Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Brand user profiles seldom change and seldom differ

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study tests and extends the discovery that competing brand user profiles are broadly similar, specifically investigating the consistency of this pattern over time. Examining 700 brands in more than 60 consumer packaged goods categories, for more than 160 variables, the authors document not only that brand user profiles seldom differ but also that they seldom change much over 3 to 6 years. These findings have important implications for marketing theory and practice. For example, marketers need to focus mostly on who buys the category and what features they demand as opposed to thinking their brand buyers are very different to those of competitive brands. This paper extends the empirical results of prior brand profile findings, demonstrating their robustness and durability.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, G. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, 25, 56–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1990). Replication research: a “must” for the scientific advancement of psychology. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Replication research in the social sciences (pp. 51–69). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. F. (1983). Marketing, scientific progress, and scientific method. Journal of Marketing, 47, 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, P. (1995). Good empirical generalizations. Marketing Science, 14, G29–G35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, P., & Ehrenberg, A. (1988). Television and its audience. London: Sage Publication.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M., Tigert, D. J., & Lonsdale, R. T. (1968). Market segmentation: group versus individual behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 264–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, T., & Uncles, M. (2002). A taxonomy of differences between consumers for market segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., & Sawyer, A. G. (1978). The stability of benefit segments. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, H. M. (1984). The ‘naive’ approach to demographic media selection. Journal of Advertising Research, 24, 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castleberry, S. B., Barnard, N. R., Barwise, T. P., Ehrenberg, A., & Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1994). Individual attitude variations over time. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dall'Olmo Riley, F., Ehrenberg, A., Castleberry, S. B., Barwise, T. P., & Barnard, N. R. (1997). The variability of attitudinal repeat-rates. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 437–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dall'Olmo Riley, F., Rink, L., & Harris, P. (1999). Patterns of attitudes and behaviour in fragmented markets. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 4, 62–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (1996). Market segmentation: normative model versus business reality. European Journal of Marketing, 30, 36–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibb, S. (1998). Market segmentation: strategies for success. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16, 394–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibb, S. (1999). Criteria guiding segmentation implementation: reviewing the evidence. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7, 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibb, S., & Simkin, L. (2009). Bridging the segmentation theory/practice divide. Journal of Marketing Management, 25, 219–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibb, S., & Simkin, L. (2010). Judging the quality of customer segments: segmentation effectiveness. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18, 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, P. R., & Ginter, J. L. (1987). Market segmentation, product differentiation, and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 51, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, A. (2000). Repeat-buying: facts, theory and applications. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in Marketing Science, 5, 392–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, A., & Bound, J. A. (1993). Predictability and prediction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 156, 167–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg A, Kennedy R (2000) Users of competitive brands seldom differ. Paper presented at the Market Research Society, Brighton, UK, March 15–17.

  • Ehrenberg, A., Uncles, M. D., & Goodhardt, G. G. (2004). Understanding brand performance measures: using Dirichlet benchmarks. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1307–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESOMAR (2014). Global Market Research Report. Amsterdam: European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research.

  • Esslemont, D. H. B., & Ward, T. (1989). The stability of segmentation solutions in a commercial survey. New Zealand Journal of Business, 10, 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodhardt, G. J., Ehrenberg, A., & Chatfield, C. (1984). The Dirichlet: a comprehensive model of buying behaviour. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 147, 621–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2981696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorard, S. (2005). Revisiting a 90-year-old debate: the advantages of the mean deviation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K., Ehrenberg, A., & Goodhardt, G. J. (1996). Market segmentation for competitive brands. European Journal of Marketing, 30, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, J., Gendall, P., & Esslemont, D. (1993). Market segmentation: a search for the Holy Grail? Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, 1, 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1994). Replications and extensions in marketing: rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard R, Brodie RJ, Armstrong JS, Knowledge (1992) Development in marketing: the role of replication research. In: Proceedings of the Sixth New Zealand Marketing Educators’ Conference, Dunedin. Dept of Marketing, Otago University, pp 467–483.

  • Kantar (2015) Kantar Worldpanel: Consumer panels. http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/Consumer-Panels.

  • Kazbare, L., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Eskildsen, J. K. (2010). A-priori and post-hoc segmentation in the design of healthy eating campaigns. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16, 21–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy R, Ehrenberg A (2000) The customer profiles of competing brands. Paper presented at the 29th European Marketing Academy Conference, Rotterdam, May 23–26.

  • Kennedy, R., & Ehrenberg, A. (2001a). Competing retailers generally have the same sorts of shoppers. Journal of Marketing Communications, 7, 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, R., & Ehrenberg, A. (2001b). There is no brand segmentation. Marketing Insights, Marketing Research, 13, 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy R, Ehrenberg A, Long S (2000) Competitive brands’ user-profiles hardly differ. In: Market Research Society: Annual Conference, Brighton, England, May 17. Market Research Society (UK), pp 15–22.

