European

Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
38
Received August 1996
Revised August 1997

Using means-end structures

for benefit segmentation
An application to services
Gnther Botschen
Marketing and Law Group, Aston University, Birmingham, U K

Eva M. Thelen
Department of Marketing, University of Innsbruck, Austria, and

Rik Pieters
Department of Business Administration, T ilburg University,
T he Netherlands
Keywords Benefit segmentation, Consumer behaviour, Image, Market segmentation,
Product attributes, Services marketing
Abstract Although the basic idea of benefit segmentation lies in using causal, as opposed to
descriptive, factors as segmentation criteria, most of the empirical studies do not differentiate
between product attributes and the benefit sought by consumers. T he objectives of this article are
to clarify the distinction between attributes and benefits sought, and to apply a modified laddering
technique, based on means-end theory to use the elicited benefits to form benefit segments. A
compar ison with attr ibute-based segments demonstrates that means-end chains provide a
powerful tool for true benefit segmentation.

European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 33 No. 1/2, 1999, pp. 38-58,
MCB University Press, 0309-0566

Introduction
Haley (1968) and Wind (1973) proposed the segmentation of markets on the
basis of benefits sought by identifiable groups of consumers. While
psychographic and general attitudinal approaches to segmentation may work
well statistically they are less helpful when it comes to deriving effective
marketing strategies (Young et al., 1978). Therefore, benefit segmentation has
become the preferred technique for successful product positioning, new product
introduction, pricing, advertising, and distribution (Wind, 1978).
Most of the published segmentation studies follow a similar approach: after
analyzing secondary data and/or conducting one-on-one in-depth or focus
group interviews to identify relevant attributes and benefits a measure of
importance of attributes/benefits is developed (Haley, 1968; Moriatory and
Reibstein, 1986; Mhlbacher and Botschen, 1988). This instrument is pre-tested
and the data collection starts. Generally, responses are given on a scale
representing low to high importance and/or variability. Data analysis begins
with data treatment (e.g. normalization, standardization) and frequently
continues with factor and cluster analysis to identify benefit segments.

Although the basic idea of benefit segmentation lies in using causal, as

opposed to descriptive, factors as segmentation criteria, most of the empirical
studies do not differentiate between product attributes and the benefits sought
by consumers (Haley, 1968; Mathews and Watt, 1986; OConnor and Sullivan,
1995). According to the means-end chain theory of cognitive structures,
however, consumer behavior is driven by the true benefits sought, which
cause the desire or preference for certain attributes. Drawing direct conclusions
from preferred attributes on future purchase behavior without clearly
distinguishing them from the underlying benefits seems, therefore, problematic.
Indeed, means-end chain theory has been proposed as ideally suitable for the
development of segments (Aurifeille and Valette-Florence, 1992; Reynolds and
Gutman, 1988). To the best of our knowledge, published studies applying
means-end chain theory for benefit segmentation are absent, though. In this
paper we will elaborate on the distinction between product attributes and
benefits sought, and we will show that it is important to segment markets on
the benefit-level.
A second criticism concerning the standard benefit segmentation
approaches deals with the way the list of attributes/benefits is used. In most
cases, not all attributes/benefits apply to all respondents. Wilkie and Weinreich
(1972) concluded in their investigation that results improve when differences in
the number and type of attributes/benefits used are allowed. They suggested
the use of determinant attributes criteria (Myers and Alpert, 1968) to select
attributes/benefits (OConnor and Sullivan, 1995). Although such an approach
is an improvement, we argue that individual free elicitation of attributes and of
the underlying benefits sought offers a better basis to develop benefit segments.
These types of benefit segments should be able to more easily forecast
purchasing behavior.
The objectives of our study are to clarify the distinction between attributes
and benefits sought, to apply a modified laddering technique, based on meansend theory which allows free elicitation of attributes and underlying benefits,
and to use the elicited benefits to form benefit segments.
Theoretical background
The belief underlying benefit segmentation is that the benefits which people are
seeking in consuming a given product are the basic reasons for the existence of
true market segments (Haley, 1968). Benefit segmentation can, therefore, be
regarded as an approach to market segmentation which identifies market
segments by causal factors rather than descriptive factors.
Although there is strong agreement that benefit segmentation may better
explain purchasing behavior than traditional methods of segmentation (Kotler,
1991) we perceive a lack of clarity as to what should be considered a benefit. As
long as benefits equate to the products or services more abstract qualities
(Haley, 1968; Johnson, 1989) the concluded relationship to purchasing behavior
contains a certain risk. If the focus is on the level of preferred attributes we do
not identify underlying benefits sought by customers. Means-end chain theory

