Shifting our attitudes towards gender is the key to true ‘disruption’
Amongst the sea of creatives brandishing words like 'disruptor' around, there's one simple way to innovate that Australian businesses appear to be missing: shifting their perception of gender. Bec Brideson explains.
I just finished reading (and watching) Mark Ritson’s dissection of digital metrics and what can I say? He hits the nail on the head several times. This dispute is big, huge; it’s freaking massive. I am shocked and in awe at of the sheer size of it.
Recently at a conference he titillated his audience about measuring the width and girth of his penis using excruciating detail – stroke by stroke – if you’ll excuse my own cheap innuendo.
Business in Australia is obviously interested in how Ritson measures his appendage and also in how he unloads his seemingly frustrated argument all over the digital folk with marketing mastery.
His immaculate dissemination of the issues around digital measurement is a much-needed exposé on the complexities, inefficiencies, inaccuracies and non-accountabilities – and the industry is left in a lather asking for more.
An entertaining metaphor for explaining the nuances of accuracies – I’d like to take this opportunity to politely point out – this kind of unconscious bias in language and business can immediately exclude women from participating in the conversation.
To my knowledge Louise Barrett, also on stage with Ritson, made some great points agreeing with Ritson’s theories and did not need to use any metaphor about measuring her lady bits.
Louise Barrett: Not a hint of cockiness
Had she done this I do wonder if it would have made it to the headlines as her colleague’s penis did, given the word labia is not oft-quoted in business jargon (a majora shame really).
That said, lets “play the ball not the man” given businesses are welcoming the enlightenment and cheering Ritson on because someone finally has the cockiness to say what others won’t in fear of Google and Facebook’s mighty presence.
The other massive disruptor is side-lined
There has been dialogue and disagreement on the subject of ‘digital disruption’ and its transformational effectiveness in business.
Nevertheless, in the midst of all this a much bigger, more important opportunity ‘to disrupt’ obviously remains in the too-hard basket – given the inertia in corporate Australia.
So it’s time we put our collective dicks, ovaries and any other attention-grabbing reproductive organs on the table.
Yes, let’s talk about gender.
I have been known to have multiple discourses over the many complex facets of gender; but trust me, I’m not raising the subject as business foreplay or for funsies, nor because I’m a pissed-off feminist.
I’m championing this because it’s important to our financial future. For those who need to get schooled – economist Saul Eslake details why here.
To relegate gender to an “HR issue” is to the detriment of your business.
Yes the word gender is mistakenly fuelled with all sorts of misconceptions rather than seen for what it is – an imminent area of growth full of revenue for business. It would appear we keep ignoring the prospect, overlooking the needs of our female consumer market and the power of female brand cultures. Our own female talent pools are wasted – and we look anything but disruptive and innovative.
Still don’t believe me?
What do you think has brought Uber into crisis?
It was a poor culture and business model that disrespected the needs of female customers and basic rights of its workforce, including its women.
The result? New competitors have popped up like Shebah, incredible female talent have jumped ship, and they’re suffering the worst PR domino effect since the Trump administration. Not to mention that their old competitors have used it as a point of differentiation to their benefit.
And if you don’t think that the way a business treats its women is a real gender problem, just look at how the sexism in Silicon Valley is playing out. If business can’t get the internal culture right with women – how can they possibly understand external culture/customer?
The word on Wall St is that business is cognisant of the fact that more women on boards, and equally represented in leadership equals greater returns. Think State Street’s “Fearless Girl” if you want proof of product.
Despite all of the discussion and evidence we are still found lacking on the actions that beget change. Too little action follows the already statistically proven and accepted results of gender studies from McKinsey, Catalyst and just about every other consultancy firm. It’s time for a rethink, like Deloitte’s indicating top-level execs must get involved.
Digital and technological innovation must happen in concert with gender. The addition of a female-lens is the perfect trinity for bottom line brilliance.
The latest CEO report rom KPMG put digital and technological progress well above gender. Could this be because the clear majority of CEOs are still male (94% of Australian CEOs against 97% global) and they are more comfortable dealing “in the machine”? Are they hung-over from an outdated perception that gender equals soft skills, touchy-feely-potential-political minefields?
The new reality is gender equals greater profits, better returns and innovation you haven’t even thought about yet. The commercial upside of getting more women involved throughout your business remains a valid and underutilised disruptor in business.
It is essential that men and women move forward in step together, to incite change or women will remain under represented and dormant in the growth-value equation.
My commitment is to help drive this change and equip the three in four Australian CEOs who “want to be disruptors in their category”, with the courage and tools to use the power of gender-intelligence as their weapon of choice.
