Including ambivalence as a basis for benefit segmentation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of ambivalence in benefit‐based segmentation of convenience food in Norway. Design/methodology/approach Building on the attitude‐ambivalence literature and research about food convenience, a hierarchic cluster analysis is performed based on a nation‐wide representative survey of 1,154 Norwegian consumers. Findings The study's effort to use attitudinal ambivalence as a basis for benefit or attitude segmentation proved to be useful in finding segments with different profiles in the area of convenience food. The results reveal three consumer segments based on evaluation of quality, value, ambivalence and perceived morals towards convenience food: the “Convenient”, the “Ambivalent”, and the “Dissatisfied” consumer. While the Convenient have positive feelings and the Dissatisfied negative feelings toward convenience food, the Ambivalent have mixed feelings and feel guilt when eating ready meals. The ambivalent consumers share beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviour at a position somewhere between the “Convenient” and the “Dissatisfied” on most variables. However, in some areas they are close to the “Dissatisfied”, e.g. on variables such as perceived nutritional value, serving/buying ready meals, time used for making dinner or planning their meals. In a few areas they are closer to the “Convenient”, e.g. appeal to children, consuming, soups and pasta, and age above 60. Research limitations/implications Future research on benefit or attitudinal segmentation should consider including a measure of perceived ambivalence associated with the investigated products or services. Practical implications The practical implications are addressing a potential for the convenience food industry and subsequently suggesting a positioning strategy to adopt ambivalent consumers. Originality/value The paper presents new insights into consumer benefit segmentation and in empirical research on convenience food with a particular focus on ambivalence and moral attitudes.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 61 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.