Even if a choice is based on clear data and facts, that does not mean that it does not contain a judgement. It was precisely through the combination of these two factual words that the judgement arose in my practical example. The unique character of the word 'pineut' (in the sense that you do not hear it very often) makes it draw extra attention to itself and to the passive. Nobody likes to be characterised in that way by an organisation. And it is not necessary either: even with a different name, the persona is just as true and valuable in terms of content. (By the way, we are still hesitating about the new name.)
The big question is always: what does it add to link these data?
And yet, coming back to the profiles of Albert Heijn… Does the 'city budget customer' exist? Undoubtedly. Are a (large) part of the customers of the supermarket in the inner cities a 'New Dutchman'? canada mobile number list Undoubtedly. Can we make the connection between that fact and their budget? Undoubtedly. But now comes the big question: what does that add? What more do you know, and what tools do you have that you do not otherwise have? In other words: is it really necessary for an AH employee to classify a customer into one of the profiles based on external characteristics? Or is a glance in the shopping basket sufficient to make an assessment?
The good thing about pigeonholing: insight, understanding and energy for change
The moral of this story is: think before you leap. But also: don't be afraid, because there is a lot of good in pigeonholing . It is precisely by looking for common threads and common denominators that better insight into who people are and what they need arises.
From that insight comes an understanding of what needs to happen and why. And from that understanding comes movement and energy that enables change, improvement or renewal of service.