More Sense About Market Segmentation

A product policy based on variety may be more effective than one based on market segments.

By William H. Reynolds
Campbell Soup offers four different kinds of canned baked beans: regular pork and beans in tomato sauce, beans with franks, beans with beef, and barbecue beans. "It's for Variety!" is the reason given for these four different offerings in a Campbell's radio commercial. This sensible comment throws some needed light on the concept of market segmentation, which has been so important in marketing thought since Wendell Smith's ground-breaking article nearly a decade ago. Smith defined the market segmentation strategy as merchandising to a "heterogeneous market by emphasizing the precision with which a firm's products can satisfy the requirements of one or more distinguishable market segments." ^ A few years ago, Kenneth Schwartz made this observation: ". . . it is nothing less than a revolutionary transformation whieh has come over the mass consumer market during the past five years. From a single homogeneous unit, the mass market has exploded into a series of segmented, fragmented markets, each with its own needs, tastes, and way of life." ^
* "Product DiHerentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies," Journal of Marketing, July 1956, p. 4. ' "Fragmentation of the Mass Market," Dun's Review and Modern Industry, July 1962; reprinted in J. H. Westing and Gerald Albaum, Modern Marketing Thought (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 14.

There is some question, however, whether it is segmentation we have been witnessing in the market, or to allude to Campbell's slogan simple variety. It is probable that the baked beans with franks appeal more to children than to adults, and that the barbecue beans sell better in the West and South than in Boston. But is it really appropriate to think of the four kinds of beans as appealing to different market segments? Is it not more likely that all four varieties appeal to the same general market, and that people sometimes buy one and sometimes another?

'Variety' Policy
Much of what passes for market segmentation is really an application of what might be called the "variety" strategy. Instead of seeking to exploit differences among people, the variety strategy looks on the market as relatively uniform and on people across the country as pretty much the same. One of the many characteristics people have in common is that they shift from one brand to another more or less frequently. Another is that they tend to be attracted to new brands and new products. 'Newness' Attraction Sebastian de Grazia, in his thoughtful Of Time, Work and Leisure, commented on the attraction of "newness" to the American consum107

108

HBR Sept.-Oct.

1965
specialized needs not shared by other segments. The market target for prosthetic devices is the best example. It is hard to imagine anyone buying dentures, or a hearing aid, or crutches, unless he has a real need setting him off from other people. Sex is another source of segmentation, since certain products are used only by men or only by women (although instances o^ the latf ter are far more common). Some market segments are formed by major prior commitments; a person who buys a boat, a hi-fi set, or a swimming pool becomes a customer for many other products previously not needed or wanted. But there are constraints on the extent to which consumer tastes and wants differ. We all have the same general physical configuration and the same biological needs and capabilities. There is a six-fingered work glove on the market, for example, but it is not for six-fingered people; it is double-thumbed, with a reversible palm for extra wear. ^,.AJsp^*igranting the existence of subcultures, ' %ei:e: ^is ..an Smaiiiig uniformity to the general American culture from border to border. An example of this uniformity can be seen in family structure, which is such that household size varies only within narrow limits; as a result, less than 10% of the cars on the road seat fewer than four people or more than six. Kurt Mayer, in commenting on the impressive uniformity of American spending patterns, wrote: "By and large everybody . . . wants to buy the same things everyone else buys. Americans exhibit a remarkable homogeneity of tastes, attitudes, and buying habits, regardless of occupation." ^

er, and how this has led manufacturers to seek constantly to be "innovators" and to introduce new products.^ And David Ogilvy offered this highly practical advice in his Confessions of an Advertising Man: "Always try to inject news into your headlines, because the consumer is always on the lookout for new products, or new ways to use an old product. The two most powerful words you can use in a headline are free and neiv. You can seldom use free, but you can almost always use new if you try hard enough." * The marketing executive applying the variety strategy does not really eare whether the women who buy one of his detergents constitute a different market segment from the women who buy another. He knows the odds are good that both groups of women will switch detergents eventually, and probably to brands that are new on the market. Consequently, his strategy is to offer a variety of detergents in the hope that when the time comes, the women will switch within his product line instead of outside it. Knowing that much switching is to new products, the marketing manager will continually bring out new or improved detergents. He will strive, however, to make his products as widely appealing as possible, and not lose sight of the fact that the mass market is the big market. An analogy to market segmentation would be the ecological niche in biology. Certain plants and animals, have managed to adapt themselves to environments hostile or lethal to other organisms. They thus avoid competition from other forms of life. This kind of adaptation can be highly successful as long as the extreme conditions to which the organism is adapted do not change. In the event of change, however, the specialized organism unfitted to survive in other environments is most likely to perish. The businessman who aims his produet at a particular marketing target is deliberately forgoing other markets. Instead of trying to capture a share of a large market, he seeks to dominate a smaller one. He is basing his strategy on the differences among people, rather than on their similarities. Other Considerations To clear the ground, there are obviously many instances of market segments which have highly
New York, The Twentieth Century Fund, 1962. * New York, Athcneum Publishers, 1963; reprinted by Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1964, p. 131.

