The surprises that emerged from our findings, in The Green Mom Eco-Cosm? Many of the green mom bloggers who are on the more radical or fully committed end of the spectrum are perhaps not the nutty margin you’d assume.  Even though “green consumerism” is something these committed women may personally try to avoid, they still recognize the value of measures being taken by companies like Clorox to head in a greener direction.   Furthermore, through their blog post writing, these moms have been sharing higher expectations and actively challenging their readers toward significantly uncomfortable levels of green scrutiny and commitment.  No slackers need apply. It seems that the more women know, the more engaged they become with their lifestyle “greening up” efforts.  You can almost feel the momentum building.

Read The Green Mom Eco-Cosm: A Social Study into their Motivations, Convictions and Influence (PDF) for more.

My frustration about this rose anew after reading Brent Bouchez’s very well written, humorous MediaPost piece about how “rash” it might be for CMOs to pursue the 50+ market.    Here’s a clip:

I mean, who in their right mind would target a marketing message at 90 million people who control 75% of the country’s wealth, earn $2.5 trillion dollars annually, will inherit over $15 trillion in the next 20 years and have 2.5 times the discretionary spending power of any other consumer group?

Yes, it does sound slightly suicidal.

Switch the numbers out a bit and you’ll have the same “scary” case for pursuing the women’s market. And, I’d submit that, though the numbers might not YET be as convincing with regard to consumers  engaged in sustainability, they are surely headed there.  Still, there are plenty of brand decision-makers that need serious convincing to change their usual ways or focus.  Excuse me?  Why do they need to be convinced or pushed to keep up with consumers?

There are lots of people in the U.S. who are fifty or older (the US Census helped us see THAT coming long ago), women do the majority of the household good buying (did we really need research to prove it?), and environmentally and socially responsible consumers are making their growing list of expectations very well known these days.  So, again, what gives?

Perhaps marketing decision-makers don’t need proof of these trends as much as they need change agents to light a match that starts a blaze that CAN’T be denied. To catch up with today’s consumers, you have to first be able to admit that you need to.  (Ohhhh.. that could be a tough one.)

The many knowledgeable in-house and consulting 50+, women’s and sustainable consumer market advocates will be here when you are finally ready.

To be clear: I am no expert on the topic, and very much realize the different life experiences of women and men from different generations, and how that might influence one’s perspective on it.  That may be why this list of fifteen aspects of third wave feminism caught my eye.  The writer, even without demonstrating his/her credibility in some way with academic or “intelligentsia” ties (as far as I know), still made the list seem worth mulling. The tone is not an “absolute” stand (as in: “this is the way it is”) but seems to posit ideas to start helpful and engaging conversations.

As the writer called it, the article is an: “incomplete list of my many thoughts, objections, and suggestions concerning the current state of feminism and where we should be headed. All of the following points could be expanded upon. They are listed in no particular order.”

A few of my favorite points (with my emphasis) from within that list:

- There must be a widespread understanding that feminism does apply to men. It is counterproductive and hypocritical to discuss gender equality while simultaneously creating a double standard towards males who share feminist values. (An interesting perspective on this via a man’s questions for a feminist comes from  John DeVore. )

- Applying make-up, nail polish, shaving legs, and most other sexist, cosmetic double standards are NOT antitheses to being a feminist – the motivation behind the products are.

- Making sexist comments against men, in favor of women, is a directly un-feminist action.

- Reaching out to younger people is one of the most important actions that third-wave feminists need to accomplish.  (The Undomestic Goddess has published a series of interviews with mainly millennial generation women and men that might open your eyes a bit to this reality.)

While feminism never really was only about women even in its earlier waves, that seems to have been a fairly common perception.  But, during this phase, it is even more important to get some background.  If you are marketing to women today, old-fashioned gender stereotypes about the “dreaded feminists” will truly backfire.  Huge polarization of men vs. women is “out,” assumptions about bra burning or leg shaving is ridiculous (always was), and members of the younger generations will be very vocal about how your marketing doesn’t reflect any world THEY know (Current TV’s Sarah Haskins comes to mind).

