I call them (us!) "boomers & geezers." Boomers alone number about 75 million. The goal of this short post is not heavy analysis. It is simply a vivid and brief set of seven startling numeric facts—that, current economic turmoil notwithstanding, aim to make the case for oldies as by far the most significant marketing opportunity in history.

Consider:

**1/8/20
**22/1/10
**50@50
**7/13
**55+ > 55-
**8.4
**47X

Translation:

**1/8/20 (One USA boomer is turning 65 every 8 seconds—that rate will continue for the next 20 years.)
**22/1/10 (USA adult population will have grown by 23 million in the 10 years between 2006 and 2016. Ages 18–49 will have grown by 1 million—age 50+ will have grown by 22 million.)
**50@50 (At age 50, we effectively have ... a full 50% of our healthy adult life ahead of us.)
**7/13 (An American will buy 13 cars in the course of a lifetime—7 after age 50.)
**55+ > 55- (Age 55-plusers are ... more active in online finance, shopping, and
entertainment than those under 55.)
**8.4 (Boomers inherit $8.4 trillion in the next few years; 70% of boomers will inherit on average $300K.)
**47X (Net wealth of households headed by 65+ is 47 times greater than the net wealth of households headed by someone <35; 20 years ago the ratio was 10:1.)

The way I summarize "all this" in my presentations is as follows:

We are the Aussies & Kiwis & Americans & Canadians. We are the Western Europeans & Japanese. We are the fastest growing, the biggest, the wealthiest, the boldest the most (yes) ambitious, the most experimental & exploratory, the most different, the most indulgent, the most difficult & demanding, the most service & experience obsessed, the most vigorous, (the least vigorous), the most health conscious, the most female, the most profoundly important commercial market in the history of the world ... and we will be the Center of Your Universe for the next twenty-five years. We have arrived!

(Above ... Winter Sky in Vermont the day after Thanksgiving 2011.)

You can find the video in the right column of the front page of tompeters.com or you can watch the video on YouTube. [Time: 2 minutes 52 seconds] You can also download a PDF transcript of the video's content: Strategy: Pay Attention to Boomers.

You can find the video in the right column of the front page of tompeters.com or you can watch the video on YouTube. [Time: 3 minutes, 6 seconds] You can also download a PDF transcript of the video's content: Strategy: On People Turning 50.

You can find the video in the right column of the front page of tompeters.com or you can watch the video on YouTube. [Time: 2 minutes, 21 seconds] You can also download a PDF transcript of the video's content: Strategy: Women & Relationships.

"The End of Men: How Women Are Taking Control—Of Everything"

Opening lines/précis:

"Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women's progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn't the end point? What if modern, post-industrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now underway—and its vast cultural consequences."

Other:

"Man has been the dominant sex since, well, the dawn of mankind. But for the first time in human history, that is changing—and with shocking speed."

[There are examples from around the world not just U.S. In the likes of Korea, desire for a child to be a girl is soaring.] [In the USA, efforts to improve the odds of conceiving a girl rather than a boy are now commonplace.]

"As thinking and communicating have come to eclipse physical strength and stamina as the keys to economic success, those societies that take advantage of the talents of all their adults, not just half of them, have pulled away from the rest."

"The evidence is all around you [e.g.] in the wreckage of the Great Recession, in which three-quarters of the eight million jobs lost were lost by men. The worst-hit industries were overwhelmingly male and deeply identified with macho: construction, manufacturing, high finance."

"Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women."

"Women hold 51.4% of managerial and professional jobs—up from 26.1% in 1980. ... In 1970, women contributed 2 to 6 percent of the family income. Now the typical working wife brings home 42.2%—and four in 10 mothers are the primary breadwinners in their family."

"What's clear is that schools, like the economy, now value the self-control, focus and verbal aptitude that seem to come more easily to young girls."

"Increasing numbers of women—unable to find men with similar income and education—are forgoing marriage altogether. In 1970, 84% of women ages 30 to 44 were married; now 60% are."