Means-end
structures

39

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
40

may give us some guidelines to further elaborate on the distinction between

attributes and benefits sought and to determine the appropriate level of
segmentation.
Means-end theory
Basis to distinguish between attributes and benefits
Means-end theory (Gutman, 1982; Olson and Reynolds, 1983) offers a practical
methaphor to assess consumers product, service or behavior knowledge and
meaning structures. The representation of cognitive structures in memory
advocated by the theory is based on the acknowledgement that product, service,
or behavior may be linked to self. The central tenet of the theory is that product,
service or behavior meaning structures stored in memory consist of a chain of
hierarchically-related elements. The chain starts with the product, service or
behavior components (attributes) and establishes a sequence of links with the
self concept (personal values) through the perceived consequences or benefits
produced by certain attributes of the product, service or behavior. This forms a
means-end chain in that attributes are the means by which the product,
service or behavior provides the desired consequences or values, i.e. the ends.
Values are the ultimate source of choice criteria that drive buying behavior
(Claeys et al. , 1995). This exemplifies a basic assumption of the means-end
chain approach (Peter and Olson, 1987) and of the marketing concept in general
(Kotler, 1991), that products, services, or behavior are bought for what they do
for the consumer.
For a finer-grained analysis of the mental representations each basic level of
abstraction can be divided into sub-levels, leading to distinct categories of
abstraction: concrete attributes, abstract attributes, functional consequences,
psychological consequences, instrumental values, and terminal values (Olson
and Reynolds, 1983).
Young and Feigin (1975) present a benefit chain analysis which links
emotional or psychological benefits to product claims or product attributes. A
benefit chain begins with a product description including a specific attribute.
The consumer provides two benefits that are derived from this attribute and
two benefits derived from each of the two initial benefits. The process is
repeated once more, yielding 14 benefits in all. The whole process is categorized
into the following steps:

Step 1: product specific attribute

leads to
Step 2: functional benefit
leads to
Step 3: practical benefit
leads to
Step 4: emotional pay-off.

Gutman (1982) defines functional and practical benefits and emotional pay-off
as types of consequence. If we consider the two approaches and follow
Gutmans (1982) definition of benefits and consequences we propose the
following distinction between attributes and benefits sought by consumers.
Attributes are characteristics of products, services or behavior which may be
preferred or sought by consumers. These attributes do not explain per se for
what reasons the product, service or behavior is or might be bought. According
to means-end theory we can distinguish between two levels of attributes:
concrete and abstract attributes, e.g. price and good quality. In both cases
we receive additional information about the product, the service or the behavior
itself but we do not discover any underlying reasons why the product is chosen
and/or bought. Most of the companies prefer to work with attribute-based
segmentation which they consider more operational and more easy to act on
than on benefits sought.
Benefits which people are seeking in consuming a given product, service or
behavior offering various attributes explain why people are looking for certain
attributes. Again, according to means-end theory we can differentiate between
consequences on the functional level, e.g. I can easily handle it, and
consequences on the psychosocial level, e.g. others regard me as being special
(Olson, 1989; Olson and Reynolds, 1983; Peter and Olson, 1987). Both are linked
to attributes sought and personal values, which are divided into instrumental
and terminal values. From the customers point of view it is not the products
attributes which count, but the problem solution the benefit sought which
they derive from a certain combination of attributes.
We will use this definition of benefits when doing benefit segmentation. We
believe that much of the conducted empirical studies to determine benefit
segments do not focus on benefits as described above. Instead, they focus on
concrete and abstract attributes and sometimes on a combination of attributes
and benefits or consequences, respectively.
Let us give some examples. If during the purchasing process of data
terminals reliability (abstract attribute) is the sixth important attribute
(Moriatory and Reibstein, 1986) this does not equal the benefit sought by the
customer. Underlying benefits may be: no disturbance of data processing,
our investment pays back better, optimal customer support, or employees
are seldom annoyed. If customers of analgesic brands consider package size
(concrete attribute) important (OConnor and Sullivan, 1995), the benefits
derived from different package size can range from fits perfectly in my pocket
to easy to carry with me, and lasts for more than one month. If customers of
holiday destinations perceive sunny weather (concrete attribute) as an
important attribute (Mhlbacher and Botschen, 1988) they may desire sunny
weather because they are seeking benefits like get a wonderful suntan,
allows us to do open air sports, or children may play games the whole day
outside. Even concerning the example in Haleys (1968) landmark article
Benefit segmentation: a decision-oriented research tool, we would claim that

Means-end
structures

41

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
42

flavor and product appearance as well as price are representing concrete

attributes and not benefits sought by the customers.
In summary, benefit segmentation studies frequently treat attributes as
benefits. As a result, benefits as the reason for attribute preferences are often
overlooked because the same attribute may lead to different benefits, a case of
multifinality (Pieters, 1993), and because a single benefit may be based on
multiple attributes, a case of equifinality (Pieters, 1993), segments based on
attributes may differ from segments based on benefits sought, and benefit
segmentation which is actually based on attributes instead of on actual benefits
soughts may be grossly misleading.
In this study we will examine whether in fact the same attribute can lead to
different benefits sought and whether a single benefit can be based on multiple
attributes and what the consequences are for segmentation.

Segmentation on means-end chains

In response to the identified problems and opportunities for finding
segmentation variables which determine the behavior of consumers more
accurately, market segments could be based on the specific meanings and/or
linkages between meanings contained in means-end chains. Essentially, this is
similar to other approaches to segmentation based on consumers perceptual
structures, except that the means-end chain analysis is not restricted to a single
level of meaning or linkages.
Figure 1 gives an overview about segmentation types according to different
levels within means-end chains.
Segments of type A can be built on the attribute level consisting of concrete
and/or abstract attributes, on the benefit-level consisting of functional and/or

