1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
Definitely the author's assertion that psychographics weren't the most effective way of segmenting a market. That really blew my mind because it contradicts what my business classes and my professors have been telling me.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
The intro of the reading was kind of confusing because I felt that it made assumptions that I didn't entirely understand. Also, I'm confused about what's the difference between psychographics and the kind of data they described was the better than psychographics. Wouldn't you figure out what features and benefits matter to your customers when you put them in a certain psychological identity? Jk, I'm repeating this question for the below section.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
Is it really true that people were "bursting with variety" only following the 1960s?
-I didn't like how the intro described the issues that arose and I want to know why they ruled out technology as a factor.
Can't you figure out what features and benefits matter to your customers when you put them in a certain psychological identity?
-I guess this just doesn't make sense to me. Like aren't psychographics basically the features and benefits that companies are looking for???? No se.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
I think the assumption that the people had changed following the 1960s while the advertising had not downplays the role of technology in the need for more evolved advertising strategies. I can agree that there needed to be a revolution in advertising based on segmentation other than by demographics but I dislike that the authors didn't go more into the why that drove this need. Seems to me like they glossed over it.
No comments:
Post a Comment