最大简单成本效益分析(CBA)矩阵。设计/方法/方法对沙迦大学(UoS)的管理人员进行了16次半结构化访谈。此外,极小极大方法应用于CBA研究。本研究发现定量分割方法的财务成本高于定性分割方法。然而,无论产生的成本如何,决策者更信任定量方法。该研究还发现,高管们对社会营销和细分的了解有限。研究的局限性/启示本研究的局限性与所采用的方法、所选择的样本和主要研究有关。另一个因素是选择偏差,它将这项研究限制在一个组织的高管身上。可以想象,中层管理人员会有参与的愿望,因为他们在决策过程中向高层管理人员提出建议。研究者没有收集到设计、实施和分析两项分割研究所需时间的精确数据,这使得CBA的准确性受到限制。此外,样本包括来自相对狭窄的学科范围的参与者这一事实应被视为研究的局限性。实际意义当前的研究提供了一个案例研究,展示了CBA如何提供一个金额估计,允许对不同的细分方法进行比较和对比,协助任何社会营销项目的价值估计。社会影响本文借鉴了两种文献:社会营销和CBA。本文着重于对文献的理解,CBA提供了一种适用于演示从选择一种方法而不是另一种方法中获得的成本节约的技术。此外,CBA有助于理解经济上和非经济上的利益或潜在的机会成本。原创性/价值本文是第一批进行CBA比较和对比社会营销中两种细分方法的研究之一。尽管研究结果仅限于案例研究,但该研究为管理人员对替代研究方法的看法提供了有趣的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
29.20%
发文量
33
期刊最新文献
Reducing food waste through persuasive communication design: how data visualisation principles reinforce behaviour change social marketing messages Recognising motivation in others: the effectiveness of using social proof to change driving behaviour Developing a local behaviour change intervention for increased biowaste sorting: a social marketing formative study An inclusive extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior for explaining household food leftover reduction intention among Gen Z What drives women to adopt menstrual cups? The integration of consumer values and theory of planned behaviour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1