Levels of
MeansEnd
Chains

Example
Motor-Cycle
Triumph
Speed Triple
900

Concrete
Attributes

Abstract
Attributes

Functional
Consequences

Psycho-social
Consequences

Instrumental
Values

Terminal
Values

Price

Good
Quality

Can easily
handle it

Others see me
as special

Being center
of attention

Selfesteem

98 H.P.

Powerful
engine

Can perfectly
accelerate

Feel very
strong

Attribute based

Figure 1.
Segmentation types
based on means-end
chains

Type
of
Segmentation

True benefit based

Linkages
based

Entire means-end chain(s) based

Value based
Linkages
based

psychological consequences, and on the value level consisting of instrumental

and terminal values. Type B of a segmentation approach focuses on linkages
between attributes and consequences, linkages between consequences and
values, and linkages between attributes and values. This type of segmentation
would cluster customers according to the similarity of parts of their perceptual
structure. For instance, one could group together all consumers for whom sugar
in a candy-case leads to energy which provides a strong feeling, and all
consumers for whom sugar provides a good taste. Finally, type C would
segment on the basis of the entire means-end chain(s). Consumers who share
one or several means-end chain(s) might be grouped together and treated as a
segment (Olson, 1989).
The selection of the appropriate segmentation type will depend on the basic
motivations of the investigation, e.g. understanding markets, product
positioning or new product introduction (Wind, 1978), on the product, service or
behavior under consideration and, of course, on the requirements for effective
segmentation such as measurability, substantiality, accessibility, actionability,
and the relevance of variables for selection and purchase intention (Kotler,
1991).
Since consequences/benefits are the central reason why consumers choose a
product or service (Gutman, 1991), segmentation on the true benefit-level
seems to be very promising. Therefore, we will focus on this level of
segmentation.

Conducting tailor-made interviews

Traditionally, benefit segmentation procedures analyzing secondary data,
identification of attributes/benefits via in-depth interviews or focus groups,
generation of item-pool, pretest, data collection via rating scale representing
high importance bear the following risks:
several attributes/benefits may not be relevant for the respondent, but
due to the fact that all of them are presented he/she is forced to evaluate
them all;
respondents tend to rate any attribute/benefit sought relatively high on
the corresponding rating scale even those which are not relevant;
some important attributes/benefits might be overlooked in the in-depth
or focus-groups interviews;
depending on the amount of items respondents tend to loose
concentration.
As a consequence segments derived from traditional rating data will only
slightly differ with respect to preferred attributes due to the fact that
respondents tend to rate most of the items as important. We expect that cluster
solutions using laddering data with free elicitation of attributes and benefits are
better than solutions based on rating data.

Means-end
structures

43

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
44

By applying the laddering technique, the most common method to establish

means-end chains, some of the mentioned problems can be reduced or avoided.
Laddering refers to an in-depth, one-on-one interviewing technique used to
develop an understanding of how consumers translate the attributes of
products, service or behavior into meaningful associations with respect to self,
following means-end theory (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988). This is achieved by
direct probing with the typical question: Why is that important to you? with
the objective of finding connections between a range of attributes,
consequences, and values.
Common criticism of the means-end chain approach claims that by asking
the why? question artificial abstract levels may occur because respondents
think in a more strategic way and are trying harder to find arguments for their
buying behavior as they usually do (Grunert and Grunert, 1995; Grunert et al.,
1995). To avoid this potential problem we have chosen an efficient paper and
pencil laddering technique with the added advantages of free elicitation of
important attributes (Walker and Olson, 1991) and the lack of interviewer bias.
Empirical study
Object of the study
Objects of the study were the expectations of customers toward the quality of
sales-personnel in speciality shops for womens and mens clothing. Empirical
studies on service quality emphasize the importance of high quality salespersonnel in the encounter situation (Berry and Parasuraman, 1991; Crosby,
1991; Payne, 1993). The behavior of the sales personnel offers a possibility to
successfully differentiate from competitors and to increase customer
satisfaction (Bateson, 1989; Hensel, 1990, Mairamhof, 1996; Meyer and
Mattmller, 1987). The detailed knowledge of customers expectations and
underlying motives concerning sales personnel behavior may support effective
recruiting and training of personnel (Heskett et al., 1990). Speciality clothing
shops were chosen because most of the consumers are familiar with them and
there the quality of sales personnel is extremely important.

Sample
The population for the study was the 250 graduate students who specialized in
marketing or retailing. Students were asked to complete a questionnaire in
class.

Questionnaire
First, respondents were asked to describe in detail one of their recent clothing
purchases. They indicated when they had bought this clothing item, what the
clothing item was, why, for whom, and where they bought it, how often they
previously purchased at this shop, how much money and time they spent on it
and if they had clear expectations concerning the type of clothing item.
Respondents were asked to keep this clothing purchase in mind when
answering the specific laddering and rating questions.

Then the questionnaire contained a paper-and-pencil laddering interview

that had been applied in previous research (Pieters et al ., 1995; Walker and
Olson, 1991). In the paper-and-pencil version used, laddering was accomplished
through a structured questionnaire in which subjects were asked to indicate
What characteristic features should sales personnel have and how should they
behave? Subjects could give up to four characteristics and behavioral
expectations that were important to them in the specified buying situation, and
for each mentioned attribute they were asked three times why the given answer
was important to them. In the questionnaire there were four sequences of four
boxes connected by arrows. The first box in each sequence was labeled I want
the sales personnel to be or to behave (2, 3 or 4, as applicable), and
the consecutive columns of boxes were labeled this is important to me,
because (2 or 3, as applicable). Subjects were instructed that in case they
could not think of a reason why something was important to them beyond what
they had already indicated, they could leave the respective column empty
(Pieters et al., 1994).
After completing the paper-and-pencil laddering interview the questionnaire
contained 17 items expressing desired characteristics and kinds of behavior of
sales personnel, like I want salespeople to be honest or I want salespeoples
advice to be more than just information about materials and design. These
items had to be rated on a five-point scale ranging from I expect very much to
I would never expect. The scale was developed according to the traditional
benefit segmentation approach: analysis of secondary data, in-depth interviews
with graduate students, generation and formulation of item-pool, pretest and
modification if necessary (Mhlbacher and Botschen, 1988; 1990). Finally,
subjects provided some socio-demographic information.
Results
A total of 231 responses to the laddering interview were content-analyzed by
three independent judges and grouped into 22 meaning categories. Interjudge
agreement was 70 percent, which corresponds to a PRL reliability (proportion
reduction in loss) of 0.95 (Rust and Cooil, 1994). Disagreements were resolved
through discussion so that all responses were classified.
Two corrections to the data were made. If a person gave two consecutive
responses that belonged to the same meaning category, only the first response
was coded. Also, if a person returned to the same meaning category after one
intermediate response to another category, the last response was not coded. In
both cases, the sequence of responses express circularity (Pieters et al., 1994).
Three independent judges grouped the 22 meanings according to the
developed definition of attributes and benefits into eight attributes, 13 benefits
and one value. Interjudge agreement was 100 percent concerning the attributes,
93 percent concerning the benefits. Two judges agreed identifying 13 benefits
and one value, the third judge classified one of the 13 benefits as a value, after
discussion it was coded as a benefit. Figure 2 shows the eight attributes, 13
benefits and the one value.

