I treated myself to an iPhone. As many objects of desire, an iPhone does not come cheap, so the shopping experience could be expected to enhance the status of the object of desire as, well, desirable.

An advantage of getting an iPhone is, indeed, that you can buy it in an Apple Store and avoid other technology stores. I would have been able to buy it online, too, but I wanted the in-store experience. So I went to Apple’s Regent Street store after making an appointment with a personal shopper first. Given how crowded the store is, that was a good decision.

I was quickly assigned my personal shopper and led to the cordoned-off area for the personal shopping experience. Although I had done my research beforehand and knew exactly what I wanted, he took me through all the options. I, playing the role of the customer, engaged in the ritual of the sales pitch. My personal shopper was a mid-twenties guy. He explained all the options to me in an unpretentious way. This would make it easy for people who are not sure what they want to make their choice.

After getting a brand-new boxed iPhone based on my choice, my personal shopper set out to register it. Sadly, he had to open the box for this. This meant that my unwrapping experience at home was diminished. But who would complain about this if he then does all the admin for you and you can use your phone straightaway?

He told me the process would take 15 minutes, however he did not consider o2. There was some website problem and we were always kicked out of the registration system. My personal shopper finally rang them using his personal BlackBerry (a bit ironic given that it was an Apple store) and registered the iPhone. It was rather 45 minutes than 15 minutes. However sitting in the personal shopping area of the Apple Store that was not too much of a problem.

Although the box had been opened, my personal shopper put all the material carefully back into the box and gave me a nice shopping bag to carry it home. I could bring my new iPhone home in style and could start using it straight away.

We have said many times that Apple as a brand appeals to female customers. Apple Stores are unlike other technology stores. Apple understands that technology should be an object of desire. My whole shopping experience was not unlike a personal shopping experience in clothing stores on Regent Street. I can imagine that women do like shopping in the Apple store. I did not feel patronized like in other technology stores. The shopping experience had some style to it. The purchase was wrapped beautifully. This makes the object of desire even more desirable. Particularly for women.

The idea that women are afraid of technology or that they do not use technology as much as male consumers is outdated. In business and in personal use, women make up a large percent of tech users, especially in computer and Internet use. So how, as a technology business owner or marketer, can you attract this large customer base at the same time you pursue teens, male consumers, and other demographics? In order to successfully make your tech products and systems appealing to women customers, you need to understand the ways in which they are influencing the market and other buyers.
1. Women care about “green” technology products. Studies have shown that women are more likely to boycott products that do not implement fair trade practices or that ignore environmental protection recommendations. If you want to keep up with the competition, make sure your products are energy efficient and that your business makes a point to recycle, give back to the community and produce technology through systems that do minimal harm to the environment.
2. They look for products that are multi-functional. Women who are active in the workforce as well as full-time caregivers look for products that can meet all the demands of their lives. You will need to prove that your product can handle extra applications, customizable features and other tools that streamline a customer’s entire life.
3. They monitor what their kids buy. Women who are savvy customers don’t just research their own purchases: they also monitor the things that their kids buy, or the tech toys that they buy for their kids. Remember that when marketing to kids, you’re also marketing to parents, so include features like parental controls, safety and privacy settings, and heavy-duty hardware.
4. They’ve amped up the desire for attractive tech toys. Now that women are investing more and more in technology, tech marketers need to come up with new designs that are aesthetically pleasing. Clunky, awkward laptops that aren’t attractive will never sell to a modern, mobile woman.
5. Women like being informed. Don’t make it impossible to find information about your product, including price, the types of materials used, tech support and energy efficiency. If you bury all of that information behind a snazzy ad, your customer will just head to another seller who is happy to share product information with the customers.

This post was contributed by Tara Miller, who writes about the best online degrees; TaraMillerr00@yahoo.com

I feel like a Russian doll. I get smaller and smaller as the testosterone in the boardroom gets bigger and bigger. I tell myself I am a confident woman yet the environment I am in makes me feel I must change my persona and adapt to my ‘male’ surroundings. I must cut across people when they speak. I must hammer my point home with authority. I must emit an odour of superiority. I must show the world I am King. After all, this is advertising. ‘Cojones’ are the order of the day.

