Dispatches from the New World of Work

Must Market!

The economy is in the tank, etc., etc. But there will be an end to the gloomy tunnel, and the barrel of gold at the end of that tunnel—bruises and "new world" iterations notwithstanding—will be, for the Americans, our 80-million, mostly healthy, even if not quite as wealthy, Boomers. Some get it—and maybe it's not as hard as others think. For example, my bet is for great success for Jay Leno in his soon-to-be 10 p.m. slot. If "60 is the new 30," "10 p.m. is the new 11:30 p.m." Boomers may be healthier than their predecessors of the same age band, but they mostly go to bed by, say, 11 p.m.

(Startling success in general will go to those in the "rapidly aging universe"—e.g., U.S., EU, Japan—who vigorously pursue the BGB/Boomer-Geezer Bonanza.) (Reminder: "It" is not mostly about marketing; "it" is overwhelmingly about new products and services.)

Beats Biofuels?!

Okay, I've stooped to reading ads. A United Technologies (Otis, Carrier, etc.) ad illustrates in detail the contours of a "zero net energy" building. There's nothing far out about it—and buildings today consume perhaps 40% of our energy.

I'm not conned by the ad—it just succinctly captured a ton of stuff I've been reading, and a ton of stuff underway in the green building "movement." Working on energy reduction in built environments is certainly on the prospective Obama stimulus list. But is it high enough on that list? Massive improvements can be made with proven technologies, far closer at hand than hydrogen cars or a national network of car battery recharging facilities. (And maybe the price of corn would fall in the process—thus saving starving people from bonehead Washington policies.)

FYI

The same BusinessWeek used above as a source has an article titled "What Top CEOs Are Thinking."

8 CEOs.
8 males.

(Sorry to waste your time, I realize this is not news.)

Rightside Up?

I have nothing against men—and feel profoundly for the million refugees cited below. On the other hand, I have been trying to make the case for an enhanced women's role in business for a dozen years now—and I've also been a particularly noisy foreteller of the exponential shift of the U.S. to a service economy.

These amazing stats appeared in the 5 December Boston Globe. In the last year:

Men are down 1,069,000 jobs.

Women are up 12,000 jobs.

Holy moly.

The principal reason is the continuing demise of male-dominated manufacturing jobs, and the continuing rise of service jobs. In particular, healthcare, where women constitute 80% of employees, has added 400,000 jobs during the period in question.

Interesting, eh?

(Net: It is increasingly a women's world, called the global rise of "Womenomics" by one European observer. Another accelerator is the stunning rate at which women are eclipsing men on the education front, again pretty much worldwide—from primary school to Ph.D. programs.)

Penance?

What shall we do with the architects (and operators) and facility managers?

As most know, two of my great passions are gorgeous and startling and utilitarian DESIGN. And MARKETING to WOMEN. (Add great experiences—but I was a follower on that one.)

Susan and I went to the fabulous-restored Colonial Theater in Boston to see Spamalot. At the break, I at one point counted (I counted twice—zero hyperbole here) a line of 27 (TWENTY-SEVEN) (TWENTY-SEVEN) at the entrance to the LADIES ROOM.

Of course I know that such a problem is tough to deal with after the fact in an old facility—but there was the renovation point, and I'd guess "the boys" (I'd wager a pretty penny that it was boys), the architects, TOTALLY BLEW IT.

SO OUR QUESTIONS OF THE DAY ARE (1) HOW DO WE FIX IT NOW? (2) WHAT SHOULD THE ARCHITECTS' PENANCE BE?

(My starter suggestion, since re-renovation is tough, especially in a tough philanthropic environment, is to punish all us boys by severely and sternly (rent-a-cops with batons) limiting access to the Men's Room and carefully managing the line so ours is always one-third longer than theirs. (The penalty extra third acknowledges that it takes us less time to get the job done.) Hmm, maybe ours should be twice as long, adding in some small measure of punitive damages.

I anxiously await your replies which I shall forward with dispatch to the AIA/American Institute of Architects.

M-F Leadership Styles, Effectiveness of

In my last post, Success Tip #140, I caught myself in an un-rare but un-intentional sexist moment. While discussing crisis leadership, I used typically male language and imagery—including the all-male football analogy!

By coincidence, the day after the post, my mail included Leadership and the Sexes: Using Gender Science to Create Success in Business, a book by Michael Gurion and Barbara Annis. The book is a marvel. The authors begin, "This book is about the practical application of information on male/female brain differences in every aspect of your corporate life, from workplace comfort to competitive edge to the corporate bottom line."

The most important phrase being, per me, "brain differences"—that is, the book is derivative of the new brain sciences, not anecdotal evidence. (The book is strongly endorsed by the author of another book I found of inestimable value, The Female Brain, by Louann Brizendine, M.D.)

The evidence is brain-science based, but a social-psychological experiment provides a nice snapshot of the findings. What follows is from a sidebar titled, "Gender Experiments Surprise Even the Experts":

"In the 1990s, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/CBC created a short film that recorded an experiment in leadership styles between women and men. CBC didn't tell the participants the objective of the work they would do that day; the director simply divided the male and female leaders into two teams, and gave those team leaders the same instructions: build an adventure camp. The teams were set up in a somewhat militaristic style at first, including team members wearing uniforms, but also with the caveat in place that the teams could alter their style and method as they wished as long as they met the outcome in time.

"Leader one immediately created a rank-and-file hierarchy and gave orders, even going so far as to assert authority by challenging members on whether they had polished their shoes.

"Leader two did not have the 'troops' line up and be inspected, but instead met with the other team members in a circle, asking 'How are we doing? Are we ready?' 'Anything else we should do?' 'Do you think they'll test us on whether we've polished our shoes?' Instead of giving orders, leader two was touching team members on the arm to reassure them.

"As part of the program, CBC arranged for corporate commentators to watch the teams prepare. Initially the commentators (mostly men) were not impressed by the leadership style of leader two; the second team wasn't 'under control,' members weren't lined up, and they 'lacked order' (or so it seemed). The commentators predicted that team two would not successfully complete the task. Yet when the project was completed, team two had built an impressive adventure camp as good as team one's, with some aspects that were judged as better.

"When debriefing their observations, the commentators noticed that when team one was building the structures for the camp, there had been discord regarding who was in charge and who had completed which job and who hadn't. Team one exhibited a lack of communication during the process of completion that created problems (for example, 'Wasn't someone else supposed to do this?').

"Team two, on the other hand, took longer to do certain things, but because of its emphasis on communication and collaboration during the enactment of the task (such as 'Let's try this' and 'What do you think about that?'), the team met the goal of building the adventure camp in its own positive way, and on time."

There is for me a profoundly important "bottom line" here. Not that one style is better than another, but that virtually every proclamation we make ought to be informed by gender differences. In my speeches, for example, I often find myself rambling on ad nauseam about the importance of relentless relationship building—a stunning insight for a male to make or take on board (I overstate ever so slightly), and boringly obvious beyond words to most of the female participants. I am not suggesting that every phrase be presented in two languages, but I am suggesting that the topic ought not be far beneath the surface. Based on my own experience, I will say that we (i.e., me) will not necessarily improve (as in, exhibit increased sensitivity) over time; hey, with the chips down last week, Joe Montana and the SF 49ers were my immediate benchmarks.

I urge you to read the book—there is a lot at stake, and an opportunity to achieve lasting competitive advantage. From an increasingly robust body of research, we know for sure (as sure as sure can ever be) that diverse teams—diversity on any and all dimensions—outperform homogenous teams. We equally have to know how to maximize the diversity advantage—the reward can be performance leaps, not just modest improvements.

My Kind of Promotion

While in China-Macau SAR, I was delighted with a headline in the Global Edition of the New York Times on 1 July: "A Big Step for Women in the U.S. Military." President Bush has just nominated Lieutenant General Ann Dunwoody to take command of the Army's Material Command. If Congress approves, she will add a fourth star to her collar—and thence become the military's first female 4-star flag officer.

Bravo!

Mea Culpa!

