4 ms·
What the statistic completely ignores is that the £394 a year spent on tech is almost certainly spent on one or two big items. I'd say iPhone ownership is fairl
by leoedin 13y ago
What the statistic completely ignores is that the £394 a year spent on tech is almost certainly spent on one or two big items. I'd say iPhone ownership is fairly ubiquitous - the average cost of an iPhone is probably about £360/year. The rest is probably made up of the fraction of a tablet or laptop that the average woman purchases each year. Even if someone theoretically spend £394 a yer on tech, it doesn't mean that advertising a tech product to them will make them buy it. Phone purchasing decisions happen annually, laptops or tablets even less frequently. Cosmetics, on the other hand, are purchased across many small transactions in a much more continuous manner, giving far more scope for effective advertising return.
And as others in the comments have said, magazines are really about delivering adverts to customers.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y agoYes, but those magazines could be delivering iPhone adverts. Or tempting iPhone owners with galaxy S5 adverts. The could have articles (you know, incitements to spend money disguised as articles) on "how an iPhone gal could date an Android-using guy". You can't stop vapid, consumerist magazines from being vapid and consumerist, but they seem to be missing a trick with their target audience.
- 001sky 13y agoTo argue the devil's advocate position: Fashion and Beauty, on the other hand, are seen as celebrations of femininity that put women on a pedastal, the center of attention, and on a higher tier of social power and rank. Gadgets - either kitchen or electronic - however desirable are seemingly out of place in this context, as they are ultimately ultilitarian.
- chrisro 13y agoFashion and beauty are vehicles for self-expression very much like technology is (iOS or Android; power user or not, etc). We identify with the technology we choose every bit as much as we identify with the style we wear and the manner in which we groom ourselves. This is not limited to women (graphic tees, anyone?). The iPhone is now available in several colors and finishes, there are tech-mirroring trends in beauty (matte finish nail polish, metallic finish makeup, etc), and wearable tech is becoming a thing. I'd say the line between tech and fashion/beauty is pretty well blurred. And technology hasn't been "ultimately utilitarian" in a long while.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y agoAgreed. There is precious little "ultimately utilitarian" about sharing instagram photos with your friends on Facebook.
- girvo 13y agoDoes that mean advertising for technology doesn't work? Samsung would like a word with you, if that's the case... While you're right that yes, tech is less frequent and higher ticket, it's worth huge money, and advertising is useful for the majority of buyers (not HN readers basically)
- naterator 13y ago"Does advertising technology in magazines work on women?" or "How well does advertising technology to women work?" Would be better questions than one that applies to all demographics, at least in this discussion. Here's a nice article[1] about why an ad campaign for women's watches appeared in the Economist, an magazine with readership 90% men. [1] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_future_lea.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f...
- joosters 13y agoSeconded. The Last Psychiatrist blog is excellent. The original story is unclear about whether it counted just articles in the magazines or adverts as well. It does mention the tech adverts in one magazine but the general tone is about tech 'coverage' - as in the choice of the content. Which would seem to exclude ads, since I'd bet the magazines would accept advertising from whoever pays them enough. I would guess that a study of the adverts would show a whole lot more tech products, as marketing departments can't have failed to notice that women buy their products too.
- wisty 13y agoAlso, tech doesn't have the same "market it like crazy, and rely on massive margins" philosophy. Apple does do some marketing, but it's not like they sell a phone for ten times what it costs to build. Software is a little different - B2B relies on direct sales. Games are probably the closest thing you'll find to fashion and cosmetics. I guess you could compare fashion magazines to gaming magazines.
- bowlofpetunias 13y agoIs that any different for men? I mean, I may buy the odd (relatively cheap) geek gadget, but most of my tech spending is pretty similar to that of my wife. Yet there is plenty of tech advertising aimed at me.
- jseliger 13y agomost of my tech spending is pretty similar to that of my wife. In addition, the key metric is probably not tech spending, but tech creating, which is often not measured in dollars. We've all probably run into guys [1] who produce impressive code using a five-year-old laptop who don't spend much on "tech." Maybe a couple bucks a month for hosting, but that's really it. [1] A note on the language used: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/hey-guys-read-this/ http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/hey-guys-read-this/ .
- tommorris 13y agoWhy would the key metric be that of creating rather than spending? The fact that I sit at Vim all day cranking out Ruby and Python (for work and for open source etc.) is irrelevant to whether I buy a smartphone. Apple getting £500 from my mother for a new iPhone is no different than them getting £500 from me. In sales, the key metric really IS spend rather than creativity/interest.