This young woman was not writing about a pink, “for women” ad campaign, but she so well could have been.  Instead, Edelson was expressing her wonder at why so many of the colleges she toured this fall seemed to so desperately be leveraging Harry Potter “insider-ism” in “selling” their campuses.  From schools like Harvard and Boston College to Dartmouth and Middlebury, Edelson noticed that there was always some reference to Hogwarts or Quidditch.

Why would that be the case?  From what Edelson writes, it sounds to me like these colleges (as with most) are feeling the heat of the economic downturn.  They’ve got to differentiate, and in immediately visible ways, so that it is clear through web sites and two-hour tours that their campus and programs are relevant to young people; that they are hip and “get” what today’s high school juniors and seniors are looking for from higher education.  Except, by being so obvious in their approach (naming buildings after Hogwart houses?), they come off as a bit silly and irrelevant.

Some of the prospective students coming to tour campuses may well be huge Harry Potter fans and buy out the stores of those branded goods, but that doesn’t mean they’d buy a car because it had Harry Potter stickers on it or a broom for a steering wheel.  The passion for the Harry Potter fiction and a safe, quality car are in no way connected.   So, why would they think more of a college that names dorms after fictional Hogwart buildings?  The two are not connected, so trying to connect them is plain weird. Let me remind you of Edelson’s quote:

But they’re trying too hard.  They’re selling the wrong thing. And my friends and I won’t be fooled.

Those words could well be coming from the mouths of 42-year old women in your market.  That would be exactly how they felt when faced with a brand inappropriately and misguidedly leveraging “pink” or stereotypical “girly” activities in an attempt to show them just how much it “got” them and understood how they live their lives.  As with Hogwarts and college campuses, it smacks of desperation and disconnects women from the brand.  Oops.

What really mattered to Edelson on her college tour, as she wrote,  were things like this: that one college offered “two-student classes called tutorials,” and another college “let students weigh in on almost every big decision made by its administration.”  No Hogwarts necessary.

So, here’s an exercise: read Edelson’s editorial, and switch out her references to college names with brands, and her references to Hogwarts or Harry Potter with “pink” or “for women.”  One example:

“Why are America’s best schools comparing themselves to Hogwarts?”

becomes

“Why are America’s best brands turning themselves pink?”

***

Run your business, and make the products or deliver the services that themselves differentiate your brand in the minds of women.  Then, you won’t have to try too hard and you won’t be selling the wrong thing.

It can’t be denied: some brands think they can get away with an extra surcharge simply because they say a product is for women.

Of course, in likely a very few instances, there may be a serious difference in the ingredients, or elements of design, that lead to higher costs in getting the product made.  That is fine. However, take note of the common grocery style aisle examples Poundstone shares:

• Barbasol’s classic shaving cream (boring barbershop art style can) runs $1.69, and that same brand’s “pure silk moisturizing shave cream” (lovely green pastel) goes for $2.49.
• Excedrin Menstrual Complete (pink package) has the same active ingredients, in the same amounts, as the regular Excedrin (forest green package). But 20 gel caps of Menstrual Complete runs $6.49, v. $5.99 for 20 gels of the regular pain reliever.

Here’s the thing, marketers.  This may have worked in the past, but “women’s” product surcharges will not be taken lightly by today’s much more scrutinizing consumer (and a lot of these people are writing blogs and talking trash about your sleights of hand on Facebook and Twitter, of course).  Now that there are a few socially responsible companies out there pressuring more traditional brands to be as transparent with what they do, how they do it and what goes into it – we’ve got a whole new level of buyer expectation on our hands!  A woman’s new diligence in confirming a brand’s green claims will surely rub off and help her spot, and be mad about, pink wash as well.  The more people (no gender about it) look at labels, for whatever initial reason, the more they will also critically consider all their purchases.

Yikes.  What’s a brand to do if they want to reach women?  Don’t make stuff up, don’t inflate prices, tell them the truth, and let them come to their own conclusion that buying your slightly pricier product is worth it to them.  Don’t fake them out with a “women’s” version of a product that already exists.  Given the choice, in many cases, many a woman would gladly forgo that pretty packaging (and now more than ever).  Hmmm.. there may be some great brand trust-building opportunity in there somewhere…

As Poundstone notes in his Psychology Today blog post, women may tend to be a bit less price sensitive (in some categories).  But, in today’s economy, and with all buying eyes so much more focused on “washes” of any color – there is actually a LOT to lose by charging extra for nothing.

In “Pimp My Bed: The Male Sleep Lair,“Ray A. Smith of the Wall Street Journal describes the general trend this way:

The new macho mattresses they’re introducing have “muscle-recovery properties” and cooling technology, on the theory that men are more likely to feel too hot in bed. The bed frames feature built-in TVs, iPod docking stations, wine coolers, safes and other guy-friendly gadgetry.