There's a book I love—which Susan wishes had never been written, Roger Rosenblatt's delightful (I think) Rules for Aging. S's irritation stems from my penchant for referring to it again and again and then again—she's got a point, actually.

A couple of weeks ago, she and a few friends were uncharacteristically heading to a garden party—spring hats were more or less required. As she worried and worried about how her hat would be received, I "helped" by re-re-re-reading to her Rosenblatt's Rule #2, perhaps my favorite:

"Yes, I know that you are certain that your friends are becoming your enemies; that your grocer, garbageman, clergyman, sister-in-law, and your dog are all of the opinion that you have put on weight, that you have lost your touch, that you have lost your mind; furthermore you are convinced that everyone spends two-thirds of every day commenting on your disintegration, denigrating your work, plotting your assignation. I promise you: Nobody is thinking about you. They are thinking about themselves—just like you."

But, indeed, when the women gathered after the party they were abuzz about who had worn what—caustic opinions flew hot and heavy. Pointedly reminding me that Roger & I are men.

That is, the worried woman is right—others are indeed thinking about her and passing judgment thereupon.

Not so for us boys, mostly at least. (As Roger said. And I quote ...)

The above reminded me of something of paramount practical importance that's been on my mind for a while. I will make some profound pronouncement or other, during a speech, on, say, the all-important topic of "relationship management." It is, if I must say so myself, a real eye-opener.

To me and the boys in the room.

The women yawn, or buzz "At 65 he's discovered the power of relationships—bloody men."

My message here, boys, is one I'm working on assiduously, though the anecdote above would suggest, without much success. Namely, it is important that I pass many a remark through a "gender filter." Not for reasons of political correctness, God help me, but because my "brilliant (breakthrough?) generalization" may well be old-old-old-obvious-obvious-obvious news to the other gender—and implementation, the end point, will be profoundly affected by my faulty assertion—"they are thinking about themselves."

I'm not asking, guys, for revised behavior necessarily (ever so difficult to pull off), but I am urging vigilant thoughtfulness-awareness. The business-process project you are working on will be implemented in your 63-person unit by the staff of 30 boys and 33 girls (about right, statistically). It's possible that any number of your key assumptions will not hold water for the 33 women.

The obvious answer, for starters, is thoroughly mixed-gender teams with mixed-gender leadership—and explicit awareness of and discussion about the degree to which the disposition of the internal "customers" will be significantly affected by gender. (And design reflecting the above!)

Is "all this" totally obvious to everyone but me—and Roger Rosenblatt? Perhaps, but based on my dozen years of wrestling with the implication of gender differences, I doubt it.

Meanwhile, my "gender filter" remains firmly in place—and Roger Rosenblatt's book is well out of sight.

I Do Love You, Lee, But ...

How simply can I put it: There is no one in ad world that I respect more than Lee Clow, the chief creative at TBWA Worldwide—he's been my hero since the 1985 Apple ad showing IBMers as lemmings walking off a cliff. (I was in the Stanford stadium when it played for the one and only time during the Super Bowl.)

The New York Times recently reported on Lee's remarks at a big ad world confab. He seems to have said that the key to getting with it in the New World Order of advertising-marketing is hiring lots of youngsters and giving them more or less free rein to invent the future.

Seems as though I've heard that line before—from me.

Well, to a large extent, Lee and I are simply full of it.

How about hiring ... old people [and giving them more or less free rein to invent the future]?

That is: I have met the future, and it is me!

As most of you know, Susan and I have just returned from a seven-day walking tour along the Dalmatian Coast of Croatia. There were about 15 of us. As I recall, the age range was about fifty to a little over seventy-five. (!!) While the daily hikes were not reminiscent of the Boston Marathon that occurred the day after we left, they were up-and-down, rocky, and averaged perhaps eight miles a day.

You didn't have to be a Rockefeller to be a part of the group, but a reasonable amount of money changed hands, especially when airfare is included.

We—collectively—are the poster "children" for the most enormous-wealthy-healthy market opportunity, well, ever. As in: ever.

Boomers.
Geezers.

Bill Novelli, AARP head, lets us in on the world's most commercially profound "secret":

"People turning 50 today have more than half of their adult life ahead of them."

When I first read that, I believe it's no exaggeration to say that I literally "gasped." I guess I more or less knew it, but I'd never seen it in such plain-succinct text.

50.
Over.
Half.
To go.

Of equal impact, on a micro level, was the fact that:

The average American buys 13 cars in the course of a lifetime.
She-he buys seven of the thirteen after the age of 50.

Cars.
More than half.
After 50.

The leading edge of boomer-dom is now over 60. I tried to describe, on a single PPT slide, what I think is coming-here, from the Boomers, and their older peers, the [amazingly healthy] Geezers:

"We are the Aussies & Kiwis & Americans & Canadians. We are the Western Europeans & Japanese. We are the fastest growing, the biggest, the wealthiest, the boldest, the most (yes) ambitious, the most experimental & exploratory, the most different, the most indulgent, the most difficult & demanding, the most service & experience obsessed, the most vigorous, (the least vigorous,) the most health conscious, the most female, the most profoundly important commercial market in the history of the world—and we will be the Center of your universe for the next twenty-five years. We have arrived!"

We.
Have.
Arrived.

Back to my gripe with my friend Lee Clow.

Here is my current report card on the market's (manufacturers, retailers, designers, marketers, product and service developers) effort to understand and encompass and exploit this Incredible-Humongous Expanding Market Opportunity:

Awful.
Dumb.
Disgraceful.
Insane.
Stupid.
Pitiful.
Embarrassing.

As I put it, ever so gently, and with great cultural sensitivity, post-Croatia, in my London seminar on 28 April:

"You are all idiots."

Hint: I considered it understatement.

NB: I am not suggesting that things aren't changing. But I am suggesting-insisting that I and my friends on the trip to Croatia and several hundred million others with literally trillions of bucks-Euros burning holes in our collective pockets, will be the centerpiece of economic opportunity for the next Two Decades or so. It ain't forever, but 20 or 25 years is a good, solid hunk of time.

Think: Next quarter century!
(After that you're on your own—and I ain't gonna be bugging you.)

Attached is a short PowerPoint "Special Presentation" on this topic.

Above and below are a couple of pics from our trip.

Three Cheers For Us!
Whoops, Hold The Applause!

"We" (Americans) are near the top of the "get it" list when it comes to providing women equal opportunities to men. Hey, it's what I thought—and I study this stuff. The World Economic Forum begs to differ. Their annual "Global Gender Gap" assessment is based on: (1) educational attainment; (2) economic participation and opportunity; (3) political empowerment; and (4) health and survival. The U.S.A. ranks ... 31st! (Um, down from a lofty 22nd in 2006.) We are indeed well ahead of Chad and Yemen, the two worst at #127 and #128. But, we are behind Sweden (#1), Germany (#7), Cuba (this year's #22), Bulgaria (#25), and Estonia, immediately above us at #30.

Source: Time, 11.26.07

DAMN IT!

WHAT PURE CRAP!

WALL STREET JOURNAL. NOVEMBER 9-11: "WHY WOMEN REFRAIN FROM PURSUING MBAs." ONE EXCEPTION TO "NORMAL" [#s HEAVY] APPROACH TO MBA IS UK's LANCASTER UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT SCHOOL. LANCASTER FOCUSES ON "SOFT SKILLS" THAT "PLAY TO WOMEN'S STRENGTHS."

TOTAL, PURE, UNMITIGATED CRAP!

WHY DO WE CALL "LEADERSHIP" ET AL. "SOFT," "WOMEN'S STUFF"? ENRAGES ME. (This is the first post ever in all capital letters. Capital letters = Enraged.)

LET'S TALK ABOUT "HARD STUFF," THE "REAL GUY STUFF" THAT MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND—AND MARKETS AND ECONOMIES CRASH!

