Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wnon20
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing
ISSN: 1049-5142 (Print) 1540-6997 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20
Political Marketing Segmentation–The Case of UK
Local Government
Patricia Rees & Hanne Gardner
To cite this article: Patricia Rees & Hanne Gardner (2005) Political Marketing Segmentation–The
Case of UK Local Government, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 14:1-2, 169-184,
DOI: 10.1300/J054v14n01_10
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v14n01_10
Published online: 08 Sep 2008.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 269
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Political Marketing Segmentation–
The Case of UK Local Government
Patricia Rees
Hanne Gardner
SUMMARY. This article considers the nature and use of segmentation
in political marketing. The importance of an awareness of political
marketing at a more local level will become particularly important with
the onset of regional government. The article particularly concerned
with segmentation in local government where there has been little empirical
research. The results of a survey amongst local government officers
are presented. The article concludes that a significant minority of
local government officers use segmentation. The key factors facilitating
the use of segmentation were found to be education, experience, the
role of the chief executive and central government pressure. [Article copies
available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800HAWORTH.
E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://
www.HaworthPress. com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights re-
served.]
KEYWORDS. Political marketing, local government, segmentation
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner are affiliated with Manchester Metropolitan University
Business School, Aytoun Campus, Manchester M1 3GH, UK (E-mail: p.l.
rees@mmu.ac.uk).
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “Political Marketing Segmentation–The Case of UK Local Government.”
Rees, Patricia, and Hanne Gardner. Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Nonprofit & Public
Sector Marketing (Best Business Books, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 14, No. 1/2, 2005, pp.
169-184; and: Current Issues in Political Marketing (eds: Walter W. Wymer, Jr., and Jennifer LeesMarshment)
Best Business Books, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2005, pp. 169-184. Single or multiple
copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800HAWORTH,
9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com].
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JNPSM
 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J054v14n01_10 169
INTRODUCTION
Political marketing has been largely concerned with the activities of central
government and the major political parties. It now needs to be developed further
to consider the wider aspects of politics. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
defines politics as “the science dealing with the form, organization,
and the administration of a state or part of one.” Local government is part of
the administration of the state and thus part of the remit covered by political
marketing. The way in which local government carries out its activities has a
direct impact on the way in which political parties and their policies are
viewed. Just as political parties need to carry out marketing activities and engage
in a market orientation (Lees-Marshment 2001), so too does local government.
The conceptual framework for Political Marketing characteristics
outlined by Butler and Collins (1999) draw attention to not only the structural
characteristics but process characteristics ‘that define, develop and deliver
value’ (p. 56). It is at local government level that value delivery occurs. In addition
it must be remembered that good government at a local level can ameliorate
the ‘protest’ votes re central government at the time of local elections.
A further imperative for considering political marketing at a local government
level is the impending development of regional government in the UK.
This article considers the use of segmentation in Local Government. In order
to set the tone of this article with regard to the nature of marketing and by
association segmentation, the following definition of marketing, (which has
been formed from an extensive study of the nature of local government and the
issues facing it) is given:
Marketing is the philosophical position that places the needs of the customer
at the heart of the organization. It is an exchange process between
the organization and its customers that recognizes the organization’s
ability (or not) to provide for the customer’s need. The marketing philosophy
is based on a long-term approach and in the case of local government,
survival rather than profit is often the goal. Not for profit
marketing differs from commercial marketing only in the acceptance of
the idea that value need not be monetary. The customers of local government
may be any number of different people–for example, the elected
member, the citizen and the family members. The customer is often not
the actual user of the service as would be the case in respite care. Those
who adopt the marketing philosophy have a toolkit of marketing concepts–including
segmentation–to operationalize their standpoint. These
concepts go far beyond the popular notions of advertizing and promo-
tion.