So many women behave like men in the Boardroom in advertising agencies. They feel they must emulate men to be successful. Many of the senior women I work with are not women I would aspire to be like. More like men in drag. This lack of appeal is one of the reasons why only 6% of women make up company board members in the UK compared to a directive in Norway where 40% of all board members have to be female. The reason Norway has chosen this approach is that a boardroom with women on it, improves turnover and attracts more talented women.

I want to propose a new style of Boardroom where women can openly use the traits they have: femininity, intimacy and authenticity. To create an agenda that is open, transparent and supportive. The Boardroom should not be a place for corporate politics but a place for productive intimate business.

Gestalt talks about how boards of directors tend to operate in ways that seek to minimise ineffectiveness. Trevor J Bentley, in relation to Gestalt, says

“Relationships on boards are often tenuous, superficial and dishonest. They are quite often transitory subsytems of people who support each other out of personal interest. The best that most boards achieve often through share option schemes, is to align the self interest of individual directors with the interest of shareholders. This approach tends to create a short term price focus that is nearly always to the detriment of the long-term sustainable growth and well-being of the business.”

This pretty much sums up why we are in a financial crisis. A group of money hungry men had short term personal goals of becoming richer without thinking about the long term consequences of their actions.

I want a far more ‘intimate’ and ‘authentic’ environment: Bentley states that there are 2 parts to working in an intimate system.

The first is knowing what I am prepared to offer others is what they want.

The second is knowing that what I want is what others are prepared to offer me.

My experience is that most people in meetings are never clear or open about what they want. It takes a series of long pointless and frankly ineffective meetings before you start to find out the other party actually wants. You have to “play the game” (countless times I have been asked to “play the game”-each time I am told this, I feel myself revert back to my Russian doll).

Once you are finally clear about what the other parties want, the quality of contact increases and people relate to each other with a degree of authenticity. Its a bit like when you have the frank conversation with your new boyfriend about what you want from the relationship. Once the hazy fog of second guessing has been lifted and everything is so much simpler and more enjoyable.

Today in the boardroom in agencies, I watch women emulate men, leaving the men to dictate the rules of the boardroom. Women must be prepared to use their feminine skills in a productive way and men must be prepared to build cultures that thrive on diversity and tolerance not conformity.

More senior women will attract talented women. Women want role models and female mentors that can support and nurture them. Not to mention, women will design products for other women. And when according to the New York Times, 80% of all products are bought by women, this is a profitable and commercially sound strategy.

My WARC conference presentation stressed that the best way to market to women is to be inclusive rather than to simply overtly exclude men. Nevertheless, most marketing activities aimed at women do so simply by shutting-out the other gender. It’s a mirror-image of the current marketing worst-practice. Della, the new netbook sales portal from dell is a pastel-pink feminized counterpart to the unapologetically ultra-masculine Dell.com. It’s a perfect example of the current trend of exclusion marketing.

I remember interviewing one Lady Geek who told me in no uncertain terms that the ‘Dixons Women’s Only night’ was her idea of hell.

“What are they going to do, give me cheese and pineapple on a stick and tell me how to turn the telly on?”

Not exactly the response that Dixons were looking for, and in my experience a strategy which never works quite as well as the men who invented it might expect.

Marketing to women should not feel like “an initiative” i.e that a group of 40 something balding marketing men have been sitting in the boardroom and some bright spark says ‘We need to appeal to women. I know, lets create a portal for women, pink up and dumb down our products…we could even call it Della…(guffaw guffaw)

I admire Dell’s intent. Its brave. It shows that they recognizes that in the current environment, its a smart strategy to improve your bottom line by targeting women. I’m skeptical that Dell will achieve their objectives for two reasons:

Firstly,  do they really have a long-term commitment to growing the female market? Dell has a history of superficial and short-term business strategies such last year’s half-hearted flirtation with Linux . Is there any commitment to go beyond the shell of rebranding and create something which will profoundly appeal to this new market? As Elisabeth Kelan states, when you open the Inspiron artistic shell, its just an ordinary dull Dell laptop underneath.  How much of the products and community parts of the site have been specifically developed with women in mind rather than been re-skinned to appeal to women?