THE ULTIMATE "HARD STUFF" IS QUANT FINANCE—THE PRODUCT OF PURE MATH—"GUY STUFF," THE STUFF THAT MEN ARE MADE FOR! TAKE "MARK-To-MARKET" AND "SUPER-SENIOR CDOs" [CONSOLIDATED DEBT OBLIGATIONS]. THEY ARE KILLING US!! "MARK-TO-MARKET"? FINE! BUT WHAT, MY DEARS, IS THE "MARKET"? NOBODY HAS A SWEET CLUE—ESPECIALLY THE "QUANTS." THE "MARKET"/A MARKET/ANY MARKET IS A FUNCTION OF THE LONG-FORGOTTEN [BY THE "QUANTS"—"HARD GUYS," "REAL MEN"] UNDER-LY-ING VAL-UE OF THE REAL [NOT "MODELED"] ASSET. [E.G. THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE BY REAL PEOPLE ON A REAL HOUSE]. THE "QUANT"-"HARD GUYS"-"REAL MEN" MEGA-MODELS KNOW "EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING"—AND NOTHING ABOUT NOTHING ABOUT WHAT MATTERS, THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE ACTUAL LOAN. CITIGROUP HAS NO LESS THAN $60 BILLION+ TIED UP IN "SUPER-SENIOR" CDOs [THOUGHT "SUPER-SAFE" ONLY WEEKS AGO—BY THE "QUANTS"]—AND THEY HAVE NO F-ING CLUE AS TO THE REAL VALUE OF ANY OF IT!

SOFT?
HARD?

BOB WATERMAN AND I, IN 1980, DEVELOPED A MANTRA IN THOSE DAYS OF YORE WHEN "STRATEGY [STRATEGIC PLANS] WAS EVERYTHING." WE SAID:

HARD IS SOFT.
SOFT IS HARD.

THE READILY-MANIPULABLE NUMBERS ARE THE TRUE "SOFT STUFF."

THE RELATIONSHIPS-LEADERSHIP-"CULTURE"-"ACTION BIAS" [OR NOT] ARE THE TRUE "HARD STUFF."

PERIOD.
END OF STORY.
[I WISH.]

WOMEN BEING CATERED TO BY TEACHING "SOFT STUFF"? IT WELL AND TRULY PISSES ME OFF TO READ SUCH UNMITIGATED BULLSHIT! [MY ONLY CRITICISM OF SAID WOMEN IS THAT THEY'D BE SILLY ENOUGH TO CONSIDER AN MBA IN THE FIRST PLACE!]

WOMEN GOING TO B-SCHOOL IN LESSER NUMBERS THAN HOPED FOR? PERHAPS THEY'RE ON TO SOMETHING!

Women to Save Pier 1?

I was perusing my online newsletter from Workforce.com when I came across a couple of interesting articles. One about a 4-year study of Fortune 500 companies providing evidence that "Firms with More Women on Boards Perform Better Than Those That Don't." "We have established a correlation between diverse boards and strong corporate performance," says Kara Helander, vice president, Western Region at New York-based Catalyst.

I, then, read an article about Pier 1 Imports' financial woes and their plan to correct their downturn by cutting healthcare costs. The plan includes cutting employees' hours to disqualify them for health benefits (very Wal*Mart-like). Pier 1 CEO Alex Smith is calling it a "cost-efficiency mission." Sounds to me like a nice way to say, "Hey employees, we're screwing you, but keep up the good work because you're improving our bottom line." According to the article, "Pier 1 Imports soon will learn whether cutting health care benefits for the very employees who deliver what the company calls its signature in-store shopping experience will help resurrect the failing retailer or exacerbate its multimillion-dollar losses."

I could go on and on discussing why I think this is a tragic solution to their problem, but given that I just read the Catalyst study, my first thought was, "Huh? I wonder if there is a correlation between their performance and the number of women they have on their Board?" So, I googled Pier 1. Imagine that ... the Board of Directors is made up entirely of men! I'm completely flabbergasted! Pier 1?! All Men?! What are they thinking??? They might do well to heed this statement from the study: "It makes sense that companies with more women on their boards would perform better than those that don't because these companies probably have a better handle on their customer base," says Dale Winston, CEO of Battalia Winston, a New York-based executive search firm.

Recall this passage from Tom's Re-imagine! "All you have to do is look! LOOK AT A DAMN PICTURE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ... hopelessly unrepresentative of the market being served ... I am not championing "quotas" ... I am championing a board whose composition mirrors the market (diversity) and technologies (youth) that represent our biggest challenges." Do you think Pier 1's customer base is made up entirely of men? Given that I shop there, I can say with 100% confidence the answer is NO!!! Perhaps I'll send some enlightened inspiration to Mr. Alex Smith (a copy of Tom's book perhaps?) so instead of disenfranchising his staff, he can re-imagine a strategy to revitalize Pier 1. I'd love a happy ending ...

Deloitte!
Again!

Deloitte & Touche just took honors as the #1 place for college grads to go to work. And D&T has long won my honors for its successful, Herculean efforts to retain top women performers who had been leaving in droves—see Deloitte's WIAR/Women's Initiative Annual Report (PDF).

Now, courtesy yesterday's Wall Street Journal, we learn that Deloitte is pioneering again—this time in altering work practices in recognition of the role that women leaders and professionals play at Deloitte's client organizations: " [Deloitte partner in charge of the project Cathy Benko] started exploring the issue while researching ways to retain and attract female employees. She teamed up with TrendSight Group, a Winnetka IL consulting firm, and after interviewing senior women executives and Deloitte employees, they concluded that the same discovery process women use when doing personal shopping applies to purchasing business services."

From this sprung a half-day workshop that, after initial skepticism, is being well received by men and women at Deloitte—and clients. Benko agrees that there is a fine line between improving communication approaches to women and appearing condescending, but the overall merit of the idea is sound and worthwhile, as women become almost dominant in the middle ranks of corporations where so many commercial purchasing decisions, adding up to trillions of dollars, are made.

(Full disclosure: Marti Barletta is founder and chief of TrendSight Group—I have relied on her research for years; she was in fact coauthor of Trends, part of a set of four small books, called "Tom Peters Essentials," that I released in 2006. Marti is also a Cool Friend.)

Who Has the Problem,
Me or "Them"?

Case I:

So I read a good column (as far as it goes) by a good friend. Joe Nocera's "Talking Business" column in the September 29 New York Times was headlined: "The Worst Investors? Humans."

He writes about a bushel of demonstrated human irrationalities that lead to counterproductive investment behavior. But never once—so damn typical!!!—does he touch on the issue of gender differences in investment strategies. Yet, significant research shows that there are gender differences, that they revolve around irrationality, and that women, the rational ones, the less emotional ones, out-invest men.

Consider a Merrill study reported in the Atlantic ("When It Comes to Investing, Gender A Strong Influence On Behavior"): "Women come out better on almost every count as investors ... They are less likely to hold a losing investment too long, and less likely to wait too long to sell a winner; they're also less likely to put too much money into a single investment or to buy a reputedly hot stock without doing sufficient research."

Or consider a Jane Bryant Quinn column in Newsweek ("Stop Treating Women Investors Like Idiots!"): "Why all this focus on women and our lack of investment guts? A far greater problem, it seems to me, is trigger-happy speculation, mostly by men. The kind of guys whose family savings went south with the dot-coms. Imagine a list of their money mistakes: Shoot from the hip. Overtrade their accounts. Believe they're smarter than the market. Think with their mouse rather than their brain. Praise their own genius when stocks go up. Hide their mistakes from their wives."

I'm not arguing that the case is open and shut, though I think it is, I'm simply wondering why it never occurs to men to examine gender differences???

Case II:

As I write, I'm in High Point NC at the semi-annual monster furniture (home furnishings) show—85,000 in attendance.

Re gender, the statistics are solid as a rock: Women buy upwards of 90% of home furnishings.

So I picked up a freebie in the Sheraton lobby, October's issue of Home Furnishings Business: Strategy for the Furniture Retailer.

Page 12, "Home Furnishings Business Retail Advisory Board Members."

Total advisors: 6.
Total male members: 6.
Total female members: (Do the math yourself.)

But ...
Halleluiah!!
Improvement is on the way!!

Page 14, Contributors (to the October issue).

Total contributors: 9.
Total male contributors: 8.
Total female contributors: (Do the math yourself, but, statistically speaking, an infinite difference.)

