Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Advertising Age hasn’t inspired too much blog fodder of late; perhaps it’s due to its new ugly format and thin reporting. It was too serendipitous, though, that in the June 3, 2013 issue two stories about gender marketing with men and Ruffles and women and Oakley appeared pages apart.
Which got me thinking (always dangerous).
Why do brands continue to have gender marketing challenges in this day and age? You know, the era of women’s equality, stay-at-home dads, paternity time, and breaking the glass ceiling, etc.?
Oakley Trying To Sun Glass Women
The sub-head of the story really surmises the irony of this brand’s challenges, “At the $1 billion (yes, billion) apparel and eye glass company, the women’s business accounts for just 10% of sales, making it the biggest opportunity.” (Read that again without gasping, really?)
Apparently, the brand has attempted to sell to women but has obviously failed. No women were managing teams; they were in product development roles instead. Pink became the predominant color of choice for the women’s line because male leadership thought every woman identified with that. Few women were positioned in leadership ranks and testosterone prevailed in the male-dominated company.
Same-sex companies targeting same-sex customers does not beget inter-gender marketing success; I guess Oakley found that out.
Hmm, I wonder if Proctor and Gamble has noticed a trend for Daddy Mamas and is redoing diaper branding to make the box more manly?
Ruffles Women And The Bro Code
Ruffles, the potato chip with ridges, has always been a family brand – moms buy and the family eats. Getting too family for its britches, brand marketers sent a team of women into bars to immerse in the male snack-food psyche and crack the bro code. Men, who are too close to men, couldn’t master such research due to the introspectiveness of that analysis (or some such).
For three years (wow), the women infiltrated the snack-food brotherhood and learned a lot that resulted in these adjustments to the lowly potato chip with ridges:
- Men shop for junk food on impulse; 25% of chips are purchased in smaller sizes.
- The brand began to target millennial men.
- Packaging was redone with inspiration fueled strictly with testosterone.
- A spokesman the likes of Ron Burgundy meshed with Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood (how the heck are they millennial inspiration?) was created, named Ruff McThickridge.
- The Ultimate Ruffle was born with thicker, manly ridges along with Ruffles Max to go alongside the beer (not so heavy).
- Flavors were beefier and included beer-battered onion rings.
What’s so astonishing is the longevity of both these brands. Oakley is 38-years-old and Ruffles has to be older than that. How is it that this kind of eye-opening gender marketing research is happening now?
So glad it is, as I pity the poor man who can’t have a potato chip because the packaging is too girly. As for my sunglasses? I think I’ll settle for my Prada. Goodness knows those Oakley wraparounds would totally interfere with my curls.
Wow. “Ruff McThickridge” Really? That’s what they came up with? Kind of like the Robin Thicke “Good Girl” video…overtly in your face about their manhood. Oy.
Hi, lovey! Hope you’re enjoying your summer!! xoxo
EricaAllison Number 1. HELLOOOOO!!!! 2. I’m so happy to see you here! Thank you for scoring first-dibs honors! 3. How’s summer/family/brother/kidlets/business?
4. I’m so glad you opened this up for obvious twitter (chuckles); when I read that I immediately thought the very same and even worse. Is that what guys need to identify with brands? Crazy.
5. We’re gonna talk live soon; like real soon! XO!
I always enjoy when you dissect an Ad Age article. You got me with the gender marketing hook, because I hate gender marketing! I was relieved to see you’re not into it, either.
At any rate, this cracked me up even as I was irritated by the parts about cracking the bro code of snacking / pink sunglasses only. UGH. If you want me to buy your stupid sunglasses, make sunglasses I’ll like. EASY.
jennwhinnem Hahaahaha! I AGREE! I really find some of this consumer stuff hilarious. Erica nailed it — McThickridge. I would’ve hoped we would be beyond this kind of marketing! Apparently NOT!
Thanks for coming by, Jenn! Seriously, I’m catching up on my past issues, and nothing is too appealing on the reporting front. What does Oakley do if it wants to target gay men? Choose another color? Heh.
Soulati | Hybrid PR jennwhinnem I think first I’d wonder – do gay men want to be marketed to in some special way?? That said, marginalized populations tend to be very loyal to the companies who court them. I think it was Pepsi that first marketed to African Americans, or maybe it was that they hired African Americans to sell their products. That was huge.
In more recent years, companies that put ads in “gay” magazines were seen as being gay-friendly/gay-accepting/not homophobic, and that population wanted to reward and promote that behavior.
jennwhinnem Soulati | Hybrid PR I hadn’t really thought about how you change up brand marketing to ethnicities, gender, ages (well, we know more about that), and sexual persuasion. When you think about a potato chip everyone eats, that’s why some of these odd flavors are launching, I’m sure — like wasabi.
Soulati | Hybrid PR jennwhinnem I didn’t notice it myself until someone urged me ‘drive through the ‘hood, you’ll see how different the billboards are there.’ I was 18 at the time and it made a big impression on me.
Did you see the Pond’s cold cream ads that were shown in India? Those were egregious. It was a three-ad arc that played to a common fear of women-of-color, that their color is too dark, as evidenced by this woman being left by her husband for a lighter woman. So she uses Pond’s skin whitening cream. I forget if she gets the guy or not.
I’m less aware of the wasabi and more aware of how kale chips are a thing, which just kills me.
jennwhinnem Soulati | Hybrid PR While we’re on the topic, a UK broadcaster accused the winner of women’s Wimbledon of “not ever going to be a looker or have long legs like Sharapova.” And, he was absolutely astonishingly a dog! Not that that should’ve made any difference as who says that today?
We’re horribly still in the Stone Ages!
I’ve always worn Oakleys, but my girls do not think the frames work for them at all (my wife wears Maui Jims). I’m having a hard time thinking of ANY advertising/branding/packaging that actually impacted my purchase of the brand, though. I definitely will go into a store and buy based upon brand recognition, reputation, or personal preference on quality or style (Johnston & Murphy shoes, Under Armour athletic wear, K-swiss tennis shoes, Polo/Ralph Lauren shirts because I know the colors last for a LOONG time).
I didn’t buy my Babolat racquets because of who represented them (Roddick didn’t adapt, and I do not like Nadal’s game). I played with all the racquets and picked the one that felt right for my game.