Means-end
structures

45

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
46

Following Reynolds and Gutman (1988), a 22 22 asymmetric dominance

matrix was constructed, in which the attributes, benefits/consequences, and
values act as the row and column elements, and in which the cells contain the
frequency in which a particular column element is mentioned after a particular
row element, aggregated across subjects and ladders. Only direct linkages
between meanings are entered, and the diagonal is empty, as a particular row
element cannot be mentioned after itself.
Next, the means-end structure was constructed by depicting all connections
between meanings that form active cells at a selected cut-off level of ten (Pieters
et al., 1994). Figure 3 shows the aggregate hierarchical value map.
The overall HVM shows at the bottom line the eight identified attributes, the
linkages to the 13 identified benefits, and the linkages to the final value good
feeling at the top of the map.
Attributes

Figure 2.
Identified attributes,
benefits/consequences
and values

Benefits/consequences

Friendly
Competent
Honest

Overview
Fun in shopping
Sufficient time

Advising
Distant
Helpful
Polite
Empathetic

Own decision

Buying urge
Customer loyalty
Quality of the
product
Control contact
moment

Values
Respect
Efficient shopping
Reduces uncertainty

Feeling good

Right clothing

Helps
decision

Feeling good
Customer
loyalty

Efficient
shopping

Quality of
the product

Own
decision

Respect
Buying
urge

Fun in
shopping

Right
clothing

Sufficient
time

Control
contact
moment

Helps
decision
Reduces
uncertainty
Overview

Advising

Empathetic
Polite

Figure 3.
HVM of the whole
sample

Helpful

Honest
Friendly

Competent

Distant

Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify market segments. It was first
applied to the attribute rating scale. Squared Euclidean distances were used as
proximity measure and Wards procedure for calculation of the similarity
between objects and clusters. Bergs study (1981) showed that compared to
other methods Wards procedure finds good partitions and assigns cases
correctly. Two clusters described in Table I could be found.
From both clusters all attributes were rated as more important or less
important. Cluster 2 rates most of the items significantly lower than cluster 1,
which means cluster 2 has higher expectations concerning characteristics and
behavior of sales-personnel than cluster 1. These results could be due to
individual answering tendencies, therefore, the analysis was redone with
standardized data and the two clusters could be found again. To prove the
selectivity of the identified clusters discriminant analysis was conducted. The
highest standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients were 0.68 for
the attribute gives expert advice, 0.55 for the attribute endeavoured and
0.50 for the attribute empathetic.
The sample was randomly split in half. One half of the sample was used to
calculate the discriminant function, and the other half was only used for
classification.

Attributes
Friendly even when store is crowded
Friendly although customer is indecisive
Friendly although customer is leaving
without buying
Friendly regardless of customers appearance
Endeavoured
Service available when needed
Reliable
Expert advice
Customer-oriented
Respectful
Honest
Knows sizes
Knows material
Fashionable outfit
Distant
Regards customers taste
Empathetic
Notes: * = < 0.1; ** = < 0.05; *** = < 0.01

Cluster 1
69 cases
Means

Cluster 2
154 cases
Means

1.90
1.51
1.32

1.55
1.24
1.25

***

1.42
2.68
2.72
1.77
3.09
1.55
1.74
2.43
2.87
2.23
2.67
1.58
1.87
2.07

1.16
1.51
2.05
1.50
1.88
1.21
1.43
1.44
2.80
2.30
2.73
1.65
1.53
1.42

***

Means-end
structures

47

Significance

***

***
***
***
***
***
***
***

***
***

Table I.
Market segments based
on attribute ratings

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
48

The results of discriminant analysis indicate a clear cluster solution. A total of

