PUBH 8132 · Week 2

PUBH 8132 Week 2 segmentation memo example

Communication and Social Marketing Strategies for Public Health Leaders Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Homeowners share a roof over their heads and very little else when it comes to radon testing. This memo divides the owners of older houses in a composite county by the trade each group faces, what testing would cost them and what it could return, then applies Kotler and Lee's criteria to choose one segment and to name the two it deliberately sets aside.

What this page holds

Segments drawn by trade, not by age or income: in PUBH 8132's segmentation memo example for Week 2, radon testing splits a county's homeowners into three groups, one chosen. Searches like "pubh 8132 week 2 assignment example", "pubh8132 week 2 sample" and "pubh 8132 week 2 example" land here.

What a finished PUBH 8132 Week 2 segmentation memo looks like

A five-page memo to a composite county's environmental health director. An opening table sets out three segments in columns: Year-One Owners, who bought an older house recently and skipped the radon test in a crowded closing; Settled Owners, retired and long in place, many on fixed incomes; and Pre-Sale Owners, planning to list within a few years. Rows compare what testing costs each group, what a result could give back, and what each fears most. Two of the three share an age range yet face opposite trades, a point the memo makes on purpose. A ranking section scores the segments on Kotler and Lee's criteria, with responsiveness and reachability weighted most. Year-One Owners are chosen. A final section states why the other two are left alone and who might serve them.

How a PUBH 8132 Week 2 example is structured

The table leads because a segmentation memo's argument is visible in its columns: if two segments could be merged without anyone noticing, the split was never real. Rows describe trades rather than traits, so the memo defines each group by what it would give and get, and demographic description appears only where it explains a trade. Placing two same-age segments side by side answers the objection a doctoral reader raises first, that the segments are just age groups renamed. The ranking section follows the table and uses published criteria, which keeps the choice from resting on which segment the author found most sympathetic. Weighting is stated openly. Exclusions receive a section of their own, since a strategy is judged partly on who it leaves alone, and a segment set aside needs a reason and, ideally, another route to service.

Three segments in columns

Year-One Owners, Settled Owners, Pre-Sale Owners. Each column holds a trade: what testing costs, what it returns, what the group fears.

Same age, opposite trades

Settled and Pre-Sale Owners overlap in age yet weigh a result in opposite ways, one dreading a repair bill and the other a disclosure.

Kotler and Lee's criteria, weighted

Responsiveness and reachability count most, and that weighting is declared before scoring. Size alone does not decide.

Year-One Owners, chosen

Recent buyers still deciding what to do with a basement face the most favorable trade, and a closing packet can reach them.

Two segments set aside, by name

Settled Owners need mitigation help the program cannot fund; Pre-Sale Owners are reached by disclosure rules. Both exclusions are argued.

Where marks go in PUBH 8132 Week 2

Segmentation memos are graded on whether their segments behave differently, and the fastest way to lose that credit is a split by age, income or neighborhood that never shows a difference in trade. Each segment must be defined so that one offer could suit everyone in it; a group whose members would want contradictory things is two segments mislabeled. Criteria earn marks when they are applied with weights stated before scoring, since weighting after the fact can crown any segment. Formative claims about what a group fears need a source or a clear label as hypothesis. The heaviest single loss tends to come from exclusion handled silently, as though the unchosen segments had vanished. Naming who is left alone, and pointing to whoever else might serve them, is what separates a leader's memo from a textbook exercise.

Get a PUBH 8132 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Describe the population named in your assignment, attach the prompt and rubric, and segments are drawn from the trades that population faces. At no cost the first time, the memo is back in 24 to 48 hours. The county, its homeowners and the segment names were composed for this page, with no household records consulted.

PUBH 8132 Week 2 questions, answered

How many segments should a segmentation memo identify?

Enough to show a real choice, usually three or four. The example identifies three and selects one, because a memo proposing to serve every segment has not segmented at all. The number is sometimes set by the prompt. Whatever it is, each segment should face a different trade, and the memo should explain the choice among them with criteria rather than preference.

What are Kotler and Lee's segment criteria?

Philip Kotler and Nancy Lee list factors for choosing among segments, such as size, how responsive a group is likely to be, and how reachable it is. The example weights responsiveness and reachability most and states that weighting before scoring. Your memo gains credit for applying the criteria openly, including where a segment scored well on one and poorly on another.

Is it acceptable to exclude a vulnerable segment?

It can be, if the memo says why and points to who else might serve that group. The example excludes long-tenured owners on fixed incomes because the offer would need mitigation funding the program lacks, and it names that gap as a policy question. Doctoral readers accept narrow targets; what they question is a segment dropped without any account of the consequence.