"[A study] focused on television's impact on rural India. Robert Jensen of Brown University and Emily Oster of the University of Chicago found that after cable television arrived in a village, women gained more autonomy—such as the ability to leave the house without permission and the right to participate in household decisions. There was a drop in the number of births ... wife-beating became less acceptable, and families were more likely to send daughters to school." (A similar study in Brazil produced similar results. A new TV network featured soap operas, which became wildly popular, starring empowered women with few children. Again, birth rates sagged, especially among women "of lower socioeconomic status.")

Interesting, eh?

(Another wonderful part of this "turn-the-tables" story is that the men's principal failing is that they are ... too emotional. The women are calm and measured. This is not anecdotal; the evidence is overwhelming. So much for the flighty girls and just-the-facts boys mythology.)

All this got me thinking about the controversial new healthcare bill. Women pretty much everywhere are the principal decision makers in family affairs. And, among other things, they make upwards of 80% of family healthcare decisions. (Actually about 90%, but I'm being conservative.) Moreover, the old saying goes, as you get older you had better hope that you had a daughter; when it comes to old-parent affairs, "boys" are notoriously, uh, not "girls." (I've observed this numerous times; and I am stepfather to two boys; and I am non-young.)

Oddly, most of the polls on the healthcare legislation were not divided by gender. But the two readings I did get, courtesy Newsweek and Princeton Research Associates, did not surprise me. In short, women were 12% more favorable in one case and 20% more favorable in the other (in the latter, women were +14%, men –6%). Also, alas, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that most of the intemperate public remarks came forth from the mouths of males. (The most memorable women's quote on the House floor, to my mind, went more or less, "With this bill, being a woman will no longer be a 'pre-existing condition.'" Insurers in several states, nine as I recall, tag spousal abuse as a pre-existing condition.)

There is honestly no "bottom line" to this post; but as I have been vociferously championing women's issues (women as underserved market opportunity #1, women in leadership positions in greater numbers to match market power) for about 15 years (pretty much the only "guru" to do so), I simply wanted to see how it played out in healthcare legislation.

(NB: God knows, I'm not claiming that men don't care about their families. I am suggesting that men are less likely, far less likely, to be decision-makers concerning family issues.) (In the Grameen case, it's, of course, a little more extreme than that.)

This has been a—or even the—issue nearest and dearest to my heart since 1996, and I am thrilled by the stats and the recognition alike. Maybe, corporations will begin to take product-service development and marketing to women more seriously. This is still, in 9.63 out of 10 cases, a great void–monster opportunity (e.g. when even a single movie comes along, like It's Complicated, aimed at women, particularly boomer women, it's treated as Big News).

"All told, girls in India from one to five years of age are 50 percent more likely to die than boys the same age. The best estimate is that a little Indian girl dies from discrimination every four minutes."

Larry Summers (during his World Bank days): "Investment in girls' education may well be the highest-return investment available in the developing world."

Bernard Kouchner, founder of Doctors Without Borders: "Progress is achieved through women."

N'yet. Despite the Economist's cheery cover story, we've got a long way to go on women's issues worldwide. To get the story you can do no better than to read Pulitzer Prize winners Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn's Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. (All of the quotes above come from Half the Sky.) If this book doesn't "get to you," I can't imagine what would. The stats and stories are nothing short of astounding. As the title suggests, there is good news to accompany the bad—that is, examples of stuff that works. The journalists acknowledge that they are on a mission. The last chapter is titled "What You Can Do: Four Steps You Can Take in the Next Ten Minutes."

I cannot recommend this book highly enough—and, likewise, I recommend that you do consider becoming part of the solution. Despite the staggering size of the problem, you and I can help. Or, rather, how could we choose not to help?

[Below, fall apples, past prime.]

W > 2(C + I)

Put the damned equation on posters all over the damned walls and halls of every damned office.
Put the equation on everybody's Desktop.
Etc.
Etc.

Translation, my passion of the last 15 years: The "women's market" is over twice as big as the Chinese and Indian markets combined. And, on average, you aren't doing a damn thing about it—and that even holds if you think you do in fact "get it" and are "on it."

My 1.5 decade passion has been most recently re-enforced by a feature in the September Harvard Business Review, by Michael Silverstein and Kate Sayre:

"The Female Economy: As a market, women represent a bigger opportunity than China and India combined; so why are companies doing such a poor job of serving them?"

