It’s always tough to use the word “feminist” or “feminism” in a post. Those terms can seem to throw all sorts of people of both genders into a tizzy. So, why would I risk the possible comment backlash looking at how feminism applies to marketing, anyway? Let me tell you…
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.
I always thought that feminism simply meant looking at issues from a woman’s perspective. Maybe we need to do some marketing on the term’s meaning so it isn’t so stigmatized.
I’ll admit I’m struggling a bit with the notion of the “blurring of boundaries.” Maybe this is a cop out, but I’ve found the conversations go easier when treating men and women as marketing segments, which means you are looking for differences not similarities.
As an example, I’ve just come off a pitch for a hospitality company. One of many ideas we presented was to view women travelers as an emerging opportunity, with some targeted and distinct marketing programs. I was met with mostly blank stares, since “80% of our guests today are male.”
I don’t doubt, as you say, that some personal baggage is there, but it seems a compelling business case has to be built first to knock some sense into these people. Seems easier to do it via the fundamental principles of segmentation than to call for a branding make-over.
It’s still very hard for some people to think in terms of “both/and” rather than “either/or” even in 2008.
It doesn’t HAVE TO be about blurring, bending or breaking the many time-honored strategies. It can be a mosaic approach – with clearly defined edges separating each piece, but each piece fitting together with many others to form something that works for all.
I work in the field of emergency services, and getting real buy-in for a “female” approach, is a challenge. It’s a top-down, command and control, para-military mindset with more the 85% of the top decision-makers being male.
In the example above, how many “female” dollars will that hospitality company lose before they start acknowledging the segment. Lot’s of businesses wait so long that they never catch up, because a savvier business courted and wooed the market and now they have a loyal base.
I think the word feminism is weighted down by politics and the so called culture war. There are those on extremes of left and right who have ruined a perfectly serviceable word.
We need a new, non-politicized word that means, “the release of women from the constraints of gender custom and practice.”
That word can get a fresh start and we fresh start without the identity, victim-group politics of some on the the left — and without the ridicule and contempt of some on the right.
Ideally, keep politics out of it. We are past that and it is just women and men trying to live together (in the broad sense) in the world as we find it today.
In addition, the so-called “war between the sexes” sort of thinking and talking is not helpful (even if subtle).
That in so many cases we still have to make a “compelling” case for separating out women as a marketing segment – is true, I just can’t believe we STILL have to do it. (but I know I’m coming from a place of having been thinking/writing about it now for 7+ years, plus I am naturally a bit impatient…)
That’s why I’m exploring other angles (and yes – possible new ways of putting it/terms) that get the same results as we intend from “marketing to women.” If, for whatever reason the word “women” has a stigma or is a blindspot for the marketing decision-makers in question – can we, in fact, work around that. Are we pushing a boulder uphill (because there are soooo many people who will still not respond to the M2W opportunity)? Does everything that works form the distinctions between genders, in however a subtle way, still smack of that war between the sexes you mention, Neil?
I think there is some deeper thinking worth doing here. Thanks, all of you, for your input! If you have continuing interest in such a discussion – let me know as my work is very much digging into this…
No, no, I do not think that everything that works from the distinctions between the genders is smacks of the war between the sexes. Moreover, I do not think these distinctions need to be subtle. I feel perfectly comfortable using the term chick flick without censure, even though I myself like some of those films, too.
I can openly tease a woman about liking Oprah and a woman can say to me that I have a one track mind, and she would be speaking the truth. Having a one track mind is fine by me.
The war between the sexes is the notion that males and females as groups are fundamentally at odds with each other. I do not think this is the case.
My comments on feminism above were more that the word has lost its usefulness by over politicization by both left and right. While there are still political battles to be fought, the one on gender roles is over.
Now, gender roles are to be negotiated between each couple and the government really does not need to say much more on the topic.
Let me get practical here. I am a divorced guy (about two years now) of 40 years old. I make would like to have kids sometime soon and I make good money but am open to any of these possibilities:
1. Both work. We both take some time off but go back to work.
2. We have kids, she stays home with kids and I work.
3. We have kids, I stay home with kids and she works.
So I am equally open to a sugar mama or open to supporting someone who stays home or something in between (e.g., both work and share child care responsibilities) and probably day care would be involved in that case.
Does that make me a feminist? Perhaps. However, I do not really think it matters whether it is the woman or man who is the primary bread winner or if one or the other stays home.
The key is does the relationship and the arrangement that is negotiated work well for all involved and result in good kids being raised? If the answer is yes, then I do not see how this sort of flexibility could be a bad thing.
Maybe I sound naive because I do not have kids. I don’t know.