It pulls from some good sites and sources, but wondering what type of “man” they're really aiming for here, across Esquire, Rolling Stone, ESPN,
Amazon.com, Overstock.com nexus? Not clear on why these would be “men only” destinations individually or combined.

At least Glam (via the Brash effort) isn't coy about its “sweet spot” of 18-49 men through content and vertical ads. Different business model, true, but its vision of male and masculinity isn't hard to decipher.

This effort's tagline, however, –”where real guys find stuff”– suggests a more confused notion. Only those “men” who can “hang” in a manner that sort of combines purchasing to a general idea of “male activity” will be encouraged (but not necessarily engaged) in some “male fun”?

Introducing “instant and significant” discounts targeted exclusively to the “male consumer” instead of simply “deals for men” or “savings on products for men” taps into this strange thrust of “stimulation via instant gratification”. Rather than a “tough” or “challenging” economic situation faced by all, there's “hard” economic times confronting males. How well one can swing (or get back into the swing) matters more.

Fine enough, but even this gets undercut by a odd tendency in the site (and release's verbiage) to play up and into gender stereotypes. For example, why tout a theme of “men are quick, cheap, direct, etc.” hold these qualities as positive, and posit them as distinct traits compared to female consumers (online or offline) without any proof? It leaves an impression that these traits only matter for what they aren't, rather than what are, and their actual definition remains rather spotty at best.

Look no further than the actual press release: “Guys already know they are quite different from women. Our shopping interests and lifestyle habits are particularly unique…” While it's true that men and women don't necessarily buy the same things, it's not a truth that they can't buy the same things or purchase based on similar motivations. [Still trying to identify the quality that makes something "particularly unique", versus "unique", but another topic for another day...]

Whether it's a motivation or definition, no gender holds the market on seeking good deals, best values, etc. That's called smart shopping. In fairness to the site, maybe there's a particular lifestyle or demographic they're aiming for instead— say men at/above a certain income bracket– rather than a tacit notion of gender.

Until they can define, rather than hint, the audience for this; and clearly reflect it on its own terms (especially through better design, identity, execution, etc) they're not doing right by the men they think they're aiming for.

It pulls from some good sites and sources, but wondering what type of “man” they’re really aiming for here, across Esquire, Rolling Stone, ESPN,
Amazon.com, Overstock.com nexus? Not clear on why these would be “men only” destinations individually or combined.

At least Glam (via the Brash effort) isn’t coy about its “sweet spot” of 18-49 men through content and vertical ads. Different business model, true, but its vision of male and masculinity isn’t hard to decipher.

This effort’s tagline, however, –”where real guys find stuff”– suggests a more confused notion. Only those “men” who can “hang” in a manner that sort of combines purchasing to a general idea of “male activity” will be encouraged (but not necessarily engaged) in some “male fun”?

Introducing “instant and significant” discounts targeted exclusively to the “male consumer” instead of simply “deals for men” or “savings on products for men” taps into this strange thrust of “stimulation via instant gratification”. Rather than a “tough” or “challenging” economic situation faced by all, there’s “hard” economic times confronting males. How well one can swing (or get back into the swing) matters more.

Fine enough, but even this gets undercut by a odd tendency in the site (and release’s verbiage) to play up and into gender stereotypes. For example, why tout a theme of “men are quick, cheap, direct, etc.” hold these qualities as positive, and posit them as distinct traits compared to female consumers (online or offline) without any proof? It leaves an impression that these traits only matter for what they aren’t, rather than what are, and their actual definition remains rather spotty at best.

Look no further than the actual press release: “Guys already know they are quite different from women. Our shopping interests and lifestyle habits are particularly unique…” While it’s true that men and women don’t necessarily buy the same things, it’s not a truth that they can’t buy the same things or purchase based on similar motivations. [Still trying to identify the quality that makes something "particularly unique", versus "unique", but another topic for another day...]

Whether it’s a motivation or definition, no gender holds the market on seeking good deals, best values, etc. That’s called smart shopping. In fairness to the site, maybe there’s a particular lifestyle or demographic they’re aiming for instead— say men at/above a certain income bracket– rather than a tacit notion of gender.

Until they can define, rather than hint, the audience for this; and clearly reflect it on its own terms (especially through better design, identity, execution, etc) they’re not doing right by the men they think they’re aiming for.