Well, if you looked for it, help has actually always been there at the bookstore. It has been patiently waiting for us to notice – in the personal relationship book section. The longer I study up on gender-focused marketing, the more the nuggets of wisdom within these resources help. The one drawback is that reading them may make some people a little uncomfortable, in perhaps seeing a bit of their personal lives reflected.
But, here’s why the discomfort may be worth it: While there may be no tactics or strategies within those pages, I have come across some big “a-has” that help me understand how clients and audiences absorb marketing to women truths. Consider the following:
You Just Don’t Understand:Women and Men in Conversation (orig. 1990) by Deborah Tannen. Here’s one insight from this, now classic, sociolingual work: men tend to communicate around status/positioning and women tend to first seek common ground or connection. If reading this book was the only guidance you had, you’d have learned something core in gender differences that truly apply to marketing.
How Can I Get Through To You: Closing the Intimacy Gap Between Men and Women (2002) by Terrence Real. One of Real’s insights that might seem unrelated to marketing to women, but– think again: “For men to deliberately cross over into the despised realm of the ‘feminine’ defies the structure of patriarchy itself. When women cross the line into the ‘masculine’ domain, they re-appropriate qualities the world holds in high regard.” Doesn’t THAT shed new light on why the field of marketing to women has so easily become a pink ghetto itself?
The New Male Female Relationship (orig. 1983) by Herb Goldberg. Goldberg delivers many fascinating relationship insights with marketing implications, including this one: “A woman, therefore, can be just as macho as a man, and, by the same token, a man can have feminine defenses. It is the effect of these masculine and feminine defenses that produces interpersonal problems and distortions in awareness, not a person’s gender.” To avoid “thinking pink,” marketers, too, should take gender out of it …. and consider the consumer’s masculine/feminine characteristics rather than their sex.
Finally, it was reading an Irish Times article about Himglish and Femalese: Why Women Don’t Get Why Men Don’t Get Them, the soon-to-publish book by UK author Jean Hannah Edelstein, that compelled me to ponder all of this. Her younger generation and non-American perspective offers a fresh view for marketers to consider as they communicate with today’s men and women. As the Irish Times reviewer wrote, based on her reading of the book: “Successful women use Himglish. They don’t beat around the bush. They say what needs to be done, end of story. Successful men, on the other hand, are adept at Femalese, even with each other.” The marketing implications here? That learning the other’s language is crucial …. both for communicating with colleagues and for working together on messaging with a particular gender focus (or deciding if a particular gender focus is even necessary).
Now, let me give you my final pitch, before you get back to your Tweeting or texting: In all cases, your marketing to women study must certainly include the usual books, speakers, consultants, white papers and research. And, you will be ever-so much wiser, as well, to initiate and maintain your own direct interaction/communication with customers (via some sort of panel or advisory board). So, the third piece? Stepping back from the task at hand a bit further to understand what may make the entire situation “tick.”
Human behavior and gendered roles may well be getting in the way of your team doing its best work in speaking to and serving women. So, be brave …. and start reading these on the clock! Relationship books include “secrets” that will give your brand the advantage in leveraging new levels of marketing gender intelligence.

Of course, the company is also risking the likelihood that a few of the more nutrition-conscious eaters they draw into the conversation might call them on anything Chipotle is doing that doesn’t quite make the grade. But, that seems to be part of the point in the brand’s Food Inc. support. According to a Hollywood Reporter article:
Chipotle says that 35% of the beans it uses are organically grown and that it serves more naturally raised meat than any other restaurant worldwide.
“I hope that all our customers see this film,” said Steve Ells, founder, chairman and co-CEO of Chipotle. “The more they know about where their food comes from, the more they will appreciate what we do.”
Now, given so much risk in opening consumer eyes to what may not yet be up to par in their own work, why would the brand decide to put itself so “out there?” If marketing to women is considered to be marketing to the highest standard of all consumers (as it should), there are two elements of such wisdom exemplified within this Chipotle “strategy”:
1) Acknowledging (and embracing) the fact that they are on a journey* toward a greater goal. A woman’s multi-constituent, multi-tasking, community-aware brain tends to appreciate this sort of adaptable, possibly meandering path. Chipotle’s healthy/fast food market segment is a very tight, focused consumer niche that likely thinks along similar lines. The brand’s executive team must feel confident that the sophistication level of such restaurant-goers will bear out. Chipotle expects, and likely will get, goodwill points for all their efforts in that positive direction. As a bonus, they’ll get more patience from consumers regarding any less-than-perfect business or food-related practices thus far. Consumers trust a journey – because it is human-scale. Consumers don’t trust an “all and perfectly done” proclamation, because that is truly impossible.
2) Choosing to rise above the competition by being an industry educator. To learn more about an industry or category, women will tend to take time gathering information and educating themselves before making a purchase. Any brand that helps in this process will be duly rewarded. Chipotle is doing this. Rather than looking for ways to exclude themselves from the fast food industry altogether, the brand is integrating new research and deliberately sharing that with the competition – as well as customers. What could be more counter-intuitive than sharing knowledge/content/ideas? Yet, those industry leaders that do will often become shining stars more easily seen by consumers. Such industry-wide education efforts may not garner a brand the big press or glamour of fancy promotions or astounding sales growth, but they do serve as a worthy investment toward reaching today’s more holistic consumer brain, male and female.
The Chipotle team is taking a risk by putting their own business under a microscope, but it also raises their profile in terms of their authenticity. Their approach and motivations should be a model for other brands in pursuit of the more sustainably-minded consumer. And, in my mind that person is either 1) a woman or, 2) is thinking a lot more like one today (using right with left brain to make decisions).
Moral of the story? Authenticity actually can’t happen without vulnerability, scary as that sounds. However, the right customers (your core market) will appreciate and reward you for it. So, take the risk so few brands will, and see what happens!

