« Paying attention to Mind Wide Open | Main | Off to Europe... »

June 02, 2004

Thinking About Audience Segmentation

While this is not an explicit Explicit Design volley, it's definitely related.

A holy grail in Web site information architecture is the ability to cleanly segment content by audience type. Much of the content on a website is not applicable to every single person, but without good segmenting methods, we have to expose all that content to everyone.

Some sites have it easy. An Adaptive Path favorite is Hay Net.


However, few folks have such easily separated audiences. This is particularly true in high-tech marketing, an area I've been deeply involved in ever since working with PeopleSoft in 2001. Every high-tech marketer wants to target different messages at different levels within the potential customer's organization -- executives get a Business Value message, directors and managers get an Ease of Integration message; developers get technical specifications, etc.

One company actually went pretty hard to market with these distinctions: Siebel. Thanks to the Wayback machine, I was able to dredge up their "custom views" over the last few years.


Well, I went to Siebel.com today, and noticed that they've dropped Custom Views. If you ever clicked around their Custom Views, you know that they never really did the concept service -- there'd be a single page for each audience, but beyond that, the distinction was lost.

But I don't think the real problem was execution. I think it was more fundamental. It's pretty much impossible making good clean distinctions that visitors can select themselves by. The changes in Siebel's options show this. In June 2002 they add "Small and Medium Business", in part reflecting the importance of the market, but also because an "executive" of a small business has a lot more in common with a "business manager" of a large corporation.

I find the combination, in April 2003, of "executive" and "business manager" telling. It's basically them throwing in the towel for this kind of audience segmentation. What's happening here is that Siebel is realizing that meaningful segmentation doesn't have as much to do with job titles and self-identification, as it does with the types of tasks the people are engaged in. When it comes to enterprise software, Executives and Business Managers start to blur -- you pretty much just want the best value for the money.

And this is why Siebel was wise to ditch the Custom Views altogether. It was an attempt on their part to be Explicit -- what could be more explicit than getting people to *exactly* the content best suited to their needs -- but it ran against the reality that, when it comes to marketing products, "audience type" is the wrong type of explicit. All that matters to the visitor is their task at hand, not what some company thinks of their job title, and they'll click immediately to whatever they believe will support that task -- which is likely one of the clearly labeled main navigation areas.

All this said, I don't advocate never segmenting by audiences. But you can only successfully do so when the audience accepts the labels as meaningfully applying to themselves. One realm where this works is higher education. UCLA's home page clearly distinguishes its audiences.


The reason this works is that the *tasks* -- what people want to do at UCLA's site -- cleanly break down by audience types. Future students have interests distinct from current students. Current students distinct from faculty. Etc. Not to say they're mutually exclusive -- but a visitor can look at those selections and click with assurance. You can't do that with a selection like "business manager."

Anyway, I feel this really resonates with the notions of Explicit Design. If you can be explicit and meaningful -- such as Hay Net, or UCLA -- then by all means you should. But if you can't be explicit, as in segmenting potential customer audience types for high tech, then attempts at being so will backfire, because this faux explicitness confuses the visitor when they don't see an option that inspires confident selection.

Posted by peterme at June 2, 2004 02:50 PM


We've tried this several times down at the hospital I work at, on various projects. It's worked to varying degrees of success. On our Intranet it was fairly easy to segment some of the Clinical information and tasks from the Administrative, for example.

In most cases it doesn't work as well. I've found that overcoming our internal "org chart" structure to be as much as a barrier to audience segmentation as anything else.

Some times even if you can be explicit and meaningful as far as the user is concerned internal politics and the org chart IA and labeling schemes move in to block your way.

Posted by: Keith at June 2, 2004 03:49 PM

I too work on an intranet (mine is for a global electronics company), and we've succumbed to a hybrid "org chart/job function" design due to the same internal politics Keith mentions.

The governing architecture is a complex set of "microsites" based on the organization chart because that is the most recognizable structure to the people who built it in the first place.

To address issues of content "findability" (a big issue when I came on board), we started organizing links and content inside the microsites by task or job function. For smaller department sites we use task because it is simpler, but for the larger departments with multiple functions we found it easier for the employee to use if we grouped them by job function.

I should clarify that these are not portals, but there is segmentation on two levels (org chart and job function) that is proving successful. Even with our limited resources for testing, we can already see better task success and employee satisfaction with the intranet growing.

Posted by: Sean King at June 2, 2004 04:49 PM

Funny...I interpreted the segments COMPLETELY backwards: Need Hay to me said, "If you need hay, follow this link so you can obtain hay." Have Hay says to me, "If you have hay and want to find folks that need it, follow this link."


Posted by: joe at June 3, 2004 08:33 AM

Good post. IBM does segmentation on their homepage as well, and it seems to work. So does Dell.