Different Markets
Some companies have policies of market segmentation, not through choice but because they cannot do otherwise. A small business may not have the financial strength to attack directly a product firmly entrenched in the mass market. Its only alternative may be to exploit the fringe markets disdained by the giant. In other cases, baked-in distribution systems or other historical rigidities restrict a company to dealing with only one market segment. Defense-contract firms, for example, have not been too successful in their efforts to diversify into consumer goods.
"Diminishing Class Differentials in the United States," in Marketing and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Perry Bliss (Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1963), p. 203.

Market Segmentation
A company with some freedom of choice, however, might adopt a strategy of market segmentation for at least two reasons other than that of profit maximization. One factor is the organizational tension set up when one product in a multiple line appears to draw sales from another hrand. A second reason is the hehef that strong appeals are necessary to induce buying, and that wide appeals are likely to he weaker presumably because of dilution than are narrow appeals. Overlapping Lines Management in multiple-line companies is understandably concerned if the lines overlap in appeal. For example, a new line call it B may sell 50 units while, at the same time, sales of another line call it A may drop from 50 units to 25. B's incremental sales in this case would amount to only 25 units, and part of its success would appear to he at the expense of A. This will likely hring outcries from the hrand manager responsihle for A, who will quickly recommend that the firm's products be designed to appeal to different market segments. The hrand manager for B will probably resist any change and argue that A has simply found its proper niche. Both managers, however, will see eye to eye on the need for a policy of segmentation when product C appears on the horizon. The upshot, as management irons out these wrangles, may be a product policy aimed at as little substitution as possible, with each product line designed to appeal to some limited market segment. It happens that the largest and most successful consumer goods marketer in the country follows a directly contrary policy. GM's Buick, Oldsmohile, and Pontiac lines are very similar to each other in price, size, performance, and appointments, and in the fact that many of their parts and components are interchangeable. These three lines of cars are sold through similar dealerships to similar customers, and each make draws sales from previous owners of the other two. Thus the Buick-Olds-Pontiac lines are clearly designed to appeal not to different market segments hut to the same broad middlepriced market. Psychological variables can probably be discounted as a source of segmentation in the above GM case. Car manufacturers keep track of make loyalty (the percentage of owners huying a car of the same make previously owned) and cor-

109

porate loyalty (the percentage rehuying the same make plus the percentage huying some other make from the same manufacturer). Although the data are confidential, corporate loyalty is much higher than make loyalty among Buick-Olds-Pontiac owners. The huyers of the three makes may represent different personality types, but if so, they find it easy to change their personalities from year to year as they trade in their Oldsmobiles on Pontiacs, and vice versa. Consider also the remarkahle similarity in the philosophies of the chief designers responsihle for each of the three cars, as reported in the March 26, 1962 issue of Automotive Neivs: Jack N. Humbert, Pontiac "Basically, we strive for a youthful look." Stanley R. Wilen, Oldsmobile "We try to he progressive, to direct trends, and to be contemporary." David R. Holls, Buick "Buick has heen placing a great deal more accent on the youthfulness of its car." Wilen went on to add that the Olds should "reflect a mature person's idea of a good design," and should he "suhstantial hut contemporary." Except for this slight maturity of the Olds, it is hard to conclude that the three cars represent rifle shots at different market segments. Instead, they are multiple traps set craftily in the same game trail, in the hope that the car huyer who evades one will he captured hy another. It is ordinary common sense to consider the effect of a new product on the sales of an existing one. But a new product can appeal to the same market as an old one, and still improve the competitive position of the company hy attracting some customers who might otherwise slip by. A product which garners only suhstitute sales is a mistake, hut too much concern over substitute sales can cause a firm to overlook opportunities for incremental sales. Ahout 70% of the sales of the Mustang, for example, have heen to people who would normally have hought some other Ford make if the Mustang had not heen introduced. The car has cut heavily into the sales of other Ford lines. However, 30% of Mustang sales have heen incremental. The Mustang is capturing ahout 5% of the current io,ooo,ooo-cars-a-year market, and 30% of this 5% is 150,00 units. Figuring an average of only $2,000 per Mustang, to make the arithmetic easier, this means that