It begins:

"Women now drive the world economy. Globally, they control about $20 trillion in annual consumer spending, and that figure could climb as high as $28 trillion in the next five years. ... In aggregate, women represent a growth market bigger than China and India combined—more than twice as big, in fact. Given those numbers, it would be foolish to ignore or underestimate the female consumer. And yet many companies do just that, even ones that are confident they have a winning strategy when it comes to women."

Soooooooooo?????????
When???????
Please!!!!!!!
Damn it!!!!!!!!
(I beg you!!!!!!)
(Again!!!!!!)

As Getting to 50/50 co-author Sharon Meers put it in a "Room for Debate" post on the New York Times blog:

So here's the real question: How to make the positive qualities we see in female managers more common in men—and more useful to all? A new report from Catalyst shows how companies win when we escape the idea that men and women are so different and work harder to get on the same page—so that men and women bring out the best in each other sharing the same C-suite.

The same goes for building teams or finding leaders with regard to marketing to women. What you are looking for are those qualities women tend to have that make them "transformational leaders." According to Gary N. Powell who also contributed his thoughts to that NYT blog post:

Transformational leadership includes charisma (communicating the purpose and importance of a mission and serving as a role model), inspirational motivation (exuding optimism and excitement about the mission's attainability), intellectual stimulation (encouraging others to think out of the box), and individualized consideration (focusing on the development and mentoring of subordinates as individuals).

Are any of those things gender-specific? No. Men, indeed, have the potential to have charisma, exude optimism, be able to encourage others and be interested in mentorship programs. It just may mean training the right side of their brains into action a bit more (as per Daniel Pink in A Whole New Mind). Of course—there is the "vice versa" too—that women who lack some of the more typically male qualities of leadership can get the training or learn from colleagues, as well.

In marketing, smart people with years of experience in the field (and there are many) can see what works and why. If we leave gender out of the label for what the positive qualities are, we may more likely get men and women on the same page, and on the way to the same productivity levels with regard to their understanding of the women's market.

So, no. It is not only women who can excel in marketing to women. Instead, those women may be where you go first to guide/educate others in the qualities that lead toward a better understanding of how women buy. Just like marketers should be guided and inspired by the women they serve (as in transparent marketing), so too should people in marketing be guided and inspired by the women who more naturally understand today's marketplace. That's how women and men working together will bring out the very best in their team's marketing abilities.

Tom isn't as long off the tee as his young opponents. The fescue roughs were probably a bit more troublesome for his 59-year-old body than for the 20-somethings he played along with. His experience, will, and unflappable persistence kept him in front until the very last putt of the scheduled seventy-two holes. Although he lost the playoff to Stewart Cink, Tom's performance was indeed inspiring.

As a member of that demographic, I think about baby boomers in business quite a bit these days. While many of us may have thought about retiring in the near future, it seems to me there is a bit of work to do before we pass the baton. Just like Tom Watson and golf, the game of business has changed for us baby boomers. We came to leadership positions when making things and selling things was the name of the game. Increasingly, we don't make things here in the USA anymore. Knowledge work and exotic financial instruments seem to be the product these days. Our parents left us a fairly robust economy with employment opportunities for everyone who applied themselves. As I write this, my state, Michigan, has a 15.2%(!) unemployment rate. The taxpayers own our largest manufacturer, GM. Self-interest, some would call it greed, still seems to get in the way of the collective effort we need to get out of this mess.

I really hope Tom Watson inspired other baby boomers as well. This is the time we must use our experience, our will, and some unflappable persistence to turn this thing around and get one more win before the end of our careers. Our experience should help us remember it was hard work, real labor, that sustained the economy. Our will should be strengthened by a determination to leave a better economy for our children. And our persistence should help us remember we win this thing shot by shot, never wavering, playing the conditions dealt us, and knowing that we can still win this thing. Tom Watson didn't show up in Scotland to be a ceremonial icon ... he went to win! Thanks Tom! And damn it, I really wished that putt had fallen!

In my last post, Success Tip #140, I caught myself in an un-rare but un-intentional sexist moment. While discussing crisis leadership, I used typically male language and imagery—including the all-male football analogy!