I’m not saying that all is perfect between men and women now. I’m suggesting it might be a good time to accept that there is no easy answer but to study up on how the women in your market fit into this wave (or not).  They might consider themselves feminists, but that could be VERY different from your mother’s feminism.  And, today, there may well be a lot more men who consider themselves feminist or identify with the movement (whether they say so or not), and by making assumptions, you could potentially lose trust with them as well,  Remember, too – parenthood tends to put most guys into a gender transcending role that changes their behavior in other ways.  So, feminism can just creep up on you (in a good way)!

An awareness of third wave feminism is not for women’s studies majors only.  Instead, it is a movement that may offer up the insights you need on how/why your consumers live and make decisions the way they do.  There are lots of thought-provoking articles and books on the topic of third wave feminism – so take a minute or two to familiarize yourself.

Now, will that make you feel like a girl… or, like a very savvy marketer?

A few examples of what bubbled up:

- Sometimes you need to seriously consider firing 20% of your workforce (especially those in sales).  Even if they are incredibly experienced, they can’t be reached about changing culture because they don’t believe they need to learn about it.  These folks, men or women, will literally be the ones in the room who lean back and cross their arms as they listen to new ideas.  Bring up gender discussions in your next marketing or executive gathering and take a look around.

- A person’s gender perspective may be very influenced by their generation.  Within those few days in San Francisco, I talked with people from Gen Y,  X and the Baby Boom, and noticed very evident differences in opinion.  The Baby Boomers I spoke with seemed interested in the discussion, but said a lot of “yeah, but…”  To them, gender issues are evolving, but there is still a little bit of resentment that may cloud their judgment or keep them from seeing they need to get up to speed.  The Gen X and Y folks I talked with said gender roles/stereotypes had never been a big issue in their lives.  That being the case, many men vs women conflicts can seem irrelevant to them and thus, be a lower priority consideration for either product or marketing efforts, whatever the industry.  So, be aware of who your end consumer really is.  If you are going to “market to women,” be clear on whether you need to be visible or transparent.  Especially for younger generations, if you can’t commit to your own research, the default should be “transparent.” (See my book, Don’t Think Pink, for more on that.)

-  What a person says isn’t always what they feel.  When selling to a couple, engage with both parties, but pay perhaps a bit more attention to the questions/comments and tone of the female (whether she is being assertive with her input or not), as well as her body language.  The same goes for focus or conversation groups.  Even with women-only studies, a few participants will be more physically and emotionally engaged. These women will share the real scoop in most cases, because they are passionate about it – while the others may just be following the “leader.”

Finally, for one that has less to do with gender and more to do with expanding your general perspective:  Be open to overhearing and engaging in a bit of the conversations around you (where appropriate), especially in relaxed places like tea or coffee shops.  A friend who is a digital media expert and I had just gotten together to share an hour of catching up on Thursday.  In the middle of our discussing how cool it was that Susan Orlean, an author we followed, was talking about gender roles on Twitter (a conversation that was then covered by a Salon post), a young man from the group of three guys sitting next to us chimed in saying that that he loved her work, as well.  And, he hadn’t realized she was on Twitter.  Our two parties ended up talking animatedly for quite some time about our various work projects, and then swapping business cards etc.  The energy we created together and those ideas came out of nowhere.

Anyway -

At this point in history, saying or thinking “we’ve always done it this way,” means you’ll miss out on the powerful but subtle clues to better reaching today’s savviest consumers, male or female.  They don’t know what “always” is and aren’t interested in a history lesson.  How can you be right there, right now, with a message that fits their current life experience?

A fresh perspective is key to delivering relevance, so do what you can to train yourself to see the gender differences and similarities that truly matter.

So many have come up on my radar lately, in fact, that I thought it would be worth sharing two with you:

1)  Naomi Wolf’s recent Washington Post article, Who Won Feminism?, is first and foremost a review of the recently published book on the life of Cosmopolitan magazine’s founder, Helen Gurley Brown.  But, there’s a bit more to it.  As Wolf points out: “when it comes to women’s rights, Americans have clearly matured.” If Betty Friedan’s second wave feminist movement “tended toward humorlessness” and “often saw men and women in opposition,” third wave feminism has reinvigorated a more 60s-era/Brown-style view – in that it is pluralistic, pro-sex and tolerant of other women’s choices, for instance.  As Wolf sees it now, we  (society) should strive to find a way between the merely personal and the mostly political – a synthesis of Brown and Friedan.  She suggests Michelle Obama’s generation (which is also mine) is getting closer to it.

