Listen in for an introduction to my latest research, and check out the Purse Strings Archives, as well - there are a lot of great interviews with women’s market thought leaders.

Webmaster Radio
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

Psychographic Appeal: Stuart Elliott wrote a recent New York Times campaign spotlight on a new Gold’s Gym effort, which - to me - describes the common ground of the core customer for that workout facility, which is: the psychological appeal of “strength” and the re-definition of the modern gym-goer. No stereotypes here and no appealing to the mass market of possible clientele for a fitness center (which would be the typical, demographic approach). Rather, Gold’s identified a specific mindset which they hope will be a universal motivator for their most likely customers. I think they hit the nail on the head. Here’s a quote from Lisa Zoellner, Gold’s chief marketing officer:

It is “not targeted to a specific demographic,” she adds, but rather “a psychographic, a mindset,” through “a focus on individual moments of achievement.”

The intended audience is what Ms. Zoellner calls “the committed,” who are “a little more committed in all aspects of life: family, career, community.”

“We see the work as being somewhat challenging,” she adds, “challenging people to know their strengths, find their strengths.”

Fear (of being fat, or of being considered a wimp) has been a traditional marketing angle for gyms, but consumers prefer to join in on anything when they are given more positive messages (for women, take Curves as an example). In this new Gold’s pitch, the strength that each person takes on as his or her own challenge is a lot different than fear of not being seen as strong by others. One is a concept that resonates with so many of you reading this and the other seems very old-fashioned and irrelevant.

Mindset-guided marketing much more easily gets to the “empowerment” (oh - but I wish that word hadn’t become such a cliche…) factor, that, when all is said and done is something EVERYONE can agree on. And, consumer common ground, no gender about it, strikes again

Let’s get one thing straight: There is nothing “typical” or easy about defining your core customer.

If you really want to tap the power of consumer common ground - you’ve got to sever from your emotional attachment to the same-old demographics orientation and instead seek out the similarities among the humans you serve - men and women. One way is using stories, which I’ll go into below, and another is considering your market from a psychographic perspective, which I will cover in a Part II post to follow.

Storytelling: In both a recent web-radio interview and a private corporate presentation last week, I brought up storytelling as an incredible method of making linear bullet points into rich, resonant brand messages. In those discussions, my point was that it wasn’t about marketing to women per se, so much as it was about marketing to humans leveraging what has traditionally been considered a “woman’s way.” Stuart Elliott just wrote about Epoch Films, partner Kirt Gunn, and their new approach to brand storytelling under the company name of Dandelion (seeds that spread.. get it?). Here’s an excerpt:

Selling by telling also has benefits in an economic downturn, to hear the executives of Dandelion tell it.

“We’re in a time when brands have to be more efficient with money,” Mr. Gunn said, “and more considerate of people’s time.”

That means marketers telling sponsored stories must be more careful not to breach the fine line between content and commercialism, he added, because “if we just stick products into content, that has the same feeling to consumers as driving down the road and seeing a billboard.”

Brand or product messages made into stories, or integrated into existing story lines, appeal to a mindset, not a specific, traditional demographic. Stories get to the universally human Truth (with a capital “T”") in life, as famed screenwriter/storyteller Robert McKee might put it, much beyond what is visible or factual.

Humans see more benefit to identifyng and sharing such common ground than marketers may have previously given them credit for - and it goes beyond regions, age ranges, gender, income, education and the like. Even a bit before things reached such an economic low, consumers were already starting a movement toward cozy, comfortable and home-like. I see storytelling - picture a family around the fire - as an obvious way to align your marketing efforts with that sensibility.

***

Part II of Finding Consumer Common Ground - Psychographics is to come…

In the meantime, here are two must-have resources on storytelling: Robert McKee’s Story and Annette Simmons’, The Story Factor.

To be clear, Lehman is not a research scientist/expert in this, but a social organizer/activist with a passion for evolutionary theory. Given that fact, what he submits still interests me. He points out that, evolutionarily speaking, women have by now started to select male mates not for their “macho” characteristics, but for their provider, love and child-caring aspects. Now, here’s the marketing angle: Lehman suggests women similarly shifted their position in the consumer realm, from purchasing goods for “adornment” (or status) to focusing on deeper meaning/aesthetics (which may mean consuming less or differently) - in what he refers to as a “matrifocal” frame of reference. Here’s an excerpt:

Not unlike the last time around, runaway female sexual selection has been engaged. Only this time, it’s not females picking males because they’re good dancers, it’s females picking products that they are drawn to and males picking products that they feel females will be drawn to. The runaway consumer economy is a direct manifestation of a return to a matrifocal society, only the unique productions of culture have become the focus of our attentions.