110

HBR Sept.-Oct. 1965 American cars than sports cars, for which they constitute the primary target. Similarly, most adults eat the breakfast cereals they buy for their children, instead of the cereals aimed at the adult market.

Ford sales with the Mustang amount to some $300,000,000 more than Ford would have had without the Mustang." Strong Appeals Marketing executives often have an exaggerated idea of the amount of motivation necessary to induce a sale. They usually have behind them long and bitter years in sales work, and they consequently tend to want products which will sweep a consumer off his feet. However, marketing managers recognize that it would be difficult to design a product which would have this kind of overwhelming appeal for the total population. Therefore, they seek to match products as closely as possible to the needs of a particular market segment. In corporate discussions of product strategy, it is usually the marketing executive who presents the case for additional products to "fill out the line" special models for special market segments, and in a variety of colors and sizes. His ideal is a line of procluets, each of which while it might leave most people indifferent will have strong appeal to some smaller group. Fred T. Schreier has pointed out that motivational power is one of two factors involved in the success of a product; the other is the "potential" of a product that is, the number of people who might consider it or try it: "Speaking mathematically, we must consider the product of motivational power and potential. The optimal appeal will be the one for which the product of these two factors is the greatest. Thus, an appeal with high potential and low motivating power may turn out to be better than one with high motivational power but low potential." ^ Another way of saying this is that a product with wide but shallow appeal might be more successful than one with narrow but deep appeal. Also, there is a fallacy in the behef that wider appeals are necessarily weaker than narrower appeals. A product designed for a particular market segment may even lose out in its own segment against a product with broader appeal. Young people, for example, buy more standard
Unauthorized inferences from conversation with a young Ford vice president. ' "Seven Fallacies in Marketing Logic," HBR SeptemberOctober 1959, p. 115. * See Alfred A. Kuchn and Ralph L. Day, "Strategy ' of Product Quality," HBR November-December 1962,
p.

Matched Arrays
The key idea in market segmentation is that of two matched arrays one of consumer preferences, the other of product characteristics. Using beer as an example, we would have, on the one hand, an array of beer drinkers classified according to the degree of heaviness or lightness they prefer. On the other hand, we would have beers ranging from heavy to light. Inspection of the two arrays would indicate the extent to which consumer preferences are met by the beers on the market. A gap on the product side facing a sizable preference group on the consumer side would presumably indicate a niche for a new product and a marketing opportunity. Three extreme cases should be noted: (1) It is conceivable that all beers might be pretty much alike (or so perceived by consumers), but with the consumers differing widely in their individual preferences. (2) Consumer preferences might be relatively uniform, with many different kinds of beer on the market. (3) There might be almost perfect market segmentation, with a point-to-point correspondence between the two arrays.^ The basic assumption is that the people who prefer a beer which scores, say, 2.7 on the heaviness scale constitute a different market from those who prefer one at 7.5. The inference drawn from this is that a beer scoring 2.7 on the product characteristic scale would not be in direct competition with one scoring 7.5 or, at least, that it would perform better among people scoring 2.7 on the preference scale. Is this necessarily true? Might not a beer drinker simply like beer, and on some occasions drink one kind and on other occasions another? Is there really one market segment attracted to one kind of beer and another market segment attracted to another kind? Generalization Gradient The market segmentation policy assumes a high degree of discrimination on the part of the consumer. It sees the consumer as selecting

100.