2) On the feminism topic, as well, a friend recently prompted me to re-visit good old West Wing dialogue. In this piece, Ainsley Hayes takes issue with the expectation that she should be offended by Sam (the Rob Lowe character) saying she looks good in her dress.  Here’s a clip:

“If I felt demeaned I’d be one of the very first people to know it,” she tells him dismissing the subject. But neither Sam nor Celia will let it go.
“I’m surprised,” Celia later tells Ainsley, “you’re willing to let your sexuality diminish your power.”
“. . .I think you think I’m made out of candy glass. . . .” Ainsley argues back. “If someone says something that offends you, tell them, but all women don’t have to think alike. . . . I like when the guys tease me. It’s an inadvertent show of respect; I’m part of the team, and I don’t mind it when it gets sexual. And you know what, I like sex. . . . I don’t think whatever sexuality I have diminishes my power. I think it enhances it.”
“And what kind of feminism do you call that?” Celia asks.
“My kind.”

I have definitely seen a generational difference in how women feel about their own feminism, but mainly we all seem to want to believe we have a very individualized take, with a balance of second and third wave. This makes it tough for marketers who may need to be extra careful when things like language/word choice come up (is “ladies” an acceptable word when discussing or speaking to a group of modern women?), or if they somehow find themselves assuming that feminism equals hard-driving and man-hating-ness (which it rarely does, and which many a Gen Y women will find extremely irrelevant.)

As with anything involving or influencing women, marketers should study up and not make assumptions.  The topic of feminism can be polarizing, or, it can inspire fascinating discussion and LEARNING between generations and sexes.  Embrace and reference the latter perspective, and your women’s market will know your brand is not afraid of their evolving ways.  R-E-S-P-E-C-T goes both ways.

2) The New York Times Style section yesterday (June 15th) included a short blurb on a shop that now sells unisex clothing, Assembly New York. The shop’s owner, Greg Armas, is quoted saying that “the selection of ‘anti-trend’ pieces” is drawing male and female shoppers, and he goes on to point out that each piece in his store is an authentic article, selected via a different kind of curation and, “gender doesn’t play into it.” Hmmm, anti-trend is the new trend.

With the number of women-focused magazines, television shows, radio shows, blogs and sites increasing – and all clearly scrambling a bit for a loyal audience – you’ve got to wonder. Are there really any women left in the world who desire to, but haven’t yet, found their “community?” I doubt it.

Because of my years in the marketing to women realm, and since you may well see my words posted on such blogs or their affiliated sites*, you might expect more enthusiasm about women’s sites from me. But, my cynicism keeps me expecting our culture to move beyond the need for all these big general “for women” gathering places. Still – as each one launches, it proclaims to understand today’s women better than the other 800 million existing female-focused sites out there (I exaggerate a bit with that number – I hope). As Sylvie Barak put it in an Inquirer.net article about a recent addition to the ranks, Yahoo’s “Shine” :

Also, Shine’s idea of reaching out to the new breed of totally-non stereotypical women involves insightful articles and blogs hailing from such non stereotypical sites as Women’s Health, Good Housekeeping, Cosmopolitan, InStyle, Style.com and cooking site Epicurious. Strange, but there’s not a tech site among them.

Shine appears to be a shallow façade of a site, pretending to offer women something new, when it obviously doesn’t. At least other women orientated sites like CafeMom and Glam don’t try to hide their real motives under layers of this season’s hottest pastel lip shades and blemish hiding foundation cream.

Good point, Ms. Barak. If a women-oriented site is going to be stereotypical as far as fashion, diet and astrology content, tell it like it is. Don’t raise expectations about how yours might be the one site that isn’t going to be girly. And, one final thing, before you spend the money on design and editorial, take a second to stop and ask your targeted market if this is something they want/will visit.

Media organizations have a reputation of developing more and more advertising venues that purportedly reach any hot-with-advertisers market segment, while promoting the idea to the public as hugely consumer-driven. But, women can see right through that. It is more likely that they might check out a new site once and then head back to their old favorite. Advertisers will probably not be willing to pay the big bucks for space on any of the newer sites for very long.