Bec Brideson is a consultant in the gender-intelligence space.
Well, apart from a week pun on labia majora, and a mismatched comparison of penis and clitoris, this article tells us little that reaches beyond political claptrap. If there is some truth to found in the great general glutinous mass of opinion that goes by the name of feminism, then maybe there is also something of worth to be found in Ritson’s blurb.
User ID not verified.
Couldn’t agree more, great article. We are all missing out if we don’t tackle this issue. Why would anyone ignore the value of 50% of its population, particularly when it comes to Senior Management and Board positions.
User ID not verified.
Well, apart from the poor typos (*weak) and an even more piss-poor understanding of the difference between an article and an op-ed, it’s clear that your superficial simplification of this article into the typical cliche of “fuck no feminism” has sadly missed the point.
Recognising the female market isn’t politics, and it ain’t feminism – it’s sheer economics and a clever move for agencies and brands to capitalise on a new market with lots of influence and money. Like Nike, UA and Adidas has done (77% growth this second quarter, look it up BRO). Like The Discovery Channel did earlier last week.
Simple enough for you now, Mr Moss?
User ID not verified.
Sorry about the typo week for weak, once the message has been sent it is impossible to edit.
[quote] “fuck no feminism”[unquote] is not an expression I am familiar with, or would ever support. Since this space is called “comments” not “deep analysis” I commented upon what I saw beyond the blurb.
I find the naming of sexual parts for effect a low blow whichever gender.
[quote] “Simple enough for you now Mr Moss”[unquote] another low blow given that I have not asked for a simplified explanation. Of course you knew that when you wrote it.
User ID not verified.
So if women on the top means bigger profits, why not advocate 100% female leadership? It is, after all, only the welfare of Australia you’re concerned with, right? No politics or feminist ideology to see her folks.
And the article she links to does in no way demonstrate the correlation between women and profit she has built her entire sham of a career on.
“Bec Brideson is a consultant in the gender-intelligence space”
Hah.
Ha ha.
Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha.
aahhh.
eh he.
User ID not verified.
“The new reality is gender equals greater profits, better returns and innovation you haven’t even thought about yet.”
This sounds profound but what evidence do you have? The idea that business is ignoring 50% of its market is simply ludicrous. The majority of advertising targets women. Client marketers are up to 60% female according to recent data. This is not about business effectiveness , this is about positive discrimination to equal the gender imbalance. At least have the honesty to own it.
User ID not verified.
Please attribute my comment – soz !
User ID not verified.
Despite being partly the subject of Bec’s article I actually think she makes some very important points. I think it’s too easy for us to quote the general proportions of female marketers and miss the fact that, despite this large base population, when we get to the top of the marketing tree it is alarmingly filled with old fat white blokes like me.
We can give the digital industry a hard time for their incredible lack of diversity but in some ways they are better than marketing. We start with a relatively good and diverse junior workforce and then end up with white blokes 20 years later.
She’s got a point. A bigger one than me.
User ID not verified.
Hey Mark, please stop the perpetuating the acceptance of discriminatory language against men and anglo men in particular. Do you find the following offensive?
…old fat white women…
…old fat black men…
…old fat black women…
gettit ?
User ID not verified.
This comment was from Gezza
User ID not verified.
Devil’s Advocate,
The reason 100% of women at the top would not work is evidenced in the reports from E&Y, BCG, PWC, Catalyst etc etc who have analysed gender diversity best practise globally – it is not my “sham” theory – it is a proven and recognised fact.
Throughout my career it is true that I have focussed on understanding how to better connect with women because I understood and learned that women are the world’s fastest growing, most influential consumer – again a fact.
Thank you for your feedback but may I play ‘Devil’s Avacado’ back at you… I would appreciate if you’d try and remove the personal attacks about me (Mumbrella don’t go all Campaign Brief please) and instead provide the factual proof that what I reference is not true. I am sure that the consultancy groups who have undertaken the gender studies, Economists like Saul Eslake and those at organisations such as Male Champions of Change would welcome your conjecture.
Bec
User ID not verified.
Hi again Gezza – thanks for always commenting on my opinion pieces. Just to keep you course-corrected:
• The evidence I have is from global consultancies such as Ernst & Young, Boston Consulting Group and Price Waterhouse Coopers.
• I would never suggest that business is ignoring 50% of it’s market, That view would be too naive and generalised. Every category (and every business within that category) has a different ratio of male to female audiences. The idea is to find out what your audience gender breakdown is, and then see if you are best-serving the needs of your audience through rigorous and bespoke gender research, analysing the sales data and also auditing your own internal process to see if a gender-bias is hindering potential profits.
