One Size (Never) Fits All: Segment Differences Observed Following a School‐Based Alcohol Social Marketing Program

Abstract

BACKGROUND According to commercial marketing theory, a market orientation leads to improved performance. Drawing on the social marketing principles of segmentation and audience research, the current study seeks to identify segments to examine responses to a school‐based alcohol social marketing program. METHODS A sample of 371 year 10 students (aged: 14–16 years; 51.4% boys) participated in a prospective (pre‐post) multisite alcohol social marketing program. Game On: Know Alcohol (GO:KA) program included 6, student‐centered, and interactive lessons to teach adolescents about alcohol and strategies to abstain or moderate drinking. A repeated measures design was used. Baseline demographics, drinking attitudes, drinking intentions, and alcohol knowledge were cluster analyzed to identify segments. Change on key program outcome measures and satisfaction with program components were assessed by segment. RESULTS Three segments were identified; (1) Skeptics, (2) Risky Males, (3) Good Females. Segments 2 and 3 showed greatest change in drinking attitudes and intentions. Good Females reported highest satisfaction with all program components and Skeptics lowest program satisfaction with all program components. CONCLUSION Three segments, each differing on psychographic and demographic variables, exhibited different change patterns following participation in GO:KA. Post hoc analysis identified that satisfaction with program components differed by segment offering opportunities for further research.

Indonesian healthy living intentions: Segmentation study insights

“…Demographic approaches often use information such as gender, age, and income as proxies for unobservable variables that can predict behaviour (Mowen & Minor, ; Park & Lee, ; Ukenna, Nkamnebe, Nwaizugbo, Moguluwa, & Olise, ). Yet simply segmenting on demographic variables has received criticism (Dietrich, Rundle‐Thiele, Leo, & Connor, ), as meaningful segments can be identified on the basis of at least four segmentation bases: demographic, psychographic, geographic, and behavioural variables (Kotler, ). Once segments are formed, a segment(s) that is the most measurable, accessible, sustainable, and substantial should be targeted for the best return on investment (Kotler, ).…”

“…Social marketing program designers have begun to apply segmentation theory to understand group differences in study populations in diverse fields including obesity (McLeay & Oglethorpe, ; Olds, Thomas, Lewis, & Petkov, ), alcohol (Dietrich, Rundle‐Thiele, Leo et al, ; Dietrich, Rundle‐Thiele, Schuster et al, ), and physical activity (Rundle‐Thiele, Kubacki, Tkaczynski, & Parkinson, ). Segmentation has been considered as a key ingredient for designing more targeted social marketing programs (Andreasen, ; Lefebvre & Flora, ; Rundle‐Thiele et al, ).…”

Does ethics need religion? Evaluating the importance of religiosity in consumer ethics

“…This objective will be achieved through two approaches: (1) by investigating the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity on consumer ethics and (2) by segmenting consumers' religiosity and exploring differences between the segments. Segmentation is an effective ways to identify differences among groups, which will drive how we approach a solution (Dietrich et al 2015). Therefore, the present study contributes to the consumer ethics literature by examining the role of religiosity in determining ethical beliefs.…”

Co-designing with young consumers – reflections, challenges and benefits

“…Typically, alcohol education programs targeted at young people are conducted in school settings and delivered in a didactic teacher-focused approach (Lee et al, 2016). The program content is expert-driven, that is, evidenced-based and universal messages are applied to a generalized target audience (Dietrich et al, 2015, Newton et al, 2016. Recent studies, however, have indicated that this 'one fits all' approach might not be effective (Lee et al, 2016, Onrust et al, 2016: First, a generalized approach means that young people might not identify with the communicated message, leading to little engagement with or even rejection of the program.…”