So, does research exist that finds women need to see “for women” or “manicure, sex, and fashion tips” in order to think the content is relevant? Alternatively, do men have to see “for men” to realize they want to read a sports magazine? Does a news site have to advertise sports coverage in order to attract a man? (OK, I’ll stop with the questions…)

Men and women go to the sites that deliver information on things that interest them – the more fine tuned the better. Gender may not have a lot to do with it, and neither sex will linger long on sites that throw in a little of everything in order to aggregate consumers according to an advertiser’s hoped-for target.

Take HuffingtonPost.com for example. Arianna Huffington was just covered in the New York Times because of her success with what she co-founded and still guides. Now, is HuffPo “for women” because it is driven by a woman? Is it “for women” because it has an entertainment and living section? No. Instead, a lot of the HuffPo readership, men and women (3.7 million unique visitors strong, according to Nielsen Online, and as mentioned in the NYT piece), would say they came to this site, first and foremost, to read and engage in political debate.

Arianna didn’t have to work to deliver something advertisers would see as “for women” or “for men.” She focused on what she was passionate about and it happens to draw a LOT of readers. For that a wide variety of advertisers must be thankful, and for that an ever-growing readership will continue to stick around.

The last thing women need is another stereotypical “women’s site.” Give women a place to go that is filled with information and commentary on a topic that engages them. Feel free to lay low with the female-specific content and marketing, and men interested in that topic may come along too. Recipes and sex tips are already fully covered elsewhere – believe me.

Bonus link: Diane Mermigas of MediaPost on the topic.

*Full disclosure: In addition to HuffPo and Learned On Women, I also contribute to eBrandmarketing.com, a business-related site published by Glam Media (which is very much women-focused and has a lot of pink on the home page). My eBrandmarketing.com editor has been willing to publish my slightly more cynical views in an effort to give an honest look at varying perspectives.

- resent generalization (the women in your market are not "all women everywhere," nor are the Gen Y-ers in your market all alike)

- feel like they are underrepresented (now that marketing to Gen Y is all the rage, the Boomers can certainly say this)

- find ad campaigns irrelevant (most campaigns are irrelevant to a LOT more people than marketers might like to admit)

Now, this is my cynical stance.  I admit.

In an age where the political media thinks it has been a boring day unless a "scandal" has been uncovered and the business media only sees excitement in polarization or obvious one-hit wonder promotions or ads (which a lot of Sunday’s Super Bowl efforts will certainly be considered), it is also only the amazingly "misunderstood" consumers in any shape or size that seem to make the biggest news. 

Yet, aren’t there also many, many examples of perhaps smaller, less sexy brands with ad campaigns and consumer research that hit the nail on the head?  Yes. 

Think about the Sunsilk haircare brand (lots of women hate their ads, and only the very very specific market that the brand wants to reach "gets" the humor).  And, what of some of the recent microbrewery efforts (one of my favorites, because of its Team Wonderbike cause, is New Belgium Brewery)?  They’d have completely misunderstood their customers if they’d only focused on the profile for the obvious, broader segments of Gen X-ers or men.  Rather they go deeper than the usual consumer profile and get to the heart of the matter.  That’s why they can reach their passionate customers so well.

What triggered my post today was an Advertising Age article about new research on Boomers (and how misunderstood they are).  The game I played in my head was to replace the word "Boomer" in every finding with "women" or "single dads" and so on.  Whichever one I picked seemed to work.

Now – this is not to say that such research doesn’t have value, by any means.  I just wanted to point out that, big media coverage aside, marketers may need less help with the broad general  statements and more help dialing  in to their very unique customer bases.

Research that finds that the Gen Y or African American consumer is misunderstood, for example, may make news or be worth discussing, but it actually "misunderstands" the finer point.  Each of us is responsible for knowing an awful lot about our customers.

The transparent rule: Be guided and inspired by the consumers you serve, and voila – you reach your best customers, and then some.

Even though Victoria’s Secret is back in the big game’s ad mix this year (after an almost ten year hiatus), that isn’t really a big point toward a “marketing to women” award (since VS is a brand that more truly markets to men – and they do a great job). However, what does earn that type of award is the overall increasing awareness of, and ability of brands to see, the bigger picture – that there is this larger market out there, which includes sports fans who happen to be female! By focusing more on the shared interests of the coed consumer group, the NFL/Super Bowl includes women by default and serves the highest customer standard in general.