170 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING
We argue that local government is already embracing the concept of marketing
and its attendant tools and concepts. To illustrate this a brief overview
of the context of local government, as well as the development of not for profit
marketing, will be given. This is followed by a discussion of one of the major
marketing concepts–segmentation and its use in the not for profit sector and
local government. The results of some empirical work regarding the use of
segmentation in local government are then presented. The article then concludes
and suggests directions for further work to ensure the continued development
of the field of political marketing, with particular reference to local
government.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The history of UK local government indicates that it has never been exactly
stable. Since the 1800s it has been expanding and contracting in turn and
changing the shape of its functions. Burns, Hambleton and Hoggett (1994)
summarize the changes made to local government since the arrival of the Conservative
government in 1979. Firstly, cuts were made in financial support for
local government from central government. Secondly, local government became
more politicized and thirdly central government imposed particular
forms of management on local government. Some manifestations of these
changes have been: Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT). This is where
departments, who have in the past provided local services (e.g., refuse collection,
the cleaning of public buildings, legal and financial services), now have
to compete with private companies for the work; Care in the Community
(placing people initially cared for in homes back into the community); Local
Management of Schools (taking the management of schools out of the hands
of local government and giving it to the schools). More recently the introduction
of Best Value (which replaces CCT) in local government stipulates that
amongst other things, local authorities must consult with their citizens. There
seems little doubt that local government is going to remain under continued
external pressure from central government to change.
Coupled with these initiatives is the evolving management style of local
government. Byrne (1994) considers that local government is very varied both
within and between authorities. The roles of the chief executive and the
elected members are changing with speculation as to what the strategic thrust
is and from where the impetus should originate (Worrall et al. 1996). The management
of local government has moved from the bureaucratic through what
Pollitt (1993) terms New Managerialism to variants of New Public Management
(Ferlie 1999 and Raine and Wilson 1996). New Public Management,
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner 171
which involves the use of tools and concepts formerly deemed exclusively private
sector, is seen as a means of bridging the gap between the pre Thatcher
Public Administration ethos and the commercialism of succeeding decades.
The debate still rages, but meanwhile local government is turning to frameworks
used in the private sector concepts such as marketing, for inspiration
and help, in the face of a turbulent environment.
NOT FOR PROFIT MARKETING
Not for profit marketing is associated with all those organizations that do
not have profit as their main motivating force. Examples of not for profit marketing
include, health marketing, arts marketing, charities marketing and political
marketing. Interest in not for profit marketing has been encouraged by
two main forces. Firstly the recognition amongst academics and practitioners
that marketing can be applied to an area with no profit motive. Secondly the
pressure on not for profits to become more business-like.
The notion that marketing in a sector with no obvious profit motive could
be possible was probably facilitated by the Social Exchange school of thought.
Alderson and McInnes are credited by Sheth, Gardner and Garrett (1988) with
putting forward this perspective. They see markets being created by the social
intercourse of producers of goods and services and users. Marketing is seen as
an activity that brings into being a potential market relationship between producers
and users. As Wilmott (1999, p. 215) puts it “The discourse of exchange
is so beguiling because it suggests that each individual is a customer
who is free to pick and choose in the market place.” The paper that is generally
accepted as being the starting point of NFP marketing is that of Kotler and
Levy (1969). They saw marketing as a “pervasive, societal activity” (p. 10)
and as “serving and satisfying human needs” (p. 15). Their point was, that non
business organizations could benefit from the use of marketing, in the same
way as business organizations did. Since then there has been a growing literature
around not for profit marketing in both the UK and the USA (Rees 1998).
This growth has been further facilitated by a burgeoning Services Marketing
literature (for example, Berry and Parasuraman 1993; Knight 1999).
With regard to the public sector becoming more business-like, Kotler and
Andreasen (1996) list critical developments in the social and economic environment
which have brought further attention to the concept of “nonprofits”;
changes in the political environment encouraging increased privatization of
public services; changes in the social climate encouraging increased voluntarism
and changes in the traditional sources of support for nonprofits. The last
172 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING
section indicated quite clearly the scale of the changes in the political environment
affecting UK local government.
