Marketing to Women Online: Sex Sells

Sex Sells. We've all heard it so often it's turned into a cliche. Advertising is full of sexual imagery and innuendo. If so many advertisers use sex to sell, it must be effective right?

Does sex sell? Yes - says a recent study conducted by market research company MediaAnalyzer. But here's the catch. The study finds that using sexual imagery in print ads increases purchase intent in men. HOWEVER - it seems to have the opposite effect on women. Using sex in a print ad decreases ad effectiveness for women. It also found using sex in your advertising actually decreases brand awareness for both sexes.

Before you do anything else - you've got to go to John Moore's Brand Autopsy blog to check out Attention Tracking pictures that show how men and women view the same ad differently.

Here's another interesting finding from the report:

While most men like the ads with sexual themes and do not think they have negative effects on society, women feel the opposite way. Most women believe there is too much sex in advertising (58%) and more than 40% of all women feel that sexual ads signify and promote a general deterioration of moral and social values, and pose a threat to the proper upbringing of children.

Now - before you go saying those women must be a bunch of conservative or religious prudes - I would caution you not to stereotype. I know many independent, forward-thinking, freedom loving women who are very progressive, but still hold similar views.

I'm going to weigh in with a personal opinion here (imagine that) and suggest that it is not "sex" that these women object to, but rather the derogatory nature of the sex in the ads that sparks a backlash.

Here's an example - Axe Body Spray for men. The commercials show a guy wearing the stuff and women get one whiff of him, and then attack him. This commercial doesn't bother me that much. My gut sense is that it's because the woman is the aggressor. Though the Axe Body Spray website is a whole different story. But at least they've kept the TV commercials, seen by men and women more tame. Women are influencers - keep that in mind. Most of the derogatory "women as sex objects" is reserved for the website, which my guess is - attracts almost exclusively men. It might actuallly be a smart move to separate this content.

But look at the Bluefly commercial - that ad just bothers me. I think it's because my first reaction is to want to run and wrap a blanket around the naked woman. It leaves me with an awful feeling. And that ad IS targeted at women. I haven't done a scientific survey, but out of about 30 women I've talked to, only one said she kind of liked the ad.

The bottom line is, men and women respond to advertising differently. I actually think sex can sell to women, but it's got to be based on what women want, what their values are, what their fantasies are. I can't remember what commercial it was, but there's a scene where an older woman is in bed with a hot young latin guy fawning over her, then she wakes ups or comes out of her daydream to the real world. Now THAT'S an ad I bet women like and relate to.

You've heard it before, but I'm going to say it again - If you want to be successful in marketing to women online and offline, it all comes down to understanding your audience. Understand who your women customers are - look at their lives, get rid of stereotypes. With all the bright, highly paid creatives out there, to paraphrase my hero Jennifer Pozner, surely you can come up with something more compelling than the same tired boob jokes.

Comments

All of which comes down to connecting with your target where (and how) they care. For example, I think the Expedia ads are a hoot - the one where the woman is sitting on the patio, the stud comes over to the patio wall and wants to borrow a towel...and he morphs into a cubicle guy excitedly announcing there's "doughnuts in the conference room!" Personally I got through many a Corporate America meeting by having just such fantasies so: 1. I relate; 2. I remember the ads.

Posted by: Mary Schmidt | November 09, 2005 at 09:15 PM