Market Segmentation
one, and only one, hrand from an array of brands. The concept of the generalization gradient horrowed from learning theory suggests, however, that probably this is infrequently the case. Generalization is the opposite of discrimination. One woman might discriminate hetween hrands and flavors of cake mixes and huy only the one hrand and flavor most preferred. Another woman might generalize and huy many different kinds of cake mixes. A gradient is more typical. Brand A, let us say, is a preferred hrand, with Brand B seen as very similar to A, Brand C less similar to A, and Brand D not at all similar. The steepness of the slope from "very similar" to "not at all similar" is a measure of the extent to which Brand A is discriminated. Interestingly, generalization is related positively to drive. A thirsty person will drink almost anything, and a hungry person is unlikely to he finicky in his tastes. Returning to our heer example, a person strongly attracted to heer will discriminate less among heers than someone who can take heer or leave it alone. He will not insist on Miller's High Life, hut will try a variety of hrands, and respond to discounting and other marketing efforts. John A. Howard comments, "It is well estahlished experimentally that the position, or height, of the gradient is determined by the level of the drive," and goes on to add: "The principle that increased drive causes increased generalization of response to similar cues suggests the difficult problem that the advertiser faces. Through his advertising, he may increase the learned drive of his buyers and create a tendency for them to purchase other brands also rather than to particularize their responses to his brand. Thus, the advertiser walks the tightrope between increasing generalization and increasing discrimination." This casts some douht on the concept of the matched arrays. Consumers cannot really he fitted neatly into preference slots along a continuum. A consumer may have one hrand which he especially likes; if he is a heavy user or a redhot prospect, however, with a strong drive to huy, there will he other brands which he will like almost as well and will consider in his purchase decision. He will select a hrand from an array of "acceptable" hrands. A product with
" Marketing: Executive and Buyer Behavior (New York, Columbia University Press, 1963), p. 108. "HBR March-April 1964, p. 84.

111

general appeal will he considered in many such purchase decisions, with a certain chance of "winning" in each one. A product with limited appeal may "win" more often when it is considered, but it will he considered less frequently.

False Segmentation . . .
Some market segments are more apparent than real. This is often the case with respect to those segments which are defined after the fact, in terms of the product hought. If two or more products seem to differ greatly from each other, it is easy to conclude that the people who buy them must also be different from each other and constitute different market segments. Daniel Yankelovich may have fallen, in part at least, into this error, in his article on "New Criteria for Market Segmentation," when he Avrote: "In neither automobiles, soaps, nor cigarettes do demographic analyses reveal to the manufacturer what products to make or what products to sell to what segments of the market. Obviously, some modes of segmentation other than demographic are needed to explain why brands which differ so little nevertheless find their own niches in the market, each one appealing to a different segment." ^^ Market Similarity It is not necessary to assume, as does Yankelovich, that products similar to each other, which nevertheless find niches in the market, appeal to different market segments. Even products that are objectively quite different from each other may still appeal to the same general market. Homes, for example, in spite of the dreary uniformity of many suhurhan tracts, vary a great deal in architectural style. One family might huy a Cape Cod house, a second a Colonial, and a third a trilevel or a ranch house. This does not necessarily mean that these several types of houses appeal to different markets. The family that hought the Cape Cod might well have considered the Colonial and suffered agonies of indecision. The wife may have preferred one, and the husband the other. They may huy a Colonial for their next house, and a trilevel the time after that. Variety, rather than segmentation, is probably the strategy followed hy the successful huilder. A house of an extreme and unconventional design, however, might actually appeal only to a narrow market segment, with a few people

112

HBR Sept.-Oct.

1965
with preferences not met by existing products. It is not enough simply to find a product which seems to appeal strongly to a particular market segment. It must also be estabUshed that no other product of the same general class appeals to the same segment. A firm which seeks and finds a marketing niche must be sure that the niche is not already occupied. Michael Gort's definition of diversification furnishes a clue to understanding true market segmentation: "In economic theory, it is usual to propose erosselasticity of demand as a basis for identifying separate markets, and hence separate products for the purpose of measuring diversification. If cross-elasticity is high, the products are close substitutes and, hence, belong to the same market; if it is low, the products belong to separate markets." ^^ Suppose that a company wishes to determine whether two brands, A and B, appeal to the same market segment or to different market segments. Simple cross-tabulation of a hke-disHke or yes-no question can be used to divide a sample into four groups: 1. 2. 3. 4. Like A but not B. Like B but not A. Like both A and B. Like neither A nor B.