The area of local government marketing is now benefiting from the development
of the Political Marketing field (See the special editions of the European
Journal of Marketing 2001 and the Journal of Marketing Management
2002). This field is cross disciplinary with academic participation from both
the marketing and the political science areas. For example the UK Political
Studies Association conferences now have a political marketing group.
Meanwhile there has been considerable disquiet expressed about the applicability
and appropriateness of marketing in local government (Walsh 1991,
Ratcliffe and Kitchen 1995 and Kearsy and Varey 1998) Aside from the emphasis
on the very different nature of local government, the transfer of marketing
tools from the private to the public sector with little adaptation is an area of
concern. The following anonymous review of an earlier article in this area perhaps
best sums up the situation:
Local government is very diverse in its provision and the application of
marketing in local government has to take account of very different
needs and expectations of the various user groups in relation to the products
and services that are being used. Slavish application of marketing
tools that are appropriate to the private sector is not appropriate to the
public sector. The drives and motives of buyers and users are fundamentally
different where public sector provision is concerned. Furthermore
there are very many different types of relationship between provider and
user, for example in the police force the relationship between one individual
and the police will be different where the person is stopped for
speeding on the one hand and seeking assistance after a burglary on the
other. The marketing issues therefore are very different.
However, segmentation in particular, is a marketing tool that could address
such complex relationships (which incidentally are not only to be found in the
public sector–a nightclub bouncer has a similar two-sided relationship as that
of the policeman, with a customer that needs to be ejected and another that
needs protecting). By understanding more critically the nature of the potential
market/audience for services/ideas, government at both the national and local
level will be able to strategically develop and target their outputs. Surely this is
an important goal and one that could be expedited by the more careful use of
segmentation analysis. There has, however, been little empirical research into
this area and much of the work has been theoretical and speculative. The next
section explores the literature on segmentation from its inception to its use in
the not for profit sector and political marketing.
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner 173
SEGMENTATION
The concept of segmentation was developed by Smith (1957). It is a means
of defining customers in terms of what they want or will accept from a product,
service or idea, at what price (cost) and also the best way of accessing them.
Segmentation seeks to make producers of goods/services/ideas better understand
their markets/customers/clients. This better understanding in turn leads
to the development of goods/services/ideas which relate more closely to the
needs of the customers/clients/citizens. Segmentation has been used for decades
by manufacturers of consumer goods to increase market share and profits
by creating consumer loyalty based on consumer satisfaction and repeat
purchases. Segmentation has been proved to be one of the fundamental marketing
tools which has allowed marketers to reach their target market based on
accurate segmentation. It has become one of the corner stones of the marketing
profession.
Textbooks provide information on the ways to segment markets. These
range from the reasonably simple (geographic, demographic) through to the
complicated (multivariate techniques). In between there are items such as
‘lifestyle profiling’ and ‘benefit segmentation.’ These can be summarized as:
Organizational Markets
Segmentation Variables
Consumer Markets
Segmentation Variables
Organizational Characteristics:
Size, Location, Usage Rate
Geographic
Product or Service Application Demographic
Product Geodemographic (e.g., Acorn)
Application Psychographic (Activities, Interests,
Opinions)
Technology Behaviour (Benefits sought, usage rate,
Loyalty, Attitude, Buyer readiness stage)
Purchasing Policies Multivariable (Combination of above)
Decision Making Unit Structure
Decision Making Process
Buyer-seller Relationships
The criteria for successful segmentation are considered to be (Brassington
and Pettitt 1997): distinctiveness–a segment must be significantly different
from another segment; tangibility–a segment must be of a suitable size (substantial)
to make it worthwhile pursuing; accessibility–a segment needs to be
accessible both physically and by means of communication such as advertising;
defendability–the segment should be one that can be defended against
competition and sustainability–the segment should be likely to be around for a
174 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING
reasonable time. These criteria which have been developed for consumer/for
profit markets–may not actually be appropriate in not for profit settings. For
example, firstly local government has to provide services for the whole community–it
cannot pick and choose its segments and secondly segments may
not be easily accessible (for example, children in need of protection or drug
users). Nevertheless it is still useful to be able to segment not for profit markets–even
if only to ensure a more accurate way of identifying the various
groups.