Secondly, I do not think that Dell have achieved a depth of understanding of their new female audience. Evidence of this is the handy lifestyle tips which state the excessively obvious. We also find the usual marketing copy cliches such as ‘giving extension to your digital life’ (I don’t want a digital life, I want a life with technology in it) and ‘enhance your life with technology’ and the ‘giving’ section – it’s the kind of vacuous text that means absolutely nothing.

From a product perspective, the site makes a big deal of their pretty new Inspiron Netbooks, however there’s not a whole lot else on the site – yet another echo of Dell’s failed Linux strategy which also presented an absurdly limited subset of Dell’s quite massive portfolio of products.

My research conducted with Jupiter found that a third of British women are frustrated, alienated and bored by the way tech companies market to them. Despite this most tech marketers are in denial about what must be done: There is plenty which can be done- it just needs to be executed and approached in the right way.

Strategies tech brands need to apply;

1) Go for an implicit strategy appealing to women rather than creating an overt exclusive ‘silo’. Overt branding such as Della, Dixon’s Women’s Only nights and Comets Angels give out wrong signals. Nintendo spent hundreds of dollars understanding women and their fitness regimes but never overtly positioned Wii Fit as ‘gaming for girls.’

2) Make women the heart of your strategy not the icing on the cake. Nike Women has invested millions and is part of a strategy which demonstrates Nike’s long term commitment to women. It goes beyond flogging products and starts to offer real benefits.

3) Develop an authentic understanding of women and what they want before you embark on women only strategies. Employ experts such as the Lady Geeks (shameless plug) who will help you go beyond the superficial and can deliver your proposition in a way that is not going to get women irritated. Dell have lost touch with the reality of those women its trying to sell to.

4) Position technology as entertainment rather than a female or male pursuit. Jeremy Clarkson, has equal appeal and ratings amongst both sexes. Rather than talk about the technical aspects of a car in a dry way, he has used humour and entertainment as a way to make cars appealing.

Della is a somewhat superficial step in the right direction. Lets just hope Dell listen to their customers and radically overhaul Della the concept before it becomes yet another of Dell’s six-month flirtations.

The latest N-vision data highlights 50% of women buy fair trade products compared to 35% of men. Women are 10% more likely than men to boycott those manufacturers who contribute to pollution. Women are 5% more likely to consider themselves as ethical shoppers compared to men. Younger women (under 35) and older women (45-64) are far more likely to disagree or disagree strongly compared to men with the statement ‘Most companies in this country are fair to consumers.’

There has been a change in the nation’s mood over the last 30 years: In 1980, only 12% of women and 15% of men agree with this same statement about fairness. By 2008, it was over 40% of men and 42% of women.

There is now a sense of injustice about the way women feel companies treat them. A feeling of being cheated by those corporations who have power. A sense that they should be ‘doing their bit’ for the people and their ‘bit’ should be much more significant than it currently is.

I predict women will lead the movement from a ‘me’ society to a ‘we‘ society. Women no longer want a society with naked greed at its heart. They want generosity as its core value and will seek out brands that offer this.

Brands which are seen to lack this moral dimension are loosing out on more than just a sales opportunity: Brands which are known for their morality are more easily forgiven, or at least given the benefit of the doubt in the event of rumors and bad-news. Take the opposite extreme: Brands such as Monsanto which have allowed themselves to be known for doing things which are not entirely ethical are more easily embroiled in yet more whispering campaigns. There’s a huge cost to appearing immoral.