So yes. There has been much ado on the blogs and on Twitter surrounding this launch, with very insightful discussion (for the most part) from both men and women. Is the Della pitch stereotyped? Yes. Will some women still buy? It’s possible. Overall, however, the core female customer they were trying to reach may instead be writing and talking about the irrelevance of all Dell’s good intentioned, marketing to women efforts. Perhaps I can shed some light on why.
A few key points worth debate:
1) Nothing speaks “women” like color choices. I co-authored the book Don’t Think Pink, so you can guess where I stand (black MacBook, thank you very much). However, color on gadgets is not a bad thing, and it does attract attention of any human, male or female, who is into customization and accessorizing. Most people carry their laptop (or in the Della case, “netbook”) all over the place, so – just like diaper bags and doggy carriers – fashion is a factor. Color or other such options are valid differentiators, but are they truly “female-specific?”
2) To show you really understand women, include a pink ribbon. I have nothing against the pink ribbon campaign or the cause it represents, but it has become the cliche, go-to fund to support for almost every brand at the marketing to women 1.0 level. Is there possibly another deserving organization out there that better represents Della/Dell’s corporate beliefs and their commitment to women with relation to their own industry (a non-profit that distributes netbooks to children in third world countries, perhaps?) Networkforgood could help identify the perfect one.
3) To reflect today’s women, give them green. This, too, is a wise idea when approached with commitment. However, the Della site presents an almost generic template on how to recycle technology, with no Dell-branded way of making the process easier. Their “related links” are the usual worthy green suspects (e.g. Treehugger), but the whole thing feels… lazy. How about, just as with the cause support, choosing to express something uniquely “Dell” and representative of how the brand knows its particular female customers/their sustainable practice interest? The green page could be much more deeply researched and provide links that would be new-to or extra focused on female customers (BigGreenPurse comes to mind).
4) To reach women, alienate men. Because of the “for women” overkill in the Della approach, most men will stay far away. Similar to what happened when the new Beetle launched those years ago – only to become a “chick car,” Dell may well have unnecessarily (and perhaps permanently) made the Della line seem like a girl-only laptop. The thing is, women don’t need for you to exclude men in order to speak their language or reflect their lifestyle. Men and women today most likely have similar expectations of what their laptop or netbook needs to do (function is key!), and if the technology can be customized a bit with color and sleek design – all the better. But none of that is gender-specific, so why market it as such?
While I was writing my first draft of this post, I got a call from Jenna Wortham a reporter for the New York Times doing a piece on this same topic. That she had noticed enough of a negative online buzz about the netbook’s launch to look into it makes me think Della may soon be inspired to revisit their approach.
The bonus lesson therein: in the social media age, marketing to women must be at the 2.75 level, or your brand will be immediately and very publicly called to task.

Haskins’ satirical observations on ads targeted to women raises up that which any marketer should think about in developing their next female-focused campaign: does the perspective, tone and delivery of the message really resonate, or are we making it up?
Target: Women is all about exposing the disconnections in a brand or industry’s understanding of their market. With the help of contemporary culture, known trends, and clever editing and copy writing, Haskins presents a wholly engaging view on how a particular marketing effort may not really hit that proverbial target.
Now, we all recognize that the women’s market – and its many sub-segments – is one that can easily be misunderstood. And, that’s what makes it all the more ripe for satire when a brand missteps. Still, I say, don’t be afraid! Rather, realize that the easy access today to the video, audio and written words of things like Target: Women as well as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook is actually a huge, modern technological gift. How else could we so quickly tap into the consciousness of the consuming masses and see where the disconnects lie?
Interestingly, storytelling, that which is often mentioned as a great tool for reaching women, is what makes Target: Women so compelling. Haskins’ creative process – not unlike Stewart’s – in collecting snippets from history and various forms of media to make a broader point, develops into lessons from which many a brand could learn. So, if you can take the heat, step into her kitchen and observe:
* “science-y” terms may not be helpful for selling skincare.
* “women who murder” may not be the most relevant theme for a women’s cable channel.
* most women don’t find eating yogurt the answer to all life’s problems.
By reviewing Target: Women clips and monitoring online social network conversations, a brand can really get a feel for whether or not a particular angle might resonate or be ridiculed by their core customer. Perhaps the simple wrinkle-smoothing skin cream message, without the technical discussion and bizarre imagery of epidermal layers, IS enough to reach women? Read the comments along with any of the Haskins’ snippets and see for yourself. Women are not shy to chime in if a campaign irks them.
Of course, it can be very challenging for a human being (this means you) to take on even the most constructive of criticism. But, as many of us learned in school, those that can do so – and more comfortably evaluate and possibly make changes in their lives because of such input – are more likely to really grow into themselves (or their brand messages). Just as with constructive criticism, so too should brands not take Haskins’ sort of satire “personally,” but instead maintain objectivity and scope out the real nuggets of brand-guiding wisdom.
To be sure, Target: Women is particularly appealing for the Gen Y and younger set, but don’t discount her lessons if your market isn’t exactly that age range. However you do your research and whichever segment of the women’s market you seek, the idea is to look for the elements of your messages or delivery that scream for satirization, and resolve any issues before you start work on your next campaign.
The discovery process may hurt a bit at first. But, where there is the space for open discussion and constructive criticism, however satirical, much wisdom can be gained (in work and life). If you laugh and learn along with it – the hotseat shouldn’t burn so much.

