Female Consumers: Aesthetics & Meaning Over Stuff
In this economy, every industry is scrambling for new insights and ways to gain a competitive edge – and usually what they pay attention to is the reactionary approach – as in an immediate way to dig out of this scary situation (which is completely understandable). But, if the bigger picture eventually plays a part of their future planning and strategizing – a recent post by Andrew Lehman considering consumer culture and mate selection (think primates) might be food for thought.
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.