• There may be more female marketers than male – but they have learned and been schooled from the same old curriculums through university, text books, case studies and the male-lensed business environment that created “business”. Ergo the past has been inherited through an unconsciously male-biased perspective. The role of women in society has changed – business just needs to catch up to that economic reality and get educated about it accordingly.
• This is about business effectiveness AND also gender equality – Saul Eslake makes the point if you go back and read the link in the article.
Bec
User ID not verified.
Did you know anything before you attempted to opine on something you clearly know nothing about and felt like misattributing in favour of your old, outdated misogyny that sees FEMINISM instead of ‘lucrative female market’?
Computer says no.
User ID not verified.
I guess the definition of ‘Devil’s Advocate” is lost on you. It means providing a genuinely considered and thoughtful opposing stance that provokes debate or explores Bec’s opinion further. None of which you did. In fact, all you DID DO was labour some quite pathetic personal attacks. None of which are true, or founded or even clever. This is something deserving of Youtube or Twitter trolls. And even then, they’re much better than you at it.
Ha ah ahahahaha
ahahahaha
ha
hah
ha
Come at me, brah. 🙂
User ID not verified.
Dear Bec,
First, I’d like to apologise for getting personal.
You see, every time I’ve tried to present a thoughtful argument on these issues here on Mumbrella, I’ve been overwhelmed by attacks on my gender and skin colour. Interestingly, no one ever had a problem with these racist and sexist attacks, including yourself.
But thanks for taking the time to respond. I realise I have you at an advantage being anonymous, but the way things are these days, using one’s own name is a luxury only your side of the fence can afford. Today the Google memo guy was fired, last year the always lovely Cindy Gallop and her lynch mob went after Kevin Roberts. When the compassionate feminists are challenged, people’s careers, livelihoods, kids are acceptable casualties.
Oh yeah, that’s the left side of the fence in case anyone wonders.
Despite the seemingly narrow subject of diversity and profitability, it is quite clear to me that this is but the tip of a monstrous iceberg, inevitably leading to long, complex, and emotionally charged, debate.
I’ll therefore quickly dismiss the question of profitability by saying I’ve seen several studies showing no correlation between female leadership and increased profits. I can’t find them, but I’m sure you’re aware studies exist that provide “proof” for both sides.
(As an aside, if it’s business profitability you’re after, you may want to shift your focus to an actual male dominated industry (marketing is, after all, female dominated) such as garbage collection, mining, ditch digging and truck driving. No? Didn’t think so?)
I’ve been down this particular dirt-road before with some of your ideological sisters, and from experience I can quite confidently claim to know more about your worldview than you do yourself.
Let’s see if I can demonstrate that. So what exactly do I mean by this being the tip of an iceberg?
Jung once said people don’t have ideas, ideas have people. And the idea that has you, Bec, has tricked you into telling yourself that all you really care about is the profitability of Australian businesses. Which is ironic considering that the genealogy of this idea is good-old Marxism.
A less respectful opponent might’ve called you a useful idiot, but not me. However, this idea has many people in its grip, and some of these are certainly very idiotic.
They all contribute in different ways:
At the bottom of the pit are the Cindy Gallop fan-club who thinks attacking my genitalia and skin colour constitute an argument; some complain about the lack of minority representation in Dunkirk; some ban the documentary The Red Pill; some fire a Googler for advocating viewpoint diversity; some throw Molotov cocktails at conservative speakers at Berkley in the name of anti-fascism and some, not that long ago, manned the gates at the Soviet Gulags. The list is endless.
Not you, of course, all you care about is equality and diversity, But so do they. You’re all so compassionate. You all fight for equality and diversity without realising they’re diametrical opposite concepts and that the only way to achieve both is discrimination and violence.
Either men and women are identical, in which case diversity is meaningless, or we’re inherently different (since I know some of you want to misunderstand me: different on average. In the exact same way that men are taller than women, but some women are taller then men, we have evolved to have different personalities, skills, interests and talents), in which case some people are better suited at, and choose to pursue, certain jobs and careers than others. Which is it gonna be?
How do I know you’re in the grip of this idea? From what you say to Gezza:
“There may be more female marketers than male – but they have learned and been schooled from the same old curriculums through university, text books, case studies and the male-lensed business environment that created “business”. Ergo the past has been inherited through an unconsciously male-biased perspective. The role of women in society has changed – business just needs to catch up to that economic reality and get educated about it accordingly.”
Faced with a valid point – there are more female marketers than male, so what’s the problem? – your predictable, kneejerk reaction is an epic “yeah-but” argument that is virtually impossible to respond to. In one epic sweep you discredit everything men have done throughout history by tarnishing it with 2015-buzzword-of-the-year, unconscious male-bias, as well as revealing your complete lack of understanding for the concept of business. What on earth does a male-lens perspective mean in the context of economy? What does feminist economics look like? Communism?