Redux: Who's got the problem, me or "them"?
(Could well be me, often is.)

Boomer Social Sites

In July 2006 when we spoke with Cool Friend Robin Wolaner, she told us she was working on a new venture but all she would tell us was that it was an Internet product. Well, seems she's started a boomer social site called tbd.com. As in To Be Determined. According to a New York Times article about her site and other social sites for the older crowd, she came up with the idea "when I was sitting around with friends and we said, 'We're not going to hang out at the AARP site. What is there for us?'"

The To Be Determined name makes sense for the boomer cohort as well. According to research in Marti Barletta's latest book, PrimeTime Women™ (see most recent interview with Marti here), 59 percent of women 50 to 70 years old feel that their greatest achievements are still ahead of them. So, yes, their lives are still to be determined.

We send our best wishes for success to Robin and the rest of her team at TeeBeeDee.

Marketing to Women,
10-Year Review

Dori Molitor, in a pdf titled "Ten Years After" (published at the Hub), writes, "It's been nearly ten years since Tom Peters declared women to be the 'most powerful economic force on the planet' and Faith Popcorn's EVEolution defined the marketing-to-women movement as an all-out business revolution. ... Were Tom and Faith wrong? Or did marketers fail to take the kind of bold actions needed to realize the full potential of women's economic clout?"

You can download the complete article here.

PrimeTime Women

Our Cool Friend Marti Barletta spoke with Hoag Levins over at Ad Age the other day about PrimeTime Women, the 50- to 70-year-old women who have ALL the money and are ignored by most marketers. Marti gives a shout out to Tom about 6 minutes into this 8 and a half minute video by noting that Tom has been talking about the women's market "for 15 years." (So, it's really been 11 years, but that's close enough.)

You can watch the video here.

A Company Gets It

We know that the women's market is booming and that many haven't taken full advantage of this market. Not so Harley-Davidson. They've noticed that there is a huge market of women who are buying motorcycles—about 100,00 a year. As stated in the New York Times today, "'Fifty percent of the population is female and there is pent-up demand,' said James L. Ziemer, Harley-Davidson's chief executive. 'We need to remove barriers.'"

Companies that remove the barriers and recognize the power of women buyers can cash in on a great market, but I think Tom's been saying that for awhile now.

How does your company take advantage of today's key markets, boomers/geezers and women??

FYI/Women-in-Management/
Who Woulda Thunk II

Saudi Prince al-Waleed, called "the Middle East's most powerful investor" (The Business, 0516.07), has a 30-person holding company team that boasts over 50% women.

Get the Young Whippersnappers Off Their Fannies ASAP!

In Christopher Buckley's wonderful Boomsday (mentioned here before), Gen X revolts successfully against a future of, in effect, watching their earnings disappear into the aging pockets of the emergent Boomer Nation.

The issue Buckley so effectively satirizes is indeed very real—earthshaking, actually, unprecedented in human history, in fact. But there's reason to believe the results may be quite the opposite of Buckley's plotline. Or at least that's the story from Sunday, May 6, 2007.

All the coverage here in Europe (I'm in Munich, on the 8th, heading for Dubai as I write) tells us that Mr Sarkozy trounced Ms Royal to make it into Élysée Palace. Indeed, in electoral politics a 53%-47% beating is at least a semi-trounce.

But one small story in Britain's Independent, digging an inch or two below the surface, caught my eye, then fully grabbed my attention. Call it Boomsday Reverse.

Mr Sarkozy, a tough cookie, ran on an uncompromising platform that aims to deal with France's dire slippage in global competitiveness. Some are predicting he'll be France's Margaret Thatcher. He aims to lengthen the work week, cut taxes, hammer the unions, and such to get the French economy in tune with 21st century economics. Ms Royal, on the other hand and in stark contrast, effectively ran on a "What's all the fuss?" platform, claiming that the hyper-liberal French employment practices can be retained without further damage to France's ranking in the global competitiveness polls. So, the rather straightforward story goes, "the voters" went to the polls in record numbers, bit their collective tongues, prepared to accept the bitter medicine—and awarded the powerful presidency to Atilla the Economic Reformer.

Not so fast ...

The real story is far different. As to "the trounce," Trounc-ee Royal was in fact the trounc-er with a "very interesting" "little" slice of the population. She in fact handily topped Sarkozy among those who are in the 18-59 demographic. That ain't Gen X, my friends, that's more or less everybody on active duty in the workforce!

So how, in the end, did Sarkozy become the Ultimate Grand Trounc-er? Simple. He beat the bloody hell out of Royal among the 60-and-up crew. "Beat the bloody hell out of" equates to unheard of margins that were above 2-1.

That is, Team Elder exerted incredible, decisive de facto unity and power in France's demographically old-and-getting-older-and-we're-healthy-and-will-
be-around-for-a-long-long-time population. It's not that Sarkozy beat Royal. The actual story is that the 60+ geezers have ordered the wee 60 minus crew to get the hell to work and stay the hell at work ... so the Six Zero Plussers can get their hands on the loot they need to spend their remaining winters in Nice, or some such.

Boomsday was a fable about a very real issue, and a hilarious one at that. Boomsday Reverse, Variety Française, is episode one of Ultimate Reality TV—and it's going to be a long-running show, from France to Japan, with impact that buggers the imagination.

Stay tuned ...

Notes from the Amalfi Coast: Girls Rule! Stop unnecessary hospital deaths! Read this book!

[Links to the articles Tom mentions are below.—CM]

Nearly half of all millionaires are now women (24 April 2007)
Why today's women want a girl (25 April 2007)
Lifeline for 1m hospital patients (25 April 2007)
The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Powered by Audioblog.com
Time: 6 minutes, 38 seconds

MP3 File

Gender! Gender! Why Do We Always Overlook Gender?

Time has an essay this week [04.16.07] titled "The Age of U-Turns: Flip-flops get a bad name, but often the best course is to reverse course," by Bruce Grierson, where he writes about his book U-Turn. The author contrasts Western and Eastern thinking. Westerners ignore ambiguity: "To Western thinking, the world is linear; you can chop it up and analyze it." Eastern thinking is illustrated by a comment made by a Chinese student: "The difference between you and me is that I think the world is a circle, and you think it's a line."

The author praises the Eastern approach—which is at least worthy of examination and consideration. I applaud that, remembering my days at McKinsey when I sometimes was tarred with the ultimate brush of opprobrium: "You think in circles, Tom." Though it didn't help my standing with my betters, it was exactly what I thought of myself. Partly because my PhD mentors at Stanford were the likes of Gene Webb, Karl Weick, and Jim March, who tried to take the idea of organization beyond bloodless org charts and sterile strategy documents.

But that's not really my point here. Instead I am bridling at the fact that Grierson's flavor of linear "Western thinking" is really about ... MALE Western thinking." (Try to find a female philosopher in the Age of Greece! Fat chance!) FEMALE thinking, based on relationships rather than competitive spearthrowing in the bush, has always tended to the "circular." Research, among other things, shows that women see ten sides to an issue—where men see but one.

There's lots to say here, but my point is a simple one: Why must the "sample," in a book like Grierson's, always be male-centric?

Crossdress Nation (And Harry Burn's Mother)!

In the end it was, to be precise, Harry Burn's mother who made all the difference. A suffragette, she wrote to her son, age 24 and Tennessee's youngest legislator, saying, "Don't forget to be a good boy and help Mrs Catt ..." He did, tipped the scales on a 49-47 vote, and brought, effectively, to an end a struggle that in its most open form had lasted 72 years, 1 month, and 5 days. With Mrs Burn's urging and Harry's courageous vote on 18 August 1920, some 26 million American women were franchised in one fell swoop.

But that gets ahead of the game. Above you will find a picture of a 64-year-old male wearing a white wig and a black dress. In fact, a shamefaced 64-year-old. Said 64-year-old, M, purports to represent the spirit of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, rightfully called the Mother of the American women's rights/women's suffrage movement.

But that gets ahead of the game ...