The typical follower of both the male and female circuits is a married, college-educated white man approaching or ensconced in middle age. About half work as professionals – lawyers, doctors and the like – or managers. For those who travel to events, two out of five boast an annual income of $100,000 or more, according to surveys released by sponsors and the PGA and LPGA tours.
Let’s see… if married, college-educated white men are the LPGA’s (as well as the PGA’s) primary audience (as noted above), does the design/approach of the LPGA site really work? While it is by no means pink-washed in the lazy marketing to women way, the copy/tone/style does lean a bit more feminine than necessary.
With men representing the core group of those following such talented professional athletes, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that the LPGA site’s Q&A column starts with: “What is your favorite store to shop in?” Then, there are the profiles of the 2009 female rookies of the year, who answer questions about their favorite places to travel and who they are most looking forward to meeting on the tour. Hmmm. Do you think the men (or women) studying up are really interested in that?
Of course storytelling and athlete interviews are an effective way to make these pros more accessible or “like us,” but in this case the lightness of the presentation may not best reflect the LPGA for its core audience – men. The LPGA, though started, specifically, by, about and for women, actually doesn’t reach its current customer very well using such methods. So – does it make sense to market this “women’s sport” in such gender-specific ways? No.
Realizing that “men’s” and “women’s” tours are necessary mainly for physical strength gender differences, what would happen if the marketing of the PGA and LPGA were merged? The inherent tone would need to became a bit more gender neutral (for male and female fans alike), for one – but that could well be beneficial. Take the general success of ESPN (and all its media properties), for example. They didn’t start a “for women” ESPN, but folded in these amazing female athletes and sports along the way and throughout their “products.” It turns out the coverage still very much works for men, as well as women – who are all first and foremost raging sports fans.
My point is this: Sometimes “women’s this or that” doesn’t need to be marketed to only women (especially if it turns out women aren’t the market!). The efforts can still be more framed by women’s ways of thinking/relating (as in the storytelling/profiles example), BUT should be developed to reach the male customers too.
The Olympics and ESPN have done very well in gender-integrating sports coverage. They make it about the athletes and their dedication/training and backgrounds, which appeals on an inclusive level. They leave the cliche male or female elements out – and thus, avoid unnecessary gender polarization. In this case, where men are really the bulk of the audience/fan base, the LPGA can stop with the “favorite shopping sites” and “why you love this spa or that one” questions.
If the LPGA were to go back and truly connect with its core audience, I’m betting they’d find those men skip right over the Q&As and head to the statistics anyway. Serve those guys better, and you will find women respond to the less patronizing approach. Better yet – do this and you should have less trouble landing sponsors who may not have room for “marketing to women” in their budgets.

And yet – the knowledge nuggets and new perspective, when you do sit down with one a friend has recommended, usually pay off big. What if you could get that trusted friend’s re-cap, review and suggestion in the form of a well-organized and accessible list of the very best?
Enter The 100 Best Business Books of All Time (Portfolio) by 800CEORead’s Jack Covert and Todd Sattersten.
This just-published book offers a fresh look at many of the long-recognized standbys as well as many that might seem to come out of nowhere. Not ones to go the traditional route, Jack and Todd applied their uber-experienced business book reading minds to come up with something completely different in this sort of hip, travel-style guide to all the great business wisdom out there …. Drucker to Gladwell.
All the details are on the book’s site, but here are a few reasons the book was worth a read for me:
- The essay format. These are not mini-reviews or outlines of these books, as such. Instead, Jack and Todd quickly got to the essence of what made each book worth reading (and these guys know business books better than anyone else you may ever meet). If there are six keys to this, or ten guidelines to that, those are surely included, but the substance of each essay is personal and powerful in its own right.
- The sidebars and design elements (guided by Stauber Design Studio). Like the book overall, these are not garden variety. Instead, the chapter breaks span suggestions for learning more about global business practices to fiction titles that include some serious business lessons. Also, worth noting …. at the end of each essay is a “What’s Next?” menu to guide you toward complementary reviews within and/or to suggest books outside of the 100 Best. The less linear-minded reader will find it a rich alternative to reading in sequence.
- Broad topic categories. They include “You” (my favorite, FLOW, is there) and “Narratives” as well as the more usual suspects of “Leadership,” “Strategy,” and “Entrepreneurship.” The 100 Best very much delivers a one-stop survey of all the best business ideas out there, and may well offer a way for the single topic business book addict (you know who you are) to try a new drug.
As Jack puts it in one of his reviews: “There are books that break new ground and then there are books that show you a new way to think about the basics.” Jack and Todd’s book does both (and inspires you to keep on reading–)

The Super Bowl is a greeting card holiday in true American style – a fabricated reason to run ads that really don’t resonate with consumers (other than for the fun of watercooler discussions) and that otherwise wouldn’t be made.
Do they generally correspond with the brand’s existing messaging? No.
Do they generate so much interest from consumers that they switch products the next time they are shopping? Not likely.
Would many of them (if any) be cited as part of a great marketing case study by a business school professor? Nope.
Will a-one be remembered next year about this time? You tell me.
To apply either a general marketing or specific marketing to women filter to Super Bowl ads as… well, seems like an exercise in futility. I’ve tried it in previous years and found that my heart just wasn’t in it. How can advertisers be called out for not doing their best work in reaching women, when the truth has always been that Super Bowl ads don’t do a great job reaching anyone? Instead, the ads are about grabbing a viewer’s attention for 30 seconds in the hopes of generating search engine play later on.
How can such a set up possibly measure a brand’s marketing brilliance to any degree?
As far as the women’s market angle goes, in particular – from what Elliott wrote in his post-Super Bowl ad wrap up, and from the sampling of ads I saw, none of them was particularly noteworthy. Can we rake these advertisers over the coals for not understanding the women’s market? Sure. But, that’s beside the point if they don’t connect with any market at all.
Certainly, Super Bowl ads are fun and goofy, which may be worth the cost for a select few brands. But, they are largely irrelevant for consumers, and so (you’d think) largely a waste of time for most advertisers. This has long been the case, but given this economy and struggle to connect with penny pinching football fans, the truth became more evident in 2009.
Being more clever or exciting than the last ad of the day or than the ads from last year’s game is an uphill battle. Brands that are fine-tuning their media buys and larger marketing efforts in hard times might want to stick with improving on and innovating their own “game,” rather than jumping ship for the glory of one big, fabricated, moment on a football-obsessed day (enjoyable though it may be).