The following outlines some of the research into, and comments about, segmentation
in the not for profit sector, both in the US and UK. Yavas and
Riecken (1993) and Yavas et al. (1993) investigated donor behaviour with regard
to the perceived risk involved in giving to charities. A greater understanding
of the donor segments–Non donor, sporadic donor and consistent
donor–was attempted, facilitating more suitable targeting of each segment. An
earlier study by Harvey (1990) investigated why people donated to charity.
Benefit segmentation was utilised in this case, to divide the market. Benefit
segmentation is where buyers are segmented according to the particular benefits
they are seeking. Three core benefit segments are often recognised in markets–those
who seek quality, those who seek service and those who seek to
minimize costs (Kotler and Andreasen 1996). Benefit segmentation was also
used to understand affluent donors (Cermak et al. 1994).
Kotler and Andreasen (1996) address segmentation in the not for profit sector
in some detail. They suggest bases for segmenting markets as: Objective
General Measures (Geographic, Demographic); Objective Specific Measures
(Past Behaviour); Inferred General Measures (Pychographics) and Inferred
Specific Measures (Benefits sought). This produces some colourful segmentation
criteria. For example, when drawing up benefit segments for a family
planning agency, there are segments called: Firefighters–who need an immediate
solution to a problem; Desperates–who need relief from feelings of desperation;
Married Rationals–who have freedom of choice, control, financial
stability and marital harmony. Other areas where segmentation has been addressed
in the US include: Outdoor Recreation (Miles, McDonald and Capella
1993); Green Movement (Olsen, Jackson and Granzin 1993); Museums (Todd
and Lawson 2001) State Sponsored Lotteries (Miyazaki et al. 2001) and Associations
(Levy 1992).
With regard to the UK, Walsh (1989) considered benefit segmentation as
particularly important. Local authorities need to ask themselves about the benefits
consumers receive from the services provided, as well as the characteristics
that provide those benefits. He does, however express concern (Walsh
1991) about the use of segmentation in general, in the public sector, because of
the statutory nature of many services that need to be delivered universally.
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner 175
However, it could be argued that even if services need to be provided to all,
some idea about the varying needs of citizens might ensure more efficient provision.
Hannagan (1992) raises the issue of the Pareto effect. He says that in
charities it is often the case that 80% of the money raised comes from 20% of
the donors. He wonders, therefore what many charities should do about segmentation
and targeting. Should they bother communicating with the 80%?
Bruce (1995) considers that charities do not pay enough attention to segmenting
their publics.
Chapman and Cowdell (1998) say that the public sector needs to approach
the issue of market segmentation in two contexts. Firstly in the area of non-discretionary
demands such as refuse collection and basic health care. Secondly
in discretionary areas, for example leisure services. Once these factors are
borne in mind it is generally possible to apply segmentation processes developed
for the private sector in the public sector. They stress the importance of
recognizing user characteristics (geographic, demographic) and user behaviour
(what do they actually do and want). By using such categories segments
can be thought showered by those in the organization. The above examples
would seem to indicate that those involved in/researching nonprofit marketing
are already displaying creativity in the way they apply marketing concepts.
Political Marketing has recognized the importance of segmentation (Baines
1999; Baines et al. 2003; Bannon 2003; Dermody and Scullion 2000.) This is
because political parties tend to rely on simplistic segmentation–for example–loyal
voter/floating vote; male/female or old/middle aged/young (Lilleker
2003)–ignoring the more complex combination of say, age, culture, gender,
race and the actual issue under debate.