It was a simple costume party in Dorset, Vermont, at the home of our friends Jill and Dave Sands, on March 31, this past Saturday. The idea was to dress as someone you admire—and be prepared to respond to questions as the admired personage would have responded. I thought it would be great fun, and therefore took it seriously. Franklin? Churchill? Nelson? John Paul Jones? Monty Python? No problem, I had them all pegged. And a satisfactory costume would hardly be a challenge (e.g., Churchill, cigar & brandy; Nelson or Jones, folding telescope or bits of my mildewed, 40-year-old Navy uniform).

That was 5 weeks before the party. And now was now—31 March 2007. And now, following Susan's "sartorial" guidance and that of a close friend who is an eminent women's historian, I was encased in a white wig and long black dress, courtesy a Boston costume shop, and, though tripping over my hems again and again ["Welcome to our world"—Susan], ready to go—and, courtesy a dozen books hastily ingested on a dozen plane trips, ready to respond to questions and declaim, among other things, on Mrs Burn, her young son Harry, Carrie Chapman Catt, and, of course, the angry, tenacious firebrand, Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

I was indeed shamefaced—shamed, after a dozen years loudly and doggedly championing change to women's still diminished role in business and government, that I was almost totally ignorant of the astounding history of the American women's rights movement. And worse yet, of the gruesome details of women's status in our society only 100 years ago—that makes the use of the loaded word "slave" entirely appropriate, beyond question, as I see it. It was no coincidence that the American's women's movement, effectively launched in Seneca Falls, New York, on July 13, 1848, grew in tandem with the abolitionist movement in America.

On the other hand, the last 5 weeks have been an absolute ball! There is simply nothing but nothing that I enjoy more than sinking my teeth and heart and soul into a new historical topic. I did indeed devour a dozen books from the original, and always controversial, works of Mrs Stanton to middle school books on the life of Susan B. Anthony. In particular I learned from:

In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, by Elisabeth Griffith; Ladies of Seneca Falls, by Miriam Gurko; and Century of Struggle: The Woman's Rights Movement in the United States, by Eleanor Flexner and Ellen Fitzpatrick.

*I learned of the fateful luncheon meeting in Seneca Falls in July 1848 that was hosted by Mrs Stanton and attended by 5 "ladies" including Lucretia Mott, one of the subsequent superstars of the movement, the convention that followed 6 days later, the first of its kind—and the brutally negative and demeaning reaction thereto.

*As I said, I read with my mouth often seemingly open, about the total (as in Cap T Total!) absence of rights of American women and, almost as important, the contempt with which their so-called frail and vacuous and largely useless selves were held by males one and virtually all, from the ignorant to the most learned. And I learned—concluded—that, as I said before, women were de facto, and de jure, the equivalent of slaves, denied fundamental and trivial rights alike, and even a modicum of respect.

*As an orator myself, I learned of the critical role of powerful women orators in the women's rights movement, especially the Grimke sisters, the first women to speak in public to an audience with men—and the brutal and demeaning response thereto.

*I learned of the stream of small steps forward (some minor property rights established by New York state—subsequently reversed); and the first granting of the vote, in the Territory of Wyoming in 1870 by a "legislative" vote of 6 in favor, 2 against, and 1 abstaining (on 07.23.1890, Wyoming became the first state to grant the franchise to women—bravo).

*I learned of the unabated viciousness and bitterness and "dirty trick" tactics unleashed by male legislators and media barons and "men on the street" of all classes that attended the 72-year struggle, from the 5-person luncheon/cabal at Seneca Falls on 13 July 1848 to Nashville and the enactment of the 19th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America on 26 August 1920.

*I learned of the role of "demented" [my word] optimism and matchless relentlessness that marked the movement—909 political campaigns, mostly failures, between 1868 and 1920, according to Carrie Chapman Catt (campaigns at state party conventions to include woman suffrage planks—277; campaigns in state legislatures to get suffrage amendments before voters—480; campaigns before 19 successive Congresses of the United States; etc.).

*And I learned that I was hardly alone in my own ignorance of the history of the American women's movement, and hence my de facto diminishment (ignorance is never an excuse) of the role and lot of women in our so-called egalitarian democracy. Typical of our "modern" approach to women-in-American history was the "towering" Oxford History of the American People, by the "towering" historian Samuel Eliot Morison; he honors the 19th amendment with two (count 'em) sentences in a section of his book with the exalted title, "Bootlegging and Other Sports." There is a monument to Morison on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston that I routinely pass as I powerwalk; in the future I shall snort derisively and turn my head from his bronzed gaze upon passing this contemptible male chauvinist pig (ironically there is a monument to women's rights pioneers about two blocks further along the Commonwealth Avenue mall—I shall accordingly genuflect).

*"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." (Incidentally, it was not until 1956, a scant half century ago, that the number of women voting equaled the number of men.)

I dwell on this story because it describes a personal journey away from ignorance that was, well, a blast—and, I believe, important. (I shall campaign, starting in 2007, for far greater attention to the history of the women's movement—still woefully skimpy; and not corrected by the recent "feminist" movement.) I also dwell on this story because innovation, including social innovation, is the "business" theme nearest and dearest to my professional heart—and the most important business issue of this, and, frankly, every era. It is my longstanding argument that all innovation is irrational, non-linear, and anything but the product of plans and focus groups; it is instead about anger to the point of rage that eventually boils over (from suffrage to the PC); "a little band of brothers" (whoops, the 5 great sisters of Seneca Falls and a slew of successors); willingness to suffer vicious smear attacks and unspeakable opprobrium of both a professional and personal nature, passion (!!!!!!!!); relentlessness (!!!!!!!!!—72 years, 1 month and 5 days from lunch at Seneca falls to ratification of the 19th amendment by Tennessee, the 36th state to do so; and those 909 political campaigns); tolerance for setback upon setback upon setback (Churchill: "Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm"); and the strokes of luck such as the willfulness of Harry Burn's blessed mother.

All the above made the sacrifice of wearing a wig and a long dress for 5 hours seem like small beer!* (*Hmmm, should I have gone as Harry Burn's mother?)

My hero, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, per Elisabeth Griffin, In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton:

"She was defeated again and again and again, but she continued the struggle with passionate impatience."

"She had survived her husband, outlived most of her enemies, and exhausted her allies. Her mind remained alert, her mood optimistic, and her manner combative." [ECS 80th birthday celebration, attended by 6,000 people]

Boomer Madness!

Ken Dychtwald is the guru of gurus in the world of the Age Wave, as he calls it. I've done my bit as well.

Move over Ken.
Move over Tom.

Enter the irrepressible Christopher Buckley. (Author of Thank You for Smoking among many others.) Mr Buckley now offers Boomsday. It is a wonderful spoof (that isn't) about the coming all-out war between boomers bent on a comfy (and lengthy) retirement and those who follow. I am only a few dozen pages into the book—but I love it. A glowing USA Today review offers a peek: "The novel's heroine, a 29-year-old blogger, comes up with a solution [to the wealth allocation problem—boomers fobbing their needs off on the young]: tax breaks for baby boomers who kill themselves at 65. 'Voluntary transitioning' is her term. ..."

Presumably you get the drift.

Forget the "serious" analysts—this is the primer, so far, about this genuinely transcending issue.

Glam vs. Grey

Hollywood has woken up. Women film purchasers over age 35 are BIG business. Check out the nominee list for best actress. Speaking as a Brit—it looks like for the first time in 10 years (I think?) a mature woman (not a silicon enhanced, self-obsessed tissue eater) will win Best Actress. Hooray!!

This is in stark contrast to the stupidity I saw this week in a business. Eighty percent of the sales force are women under 35. (Selling to a predominantly male population—you figure it out!) NONE of the sales managers were female. ALL of the exec population were OWM. And they are asking me why they have such high turnover. They also got upset when I described it as the least of their problems!

Are you/your organisation truly talent focused ... or is memory substituting for thinking? Has anyone got a great example of a maniacal obsession with talent, to the point of being blind to prejudice, in their organisation that can cheer us all up?!

Not Just for Profit?

I was fascinated to hear a recent BBC Radio 4 programme whose subject was social enterprise—a concept about which I did not know much! In essence, these are organisations that set out to make a profit, but then direct that profit at "good causes." Among them are a number of fairly high profile organisations in the U.K. (e.g., The Co-operative Group and Cafédirect).