Brands such as Kiva.org (the micro-lending exchange) are leading the way with a moral contract at the heart of their proposition. Technology brands,with the exception of Google’s “Dont Be Evil”, are trailing way behind with moral propositions.

But why should tech brands care? We are used to buying our tech-products from anonymous sounding foreign brands of whom we know very little about. What could these companies benefit from being seen as ethical? I think there is still a great deal to win in a world of undifferentiated products in commodity markets. You might as well flip a coin when choosing between an Asus and an Acer, but what if the manufacturers could find a way show their differences which appeal to the “slacktivist” sense of moral consumers?

The cynical amongst us will call it green-washing, but the fact remains that people will often choose a higher-priced product if they feel that it is more ethically sound, even people who’d never attended a protest march in their lives. Shopping is a form of passive-activism.

Tech brands must take the advice of Bill Bernach and:

Stop believing in what we sell and start selling what we believe in.”

The fact remains women are still more loyal to companies than men. Men are approx 10% more likely to agree with the statement ‘I am less loyal to companies that I previously was’. If tech brands want to attract and retain the most loyal sex, they must start with a moral contract and set of values.

This is no longer niche idealism but corporate realism.

This is the 21st century right?. I pick up the T3 2009 calendar and can’t believe what I am seeing. I check it is 2009 and I have not found a vintage copy of the 1979 edition. Each month has a gadget of the month with a erotic shot of a girl ‘wet’ with excitement holding a strategically placed gadget in her legs, arms, breasts. January we have a woman with a see through slip on in water holding an android phone. February we have a women kneeling in hot steam holding an ‘eco gadget’. March shows us a women with a touchscreen strategically placed in her bikini. Do I need to go on?

In my previous post, I demonstrated that women are a growth market while male markets are saturated. Marketers missing out on a £5billion pot of gold (a conservative figure according to Jupiter), I predict T3 will be out of business in a year. Their magazine relies on its core audience of “sexually repressed nerds” according to Wikipedia. All of whom have the skills to download real porn from bit torrent and don’t need this half-hearted house tech-porn.

Showing the calendar to some male colleagues, one told me the only place he could see the calendar was “on the wall of kwik fit”. Hardly an aspirational image for your average man with disposable cash. If you are trying to woo a girl, and she walks into your bedroom and see a copy of T3 or worse, the T3 2009 calendar, what sort of signal does that send? Even a sexually repressed nerd can think that one through. Some of the advertising in T3 is no better, this Asus ad being a good example.

Rather than default to a out of date, lazy way of selling technology to men at the expense of attracting women, technology brands need to be more innovative with their media strategies. Technology has become so accessible and embedded into our culture, that the hard sell of technology is no longer needed. There is no such thing as Early Adopters.

Tech brands need to think innovatively about to communicate to both men and women and buying a media strategy of tech porn like T3 just ain’t going to cut it. What brands need to do:

1. Leverage the blogging community as they are the key influencers. Panasonic are doing this at CES. Who are you more like to trust for a product review- a blogger or a paid for reviewer?

2. Connecting your audience to like minded people is a great way to earn their respect and ultimately their trust. Hewlett Packard used ‘brandalists’- legal grafitti artists to get their HYPE message across and generated so much positive WoM.

3. Be brave. Be rebellious. And dont waste money on advertising in magazines like T3. Goodbye T3 and Good Luck.

Belinda mentioned in one of her recent posts that the consumer tech industry is now at a stage the car industry inhabited many years ago. Many car manufacturers have indeed started to take women as consumers seriously. For a long time, most cars are implicitly or explicitly designed for men and by men.

At London Business School, I have conducted some research with Volvo. A group of women at Volvo thought it was about time to show the world what a car designed by women may look like. This produced the first concept car designed by an all women team to provide the world with a practical example of how women would design a car. The car was presented in 2004, but there are some valuable lessons to learn here.

The task was to design a car that would not be futuristic but realistic in terms of the needs of women as well as men. Their research has indicated that in the premium car segment women are the hardest group to please and building a car that meets their expectations also means to build a car that will please men.

