Does Marketing Financial Services to Women Really Work?

Some recent posts by myself and Roger Conant have sparked a really interesting conversation about marketing financial services to women.

I wrote Marketing Credit Unions to Women - Getting Men on Board.   Roger Conant wrote Marketing to Women Requires Cultural Change. 

Ron Shevlin at Snarketing 2.0 had a really interesting response - You Can't Market Financial Services to Women.

What's interesting is, I agree with some of Ron's points (not all, but some).   But I, of course, have reached a different conclusion.  

Here's Ron's take: 

Marketing financial services products to “women” is doomed to fail, and simply not a very good idea.

He goes on to talk about why he thinks it is doomed to fail:

What I’m trying to convey here — and I’m worried that I’m not articulating this clearly — is that “women” is not a manageable, marketable consumer segment. It’s simply way too broad (oh geez, no pun intended).

In response to Roger Conant's comment about the majority of the industry leadership being male:

Roger’s comments bear some analysis here, as well. In the history of consumer products, many companies have successfully sold feminine (or female-oriented) products via male product managers.

Should Fisher-Price fire everybody over the age of six because they’re not the primary users and audience for the products (toys) they produce?

Of course not.

And in response to Roger's remarks to the Verity Credit Union effort to target moms:

It’s also important to note (I’m talking to you, Roger) that Verity did this without firing the entire leadership staff, and replacing them with Moms. At least, I don’t think Verity did this.

Finally, Ron ends with this:

Bottom line: “Women” is not a viable, realistic consumer segment for financial services firms to market to. There are other attributes and dimensions of the market that better determine how financial services firms should design products, and take those products to market.

To summarize the argument of why you can't market financial services to women:

1. Women are too broad a group to target effectively
2. Financial institutions don't need to have leadership made up entirely of women to effectively market to women
3. There are more important factors than gender in understanding how different segments buy financial services and products

So let's take these one at a time.

1.  Women are too broad a group to target effectively

I agree women are an incredibly broad and diverse group.  I don't agree you can't target them effectively. 

If you try to talk to "all  women" you are likely to stereotype, and stereotyping is the kiss of death when marketing to women. 

In my book Selling Financial Services to Women I talk about the different types of women.  In my Women and Finance Survey I found big differences between how women under 50 and women 50 plus feel about money and why hey buy financial services and products.   

I also found there were many different types of investment styles/money priorities.  I narrowed them down to four styles.  (More than that would have been too hard to work with).  We looked at top concerns, top goals, the customer experience each wanted, and what questions to ask each type to talk about what each type cares about. 

Bottom line - this is incredibly actionable stuff.   All a financial advisor has to do is ask some specific questions, listen to the answers, and he or she will close more business.

This is crucial - any time you segment your audience any insights you learn about different segments must be actionable - you must be able to use those insights to create better marketing materials and a better sales process. 

2. Financial institutions don't need to have leadership made up entirely of women to effectively market to women

I agree with this as well.   If you want to be more effective in your efforts to market to women, the answer is NOT To fire all the men.  And just for the record, that was NOT what Roger Conant was suggesting.

But there IS a problem when the leadership is made up entirely of men or women are an extremely small percentage of the leadership team.  

When you are targeting different audience segments, the further away you are from that segment, the harder you have to work to truly understand them.   This is why diversity is SO important in your marketing department and in your boardroom.  Different segments bring different perspectives and understanding to the table. 

Imagine a marketing team of all 50 plus women creating video games aimed at 13-24 year old guys.   You're shaking your head, right?  Imagine a marketing team of 25-40 year old single guys creating ads for women 50 plus.   (This is actually not an uncommon scenario).

Can women 50 plus create kick-ass video games for 13-24 year olds?  You bet.  But they're going to have to work really hard at putting aside their natural preferences and getting inside the heads of their audience. Same thing for the 25-40 year old single guys.  They're gong to have to work hard to put aside their natural preferences and get inside the heads of their audience.  

In both of these scenarios, wouldn't the end product be  better if members of the target market were actively involved in the creation of the product and marketing? 

Another important reason you need women on your leadership team - Credibility - Women pay attention to these things.   If you reach out to women, saying you value them and want their business, but they don't see any women on your leadership team - there's a disconnect there.  If companies really value women, they will walk the talk and have women in key positions.   Again, not ALL key positions, but a decent percentage of them. 

3. There are more important factors than gender in understanding how different segments buy financial services and products

There are many important factors for understanding how and why people make buying decisions.   But gender is an extremely important factor.