The story that really caught my attention was about Greenwich Leisure Limited, an organisation that 14 years ago took over 7 struggling leisure centres that had previously been run by the London Borough of Greenwich local authority. They converted the organisation into a worker-led trust and have transformed it into an innovative, high performing organisation, that makes more profit, now costs the council only 20% of what it did 14 years ago, and has become a business model that has been copied by at least 110 Leisure businesses in the UK.

Mark Sesnan, the leader who took the brave step of leaving the relative security of a public sector job to embark on this challenge, speaks enthusiastically about the change in attitudes that he was able to stimulate in his workforce. By treating his people as partners, adults, and fellow contributors he has found that it has converted 80–90% of them into "happy, co-operative people." One indicator of their commitment is that sickness levels in the trust are consistently less than 2% per year, which is exemplary by any standards in the UK!

The various programme contributors contend that social enterprise will be the business model for the 21st century. As one of them says, it's the Robin Hood approach to business! Some might say this is "pollyanna" thinking, but I'm not so sure. I think (almost) all of us are looking for meaning in our work that goes beyond what we pick up in our paypackets at the end of the month. What can we all learn from businesses with a real conscience?

Best Buy & Bye Bob

"We were a boys' toy store designed for boys by boys."—Julie Gilbert, VP, Best Buy

"It's no longer the days of eight-track tapes and big speakers with the big foam that smells. The products we sell and the services we sell are about trends and fashion."—Julie Gilbert

"Women couldn't get anyone to help them. They weren't treated with respect."—Julie Gilbert

"We're working with the Girl Scouts, with private female colleges and others to recruit amazing women so we can delight our women customers."—Julie Gilbert

"Instead of hitting high-tech hysteria at Best Buy this holiday season, shoppers may notice a softer, more personal atmosphere. Music is quieter. Lights are lower. Salespeople talk to customers about their lifestyles, what they want the technology to do for them ... and how they want it to fit into their homes, offices, cars. ... If you need more help, one of thousands of its 'Geek Squad' techies will come to your home to hook stuff up."—USA Today, 12.20.06.

Welcome aboard the ultimate megatrend, Best Buy! It turns out that about 90 percent of consumer electronics decisions are made by or significantly influenced by ... women. So, too, DIY. Lowe's figured that out years ago—and it's a leading reason Lowe's has given Home Depot fits. (I remember a biz article that featured pics of the two contending CEOs. Home Depot's top gun was pictured among stacks of plywood. Mr Lowe's was shown among plants in the inside nursery. One photo doth not a strategy make, but still ...)

Not catering to women was hardly the whole reason Bob Nardelli took an invited hike yesterday—and will have to be content with his $200 million+ severance pay for a while. But it's not unrelated. I railed at Home Depot about the women's thing for years—my present to Bob, who is a pal. Some moves were made, but hardly up to the strategic re-orientation of Lowe's or, apparently, Best Buy.

Nardelli took an ailing giant—and put needed infrastructure in place to run a $100 billion company. Profits leaped but the stock stayed in the basement. And then there was the 2006 annual meeting fiasco—I predicted that was the end, but I was off by a few months. The meeting farce was tied to the nutty pay package. Nardelli was worth a ton ... but so many tons?

(Last Sunday the New York Times reported on the $200 million+ that the former Pfizer CEO walked away with—after losing more than $100 BILLION in market cap. Ye gads!)

(Exec pay is a thorny topic. On the one hand I think the market should rule. But there's also something to say for common sense and killing the goose who laid the billions of golden eggs. "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..." Well, the pay issue to me is to a large extent about ducks—it "feels" all wrong, and business' reputation may sink below the "Enron days" if folks don't wise up.)

Then there was the "Home Despot" tag. Home Depot needed tough medicine—but a reign of terror? What I saw up close did not "make me shudder"—but it set alarm bells ringing.

(Nardelli was enraptured with the military approach—very common among those who did not serve, I've observed. Those of us who did serve know that the public "military model of leadership" has little to do with the real thing. As far as I know, incidentally, Nardelli's former boss, Jack Welch, was never active military either.)

Nardelli did a lot of good stuff. Nardelli did a lot of bad stuff. I applaud discipline and accountability—but do not believe that despot-like behavior is needed to achieve those goals.

I fear that Mr N got his just desserts.

Meanwhile, again, hats off to Best Buy:

(1) Cater to women! (Hey, they buy everything.)
(2) Put women leaders in charge—Best Buy's female "wolf pack" aims to get a woman in the CEO's seat at Best Buy! (The leadership profile ought to mostly mirror the buyers' profile.)
(3) And: Watch the money flow in!

(NB: Marti Barletta's wonderful PrimeTime Women: How to Win the Hearts, Minds, and Business of Boomer Big Spenders ... is on the shelves! So, too, Margaret Heffernan's terrific How She Does It: How Women Entrepreneurs Are Changing the Rules of Business Success.)

[Note from Cathy: We did a thorough search of every source we had access to, and we found no evidence of Mr Nardelli's being active in the service, let alone a war zone. But if you know something we don't, we're sure you'll fill us in.]

A Convenient Truth

Thanks, P&G.
I don't use your laundry detergent.
But you (your ads) sure are right when you urge us to wash clothes in cold water.
I started today.
Energy independence, here we come!

Obvious, But Kudos Anyway

The cover story in the current issue of Fortune (12.18) discusses the growth strategies of GE and P&G, typically seen as too big for organic growth spurts. In a box titled "What's New at GE and P&G," the following caught my attention: "P&G does more than half its business outside the U.S., so [CEO A.G.] Lafley has recast his top executive group to be 50% non-American." No "MacArthur genius award" here, but a Nobel for Common Sense may be in order. (Next thing you know, we'll hear that the top P&G group is dominated by ... Women, who buy bloody all of A.G.'s stuff. Physical fitness tip: Don't hold your breath awaiting this occurrence.)

Boom Hits Bookstores

Probably a book Tom will want to read: BOOM: Marketing to the Ultimate Power Consumer—the Baby Boomer Woman. What their publicist said: "A new book by brand strategists Mary Brown and Carol Orsborn, Ph.D., argues that marketers focused on the 18-34 age bracket may be missing the most lucrative demographic: Baby Boomer women who are now age 45-60."

You can get an excerpt from BOOM on marketing opportunities related to empty nest syndrome by clicking here.

Newfound Girl Power

(Translating Soon into Woman-power)

Sunday's New York Times reviewed Dan Kindlon's Alpha Girls. I bought it yesterday, the same day I offered a long Post on the Women-Boomer-Geezer thing. One of my key points was that "womanpower" ("womenomics," per one observer) is going through the roof. Kindlon adds to that stunning tale. He argues that girls are no longer being kept on as short a leash as in the past. Among many other interesting points, Dads are taking the lead in pushing girls to the fore and urging them to take no guff from boys. Frankly, 10 years into intensely studying "all this," I am mesmerized by this notion of rapid, exponentially increasing womanpower. Here's Kindlon's opening paragraph:

"Not long ago I was talking with a group of girls at Greenfield High, in northern New Jersey, about Mary Pipher's bestselling book, Reviving Ophelia. ... The girls' reaction to Ophelia was one of confusion. They disagreed with the book's premise—that girls are robbed of vitality and self-esteem as they enter adolescence. According to Pipher, our sexist society causes girls 'to stifle their creative spirit and natural impulses, which ultimately destroys their self-esteem.' 'Who are the girls in this book?' asked Sarah, a Greenfield sophomore. 'I mean, I feel sorry for them, but they're pretty much losers. We're not at all like them.' From what I could see, she was right. The girls I met were vital. They appeared more confident than many of the boys. They had not 'lost their voice.' ... They neither feared competition from boys nor the consequences of out-performing them."—Dan Kindlon, Alpha Girls

Not. Yet. Done.

I had a great time in Copenhagen last week. I talked to senior European banker clients of Affinion. They are the masters of the likes of Loyalty programs. As occasionally happens, I scrapped my speech halfway through. I decided to "go long" (boy football metaphor—sorry) on risk. I decided to pummel one topic. Period.

