Segmentation techniques for expanding a library instruction market: Evaluating and brainstorming
-
Upload
rebecca-warren -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Segmentation techniques for expanding a library instruction market: Evaluating and brainstorming
Segmentation techniques for expanding a
library instruction market
Evaluating and brainstorming
Rebecca Warrena,*, Sherman Hayesa, Donna Gunterb
aRandall Library, University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
601 S. College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403, USAbAtkins Library, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
Abstract
This article describes a two-part segmentation technique applied to an instruction program during a
strategic planning process. This technique was used to better understand the characteristics and needs
of the instruction program audiences. First described is the brainstorming technique used to create a
comprehensive segment list of the existing and potential audiences of the instruction program. Second
is a description of the follow up review session that evaluated past years’ efforts using this new
language of segmentation. D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Brainstorming; Segmentation; Strategic planning; Library instruction programs; Creativity;
Academic libraries
Do you really knowwho your current clients are in your instructional program? Do you have
a vision of potential clients and needs? Do you have a priority list of the next instructional
audiences that your library wants to help? Are there current parts of your program that should be
de-emphasized so you can get to some others you desperately want to expand?
It is no longer inspiration, or being creatively talented. Anyone can be creative—provided
they learn and develop their skills.
Edward de Bono
0734-3310/01/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S0734 -3310 (02 )00086 -1
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Warren), [email protected] (S. Hayes), djgunter@email.
uncc.edu (D. Gunter).
Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180
Even though this paper is not intended to cover why there is a critical need to improve and
increase instruction, the following list of a few obvious instruction foci demonstrates the
necessity for librarians to move beyond mere statistical descriptions of their clientele.
� The explosion in electronic resources has expanded and made information retrieval
more complex.� College students are more diverse in ethnic background and age.� Students must learn to use electronic resources in an academic environment in a
different way than they do recreationally.� College curricula are becoming more interdisciplinary, meaning faculty, who have
specialized in a small disciplinary area, are increasingly dependent on professional
librarians to become acquainted with the research methods of other fields.� Many faculty are still acclimating to the new technological environment.� Students often have complex schedules that make serious demands on their time.� Faculty using instructional services are usually unable to keep up with the changes in
information in their field or changing library products.� Faculty and student audiences are reluctant to give the library large blocks of predictable
time to learn new material and techniques. Everyone wants ‘‘instant gratification’’ and
‘‘instant learning.’’� The institution assumes that technology and related instructional techniques must
always be modern and up to date and used in instruction, whether there is technological
support or not.� There are few instructional programs that are receiving significant new professional
positions for instruction, while the learning potential remains high and growing.
A library’s instruction program will grow or change based on the characteristics of those
who randomly approach it unless its future is strategically planned. Instructional services
programs may well still grow by a random approach model, but hopefully it will also change
by choosing to cultivate segments and to negotiate improved instructional services with and
for those segments.
The most damaging phrase in the language is: ‘‘It’s always been done that way.’’
Rear Admiral Grace Hopper
Managers of instructional programs in academic libraries typically know their clientele
statistically; they know how many classes they teach, which disciplines they are reaching,
whether or not the instruction sessions are for graduate or undergraduate classes, andwhether or
not they are research methodology classes. They also usually provide an evaluation instrument
that tells perhaps a little more. This ‘‘statistical’’ model focuses on ‘‘how many’’ participate in
the program, based on obvious classes. In our library, we have historically followed this
approach; however, we found ourselves wanting to know our clientele in a more complex way.
This article describes a two-part segmenting technique that we have recently applied to our
instructional program as part of a strategic planning process that gave us a better
understanding of the characteristics and needs of our ‘‘customers.’’ After we discuss the
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180172
concepts of ‘‘market segmentation’’ and then of ‘‘brainstorming,’’ we describe the brain-
storming technique that we used to create a wide-ranging pie-in-the-sky comprehensive
segment list for audiences of our library instruction program. Next is an account of our efforts
to target specific markets using this new language of segmentation.
1. Segmentation
The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.