94 percent of the cases used in the analysis and 88 percent of the cases not used
in the analysis could be correctly classified. To check the stability of the
identified clusters the analysis was repeated using k-means clustering. Two
corresponding clusters could be identified. Cross-tabulation of the two cluster
solutions using different methods showed that in 75 percent of the cases cluster
membership corresponds.
To sum up the analysis of attribute ratings suggests that there are two
different market segments. The first has generally lower expectations
concerning sales personnel than the second. They do not differ much in respect
of the priority of the attributes. Comparing the rank orders of attributes based
on the means a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.78 (significance 0.000)
indicates a strong relation. This supports our expectation that segments
derived from traditional rating data will only slightly differ with respect to
preferred attributes due to the fact that respondents tend to rate most of the
items as important. If identified market segments do not differ in the kind of
expectations, but only in their intensity segmentation results may not be very
helpful for marketing management.
Better results may be obtained using free elicited attributes derived from
laddering data. As described above content analysis of the laddering data led to
eight attributes which were used in hierarchical cluster analysis.
All variables from the laddering interviews were coded as 1 (a particular
meaning was elicited by a respondent) or 0 (meaning not elicited). Next, binary
squared Euclidean distances were used as proximity measures and Wards
method was applied. A total of four clusters could be identified which are
described in Table II. Chi-square-test was applied to compare differences
between the four clusters. Of the eight attributes, seven differ significantly
between the groups. Members of cluster 1 want distant and friendly personnel,
most of them also value expert advice. For members of cluster 2 only distant
personnel and expert advice count. Members of cluster 3 expect friendly,
competent personnel which is able to give expert advice. Cluster 4 wants to have
helpful and friendly personnel.
To prove stability of the results, the analysis was repeated using k-means
clustering. Corresponding clusters could be identified. Cross-tabulation of the
two cluster solutions showed corresponding cluster membership in 83 percent
of the cases.
Discriminant analysis was used to test selectivity of the identified segments.
The sample was randomly split in half. One half was used to calculate the
discriminant functions, the other half was only used for classification.
A total of 91 percent of cases used in the analysis and 86 percent of cases not
used in the analysis were correctly classified indicating that the selectivity is
good. The attributes friendly distant and helpful contribute most to
discrimination. This supports that cluster solutions using laddering data with
free elicitation of attributes and benefits improve in comparison to solutions
based on rating data.

Attributes

Cluster 1
82 cases
Percentage of
cluster
members

Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4
43 cases
59 cases
47 cases
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
cluster
cluster
cluster
members
members
members

Means-end
structures
Significance

Friendly

92

90

66

***

Competent

27

26

51

38

**

Expert advice

56

67

73

45

**

Distant

100

84

21

***

Helpful

28

12

96

***

Empathetic

15

21

27

17

Polite

28

12

40

***

Honest

27

33

48

13

***

Notes: * = < 0.1; ** = < 0.05; *** = < 0.01;

= > 75 percent

= > 50 percent;

So far, we analysed the attribute level. As discussed, attributes do not explain

per se for what reasons a product or service is bought. Perceived consequences
(benefits) explain why people are looking for certain attributes. To produce
true benefit segments the consequences of attributes from laddering data
were used in hierarchical cluster analyses in the next step. Binary squared
Euclidean distances measure and Wards method were used. Four clusters could
be identified, which are described in Table III.
Members of the four benefit segments differ significantly according
to their benefits sought when shopping for clothing. Members of cluster 1
want to have sufficient time to make their own decision and be treated
respectfully. Members of cluster 2 want sales personnel to reduce their
uncertainty so as to get the right clothing. Members of cluster 3 mainly seek
fun in shopping, members of cluster 4 seek mainly buying urge. K-means
cluster analysis to test the stability of the cluster solution came up with
corresponding clusters.
The selectivity of the clusters was tested using discriminant analysis. The
sample was randomly split half. One half was used to calculate the discriminant
function, the other half was only used for classification.
The results of discriminant analysis indicate a clear cluster solution. A total
of 85 percent of the cases used in the analysis and 77 percent of the cases not
used in the analysis could be correctly classified. The benefits respect, fun in
shopping, efficient shopping and reduce uncertainty contribute most to
discrimination.

49

Table II.
Market segments
identified by clustering
attributes derived from
laddering analysis

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2

Consequences

Cluster 1
58 cases
Percentage of
cluster
members

Sufficient time

53

36

28

25

***

Right clothing

47

68

47

27

***

Reduces uncertainty

24

64

28

12

***

Overview

21

55

19

12

***

10

29

23

**

41

91

12

***

38

27

12

12

***

Helps decision

10

46

26

***

Own decision

67

48

12

38

***

Buying urge

22

21

30

50

***

Efficient shopping

16

13

33

***

Respect
66
2
Table III.
17
25
Benefit segments based Customer loyalty
**
***
on meanings derived
Notes: * = < 0.1; = < 0.05;
= < 0.01;
from laddering analysis
= > 75 percent

20

***

12

***

50

Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4
56 cases
57 cases
60 cases
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
cluster
cluster
cluster
members
members
members

Significance

Control contact
moment
Fun in shopping
Quality of the
product

= > 50 percent;

To compare the different three cluster solutions based on attributes derived

from rating and laddering data and consequences derived from laddering data,
chi-square-tests were applied. No significant relation could be found. Members
of the various benefit segments do not concentrate in certain attribute segments
and also members of the various attribute segments are spread over all benefit
segments (Table IV and V). These results show that as expected segments
based on the attribute level will significantly differ from segments built on the
benefit level.
To gain improved insight, the importance of attributes of sales personnel
was compared between the benefit segments (Table VI).
Significant differences between the clusters could be found for only four of
the eight attributes. These occur because for those attributes one of the benefit
segments does not value the certain attribute as much as the other segments.