And that topic was Women-Boomer-Geezer market potential. As I said: Period. I claimed (and I believe) that a loyalty program for women, for instance, has to start from a fundamentally different premise than one for men. One basic idea-differentiator: Men are "transaction oriented"; women are "relationship oriented."

I insisted that anything short of Fundamental Strategic Re-alignment around the women-boomer-geezer opportunity was, well, stupid. Stupid. Negligent. Whatever.

I've changed my "women's thing" lately—added a third leg to my argument's stool. In the past I've featured (1) women's purchasing power and (2) the attendant need for women's increased leadership role.

The implicit idea is that companies are not doing enough to orient themselves—big time—toward this under-appreciated market. Fine enough. And true.

But a much bigger point is that the Degree of Market-Wealth Control by women is going through the roof. As the Economist put it in a Special Survey in April: "Forget China, India and the Internet: Economic Growth Is Driven by Women." In short, (1) women have taken two of every three new jobs for decades. (2) The pay-for-same-job differential is falling. (3) Women are occupying more and more senior roles. (Over 50% of managers, in the United States.) (4) Most senior Boomers are men—and about to retire by the million. (Within a few years, 10,000 additional men per day eligible for retirement.) Women will fill most—the overwhelming majority—of those slots. (5) Boys, soon to be men, are rapidly falling behind women in the education race. (6) Etc.

Hence the "third leg" of my stool is Rapidly Growing Women's Control of the World Economy.

Perhaps "Womenomics"?

Consider this from Aude Zieseniss de Thuin in the Financial Times, 10.03.2006:
"One thing is certain: Women's rise in power, which is linked to the increase in wealth per capita, is happening in all domains and at all levels of society. Women are no longer content to provide efficient labor or to be consumers with rising budgets and more autonomy to spend. ... This is just the beginning. The phenomenon will only grow as girls prove to be more successful than boys in the school system ... For a number of observers, we have already entered the age of 'womenomics,' the economy as thought out and practiced by women."

Amen!
Amen?

I've attached two Special Presentations. The short one is my new "section opener" on the women-boomers-geezers issue. The long one is the Whole Deal, the entire women-boomer-geezer section from the Master Excellence Always presentation.

Why the title "Not. Yet. Done."? Consider this invented exchange between me and an Amazon.com reviewer of the Trends book in the Tom Peters Essentials series:

Amazon Reviewer: "Trends is old news!" (1 of 5 stars!)
TP: "Repeating it doesn't make it 'old.' It ain't old if it hasn't been implemented!"

The reviewer's part of the exchange is the real thing—my response is the contrived bit. But it is exactly the point. Yup, I've been ranting about "all this" for a decade. But the results are disappointing—and then there's that "Third Leg" argument that the enormity of this opportunity grows by the day.

To summarize, in shorthand (one slide from the Short presentation):

1. Women's CONSUMER GOODS purchases.
2. Women's COMMERCIAL GOODS purchases.
3. WOMEN ARE THE MARKET. Not an "initiative."
4. Women-owned BUSINESSES (absolute #s, acceleration of startups, relative growth).
5. Women's "brand" of LEADERSHIP SKILLS.
6. Women's DRAMATICALLY INCREASING-COMMANDING WEALTH—absolute, relative. (Jobs. Longevity. Education. Entrepreneurial. Decline of BOYS. Retirement of MEN/Senior MEN.)
7. DEMOGRAPHIC TSUNAMI. WOMEN. Women as solo HEADs-OF-HOUSEHOLD. THE WOMAN-BOOMER-GEEZER LOOOOOONG-TERM GLOBAL PHENOMENON.
8. SPEED of "change." Mother of all "megatrends."

In the Day's Mail

Amazon delivered Louann Brizendine's book The Female Brain yesterday. Here's the opener: "It's not as if we all start out with the same brain structure. They are different by nature. Think about this. What if the communication center is bigger in one brain than the other? What if the emotional memory center is bigger in one brain than the other? What if one brain develops a greater ability to read cues in people than another? In this case, you would have a person whose reality dictated that communication, connection, emotional sensitivity, and responsiveness were the primary values. This person would prize these qualities above all others and be baffled by another person with a brain that didn't grasp the importance of these qualities. In essence, you would have someone with a female brain."

This gem of a book goes into today's "travels to Puerto Rico" pile. If I'm right (I am! Period!) about the overwhelming importance-humongous size of the women's market, and the boomer women's market in particular, well, my case has just gotten much stronger based on the evidence presented in this book. Men just don't cut it when it comes to understanding the women's market. So ... put women in charge. Now.

(So you're bored about my harping on this issue. Shut me up: Respond strategically to this monster opportunity.)

The Marti & Margaret Show

Marti Barletta authored one of my favorite books, Marketing to Women—and she coauthored with me one of the four "Tom Peters Essentials" books, Trends. And in January 2007 she'll offer us her newest and, I think, best: PrimeTime Women.

Here are a few ... STARTLING ... Boomer Facts that I pulled from my early copy of Marti's book:

Boomer turns 50: every 7 seconds. 2009: majority of U.S. households headed by someone over 50. 2006-2016: U.S. population up 22.9 million; 22.1 million of the increase in over-50 group. 2006: 1 in 5 adults is F, over 50. Percentage of women between 50-70 who are single: 35. Age 45-54: highest average income, $59,021 (national average is $42,209). FASTEST GROWING INCOME CATEGORY: WOMEN, 55-64 (4X men in same category). Women, age 60-64: 50% still in workforce. Highest net worth: families, 55-64 ($182,000). People over 50: 70% to 79% of all financial assets; 80% of all savings accounts; 62% of all large Wall Street asset accounts; 66% of $$ invested in the stock market. Age 50+: 29% of population, 40% of total consumer spending, 50% of discretionary spending. Next 2 decades: BOOMERS WILL INHERIT $14 TRILLION-$25 TRILLION ("largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history").

Apparently, treats come in pairs. Right on the heels of receiving Marti's ms., I got Margaret Heffernan's How She Does It, by far the best book yet on the incredible Women-owned Businesses Saga! The stories are great, but let me provide, as in Marti's case, a few extracted stats:

U.S. firms owned or controlled by Women: 10.6 million (48% of all firms)

Growth rate of Women-owned firms vs all firms: 3X

Rate of jobs created by Women-owned firms vs all firms: 2X

Ratio of total payroll of Women-owned firms vs total for all Fortune 500 firms: >1.0

Ratio of likelihood of Women-owned firms staying in business vs all firms: >1.0

Growth rate of Women-owned companies with revenues of >$1,000,000 and >100 employees vs all firms: 2X

After a decade of chasing—and yelling and begging about—the stories of Marketing to Women, Marketing to Boomers-Geezers, The Power of Women-owned Businesses, I am very frustrated. While there has indeed been progress, virtually no sizeable enterprise has "turned itself upside down" in pursuit of this matchless opportunity. A little bit of work here, a little bit of work there ... but nothing that meets the "turned itself upside down" nature of the opportunity. Frustrated! Yup. And: Flat out pissed off at the stupidity (STU-PID-ITY) of failing to chase this ... GIGANTIC OPPORTUNITY ... as hard as it deserves.

Damn it.

(Yup, you guessed it: A wee PowerPoint Special Presentation, "The Marti & Margaret Show," is attached—offering up a few stats and quotes from Barletta's and Heffernan's efforts.)

Anything Changed? Not Clear!

I had a long phone conversation with a woman friend-renowned organizational change consultant. The topic of life on the road, near and dear to both of us (I head for Australia on Friday), arose, and we meandered from here to there.

At one point the chat turned to women traveling-working solo in ... 2006.

Silly, naïve me. I assumed (hey it's an area of my so-called expertise) that the phenomenon of "hitting on" or worse, though hardly dead, had been trimmed significantly in, say, the last 10 or so years—at least in the office context.

Whoops!