By coincidence, the day after the post, my mail included Leadership and the Sexes: Using Gender Science to Create Success in Business, a book by Michael Gurian and Barbara Annis. The book is a marvel. The authors begin, "This book is about the practical application of information on male/female brain differences in every aspect of your corporate life, from workplace comfort to competitive edge to the corporate bottom line."

The most important phrase being, per me, "brain differences"—that is, the book is derivative of the new brain sciences, not anecdotal evidence. (The book is strongly endorsed by the author of another book I found of inestimable value, The Female Brain, by Louann Brizendine, M.D.)

The evidence is brain-science based, but a social-psychological experiment provides a nice snapshot of the findings. What follows is from a sidebar titled, "Gender Experiments Surprise Even the Experts":

"In the 1990s, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/CBC created a short film that recorded an experiment in leadership styles between women and men. CBC didn't tell the participants the objective of the work they would do that day; the director simply divided the male and female leaders into two teams, and gave those team leaders the same instructions: build an adventure camp. The teams were set up in a somewhat militaristic style at first, including team members wearing uniforms, but also with the caveat in place that the teams could alter their style and method as they wished as long as they met the outcome in time.

"Leader one immediately created a rank-and-file hierarchy and gave orders, even going so far as to assert authority by challenging members on whether they had polished their shoes.

"Leader two did not have the 'troops' line up and be inspected, but instead met with the other team members in a circle, asking 'How are we doing? Are we ready?' 'Anything else we should do?' 'Do you think they'll test us on whether we've polished our shoes?' Instead of giving orders, leader two was touching team members on the arm to reassure them.

"As part of the program, CBC arranged for corporate commentators to watch the teams prepare. Initially the commentators (mostly men) were not impressed by the leadership style of leader two; the second team wasn't 'under control,' members weren't lined up, and they 'lacked order' (or so it seemed). The commentators predicted that team two would not successfully complete the task. Yet when the project was completed, team two had built an impressive adventure camp as good as team one's, with some aspects that were judged as better.

"When debriefing their observations, the commentators noticed that when team one was building the structures for the camp, there had been discord regarding who was in charge and who had completed which job and who hadn't. Team one exhibited a lack of communication during the process of completion that created problems (for example, 'Wasn't someone else supposed to do this?').

"Team two, on the other hand, took longer to do certain things, but because of its emphasis on communication and collaboration during the enactment of the task (such as 'Let's try this' and 'What do you think about that?'), the team met the goal of building the adventure camp in its own positive way, and on time."

There is for me a profoundly important "bottom line" here. Not that one style is better than another, but that virtually every proclamation we make ought to be informed by gender differences. In my speeches, for example, I often find myself rambling on ad nauseam about the importance of relentless relationship building—a stunning insight for a male to make or take on board (I overstate ever so slightly), and boringly obvious beyond words to most of the female participants. I am not suggesting that every phrase be presented in two languages, but I am suggesting that the topic ought not be far beneath the surface. Based on my own experience, I will say that we (i.e., me) will not necessarily improve (as in, exhibit increased sensitivity) over time; hey, with the chips down last week, Joe Montana and the SF 49ers were my immediate benchmarks.

I urge you to read the book—there is a lot at stake, and an opportunity to achieve lasting competitive advantage. From an increasingly robust body of research, we know for sure (as sure as sure can ever be) that diverse teams—diversity on any and all dimensions—outperform homogenous teams. We equally have to know how to maximize the diversity advantage—the reward can be performance leaps, not just modest improvements.

There is a happy ending here. Dell is handling the hullabaloo quite well. They have responded quickly to the controversy and have been making changes to their Della site (less pink!) as a result of the feedback. Let's hope the lessons they're learning will be shared across industries.

1) A non-linear and more systematic approach.

2) Collaboration, not competition, focused.

3) The path is as important as the end goal.

I expand each point below:

Continued reading Design for Environment Speaks A Woman's Language...

Posted by Andrea Learned |

Why? Damn it!

TP: Duh!

Women purchase:

85% all consumer purchases, cars to computers
91% new homes
66% personal computers
92% vacations
80% health care decisions
89% bank accounts
Etc.

Marketing "success"—women's perceptions:

59% of women "feel misunderstood by food marketers"
66% healthcare
74% automotive
84% investment advisors
Etc.

So??????????