Thanks for making the really important point about the difference between segmenting visits and segmenting visitors. The former is an internal approach, all about visit experience design and produces what might more accurately be called visit modes that are transient, while the latter is an external approach, all about marketing and produces true segments that are more stable over time. We've created both types, for many different clients, including the very bespoke, internal one used successfully by WWT.

The only segmentation system that has managed to bridge this gap between internal and external segmentation is Culture Segments, http://mhminsight.com/culture-segments and, because of that, it's rapidly becoming an international and industry standard.

Here's the thing: segmentation is not a noble search for the 'truth', nor should it be an exercise in academic gymnastics. Emily has described segments as a 'useful fiction' and I think this accurately captures their pragmatic nature and their ability to give the whole organisation a shared language to describe their visitors.

Visitors are not homogeneous and one size really does fit no one. But, equally, we could never truly offer personalisation for each and every individual. Segmentation, especially when based on some useful insights into visitor beliefs, values, motives, needs and behaviour, offers us a practical way to deliver 'mass personalisation'. In effect, that means enough differentiation to meet visitors' very different needs and increase their chances of engaging.

Segments need to be more than two-dimensional, reductive personas. They need to be subtle, nuanced and allow for diversity within segments. They shouldn't ever become lazy stereotypes. At the ECSITE conference in Holland recently, Emily and I both presented sessions. One participant summed up the debate around segmentation better than any of us. They said: 'Segmentation is great when it makes the whole organisation think more about its visitors, but not so good when it stops you thinking more about your visitors."

In short, if your chosen approach does the job its designed for (whether experience design or marketing) and it illuminates and increases visitor focus, then it is adding value.

On 12 Jun 2014, at 11:23, Lyndsey Clark <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Eric,

I heard about the WWT segmentation at the VSG conference in 2013 and one of the things that interested me the most was that they had segmented 'visits' rather than 'visitors'. I thought that this was important because as we all know, we all visit places with different hats on (I am sometimes a mother with small child, sometimes an 'independent adult' and sometimes a 'museum professional')...

I read your and Emily's paper which you have mentioned a few times and didn't see much discussion of the difference between segmenting visits rather than visitors...? Have you any thoughts on that?

Thanks,
Lyndsey