  • Kennedy, R., Sharp, B., & Danenberg, N. (2013). Customer segmentation and targeting. In B. Sharp (Ed.), Marketing: theory, evidence, practice. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (1967). Marketing management: analysis, planning, and control. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., & Rust, R. T. (1989). Market segmentation by visual inspection. Journal of Advertising Research, 29, 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees, G., & Winchester, M. (2014). Do customer profiles change over time? An investigation of the success of targeting consumers of Australia’s top 10 banks–2009 and 2011. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 19, 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemon, K. N., & Mark, T. (2006). Customer lifetime value as the basis of customer segmentation. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 5, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 764–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindridge, A., & Dibb, S. (2003). Is ‘culture’ a justifiable variable for market segmentation? A cross-cultural example. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. M., & Ehrenberg, A. (1993). The design of replicated studies. The American Statistician, 47, 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. (2004). Media targeting. Admap May, 450, 13–14.

  • Nelson-Field, K., & Riebe, E. (2011). The impact of media fragmentation on audience targeting: an empirical generalisation approach. Journal of Marketing Communications, 17, 51–67.

  • Nelson-Field, K., Lees, G., Riebe, E., Sharp, B. (2005) How well do radio network marketers portray their own audiences? A study of the differences in radio audience demographics with implications for targeting strategy. Paper presented at the ANZMAC Conference Proceedings, Perth, WA, 5–7 December.

  • Nelson-Field, K., Lees, G., Riebe, E., & Sharp, B. (2011). How successful are media differentiation attempts? Marketing Bulletin, 21, 1–8.

  • Pooler, J. A. (2002). Demographic targeting: the essential role of population groups in retail marketing. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, P., & Gardner, H. (2005). Political marketing segmentation—the case of UK local government. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 14, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, L. N., Soley, L. C., & Wimmer, R. D. (1981). Replication in advertising research: 1977, 1978, 1979. Journal of Advertising, 10, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riebe, E., Wright, M., Stern, P., & Sharp, B. (2014). How to grow a brand: retain or acquire customers? Journal of Business Research, 67, 990–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romaniuk, J., Dawes, J., & Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2014). Generalizations regarding the growth and decline of manufacturer and store brands. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21, 725–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sausen, K., Tomczak, T., & Herrmann, A. (2005). Development of a taxonomy of strategic market segmentation: a framework for bridging the implementation gap between normative segmentation and business practice. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13, 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, B. (2010). How brands grow. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, B., Beal, V., & Collins, M. (2009). Television: back to the future. Journal of Advertising Research, 49, 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, B., Wright, M., Dawes, J., Driesener, C., Meyer-Waarden, L., Stocchi, L., & Stern, P. (2012). It’s a Dirichlet world: modeling individuals’ loyalties reveals how brands compete, grow, and decline. Journal of Advertising Research, 52, 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G., & Hirst, A. (2001). Strategic political segmentation: a new approach for a new era of political marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 1058–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 20, 3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uncles, M., Kennedy, R., Nenycz-Thiel, M., Singh, J., & Kwok, S. (2012). In 25 years, across 50 categories, user profiles for directly competing brands seldom differ: affirming Andrew Ehrenberg’s principles. Journal of Advertising Research, 52, 252–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker P (1998) Minimise waste by targeting more efficiently. Admap:1–10.

  • Wedel, M., & Kamakura, W. A. (2000). Market segmentation: conceptual and methodological foundations. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winchester, M., & Lees, G. (2013). Do radio stations in New Zealand target successfully? Australasian Marketing Journal, 21, 52–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Y. (1978). Issues and advances in segmentation research. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, F. (1980). Matching target markets to media audiences. Journal of Advertising Research, 20, 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. (1996). The dubious assumptions of segmentation and targeting. Management Decision, 34, 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., & Esslemont, D. (1994). The logical limitations of target marketing. Marketing Bulletin, 5, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zineldin, M. (1996). Bank strategic positioning and some determinants of bank selection. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 14, 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science thanks Kantar World Panel for providing data to enable this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia, Level 4 Yungondi Building, 70 North Terrace, Adelaide, AUS, 5000, South Australia

    Zachary Anesbury & Rachel Kennedy

  2. College of Business & Victoria Institute, Victoria University, 300 Flinders St, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Maxwell Winchester

Authors
  1. Zachary Anesbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maxwell Winchester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxwell Winchester.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anesbury, Z., Winchester, M. & Kennedy, R. Brand user profiles seldom change and seldom differ. Mark Lett 28, 523–535 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9437-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9437-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation