Hello,

I'm doing the BMC for an airport retailer, for which the customers are subject to different factors than the high street ('dwell time' between flights / psychological factors such as excitement etc).

Through looking at a number of papers, and through a workshop, I was able to identify 4 broad categories of shopper (impulsive, browsers, functional, hedonic).

My question is - are these categories too specific (i.e. should I just go with the broad segment of "customers"), or do I need this level extra of granularity?

They do have different VP's (i.e. functional want ease of shopping to get travel basics, whilst hedonic want high end duty free products), but essentially they are all seeking the same job to be done;

A) spend time whilst waiting for their flight, and

B) to buy goods the satisfy their needs (be them functional travel needs or hedonic gift/luxury needs).


Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Graeme

ps apologies if I have posted in the wrong area. Was unsure which was best.

Views: 209

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Graeme;

Deciding on the appropriate level of granularity can be quite a challenge. There is no 'approved solution' to this question. The answer lies in understanding the balance between bogging yourself down in detail and using categories so high-level you cannot gain insight from them.

The customers in this case may have a common set of jobs, but does that provide enough insight about them to differentiate and design a solution for them? Since the breadth of customers is limited in this situation (bounded by the traffic of the airport), the key to designing and differentiating the offer (products/services) may be in their pains and gains rather than the jobs themselves.

I recently worked with a client where we discovered what we thought was one segment was actually two. This insight came when we began detailing out the pains and gains using examples of customers in that segment. We saw there were two subsegment groupings that had common and very different set of pains, so we broke them into two customer segments (sub-segments to be more precise).

Thanks Mike,

I am about to start the VP canvas and so hopefully this will help me to get a grasp on the situation better. Thankfully I have a fair bit of academic content on the particular pains and gains requiring solving for each group - the VPs offered by the company apply to all groups, but are of different importance to each.

I sense that my canvas will end up with a list of customer segments, a list of the different VPs offered and perhaps some connections drawn on to show which VP's relate to which segments. the remainder of the canvas will broader in context as channels, costs, revenue streams for each customer will be same i.e. they all relate to the broader concept of providing goods to customers at profit.

Thanks for your comment. I think I might post more about my research design as a separate post to share my approach.

Graeme

RSS

© 2017   Created by Alex Osterwalder.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service