Cluster 1

Attribute segments based on laddering data

Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4

Row total

Benefits segment
Cluster 1
Count
Row percentage
Col. percentage

24
41
29

11
19
26

12
21
20

11
19
23

58
25

Cluster 2
Count
Row percentage
Col. percentage

20
36
24

11
20
26

11
19
19

14
25
30

56
24

Cluster 3
Count
Row percentage
Col. percentage

14
25
17

8
14
18

22
39
37

13
22
28

57
25

Cluster 4
Count
Row percentage
Col. percentage

24
40
30

13
22
30

14
23
24

9
15
19

60
26

Column
Total

82
36

43
19

59
25

47
20

231
100

For all benefit segments there are two or three attributes that are desired by
most of their members.
These results support that the same attribute can lead to different benefits
sought and that a single benefit can be based on multiple attributes.
Benefit segments should be accessible to be useful for management. The
more variability segmentation shows in demographic or behavioral variables
the easier the segments can be accessed. To test the variability of true
benefit segments compared to attribute segments derived by laddering and
by attribute ratings, we related the three cluster solutions to two demographic
variables (sex and age) and five behavioral variables (the amount of former
purchases in the same shop, the amount of different shops visited for the
purchase, the amount of time and money spent for the purchase, existence of
special ideas before purchase). In Tables VII, VIII and IX significant
differences within the three cluster solutions are extracted. The true benefit
segments show more variability in some important variables than the
others.
The comparison of the two attribute clusters based on rating data revealed
only one significant difference in respect of the behavioral variable amount of
time spent for the purchase.

Means-end
structures

51

Table IV.
Comparison of segments
based on attributes
derived from laddering
and benefit segments

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
52

Cluster 1

Benefits segment
Cluster 1
Count
Row percentage
Col. percentage

20
36
29

35
64
23

55
25

Cluster 2
Count
Row percentage
Col. percentage

15
27
22

40
73
26

55
25

Cluster 3
Count
Row percentage
Col. percentage

19
35
28

36
66
23

55
25

15
26
22

43
74
28

58
26

69
31

154
69

223
100

Cluster 4
Count
Table V.
Row percentage
Comparison of segments
Col. percentage
based on attribute
Column
ratings and benefit
segments
Total

Attributes

Table VI.
Market segments
identified by clustering
attributes derived from
laddering analysis

Attribute segments based on ratings

Cluster 2
Row total

Cluster 1
58 cases
Percentage of
cluster
members

Benefits segment
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4
56 cases
57 cases
60 cases
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
cluster
cluster
cluster
members
members
members

Significance

Friendly

74

64

74

63

Competent

40

38

44

20

**

Expert advice

64

64

70

43

**

Distant

62

63

40

65

**

Helpful

36

39

35

23

Empathetic

21

23

18

17

Polite

24

19

25

Honest

31

32

30

23

Notes: * = < 0.1; ** = < 0.05; *** = < 0.01;

= > 50 percent;

**

= > 75 percent

The four-cluster solution at the attribute level derived from laddering data
shows two significant differences in the behavioral variables existence of
special ideas before purchase and money spent for the purchase.
At the true benefit level the variability in important variables increases.
The two-behavioral variables the amount of former purchases in the same
shop, the amount of time spent for the purchase and the demographic
variable age significantly differ between the four clusters.

Variables

Cluster 1
Basis: 64 cases
Less demanding
customers
Mean

Cluster 2
Basis: 150 cases
Demanding
customers
Mean

Significance

2.60

2.97

***

Time spent
Note:

***

= < 0.1

Variables

Special
ideas
Money
spent

Cluster 1
Basis: 74 cases
Mean

Cluster 2
Basis: 41 cases
Mean

2.27

2.23

1.79

1,358

1,454

1,873

1,339

(1 <> 4)***
(2 <> 4)*
(3 <> 4)*
(1 <> 3)**

Notes: * = < 0.1;** = < 0.05; *** = < 0.01

Variables
Former
purchases
Time spent
Age

Cluster 2
Correct clothing
Basis: 52 cases
Mean

3.18
2.89
22.09

3.67
3.09
22.95

Notes: * = < 0.1;** = < 0.05; *** = < 0.01

53

Table VII.
Comparison of behavior
and demographic
variables between
attribute clusters derived
from ratings

Cluster 3
Cluster 4
Basis: 53 cases Basis: 46 cases
Mean
Mean
Significance

2.48

Cluster 1
Control/relax
Basis: 54 cases
Mean

Means-end
structures

Table VIII.
Comparison of behavior
and demographic
variables between
attribute clusters derived
from laddering

Cluster 3
Cluster 4
Fun
Purchasing
Basis: 54 cases Basis: 54 cases
Mean
Mean
Significance

3.31
2.82
23.26

3.56
2.65
22.52

(1 <> 2)**
(2 <> 3)**
(1 <> 4)***

Table IX.
Comparison of behavior
and demographic
variables between
benefit clusters derived
from laddering

