This has been a—or even the—issue nearest and dearest to my heart since 1996, and I am thrilled by the stats and the recognition alike. Maybe, corporations will begin to take product-service development and marketing to women more seriously. This is still, in 9.63 out of 10 cases, a great void–monster opportunity (e.g. when even a single movie comes along, like It's Complicated, aimed at women, particularly boomer women, it's treated as Big News).

"All told, girls in India from one to five years of age are 50 percent more likely to die than boys the same age. The best estimate is that a little Indian girl dies from discrimination every four minutes."

Larry Summers (during his World Bank days): "Investment in girls' education may well be the highest-return investment available in the developing world."

Bernard Kouchner, founder of Doctors Without Borders: "Progress is achieved through women."

N'yet. Despite the Economist's cheery cover story, we've got a long way to go on women's issues worldwide. To get the story you can do no better than to read Pulitzer Prize winners Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn's Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. (All of the quotes above come from Half the Sky.) If this book doesn't "get to you," I can't imagine what would. The stats and stories are nothing short of astounding. As the title suggests, there is good news to accompany the bad—that is, examples of stuff that works. The journalists acknowledge that they are on a mission. The last chapter is titled "What You Can Do: Four Steps You Can Take in the Next Ten Minutes."

I cannot recommend this book highly enough—and, likewise, I recommend that you do consider becoming part of the solution. Despite the staggering size of the problem, you and I can help. Or, rather, how could we choose not to help?

[Below, fall apples, past prime.]

W > 2(C + I)

Put the damned equation on posters all over the damned walls and halls of every damned office.
Put the equation on everybody's Desktop.
Etc.
Etc.

Translation, my passion of the last 15 years: The "women's market" is over twice as big as the Chinese and Indian markets combined. And, on average, you aren't doing a damn thing about it—and that even holds if you think you do in fact "get it" and are "on it."

My 1.5 decade passion has been most recently re-enforced by a feature in the September Harvard Business Review, by Michael Silverstein and Kate Sayre:

"The Female Economy: As a market, women represent a bigger opportunity than China and India combined; so why are companies doing such a poor job of serving them?"

It begins:

"Women now drive the world economy. Globally, they control about $20 trillion in annual consumer spending, and that figure could climb as high as $28 trillion in the next five years. ... In aggregate, women represent a growth market bigger than China and India combined—more than twice as big, in fact. Given those numbers, it would be foolish to ignore or underestimate the female consumer. And yet many companies do just that, even ones that are confident they have a winning strategy when it comes to women."

Soooooooooo?????????
When???????
Please!!!!!!!
Damn it!!!!!!!!
(I beg you!!!!!!)
(Again!!!!!!)

As Getting to 50/50 co-author Sharon Meers put it in a "Room for Debate" post on the New York Times blog:

So here's the real question: How to make the positive qualities we see in female managers more common in men—and more useful to all? A new report from Catalyst shows how companies win when we escape the idea that men and women are so different and work harder to get on the same page—so that men and women bring out the best in each other sharing the same C-suite.

The same goes for building teams or finding leaders with regard to marketing to women. What you are looking for are those qualities women tend to have that make them "transformational leaders." According to Gary N. Powell who also contributed his thoughts to that NYT blog post:

Transformational leadership includes charisma (communicating the purpose and importance of a mission and serving as a role model), inspirational motivation (exuding optimism and excitement about the mission's attainability), intellectual stimulation (encouraging others to think out of the box), and individualized consideration (focusing on the development and mentoring of subordinates as individuals).

Are any of those things gender-specific? No. Men, indeed, have the potential to have charisma, exude optimism, be able to encourage others and be interested in mentorship programs. It just may mean training the right side of their brains into action a bit more (as per Daniel Pink in A Whole New Mind). Of course—there is the "vice versa" too—that women who lack some of the more typically male qualities of leadership can get the training or learn from colleagues, as well.

In marketing, smart people with years of experience in the field (and there are many) can see what works and why. If we leave gender out of the label for what the positive qualities are, we may more likely get men and women on the same page, and on the way to the same productivity levels with regard to their understanding of the women's market.

So, no. It is not only women who can excel in marketing to women. Instead, those women may be where you go first to guide/educate others in the qualities that lead toward a better understanding of how women buy. Just like marketers should be guided and inspired by the women they serve (as in transparent marketing), so too should people in marketing be guided and inspired by the women who more naturally understand today's marketplace. That's how women and men working together will bring out the very best in their team's marketing abilities.

Tom isn't as long off the tee as his young opponents. The fescue roughs were probably a bit more troublesome for his 59-year-old body than for the 20-somethings he played along with. His experience, will, and unflappable persistence kept him in front until the very last putt of the scheduled seventy-two holes. Although he lost the playoff to Stewart Cink, Tom's performance was indeed inspiring.

As a member of that demographic, I think about baby boomers in business quite a bit these days. While many of us may have thought about retiring in the near future, it seems to me there is a bit of work to do before we pass the baton. Just like Tom Watson and golf, the game of business has changed for us baby boomers. We came to leadership positions when making things and selling things was the name of the game. Increasingly, we don't make things here in the USA anymore. Knowledge work and exotic financial instruments seem to be the product these days. Our parents left us a fairly robust economy with employment opportunities for everyone who applied themselves. As I write this, my state, Michigan, has a 15.2%(!) unemployment rate. The taxpayers own our largest manufacturer, GM. Self-interest, some would call it greed, still seems to get in the way of the collective effort we need to get out of this mess.

I really hope Tom Watson inspired other baby boomers as well. This is the time we must use our experience, our will, and some unflappable persistence to turn this thing around and get one more win before the end of our careers. Our experience should help us remember it was hard work, real labor, that sustained the economy. Our will should be strengthened by a determination to leave a better economy for our children. And our persistence should help us remember we win this thing shot by shot, never wavering, playing the conditions dealt us, and knowing that we can still win this thing. Tom Watson didn't show up in Scotland to be a ceremonial icon ... he went to win! Thanks Tom! And damn it, I really wished that putt had fallen!

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.

There is a happy ending here. Dell is handling the hullabaloo quite well. They have responded quickly to the controversy and have been making changes to their Della site (less pink!) as a result of the feedback. Let's hope the lessons they're learning will be shared across industries.

1) A non-linear and more systematic approach.

2) Collaboration, not competition, focused.

3) The path is as important as the end goal.

I expand each point below:

Continued reading Design for Environment Speaks A Woman's Language...

Posted by Andrea Learned |

Why? Damn it!

TP: Duh!

Women purchase:

85% all consumer purchases, cars to computers
91% new homes
66% personal computers
92% vacations
80% health care decisions
89% bank accounts
Etc.

Marketing "success"—women's perceptions:

59% of women "feel misunderstood by food marketers"
66% healthcare
74% automotive
84% investment advisors
Etc.

So??????????

My reaction?
Duh!

I repeat in this Blog for the Umpteenth Time: The Mother of All Markets for Approximately Everything for the next quarter-century is the deeply underappreciated, insanely underserved Boomer-Geezer clan of 100 million or so in the U.S. alone. (Then add the Super-silver EU and Super-silver Japan, and the story grows even more important.)

"Silver Summit"?
This market is not about "silver initiatives."
This market is the market—the rest is details.

(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.)

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.)

8 CEOs.
8 males.

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

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.)

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.

Bravo!

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.

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.