We have mainly discussed the problem of weighting properly the variables. It is quite clear that the authors do not want to introduce any discriminating policy between the items of variables. But they consider it as a necessary refinement to associate with each of these items a weight expressing its discrimination power. Their similarity index is therefore weighting the variables according to their information content.
Classic market research methods do not provide us with any basis for differentiation. In fact, they merely establish simple and rudimentary links between different socio-economic characteristics and buying behaviour, which amounts to slicing the individual up into pieces. Hence the need for a more integrated approach, which would enable us to divide the market into homogeneous groups of buyers. Market segmentation consists of just this. Briefly, segmenting the market means dividing the population into groups of consumers which are homogeneous both in their apparent characteristics and in their buying mentality. Methods of segmentation, generally, consist of using mathematical techniques to divide a sample into classes. This gives a concrete and living framework for the intuitive work of the advertising man, which consists of thinking in terms of the actual buyer and not in fragmentary terms like age, town size, or profession. No definitive and completely satisfactory solution seems to have been found for this problem. There have, however, been some attempted solutions and we shall go on to describe them here.
To build a significant typology, two variables must be taken into consideration: l) objective characterisation, 2) attitude. Each must be measured independently. For example, it appears reasonable to say: those who earn a lot of money (measurement of income) have no financial worries (subjective). However, if we ask this question in a representative sample check, the actual results show that financial worries are comparatively unconnected with income. How great is the danger of proceeding from the "objective" circumstance directly to the "subjectively", expected attitude, without justifying this by independent enquiries.
In poll-research we have increasingly to solve functions concerning the character of people. In order to do this we need suitable methods for diagnoses, but specially such methods which are applicable to our current polls, and not only to non-recurring special-missions with a greater frame of charges and time. Therefore we can neither use extensive series of tests nor many other tests which would not correspond to the original task of the questioner. It would also need too much test material and time. Therefore it is doubtful whether the questioned persons would be ready to cooperate (e.g. old women at far off villages). Positively expressed: we do not have to deal with "single-characterology" which describes us a certain person with its own peculiarities. We do quite a different thing, also when characterising: we compare groups of tests, population classes, that means cross sections of questioned people. These are the facts we state. I would suggest to express it clear with the word "society-characterologyâ.
On the working ground of market-research a striking ambivalence is to be stated in the expectations-with respect to' the contributions of the psychologist. On the one side, one demands of the psychologies an insight as. "deep" as possible into the behaviour of the consumer, i.e. a knowledge of factors determining large segments of this behaviour. Some disappointment is to be noted, if the psychologist cannot answer the why-question that may be put in connection with each reply. On the other side: one demands of the psychologist and justly so - an exact measurement of data, an exact determination of the measure in which certain factors influence the behaviour, on exact ascertaining of the frequency with which these factors play a part. One might state that these typo expectations are indeed not principally incompatible however, in the present state of psychological science they are. The same contrarieties one meets with respect to the expectations regarding the contribution a psychologist can deliver for a typology of the consumer.
On the working ground of market-research a striking ambivalence is to be stated in the expectations-with respect to' the contributions of the psychologist. On the one side, one demands of the psychologies an insight as. "deep" as possible into the behaviour of the consumer, i.e. a knowledge of factors determining large segments of this behaviour. Some disappointment is to be noted, if the psychologist cannot answer the why-question that may be put in connection with each reply. On the other side: one demands of the psychologist and justly so - an exact measurement of data, an exact determination of the measure in which certain factors influence the behaviour, on exact ascertaining of the frequency with which these factors play a part. One might state that these typo expectations are indeed not principally incompatible however, in the present state of psychological science they are. The same contrarieties one meets with respect to the expectations regarding the contribution a psychologist can deliver for a typology of the consumer.
The object of this paper is to examine two methods of estimating the "social class" structure of a particular population universe once certain data is already known e.g. age, sex, area, socio-professional classes, etc... We subsequently show that one of these methods can be used to estimate other aspects of this population structure. For the purposes of this paper, we will examine in particular that type of population which is defined as the audience of an advertising medium. This study therefore falls particularly in the domain of marketing and media research.