In a recently recorded interview on this topic, Maria Reitan of Purse Strings Radio and I discussed gender trends in marketing and how serving a woman’s way of buying today is even more likely to reach men, as well. In the course of our conversation, I mention a few brands that have already successfully addressed those changes in their marketing approaches.
To hear a bit more about the less gendered, but still women-driven marketing approach, take a listen.
Is Marketing to Women Dead
Is Marketing to Women Dead is answered as Author, blogger, speaker and marketing to women expert Andrea Learned how transparently marketing to women really serves the gender trend Andrea sees emerging today
Show Host:
Maria Reitan
Show: Purse Strings
Channel: Advertising
Click here to listen.

Reena Jana’s quick hit Businessweek article and video with David Rockwell, architect/branding expert/set designer, presents a great example in the discussion of his design thinking process. Rockwell’s ideas for hotel design in a down economy, specifically, include this nugget: what about holding cooking classes in hotel kitchens? Given the current convergence of trends in staying home, cooking more, and being with family, this makes a lot of sense.
So, what else, physical space or otherwise, might be primed for such “transformability,” as Rockwell called it? The possibilities are endless.
The interesting thing to note is that without this “what now” sense of doom we feel, tranformable ideas might never surface. Yet, offerings that bubble up that way, like cooking classes in hotel kitchens, can serve consumers and add value on so many levels. Perhaps, the counterintuitive truth is this: that extreme limitations or tighter parameters, in a way, force a bolder, creative thinking. And, the solutions found in that process aren’t necessarily big, glitzy astounding constructions, but actually are “boiled” to a simpler essence.
Subaru’s current “Share The Love” philanthropic effort is yet another example of transformability, in my mind. Rather than promoting money-back at loan signing or one of the other typical car dealer year-end strategies, the Subaru decision-makers kept to tight parameters, learned more about their consumers and were “forced” to think quite differently. What their research found was that a charitable donation would very much resonate with the types of people who’d be considering a Subaru buy right about now.
Doing good while inspiring consumers to purchase a new vehicle in a downturn? Wow. A tried and true, established auto industry tradition turned on its ear. Existing “space” transformed with a bit broader perspective. Without an extreme impetus to fill a void of ideas in a difficult economic environment, such a concept might never have surfaced.
Now, before I sign off – let’s consider the gender angle: 1) Think about what your brand has done lately and specifically with women in mind (either pitched as “for women” or not). 2) Step into the economic downturn mind space for a newly wide-open vision. Are there elements, products, experiences therein that may actually have an appreciative male market as well? Could your women’s this or that be transformed in a way that could help you expand your market – even now?
All this talk of hotels trying to reach a changed consumer makes me think that the women-driven comfort/living room feel of lobbies and guest rooms may serve the many traveling men who’d rather be home with their kids, as well. Or, what about transforming the perhaps little noticed sustainable building practices (of hotels or residences) into a new economic downturn “value(s) proposition?” Women aren’t the only ones who appreciate the long-term implications of such corporate responsibility. Hmmm…
If new thinking and transformability begin to emerge only when long-established industries with embedded business practices get hit this hard, perhaps we have something extra to be thankful for right about now? The overwhelmingly bad business environment of 2008-09 may have opened a few more of us up to clever, possibly unusual design thinking-derived solutions. And, consumers will take note.

Just last week at a building industry conference, I met a man who was perhaps the perfect person to enlighten me on this topic: Nate Garvis, Senior Public Affairs Officer for Target Corp. He is an insightful (and slightly contrarian) retail industry executive with an intriguing redefinition of the term “conspicuous consumption.” To Nate, that term doesn’t mean buying big and glitzy cars, houses, clothes or lawnmowers just to make sure others can see, but buying in a more measured, deliberate manner.
As he outlined it, consumers are exerting quality control in what they purchase by becoming connoisseurs (more knowledgeable about products and willing to buy less if that’s all they can afford), by curating (editing out the goods and services that no longer apply to their lives) and by communicating (telling others – and the brands, as well – about their positive and negative experiences).
With abundant choice in goods but less abundant funds to acquire them, people have been forced to make smarter purchasing decisions. And, they are! Consumers are choosing to build smaller and more efficient homes, they are paying more attention to cause marketing (as per a new report by Cone Inc.), and they are buying fewer things – thereby expecting higher quality in what they do finally decide to purchase.
This should be scary only to those brands that have not already been doing their jobs (making and selling things that are relevant to the human beings in their market). Unfortunately, a lot of companies have gotten carried away with what has always worked for them – delivering incrementally different “new” products or leveraging trends that actually have no true value for their particular customers. These slow-to-get-it brands are now being forced to listen to consumers who have been emboldened by their lack of excess cash to make greater demands – to really, truly exert quality control in what they will buy.
Which leads to the final element of this new type of consuming: community. While the old definition of “conspicuous consuming” was all about separating yourself from those around you through what you own and positioning yourself as one up, the new definition actually glues consumers together by helping them rally around common ground and launching further connection from there. People more naturally get together when they are seeking better, not just grander, choices in products and services.
So, if we are all becoming more conspicuous in our consuming, a marketer’s only choice is to take heed. The same old approaches or over-the-top aspirational marketing ploys will not only fail, they will knock brand value down a few extra notches for good measure. Rather than showcasing the size of his/her wallet and the status it can buy, today’s conspicuous consumer reflects a measured wisdom and awareness of how almost all purchases impact the broader community good. Given that mindset, will your brand be one they choose?