Linus Pauling
We decided to view our clients through a myriad of different filters or segments, by not
changing the customer, but by rethinking the descriptive model of the customer base to better
identify potential. Marketing segmentation is a common approach in a ‘‘selling’’ or marketing
plan for any company. We do not propose that one has to adopt all of the buzzwords and
change all terminology over to the full business set; however, it is useful to analyze how
business approaches the subject of market and how one can pick those parts that are useful to
one’s service approach. If one approaches any marketing text or dictionary, the section on
market segmentation will be very standard across the texts indicating that the concept has
reached a level of standard practice in business. Here are some quick definitions to
demonstrate commonalities:
� ‘‘The process of subdividing a market into distinct subsets of customers that behave in
the same way or have similar needs. Each subset may conceivable be chosen as a market
target to be reached with a distinct marketing strategy’’ (Bennett, 1995, p. 166).� ‘‘Market segmentation is the process of dividing a diverse market into groups of
consumers with relatively similar characteristics, wants, needs, buying habits, or
reactions to marketing efforts’’ (Beachham, Hise, & Tongren, 1986, p. 505).� ‘‘To be effective, a market segment must be measurable, profitable, accessible, and
meaningful’’ (Beachham et al., 1986, p. 507).
Some of the key definitional points include: market segmentation must be tied to
marketing strategies; customers are not the same and can be approached most effectively if
their differences/similarities are documented and, whenever possible, the analysis should be
based on data and studies versus intuition. Our filter structures the segments on a logic
appropriate to academic libraries and to instructional possibilities within that service industry.
Market segmentation is the process of ‘‘subdividing of a market into distinct subsets of
customers, where any subset may conceivably be selected as a target that behave in the same
way or have similar needs’’ (Bennett, 1995, p. 166). For the library instruction manager, the
new aim is to identify subsets of customers in ways that move beyond the cursory look for
potential classes in the college catalog. According to Linda Morton (1998), a good way to
identify ‘‘distinct subsets of customers,’’ or to move beyond the ‘‘statistical’’ way of viewing
a market, would be to examine the market demographically, psychographically and socio-
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180 173
graphically. Viewing a potential client demographically means that one looks at ‘‘age, gender,
race, family size and status, income, education, occupation, and geographic information’’
(Morton, 1998, p. 33). Looking at the market psychographically involves looking at
‘‘personality and other psychological characteristics’’ (Morton, 1998, p. 33). Examining
the potential instruction patron sociographically requires looking at the ‘‘groups that public
members belong to, as well as other sociological characteristics’’ (Morton, 1998, p. 34).
Viewing a client base through the lens of demographics, psychographics, and sociographics
opens many new ways to identify potential classes of students.
We all use segmentation techniques to structure information in our world. While we are
suggesting a business model to help libraries look at their operations in a new light, we do not
want to adopt a social science jargon that makes this process more difficult than it really is.
This is about using common sense in looking at the customers but looking with changing
filters and ‘‘new eyes.’’ Take as a example the area of collegiate athletics. Many of us talk
about athletics and we segment athletics from a multitude of variables.
� Intercollegiate athletics versus intramural� Women’s, men’s and coed� By type of sport: basketball, tennis, softball, rugby, etc.� Scholarship athletes or nonscholarship athletes� Universities by conference (voluntary associations of schools, ACC, CAA, Big Eight)� Sports by season (spring sports)� Formal size and divisions as defined by the NCAA (Divisions I, II, and III)� Success (winning programs, etc.)� Major sports or minor sports
Besides using the segmentation filter to get a description of current and potential markets,
the entity needs to follow through with a market segmentation strategy. How are you going to
use the segment information to target specific groups? A fairly standard business approach is
to divide the logical strategies into three choices:
(1) undifferentiated marketing— in which the business attempts to go after the whole market
with a product and marketing strategy intended to have mass appeal; (2) differentiated
marketing— in which the business operates in several segments of the market with offerings
and market strategies tailored to each segment; (3) concentrated marketing— in which the
business focuses on only one or a few segments with the intention of capturing a large share
of these segments (Bennett, 1995, p. 166).
2. Brainstorming
Our best thoughts come from others.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
We present this framework using brainstorming techniques to suggest ways that the
customer base can be segmented. Brainstorming is a specific technique developed by Alex F.