And the reason you can so confidently throw out such a statement with complete disregard for coherence and accuracy is its underlying assumption you all take for granted; the holy tenet of the feminist cult: that masculinity is by default toxic, and women its innocent victims.
Google is arguably the most progressive place in the world. Full of millennials educated at elite universities, it’s the sweet-spot for so-called progressive thought. They’ve also spent $265 million on diversity and recruitment programs with virtually zero results, the percentage of female tech staff still lingers around 20%. If you’re female and want a coding job at Google they’re throwing it at you, begging you to work for them. Yet it’s impossible. The answer? Blame white men. Spend even more money on new programs that discriminate against said white men. When a white man points out the lack of logic, fire him. I could make a big deal out of the fact that Google seems to be doing ok profit wise, but that would just be a cheap shot. It’s particularly impressive given that they refuse to hire the people best suited for the job.
So, do you see any parallels to our industry and your role in it, Bec? Have you perhaps found a non-violent formula for how to re-engineer human nature that has escaped Google? If so, I hear they’re looking to hire women.
But of course, you don’t believe in human nature. So that’s where the argument ends. Science is only good for climate change and showing how women are better than men. Now who’s biased?
See, I told you I knew your worldview better than you do.
Perhaps I’m being unfair to you, perhaps you have good intentions. But the worldview you represent, consciously or not, has anything but god intentions. History has taught us that much, and it seems intent on reminding us again.
User ID not verified.
Yes I did know many things before, not attempting, but actually opining upon the subject, which it is far from clear that I know nothing about, in spite of your own opinion to the contrary. The word “misogyny” is as ugly and hateful today as it ever was, therefore it is neither “outdated” or in mode. I reject your accusation entirely that I am associated with misogyny today or in the past.
User ID not verified.
Well said. I was nearly going to respond to her gobsmackingly foolish statement about female marketers being brain washed with male bias but honestly I could not see any point.
User ID not verified.
Gezza and Devils – please go back, read the links thoroughly and take up any issues with the authors of the research and the consulting firms who commission them, invest in them and publish them. Seek out Saul Eslake and other leading Economists who are also bolstering and spreading this argument. I am simply presenting the same facts with links that are available to anyone who desires to pursue the evidence.
If you have contrary intelligence on this subject that refutes all of their findings then please – share the links, provide the proof and lets keep it a lively discussion based on being constructive and logical.
User ID not verified.
Damn! And I thought did everything I could to make this both lively and rational! (are you sure you read it?). You sure do have high standards, Bec.
As you might expect, there is a ‘however’ coming…
Because: all you accomplish by cowardly hiding behind the research is demonstrating that you’re capable of cherry-picking that which confirms your ideological narrative and suits your personal interests, and that you’re completely devoid of critical faculties.
There’s an entire field of scholarship dedicated to creationism. Are you happy to go with the experts on that one?
Ok, that was too cheap. What about, say, evolutionary psychology, with practitioners like Steven Pinker, Robert Sapolsky and Geoffrey Miller? No dummies. I never understood how the PC authoritarian crowd can completely dismiss this highly renowned scientific discipline while at the same time being obsessed with unconscious biases (it’s all they’ve got left. Like creationists being obsessed with the eye of some bacteria. If you want a demonstration of bias in its natural environment, look no further). Don’t we owe everything we know about the latter to achievements in the former? Perhaps you would be so kind to clear this up for us, Bec? Unless you’re busy doing the March for Science of course.
It’s obvious to me that you completely lack the ability to justify what it is that you do and what it is that you really believe in.
After all, I was throwing out some pretty outrageous accusations there. They should be easy enough to refute for someone with the towering intellect it takes to gain a complete understanding of, and ability to control, humanity’s deepest, most primal instincts and biases. And lecture about it to us commoners.
So, with respect Bec, you’re a fraud; a modern snake oil salesman (whoops, I mean saleswoman). who exploits a gullible audience for your own profit.
Gezza, I honestly don’t know why I bother. But I suppose writing these rants can be a good way of sorting out one’s arguments. And, as the cliche goes, if I can help change just one person’s mind, it’s worth it.
User ID not verified.
Well if nothing else you are entertaining me enormously. Keep fighting the good fight brother!
User ID not verified.
Well said Devils advocate… To be honest though, Bec Brideson is a ‘gender consultant’.. She has no choice but to spout this postmodernist garbage, it literally puts food on her table..
User ID not verified.
https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal
User ID not verified.