Editorial segmentation involves distinguishing, within an audience, groups whose needs may warrant adapting the message. In a content marketing approach, this adaptation does not mean creating an entirely different message for each audience. An audience may need a different level of detail, a different example or a different point of entry without necessarily requiring a separate message. The challenge is therefore to adapt how the subject is treated when this improves understanding, while maintaining a consistent framework of expertise.
The chosen level of segmentation must preserve two related requirements: each message must remain specific enough for its intended audience, while the overall communication must continue to convey the same expertise. If every adaptation isolates a topic, vocabulary or promise, personalisation can ultimately fragment the overall perception of that expertise.
The boundary between a shared formulation and a distinct message
A distinct message is necessary when audiences need to understand different things. In that case, adapting the level of detail alone is not enough. The message must also address a problem, condition or question specific to that audience that cannot be explained clearly using the same formulation. By contrast, if the difference concerns only the context in which the content is read, the audience’s familiarity with the subject or its immediate priorities, it can remain part of a shared message.
The number of audiences is therefore not enough to determine whether segmentation is needed: what matters is what the message needs to make clear. When the same area of expertise remains central and the differences can be expressed without shifting that focus, a shared message remains relevant. It avoids presenting as separate expectations that still relate to the same subject.
| Criterion considered | Adapt a shared message | Create a distinct message |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the difference | It concerns the context in which the content is read, familiarity with the subject or the immediate priority. | It changes the problem, condition or question that the message needs to address. |
| Expertise focus | The same focus remains central, and the differences can be incorporated without shifting it. | The focus remains the same, but a condition specific to the audience requires a dedicated explanation. |
| Recommended approach | Adjust the level of detail, the order of information or the wording. | Develop an angle or reference points specific to the audience concerned. |
| Example in this article | Bring together readers who either want to understand the issue in context or connect it with content already published. | Address an audience that needs to coordinate multiple contributors and maintain shared editorial reference points. |
In practice, it is possible to define the objective and primary audience, segment that audience, adapt the message to each segment and then assess the resulting effects, following an approach comparable to that proposed by An et al. in the field of public health campaigns (see the study by An et al.). In an editorial context, segmentation is therefore more useful when it is tied to a difference in need or expected response rather than simply to the number of audiences. Segmentation is therefore more useful when it is tied to a difference in need or expected response rather than simply to the number of audiences.
To illustrate this point, consider expertise focused on structuring editorial communication. A shared formulation can address two closely related expectations:
“Editorial communication becomes clearer when each piece of content addresses the same underlying subject while adapting its depth to the specific point the reader is trying to clarify. Some readers will need to understand the issue in context; others will want to understand how that same issue fits into content already published. In both cases, the message remains focused on continuity between content and on the precision of its angle.”
This formulation does not erase the difference between readers. It recognises two distinct reading needs but keeps them within the same framework because the response concerns the same relationship: connecting content without losing precision in how it is treated.
A distinct message becomes necessary when the difference changes the question being asked within the same area of expertise. For example:
“For an audience that needs to coordinate multiple contributors, continuity between content depends on shared editorial reference points. The message must then explain how to maintain the same underlying subject, a stable hierarchy and complementary angles despite the diversity of contributors. The focus remains the structuring of editorial communication, but collective coordination requires a distinct explanation.”
Here, the focus of expertise remains the structuring of editorial communication. However, the difference between audiences introduces a specific condition: multiple contributors need to maintain shared reference points. A distinct message makes it possible to address this condition precisely without imposing it on readers who do not face it.
Useful segmentation does not consist in turning every nuance into a standalone message. It reserves distinct messages for differences that genuinely change what the audience needs to understand. Other variations can be addressed within the same message by adjusting the level of detail, the order of information or the wording.
This approach makes it possible to accommodate different expectations without fragmenting the focus of expertise. It therefore preserves a balance between adapting to different audiences and maintaining continuity across editorial communication.
Maintaining continuity of expertise across multiple messages
Personalised messages remain coherent when the same expertise remains recognisable despite variations in angle. This continuity does not mean repeating the same phrases in every formulation. It means that readers encounter a stable focus, a comparable way of addressing it and an identifiable relationship between the messages.
Consider the previous formulations again. The first brings together readers whose need for understanding varies while maintaining the same centre of gravity: organising content around an underlying subject. The second addresses an audience dealing with the coordination of multiple contributors separately, without shifting that focus.
The two formulations remain connected by the same focus and the same way of framing the problem. The second introduces a more pronounced adaptation, but it does not break with the overall framework: it applies the question of editorial continuity to a condition specific to the audience concerned.
The perception of separate areas of expertise emerges when each adaptation also changes the central subject, the language used as a reference point or the way in which what matters is presented. If one message addresses content organisation, another presents a promise with no explicit connection to that organisation, and a third addresses a subject presented as entirely separate, the audience must reconstruct the relationship between these messages for itself. Personalisation then becomes visible as a succession of segments rather than as variations of the same expertise.
The same risk arises when messages become more specialised than necessary. A variation in vocabulary can help a reader engage with the subject, but it weakens the overall coherence if it removes the reference points that make the same area of expertise recognisable. The coherence of editorial communication therefore depends on elements that remain constant from one message to another, even when the required level of precision varies.
In 2021, Christina Gahn conducted an experiment on the effects of different degrees of personalisation in political campaign messages. Her results indicate that moderate personalisation can improve how a message is received, while excessive personalisation can have the opposite effect. Applied to an editorial context, this result suggests checking that each criterion used to adapt a message adds useful precision without making it excessively specific (see Gahn’s study).
Personalisation therefore remains compatible with coherent expertise when the angle or level of detail varies without obscuring the central subject and the reference points shared across the different messages.
Conclusion
The appropriate level of segmentation depends on the nature of the difference between audiences. When that difference changes what the message needs to explain, a distinct message preserves precision. When it only affects how readers approach the same subject, a shared formulation can incorporate that variation without isolating the message.
The right balance is achieved when each reader finds a message sufficiently adapted to their needs while still recognising the same expertise from one piece of content to another. Editorial audience segmentation then retains its purpose: making messages more precise without fragmenting the overall perception.
