Skip to main content

Gender-Based Branding: 5 Hypotheses

The other day it occurred to me that while marketers routinely differentiate between men and women as target audiences, brand strategies don't often make this distinction.

In this context "marketing" = meeting customer needs in the broadest sense, while "branding" = creating the impression of superior value.

Here are some loose hypotheses I'm tossing around:

1. Visual vs. imagination - men need to see what they are buying (inspect dimensions, etc.) women prefer to embellish it in their heads
(Related hypothesis could be called "explicit vs. storytelling": men prefer to be told directly and concisely what the product is and does vs. women like to learn about it in the context of a story, by inference, etc. - like product placement or infomercial)

2. Specialized vs. lifestyle - men prefer a brand that claims to do one thing well; women like an umbrella brand that brightens everything it touches (Dr. Oz vs. Oprah)

3. Functional vs. emotional - men are more likely to care about objectively provable quality whereas women care more about brands that evoke a specific feeling

4. Ownership vs. experience - men prefer brands that offer the experience of control vs. women gravitate to brands that control the experience for them

5. Admirer vs. object of admiration - men gravitate to brands they can polish, clean, and admire vs. women gravitate to brands that put them at the center of attention

I'm wondering if anyone agrees, disagrees, or has other dimensions of brand-based value creation that may differ along gender lines. (For example, are certain colors, or color families, more effective by gender? Do customers respond to corporate social responsibility promises based on gender?)

Note that I'm not trying to be prescriptive or sexist here, but rather to offer some concepts based loosely on my own observations. Welcoming everyone's thoughts and comments.

Thanks everyone, have a good day and good luck!

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

________________
All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …