I appreciated the articles last week for class. I thought it was helpful to see the different ways to segment the population. I thought the two presentations that went along with this were helpful as well. In lecture I thought it was kinda odd for the researchers from the adolescent girls and activity intervention to ask students to categories other students and say what those students barriers were and what would help them overcome them. I think it would have made more sense to ask them to say what category/group/ how they defined themselves and ask about the barrier they had and what would help them overcome it. For example I don't know how useful the goth/freak category was- people thought they won't go out in the sun light and it would help them to have black uniforms.... somehow I doubt that is really the case. If you asked a "goth/freak" what their barriers were and what would make them more likely to exercise I think you would have received a lot better information. Maybe they did this as well and it just wasn't mentioned.
I also liked the links to the city segmentation that gave demographics of the zip code. It was very interesting.
I totally agree with you about the TAAG study segmentation process. I went over the powerpoint slides before class last week and I was stunned when I saw the "outcast" profile. It was almost laughable that this group supposedly practiced witchcraft, didn't want to go out in the sun, and wanted to wear black uniforms. Like the PRIZM profiles, I think the audience would be very offended if they saw these labels. It would have been much more interesting, and probably more reliable, if the students were asked directly about their activities and barriers.
ReplyDelete