Female and male consumers have become consumed by the dance of exercising choice amongst an avalanche of products provided by corporations specializing in creating, producing, advertising and dispensing whatever a consumer might delight in. Instead of dancing, we adorn. We drape our lives in products.

What does this mean in such an economy? And, what of this fairly recent trend toward more sustainable living and business, which is playing out in consumer expectations of brands? Even if the studies right this minute show that consumers are neglecting their “green” interests for discounted products, I believe that goodwill for all and the planet will be latent, ready to emerge when the economy sees the beginnings of an uptick. Anyway - if women are driving consumer “selection” now just as their mate selection criteria has evolved, does that mean brands should just throw in the towel? No - but it does suggest an extremely high standard for the brands that will take on this “matrifocal” challenge.

Here’s more from Lehman:

During this period, we’ve seen blended qualities of both patrifocal and matrifocal frames of reference. We’ve been living in a hybrid society. In patrifocal societies, males control female procreation, seek dominance over competitors, collect stuff to ensure survival and pass it down to sons. Controlling, collecting and staying on top are features exhibited by the established powers in our society, those fittest that have survived in a patrifocal frame of reference. It is they that have been urging that we can’t have enough stuff. Their time is ending.

With the return of the female paradigm, there will be an inevitable collapsing of hierarchy and an end to a consumer economy. It has already begun. If given the choice and time, females will choose beauty over stuff. The men that get chosen as partners will be the men than intuit a woman’s aesthetic and satisfy. We’re on the road to bigger brains, once again.

This all reminds me of Dan Pink’s A Whole New Mind theory: that we have entered a conceptual age where design, emotion, storytelling (and more) hold more weight in our culture than purely linear information - both in business and personal arenas. Consumers now understand that they hold the power and can expect more value and meaning from what they purchase/where they spend their money. This shift might be described as matrifocal perspective or a “women’s way” of thinking/buying, or feminine brain traits, but I like Pink’s word choice: R-directed thinking. Without a gendered label, it’s more likely that this conceptual age framework will take root.

It is not “the end of masculine men,” because, supposedly, women aren’t responding to traditional “macho” mating cues, and I don’t think it’s all over for brands because women aren’t as likely to respond to patrifocal consuming: adornment for its own sake. Instead, this may be the perfect time to step back and examine what makes human life rewarding and interesting - and that introspection may offer up new opportunities for men, as well as women, to be who they are… and for brands to really shine in their authenticity.

After all, back when I was a kid the stereotypical 40-something was someone who had, pretty much, one foot in the grave. Today, many in that age range are re-inventing themselves for the first, second or third times. The grave is nowhere in sight. Whether they have come to that youthful place by way of job loss or just an awareness of their changing priorities and passions, the point is that most people can choose to stay healthy and active and passionate, which leads to them in no way seeming their age. 50 is the new 40, 40 is the new 30, and 30 is the new 20 (I think it stops there…).

So, it was not surprising to read this news in a MediaPost Research Brief today, specifically about the 25 - 34 year old population:

According to the “Golden Age of Youth” study from Viacom Brand Solutions International, marketers should target consumers based upon their engagement and participation in youth culture rather than on their chronological age, and consider the often-overlooked 25-34 age group a part of the youth market, VBSI said.

Kevin Razvi, EVP and managing director of VBSI, said “… people are trying to stay younger for longer… 25-to-34 year-olds are continuing to consume music, gaming and the internet and are enjoying the pursuits of their younger years… we… need to rethink what ‘youth’ actually means and… (how to) approach this constantly evolving group of people.”

If health is the new wealth (perhaps because it is really all any of us can influence these days?), this new definition of youth makes a lot of sense. More people have realized that their love of new music, team sports or other formerly considered “childish” activities doesn’t have to end - ever.

Studies like VBSI’s show that traditional market segmentation misses the mark, and today’s consumers are willfully (and with glee!) crossing those old age-range lines in the sand.

On that note, I’m off to jump rope.

But, while it is a much broader topic than I could possibly address here, let’s look at one angle raised by recently released research: What is the difference between talking “to” and “with” online community members, and why should it matter? Much as we may have assumed that web-based social networks were a way to talk “with” masses of customers, it turns out they are instead a better way to talk “to” those customers. Hmmm.

This “to/with” factor was raised by the experts at Rubicon Consulting, whose study results show that the subtlety lies in how the average customer, specifically, doesn’t tend to be the most active online community participant - as so noted in MediaPost’s Research Brief:

These findings mean online community matters enormously to companies. Online discussion is a poor way to communicate with the average customer, because average customers don’t participate. But it is a great way to communicate to them, because average customers watch and listen.

