Any colour as long as its not pinkFollow

This article could have been written by me. It rings 100% true.



This article rocks, I have so experienced what the author has.

Personally what I need are powerful tools that are stylish and perform. I'm a professional woman in the 25-34 demographic in much the same situation as the author. Just last month a shop did actually try to sell me an item simply because it was pink ... Needless to say, that did not go down well, I was after quality and performance, not an unjustified price hike and low spec for a colour choice.

Does the same issue occur in the US?

Good question. With the advent of Second Life, Maple Street and the Sims I bet women do comprise a sizable portion of the gaming population.

Whether those qualify as real games is another debate. Think of them as gateway games.

To answer the original question: no, I can't think of a single time when I've been condescended to in a tech store. In fact many of the sales people who have helped me have been women.

Electronics stores, where the merchandise is more on the lines of TVs and Blu-Rays, yeah, maybe. Still can't think of a specific example, though.

Both. Well real games in the sense that Wii Fit costs $90. Bejweled clones still generate lots of ad revenue. They're a powerful marketing segment.

I don't think there is a relevant distinction in the context of the author's broad claims. The revenue brought from either source is not insignificant, so why not count both?

As far as condescending marketing, I'm not sure women are treated significantly more superficially than men. There have been special colored N64s since long before casual games and women gamers were a recognized market segment. I specifically remember a quiz in a Nintendo Power issue telling me what color N64 best represented myself.

Edited, Nov 4th 2009 10:39pm by Allegory

I bought my wife a tool kit a couple of years ago with all the hand tools you need for small jobs around the house, and they are all a 'bit' smaller than full size and are a nice lilac colour. She loves it and uses it all the time.

A couple of years before that I bought her a sander, a sabre-saw and a cordless drill all in a lovely bright sunny yellow by the top of the range people at DeWalt.

But I hardly ever let her use those anymore....

I think the actual point is that while women have been traditionally considered a niche market for electronics goods, they are actually buying en masse, representing a legitimate business interest. Corporations have tried a variety of marketing strategies--some seem to miss the mark. They need to hit that sweet spot with a certain level of aesthetic finesse without pandering to some outmoded idea of what women like. Women should be considered intelligent electronics buyers and not sold crap that's for ladies because it's pink.

What Gwyn seems to dislike in the OP is that sh*t marketed towards women because of the color was a low spec POS for a high price and not something that actually considers the fact that she'd make an intelligent choice.





Edited, Nov 5th 2009 12:54am by Annabella

While she doesn't cite, if her assertion is correct that there are more women playing games than men, then it almost necessarily follows that women are generating more revenue via games than men.

First of all, they are spending cash on games. A greater proportion of women buy casual console games (out of all those buying casual console games) than those that buy "real" console games (out of those that buy real console games). A higher percentage of women bought Wii fit than bought Call of Duty 4. Casual console games are also becoming a bigger segment of the market, and I believe now far outselling "real" games. Women make up a far higher percentage of the console gaming market than they did 10 years ago, and I could easily see them being at least a third of the market.

Second of all, they don't have to spend cash on games, they only have to generate revenue. Browser games still generate ad revenue. In this market I know that women definitely outnumber men. Women are generating a larger share of the revenue in the free to play market than men.

Women are a significant market segment in both industries. I think her logic that market size relates to how much a demographic should or should not be patronized is silly, but her assertion that more women play games than men and therefore contribute to a larger market share is sensible.

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 12:33am by Allegory

See the problem isn't that women (or people in general) don't like advertising superficially aimed at them, it's that they don't like being aware of it. Companies do it because it's effective as long as people don't realize the shame of being so easily manipulated.

Thats exactly my point.

What you don't get is that the marketing campaigns mentionned in the OP are not about sex, they're about age. They are aimed at teenagers, probably teenage girls, but certainly teenagers. This is what the target audience is. If the OP should whine about anything, it's that she's 35 as opposed to 16. Re-read the OP with this in mind, and see how much sense it makes.

It's like movies. I'm constantly pissed off at the fact that most Holywood movies are retarded action packed brain-dead clones of some film that's been remade 17 times since it came out in the 70s. And then I remember that I've long departed the target audience for these movies, the majority of which are made for 16 year olds. Or people with the movie taste of a 16 year old.

So next time you're watchign adverts, remember that. You've seen the one about "impatience being a virtue" and how you want things "NOW". It's for Samsung monile or some **** like that. Same deal. It's not aimed for you and I Gwen, oh no, it's aimed for spotty teenagers so they can bully their parents into getting them a new phone every other months.

It's not sexism. It's ageism. And we'd better get used to it cos it's only getting worse.

Nonsense. Internet ad revenue has taken a bath since the early part of the decade. Without actual numbers, there's no reason to assume her implications are correct even if the number of women playing Farmville exceeds the number of males playing the Xbox360 game of the month.

I'm not arguing against her notion that advertising to her demographic is skewed or even against the idea that her demographic is an important one. I was just wondering about the details of one thing she wrote. It's not unusual for someone to be making a perfectly intelligent argument but then try to prop it up unnecessarily with a couple inflated or out of context factoids.

Do you have a cite that proves that or should we take your interpretation on commercials over our own?

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 10:06am by Uglysasquatch

I was actually going to touch on this, as well. Though... my point may not be as well received as I had hoped, given your avatar.

Women are advertised to like we are all 16 year olds who want Hello Kitty purses and glitter lip gloss. Men are advertised to like every product ever bought will get them tits and ***. And both of us are talked to by advertisers as if we have no brain in our heads at all.

I also see your point, Red. The problem is, it's not only aimed at teenagers. It's aimed at all females as if we are all teenagers.

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 9:55am by Belkira