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180174
Osborn who introduced the modern brainstorming session in 1938 as a means ‘‘of using the
brains to storm a problem’’ (Osborn, 1963, p. 151). Reick (1999, p. 78) wrote, ‘‘Brainstorm-
ing is not about creative execution. It’s about idea creation.’’ Brainstorming allows the
instruction manager to discover ideas before being burdened by the analytical work involved
in creation. To ‘‘storm the brain,’’ Osborn (1963, p. 152) suggested four basic rules to have a
successful group brainstorming session.
1. Criticism is ruled out. Adverse judgments of ideas must be withheld until later in the
process. This is the key to successful brainstorming— suspending judgment such as ‘‘what a
stupid idea’’— and can be one of the hardest things for ever-critical librarians to do. ‘‘Ideas
need to flow, and flow freely. This is not easy for the analytical type. Nature dictates that
every idea is evaluated on the spot-passed, butchered, counter-suggested or dismissed’’
(Heimer, 1999, p. 26).
2. ‘‘Free-wheeling’’ is welcomed. The wilder the idea, the better; it is easier to tame down
than to think up.
3. Quantity is wanted. The greater the number of ideas, the more likelihood of useful ideas.
4. Combination and improvement of ideas are sought.
The notion of free association of ideas without judgment leading to a richer source of
creative input possible is not a new idea. This type of creative group collaboration dates
back some 400 years to a technique used by Hindu teachers (Osborn, 1963, p. 151). But
what Osborn did was to take this idea from theoreticians and moved it into an applied
science in the business world (Clegg, 1999, p. 10). There is a constant criticism of
brainstorming because people confuse it with the actual implementation or operational
phase of creating a plan of action. It is perceived as easy to come up with ‘‘wild-haired’’
ideas. Many people dismiss the technique because each and every idea is not practical,
feasible, or can raise false expectations among those participating in the exercise. Bachman
(2000) proposes a new ‘‘Brainstorming Deluxe’’ system. He offers ‘‘value-added’’ brain-
storming, which wants to structure the brainstorming session around lists of objectives that
really combine idea generation with solutions planning. His brainstorming categories are (1)
demand, (2) objectives, and (3) resources (Bachman, 2000, p. 15). While the article may be
helpful, we contend that it is representative of a normal attempt to short-circuit and guide
the brainstorming session to practicality too quickly. There is nothing wrong with true
brainstorming first and then using other creative processes to move to the next planning
stages (Hurt, 2000).
Clearly no group can as an entity create ideas. Only individuals can do this. A group of
individuals may, however, stimulate one another in the creation of ideas.
Estill I. Green
Brainstorming as our library conducted it and as is generally conducted is a specific group
process. However, the term has grown to include the general concept of generating a large list
of ideas without limiting reality so that it can even be used for individuals who want to just
practice creating ideas. If you cannot find a compatible group or a large enough group to try
this at your library, it is also possible to use the elements as an individual to help think of
segments for your instructional program.
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180 175
There are any numbers of framing devices within the brainstorming session that one can use
and ours is not a proscribed one. For our brainstorming session, we chose to generate ideas for
our market segments through the journalistic technique of ‘‘who, what, when, where, and
why.’’ Since we are attempting to identify potential clients demographically, psychographi-
cally, and sociographically, we are aiming at ‘‘who’’ we are teaching. However, we believed
that, if we could examine ‘‘what’’ we teach, ‘‘where’’ we teach, ‘‘when’’ we teach, and ‘‘why’’
we teach, then we could discover more about ‘‘who’’ we teach.
To conduct the brainstorming sessions, we met as a group; we had a stand-up easel and pad
and one sheet of paper was used per ‘‘idea category.’’ That is, one sheet of paper was used for
‘‘who,’’ another for ‘‘what,’’ etc. One person led the session and wrote the ideas on the pad.
We have arranged our session results in a table format to make it easier to see what our
segmentation generated. We have not edited or refined this list, as we wanted to present a real
sample of the roughness of the initial product of brainstorming (Tables 1–5).
