According to VALS, I was primarily an experiencer and secondarily an achiever. I was surprised at how few questions needed to be asked to create my psychological profile. Further, I was disappointed that my profile didn't fit me as well as I expected it to.
I don't think experiencer represents me very well. While I may be more inclined to be an impulsive consumer, I'm not a very new/exciting/up to date consumer. I'm never on the forefront of a trend and typically wait until I see something around a lot until I buy it. However, as I said, I can be talked into an impulsive purchase. The list of favored things was equally unrepresentative of me. I’m not a huge fan of Red Bull or VW. While I do like to be entertained, I wouldn’t consider that one of my most favored things.
I identify much more with my secondary profile, achiever. Except for the occasional spontaneous purchase, I am much more conservative. I have strong family values and I appreciate dependability. Also, the profile accurately highlights some of my favored tendencies. For example, I drive a Honda CRV, which I absolutely love. Additionally, I strive for praise, especially in school or work.
This activity increased my awareness of both the values and limitations of using sites like VALS to profile consumers. If used correctly, VALS can certainly offer some useful information. However, advertisers must always remember that profiling people can be a reductionist approach. Because the human personality is so complex, it is difficult to generalize a huge group of people as one of six categories.