There were no tears or tantrums, but she regaled me non-stop and sometimes with details that I could have lived without ("sorry, but to get this you need more than the 'overview'," I think she said) with tale after tale of incredibly aggressive male behavior ("hitting on" and then some and some more) that routinely occurs on the job and off when she's on the road. In fact, she implied, but did not say, that the absence of immodest "hitting on" is more or less unusual.

There is perhaps no point to this Post other than underscoring my naïveté. But at least it also underscores one of my constant themes: Life for women, including professional life for powerful women, is a far cry from life for men.

Implications? All yours ...

Women's Businesses Spend $$$

The spending power of businesses owned by women continues to grow. According to estimates by the Center for Women's Business Research, "Annual expenditures by American women-owned businesses in just four areas—information technology, telecommunications, human resource services and shipping—amount to $103 billion." That is just in four key areas—imagine how the rest of that pie might look.

Companies today are continuing to recognize the buying power and influence of women. A recent article published in the Chicago Tribune on August 9th (free registration required) recounts how one businesswoman moved her banking to Wells Fargo because they had seminars and sessions focusing on helping women's businesses succeed. In other words, they added value! Other companies, such as American Express, annually invite women business owners to apply to "Make Mine a $Million Business," a program that selects 20 women business owners and helps them to develop and increase their annual revenue to a million dollars. (Filing deadline for fall 2006 is Sept. 29th.)

Women pay attention to these services, and they embrace and support those businesses that develop great working relationships with them. What's your piece of the pie?

Women at the Top

Recently there was an article on the DiversityInc website (registration required) that indicated "women occupied only 16.4 percent of corporate officer positions in Fortune 500 companies in 2005," according to a survey by the nonprofit group Catalyst. My first thought was that it is sad that corporations really don't know what they are missing. Then I read the last line of the article and knew that women still roar!

For those companies that have figured out that having women at the top is a good thing, the Catalyst survey said, "companies with the highest percentages of women corporate officers have an average 35.1 percent higher return on equity and 34 percent higher total return to shareholders than those with the lowest percentages of women corporate officers." I would say that's taking it to the bank!

A Clear and Present Danger to Society

Yes "he" did. "He" actually said, "That's a very diverse team." "His" 7-member executive committee has ... two Indians. "His" 14-person Board of Directors has one woman—not an exec.

"He"/"Him" is Patrick Cescau, CEO of Unilever.
(About 85%+ of "his" products are bought by ... WOMEN.)

Could "he" have ... actually ... said: "This is a very diverse team." [My italics.] It would have been an incredible statement without the "very." With the "very" it "very much" suggests a psychiatric session or two might be in order—or at least he should have to say it in front of his wife at a "very" public gathering.

[Source of quote: Financial Times, 24-25 June.]
[See brief PP attached.]

The Right Stuff!

My Subaru on the Farm in VT.

Predictable

Gender differences are all-important to internal enterprise design—as well as to product development and marketing. As you know, that's been a major pet theme of mine for a decade. I still fight with a lot of people, including my wife, over the extent of such differences. As I see it, like global warming, the science is in—the differences are indeed profound.

Anyway, that's all prelude to one more, in this case semi-scientific, anecdote. Got back to my Boston house at 1 a.m. Saturday. Slept in, and didn't go for my Charles River run (power walk) until 10 a.m. It turned out to be official spring-cleaning day, and a ton of volunteers were out cleaning the winter's crap from the river's edge. After about a quarter or half mile, a little bell went off—and I shifted to semi-scientific mode. Here's my report of my next mile (approximately) of power walking.

The volunteer cleaning crew:

91 women, 16 men.
12 of the 16 men were with a woman, each in a pair; the 4 by-themselves males consisted of a pair and 2 solos.
Do your sums, and that means that 79 of the 91 women were in all-female groups.
Only 2 of the women were solo (2 male solos out of 4 by contrast—but a wee sample). Though I wouldn't vouch for the precise accuracy of the next statistic, my rough recording shows that the median size of the groups of women was 3.

One point of these stats is to show how clear-cut such differences are. If I made a comment about the community-mindedness or group-mindedness of women, and the tally were 61 to 46 that would be one thing, though even then a big difference; 91-16 is, simply, a slam-dunk. And if 7 of the 16 guys had been solo or in an all-male group that would have been "interesting"—but not so compelling as the hypothesis that most of the guys (12 of 16) were probably only there because they'd been dragged by a girlfriend or flat-mate.

Bulletin: Men and Women are (very) different.

[Tom's photo at the top is an eight (crew) on the Charles River rowing past MIT.—CM]

A Gem of an Assertion

I had a fantastic time in Orlando addressing the American Gem Society. (I have an open love affair with small businesses and business owners—I like their nerve, among other things.) To my surprise—and delight—the "marketing to women" issue loomed large.

The conventional industry wisdom is that a large fraction of jewelry is bought by men for women; moreover women would prefer their jewelry to be bought for them by men. (My characterization is slightly—ever so slightly—exaggerated.) However, as I probed, expressing some disbelief (I've heard the same sort of story elsewhere—e.g., financial advice, a woman feels better with a male advisor), some intriguing alternate hypotheses emerged—championed by the relatively small share of female jewelry store owners in attendance.

This was my favorite, from a powerful female business owner (I paraphrase, of course): "Yes, Tom, it's doubtless true that a lot of jewelry is bought by men for women. But there's a clear reason: That jewelry is bought for the stores by men. That is, men [male store owners] instinctively buy for their stores the sort of jewelry that other men would buy for women—hence the end result is as reported, male consumers buying jewelry for women. In my store it's a case of a woman—me—buying jewelry that I think other women would buy for themselves! In fact, the large majority of my customers are women making significant purchases for themselves."

Nice! (Made my day.) (And so it goes in a jillion markets, not just jewelry—what I call "the untested 'oh she prefers it that way' hypothesis.")

But Who's Counting?

April 20th. International Herald Tribune. Op-ed pages. 7 authors. All 7 are male. 5 letters. All 5 are written by males.

Sooooo???

Maybe it takes a violent breed (males) to write about violence (political-military and economic "warfare")????????

Women's World!

Be sure to catch the Economist, 15 April. Leader, page 14. "Forget China, India and the Internet: Economic Growth Is Driven by Women." (Headline.) "Even today in the modern, developed world, surveys show that parents still prefer to have a boy rather than a girl. One longstanding reason boys have been seen as a greater blessing has been that they are expected to become better economic providers for their parents' old age. Yet it is time for parents to think again. Girls may now be a better investment." "Girls get better grades in school than boys, and in most developed countries more women than men go to university. Women will thus be better equipped for the new jobs of the 21st century, in which brains count a lot more than brawn. ... And women are more likely to provide sound advice on investing their parents' nest egg: surveys show that women consistently achieve higher financial returns than men do. Furthermore, the increase in female employment in the rich world has been the main driving force of growth in the last couple of decades. Those women have contributed more to global GDP growth than have either new technology or the new giants, India and China."

Continuing on page 73: "A Guide to Womenomics: The Future of the World Economy Lies Increasingly in Female Hands." (Headline.) More stats: Around the globe since 1980, women have filled "two new jobs for every one taken by a man." "Women are becoming more important in the global marketplace not just as workers, but also as consumers, entrepreneurs, managers and investors." Re consumption, Goldman Sachs in Tokyo has developed an index of 115 companies poised to benefit from women's increased purchasing power; over the past decade the value of shares in "Goldman's basket has risen by 96%, against the Tokyo stockmarket's rise of 13%." A couple of final assertions: (1) It is now agreed that "the single best investment that can be made in the developing world" is educating girls. (2) Also, surprisingly, nations with the highest female laborforce participation rates, such as Sweden and the U.S., have the highest fertility rates; and those with the lowest participation rates, such as Italy and Germany, have the lowest fertility rates.

Quite a story, eh?

Two Cool Women in Two Cool Jobs

Yesterday's Big Event in São Paulo featured "big time" speakers—Frank Maguire, credited by many with creating the fabled FedEx corporate culture; Harvard leadership guru Howard Gardner; strategy Main Man Ram Charan. But the real Star, whom I was lucky enough to meet, was/is Luiza Helena. Up from less than the high end of Brazil's economic spectrum, she has created the nation's top retailer,