Mis-targeted marketing
I subscribe to MacUser magazine: a very fine publication for hopeless Mac fanatics everywhere. The last issue came bundled with another magazine called Jack, in a small, paperback sized format. “What’s this?”, I thought. I read the explanatory letter which was included:
Dear subscriber, Along with your regular issue of MacUser, you’ll find a copy of Jack. Why are we sending you a free magazine? Well, we’d really like to know what you think of it. What you like, what you don’t like and what we could do better. As a Mac User subscriber you will have more than an interest in design and creativity, so we would like your opinion on Jack. It has an eye for detail and design that will be refreshing to regular magazine readers, especially as Jack’s designer has just won Magazine Designer of the Year.
OK, so far, I’m interested. I read on:
Born of frustration with lager fuelled lads mags, Jack is for the more demanding reader. You’ll find a mix of content unlike any other magazine: humour, fashion, stunning photography, great writing, irreverence and beautiful women.
By this point, I’m beginning to understand that they have just assumed that I’m a man: I subscribe to a computer magazine, so I must be a man. They would have probability on their side if it was a PC or hi-fi magazine, but all the MacExpos I’ve been to suggest that the sex ratio of Mac fans is fairly even. Sigh. The ‘but she’s a girl…’ effect strikes again.
1
While I agree that it's a sexist assumption about all geeks being male, I do feel it has to be said that the majority of geeks are male.
Marketing drones really don't handle the concept of "minorities" all that well - things are supposed to fit into their nice little ABC1-style groupings, with no seepage or deviance from those pigeon-holed stats. For example, you're just as likely to see Gay Times bundled with MacUser (or PCPlus, or whatever else) as you are to see Cosmo or Company bundled with it. At the end of the day, according to the Marketing departments of the world, most computer users are either geeks who like to look at semi-clad women, or they're not worth bothering about.
Is there a way to combat that kind of attitude? In honesty, probably not. As the name of your site proves, it's a human failing, not just Marketing departments - although they do seem to excel in the pigeon-holing thing. But you can guarantee that 99 out of any 100 people you meet will form an opinion of what you should be like because of what you look like, or what you do. The great majority of the human race want things to be just so, and anything that doesn't fit in with that scheme of things is anathema, a thing to be feared, derided, or ignored.
Gets off soap-box and takes deep breaths----- Lyle's rantcomment was as spot-on as the blog that triggered it!
by Mr.D. @ 27/06/2003 11:06 am • Permalink •
2
Oooh - rantcomment - good word!
by Lyle @ 27/06/2003 12:06 pm • Permalink •
3
Lyle: Well said, indeed! In defence of humans, I might add that categorizing things does serve a useful purpose in a complicated world. If you have to make quick decisions, being able to decide how to deal with someone is much easier if you can decide that they are in x class of people, and so can be treated as y (where x = friend, family, rival or whatever). On the other hand, one would think that as higher mammals (pah!) we should be able to adjust this initial impression on the basis of further information. Sadly, it seems that this doesn't happen very much.
I try to look on the bright side of most things, and one silver lining of this state of affairs is that you always have the element of surprise on your side. This was something that I used to great effect when I did martial arts years ago in an otherwise all-male class.
Mr. D: I think you've invented a blindingly good new term!
by bsag @ 27/06/2003 4:07 pm • Permalink •
Page 1 of 1 pages