One need only read the comments to that story to realize that the bed makers are marketing to a male fantasy – and even guys will call them on it.

Just reading the article (in which Smith valliantly tries to keep professional and not satirical) makes a person cringe.  So, why are these beds being made and marketed at all?   As Smith points out – there is not likely to be a big market for macho beds.

The ways these manufacturers and their marketing teams seem to have been thinking reminds me of the way a lot of brands market to women. So, what I notice:

1) They weren’t thinking or doing research, they were assuming.  Gender stereotypes reign.

2) They got so caught up in the accessorizing (cold champagne, at the ready!) that real relevance and core purpose/quality of product was likely diluted in the mind of the consumer.

3) They went so far to the end of the gender spectrum (super duper macho) that they may well have harmed their brand for the longer term.  Who would trust a company that so obviously is not in touch with its customer base?  Very odd.

***

Does all that seem so obvious to you?  It certainly should.

There may well be a red flag in even early on, internal product development language that brands should learn to heed.  If you are calling your gizmo the “for him” or “for her” version, go back with a fine tooth comb and do an audit. Make sure you aren’t making huge assumptions, going too far male or female in tone and shooting yourself in the foot for future reference.  In most cases, gender-focused marketing should be transparent.  So, find another way to surprise consumers with ever-desired TVs, safes and coolers.

1)  Every woman in the world shops as much as possible.

2) This shopping-obsessed woman can be swayed over to another aisle, and a product she has zero need for, merely by pink or shiny packaging of some sort.

3) Even if said woman doesn’t really wear make-up or is not buying soup much these days, this will do it.  She’ll stock up on whatever it is to give that 2 cents a pop to a breast cancer-related fund – as long as it is pink!

4) And, to be sure, even if women don’t do the Filene’s Basement run on your special pink October product, just IMAGINE all the press your public relations people can garner for the me-too campaign!

***

The above describes how an awful lot of brands today are looking at October and its breast cancer awareness drive.  What it doesn’t describe is any particular commitment or innovative approach to really getting the double-duty results a brand should want from participation in cancer prevention.  Traditional pink October efforts are a lame approach to “cause marketing,” not because the cause is not incredibly worthy (!), but because brands usually dip their toes too daintily in the water that every other brand has already walked through.  Over many years of Octobers, that lake has gotten murky, and all the pink and gloss can’t help it an iota.  So, I guess it isn’t so odd that your one big month’s worth of publicity doesn’t generate either a ton of money for the breast cancer cause or any sustained new customer interest in what our brand is all about.

Could we have seen that coming?  I do believe we could have.

So, yes, I am on the hunt for breast cancer month efforts that really speak to the cause, deliver some significant funding – and don’t rely solely on the pink wash.  I will give extra points to any that really serve the cause by raising awareness among a new segment (i.e. preaching to those outside the choir).  That may be younger women or teenage girls who still feel immortal or, perhaps more importantly, men.  How do you make pink month matter to them?

Well, according to a Los Angeles Times article by Dan Neil, it looks like one non-profit has come up with a new idea.  It’d be a cliche if it weren’t so true, but what is known to sell any number of things for men?  Starts with an “s,” my friends.  Well, the Rethink Breast Cancer organization was really rethinking.  Rather than leveraging the sad/fear of losing your wife angle, these ads make a point in Madonna cone-bra style .

I can see where they are coming from, and it may well be an attention-getter with men – but is lechery a truly effective motivator?  Guys – please comment to let me know your thoughts.

Otherwise – I’d love to hear about breast cancer awareness efforts that go beyond pink – and possibly even go beyond October.  If I hear about some good ones, I’ll write up the best practices and tell you why they work so well for this women’s cause that needs to resonate with men.

An article in the latest issue of Pink mentioned how the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan got creative in reaching out to women, specifically for their executive MBA programs.  Because state law prohibited the school from offering gender-based scholarships, they did the research and realized that a lot of non-profit executives happened to be female.  So, Ross focused its scholarship money there.  Brilliant. The school figured out a commonality that had nothing to do with gender – and learned how to reach THAT group effectively.

It’s called transparent marketing, people (as covered in my book – Don’t Think Pink).  By operating under those state-issued rules, the Ross School was guided and inspired by the women they tend to serve.  And, they didn’t alienate men.  Because they could not go “all girly” or they’d break the law(!), they came up with something even better for reaching women.

So how might this translate for brands?  If the legal department in the corporate office had a fine toothed gender-mention comb, a brand’s marketing team would be forced to look deeper than the man/woman difference – they’d have to dig into psychographics and determine what their core consumer was really all about.  They’d have to do more research and get to know their customers intimately.  It sounds like it would be, frankly, a lot more time and budget-consuming.  Perhaps.  But, this front end in-depth exploration would be the incredible foundation for every step that brand took with this particular market from then on.  I’d venture to say such a brand would be blown away by the insights and cleverness that emerged.

