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.”

From what I’ve observed, women seem to be the ones who strongly advocate for it with male bosses, and tend to feel up against a brick wall until some random point is finally heard.  Even with plenty of brilliant female marketers making the case, those male bosses may continue to call M2W a “women’s thing” (so they stay out of it, and perhaps approve a few budgets for “initiatives”).  Thus, I’ve been exploring what makes men actually absorb and become engaged by the M2W opportunity (and, as so many of you well know, it is a BIG one).  Must the case be delivered by men?

An email conversation with a male friend and marketer got me thinking again.  There are now a great selection of M2W books written by a woman or two (the one I co-authored, Don’t Think Pink, is included, I hope) and those authors and many other experts who have yet to add their books (I hear rumblings of many to come) are extremely knowledgeable and credible.  And yet, if you go back and read Tom Peters small booklet on this topic (copyright 2001), Women Roar, he tells a story that could easily be the case today. To quote Peters (keeping his emphasis and the now beyond-dated references):

“It’s early 1997.  I am keynoting that First Annual MacDonald Communications Marketing to Women seminar, in Manhattan.  I finish my talk, head down the aisle and off to my next gig.  Someone accosts me.  She is one of the top half dozen executives at BankAmerica.  I know her.  She’s Kathleen Brown.  Former elected treasurer of the State of California. (By some measures, earth’s sixth largest economy.) Former gubernatorial candidate, who ran a close election in an impossible situation against a popular incumbent.  (I knew her from that campaign.) “Tom,” she says, pulling me aside, “would you do me a favor next time you’re in the Bay Area?” “If I can, of course,” I say.  KB: “I’d like you to have dinner with me and David Coulter [CEO of BankAmerica, prior to NationsBank merger].” “Sure, but why?” I say.  “I’d like you to tell him what you just told this group,” she says. Me: “Me?  Why me? You were the treasurer of the earth’s sixth largest economy.  You’re one of the most powerful women in one of the most powerful single ‘nations’ on earth.  I’m just a consultant. Why me?”  I repeat.  The reply (of course): “He’ll listen to you.”

It is now 12 years later, and I’m guessing Peters still has examples he could share of otherwise very successful and smart businessmen who gloss over M2W until they hear it from him.  Now, a new book by Michael Silverstein (with two co-authors) has just been published and another is on its way from Paco Underhill.  Do/will those books really introduce new insights/knowledge, or is it that the packaging might be more to a man’s liking?  Will pulling in Silverstein or Underhill to speak at a corporate event hold more weight than a woman – Marti Barletta, for example?  Will their books somehow get more play in the business press?

Generational differences are the one thing I see that may bring about a big shift on this front.  I am watching closely and studying up. But, already my conversations with Gen Y men have been enlightening.  Their backgrounds have been less artificially or environmentally “gendered.” They don’t recognize a lot of what has been so frustrating for those of us who are, say, 40+.

Here’s the truth: marketing to women expertise in all forms, shapes, ages, colors and sizes should be sought and leveraged by every single wise marketer out there – male or female.  Whomever advocates for pursuing the women’s market opportunity should be heard, applauded and rewarded. Don’t wait for Tom Peters to tell you like it is.

Marketing to women is quite simply gender neutral good business.

1) Tradition is a hard nut to crack.  Let’s face it. The minds and eyes of those – male or female – who organize, plan and program conferences are so used to seeing “male” they don’t even realize it.  To be clear: an even 50/50 gender balance, just for quota’s sake, is not REALLY what anyone wants.

2) The digital realm basically came out of the technology industry, which our society still may jokingly/wrongly perceive as “just a bunch of white, pasty guys in their basements” (whether true or not).  That industry just has a male essence, and likely always will.  Interestingly, social media, though it is within this masculinized digital/tech framework, is shaping up to be quite the place for excellence in previously considered “feminine” traits – like… being social.  Finding a few incredible women to round out the top ten list in question should not have been hard.

3) Isn’t it really about delivering a much broader variety in speaker style? Gender is, indeed, one quick way to start to sort that out – even if there is more to it than that.  If we are honest, we’d all admit that conferences can be really boring.  That’s why speaker diversity – in topics, methods, skin color, life experience, presentation style and so on – is KEY!  If it were possible to do a gender-blind review of speaking styles (but, too bad: voices and bodies would give it away) – I bet we’d see a more organic gender variety in speakers.