Two pieces of empirical work have looked at the role of segmentation in
UK local government. The first, by Cowell (1979), investigated the use of segmentation
in local government. He discovered that like other marketing concepts
it was infrequently applied. The second was by Yorke (1984). His article
puts forward the view that leisure centre managers in local authorities need to
use segmentation variables that are more sophisticated than the geographic
one of ‘catchment area’ (where most of the clients live). He explains the nature
of segmentation and shows how it might be used in order to understand a leisure
center’s market. To do this he constructs a three dimensional model combining
the segmentation variables of family life cycle, sex and employment.
This model alone produces 60 theoretical segments. The empirical research
carried out amongst leisure center managers, leisure center users and members
of the community indicated the gap between the needs of the different segments
and leisure center managers’ knowledge of them. He concludes that the
use of segmentation analysis within the catchment area does have validity.
Thus allowing leisure centers to concentrate their resources more effectively.
176 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING
In recent years there has been little or no empirical research into the use of
segmentation in UK local government. Reasons for this could be (a) marketing
is considered incompatible with the public sector ethic, (b) marketing is
viewed by those working in local government as firmly wedded to pricing and
thus inappropriate in a not for profit organization, (c) marketing is misunderstood
by those involved with the public sector (as purely advertising and promotion)
or (d) there is little money to fund such research. The aim of this
research is to see how, if at all the, application of segmentation in UK local
government has developed and to provide a basis for further research in the
area of segmentation within political marketing. To this end a survey was carried
out to update the research.
THE SURVEY
One objective of the survey (amongst others) was to discover the extent to
which local government officers knew about and/or used market segmentation.
Questionnaires were sent out to two local government officers in every
authority (812) in England and Wales. The sample was purposive in nature, as
the intention was to choose officers from “opposite” types of departments. By
this it is meant departments which seemed to have different roles and therefore,
perhaps, a different view of marketing. As an example, the most obvious
“opposites” are Leisure and Social Services. Questions in the questionnaire related
directly to segmentation were: “Have you heard of segmentation?,” “Do
you use segmentation?” and “The customers you serve have different needs
and some are in need of your service more than others.” This last question was
included as a surrogate to indicate the sub-conscious awareness of segmentation
(even if they were unfamiliar with the term).
RESULTS
Of the 812 questionnaires sent out, 374 were completed and sent back (46%
response rate). In answer to the question “The customers you serve have different
needs and some are in need of your service more than others” 99% of the
respondents tended to agree with this statement. In answer to the question
“Have you heard of Segmentation?” 69% answered yes. In answer to the question
“Do you use Segmentation?” 40% answered yes. Cross Tabulations were
then carried out to discover if there were any factors which might influence the
use and/or knowledge of the concept of segmentation. These factors were derived
from other questions in the questionnaire.
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner 177
Table 1 indicates that working outside local government and some training
in marketing is more likely to mean that an officer has some knowledge of segmentation
and may even use it. The Pearson Chi-squared result for whether
someone had worked in local government or not and their knowledge or use of
segmentation was: 16.585 with 2 degrees of freedom at the .000 level of significance.
The Pearson Chi-squared result for whether someone had been on
an educational course containing a marketing element was: 23.914 at the 000
level of significance. Agreement with the surrogate statement was not significant
in either case indicating knowledge the spirit of the specific marketing
concept (segmentation) was not dependant on education or having worked
outside local government.
