Purpose

This study aims to capture the views of executives about the merit of using the two segmentation approaches (quantitative vs qualitative). Furthermore, this study aimed to examine costs and benefits for two different segmentation approaches, using a minimax simple cost-benefit analysis (CBA) matrix.

Design/methodology/approach

A total of 16 semistructured interviews were conducted with executives within the University of Sharjah (UoS). Furthermore, a minimax approach was applied to the CBA study.

Findings

Evidence in this study found that the financial cost of quantitative segmentation approaches was higher than qualitative approaches. However, the decision-makers trusted the quantitative approach more regardless of the incurred costs. The study also found that there was a limited knowledge about social marketing and segmentation among executives.

Research limitations/implications

Limitations of this study relate to the methodology applied, the sample selected and the lead research. Another factor is selection bias, which limited this study to one organization’s executives. It is conceivable that middle-level management would have had the desire to participate because they make the recommendations to top management in decision-making. The researcher did not collect precise data on time taken to design, implement and analyses the two segmentation studies, which qualified the precision of the CBA. Also, the fact that the sample includes participants from a relatively narrow range of disciplines should be noted as a limitation of the study.

Practical implications

The current study provides a case study demonstrating how CBA provides a dollar amount estimate permitting alternate segmentation approaches to be compared and contrasted, assisting in the value estimation of any social marketing project.

Social implications

The paper draws upon two streams of the literature: social marketing and CBA. The paper focused on the understanding of the literature, CBA offers a technique applicable to demonstrating cost savings that can be derived from choosing one method over another. Moreover, CBA assists in understanding the benefits or potential opportunity cost both financially and nonfinancially.

Originality/value

This paper presents one of the first studies conducting a CBA to compare and contrast two segmentation approaches in social marketing. The study provides interesting insights into the perceptions of management executives over alternative research methods, although the results are limited to a case study.

中文翻译：

---

两种细分方法的相对优点：高管观点和成本效益分析

目的

本研究旨在了解高管对使用两种细分方法（定量与定性）的优点的看法。此外，本研究旨在使用极小极大简单成本效益分析 (CBA) 矩阵检查两种不同分割方法的成本和收益。

设计/方法/方法

对沙迦大学 (UoS) 的高管共进行了 16 次半结构化访谈。此外，将极小极大方法应用于 CBA 研究。

发现

本研究中的证据发现，定量分割方法的财务成本高于定性方法。然而，无论产生的成本如何，决策者都更信任定量方法。该研究还发现，高管对社会营销和细分的了解有限。

研究限制/影响

本研究的局限性在于所应用的方法、选择的样本和主要研究。另一个因素是选择偏见，这将这项研究限制在一个组织的高管身上。可以想象，中层管理人员会有参与的愿望，因为他们在决策中向高层管理人员提出建议。研究人员没有收集有关设计、实施和分析两项细分研究所需时间的精确数据，这证明了 CBA 的精确度。此外，样本包括来自相对狭窄学科范围的参与者这一事实应被视为研究的局限性。

实际影响

当前的研究提供了一个案例研究，展示了 CBA 如何提供美元金额估算，从而允许对替代细分方法进行比较和对比，从而协助任何社会营销项目的价值估算。

社会影响

该论文借鉴了两个文献流：社会营销和 CBA。该论文侧重于对文献的理解，CBA 提供了一种适用于证明可以通过选择一种方法而不是另一种方法来节省成本的技术。此外，CBA 有助于了解财务和非财务方面的收益或潜在机会成本。

原创性/价值

本文介绍了进行 CBA 以比较和对比社会营销中的两种细分方法的首批研究之一。该研究提供了有关管理人员对替代研究方法的看法的有趣见解，尽管结果仅限于案例研究。