As covered by a recent MediaPost brief, Unilever’s Vaseline for Men brand (in cooperation with ESPN) is the latest to give it a go with its Stronger Skin campaign. I see several marketing to women angles to this:
* Skincare has long been mainly a “women’s issue” in the U.S. Men who have been aware of skincare before now have been fewer in number, and usually more urban. It is only within, say, the last two years that the average American guy (dare I call him Joe Sixpack?) has seemed to become a bit more comfortable with even the idea of this more feminine pursuit.
* Where men’s products akin to “skincare,” like aftershave, have long been marketed mainly in terms of sex appeal, the wink-wink has faded into the background for Vaseline for Men (as well as other skincare brands). We now see a wider range of products marketed to guys who are motivated to keep their skin as fit as their bodies – and for their own reasons (the sexy woman has left the building…).
* The marketing of these products isn’t just a picture of a man holding a bottle in a print ad or formulaic television campaign. Instead, the short videos of sports stars being the men they are in real life, for the most part, are telling stories to which a lot of other men can relate. Attempting to engage a guy like this for a few minutes is a new twist for male-focused consumer brands (except for sports-specific media outlets, I realize).
* The micro-site approach is more entertaining and engaging than it is factual or linear – even for this seemingly straightforward product. Emotion, storytelling and community-building, all very common elements of effective marketing to women, are now being used to reach men as well.
In the big picture of gender and marketing, women are known to buy along a more complex, non-linear, path. Yet, this Vaseline for Men effort seems to be one of a few campaigns currently reaching out to men in that same beyond-linear manner. Changing times and new cultural pressures are influencing men to respond in kind. How else would they go from “what is skin cream” to “which brand of skin cream is right for me” in less than 60 seconds (OK – so I exaggerate)?
Most likely because they have started to take on more household tasks, men are generally shopping more. They are also using their more feminine brain traits in seeking engagement and community with the brands they buy. As I see it, they are joining women in expecting more from both product and experience.
Will men visit StrongerSkin.com to hang out, sign up for the sweepstakes and possibly return for more? I’m not sure. But Unilever’s researchers must have noticed that men today are taking a few cues from the way women buy. Are you?

I’d say not. Instead, the research and experts cited in that piece seem to suggest that what has been true for the women’s market is now true for men as well. Men are still men, but are more frequent and engaged consumers in a wider range of products.
For example, recent studies show that more men than ever are making dinner, doing housework and managing the kids. That sure sounds a lot like my neighborhood. Still, you’d never know it from what brands reflect in their ad campaigns.
As Jack Essig, publisher of Rodale’s Men’s Health magazine put it in the AdWeek piece: he “believes there’s a gender-based blind spot in home brands today that is the inverse of one by car companies a couple decades ago.
‘Ten or 15 years ago, car companies were speaking primarily to men and assuming men were making the majority of car-purchasing decisions, only for research to show that women were really weighing in,’ Essig says. ‘I think the same is true for a lot of home decor and other home brands when it comes to speaking to men. They want their home to reflect their personality as well.’
Essig has it right. As with the marketing to women movement of a decade or so ago, there’s one big misstep to avoid in trying to better reach this gender: swinging the pendulum too far to the masculine extreme. Let that happen, and you’ll be alienating plenty of men who don’t see themselves as quite that macho, and, you may risk turning off current or prospective female customers along the way.
Yet, the reactionary gender pendulum swing is a marketing culture pattern. Brands rushed to “pink” when they first started paying attention to the specifics of how women buy. Now, I fear we may see a rush to “blue” as brands go too far masculine in their mad dash to appeal to “all men everywhere.” Of course, the consuming men we’d like to reach are actually starting to accept/embrace their perhaps more feminine ways of buying, thus making the stereotypically male, linear marketing approach less likely to succeed.
Here’s my point: (Most) men and women use some balance, not either/or, of their male and female brain traits to make decisions. Consumers have many reasons to become more holistic in their purchase processes – and I don’t see that changing in this abundant, 24/7 shopping culture (though the economy may give their decision-making an extra “creative” limitation).
Women already and commonly wind along their purchasing paths using both their linear and their more emotional ways of thinking. This may have evolutionary origins – starting with having to listen for baby cries, while gathering nuts and berries – all the while trying to keep their abode safe from intruders while their men were off hunting. Men, while similarly having the capability to use both sides of their brains, have been more rewarded in society by continually looking through the provider/status filter. But today they no longer need be off “hunting” in order to fulfill their manly missions, and they, like women, can (and may well like to!) engage with the buying process more fully.
Men are starting to think and buy differently because society is allowing them to do so. It makes sense. So, just as with women, marketing must become more relevant to who they are now – not who they were yesterday.
Those of you reading this have long since learned a bit about serving feminine buying traits. So, move forward in confidence as you seek the consumer that walks like a man and buys (more) like a woman!

I recently came across Dave Hill’s article in The Guardian, and have since seen a lot of comments and other blog posts mentioning it. That he was a male with a significant readership who found it worth penning an article on how feminism is good for everyone was what caught my eye. In the piece, Hill reminds readers that the basic ambitions of feminism were “the release of women from the constraints of gender custom and practice” and that – this is my favorite part:
“–the blurring of boundaries between men’s domain and women’s, between traits we call masculine and those we call feminine, is not a dangerous assault on some sacred natural order but an advance for social justice. It’s about fair play, freedom of choice and enhancing human happiness.”
I have certainly seen in male marketers an underlying resistance to seriously exploring their brand’s women’s segment. It seems to make them a tad uncomfortable. But why? Are these men are thinking: “Will going ‘girly’ on this campaign rub off on the rest of the brand’s general marketing?” Or, “Can I, a strong masculine type, really get involved in this discussion of touchy-feely women or should I leave this to the women on my team?” Or, “I don’t get my wife, how can I possibly get women as consumers?
The answers, in case any of you are wondering just those things: 1) Not if you do it well (plus you wouldn’t be going “girly” at all if you did it right; 2) Yes – you need to step in the fray in order to learn and keep the marketing decision-making balanced and honest; and, 3) That’s a cop out on both fronts. You should be fairly motivated to learn more about women – wife and customer both.
Studying up on and serving female consumers need not be a gender polarizing experience. Rather, it may well be one that brings the best of all involved to the table. Dave Hill put it nicely near the end of his Guardian piece: “This is not a matter of asking men to forgo every traditional bond and pursuit in favor of their “feminine side” but of inviting them to see that such distinctions are limiting and largely artificial.”
When people overcome their personal baggage and face new challenges head on, opportunities like the women’s market emerge in their full glory. Feminism as a label certainly carries a heavy load, but what lies therein – “freedom of choice” and “enhancing human happiness” definitely applies to marketing AND can make your jobs a little lighter along the way.

