Comments

How do you explain Starbucks success, whose most valuable and most loyal customers are women. The senior executives are nearly all men, and the Marketing and Retail departments have been led by men more often than not. Apparently, they know something about the female market.

The more I read you, the more I wonder where you learned to believe there are but two colors, black and white. Grab hold of those grays Tom. You might learn something about nuanced thinking.

Posted by Lewis Green at September 26, 2006 2:45 PM

Lewis, part of your Comment is amusing--with about 10-15 Fortune 500 CEOs women, I hardly think we're likely to overdo the "women's thing" anytime soon. Meanwhile, I do indeed plan to keep on "overdoing" my support for the women's marketing (and leadership) idea/s.

Posted by tom peters at September 26, 2006 3:33 PM

I'm skeptical about generalizations about the male vs. female brain: most of the studies I've read about male/female differences (in brain structure, personality, IQ and EQ, etc.) conclude that the differences between the sexes are smaller than the differences between members of the same sex.

And I'm more than a little skeptical about this author's argument: she claims that male and female brains are different "by nature," but goes on to write, "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?" The first two are heredity, the third is environment: no matter how big your brain centers are, you won't develop those skills unless your environment encourages you to do so.

That said, I agree with Tom that the female market is underserved (case in point: auto dealerships). Marketers who are able to abandon their male-based preconceptions about "what sells," and see clearly what women want, will have the advantage in grasping this enormous opportunity. The Starbucks example just proves the point: the founders focused on providing a certain type of "experience" to customers, rather than just selling coffee, and that's not a stereotypically masculine approach to business.

(I'm not sure that Mr. Green's generalization is true either: most of the Starbucks I've frequented, ranging from suburbia to major cities, seem to appeal to both sexes, although the demographic mix may vary depending on location and hour -- e.g., there's a suburban-housewife contingent who show up in late morning after dropping off the kids and running errands.)

Posted by Paula at September 26, 2006 3:34 PM

Dear Tom:

What a great comment.

Miss Louann Brizendine's book seems really interesting.

Sometimes I remember Mr. Peter Drucker with his very good hability to see what was happening in the world. The Facts.

When you see the facts you can see a real trend that will change the world.

Very few people have this talent, and you express it in a very original way.

With best regards

Juan Miguel Robles Vargas
General Manager
Deisa
Guadalajara, Mexico

Posted by Juan Miguel Robles Vargas at September 26, 2006 4:23 PM

What an interesting sounding book.

I'm hoping that there are a bunch of MRI scans that support her hypothesis. I'm just not convinced that this is a male/female issue, though maybe there are clear tendencies?

I'd bet that, like all our skills, some have more and some have less. To characterize as male or female does a disservice to both those groups, and you as well. Either that or Drucker was right!

But should there by focus by businesses on products that are attractive to those who are more empathetic, or have a higher EQ? Yup, absolutely.

BTW, is Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on Video yet? If so, get a copy to Tom ASAP!

Posted by Dave Hardwick at September 26, 2006 5:13 PM

Hi Tom
Sounds like a great read. I have read, with interest, a lot of your Woman related stuff. One question I had (after reading some Paco Underhill) though was this: Speaking from a retail perspective, it seems as though most retail stores have been designed with women in mind since retail apparently has long realized and agreed with what you have been saying. Given this fact and given that with more women working or being the primary earners in their families, it makes sense that today more purchasing than ever is being done by men – at least of products traditionally purchased by women. This being the case perhaps doing the opposite of what you suggest – marketing more towards male buyers (who are much less choosey and selective about which products to purchase) may also be an excellent opportunity. Any thoughts?

Posted by Kevin Toderel at September 26, 2006 7:54 PM

As I recall, didn't a question like this got Lawrence Summers in trouble at Harvard?

Posted by Tony Paulson at September 26, 2006 7:55 PM

Keep Harping Tom. Please. Somebody will get it, and I am listening, both as the market you speak of, and a service provider to same . . .

Nellie

Posted by Nellie Moore at September 27, 2006 8:35 AM

Women do not have to be in charge to be heard. Smart companies understand what their brand is all about, they know who their target consumer is, and they seek to understand the target consumer. If the target is females, then shame on any company that let's the men's club soley decide the companies course.

Minorities, the aged, tweens, teens, twenty-somethings, families....based on your logic it is requisite that they sit in upper management. MMMm....I can just see the 16 year old running the show at Apple.

The important thing is that companies understand, listen and cater to their target customers.

Posted by Tom at Proteus at September 27, 2006 9:01 AM

"... bored about my harping on this issue ... " amused yes!

Read somewhere recently that USA black men shop like women - a lot of time spent doing it - mainly because their Mom's are the KEY [solo] role model - given 71% out of wedlock births & rarity of household MALE role models.

Keep buffing grammar skills Juan - and it is "Dr." Drucker.

Posted by sean at September 27, 2006 9:02 AM

Well said Lewis and Paula-gender stereotyping is about as useful to the progression of the human race as racial or age-related stereotyping, but apprently much more acceptable. As you say Paula, the differences between individuals are more significant than between demographic groups, but to play on the differences sells a lot of books. Read the first review of 'the Female Brain' on Amazon and see what you think.

Posted by tomjam at September 27, 2006 9:06 AM

The review on Amazon.com that "tomjam" refers to is by David Peterzell. I'm just a well-read amateur on this subject, while he's a professional, but he makes the same point with a lot of supporting references. To quote him, "The author consistently confuses neural structure (brain) with psychological function (mind, mental performance, emotions, behavior). This is a huge error." YES!!

From the marketing perspective, I think gender is significant not because there are "actual" gender differences, but because of the assumptions that marketers make about those differences. To use my previous example, I walk into an auto dealership, and the salesman might as well have a thought balloon over his head: "Middle-aged woman, not very knowledgeable about cars and doesn't care to be, won't dicker about the price; but I probably can't sell her a muscle truck, so I'll show her some boring sedans and tack on all the 'extras' I can get away with to pump up my commission." I used to find it amusing to trample all over his stereotypes, but now it just makes me tired, and I'm likelier to walk out after his first "Let me take care of you, honey" remark. THAT'S why women are underserved -- not because our brains work differently, but because marketers assume that they do.

Posted by Paula at September 27, 2006 2:58 PM

Tom, you are on youtube.Nice!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6qZ8ZmqsQU

Posted by Namith at September 27, 2006 6:13 PM

namith, thanks for the heads up on the YouTube sighting.

Posted by Erik Hansen at September 28, 2006 10:32 AM