As a sidenote: I'd give up on the whole "Explicit Design" thing. I don't think it's working - not for me at least. "Findability" might work for Peter Morville, but "Explicit Design"? Nah.

Posted by: Peter at June 3, 2004 09:09 AM

Heh. I don't know if "Explicit Design" as a term is working for me. But there's still something about the concept that I think that resonates, so I'm going to keep at it for a bit.

Re: Hay Net. Yeah. After having such delightfully clear segmentation on the home page, it does fall apart once you click on a choice -- what's behind the links isn't managed well, and so the results are confused.

Posted by: peterme at June 3, 2004 09:23 AM

This is a good post. I can imagine using a simple tool--a matrix of audience types and tasks--with the client to determine if audience segmentation would work for them. If there's lots of "bleed," segmentation is probably not a good choice.

As for Explicit Design, I say keep working it. I had a hard time with Findability at first (not the concept as much as the label), but it's stuck since.

Posted by: Gene at June 3, 2004 02:17 PM

Peter, I come at segmentation as a marketer. (Hey, guys, hold the rotten tomatoes. Contrary to popular opinion, not all marketers are assholes.)

Segmentation is nothing but divvying up people you find it worthwhile to treat differently from one another. Segmentation is part of the pre-work for every ad you see on television. It has an impact on the design of the ad -- but without the self-categorization of the old Siebel site.

It seems to me that applying the 80/20 rule to potential customers is the key here.

Posted by: Jay Cross at June 3, 2004 06:51 PM

Great subject...we've been working on similar lines on the Microsoft UK site and getting some psotive feedback through research since launch of our new homepage. We've a number of initiatives focussed on gearing our content/servcices/offering to segments (audience-centric, rather than product centric) where possible. Lots more to do in this area.
See: http://weblogs.asp.net/alexbarn/archive/2004/05/11/129907.aspx

Feedback most welcome!

Posted by: Alex Barnett at June 4, 2004 01:25 AM

The problem with "Hay Net" is that - even with only two distinctions - the distinctions can be very misleading.

One could reasonably assume if they need hay they should click through to "Need Hay". Instead that section has listings of others who also need hay; the listing in "Have Hay" are... those who _have_ hay.

So, if you need hay... click on "Have Hay" to find it. And if you have hay you wish to sell, click on "Need Hay" to find buyers.

So even in this basic case it's important to understand whether the designations are for 'me' (the visitor) or for 'them' (the ads and those that placed them).

Posted by: Jon Ashley at June 4, 2004 10:08 AM

One of the concerns of segmentation like UCLA's is that you have to make sure you identify every segment you care about, and ensure that the organization is on board with ignoring or minimizing the others. For example, I would think that the media would be an important audience for UCLA, but does "visitors" really speak to them?

I've been working on usability for a large health system's public website, and have arrived at a hybrid segmentation approach: patients, visitors, medical personnel and everyone. Information about general "health & wellness," for example, applies to all, so it resides in the last "segment." Based on our user research and testing, its looking like the most effective way of giving users quick access to the most needed/requested information, while providing a workable navigation scheme for a very complex (broad and deep) content structure.

Posted by: Patrick Hunt at June 5, 2004 06:30 AM

Need to learn what the user does and infer his/her interests from that and then slowly start to feature elements that match that or similar profiles. Also flap arms and fly to moon.

Posted by: xian at June 7, 2004 06:05 PM

We seem to have had some success segmenting folks on the interland.com homepage - not as explicit as some others, but seems to be doing the trick.


Posted by: d at June 8, 2004 07:23 AM

I agree with you, Peter, that "All that matters to the visitor is their task at hand, not what some [entity] thinks of [their title], and they'll click immediately to whatever they believe will support that task."

But in my experience as a prospective grad student, an enrolled grad student, and a university staff member (i.e., someone who's looked at a lot of university web sites in the past 5 years), I've rarely found audience segmentation of the sort used by UCLA useful or confidence inspiring. IMHO, this is because the audience lines are just as fuzzy in academia as in industry.

For example, both future and current students (not to mention staff) legitimately have an interest in curriculum-related content (degree requirements, course descriptions, etc.), logistics (campus maps, parking permits), student life (organizations, activities, etc.) and lots of other info. So even if multiple paths ultimately take everybody to the same content, there's still no guarantee that they'll be able to, as you say, "click with assurance." I can't tell you how many times I've had to pause and think, "OK, what audience do they think I'm in *this* time?" That it's possible to be in more than one audience at the same time makes this even worse!

I'm not arguing against segmentation, but I don't think it's easily done, and I don't think UCLA's attempt--one that's similar to many university sites--is any better than Siebel's.