The team conducted an external and internal study to explore what women want in cars. The central idea about the project was to ask questions in a different way.

Research found for instance that women like an easy to park car not because they cannot park but because they park a car much more often during a day.

The team also challenged the idea that cars are designed with men in mind fitting their bodily features much better than those of women.

The concept car was very innovative because the team re-thought fundamentals of car design such as where the hand breaks or the washer fluid were situated or how the doors should open.

In addition a new concept of headrests was introduced allowing people with ponytails to sit comfortably and the layout of the car was a 2 by 2 version with the rear two seats being moved in slightly to allow the driver to see the rear passengers.

The team wanted to create a car that felt more like a living room and decided to include having movable cushions and different fabrics for the upholstery of seats.

Although it was never intended to be built, the concept car provided a lot of thought provoking ideas which influenced the design of other cars. Tasking women’s perspectives into consideration challenged how things had always been done. The result was a concept car that was built by women for everyone. 

Jerry yang, Yahoo’s ex chief exec announced that the advertising industry was facing the toughest downturn in decades. The age of extravagance is gone. The age of the hangover is here. No more big marketing budgets with money to trial and test cool ideas. Its about ROI. Its about bold, strong brands having a clear positioning. Tough times need solid, focused leadership, a lesson that Woolworths learnt the hard way.

Napoleon declared the essence of strategy is sacrifice. Never has this been more true than in the current climate. And the sacrifice should be allocating marketing spend to men- a well saturated market. Lad’s mags are already pregnant with tech-brands competing for their attention. Women are the financial opportunity and Jupiter estimate marketers are missing out on £0.5billion by not marketing to women.

Out of every 10 gadgets, 4 are bought by women. And no before you ask we are not talking about fridges and washing machines. More women than men play games between the age of 24-35 than men now And we are not just talking the Sims. World of Warcraft now has 50% female players.

The research I conducted with Jupiter highlighted (now Forrester), ownership is on a par with men in most categories. Couple that with the fastest growing segment on social networks is married women with children. And according to an N-vision survey, December 2008, approx 40% of women are transacting on the Internet (ie spending money rather than just using the Internet for communication, information and entertainment) compared to 30% of men. Hence, Women are no longer a niche audience – they are the budget-holders and drivers of growth.

The editor of marie claire is right when she says:

“When it comes to tech brands and women, technology companies are in the same place the cars industry was 20 years ago.”

With the exception of Nintendo and it’s Wii, Apple, no other brand is talking the female language. I agree with Hilary Chilura when she says:

“Like nervous teenage boys at a junior high-school dance, tech marketers haven’t figured out how to talk to women”.

Ask any family who was in charge of buying the Christmas gifts, and you’ll find out its women not men. Women are not only buying technology for themselves, but as the Chief Household Officer, are buying for kids, husband, gran and friends. Women are in charge of the house, but more importantly are in charge of the living room (see Battle for the Living Room) where many of the technology lives: PVR, console, HD TV…. In my house, its my husband who lives in ‘his’ world but its me who lives in the ‘real’ world. I am deciding what we should cut back on, how much we can save and what we will buy when it comes to technology.

If tech brands want to be successful, they should focus on women at the expense of men. Women are no longer ‘the Second Sex. ‘ Rather the most profitable sex.

At first when I heard about the Microsoft “I am a PC” ads, my first instinct was that the world’s biggest computer company should not feel the need to respond to Apple’s “I’m a Mac and I’m a PC” ads which had aired more than six months ago. It signified that not only that they gave a damn but also they were likely to loose control of the debate.

After seeing the hundreth Apple ad mimicking and stereotyping the Microsoft user, I started to see Apple as the bully of the playground. Poking fun at the perceived ‘not so cool’ Microsoft user was like the ‘IT’ girl in the playground with the cooler nike trainers picking on others. Microsoft approached me to be in the I am a PC – you can see my VT here:

<div align="center">

I wanted to do it not only to get the Lady Geek brand out there but more importantly, I am tired of the unconditional and undeserving love people have for the Apple brand. The original reason for the Apple brand being so desired, was clearly a great product but also this idea of being the underdog and a brand for the non conformist.

