Social media – and the end of gender
In this guest posting, researcher Johanna Blakley argues that social media will help TV companies to finally stop stereotyping their female audience
It may sound strange, but I’m convinced that the growing influence of social media will help dismantle some of the silly and demeaning stereotypes that characterize media and advertising all around the world.
Most media businesses today (TV, radio, film, games, publishing) use rigid segmentation methods in order to understand their audience. These methods are driven by old-school demographics which presume to sum up human beings with a handful of restrictive labels, chief among them, “male” and “female.” Media companies and advertisers assume that people who fall within certain demographic categories are predictable in certain ways. That single white females, for instance, like certain things that married Australian males do not. Most of the material that makes up our popular culture is based upon these assumptions about taste.
Age demographics, like the prized 18-49 category, have had a huge impact on virtually all mass media programming in Australia and worldwide. And even though psychographics have been around since the 1960s (that’s what Dr. Faye Miller does on the TV show Mad Men, figuring out the underlying psychological profiles for consumers), it has had very little impact compared to demographics on audience segmentation and monetization.
How do you get a job in a think tank?
Does Australia have any think tanks?
What is the precentage of women think-tankers?
Social Media will cure Male Pattern Baldness
the phrase “think tank” is itself yet another symbol of women’s oppressed status under patriarchy and male hegemony.
The tank with its phallic like gun used to rupture the unwilling and unyielding buildings of the so-called enemy, is akin to sexual assualt.
We see wimmin, indoctrinated by the patriarchy, becoming spokespersuns for militaristic sounding organisations without even being aware of it.
A tank is a weapon of war, of male hatred and dominance of wimmin…
Why shouldn’t it be names a “think people carrier” rather than the oppressive and militaristic weapon of war the tank?
I am disappointed to see that Johanna Blakley has become a tool of the patriarchy and does not stand up for wimmin and girls by rejecting the use of this oppressive and warmongering phrase.
Thinktank is an Album by British group Blur. Listen to it – it’s great!
As for gender, concerning media and stereotypes etc I know a boy named Lesley and everyone batters him on Facey saying that he has a hell chick like name.
Someone wrote the other day; “Lesley loves franga’s” – I feel hell sorry for him but!!
Agree women are behind the social networking wheel. As Australia (albeit slowly) begins to understand and embrace the power of the female demographic – esp in regards to the online and social media space – let’s hope digital and advertising agencies begin to serious take a look at the creation of segmented female-friendly advertising and PR campaigns ESP ONLINE. Segmenting to allow for strategic marketing to women (if only as a campaign extension) is beneficial and makes sense (take note male-dominated brands) – social media is the perfect tool in which to do so.
Sue and Jen What – The two of you should sit down for a coffee and record the conversation for the rest of us. Sure to be hilarious.
Gosh Sue, when I think of a Think Tank, I have never ever had a military tank cross my mind! Isn’t it a reference to a ‘closed room’ or hub in which to collaborate??
Goodness, …and I thought I was a feminist…!
Okay Sue I’ve taken the bait. Have you spelt ‘women’ ‘wimmin’ because of the presence of ‘men’ in the word. If so, can we send you an invite to our Christmas party?
This was by far the funniest comment section I have read in a while.
@love the insanity. I agree with you. Hilarity would definately ensue.
Moi aussi . . . I was thinking fish tank.
Demographically though are not women the greater purchasers??
I suppose men still cling to the outmoded concept that we are spending
their money, not our own. (Especially prevalent in mannist Australia)
I can say that on every survey site and almost every email db I have access to (let’s say substantial numbers, several million in ANZ) that women/wimmin are far more represented than men at almost every age group (in particular, for some reason women aged 25-50 seem to love filling out surveys), have far higher levels of engagement, purchasing, time on site, email opens etc etc. They are the best customers, no matter which way you cut it.
As someone that markets to them over a number of verticals, our findings (including several 18 page (!!!) surveys) would be entirely unsurprising if you were to take a stereotype of that demographic. The daily deals sites will tell you the same – women are the valuable customers, they purchase far more than men. They buy beauty deals. They’re easier to get onto the databases, and spend more often and higher when they are on sites.
Having said that, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I remember vividly when [huge PC retailer] were a client. As we geared up for the launch of their [distinctive brand] hardcore gaming PC’s. Vents, lights, scoops, more RAM than is decent, graphics cards, water-cooling, etc, you know the type, the client said.
“Now, I have this research that shows that women actually spend more time online gaming (nearly double!) than men – so our campaign should definitely be focused around women.”
It was a brave man that tried to point out to her that Farmville probably didn’t need SLi water-cooled graphics cards with overclocked, quad-core chips.
It’s easy to generalise, but at least that rudimentary segmentation is better than the one-size-fits-all approach, given the stage we’re at?
And if we’re talking not about demographics, but individuals, shouldn’t the title of that research not been “How women are shaping the internet” but “How people who shape the internet are shaping the Internet”?
Gav,
On that note, thought I would post an exert from a potential client only yesterday who sells superannuation –
” I would not have thought XXXX was a “blokey” brand. But who am I to know. More to the point is that superannuation is of no interest to most Australians, both male and female, and due to career breaks womens super balances are woefully low. ”
Um???
@Julie Potter. OMG. A client really said that?!? And – just taking a stab in the dark – was the client male?
“I’m a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That’s what kind of man I am. You’re just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It’s science.” – Ron Burgundy.
the female brain is a more efficient beast however as it uses both sides at once
“the phrase “think tank” is itself yet another symbol of women’s oppressed status under patriarchy and male hegemony.”
The point of satire is you’re not supposed to go overboard, Sue.
the argument – seems a little bizarre – that we don’t know anything by demographics such as gender – but we need more women on boards – who can understand and talk the language spoken by the majority of their users who are women – is that surely telling us that demographics such as gender count and are actually pretty important? Surely the argument is that we can tell alot by demograhics – but it is a blunt instrument – otherwise wouldn’t be better off organising boards aroudn clusters of interests? Gender – women – may be a blunt insturment – but it is stil a differentiator and useful when compared with the other blunt instrument gender – mlae – which is absolutely why we need more women on boards.
Re the article, I definately hope more women get to the executive ranks and on listed company boards. That said there is no need for the (Gillard) govt to get involved and legislate for this to happen as is currently being mooted.
Whilst I have your attention I’d also like to point out that in adverts males are stereotyped just as much as females nowadays and it is foolish marketing to do this.