It’s the same when you are learning about marketing to women. The best examples of effectively reaching female consumers often come from unexpected places – like sports magazines (ESPN: The Magazine) or credit card companies (American Express). Human behavior seems to nudge people to engage more with something that starts out as a disconnect, and then slowly emerges as completely applicable. An obvious approach to women might get missed, but one that, in a way, keeps women visibly out of the equation, gets some attention.
Take, for example, the new Scotts Miracle-Gro ad campaign, which was recently profiled by Stuart Elliott of the New York Times. Here are just a few of the under the radar, but clearly women’s market-oriented, elements of the story:
First – No mention of “women’s market” or the word “women” by Elliott or the Miracle-Gro people he interviewed. Hmmm.
Second – As Elliott wrote: “The campaign is emblematic of efforts by advertisers to periodically update how they peddle their products, reflecting the continuous changes – demographic and psychographic – that are taking place among consumers.” (Reflecting the continuous demographic and psychographic changes among consumers should NOT be big news. )
Third – As mentioned in the article, the brand’s ads had, for years and years, sold the product on its attributes and benefits alone – a more functional message. The new and crystal clear message is more emotional, and represents the intangibles of gardening.
Fourth – Integrated media. Miracle-Gro gave special emphasis to a micro-site (built by Resource Interactive, a company that does incredible work), with the intention of building a groundswell around the activity of gardening -not so much the specific product. Their goal is to become the go-to consumer resource on all things garden-related.
***
While I personally approach gardening from the “less fertilizer, more compost” perspective (need I remind you I live in Vermont?), this campaign was well-done and will likely reach its target audience – young and old, male and female, and new or long-time gardening fans. It could be a textbook case for effectively marketing to women under the radar.
All this from a very traditional brand in a traditional industry. Kudos.

For the most part in their lives, the wives work and the men share household and kid management (and like to do it). The wives love their jobs and iPods as much as each of them does. The men I talked with all still have the usual masculine traits, but, as well, they seem comfortable tapping more of their “feminine” traits” (for lack of a better way to describe things like caring about your grooming/apparel and having no trouble hanging out with your kids).
But, in the marketing realm, I see a lot of brands lagging behind and have been wondering… do they see the forest for the trees? Male-ness or female-ness is not going away, but today’s men and women are feeling more comfortable with the perhaps less sex-assigned aspects of themselves too. Marketing approaches are not necessarily reflecting this.
Take Father’s Day grill ads as an example. Grilling has long been marketed as a more “macho” thing. Still, the utility of grilling and the fun of “playing with fire” are actually quite gender-neutral. If you want to reach more female grill buyers, there is no need go to the extreme of “thinking pink” by representing grilling as some sort of “girls only” activity. Just get out of the macho, beer-swilling habit and notice how grills are being used in the backyards around your house (by men, women and families). In the same way, consider a television ad for something like chocolate milk, which, like so many food/household product ads today, still reflect the at-home, care-taking parent as a mom. A sudden conversion to dad-only chocolate milk and cookie ads would be ridiculous, but a more gender-mixed approach for reaching parents would likely better reflect the realities a lot of us experience.
So – why does it take so long for marketing to catch up with gender role changes?
At the Congress of Humanities and Social Sciences, a conference I wish I had attended in Vancouver, B.C. last week, there is talk of this interesting cultural gender disconnect. Anne Marie Owens of the National Post reports that one study showed men are taking on more and more of the parenting and “executive management” tasks of the household than ever before. Gillian Ranson, a sociologist involved in the study, said that her research found:

…that those mothers who do cede some of this control to their spouses, however, begin to regard each other more thoroughly as partners in a shared venture. As one of the women she interviewed said, “I can talk to Matt about Emma the way I would talk to one of my girlfriends about our daughters. We can use the same language. We are absolutely on the same page.”
To be clear, Ranson’s study included a very small sample of Canadian-only households, but – I see similar things happening in the U.S., especially as the findings relate to additional research introduced at the Congress about typical Mother’s and Father’s Day card depictions. Specifically, the authors of a study on the representations of gender and family work in such cards found that the content developed for those occasions had little relation to what men and women really felt, or how they behaved in their family roles. As Owens wrote in her National Post piece:
The egalitarian ideals of shared parenting — and sharing other forms of family work –are not being given as much attention in popular culture today,” conclude the researchers, Alison Thomas of Douglas College and Elizabeth Dennis, of University College of the Fraser Valley.
“This has implications for the pace of change: If men’s involvement in the home is so frequently minimized and/or ridiculed, while women’s is praised, how much encouragement is there for people to take seriously the possibility of sharing family work more fairly?”

Perhaps the card-creators are from another planet and not thinking about what their lives are like when they get home each night…
Anyway -
As a marketer, wouldn’t you hate to be reaching out to your male and female customers in a similarly irrelevant way? Yikes.
It really isn’t surprising that men and women don’t so easily break down into this or that particular gender role. In fact, our daily lives are often a lot different than culture and business would have us believe. The thing is, that in order to keep pace with people as consumers, you still have to be able to see them as humans. Thus, research conducted by sociology and psychology academics like those delivering papers in Vancouver is not for their tenure alone, but for your better understanding of people as human beings – before their consuming behavior is considered. Such research will always provide additional insights for comparing, contrasting and enhancing traditional consumer research.
So, mark me down as a big fan of multi-disciplinary study when it comes to marketing. Marketers should have no trouble keeping pace with changing gender-role realities if they keep learning more, and from a wider range of sources, about the “human within” their customers.

