Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Any colour as long as its not pinkFollow

#1 Nov 04 2009 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,086 posts
This article could have been written by me. It rings 100% true.

Quote:
I am frustrated. I am bored. I feel patronised. PC World is telling me my world is pink (it has not been pink since I was 7) and I need a new laptop to match my outfit (it would never even occur to me to match my outfit with my technology). Samsung is asking me, “What Colour is my Life?” (hello?) and Dell is telling me that technology is like candy (do me a favour).

I am a 35-year-old professional woman with my own home. I am educated, fairly tech literate and, most importantly, I have cash to spend. Plenty of cash to spend, on technology that will make my life easier, more creative and fun.

Out of every ten gadgets bought in the UK, four are now bought by women. And, before you ask, we are not talking about fridges and washing machines. No, these are high-end items such as HD TVs, games consoles and smart phones. And there are more games being played by women than men between the ages of 25-34.

In September this year, the Harvard Business Review stated that women now represent a bigger market opportunity than India and China combined. Technology brands must put an end to these clumsy marketing strategies and put money and time behind understanding how real women in the real world engage with technology.

Women are no longer the second sex. We are the more profitable sex.


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 ...Smiley: mad 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?
#2 Nov 04 2009 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
Quote:
And there are more games being played by women than men between the ages of 25-34.

Are these "real" games that women are actually shelling out $45 for or are we talking about legions of broads clicking their way through whatever the Facebook Bejeweled-clone-of-the-month is?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Nov 04 2009 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
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. Smiley: laugh

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.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4 Nov 04 2009 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
I have had something similar happen to me when I go electronic shopping with a girlfriend before...

She will say she's looking for a TV set/DVD player/whathaveyou...and then the salesguy (always happens if it's a guy) will then turn to me and start talking to me about it.

I always have to point out that SHE'S the one that is buying the thing, not myself and that while she may ask what I think...she's the one who has to be convinced it's worth buying.

It always ends up awkward at that point for a bit :/

Edited, Nov 4th 2009 10:02pm by Nightsintdreams
____________________________
Proud citizen of Miranda.

-Currently on Pochacco Server of Hello Kitty Online.
#5 Nov 04 2009 at 10:08 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Are these "real" games that women are actually shelling out $45 for or are we talking about legions of broads clicking their way through whatever the Facebook Bejeweled-clone-of-the-month is?

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.
#6 Nov 04 2009 at 10:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
Bejweled clones still generate lots of ad revenue.

I'm sure. But there's a valid distinction between playing a free browser game (that may generate ad revenue) and actively paying for video games. I don't have any real stake in it, I'm just curious about the depth of the author's claims.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Nov 04 2009 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But there's a valid distinction between playing a free browser game (that may generate ad revenue) and actively paying for video games.

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
#8 Nov 04 2009 at 11:13 PM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
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 ...Smiley: mad 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.

Bit of a hypocrisy there.

#9 Nov 04 2009 at 11:31 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
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.... Smiley: sly
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#10 Nov 04 2009 at 11:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
I don't think there is a relevant distinction in the context of the author's broad claims.

She opens into it talking about how women are buying about half of the high end electronics and how she has "cash to spend" on electronics and things to make her life "more fun".

If women in that bracket aren't actually spending cash on the video games she says they're all playing but rather playing free Facebook/browser games, it blunts her point ("we're spending all this money so pay attention to us!"). It doesn't completely negate it but I think it's a valid question as to where her numbers come from.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Nov 04 2009 at 11:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
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
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#12 Nov 05 2009 at 12:26 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
I dont know what the fuss is about.

Its like watches for example. A manly man, who does scuba-diving and flies planes and hunts and sails boats and stuff needs the tools to do that stuff, hence....

Screenshot


And gurls hang around with each other in shopping malls showing off how succesful their man is by the quality of their bling. Hence..

Screenshot



I'm sure theres nothing different when it comes to iPods and phones and stuff.

Accept your place for goodness sake!!








Actually, what I'm attempting to point out albeit in a slightly sarcastic and mildly humourous way and perhaps too subtle a way for many, is that its not just women who are marketed at in stupid ways. Us blokes have been subjected to it for fUcking years. Be honest. How many men do you really know who've been more than 10 feet underwater, or crossed a desert in a balloon, or skippered a racing yacht in the Americas Cup?

Not many I'd bet.

How many blokes do you know who strut around with giant pieces of stainless steel strapped to their wrists with enough dials to put the space shuttle to shame?

Thought so.

Ladies. You're not special.

Sorry.

Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#13 Nov 05 2009 at 12:26 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If women in that bracket aren't actually spending cash on the video games she says they're all playing but rather playing free Facebook/browser games, it blunts her point ("we're spending all this money so pay attention to us!"). It doesn't completely negate it but I think it's a valid question as to where her numbers come from.

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
#14 Nov 05 2009 at 12:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
This is also the kind of sh*t she might be criticizing. This is the backlash against it and how the company scrambled.

