Targeting — The Great Mass vs Niche Debate
The productive tension
Mass marketingandtargeted marketing
the evidence says both work, in different contexts
The synthesis
The mass marketing camp, led by the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, argues that brands grow through penetration — reaching more people, not targeting fewer people more intensely. The IPA Databank evidence shows broad-reach campaigns outperform targeted ones. The double jeopardy law demonstrates that narrow targeting condemns brands to a smaller base with lower frequency. The targeting camp, rooted in the Kotlerian tradition, argues that finite resources demand prioritisation, that positioning requires an audience, and that niche strategies genuinely work in high-involvement, specialist, and early-stage categories. Both are right. The evidence-based resolution is not to choose between mass and niche but to understand the conditions under which each applies. The default should be broad reach — the evidence overwhelmingly favours it for established brands in mature categories. But targeting has a legitimate role in early-stage brands, highly differentiated categories, and resource-constrained situations. The practical synthesis: reach broadly and speak relevantly. Target your message, not your audience.
Learning objectives
- →Describe Kotler's four targeting strategies (undifferentiated, differentiated, concentrated, micromarketing) and their appropriate applications
- →Explain Sharp's penetration-based critique of targeting and the empirical evidence behind it
- →Analyse the IPA Databank evidence on the superior effectiveness of broad-reach campaigns
- →Evaluate when niche targeting genuinely works and when it constrains growth
- →Articulate the Both/And synthesis — reach broadly and speak relevantly — and apply it to targeting decisions
Members only
This lecture is part of a paid plan
The first lecture of every module is free — no account needed. The rest unlocks with a subscription. One price, all 120 lectures, both languages.