Table 1
Who: segmented by group type
Classes Special backgrounds
Department/academic
Department/nonacademic
. Continuing education, staff,
. Registered nurses getting BA, senior citizens,
older than average students, dually enrolled
high school and college students
lab attendants, researchers Athletes
from independent units, visitors International students
Potential students . Regular, long-term, short-term programs
Community members Students with disabilities
Area librarians Minorities
Alumni . Race, religion, ethnic group
Friends of the library Gifted students
Visiting scholars Summer enrichment
Faculty assignments Women/men
Level in the courses (advanced, etc.) Student groups
Grad students Fraternities/sororities, student government,
Individual interest Special interest club
One-on-one thesis preparation
Students level by year
Honors
Table 2
What: segmented by types of instruction
One-on-one Bibliographic instruction
Reference Lecture method
Web-based Hands on practice
Course-based Self-directed
Orientation Manuals
Public relations Guides
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180176
Table 4
When: segmentation by timing
. Scheduled sessions, class requests
. As needed on demand
. Web-based, no set time
. Labor-driven (labor available, instructors, vacations, conferences)
. Cycles in the calendar, start of thesis prep, paper-writing season, dorm move in, visitation periods
(not yet students) summers, start of the semester, accreditation visits, perennial assignments
. Resource availability–fiscal year
. New products–demand action (training for NC LIVE, a new suite of electronic resources)
. Altered products (altered by library or vendor, new iterations of database
Table 3
Where: segmented by delivery or consumption location
Library instruction room WEB-based
Classrooms outside the library but on traditional campus . Formal course approach
Remote classrooms off of campus . Tutorials
Computer labs . Structured chat rooms
Reference desks . Linked conversations
Paper-individual-based, guides . Guides
Where ever the audience meets outside library: . Reference services
. Study hall for athletes . Reference/instruction
. Diversity center
. Honors dorm
. Fraternity house
. Conference setting (professional meeting)
. Faculty office
Table 5
Why: segmented by motivation
. Class component requirement
. Personal interest
. Job-related issues work/school
. Getting a job–career
. Subject coverage
. Change in information sources and delivery
. Creating a comfortable atmosphere and attitude in and towards the library
. Prepare for the future/mindset for using sources academically
. Make sure we are part of teaching of information agenda, i.e., board of trustees presentation
. Respond to institutions priorities
. What’s fun for librarians to do
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180 177
These lists are unfinished and not refined, which is one of the major characteristics of a
brainstorming session; is a list of ideas, not a finished product.
3. Evaluation and planning
People are disturbed, not by things, but by the view they take of them.
Epictetus
The actual segmentation process is the follow-up to brainstorming and can be described in
two stages: (1) evaluation of past efforts using segmentation language and (2) planning for the
future efforts, also using segmentation language. To evaluate our past activities, at a recent
annual review and planning session for instruction, we talked about our successful year’s
efforts and specifically chose to infuse the conversation with segmentation language discov-
ered through our brainstorming session. We started the discussion with a traditional description
of our program divided by academic department. However, at summary points within the
conversation and at the end of the conversation, we divided the instructional sessions into
several other segments to better understand the impact of our program. These included:
� Labs versus classroom presentation� Web course delivery or traditional� Subdivisions within the departments� Review by individual faculty as a specific targeted segment� Basic versus advanced orientation of class� Interdisciplinary versus traditional subjects� Community versus university audience� New faculty versus mid-career versus senior faculty� New curriculum emphasis or established� Ease of delivery� Successful versus unsuccessful subject coverage� Nontraditional versus traditional students
The second stage of the segmentation process following up on the brainstorming came
after evaluation of past efforts. After brainstorming and evaluation, one does need to choose
strategic initiatives based on the segment filtering efforts. Some of our recent segmented
instructional outreach efforts have included (the perceived target segment identified through
the brainstorming session is in bold).
1. Experimenting on how to best give with freshmen and transfer student athletes
formal presentations within their limited time availability. This grew out of an identified
group of athletes required to be in the library but there was no formal library program directed
towards their needs. A librarian met with the head of Athletics.
2. We are partnering with individual faculty to explore how our instruction program can
dovetail into an increased use of the Web for delivery of instruction. This group was
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180178
identified in the exercise because the individual librarians had already been approached to
help as the institution adopted a campus standard for Web-based course offerings. Without a
group conversation, it is uncertain whether many of these leads would have surfaced,
although all of them were present in the mind and experience of at least one staff member.
Librarians partnered with faculty to discuss ways in which the library could provide course
specific Web-based library instruction.