enormously attracted to it, but most of them repelled. A house of this sort is usually hard to sell. Unlike other houses, it cannot be sold to the family that is "looking for a nice place to live at a price we can afford." Franklin B. Evans actually urged marketers to build ambiguity into their products to avoid limiting their markets unnecessarily: "In promoting a brand, it would appear safest to be somewhat ambiguous with regard to both personality and objeetive variables. People of all kinds are customers, and creation of too strong an image in certain personality terms may narrow one's market unneeessarily. If the image is ambiguous, there is a tendeney for customers to read into it what they want and to attribute what they value highly to their own brand." ^^ ' Ford Motor's highly successful Mustang was deliberately designed to appeal to as wide a market as possible, and not only to youth, its prime target. The car was priced low to attract economy buyers, with options available for those interested in performance and/or comfort. Its seating capacity was fixed at four passengers instead of two, in order to make it a feasible vehicle for famihes with children. It was given an "American look" instead of advanced European styling. It was designed not for the "youth market" (to the exclusion of other markets), hut for the car market in general. (It is heing advertised and promoted as a "young person's car," but this is an appeal as effective to older people as to younger.)

. . .VS. True Segmentation

Genuine market segmentation is indicated when a product appeals strongly to some people hut not to others. Rating scales can be used to identify products of this kind. A product which appeals only to one market segment should receive high ratings from that segment and relatively low ratings from the rest of the population. A useful check on this conclusion is to examine the demographic and other characteristics of the people who like the product. There should be perceptible differences between them and other people, in addition to the fact that they happen to like the product. Unoccupied Niche The market segmentation strategy, however, is concerned with "gaps" market segments

Assuming that brands A and B both appeal to about 20% of the population. EXHIBIT I shows the relationships which would exist if they appealed to the same market segment and, in contrast, to different market segments. In the one case, those liking A would also like B, and the two brands would divide a market amounting to 20% of the population 10% each (if their marketing efforts were equally efficient). In the other, the two brands would appeal to different markets, and each could be successful in selling 20% of the population twice as much as in the first case. Real market segmentation can thus be extraordinarily rewarding. The problem is that it is extraordinarily difficult to attain. People who like dark chocolate also like light, and people who like Falcons also hke Mustangs. The similarities among American consumers and their tendencies to generalize rather than to discrimi" "The Brand Image Myth," Business Horizons, Fall
1961,
p.

26.

'- Diversification and Integration in American Industry, National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 77 (Prineeton. New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 8.

Market Segmentation
nate mean that instances of true segmentation are usually confined to fringe markets. In the broadest sense, of eourse, the market segmentation strategy represents an updating of the perennial problem of the optimum number of produets in a produet line. Too many models and sizes in a produet line are expensive to produee and confusing to consumers; too few will leave some customer needs unmet. As a question of policy, however, at any particular time, a company might choose to go in either direction. Salesman's Role It was mentioned earlier that the sales experience of marketing executives is one reason why they are attracted to the idea of market segmentation. Salesmen naturally think more in terms of the differences among people than of their similarities. The retail salesman tries to think of the "rigbt" sales pitch to make to the person Avho has wandered into his store, knowing that the words that are right for one prospect may not he right for another. The industrial salesman in the same way studies the peculiarities of the company with which he is doing business. Both types of salesmen distrust the canned sales talks, sometimes provided by their managements, as being inapphcable to the multifarious individual cases they confront. Products never fit markets exactly. Thus it is up to the salesman to do the cutting and shaping to bring the two together into the mortise and tenon joint of a purchase decision. In selling, certain aspects of the product must be emphasized, some played down, and others ignored. At the same time, appeals are made only to certain of the buying motives of the potential customer, while other possible motives are played down or ignored. If a prospect is interested in price, economy is the product feature emphasized; if economy is the chief or only differentiating feature of the product, an attempt is made to arouse the potential customer's interest in economy. The salesman tries simultaneously to change both the prospect's idea of the product and his idea of his own needs, hopefully to bring the two into congruence. Differences among prospects and products are the raw materials with which a salesman works. In a sense the good salesman does not take the matched arrays discussed above as immutably fixed. He will try to shift the preferences of the potential customer from one point on the