Most Frequent Contributors are different from the average web user:

* They’re more ethnically diverse;
* More technically skilled
* More likely to be single
* More likely to work in technology, entertainment, or communication companies
* More likely to be Democrats
* Younger than typical web users. Half of the web’s most frequent contributors are under age 22

Interesting. So - while there is no question that brands should be leveraging online community, they need to do so more deliberately than they otherwise may have. These Rubicon findings make it sound like web conversations may not be the most direct approach to reaching the more “average customer.” Yet, a brand’s indirect approach of influencing the online talk of those far-from-average, extremely active online contributors will eventually get the message to everyone else.

So, does that layer of translation and re-phrasing by active contributors end up delivering the same initial message on down to less-active online community members? It sounds a little like playing that kid’s game, telephone, to me.

Of course, reaching strong influencers first, and then encouraging them to pass your message to the outer layers of possible customers has traditionally been an effective marketing strategy. But, that same approach taken at web speed can unfold very differently - as many of us know. Online, a brand can’t step back into a conversation again and regain “control” of its initial message, while offline it might still be an option.

So, what to take from this latest research? Keep your eye on that subtlety - the difference in reaching average customers versus reaching actively engaged online influencers. Tailor your message either for a few layers of relaying (telephone) or for direct accessibility by the average customer.

A brand can definitely use the word-of-mouse however it starts, but there will continue to be cases where talking directly with the perhaps less influential folks will still be more effective for marketing purposes . The balance of to/with conversations in both on-and offline customer community should be finely and individually calibrated for each unique marketing message.

If brands are as committed to customers as they should be - now, especially - they’ll find this challenge worth meeting. “To” is always going to be easier than “with.”

A recent Brand Science Institute article on male-oriented advertising research got me thinking about the tendency of marketers to, when gender implications arise at all - get caught up in that aspect over any broader clues to buyer behavior. According to that research, there is even a way that gender polarization can get so out of hand as to become “intra-gender.” Remember - we’re talking about marketing to men here:

A new study shows that men with characteristics such as sensitivity and tenderness are put off products promoted by advertisements featuring squared-jawed hunks, preferring those featuring more feminine looking male models instead.

The specifics on this study: 244 university men were put into groupings of men who scored either high on traditionally feminine traits or high on traditionally masculine traits. Then, the researchers noted the reactions of the men in those opposing groups to print ads for a mobile phone using either a more masculine or a more effeminate male model.

It is no surprise that the participants in each group veered toward the like-image ad (read the article for the other angles covered by the research). But, the results just make me wonder: Would an advertiser be most effective in catering to either “manly” men or “girly” men alone? Or, would there have been a way to appeal to both at the same time? In the case of this study, there had to be more to the ads than just how the male model came across. Would a manly man discount a phone, despite the fact it had all the features he desired, if the model in the ad was more effeminate than macho? I have to believe we’d be underestimating a lot of savvy male consumers if we believed that.

Rather, findings like these and others that pit men vs. women or “a manly someone” versus “a womanly someone,” should just be an element on a marketers long list of consumer traits/influencers worth consideration. The greater issue at this point in time may actually be how we are defining “traditional” gender traits.

If that same research was conducted with female participants, the results would very likely be similar: that womanly women would respond to a more feminine model in the ad while less womanly women wouldn’t. But, the whole premise would, again, rest on how “femininity” has been traditionally defined.

As for what defines femininity and masculinity for women and men today, all bets are off. That sure does make it hard on marketers.

Now, ours is not to reason why. Instead, take that possible “traditional gender assignment” trap into account for your own work. You might be surprised to see that you too are guilty of gender stereotyping - purely by going with “what has always been” as opposed to how your customers behave/buy today.

On that note Interbrand’s Dyfred Richards recently published an article on The Seven Rules for Communicating With Men that it is worth a look for both its gender-specific wisdom AND for the way, I suspect, that that same wisdom applies without gender-specificity.

Two of Richards’ rules, with my gender-inclusive edits:

#1 Stop Boring Him (Her), and;

#5 Teach Him(Her) Something.

Today’s men and women are more alike, especially as savvy consumers, than they are different. That is not to say that there aren’t cases where a more gender-specific approach isn’t wise, but simply to note that marketers should be careful of falling into “opposing groups” default mode.

Consumers are no longer accepting polarization without question, and neither should we.

