Abstract
Clustering, or target marketing to a specific geographic segment has become widespread practice over the past decade. Yet, little research has been done to verify the validity of zip code based data generated through survey research. Using data gathered in a national United States mail survey, this research evaluates biases that may occur by demographic category when respondents self-report their zip code and zip code+4 extension. Significant reporting differences with respect to the gender, education level, and age of respondents are revealed. To further explore the issue, the discussion section provides a comparison between zip code+4 self-reporting rates and geodemographic social groups as created by the Claritas PRIZM system. Such comparisons also suggest bias may occur between differing geodemographic segments when zip code information is self-reported.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Andrews, S. (1993, September 10). Zip+4 postal code evolves into an important marketing research tool. Marketing News, p. 9.
Del Valle, C. (1994, February 7). They know where you live - and how you buy. Business Week, p. 89.
DeMaio, T. (1980). Refusals: Who, where and why? Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 223–33.
Garreau, J. (1981). Nine Nations of North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Goss, J. (1995). “We know who you are and we know where you live”: The instrumental rationality of geodemographic systems. Economic Geography, 171–198.
Goyder, J. (1987). The Silent Minority: Nonrespondents on Sample Surveys. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Groves, R.M., Cialdini, R.B. & Couper, M.P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, (4), 475–95.
Kahle, L.R. (1986). The nine nations of North America and the value basis of geographic segmentation. Journal of Marketing, 50, (2), 37–
Krause, E. (1994, March 28). Mailing smarter by utilizing a ZIP code model. Direct Marketing News, p.26.
Mitchell, S. (1995, February). Birds of a feather. American Demographics, pp. 40–48.
Rossi, P.E., McCulloch, R.E., & Allenby, G.M. (1994). Is household-specific targeting worth it? A technical working paper presented to the Marketing Science Institute.
Shaver, D. (1995). The next step in database marketing: Consumer guided marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smith, T.W. (1983). The hidden 25 percent: ananalysis of nonresponse on the 1980 general social survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 386–404.
Sylvester, A.K. (1992, March). Dimensionalizing nonresponse in marketing and media research. American Demographics, p. S1–S4.
Umesh, U.N. (1987). Transferability of preference models across segments and geographic areas. Journal of Marketing, 51 (1), 59–70.
Weiss, M.J. (1988). The Clustering of America. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Academy of Marketing Science
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gladden, J.M., Milne, G.R., McDonald, M.A. (2015). Biases in Self-Reports of Zip Codes and Zip +4 in Geodemographic Segmentation. In: Sidin, S., Manrai, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 1997 World Marketing Congress. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17320-7_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17320-7_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17319-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17320-7
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)