Exploring the Academic-Practitioner Divide in Market Segmentation: Suggestions for Further Research

ions of customers or mathematical tools and models (Boejgaard & Ellegaard, 2010). Their focus on ease of use (Dibb & Simkin, 1994) might have led them to use their intuition or gut feelings more than hard evidence, due to unfamiliarity with the necessary statistical techniques (Foedermayr & Diamantopoulos, 2008). Another perceived problem is the implementation of the outcomes of market segmentation studies. Managers need frequently guidance while creating and implementing segmentation schemes, although little academic guidance exists (Dibb & Simkin, 2001; Foedermayer & Diamontopulos, 2008). At the same time, the output of studies which attempt to identify and categorize common implementation problems usually take the form of simple checklists of barriers, which do not really pay attention to the mechanisms through which these can be overcome (Dibb, 2005). METHODOLOGY The study seeks to understand and compare the views of practitioners and academics with detailed knowledge and experience about practical issues in market segmentation. A qualitative approach, and semi-structured in-depth interviews, was used to explore the underlying issues. The final sample was chosen using judgmental sampling and comprised: (i) 15 marketing/general managers who are currently implementing segmentation schemes, ii) 8 marketing experts, who are marketing/market segmentation consultants or directors/managers offering segmentationrelated services in renowned marketing research and customer analytics agencies and (iii) 6 marketing professors with an academic interest in market segmentation and who have published on market segmentation-related practitioner-oriented topics. The discrepancy in proportions between the number of practitioners (split into managers and experts) of market segmentation versus the number of academics in the field represents the fact that there are many more practitioners applying market segmentation than academics working in the same field. Appendix A provides a listing of interviewees. Interview guidelines included two groups of questions: one for practitioners and the other for academics. The interviews took place by telephone and lasted from half an hour to 1 hour. This method was appropriate since the respondents were from a variety of UK locations. NVivo 10 was used and an open and axial coding technique employed to ensure that the coding was consistent between academic and practitioner interviews. A ‘compare and contrast’ analytical procedure was applied across nine sub-areas of market segmentation including: the areas where academics and practitioners had overlapping ideas defined as ‘areas of consensus’, and areas where there is disagreement between the two groups defined as ‘areas of divide’. Areas of divide were a combination of (i) areas where views were in alignment to some degree, but with a gap in between, and (ii) areas with clearly contradicting views. RESULTS This study sought to systematically identify whether or not there was a clear divide between academics and practitioners in the area of market segmentation. We also sought to distinguish between areas of gap (topics on which one of the groups is more up-to-date or has different ideas), and areas of contradiction. Table 1 illustrates the results. Since the purpose of the study is to explore the existence or otherwise or a divide, areas of consensus are illustrated in the table but not further explained in this paper (due to space restrictions). Given that the research indicates that there is clearly a divide in views between practitioners and academics in the area of market segmentation, we outline each of the main areas below. Table 1: Consensus and Divide Areas between Academics and Practitioners Areas of Consensus Description of Segmentation: both groups had similar ideas of what constitutes segmentation Levels of Segmentation: both groups had similar ideas of at what levels in the organization (e.g. product, SBU) that segmentation could be used