***

As with much in business/marketing, gender can be an underlying “agent” for missed opportunity or subtle miscues.  It remains a very misunderstood and non-discussed influence due to much grander reasons (psychology, human behavior, sociology) than what business need necessarily accept responsibility for.  (And, that’s what I study – so I’ll keep you posted.)  However, that is not to say we need to go to the extremes of enforcing some sort of gender equality for no reason other than to say we did.  Rather – consider the feminine traits/characteristics of your choices/or consumers’ purchase influencers.

That said: In terms of a speaker – do you need “women” vs “men” or a bit more emotion/storytelling/aesthetics vs graphs/charts/facts to balance out your roster?  You may well find those two style options along gender lines, but – especially with conference attendee numbers going down so significantly – assumptions are your enemies.

Characteristic-based segmentation, not simply gender segmentation, will deliver the diversity and engagement your audiences/participants seek.  Mark my words.

The background on those two tales -

(Visibly pink pitch) P&G’s Swiffer appealed to the girly side of female bloggers by sponsoring a pre-event Blogher lounge, SocialLuxe, which was described this way in Karl Greenberg’s MediaPost article:

As part of the partnership, P&G and Swiffer will offer guests manicures, pedicures, something called “clean-tinis,” and the first-ever BlogLuxe Award presentation — awards given by bloggers to bloggers — to recognize outstanding efforts in the blogging community.

(Full-on transparent approach) According to MediaPost’s Sarah Mahoney, Target is leveraging awareness of the bad economy/staycation trend to appeal to women and families trying to have fun with less money this year by:

…sponsoring a long list of local art events, offering 2,200 free days at more than 100 museums, theaters and cultural institutions throughout the country.

One approach resonates with today’s culture and the other seems lost in never-never land.  One is relevant to a lot more women for a longer period of time and one is fun for a small amount of women who may well not remember it a few days later.  One encourages/embraces a larger trend toward experiencing the wonders of your own “backyard,” and the other is counter to the more sustainable sensibilities that a lot of the members of its target market exhibit in their real and daily lives.

The pinkwashed, mani-/pedi angle was likely buzzing with activity and taken advantage of by plenty of early Blogher attendees.  By that measurement the promotion will be deemed a huge success.  But, do the SocialLuxe lounge event and Swiffer demonstrations/give-aways really speak to who those women deeply and for the longer term?

The transparent, not obviously “for her,” family culture and entertainment approach, on the other hand, can be appreciated by women as well as their kids and husbands.  It really does speak to a lot of women, in their language and around their values – especially right now.

Of course, we can go deep into each brand’s corporate history and practices, and pick them both apart in various ways.  No brand is, or will ever be, perfect.   My point was to simply take two marketing news-worthy stories on an average day in July and examine them for relevance to our immediate culture.  What do YOU see when you look around yourself today?  Which of those two marketing efforts would catch and hold your attention?

Pitching a product that is the antithesis of sustainable in a quick-hit, girly way to those assumed to still do all the housework (how 1950s) seems like a major disconnect right about now.  One more thing: do non-women-focused conferences have sponsored manly beer and sports caves with lawn mower and power tool demonstrations?  Argh.

What marketers have learned, especially in the past year or so, is that female and male consumers have very high expectations of the corporations behind the brands, as well as their marketing approaches.  They demand finely-tuned relevance to the issues and values that match theirs, or they can easily find another brand.

Is a pink drop in the promo bucket wise for Swiffer?  Once the super-influential target market of women bloggers gets back to writing, will cleaning gizmos or sponsored free museum visits this summer inspire their positive words?

Here’s one excerpt from the interview:

C.B.: What 5 suggestions do you have for companies to implement so they can more effectively bridge old media with new media and connect with end users?

Andrea:

1- Don’t make it a bigger deal than it is, or you’ll never get started. Get onto the various platforms and follow a few people you already know you respect and see how they do things.

2 – Don’t assume “social media” as next big thing is truly a good fit for your brand. It may not be – just depends who you are trying to reach.

3 – Do share, share and share… links and helpful information you’d pass along to your best buddy in your work-world. Then, when you have a blog post of your own or announcement to make, more people will see it as authentic and helpful rather than self-promoting.

4 – Don’t be afraid to engage a bit with those who seem to question or take issue with your perspective. Interesting conversations and connections usually emerge.