Further cross tabulations were also carried out with regard to the role of the
chief executive and the nature of departments. A question was asked about the
role of the Chief Executive. Seven possible alternative roles for the Chief Executive
were put forward and respondents were allowed to select more than
one. These roles were derived from the literature (Kerley 1994; Dargie 1998;
178 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING
TABLE 1
Heard of Segmentation
Heard of Segmentation
Use Segmentation
Use Segmentation
The customers that you serve
have different needs and some
are more in need of your service
than others
The customers that you serve
have different needs and some
are more in need of your service
than others
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
WITH
Always worked in LG
Not always worked in LG
Always worked in LG
Not always worked in LG
Always worked in LG
Not always worked in LG
68%
72%
34%
54%
97%
agreed
100%
agreed
Heard of Segmentation
Use Segmentation
The customers that you serve
have different needs and some
are more in need of your service
than others
WITH
WITH
WITH
Attended an educational course
containing a marketing module
Attended an educational course
containing a marketing module
Attended an educational course
containing a marketing module
83%
93%
99%
Hambleton 1998). It was possible to gather the roles into two main groups–one
generally positive and one generally negative:
Generally Negative Perspective Generally Positive Perspective
The CE plays a minor role The CE has Vision
Unsure about the role of the CE The CE works closely with the chairs
The CE plays one group off against the
other
The CE is the interface between members
and officers
The CE devises all the strategy
Of the officers with a negative view of the Chief Executive only 33% had
heard of used segmentation. This rose to 57% where there was a more positive
view of the Chief Executive. This would indicate that where a chief executive
is considered to maintain a positive role there is more likely to be an acceptance
or use of segmentation.
As has been mentioned, officers from different departments were targeted
in this survey. The rationale for this had been derived from both the literature
and an earlier exploratory survey. Concern had been expressed, for example,
that Social Services departments would have a greater difficulty in utilizing
marketing concepts such as segmentation. Responses in the survey came from
125 different department titles. For the purposes of this discussion the departments
were grouped under five main types: Leisure, General Administration,
Community, Planning and Social Services (see Table 2).
From these results we see that leisure services and marketing are the most
likely to be engaged in segmentation. Of the rest of the departments, Social
Services use segmentation the most–with Planning departments less likely to
do so. As with education and whether an officer had worked outside local government–the
department worked for was significant in whether segmentation
was used. The Pearson Chi-test was 75.3 at 10 degrees of freedom at the 000.
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner 179
TABLE 2
Leisure General
Admin.
Mar-
keting
Com-
munity
Planning Social
Services
Heard of Segmentation 17% 31% 25% 41% 38% 24%
Use Segmentation 70% 26% 75% 22% 10% 37%
The customers that you
serve have different
needs and some are
more in need of your
services than others
98% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100%
level. Once again the surrogate for segmentation was not significant. Associated
with the nature of the department and the use of segmentation were the results
from the question “Do you think marketing is appropriate for your
particular service?” This was cross tabulated with whether they had heard of
or used segmentation (Table 3). Not surprisingly, a far greater proportion of
those who considered marketing to be appropriate had actually used marketing.
The Pearson Chi-test at 2 degrees of freedom was 22.3 at the .000 level of
significance.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
A significant minority of local government officers is using segmentation.
The survey provided some indication of the basic use of segmentation. It did
not suggest, however, the segmentation variables being used by local government
officers. Consequently it is difficult to make comparisons with the extant
literature on segmentation. Nevertheless this is some improvement of the conclusions
drawn by Cowell (1979) more than twenty years earlier. The education
and experience of officers outside local government increases their
acceptance of segmentation, as does a positive view of the Chief Executive.
Whilst there needs to be sensitivity about the nature of local government and
its various publics/clients/stakeholders–there would appear to be some immediate
applicability of segmentation–at least from the local government officers
perspective. Departments associated with leisure services were the most pro
active in the area of segmentation. This would seem a marked improvement
from the situation described by Yorke (1984). However the results from the
other departments indicated that others are beginning to see the efficacy of
segmentation.
The advice about context given by Chapman and Cowdell (1998) needs to be
heeded, as do the calls to keep segmentation user friendly. However some of the
180 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING
TABLE 3
Heard of segmentation WITH Marketing appropriate 29%
Use segmentation WITH Marketing appropriate 43%
Heard segmentation WITH Marketing not appropriate 27%
Use segmentation WITH Marketing not appropriate 0%
more complex segmentation variables suggested by Kotler and Andreasen
(1996) may be appropriate in the more complex local government services.
Market segmentation allows customers/clients to achieve a greater degree of
satisfaction. Moreover the more efficient use of resources provides the opportunity
for the use of more sophisticated segmentation criteria, thus reaching the
target market more effectively and efficiently.