With Apple’s growth rate surpassing Microsoft, has Apple become the brand for the lazy conformist? The person who can’t think past the mac tax and see the new sexier brands like asus and acer chomping at their heels? Is Apple’s behaviour precisely the behaviour of that which they criticized Microsoft? Have the tables turned? And ultimately, do the I am PC ads successfully connect women with Microsoft?

I showed some Lady Geeks the ads and they got an encouraging response. With comments from ‘I love the stories behind the technology’ to ‘it made me reappraise the role of technology in my life.’ If its objective is to build the brand ethos first and foremost, its clearly successful. It has managed to move away from the technology and product specs and talk about what technology means to women and what they care about. It achieves Malcolm Gladwell’s fundamental question of what can Microsoft mean to people over and above being a software developer.

But if its aim was to get people to reappraise Vista, then there is a fundamental problem to solve. I asked my female colleagues at work what they knew about Microsoft Vista. All are tech literate, bright and articulate 20 and 30 somethings. I got answers ranging from ‘is it a credit card?’ to ‘something on my computer but I am not sure what.’ The majority of women don’t know or care what an operating system is, and could not identify Microsoft’s flagship product as an example of an operating system.

Meanwhile Apple seem to have no difficulty communicating the value of OSX – it seems as if every insignificant widget is trumpeted as if it were the greatest development in computing since the invention of the mouse. Apple are fortunate to have fans who create a reality-distortion field through which apple’s products appear magical – and under the same lens Microsoft’s products are by definition the exact opposite.

Lovers generally tend to overlook the faults in the object of their affection and Apple have been very good at building that kind of affection amongst their audience. Microsoft have never invested in building any kind of emotional connection with their audience – which is what makes their new campaign such a significant departure from their normal product-focused, conservative advertising. With the imminent launch of Windows 7, Microsoft claim to have fixed the technical issues that disappointed so many Vista users – now the goal should be to fix the marketing so that women understand and care about this thing that Microsoft have made, and understand how how it enhances their life.

This weekend I have been very upset about Baby P. As a mum, I struggle to understand how anyone can fail to protect and cherish your own child. A child’s love of its mother is unconditional. A child is powerless. A child just wants to be loved, sheltered and protected. A lot of mums feel overwhelmed by the sadness of this story, it seemed to be the biggest topic on the social-networks last weekend.

One group on Facebook (with over 5000 members) used it’s collective investigative power to expose the identities of the mum and ‘carers’ of Baby P. Another group which was less investigativly inclined was entitled entitled “Death is too good for [the mother's name], torture the bitch that killed Baby P.”   Instinctively I felt that this was deserved retribution.  But then I wondered how this could be a good thing.

Do Facebook vigilantes or any other social network have the right or power to bring justice to those who ‘deserve’ it? Is it a case of mob rule or just desserts being served? Is this the downside to a democritisation of media?

Most Facebook groups focus on the benign and trivial: I was amused to see a group who want John Sergeant be their granddad. This is Britain at its eccentric best.  A disrespect for the rules of “Strictly Come Dancing” may be a bit of harmless fun, but what happens when Facebook communities start to openly challenge the rule of law?

The role of social networks has changed. No longer are they restricted to being a ‘social utility’ connecting friends for a big night out. Facebook’s users are a collection of single-issue political-parties, each akin to the gun or knife-control lobbying groups.

Once upon a time, you needed to be in position of power to make things happen. Now, you and me can make a change for better or worse simply by asserting opinions online – on anything we believe passionately about.  Whether its to bring back Laura back to the X Factor or or to send a virtual lynch-mob after the villain of the moment. Social networks are proving themselves as serious enabling tools that put power into groups who were once considered to disparate, too obscure or too apathetic to become involved with a political process.

But are we witnessing technology enabling democracy at its best?