3. We have created, through a partnership of Reference and Instructional Services, a one-
on-one consultation service with graduate students just entering their thesis preparation
stages (the STAR PROGRAM). We had identified the obvious segment of graduate students,
but tried to divide that segment by considering their time to degree completion. Thus, we
came up with the ‘‘time of need’’ centered on the critical early thesis search phase. This
instruction program is comprised of traditional reference appointments packaged and
marketed to a specific group.
4. Partnership teaching efforts with the Learning Center (centralized tutoring system for
students seeking supplemental help on campus). The Learning Center is located in the
Library; however, the University Librarian does not administer it. Again, this program is
based on the reference appointment model discussed above.
5. Fostering a partnership with Center for Teaching Excellence on ways to reach faculty
within the workshop system offered by this Center.
6. A subcommittee has been exploring new early contacts and components of instruction
with audiences (students and new faculty) that have not yet arrived on campus but have
committed to coming to the University. The original idea came from a librarian who pointed
out the need to help new faculty as they arrive. This program consists of meeting with the
new faculty to teach them about the resources the library has to offer them, especially
instructional services.
7. We have recently increased our partnerships with an instructional specialist for the
School of Nursing (fortunately for us she is a professional librarian, although not part of our
faculty) to customize and supplement her efforts with nursing faculty and students
(undergraduate and graduate).
8. We are reviewing our new faculty marketing plans to insure coverage. Specific
operational plans are being proposed around planned visits by outreach librarians during the
first semester of new faculty arrival and follow-up phone calls to faculty who toured the library
during their interview phase, suggesting services such as Table of Contents and e-reserves.
9. One new segment filter that will be applied this year is to track new program offerings
and our ability to support them with instruction (i.e., new master’s degree in Public
Administration). We are matching this instructional outreach effort with a review of our
project funds that are competitive purchases offered particularly to new faculty.
10. We will increase coverage of seminar classes (higher-level subject coverage). This will
involve creating a small database of potential classes from the catalog and matching it to our
existing instructional portfolio.
11. We are planning to analyze our coverage in particularly active programs (freshman
English) and try to expand to 100% of the classes receiving formal library instruction by
forming a relationship with the Coordinator of Composition.
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180 179
4. Conclusion
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The need for innovative planning for instructional services in academic libraries is greater
today than ever before. Segmenting the existing program audiences and brainstorming to
segment potential instructional services customers are important methods to enhance any
instruction program. Understanding existing and potential customer bases is a core require-
ment in order to strategically increase learning any institution. Earlier in the article we
highlighted three strategies of segmentation that one could logically adopt. We have
obviously adopted the differentiated strategy where one chooses to operate in several
segments of the market with offerings and market strategies tailored to each segment. We
are going to start a new project, which will document our current teaching segmentation
patterns as well as potential audiences tied to some very specific marketing plans on how to
convince identified audiences to use our services.
References
Bachman, G. (2000). Brainstorming deluxe. Training and Development, 54 (1), 15–17.
Beachham, W., Hise, R. T., & Tongren, H. N. (Eds.) (1986). Market segmentation. In: Beacham’s market-
ing reference: Vol. 1. Account executive-market segmentation (pp. 505–509). Washington, DC: Research
Publishing.
Bennett, P. D. (Ed.) (1995). Market segmentation. In: Dictionary of marketing terms (pp. 165–166). Lincoln-
wood, IL: NTC Business Books.
Clegg, B. (1999). Creativity and innovation for managers. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Heimer, C. L. (1999). The planning roundabout a five-part series. Management Accounting, 77 (2), 26–28.
Retrieved February 1, 2002 from ProQuest (ABI/Inform Global) database.
Hurt, F. (2000). Beyond Brainstorming: putting your ideas to the test. Successful Meetings, 49 (7), 81–82.
Retrieved January 17, 2002 from ProQuest (ABI/Inform Global) database.
Morton, L. (1998/1999). Segmentation publics: an introduction. Public Relations Quarterly, 43 (3), 33–34.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York:
Scribner.
Reick, D. (1999). Session five: Ah ha! Running a productive brainstorming session. Direct Marketing, 62 (7),
78–79. Retrieved January 31, 2001 from ProQuest (ABI/Inform Global) database.
R. Warren et al. / Research Strategies 18 (2001) 171–180180