The main result of this piece of research indicated that local government officers
were comfortable with the idea of marketing in general. It also showed
some movement down the road towards the use of segmentation as a marketing
tool. A possible model of the present situation in local government is
shown in Figure 1.
This article has provided a more contemporary view of segmentation in UK
Local Government. The next stages of the research are; Firstly, to discover
how segmentation is being used in UK local government–notably the types of
segmentation variables officers are actually using. This would help to understand
the extent to which local government is engaging in what was termed at
the start of this article–simplistic segmentation. This research could be done in
tandem with the work on segmentation in the area of Political Marketing. Secondly
ascertain the relationship these variables have to the actual segments in
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner 181
External Central Government Pressure
Knowledge of Markets
and Education
CEO Influence
Departmental Function
Leads to Market Orientation
Segmentation
FIGURE 1
the local authority population. This could be done by in depth interviews with
local government officers and focus groups with citizens.
There is no doubt that the pressure from central government will continue
to make Local Government become more business like. Local Government
can be aided in this process by a clearer understanding of business practices,
tools and concepts adapted to their particular context. Echoing Butler and Collins
(1999), it is important to recognize that material from two separate disciplines
(Politics and Marketing) may not easily form an integrated model
which can be applied to practical situations. What it does achieve however is
to highlight the different components of both disciplines and allows researchers
to identify those key components in certain situations. Effective implementation
is another matter.
REFERENCES
Baines, Paul R. (1999), “Voter Segmentation and Candidate Positioning,” in Handbook
of Political Marketing, ed. Bruce I. Newman, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
73-86.
Baines, Paul R., Robert M. Worcester, David Jarrett and Roger Mortimore (2003),
“Market Segmentation and Product Differentiation in Political Campaigns: A Technical
Feature Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, Nos. 1 and
2, 225-249.
Bannon, Declan (2003), “Voting, Non-voting and Consumer Buying Behaviour: NonVoter
segmentation and the underlying causes of electoral inactivity,” Journal of
Public Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 2 Berry, Len and A. Parasuraman (1993), “Building a
new Academic Field–The Case of Services Marketing,” Journal of Retailing, Vol.
69, No. 1, 13-59.
Brassington, Frances and Stephen Pettitt. (1997), Principles of Marketing, London:
Pitman.
Bruce, Ian (1995), “Do Not-for-Profits Value their Customers and their needs?” International
Marketing Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, 77-84.
Burns, Danny, Robin Hambleton and Paul Hoggett (1994), The Politics of Decentralisation–Revitalising
Local Democracy, Basingstoke, England: Macmillan.
Butler, Patrick and Neil Collins (1999) “A Conceptual Framework for Political Marketing,”
in Handbook of Political Marketing, ed. Bruce I. Newman, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 55-72.
Byrne, Anthony (1994), Local Government in Britain, 6th Edition, London, England:
Penguin.
Cermak, Dianne S.P., Karen M. File and Russ A. Prince (1994), “A Benefit Segmentation
of the Major Donor Market,” Journal of Business Research, 29, 121-130.
Chapman, David and Theo Cowdell (1998), New Public Sector Marketing, London:
Financial Times/Pitman.
Cowell, Donald (1979), “Marketing in Local Authority Leisure and Recreation Centres,”
Local Government Studies, July/August, 31-41.
182 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING
Dargie, Charlotte (1998), “The Role of Public Sector Chief Executives,” Public Administration,
Vol. 76, Spring, 161-177.
Dermody, Janine and Richard Scullion (2000), “Perceptions of negative political advertising:
meaningful or menacing? An empirical study of the 1997 British Election
Campaign,” International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19, No. 2, 201-224.
Ferlie, Euan (1999), “The New Public Management and New Labour: An Institutional
Perspective,” A working paper given at the British Academy of Management Conference,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, September.
Hambleton, Robin (1998), “Strengthening Political Leadership in UK Local Government,”
Public Money and Management, Jan-March, 41-51.