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
54

Discussion and managerial implications

Most of segmentation studies conducted for companies are still based on
traditional segmentation criteria. The benefit-segmentation approach
introduced by Haley (1968) tries to avoid weaknesses of the traditional
approaches insofar as it proposes to focus on the benefits sought by the
customer. However, most of the published studies tend to identify attributes
instead of benefits sought.
The purpose of this paper has been to show that means-end chains can be
used to develop true benefit segments. Therefore, we further elaborated on
the distinction between attributes and benefits sought. Means-end chains seem
to be ideally suited to segment markets according to different levels, on
attributes, benefits or values, and on the linkages between the meanings. A
modified laddering technique based on means-end chains which allows free
elicitation of attributes and benefits sought was applied to create market
segments. A comparison of attribute-based segments with true benefit
segments showed no correlation. Therefore, we suggest as long as the objective
of segmentation is to better explain why consumers prefer products, services or
a certain behavior to focus on the true benefits and to use desired attributes to
further describe the identified true benefit segments.
We showed that the following disadvantages of the standard benefit
segmentation approach:
all identified attributes/benefits have to be rated by respondents, even
when they are not relevant for the respondent;
respondents tend to rate most of the items as important which makes it
more difficult to develop significant different segments;
can be avoided by the means-end approach.
Means-end chains seem to be a powerful tool for effective market
segmentation. As far as the standard benefit segmentation procedure is
concerned a simplified laddering technique or a benefit chain analysis can be
used during the exploratory qualitative phase. This would help to identify
attributes and benefits sought and to build true benefit segments.
As far as practicality and cost issues are concerned benefit segmentation on
laddering data might result in higher costs and complexity. In the soft laddering
version well-trained interviewers are needed for the data collection and in soft
and hard laddering content analysis of the data is time consuming and bears the
additional potential of pitfalls.
From a managerial perspective benefit segmentation based on means-end
chains should allow a deeper understanding of why people look for certain
attributes, in our study the reasons why customers look for certain
characteristics and behavior of sales personnel. To focus on the underlying
benefits sought permits sales personnel to adapt their behavior more closely to
customers underlying expectations and helps to improve customer satisfaction.
Especially in service encounter situations the sales employees play a crucial
role to successfully differentiate from other services companies.

Managers can use this information when training and recruiting their
personnel. A basic tenet of any sales training seminar is understanding the
customer. This is because salespeople must manage dynamic communication
processes. Rather than reading a script that remains constant for all, a
salesperson must tailor an approach to each customer, listening to those who
need to be heard and explaining details to customers who need information
(Gengler et al., 1995; Spiro and Weitz, 1990). Indeed, Weitz (1978) found that a
salespersons perceptual ability, the ability to understand a customer and the
customers decision making process, is related to sales performance. The usage
of information of identified true benefit segments in training could improve
efficiency and effectiveness. Under an innovative perspective, sales employees
might identify additional characteristics and kinds of behavior to satisfy
identified benefits sought by different segments.
However, the proposed benefit segmentation approach could be applied to
many other aspects of services industry, e.g. how do customers differ according
to their benefits sought in respect to atmosphere, the core service, and
additional services?
Limitations and future research
One limitation of our study concerns the paper-and-pencil laddering (hard
laddering). The primary advantage of this method is the relative efficiency with
which data can be collected. However, little is known about the validity and
reliability of the procedure and the comparability of results obtained from
traditional laddering interview (soft laddering) and paper-and-pencil laddering.
For example, the many empty boxes that appear in the questionnaire may put
strong demands on subjects to list consequences and goals that are of little
importance to them (Pieters et al., 1994). It would be interesting to see research
comparing the results of hard and soft laddering. Should a test of convergent
validity establish that both techniques lead to similar results, one could safely
conclude that hard laddering is a preferable technique, since it is easier to
administer and less costly. Differing results would call for an investigation of
predictive validity in a larger context (Grunert et al., 1995).
Another limitation concerns the free elicitation technique. So far we do not
know if the application of other techniques, e.g. triadic sorting, free sorting or
attribute selection, would produce similar results. This raises two questions:
(1) Will the set of attributes finally selected as the starting point of the
ladders differ depending on which elicitation method is used?
(2) If yes: which set of attributes is the right one?
Although in this paper we tried to further elaborate the distinction between
attributes and benefits sought in practice, many borderline cases may still turn
up. Categorization in a uniform way is heavily dependent on the availability of
context information. Hard laddering usually provides very little context
information.

Means-end
structures

55

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
56

As far as segmentation is concerned we demonstrated that means-end chains

provide a powerful tool for true benefit segmentation. The identified benefit
segments can be described more in detail, connecting them with attributes. The
combination of segments with buying situations and additional behavioral and
demographical variables would further allow predicting buying behavior to
start, additionally actionability and accessibility would be improved. As the
student sample can be regarded as a rather homogeneous group in respect of
demographic and behavioral variables, we expect the variability of true
benefit segments in these variables to improve studying more heterogeneous
groups.
A further step, as already mentioned in the paper, would be segmenting
customers according to similar linkages of their perceptual structure or on the
basis of their entire means-end chains. To our knowledge only one study
(Roehrich and Valette-Florence, 1991) used links between categories as the basis
for clustering. The units of analysis were ladders and not respondents. Every
respondent may then be a member of more than one cluster, which does not
seem to be a right solution. However, it should be possible to conduct a similar
procedure with respondents instead of ladders as the unit of analysis (Grunert
et al., 1995).
In spite of the shortcomings of our study, the approach taken in this paper to
use means-end chains to identify true benefits seems promising. Although the
idea to use means-end for segmentation purposes has been often proposed to
our knowledge this is the first paper where it is applied in an empirical study
within the services industry.
References
Aurifeille, J.-M. and Valette-Florence, P. (1992), A chain-constrained clustering approach in
means-end analysis. An empirical illustration, in Grunert, K. and Fuglede, D. (Eds),
Marketing for Europe Marketing for the Future, Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference
of the European Marketing Academy, Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 49-64.
Bateson, J.E.G. (1989), Managing Service Marketing, 2nd ed., The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
Berg, S. (1981), Optimalitt bei cluster-analysen, dissertation, Mnchen.
Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Marketing Services. Competing through Quality, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Claeys, C., Swinnen, A. and Van den Abeele, P. (1995), Consumers means-end chain for think
and feel products, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Special Issue: Means-end
Chains, Jerry Olson (Guest Editor), pp. 193-208.
Crosby, L.A. (1991), Building and maintaining quality in the service relationship, in Brown,
S.W., Gummesson, E., Edvardsson, B. and Gustavsson, B. (Eds), S ervice Q ual ity
M ultidiscipl ina r y and M ultina tional Perspectives , Lexington Books, Lexington, MA,
pp. 269-88.
Gengler, C.E., Howard, D.J. and Zolner, K. (1995), A personal construct analysis of adaptive
selling and sales experience, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 287-304.
Grunert, K.G. and Grunert, S.C. (1995), Measuring subjective meaning structures by the
laddering method. Theoretical considerations and methodological problems, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Special Issue: Means-end chains, Jerry Olson (Guest Editor),
pp. 209-27.

