I move that we respectfully begin to retire the phrase "marketing to women". Let's phase it out in the next 18 months! Do I hear a second?
It's time to realize that the phrase "marketing to women" can be a turn-off, even to those who "get it", with respect to a balanced gender approach. It can and does alienate both women and men. With men, the possibilities of "turn-off" are obvious, and we have seen time and time again that women also object to marketing strategies aimed specifically at them.
For well over a decade now, "marketing to women" has served it's purpose as a mandate for the acknowledgment that women are important decision makers. What started (I believe) with Deborah Tannen's groundbreaking book You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, has expanded into a large group of experts labeled "marketing to women". And the recent recession has launched a new focus on women consumers.
But it's time to formalize the often used statement "that when you successfully connect with women, you exceed the expectations of men" (thus connecting better with EVERYONE!). No one drives this point home better than Andrea Learned with her manifesto for "Change This"and take on the evolution of Marketing To Women posted on Womenomics. She contends that the changes in consumer behavior have to do more with “brain traits" and less with "gender"---that the relational right side of the human brain, rather than the linear, fact seeking left side is now guiding the purchasing decisions of both men and women.
Finally, I offer this piece of evidence to support my case. In his recent book, Re-Render The Gender - Why The Vast Majority Of Advertising Is Not Connecting With Women - And What We Can Do About It, Thomas Jordan attributes a great deal of the blame for the disconnect with women to the fact that over 70% of all advertising is created by men. In addition, he states that the judges at creative award shows are overwhelmingly male.
Jordan proposes solid research as a method for convincing that group that they need to change their view. Solid research is persuasive, but eliminating the term "marketing to women" would be a great start towards creating a climate of willingness for them to listen. Even the most savvy and understanding ad guy has got to be getting tired of having to buy into a movement that seemingly ignors his gender.
It's time to make marketing more inclusive and using the term "marketing to women" does just the opposite. I'm really not sure of what to label the new direction. Say...how about calling it "Gendergraphics"!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm so there, Roger - as you know - and thanks for including my work here.
ReplyDeleteLabels are coined for good reasons to begin... and a women-focused marketing approach needed to be called out initially (back in the early days of this - late 1990s) in order to get its due attention. However, now - in an era when so many consumers are using their more "feminine" brain traits to make purchasing decisions - visibly marketing to women, specifically, can be a real disconnect. Women are still the leading indicator, or toughest customers, and we can learn so much about better serving ALL consumers by talking with them! Yes. But, "marketing to women" shouldn't need the called-out gender any more. We can simply name it what it is: great marketing (that is guided by women).