Hannagan, Tim J. (1992), Marketing for the Nonprofit Sector, London: Macmillan Pro-
fessional.
Harvey, James W. (1990), “Benefit Segmentation for Fund Raisers,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18, No. 1, 77-86.
Kerley, Richard (1994), Managing in Local Government, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Kearsy, Anthony and Richard J. Varey (1998), “Managerial thinking on marketing for
public services,” Public Money and Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, 51-61.
Knight, G (1999), “International services marketing: review of research 1980-1998,”
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 4/5, 347-361.
Kotler, Philip and Sidney Levy (1969), “Broadening the Concept of Marketing,” Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 1, 10-15.
Kotler, Philip and Alan Andreasen (1991), Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organisations,
4th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lees-Marshment, Jennifer (2001), Political Marketing and British Political Parties,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Levy, Donald R. (1992), “Segment Your Markets,” Association Management, August,
111-115.
Lilleker, Darren G. (2003), “Political Marketing: the cause of an emerging democratic
deficit in Britain?,” Paper given at the Political Studies Conference, University of
Leicester, April.
Miles, Morgan P., Barbara McDonald, Louis M. Capella and H. Ken Cordell (1993),
“A Proposed Segmentation Framework for the outdoor recreation Market,” Journal
of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 1, 51-69.
Miyazaki, Anthony D., Anne M. Brumbaugh and David E. Sprott (2001), “Promoting
and countering consumer misconceptions of random events: the case of perceived
control and state sponsored lotteries,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol.
20, No. 2, 254-267.
Olsen James E., Anita L. Jackson and Kent L. Granzin (1993), “Environmental Group
Participation: A Focus on the Helping Process,” Journal of Nonprofit and Public
Sector Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 4, 41-65.
Pollitt, Christopher (1993), Managerialism and the Public Services, 2nd Edition, Oxford:
Blackwells.
Raine John W. and Michael J. Willson (1996), “Managerialism and beyond: the case of
criminal justice,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 9, No. 4,
20-34.
Patricia Rees and Hanne Gardner 183
Ratcliffe M. and Kitchen P.J. (1995), Theoretical Applicability vs. Environmental
Straightjacket: Applying the Marketing Audit to a UK Public Sector Nonprofit Organization,
Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Volume 3, Nos. 3/4,
pp. 121-146.
Rees P.L. (1998) “Marketing in the UK and US Not-for-Profit Sector: The Import Mirror
View,” The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, 113-132.
Sheth, Jagdish N., David M. Gardner and Dennis E. Garrett (1988), Marketing Theory:
Evolution and Evaluation, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, Wendell R. (1957), “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative
Marketing Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21, July, 3-8.
Todd, Sarah and Rob Lawson (2001), “Lifestyle segmentation and museum/gallery
visiting behaviour,” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
Vol. 6, No. 3, 269-277.
Walsh Kieron (1989), Marketing in Local Government, London: Longman.
Walsh Kieron (1991), “Citizens and Consumers: Marketing and Public Sector Management,”
Public Money and Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, 9-15.
Willmott, Hugh (1999), “On the Idolization of Markets and the denigration of Marketers:
Some Critical Reflections on a Professional Paradox,” in Eds. Douglas Brownlie,
Mike Saren, Robin Wensley and Richard Whittington, Rethinking Marketing, London:
Sage.
Worrall Les, Chris Collinge and Tony Bill (1996), “The Strategic Process in Local
Government: A discussion Document and Extended Bibliography,” Working Paper
Series, Wolverhampton Business School Management Research Centre, Septem-
ber.
Yavas Ugur and Glen Riecken (1993), “Socioeconomic and Behavioral Correlates of
Donor Segments: An Application to United Way,” Journal of Nonprofit & Public
Sector Marketing, Vol. 1, No. 1, 71-83.
Yorke David A. (1984), “The Definition of Market Segments for Leisure Centre Services:
Theory and Practice,” European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 2,
100-113.
184 CURRENT ISSUES IN POLITICAL MARKETING