Sure, the market a particular brand serves may be predominantly women, but why tell anyone else that?  My point is that, in a lot of cases, the best marketing to women has gotten around the gender question by serving humans/individuals who may so happen to be women.  Bridget Brennan just published a great piece in Forbes about how Apple discreetly markets to women, and that is a brand example I often use as well.  That company’s savvy marketing team surely doesn’t want Apple to be known as a “women’s brand,” so they have not publicized any “women’s initiatives,” nor have they been caught dead (in public) doing any specific gender-focused research.  And yet, it is clear that they get women better than a lot of brands that are trying with all their publicity power to be a famous “women’s brand.”  It is as if there was some corporation-wide legal restriction against an obvious gender focus, and Apple has gotten around it very, very successfully.

I have written in the past about how I’d like to work myself out of a job – where “marketing to women” becomes an obsolete field, and “marketing to the highest customer standard” (sounds so obvious, doesn’t it?) gets all the press and business study.  Gender is a factor in how you serve your market, yes – but let’s just say your legal department won’t let you talk about it, or put “for women” on any web site, brochure or press release at all.

What, praytell, are you going to do?

Finding the right approach for gender-specific marketing can be really tricky.  Some brands go too far with the girlie stuff, and that’s when they start getting into trouble.

If you are interested in more on this topic, my post for MarketingProfs DailyFix blog just posted as well.  Plus, there is a lot of continuing discussion on Twitter. (I can be found there as: @AndreaLearned).

The typical follower of both the male and female circuits is a married, college-educated white man approaching or ensconced in middle age. About half work as professionals — lawyers, doctors and the like — or managers. For those who travel to events, two out of five boast an annual income of $100,000 or more, according to surveys released by sponsors and the PGA and LPGA tours.

When you’ve pondered that fact – that married, college-educated white men are the LPGA’s (as well as the PGA’s) primary audience – then consider the design/approach of the LPGA site.  While it is wisely not pink-washed per se, the copy/tone/style still seems to lean a bit more feminine than necessary.

If men are the core group following these amazing professional athletes, why would the LPGA site’s Q&A column start with: “what is your favorite store to shop in?”  In another section, profiling the 2009 female rookies of the year, questions about favorite places to travel and who they are most looking forward to meeting on the tour are included.  Hmmm.  Nothing stereotypical there…

I  understand, and applaud, that storytelling and getting to know the athletes a bit is the latest way of making incredible athletes like these more accessible or “like us,” but in this case the lightness of the presentation may not be the best reflection of the LPGA for its core audience – men.   The mistake is that while the LPGA may have been started, specifically, by, about and for women, the organization’s marketing approach today doesn’t reach its actual customer very well.  So – does it make sense to market it in such gender-specific ways?  No.

Realizing that physical/strength issues necessitate the separation into “men’s” and “women’s” tours, what would happen if the marketing of the PGA and LPGA merged – and thus the inherent tone became a bit more gender neutral (for male and female fans alike)?  Take the general success of ESPN (and all its media properties), for example.  They didn’t start a “for women” ESPN, but folded in to their “products” all these amazing female athletes and sports along the way.  It turns out their coverage still very much works for men as well as women – who are first and foremost raging sports fans.

My point?  Sometimes “women’s this or that” doesn’t need to be marketed to only women (especially if it turns out women aren’t the market!).  The efforts can still be more framed by women’s ways of thinking/relating (as in the storytelling/profiles example), BUT in ways that reach men too.

The Olympics and ESPN have done very well in gender-integrating sports coverage.  They make it about the athletes and their dedication/training and backgrounds, which appeals on an inclusive level.  They leave the cliche male or female elements out – and thus, avoid unnecessary gender polarization.  In this case,  where men are really the bulk of the audience/fan base, the LPGA can stop with the “favorite shopping sites” and “why you love this spa or that one” questions.

Go back and re-connect with your core market, LPGA.  I’m betting these fans (mainly men) skip right over the Q&As and head to the stats anyway.  Serve them better, and you will find women respond to the less patronizing approach.  Better yet -  do this and you should have less trouble landing sponsors who may not have room for “marketing to women” in their budgets.

“We are doing what hasn’t been done, which is focusing on the top of the women’s market,” he said, adding that women who read The XX Factor are “very smart, affluent, technically savvy, and also interested in fashion and shopping — but not limited to that.”

The top of the women’s market I study already knows where to go for fashion and shopping, and was probably thrilled to find a more intellectual blog that skipped those two topics in The XX Factor.  I understand the drive to increase advertising revenue, but diluting content sites, especially those already known for more substantive features, may be a big mistake.