What a clever, clever guy…

And yet, there remains much to learn about how the genders differ, or not, and why it matters. Some of the pointed and intriguing questions currently being asked (if a recent Google search and my own research on gender-related topics is any indication) include:

Are men feeling left behind by the “new” empowerment of women? What is it about men and sports that women should try to understand? And, what sort of knowledge would help men in the workplace to better understand women’s ways of leading? Finally - and perhaps more lightly: Will women get the relationship truths, and nothing but, by way of a “men’s panel?” Tune in tomorrow…

These new books, articles and blog posts on gender and human behavior seem to be proliferating because there has for too long been a lack of information and open discussion on such things. It should be seen as a very positive trend that men and women are inspired and motivated to learn about the “other” (and beyond the usual “relationship help”). And, no matter what first sparks such interest, that which people learn along the way won’t only serve their personal interests, but their related businesses and organizational interests as well.

I, for one, believe that we could seriously change the world (maybe I’m watching too many political ads…) with a few more open, honest, and CO-ED (!) gender issue discussions.

How we live and work has so significantly evolved in recent decades that men don’t fully know how they should see/think about masculinity and women also aren’t so sure about how to define or “act” feminine. It is no wonder some of us might be experiencing a sort of identity crisis. But, it will be worth the effort, especially in the business/marketing world to do the work and find new ways to be relevant to today’s consumer.

Of course, the roots of such change have already taken hold at the larger corporate human resource or diversity levels - but, more needs to be done. Ironically, any male or female using his/her own perhaps more feminine traits should be able to see the holistic view on this: gender misunderstandings can negatively influence and infiltrate just about every aspect of life - things even HR can’t manage.

But, there is hope! With studies now showing that men in staid, traditional executive roles are beginning to see the value in women’s “softer” ways of leading in business, just imagine where that could lead! Will a more gender-intelligent consideration of the organizational, business and consumer perspective be far behind?

If you’re one who has been inspired by any of the published gender issue research, now’s the time to make your mark and influence others. Start by looking closely at your own beliefs, and then ask a few opening questions of peers and colleagues (Twitter might be an interesting way to start the discussion). No matter how you slice it, such a conversation among like-inclined people can very quickly shed new light on the hard-to-tackle gender topic, and the odd uncomfortable-ness surrounding it.

Men understanding women understanding men understanding women (and so on) will make possible a whole new perspective on future consumer behavior. Now’s the time to give it your attention.

Because I have so often written about/presented on the ideas in my book Don’t Think Pink, I’ve found that the easiest way to illustrate the book’s key concept, transparent marketing, for (often and mainly) male audiences tends to be this: I cite “vice versa” examples, as in how a brand might “think blue” in trying to reach men. That way male marketers, in particular, can better see themselves in the shoes of their female customers.

Well… just such an example recently hit my in-box by way of an emailed press release proudly announcing DealsForGuys, a new web site designed to help men find deals on all sorts of products.

So as not to make the assumptions I might otherwise about why this wouldn’t work for most men, I emailed and Twittered a few members of my men’s advisory panel. One who responded immediately was Kevin Burke, of Lucid Marketing fame, who put it very simply:

name got my interest.
immediate negative reaction to the web site.
site in need of a professional designer.
scoreboard-nav methphor is lame.
instructions on how to use the site shouldn’t be necessary on the home page.
offers no relevance to my life.
couldn’t wait to leave.

A few of the other comments I received from my network:

ick with the sports stuff
why do I need deals b/c I’m a guy?
design complaints, usability complaints
look under grooming - first item is a women’s razor

General ways in which this site “thinks blue:”

• Assumptions (with a capital A) about what will draw the attention of “guys” (primary blue, sports, unsophisticated design).
• Not adding any value or doing what it’s name proclaims (special deals only they could bring you), but instead merely listing what any other site could also list.
• Not making it clear at all why this is really “for guys” alone. There is nothing particularly gender-specific or relevant about its content or presentation.
• Assumptions about whether men felt a real need for such a site at all. There may be a lot of men who are perfectly happy finding their own deals (in fact, that’s the fun of the hunt!)

***

While this is not a huge brand example, the lessons from this attempt to reach men are still worth learning. If just the tone of the comments (not even the specific points) I got back in my quick survey are any indication, there is significant irritation that a brand would presume to know so much about men and how they buy.

And, guess what? This is JUST the way women feel when you make assumptions about them with your marketing efforts or web sites. They may not necessarily be steaming mad, but women will be annoyed at your waste of their time, and so will be much less inclined to buy from you or tell any of their friends.

Why waste the effort? Talk to the men or women you are trying to reach instead, get past the gender assumptions - and you won’t end up sending out press releases about sites that can be so easily picked apart.

So, … don’t let blue thinking or its twin sister, pink thinking, happen to you! Keep these poor “guys” in mind.