Are “Women’s” Sites Necessary: The Broad(er) Implications
I’ve written about this before, but just came across a Portfolio article on Slate’s “absorption” of DoubleX that was so compelling I had to share. To me, this discussion is important because it represents a broader perspective on marketing to women – with insights for any industry. Even the super savviest media and political sites like Slate have to work this all out, so it makes sense that how your brand communicates “for women,” or not, should be considered a journey. Most often, brands don’t get it right the first time, and not being able to please everyone all of the time is just the way marketing goes.
So, in the case of the recent DoubleX announcement, Matt Haber, the writer of the Portfolio piece cites a few other examples of women-focused sites that have been successful and why their editors think that is the case. His piece also includes reference to an earlier American Prospect article by Ann Friedman, wherein – to me – lie the key points. Those include:
If Slate saw a demand for more content about women, why didn’t it start publishing more articles for and by women on its main site? The decision to devote micro-sites to groups that aren’t white men — The Root for black readers, Double X for women readers — implies that Slate recognizes the need for more coverage that caters to women and people of color. But it doesn’t want that coverage mucking up its main product.
And, a little bit further along:
Even if men are interested and clicking, the problem with branding certain types of articles “for women” is that it still advances a false gender divide. We can all agree that men parent, too. Men and women care about fashion and follow Hollywood gossip. Yet when these articles are primarily housed under a logo that refers to female chromosomes, it perpetuates the false idea that women are interested in Forever 21 and Facebook but not torture hearings or health-care reform.
I could basically paste in the whole piece, but suffice it to say, it is worth a read and very comprehensive in laying out the evolution and demise of some well-known “women’s” sites. Where was the reader in all this? Did the magazines/sites consider that in their development? Some things to ponder:
1) Does the reader visit a site because she is a woman and so seeking specifically “womanly” information (diets, sex tips, fashion)? Or, is she headed to your site instead as a human being interested in the topics of the day, politics or news?
2) Does the publication care more about developing great programs for advertisers rather than what the heck will bring a reader to the site in the first place (like – content)?
3) Is there no way this poor woman who is your “target” will ever see the site’s great tips or click on certain ads if she doesn’t see a “for women” sign of some sort directing her to that information?
***
Since (clearly) this topic of “women’s” magazines/sites can get me riled, and because it can serve as such a great marketing to women case study, I offer up two examples:
ESPN The Magazine (whose online version, apparently, recently got folded into Insider) – This publication could easily have created a “womens’” version, but instead the editors/publisher realized the core market was crazed sports fans – no gender about it. That’s why you’ll see everyone from football players to female snowboarders on the cover, and reports on a wide variety of sports-related news within the pages. ESPN The Magazine readers like sports and sports writing, plain and simple.
Esquire Magazine – This magazine is labeled a men’s magazine and doesn’t overtly “market to women” at all. In fact, plenty of women might find it a tad offensive. Except, like the comment so many men have made about Playboy (“I read it for the articles”) – the editorial appeals to a certain group of women. The magazine always includes extremely well-written feature articles (in my opinion) on all sorts of topics. Yes, I’m a fan. Check out the letters to the editor section, which usually includes at least one or two from women who seem to love the magazine. Esquire serves men and women alike who respond to that particular sense of humor, who are attracted to those sorts of in-depth articles and that appreciate writing talent.
For marketers, the point is to keep checking yourself and your efforts. Do women happen to be avid users, readers, consumers of your product as well as men? When women do buy your service or gizmo, is it because it speaks to their “womanly” ways or it speaks to their human interests or their style of humor, design interests, or functional needs…?
I suggest the default should be to market to women transparently (not overtly), as some of these magazine sites seem to be discovering. Be guided and inspired by what women want and how they want it, but there’s usually no need to mention that that’s what you are doing. If it boils down to the fact that you sell women’s razors and have designed one that specifically functions for the way women use them, have at it with the “women’s” stuff – but even still, don’t go overboard.
News and products that appeal to and resonate authentically with women ARE more necessary now than ever. Just think twice before you “for women-ize.”