A recent Motley Fool article by LouAnn DiCosmo, closes with this:
It’s possible, dear reader, that you’re of the male persuasion, but don’t fret. By focusing on the traits that created superinvestor Warren Buffett — patience, the willingness to dig deep, the ability to wait for the right price, and the desire to buy and hold instead of trade, trade, trade — you can awaken the feminine side of your investment psyche. Consider it. Your portfolio will thank you for it.
Ms. DiCosmo’s article makes me wonder how a guy would feel about reading a book or attending a conference about investing like a woman. He probably wouldn’t be all that interested. But, wouldn’t most every guy be interested in a book or presentation about making lots of money through patience, a willingness to dig deep, the ability to wait for the right price, and the desire to buy and hold – when it is proclaimed to be Buffett’s approach? It is a little more likely.
When you take the mention of “female” out of the equation – voila – the issue is a lot more accessible to men. The difference is not in content, but in semantics. Whether your products/services are investment-related or not, as a marketer you must decide whether to call out the feminine aspects of your wares, or keep those aspects on the down low so they can do their magic without being so named. I pick the latter as the best default approach.
Why?
Over eight or so years of studying marketing to women, I’ve learned that men can, and may often still, be quite alienated by a product, initiative, or strategy using the word “women” in its packaging or promotional materials. I’ve recently interviewed a lot of businessmen, psychologists and sociologists to get to the root of this, and I have also been exploring the most effective way to counter this sort of gender-focus polarization. What I’ve found is that even a slight change in word choice and tone can help inspire more men to engage with the power of a feminine trait marketing focus (let’s not call it marketing to women, for now).
Consider “men’s jobs” vs “women’s work.” Those labels kept a lot of women and men out of certain careers for years. Thankfully, this has changed much by now – and women are doctors and CEOs, while men are nurses and teachers. There is still evidence of such gender label polarization in the marketplace – but today’s so-savvy consumers can see, and buy, right past it.
Look around and you’ll notice a small but trend-igniting selection of supposed “women’s products” – like skin care or fashion-forward apparel, that appeal to the men’s market. This follows right along with the more established fact that women are big purchasers of lawn mowers, cars and homes these days – all of which were formerly understood to be solely within a man’s realm.
Both as consumers and at work, it seems that women and men are getting comfortable with – and society is more allowing of – crossing those often arbitrarily assigned gender barriers of our past. Our lives and our markets are expanding because of larger cultural transitions. This may be worth a little celebrating, my friends.
Anyway -
If the most famous investor invests “like a girl,” and any powerful woman these days is said to have achieved such success because she operates “like a guy” – all bets may be off. The point is more often in that which underlies the gender-assignment of “feminine” or “masculine” traits. Warren Buffett has unique traits and characteristics that make him who he is – which happen to come from the perhaps more feminine side of his brain, and then lead to his making a lot of money. In the same way, Oprah has unique traits and characteristics (some extremely and typically feminine, of course, but others – like building a media empire – more typically masculine) that make her who she is: an also very powerful, rich human.
It’s the same with your customers. Perhaps, as a group, they exhibit some strong feminine characteristics – so you serve those well (of course). Is there really a need to tell them and the world that you’ve done most of your consumer research into how women, and not men, buy? No. Given the tended-to details of your brand experience, you should be able to trust that your customers – male and female – will recognize that you “get” them and their unique ways.
Your new mantra: Expand your markets by striving for a more female-focused walk, while giving the world less female-focused talk.
Now – let’s get back to learning to invest “like Warren Buffett”..

In the years I’ve spent analyzing the good and bad of marketing, one thing holds true: pretty much every market segment is misunderstood and there has, without a doubt, been a study done on it. If you lined up the usual market segment suspects of men/women, Boomer/Gen Y, or mom/single dad, for example, wouldn’t all of them do/say/feel the following:
- resent generalization (There is no such thing as reaching “all women everywhere,” nor are the Gen Y-ers in your market all alike.)
- feel like they are underrepresented (With marketing to Gen Y all the rage, are marketers really maintaining a balance with Boomers?)
- find ad campaigns irrelevant (Most campaigns are irrelevant to a LOT of people, like it or not.)
Now, this is my cynical stance. I admit.
In an age where the political media finds a scandal-less day boring and the business media seem to feed on polarization or obvious one-hit wonder promotions or ads (which a lot of Sunday’s Super Bowl efforts will certainly be considered), it is also only the amazingly “misunderstood” consumers in any shape or size that seem to make the biggest news.
Yet, aren’t there also many, many examples of perhaps smaller, less sexy brands with ad campaigns and consumer research that hit the nail on the head? Yes.
Consider the Sunsilk haircare brand (lots of women hated their 2007 blondes vs. brunettes campaign, but the very very specific market they were targeting clearly “gets” the humor). And, what of some of the recent microbrewery efforts (one of my favorites, because of its Team Wonderbike cause, is New Belgium Brewery)? That brewery would have completely misunderstood their customers if they’d only focused on the profile for the obvious, broader beer-drinking segments of Gen X-ers or men. Instead, they dug deeper than the usual consumer profile and get to the heart of the matter – a very specific list of common interests.
What triggered my post today was an Advertising Age article about new research on Boomers (and how misunderstood they are). The game I played in my head was to replace the word “Boomer” in every finding with “women” or “single dads” and so on. Whichever one I picked seemed to work.
Now – this is not to say that such research doesn’t have value, by any means. I just wanted to point out that, media coverage aside, marketers may need less help with the broad general statements we’ve heard many times, and more help dialing in to their very unique customer bases.
Research that shows that the Gen Y or African American consumer is misunderstood, for example, may make news or be worth discussing, but it actually “misunderstands” the finer point. Each of us is responsible for knowing a lot more about our customers.