In her book Why She Buys, Bridget Brennan has this to say:

“Gender is the most potent determinant of how a person views the world and everything in it—more powerful than age, income, race and geography. While there are mountains of research done every year segmenting consumers and analyzing why they buy, it doesn’t take into account the one piece of information that trumps all else: the sex of the buyer. It is stunning how many companies overlook the psychology of gender,when we all know that men and women look at the world so differently.”

I have to tell you, 10 years ago I would not have agreed with that statement.  But in over a decade of research into the differences between men and women, brain differences, communication style differences, decision making differences, I have been converted. 

I am WAY  more successful in my business now that I understand how men think and make decisions. I made significant changes in how I sell my products and services to men and it has made a huge difference.   I see the same results for men (and women) who better understand the differences between how men and women buy.

Specific Examples

In retirement planning ads, there is a consistent theme among the images - it is the middle -age to older couple, and the woman is leaning her head on her husband's shoulder, he is gazing into the distance while she stands lovingly behind him, or he is carrying her, usually on a beach (don't ask me why).    I can see why these images would be effective for marketing to men. They hit his "protector provider" button.   But I wanted to know if they would be equally as effective for women.   In all my research one of women's greatest financial desires is NOT to be dependent.  So in my Women and Finance Survey, I showed women 50 plus (since they are the target market) images from actual financial services ads.   Here's how they responded:

• 78%  I don't relate to these images.  I don't want to have to rely on someone else (my husband or otherwise) for financial security.
• 12% Loved and supported.  I can rely on my husband to take care of me.
• 10% Sad.  I've lost my husband and I miss him.

So images that work really well for men can actually backfire for women.   As a financial services marketer, this kind of insight is incredibly valuable.

You can see the actual images here -    Women and Finance Survey - What Marketing Images Do Women Prefer?

Conclusion

At the end of the day, Ron and I are in complete agreement on one thing:

Marketing is about learning about consumer needs, designing products to meet those needs, and implementing marketing programs that reach and influence the target market(s).

I've found understanding the differences between men and women to be one of THE most valuable tools in my ability to do the above.   This is followed closely by understanding that you can't market to all women the same way.

What are your thoughts?  Can you market to women?  Is it effective?  Why or Why not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Russ Schon]

I agree with Ron that marketing to "women" is too large a market and should be refined to a more manageable segment. However, all marketing should be women "friendly".

This can be blatantly disregarded by so many institutions including hometown car dealerships and beer companies.

[1800 Fastpay]

It is my honor and privileged to found and read your post. It made me learn a lot of different ideas. Keep up the good work.. :)

[A Facebook User]

I was recently assigned 2 major website redesigns where the target audience was baby boomer women. My project manager jokingly told me that I was chosen as the designer because I'm the only female designer on our team and the clients were looking for someone who wouldn't create "masculine" sites like those in our agency's portfolio.

I laughed it off and thought I could do this no problem.

Wrong! Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I'm magically in tune with all femalekind. I had to commit a lot of hours to diving into research about marketing to women (including reading nearly all of this blog).

So, yes, Holly, I totally agree with you that we need more women in leadership roles within marketing. BUT, those women can't just rely on their gender giving them magical insight. Research and education is still needed to get a better, well-founded understanding of the hows and whys.

[tee shirt homme]

Wrong! Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I'm magically in tune with all femalekind. I had to commit a lot of hours to diving into research about marketing to women

[air max 90 pas cher]

Buen producto y hacer extlacy lo que se supone que. Una vez, usted no lo notará a menos que esté buscando activamente por ello. El servicio al cliente es muy bueno también. Me faltaba uno de los dos escudos que pedí cuando recibí mi envío. En lugar de simplemente enviar el respaldo de reemplazo que me estaba perdiendo, Knightshields reembarcados un orden completamente nuevo (dos escudos protectores para las esquinas y ocho) de forma gratuita. Si usted necesita la protección de tableta, es necesario revisar Knightshields.

[Cash Advance Online]

Well, I disagree with Roger Conant.I think that marketing financial services can really work for women.Most of the women I know are very interested in financial services and take care of their finances.To my mind, women and finances are closely connected and the same as men, women are interested in financial services and products.I think that it's hard enough to meet a woman who would stay indifferent about money,most of women take care of their budget and would like to find new ways of earning and saving money.There's a difference between how men and women buy, but I think it's not right to say that financial marketing services doesn't work for women.