Grunert, K.G., Grunert, S.C. and Sorensen, E. (1995), Means-End Chains and Laddering: A n
Inventory of Problems and an Agenda for Research, Working paper No. 34, November, Center
for Market Surveillance, Aarhus, Denmark.
Gutman, J. (1982), A means-end model based on consumer categorization processes, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 60-72.
Gutman, J. (1991), Exploring the nature of linkages between consequences and values, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 22, pp. 143-8.
Haley, R.I. (1968), Benefit segmentation. A decision-oriented research tool, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 32, pp. 30-5.
Hensel, J.S. (1990), Service improvement and control. A customer-based approach, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 21, pp. 22, 43-54.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. and Hart, C.W.L. (1990), Service Breakthroughs Changing the Rules of
the Game, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Johnson, M.D. (1989), On the nature of product attributes and attribute relationship, in Srull,
T.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, pp. 598-604.
Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management, 7th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mairamhof, G. (1996), Handling customer disconfirmations in Kleinaltenkamp, M., Engelhardt,
W.H., Meyer, A., Mhlbacher, H. and Stauss, B. (Eds), Focus Dienstleistungsmarketing, Gabler
Edition Wissenschaft, DUV, Wiesbaden.
Mathews, B.P. and Watt, A.W. (1986), Benefits segmentation for the National Girobank,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 39-51.
Meyer, A. and. Mattmller, R. (1987), Qualitt von dienstleistungen. Entwurf eines
praxisorientierten qualittsmodells, Marketing-Zeitschrift fr Forschung und Praxis, Vol. 9,
August, pp. 187-95.
Moriatory, R.T. and Reibstein, D.J. (1986), Benefit segmentation in industrial markets, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 14, pp. 463-86.
Mhlbacher, H. and Botschen, G. (1988), Trade-off analysis for holiday packages, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 17, pp. 117-31.
Mhlbacher, H. and Botschen, G. (1990), Benefit-segmentierung in Dienstleistungs-mrkten,
Marketing-Zeitschrift fr Forschung und Praxis, Vol. 3, pp. 159-68.
Myers, J.H. and Alpert, M.I. (1968), Determinant buying attitudes: meaning and measurement,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, pp. 13-20.
OConnor, P.J. and Sullivan, G.L. (1995), Market segmentation: a comparison of benefits/
attributes desired and brand preference, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 613-35.
Olson, J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (1983), Understanding consumers cognitive structures:
implications for advertising strategy, in Percy, L. and Woodside, A. (Eds), Advertising and
Consumer Psychology, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Olson, P. (1989), Theoretical foundations of means-end chains, Werbeforschung & Prax is,
Folge 5, pp. 174-8.
Payne, A. (1993), T he Essence of Services in Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Peter, P. and Olson, J. (1987), Consumer Behaviour. Marketing S trategy Perspectives, Richard
Irwin, Inc.
Pieters, R. (1993), A Control View on the Behavior of Consumers: Turning the Triangle, in Van
Raaij, W.F. and Bamossy, G.J. (Eds), E uropean A dvances in Consumer Research , Vol. 1,
pp. 507-12.
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H. and Allen, D. (1995), A means-end chain approach to consumer goal
structures, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 227-44.
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H. and Stad, G.J. (1994), Diagnosing means-end structures: the
perception of wordprocessing software and the adaptive-innovative personality of managers,

Means-end
structures

57

European
Journal of
Marketing
33,1/2
58

in Bloemer, J., Lemmink, J. and Kaspar, H. (Eds), Proceedings 23rd E mac conference,
Maastricht, pp. 749-63.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988), Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation,
Journal of Advertising Research , Vol. 28, pp. 11-31.
Roehrich, G. and Valette-Florence, P. (Ed.) (1991), A weighted cluster-based analysis of direct and
indirect connections in means-end chains: an application to lingerie retail, in Workshop on
Values and Lifestyle Research in Marketing, EIASM, Brussels.
Rust, T.R. and Cooil, B. (1994), Reliability measures for qualitative data: theory and
implications, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, February, pp. 1-14.
Spiro, R.L. and Weitz, B.A. (1990), Adaptive selling: conceptualization, measurement, and
nomological validity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 61-9.
Walker, B.A. and Olson, J.C. (1991), Means-end chains: connecting products with self, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 22, pp. 111-18.
Weitz, B.A. (1978), The relationship between sales performance and understanding of customer
decision making, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, pp. 501-16.
Wilkie, W.L. and Weinreich, R.P. (1972), Effects on the Number and Type of Attributes Included in
an A ttitude Model: More Is Not Better , Working Paper No. 385, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Wind, Y. (1973), A new procedure for concept evaluation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, pp. 2-11.
Wind, Y. (1978), Issues and advances in segmentation research, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 15, pp. 317-37.
Young, S. and Feigin, B. (1975), Using the benefit chain for improved strategy formulation,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, July, pp. 72-4.
Young, S., Ott, L. and Feigin, B. (1978), Some practical considerations in market segmentation,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, pp. 105-412.