A quote about the Della debacle:

Quote:
Dell is continuing to revise its poorly-received website aimed at women, removing the "Della" branding. Teressa Iezzi writes on AdAge that the debacle exposes how marketers perceive women as a niche, not half the population. Her suggestion: "Just make products and sites that appeal to human beings."


Edited, Nov 5th 2009 1:50am by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#15 Nov 05 2009 at 1:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
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.
#16 Nov 05 2009 at 1:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Allegory wrote:
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.


There is definitely that aspect. I talk with my friends about how there are certain things that we really really like and we know it's because they are marketing for middle class women in their late 30s. I think that the other reason is what they are being marketed for- is Madison Avenue being responsive to women as they actually are? Or some dumbass ad executive's mismanaged ideas? There are always those gaps where people in advertising realizing that they are missing the mark. The Della campaign is an example of it.

When it fits, like things like anthropologie housewears, Bravo television, Bath and Body works and mini-Boden children's clothes, Korres cosmetics ahhhhh....it's totally awesome.

Edited, Nov 5th 2009 2:29am by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#17 Nov 05 2009 at 1:34 AM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
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.


Thats exactly my point.
#18 Nov 05 2009 at 2:24 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
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.

Thats exactly my point.

Welcome to the concept of "branding." You're just 140 years late.
#19 Nov 05 2009 at 4:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Lady GwynapNud wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
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.


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.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#20 Nov 05 2009 at 6:49 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
The Article wrote:
We are the more profitable sex.
Odd, I always thought you were.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#21 Nov 05 2009 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
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.

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.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Nov 05 2009 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:


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.


Except they aren't. Alot of them are aimed at adult women. Della wasn't aimed at teenagers, to use my example. It was clearly for adult women. If it seems condescending or infantilizing, that's doesn't mean it is for teenagers. It means the marketers are viewing women like they are idiots.

As far as Allegory's point, I have no idea what it is.


Edited, Nov 5th 2009 9:04am by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#23 Nov 05 2009 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Della wasn't aimed at teenagers, to use my example. It was clearly for adult women. If it seems condescending or infantilizing, that's doesn't mean it is for teenagers. It means the marketers are viewing women like they are idiots.
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
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#24 Nov 05 2009 at 8:08 AM Rating: Decent
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Quote:


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.


Except they aren't.


Except they are. These were the examples in the OP, which is what I was referring to as I clearly stated in my post.

Quote:
PC World is telling me my world is pink (it has not been pink since I was 7) and I need a new laptop to match my outfit (it would never even occur to me to match my outfit with my technology). Samsung is asking me, “What Colour is my Life?” (hello?) and Dell is telling me that technology is like candy (do me a favour).


These are aimed at teenagers. The blogger is confused because she thinks it's stereotypical, but it's only stereotypical towards teenagers.

I'm not saying her point about women gamers isn't valid in general, I'm just saying the specific examples she chose were the wrong ones.

Now, I can quite easily see how we could find a compromise that would satisfy both you and I. Should we go for it now, or should we battle it out for another few posts? It's a slow day at work...
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#25 Nov 05 2009 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
paulsol wrote:
Actually, what I'm attempting to point out albeit in a slightly sarcastic and mildly humourous way and perhaps too subtle a way for many, is that its not just women who are marketed at in stupid ways. Us blokes have been subjected to it for fUcking years. Be honest. How many men do you really know who've been more than 10 feet underwater, or crossed a desert in a balloon, or skippered a racing yacht in the Americas Cup?

Not many I'd bet.

How many blokes do you know who strut around with giant pieces of stainless steel strapped to their wrists with enough dials to put the space shuttle to shame?

Thought so.

Ladies. You're not special.

Sorry.

Smiley: disappointed


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
#26 Nov 05 2009 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
The problem is, it's not only aimed at teenagers. It's aimed at all females as if we are all teenagers.


In fairness, most adults are just teenagers that got fat.

Seriously, the real problem is not that advertisers think we're stupid, or that they think we're teenagers. They are right to do that. Someone once said that no one ever lost any money by overestimating how stupid the public were. Our problem might just be that we're just a bit cleverer than the average. Maybe.

But even with this in mind, most advertisers are perfectly aware that you will find their adverts stupid, insulting, demeaning, or retarded. But most adverts are not meant to work on the conscious level. They're meant to work on your subconscious. The way you justify, to yourself, why you're buying a particular product is not really relevant, because that decision will have been taken by subconscious, which will have been influenced by some sh*tty advert without you having even realised it. You'll probably construct some perfectly reasonable explanation as to why you're buying a particular brand as opposed to another one, and it will make complete sense. Eventhough the "reasonable explanation" is an bolt-on to justify the subconscious decision, as opposed to the reason for purchase.

That's the theory, anyway.


Edited, Nov 5th 2009 4:21pm by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 329 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (329)