[Holly Buchanan]

Just for clarification - Roger Conant is a big fan of marketing financial services to women. Ron Shevlin wrote the post saying that you can't market to women.

[ralph lauren pas cher]

Solo perché sono una donna non vuol dire che sono magicamente in sintonia con tutti femalekind. Ho dovuto commettere un sacco di ore di immersione nella ricerca di marketing o per le donne (comprensivo della lettura quasi tutti di questo blog).

[Beats For Sale]

Say this Beats Studio headset performance is unquestionable, targeting high-end product must have the advantage of its high-end products, the sound transparent, clear detail, the positioning is very accurate, very strong sense of spatial The sound quality is very good! enthusiasts ready purse.

[разработка и создание сайта]

We have a solutions of your every problems. Whatever you have a problem we solve it through our expertise staff.

[maillot afrique]

Contrairement aux blogs supplémentaires j'ai lu qui sont vraiment pas bon. J'ai aussi trouvé vos messages très intéressant.

[chaussures nike shox]

Sílim go bhfuil do dhearcadh domhain, ach go maith a shíl amach agus gur iontach a fheiceáil ar dhuine a bhfuil aithne aige conas a chur ar na smaointe síos go maith mar sin de.

[online advertising saudi arabia]

We have a solutions of your every problems. Whatever you have a problem we solve it through our expertise staff.

[Abercrombie Fitch]

isney is the place to have a good time, so do not let the cheaters ruin your vacation. Milk thistle is the natural herb that is considered a liver tonic that can normalize both digestion and bile production.

[Ralph Lauren Uk]

It is my honor and privileged to found and read your post

[Pauls Boutique]

thanks your good information!!

[Rizky]

agree with your points about all gdneer roles being detrimental to members of both sex But here's the thing. The consolation prizes' that have been reserved for women may look pretty shiny to you- and I agree that you should have them.But . let's use a more substantial metaphor. To me, female privilege is like a small pile of useful items that aren't necessary to survival- like a nice comb for your hair, while male privilege seems a lot like to me like food, water, and shelter. It's easy to covet female privilege when you have the things that are endemic to thriving but a woman can't eat her comb. It's useful, but it won't help her be self-sufficient. She has to keep begging men for food, or water, or the ability to stay dry and not freeze.I know it's not a perfect analogy. But it feels more real to me than shiny objects does.And here's the thing about my comb, which you want more than anything.It's a nice comb! I think you should have one. But a long time ago, the patriarchy decided that women weren't smart enough, or capable enough, or thick-skinned enough, to do things like serve in combat or be the President, or anything important,' really. They decided that domesticity and child-rearing were the only things easy' enough for women to handle.Patriarchy decided that women couldn't be trusted with the food, the water, the shelter. They would ruin them somehow. But here, women, here's a comb, you couldn't possibly screw that up.The comb is a more frivolous item than I mean, really, but I can't think of another right now. But back when Patriarchy decided homemaking was for women, they did kind of consider it as unimportant, so maybe a comb is apt.But once Patriarchy decided women couldn't handle anything but domesticity, Patriarchy decided it was women's work. And once that was decided, domesticity was demeaning for men specifically because it's women's work. Why does women's work demean men? Because women are inferior to men.So yes, women who want to be homemakers benefit from this decision, and you suffer scorn for it. But please remember where that came from. It came from the idea that women are inferior to men. It came from Patriarchy. Most instances of female privilege have similarly problematic origins.Most of the feminists I know would also like to eradicate this tendency to scorn men who are homemakers. Patriarchy hurts men and women. This is not a men win, women lose situation. This is a men lose a comb, women lose food, water, and shelter situation. It's an everybody loses, but women lose a lot more' situation. But when you have all the food, water, and shelter, it's easy to forget that not everybody does, and just focus on the fact that you don't also have a comb.I'd like everybody to have a comb. But first I'd really like to make sure everybody has food, water, and shelter. (I'm not trying to diminish the worth of homemakers here by using comb as an analogy. I just couldn't think of an item that's more important and precious than a comb but less important than food water and shelter right now. It's Friday, and it's been a long week. Maybe replace comb with delicious but mostly lacking in nutrition dessert' vs male privilege being the whole rest of the food pyramid? No, still understates homemakers. I don't know, I'm just not that creative.)

[Fay]

What a fun idea! I was given a huge stack of postcards from the 60-70's and most are blank. I've held on to them until I was inspired. I've got to try this!