5 – Select 3-5 (tops) key topics you want to be known for sharing about and those parameters will help you decide when to send a tweet or post something on FB. Make 1-2 of those topics the ones that are personal to you. For me, I don’t have any significant work in socially responsible business, but I am personally passionate about it (and would love to someday work within that realm). I also have a thing for fitness/health so occasionally those Tweets will squeak out of me too.

***

Thanks for interviewing me, Christine!  For any of you who’d like to join me in my assimilation process, my Twitter handle is: @AndreaLearned.

This “follower split” suggests that women are driven less by followers than men, or have more stringent thresholds for reciprocating relationships. This is intriguing, especially given that females hold a slight majority on Twitter: we found that men comprise 45% of Twitter users, while women represent 55%.

Men are more likely to enter into a communication via status/positioning, according to Tannen’s research (so this is not a judgment, guys).  In the case of Twitter, that would mean that men tend to be interested in “the numbers,” and the higher the better. Whether or not any of the people they are following, or who follow them, are people they might like to get to know better is not the point.  Having an astounding “followers” count is.

Women, on the other hand, are perhaps more likely to be looking for connection based on common ground (as per Tannen, again).  For women on Twitter, that may mean actually taking the time to look at the profiles of each person who is newly following them to see if there’s enough reason to follow said person back.  Women have ways of connecting lots of information into one cohesive “it all matters” picture, and so more readily give themselves a reality check of how much time they might have for Twitter and how they’d best use it for their own purposes (and no one else’s).  It’s not the numbers, it’s the relationships that may potentially result for them.

Now, I’m not saying that this holds true for everyone, but Tannen is pretty smart and her insight gives us, as Twitter users (I’m @AndreaLearned) and marketers a lot to think about.  If we admit it, the Twitter phenomenon pointed out by these HBR folks does demonstrate an intriguing gender difference in human behavior, and in the whys and wherefores of interpersonal communication.

The insights therein may help you or your brand decide: 1)if a woman or man should do the Tweeting, 2) what to include in your account profile to inspire more people to want to connect with you, and 3) what sorts of things you should be pollng your followers about in order to do a better job connecting with everyone!

If there is a gendered pattern to human behavior in social media, don’t fight it and don’t judge it.  Men like to follow and be followed, and women need more than that to establish a real relationship.   Twitter is just a microcosm of humanity, after all.

Josh Fruhlinger called me a few weeks back to talk about just that.  He’d noticed an oddly and overly female-oriented promotional effort for what looked like a laptop otherwise worth a look by any design-minded laptop buyer (and that means both men and women).  This got him wondering about laptop gender.

It was a fun interview for what turned out to be a great article for IT World.  One of my common refrains with regard to marketing anything to women was also appropriate in this instance:

“The challenge for so many consumer electronics companies is to be inspired and guided by the women’s market, but not alienate men.”

And, branding expert Denise Lee Yohn, also made several wise points, including this:

“Companies should take care not to over-emphasize the gender orientation of their products. To capture the widest appeal and to avoid reinforcing stereotypes that alienate, they should pursue specific styles and aesthetics that resonate with both men and women.”

So, before you launch a specific and “visible” marketing to women effort for your consumer electronic gizmo, read this article.  You may be saved by a little gender-neutrality in delivery – even if the inspiration is the women’s market.

I have a very contained perspective on it all (whereas the “industry” gets overly enthused about all the potential).  I’d say: don’t freak out, follow a reasonable amount of people, unfollow at will, post mainly non-personal things, link to great articles – mainly other people’s stuff.  Make it about everyone else but yourself, for the most part.  That rule alone would wipe out about 90% of who is on Twitter now.

(My take applies mostly to individual Twitter users, not larger brand presences etc.)

***

It’s a fascinating medium and I highly recommend any of you not there already get an account and follow a few people whose work you’ve long respected to see how they go about it.  Take your cues from there and make your way of participating your very own.  You can find me at: http://twitter.com/AndreaLearned

And, yes – you can learn a bit about female consumers along the way by posing questions yourself or doing searches on your category or industry of interest.

[Editorial note: As of 4/20, the podcast is up and I've gotten great feedback.  The interviewer did a particularly good job guiding me to share my marketing to women journey: from co-authoring Don't Think Pink in 2004 and starting this blog, to my more recent research for "Beware The Gender Trap" into how men are starting to buy using their more "feminine" brain traits.]