Marketing transparently (a concept introduced in my book, Don’t Think Pink) to a core group of passionate sports fans reaches EVERYONE who loves various aspects of the game/spectacle, no matter their gender. When a brand is inspired and guided by its fans/customers, it will know exactly how to reach them.
But, a Victoria’s Secret or Dove ad here and there isn’t really what I’m talking about. What we seem to be witnessing over the past few years in terms of Super Bowl ad line-ups is the overall increasing awareness of, and ability of brands to see, the bigger picture – that there is this larger market out there, which includes sports fans who happen to be female! Who knew? On that day and in that space, male and female fans have a lot more in common over the game than they might have with others of their gender who don’t give a rip. It is all about the passion, excitement and occasion, and the NFL/Super Bowl “wins” by serving the highest sports fanatic customer standard.
And, this recognition of coed fan base goes beyond the NFL. I recently came across another indication that that the sports world is finding success with both genders by focusing on the fan rather than the gender of the fan. ESPN:The Magazine, likely stereotyped by many as a publication for 18 – 34 year old men alone, is actually doing a great job marketing transparently to sports fans of both genders. Famed snowboarder, Gretchen Bleiler, all smiles and ready for the X Games, is on this month’s cover. And, throughout the issue, there are lots of other articles and tidbits about great women in sports.
We could certainly attribute the Bleiler cover solely to her photogenic-ness (is that a word?), but I think the inclusion of women to a greater degree demonstrates an awareness of just who is reading the magazine. ESPN: The Magazine has evolved with its readers – and it’s editors didn’t go into the gender trap of focusing on women to the pendulum swinging exclusion of men. They stayed in tune with their readership, saw more letters and comments from women and, likely, more comments from men interested in women’s sports, as well (sport is sport, after all!).
Neither ESPN: The Magazine nor the Super Bowl decided to reach women with a pink version of the brand. Instead, they focused on the tone, style, humor, “feel” of their biggest fans to continue to grow their markets, and, I’d say, they are both winning.
But, back to the Super Bowl for a minute: Both my 70-something mom and I, in separate states with no planning, found ourselves being pulled into the recent Giants/Packers game. Neither of us could take our eyes off the Roman coliseum-like battle of these powerful athletes in the worst, coldest conditions ever. We were each interested, not as “women,” but as natural sport fans – and we are both very much more interested in watching the Super Bowl this year because of that game.
An article by Sarah Mahoney in MediaPost includes some fun facts to ponder:
Last year’s Super Bowl posted a 31.3 rating for women in the 18-to-49 demographic group, and last year’s Academy Award hauled in just 17.2. So marketers “would need two ads in the Oscars to reach the same number of women as one Super Bowl ad,” the Fox spokesperson says.
Also in that article, Todd Kirby, director of strategic research for Spark Communications, Starcom MediaVest Group’s digital agency, cited a shift among the types of women watching the game. Baby Boomer women are a growth audience, he says, with women 55-plus up 25% since 2003.
Caveat: I am by no means saying that both the NFL/Super Bowl and ESPN: The Magazine are perfect, and there is certainly much “pink” merchandise in the mix (which women do seem to love), but those two brands are making great strides. (Unfortunately, Lisa Baird, the NFL’s very savvy Senior VP of Marketing, recently left the company…). I love this sports case study as an example that even the seemingly most “male” of industries can learn to serve their female fans well, and do so without alienating men.
How’s that for a market research project? Go forth and sit back for 3 hours or so, eat chips, drink beer and watch TV. Thank me later.
This just in: PepsiCo will run a 60-second spot of silence during the Super Bowl. Now, THAT will get the attention of everyone.

It was with that in mind that I considered the newly launched, and already much-discussed, No-L-ita jeans, “No. Anorexia.” campaign (created by Oliviero Toscani). Note: the images are hard to see, so be prepared if you decide to check out the site.
As reported by Rosamaria Mancini (with contributions from Cheryl Lu-Lien Tan and Christina Passariello) in the Wall Street Journal, the Flash&Partners Group (Tombolo, Italy) brand is using controversial images of a 27-year old, emaciated, nude woman for the effort. The images are indeed shocking, but there may be something more to it.
I dug back into my copy of Robin Hood Marketing</em> by Katya Andresen to see how she described the steps taken in developing the American Legacy Foundation’s anti-smoking campaign for youth (truth).
Andresen describes how to connect causes to values of the audience rather than the needs of the organization. In that case, the teenagers were more likely to act on their values (to protest against big tobacco companies that were manipulating them) than they were to care one iota about the Foundation’s grander goal to keep them from smoking. Same end, different means.
So, if a cause marketer is more likely to achieve a step in the right direction (toward an end goal) by appealing to the audience based on their values, perhaps the No-L-ita campaign, though shocking to a lot of people outside the core audience, will very effectively reach its specific target, young women, around their values. Hmmm. (Note: I realize that No-L-ita may well see traditional sales-increase results from the “No. Anorexia.” effort, but wanted to isolate the cause aspect here.)
I will continue to mull it all over, and hope to explore this No-L-ita approach more via an interview with Katya Andresen in the near future (Or, you can also join the MarketingProfs book group which happens to be reading Robin Hood Marketing right now).
In the meantime, maybe we should all take the words of someone who should know, as quoted in the WSJ article, under consideration:
“Diane von Furstenberg, president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, who spearheaded the discussion in the U.S. about the issue of ultrathin models, saw the ad featured on a TV news segment in Paris, where she is planning for her fall 2008 collection. ‘It’s a horrible picture, but I think it may be very good in the end,’ she said.”