On top of that – while men may well have read and joined in the conversations on The XX Factor before the more “womanly” topics and advertising were added, they will be less inclined now.  This, from Slate’s announcement of The XX Factor to Double X transformation:

A magazine by women but not just for women, Double X will spin off from our “XX Factor” blog, where we’ve started a conversation among women—about politics, sex, and culture—that both men and women enjoy listening in on.

Women’s online ad networks really serve advertisers and not readers.  In this case, Slate’s content/ad changes could chase away the very active and engaged niche readers The  XX Factor/Double X was built on.

That is not to say that women don’t respond to “ff” to a degree.  However, if it were really a friendly investment in women, a brand’s strategy would have substance, from product design forward, and go much beyond public relations in serving female-specific ways of buying.

So – who defined “ff” marketing originally?  Perhaps a few decision-making men in a room of some brand in a traditional industry who wished it to be the case.  With friends like that…

The truth is that brand’s can no more claim to be female-friendly than they can claim to be male-friendly.  Only their customers and the fact that they return time and again, and refer friends, can point to the real value of such friendship, and it probably won’t be segmented down perfectly gender-specific lines (sorry to make things hard on researchers).

Anyway.. take the case of Saturn:  As I wrote in a recent post, I’m a fan of their initial approach and yes, it was very effective with women, in particular.  However, I take issue with a comment in this recent article that Honda, despite being less “female-friendly,” is more successful with women than Saturn.  If women are  buying a lot of its products, shouldn’t that brand, by definition, be considered a true friend?  Honda may not presume their female-friendliness, but their business practices simply make it so.

And… sure enough, Honda has lots of male “friends” too (but I digress).

Certainly, Honda has not gotten as much press as Saturn has about how well their programs speak to women.  Nor, have they very visibly done “women’s” events or promotions – as may have been the case with Saturn in the early days.   But, it’s what Honda is doing transparently, or in the background, that serves women so well.  Women wouldn’t buy the brand if they didn’t find the cars fit their specific practical/functional and design desires, that the customer experience was good, and that the marketing messages were relevant to their lives.

Honda and Saturn could both be defined as female-friendly for the variety of reasons that women tend(ed) to want to own them.  But, maybe the lesson is in looking closely at the one that endures:  the company that functioned in a female-friendly way without forcing the point.

Because I have so often written about/presented on the ideas in my book Don’t Think Pink, I’ve found that the easiest way to illustrate the book’s key concept, transparent marketing, for (often and mainly) male audiences tends to be this: I cite “vice versa” examples, as in how a brand might “think blue” in trying to reach men. That way male marketers, in particular, can better see themselves in the shoes of their female customers.

Well… just such an example recently hit my in-box by way of an emailed press release proudly announcing DealsForGuys, a new web site designed to help men find deals on all sorts of products.

So as not to make the assumptions I might otherwise about why this wouldn’t work for most men, I emailed and Twittered a few members of my men’s advisory panel. One who responded immediately was Kevin Burke, of Lucid Marketing fame, who put it very simply:

name got my interest.
immediate negative reaction to the web site.
site in need of a professional designer.
scoreboard-nav methphor is lame.
instructions on how to use the site shouldn’t be necessary on the home page.
offers no relevance to my life.
couldn’t wait to leave.

A few of the other comments I received from my network:

ick with the sports stuff
why do I need deals b/c I’m a guy?
design complaints, usability complaints
look under grooming – first item is a women’s razor

General ways in which this site “thinks blue:”

• Assumptions (with a capital A) about what will draw the attention of “guys” (primary blue, sports, unsophisticated design).
• Not adding any value or doing what it’s name proclaims (special deals only they could bring you), but instead merely listing what any other site could also list.
• Not making it clear at all why this is really “for guys” alone. There is nothing particularly gender-specific or relevant about its content or presentation.
• Assumptions about whether men felt a real need for such a site at all. There may be a lot of men who are perfectly happy finding their own deals (in fact, that’s the fun of the hunt!)

***

While this is not a huge brand example, the lessons from this attempt to reach men are still worth learning. If just the tone of the comments (not even the specific points) I got back in my quick survey are any indication, there is significant irritation that a brand would presume to know so much about men and how they buy.

And, guess what? This is JUST the way women feel when you make assumptions about them with your marketing efforts or web sites. They may not necessarily be steaming mad, but women will be annoyed at your waste of their time, and so will be much less inclined to buy from you or tell any of their friends.

Why waste the effort? Talk to the men or women you are trying to reach instead, get past the gender assumptions – and you won’t end up sending out press releases about sites that can be so easily picked apart.

So, … don’t let blue thinking or its twin sister, pink thinking, happen to you! Keep these poor “guys” in mind.