Anyway – in keeping with the sports theme, I recently came across another indication that that industry is sticking to its guns by focusing on core, passionate, customers and finding success with both genders. This past Monday I picked up a copy of ESPN:The Magazine to use as a transparent marketing example for a presentation. While that publication’s approach has always been guided and inspired by the readers they serve (though the segment, fairly obviously, starts with 18 – 34 year old males and dials in from there), this month’s cover shot said it loud and clear: snowboarder Gretchen Bleiler, smiling and all ready for the X Games.

Sure, she is attractive and that makes for good “cover” in any case, but the point is – as you page through the magazine, you come across more and more profiles and tidbits about great women and women’s teams in sports. That magazine has evolved with its readers – and it’s editors didn’t go into the gender trap of focusing on women to the pendulum swinging exclusion of men.

Instead, as the editorial staff stayed in tune with its readership, it likely saw more letters and comments from women and, likely, more comments from men interested in women’s sports, as well (sport is sport, after all!). Neither ESPN: The Magazine nor the Super Bowl decided to reach women with a pink version of the brand. Instead, they focused on the tone, style, humor, “feel” of their biggest fans to continue to grow their markets, and, I’d say, they are both winning.

But, back to that Super Bowl for a minute: Both my 70-something mom and I, in separate states with no planning, found ourselves being pulled into last weekend’s Giants/Packers game. We each felt that tug to linger on the game while clicking through the channels, and then we stayed. This happened NOT because either of us has ever gotten into watching the pros before, but because we couldn’t take our eyes off the Roman coliseum-like battle of these powerful athletes in the worst, coldest conditions ever. Neither of us, by the way, were really rooting for either team. We were each interested, not as “women,” but as natural sport fans.

A few fun facts on women and the Super Bowl from an article by Sarah Mahoney in MediaPost:

Last year’s Super Bowl posted a 31.3 rating
for women in the 18-to-49 demographic group, and last year’s Academy
Award hauled in just 17.2. So marketers “would need two ads in the
Oscars to reach the same number of women as one Super Bowl ad,” the Fox
spokesperson says.

Also in that article, Todd Kirby, director of strategic research for Spark Communications, Starcom MediaVest Group’s digital agency, cited a shift among the types of women watching the game. Baby
Boomer women are a growth audience, he says, with women 55-plus up 25%
since 2003.

So, study up and make no assumptions if you are in a traditionally male-dominated or -focused industry!

Caveat: I am by no means saying that both the NFL/Super Bowl and ESPN Magazine are perfect, and there is certainly much “pink” merchandise in the mix (which women do seem to love), but those two brands are making great strides. (Unfortunately, the NFL recently lost Lisa Baird, its very savvy Senior VP of Marketing). And, this transparent approach may not work perfectly for every industry – no question. Still, I love this sports case study as an example that even the seemingly most “male” of industries can learn to serve their female fans well. And, along the way, I’m betting that they didn’t lose any significant number of male fans.

There, I gave you another excuse to sit back for 3 hours or so, eat chips, drink beer and watch TV: market research. Thank me later.

2) It isn’t just the younger generation that is iPod and music-sharing obsessed, but the desire to stand around in a group with each person able to tune into what the other’s iPod is playing (without having to share earbuds) may be. I just got an email from a 17-year-old entrepreneur named Kristyn Heath who invented/developed an accessory to help people do just that. Her Snooptune product is pretty cool, and has gotten some initial publicity, but Kristyn is looking for funding sources for the further launch of this product and a few other, probably great, ideas. Talk about “her turn”! (ShinyShiny, take note!)

3) Why does “Bordeaux” evoke a room full of men smoking cigars (or is that a “hearty burgundy”…)? Because that’s what “tradition” might have us believe. Not so, says Julie Brosterman of Women & Wine. Julie pointed out in a recent blog post that Bordeaux tends to get a lot of play in retail wine stores where men have traditionally purchased wine, but not so much promotion in grocery or box stores where women tend to buy their wine. Plus, there continues to be an education gap. However, once women know a little more about the varietal (like it is often $25 or less and comes from a family/community history) – they get very interested. A switch of perspective and, look what happens – a market suddenly expands!