[supra skytop]

In questo articolo si nutre la mia anima! Grazie per la condivisione.

[Ahmed]

Oh thank god for your fantastic piece on this NWN. And, for your sound and renasoed logic Super Dik. I believe your perspective is shared by the majority. She is so wrong and it makes me ask: why portray us in this manner? Why would a smart and privileged (I assume) women of our generation (and I define that to be women who have had more real choices than ever) sprout this ill renasoed and baseless argument? In fact, the authority for her reasoning includes a sex-obsessed new age entrepreneur (just where we all get our information) plugging a new book, a brain surgeon (smart but clearly not an expert in this area) and a blokey television show host. She states, Women are also suppressing traditional feminine characteristics like elegance and fragility to take on high power careers and step into male dominated roles. What the fuck? Traditional to who? To what? I aim towards achieving elegance. I am definitely not suppressing it in my experience as a woman. Why must my drive to justify my existence with a career be mutually exclusive to this? It just doesn't make sense. Why does this continue to happen? Should feminists be having a should we re-brand' debate? For our own sake. It is about equal rights and opportunities. Equality. Not pro-woman. And not anti-men. But, I understand enough about the movement to also appreciate why it is the way it is, why we are feminists . I just hope in our keeping of the term, we don't increase the frequency of this willful misuse of the term/movement to catapult careers.

[Brenda]

I've just had a baby and (for this year at least) I am sort of a housewife. My pnetarr and I earn roughly equal salaries, with my base probably being a bit higher Than his (defying the stats). But I get paid leave and he has his own business so it makes sense that I take the 12 months off. We are lucky and have choices. The reality also is that I want the time off to be with my new baby, not to mention the practicalities of breast feeding.a0None of this means I choose to end my career or that I don't want equal pay conditions or my pnetarr does not pull his fair share of housework and baby raising. I'll be back at work soon enough and I'll probably wish I worked less hours (and might even tick that box on a bullshit survey) but that doesn't mean I spurn my career just that id like a lie in!a0Affirmative action and quotas is such a loaded and confusing issue with really valid arguments for and against (so much so that I a0have not been able to decide a personal position on it). But you are correct, if there was workplace gender equality it would be a moot point.a0

[Rokstar]

We should hold fast to the fesiinmt tag. It is definitely kowtowing to the smegma (thank you for that word, it's fabulous) to abandon it.I wonder what frightful economic necessity forced Ms. Asher to write this load of elderly shoemakers? Perhaps her husband died, and with seven children and an ailing mother to support, she is forced to comply with the patriarchal demands of her editor? Harriet Taylor wrote about what a pain in the arse it was to have misogynist men in charge of the printing press, ooh, 1840-ish? Good job feminism has changed all that, eh? I think we should have a competition for The stupidest sentence in this article . Asher's implication that feminism was something that happened once in the seventies and immediately ruined life for everyone is one possible winner. The number of people in history she is ignoring or ignorant of is really, really big.

[Kendal]

I didn't like Mark Chou's piece. I thought he msseid the point which is that no one has the right to tell women how to dress and suggest that provocative dress confuses men its back to the ‘she was asking for it’ line again and makes excuses for men again. Not to mention all that judgemental ‘nice girls’ bullshit and that all women want to do is find a nice man. This is what was wrong with the letter. I also think he gave kudos to a fake story . I am not denying the military sex trade stuff but I think if that was what he wanted to talk about he shouldn’t have used this fake story as a way to get to that message, he could have made his point better.

[Emily]

Lexy, we've talked about qaouts before (in real life, shocking!) and I'm sure we'll talk about it again. My feeling is that it's needed because the playing field isn't level. The argument about women being promoted simply to fill a quota doesn't wash with me what company would put someone in an executive position who isn't up to the job? Sure, we've all had bad managers, but senior executive positions are a little different. And yes, there will be some women who don't do a good job, just as there are some men who don't do a good job. But my fear is that if a woman is as mediocre as a man in that role, it will be used as a reason not to promote more women.

[nike survetement homme]

Hej tam! Nie wiesz, czy oni żadnych wtyczek do ochrony przed hakerami? Jestem trochę paranoiczne o utratę Ciężko pracowałem dalej. Jakieś wskazówki? Hej tam! Nie wiesz, czy oni żadnych wtyczek do ochrony przed hakerami? Jestem trochę paranoiczne o utratę Ciężko pracowałem dalej. Jakieś wskazówki?..