113

EXHIBIT I. MARKET APPEAL BRAND A AND BRAND B RELATIONSHIP IF THE TWO BRANDS APPEAL TO SAME MARKET SEGMENT'

- _LIKE

3 "^

b
A 1 /

J BRAND

UKE

DON'T \ LIKE I BRAND \ B \

TOTAL .

f
20% '"80%'' \ .*......._ 20% 80%

BRAND

20%

DON'T LIKE
BRAND A

80%

TOTAL

7
/

\ioo%

RELATIONSHIP IF THE TWO BRANDS APPEAL TO DIFFERENT MARKET SEGMENTS

LIKE

A BRAND

r
^
LIKE BRAND A

DON'T LIKE BRAND B

\ \ \ \

TOTAL, .

20%
/ /

20%

DON'T LIKE BRAND A

20% .

'60% -^ ..

80%

TOTAL

20%

80%

1 100%

preference scale to another point somewhat more closely matching the characteristies of the product he is selling. Without misrepresenting his product, the good salesman will try to convince the prospect that its characteristics are not too far from what the prospect has in mind. The salesman cannot accomplish this task with products that are honed too precisely to the needs of specific consumers. It is his job to fit the product to the prospect, and the prospect to the product. It is the job of the product planner to provide him with products which are appealing and which to the extent possible

114

HBR Sept.-Oct.

1965
which has heretofore been an important source of segmentation in the deodorant market. (2) Is cannibalization of one product by another always bad? The Mustang has eut into the sales of other Ford lines, but has produeed suflieient ineremental sales to be one of the major marketing successes of the 1960's. (3) Are narrow appeals to a single market segment necessarily stronger than broad appeals to the overall market? It is better for a brand to be considered in 1,000 purehase decisions and win in 100 than to be considered in 50 and win in all 50. (4) Can consumers really be fitted neatly into slots by their preferences for particular brands and products? Evidence suggests that they select from an array of acceptable products, and that the stronger the drive to buy, the more likely this is to be the ease. (5) Is not much of what appears to be market segmentation no more than the result of eonsumers making random purehases of a variety of products? Candy lovers like one kind of eandy at one time, and another kind at another time. The perennial sueeess of the Whitman Sampler is a standing argument against the segmentation concept. There are obviously real instances of market segmentation, and the manufacturer who finds a new market previously overlooked will enjoy deserved success. Most large on-going companies, however, follow a policy of offering a variety of products to the general market, rather than the alternative policy of attempting to serve a multitude of small markets.

can be altered to fit almost anyone who happens to walk in the door. To the product planner, the similarities among people are more important than their differences. He should ask: What human needs could we serve better than they are now being served? The answer to this question should be a product of more or less general appeal. It is then up to the salesman to show how this product fits exactly the needs of the thousands of market segments composed of one individual each.

Conclusion
The market segmentation strategy sees the market as composed of many different segments, each differing in its wants and needs, and urges marketers to design their products and aim their appeals for specific market segments. Some companies pursue the segmentation strategy because of competitive weaknesses which make it impossible for them to attack the mass market. Increasingly, however, market segmentation is advised in the literature, not as a counsel of desperation, but as the soundest policy for a firm to follow. This raises certain questions: (1) Are people really so different that the segmentation strategy is the only one appropriate? Bight Guard, formerly a deodorant for men, is currently succeeding in establishing itself as "a deodorant for the whole family," ignoring sex,

Announcing a New Series . . . C Businessmen concerned with marketing problems will be interested to know that a new three-part series of HBB artieles has now beeome available. Eaeh part of the "Marketing Planning & Strategy" series is bound and contains i 5 artieles. C Part I ineludes some of the most popular and still significant articles published between 1955 and i960, with special attention to fundamentals of marketing philosophy and product analysis. Part II contains articles published between 1961 and 1963 on such topics as forecasting, advertising strategy, and innovations at the retail level. Part III has more recent articles on pricing, organizational questions, and new concepts for marketing strategists. I^ote that these three parts take the place of and supplement the various series formerly published under the titles of "Marketing Planning" and "Marketing Strategy." C Each part in the series is prieed at $5.00 and ean be obtained from the Beprint Department, HABVABD BUSINESS REVIEW, Boston, Mass. 02163. Please use the order form on page 133.

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009 Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.