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?
The idea it was suggested that traditional demographic traits such as age, sex, and income no long said enough about market strategy. Suddenly for some reason Yankelovich deemed it necessary to dive deeper into customers needs and wants for marketing.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
The article mentioned the success and failures of psychographics, yet continue to say it doesn't cast doubt on the validity of segmentation. It seems the author was contradicting himself at this point.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
What made you decide traditional demographic traits were no longer sufficient? It's the basis of the whole article so it'd be interesting to see what that was about.
What situation would a company need to be in to be able to take full advantage of this article? Just would want to see the author's response in relation to start ups.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
That traditional demographic traits were no longer sufficient in every field. I am sure there are some areas were traditional style demographics are completely sufficient.
No comments:
Post a Comment