Posted by: Michael Fry at June 16, 2004 10:14 AM

I agree with Michael Fry on this and will go a bit further. I have been frustrated by poor attempts at such segmentation for years, both in trying to serve clients (or bosses) who insist that we try and by sites that try and segment me. I think there are a couple of important things to note.

First of all, I think the University example is telling - it is easy to assume that in a university context, the segments are going to be quite distinct. But that assumption is meaningless until thoroughly tested with the segments themselves.

Second, segments work really well when they exist in the product, information, or other subject of the website itself. For cell phone companies, for instance, that actually have different pricing for businesses and consumers. The danger is in assuming too much. Just because business users expense their phones and so can afford more $$ doesn't mean a "personal" customer doesn't want your more expensive offering. Making it less accessible to them based on incorrect segmentation can equal shooting yourself in the foot.

Third, and stemming from #2, in my attempts to DO this kind of segmentation in large sites, I have found that in fact you want to allow EVERYONE to access ALL of the content through each view (and NOT by "pretending" to be in a different group - the key to the segmentation is that it is just one particular entry point. I learned this the hard way - by segmenting stuff OUT of different views then having to put it right back in later on. Views provide emphasis and prioritize certain information over other information, they don't become the sole container in which any information resides.

Posted by: Michael at June 24, 2004 07:17 AM

As a sidenote: I'd give up on the whole "Explicit Design" thing. I don't think it's working - not for me at least. "Findability" might work for Peter Morville, but "Explicit Design"? Nah.

Posted by: Shaoshi at August 30, 2004 07:19 PM

LIVE SHOW: all our girls to your disposition.

Posted by: Anukis at March 22, 2006 01:03 PM

Without limits, 24HS / 24 the girls n ’ wait that your orders. There are also sexual games, erotic stories and more...

Posted by: Mesjenet at March 22, 2006 01:19 PM

On the third day Slater was found impassive in the hollow of a tree, and taken to the blackest jail, where debt elimination from Albany deluded him as soon as his senses anticipated.

Posted by: legal debt elimination at March 22, 2006 06:33 PM

photo gratuite de celebrite nu , logiciel montage gratuit photo

Posted by: Theader at March 23, 2006 05:30 AM

Every day the whole sex. Galleries of free sex to enjoy.

Posted by: Enéada at March 23, 2006 07:18 PM

The best images and videos of hard hardcore sex.

Posted by: Hurun at March 23, 2006 07:22 PM

windows media machine lavement movies ebony et boom meilleures

Posted by: grayson at March 24, 2006 07:17 AM

Mozilla Firefox... The advantages of this navigator are clear: it is light, sure, compact and functional.

Posted by: Tatenen at March 25, 2006 08:07 AM

Mozilla Firefox...The principal difference is that it has been prepared by the system XUL and created to be multi platform.

Posted by: Uadyur at March 25, 2006 08:20 AM

great oportunity to discovere the meilleur materiel gratuit on the net, ici in the zone telecharger

Posted by: manathosh at March 28, 2006 07:41 AM

telecharger all version 01net, everithin is hear nex to the portal of sites on the net

Posted by: calinica at March 28, 2006 08:15 AM

WinRar 3.5... One of the best software of compression of files.

Posted by: Horajty at March 28, 2006 04:25 PM

DivX Video 5.2... Load the codecs of DivX to see the movies in DVD quality.

Posted by: Duamutef at March 28, 2006 04:29 PM

Mozilla Firefox ... it has been prepared by the system XUL and created to be multi platform.

Posted by: Hor Imyshenu at March 30, 2006 04:03 PM

Countervirus guarantees the safety of your PC ...*, * Passwords, * Encryption, * Exterminators, * Maintenance, * Alertness, * Firewalls.

Posted by: Astarté at March 30, 2006 04:05 PM

Le meilleur client des réseaux edonkey que l'on peut trouver.

Posted by: Lovely at April 1, 2006 04:50 AM

telecharger driver 3 , messenger telecharger , telecharger driver hp..

Posted by: yseult at April 3, 2006 04:07 AM

on the cd rom you find the best material on the net

Posted by: abhinan at April 3, 2006 04:54 AM

Good luck! cheap valium

Posted by: becky at April 3, 2006 08:42 AM

It chooses his girl and you chat about video with her in alive and in direct.

Posted by: Kematef at April 3, 2006 12:02 PM

Free video, is always learned of the new ways...!!!!!!

Posted by: Basty at April 3, 2006 12:29 PM

Have access to the transsexuals' best place.

Posted by: Amset at April 4, 2006 07:20 PM

Have access to the best place of photos and videos of travestis and transsexuals...

Posted by: Imhotep at April 4, 2006 07:23 PM