I teach a cardio-kickboxing class on Tuesdays, and there’s one member who often wears a t-shirt that says “# 1 Grandma!”  I’ve joked with her, asking if she’s coming to learn new discipline tactics (always adding, “seriously, folks, don’t try this at home!”)

So it’s not like the image in the Simply Potatoes ad above is an awful and offensive stereotype of grandmas and I’m suggesting grannies of the world unite in protest.  It’s more that I question its relevance.

Just like “it’s not your father’s Oldsmobile,” today’s granny is not necessarily the white-bunned sweet old lady who spends her day in the kitchen.

Certainly not this “hip hop” granny.

I was taking a trip recently to a city where I’d heard an old friend (Maureen Popkin Chiquet) from middle school had settled, so I looked her up.  Turns out she’s the Global CEO for Chanel and was Glamour magazine’s Fashion Woman of the year in 2008.

Oohh…so women DO actually work and hold down careers!  I’d like to hear Chiquet talk about shoes…maybe get some insight into global strategies to sell more of them?

I definitely smoked Virginia Slims when I smoked 30 years ago.

But who wouldn’t want to be that tall, thin, confident, brave, free-spirited, adventurous woman who didn’t take sh— from anybody.  Sign me up!

Without even inviting me to a focus group tobacco companies have taken note, creating advertising targeted at women in third world countries.  According to Douglas Bettcher, a World Health Organization expert, the tobacco industry is selling cigarettes “using stereotypes such as associating smoking with women’s liberation, the kind of stereotypes featured in smoking promotions decades ago in the rich nations.”

WHO presented a report late last week on tobacco use and women in anticipation of world anti-tobacco day on May 31.

As cigarette advertising laws in the US have become more stringent (you won’t find Joe Camel around anymore), tobacco companies have turned to new horizons.  Of course in the US it’s because we know that smoking kills.  According to the American Cancer Society, “each year about 443,600 people die from illnesses related to tobacco use.”

Whose job do you think it is to design “pink packs of cigarettes…aggressively promoted to attract girls” or  cigarette packs “resembling a perfume containers,” to get little girls in foreign lands to take up smoking?  

In the spirit of intercultural appreciation and respect, I am going to go buy my 9 year old a pack of cigarettes.  Well, that’s one way to look at it, right? 

Photo credits: flickr MsBlueSky, ANT204 University of Toronto

What does this American Airlines’ ad have in common with the movie Monsters, Inc?  Both envision a workplace with no women in it. 

Oh, wait, there was the young ‘un wanting to get married and the tough old broad in Monsters, Inc.—the same two archetypes in “The Absent Minded Professor” and probably most other movies from the 1950’s and early ’60’s.

But, we’re not in the 1950’s are we? 

Marketing to women, since we make up 50.7% of the population, and own 28.2% of businesses (per 2008 Census statistics)…that would be a win-win for any business!

*Intel’s Woman-less workforce ad

Ad found via Brandfreak

Can you be a chicken and still be a good intercultural communicator?*

The short answer is “no.”

I was having an amazing conversation today (or as I said, let’s talk about something really interesting, let’s talk about me!”) with Marti Barletta of Trendsight today. 

Marti is the premier provider of ‘marketing to women’ insights and ideas, a dynamic keynote speaker, author of two books, Marketing to Women and PrimeTime Women and a frequent commentator on marketing to women on NBC, the Economist and the like.

For Women vs. Men, there’s an 80/20 rule.  80% may follow common characteristics, and 20% may not, but that doesn’t preclude you from talking about trends that will help you market to the 80%. 

Our natural instinct is to group and categorize like with like, and to be an ‘expert’ in a paticular area, you need to be able to do that in a way that’s actionable, as in “here’s how women generally behave, and here’s how you can use that to best market your product.” 

As Marti pointed out, it’s nice to be nice, but at some point you need to interpret the data and insert/assert your own position.

It reminds me of an episode of Murphy Brown, basically making fun of political correctness.  The TV station had convened a Town Hall meeting (remember, this was circa the late 80’s–probably different tone for Town Hall Meetings today!).  No matter what was said, someone took offense.  “Well, I’m African American and I take offense at that…”  Well, I’m xyz and I take offense at that…”  Finally Murphy screams “Oh, you’re all acting like children!” At which point a child stands up and says “well, I”m a child, and I take offense at that …”

The point is that I probably will offend someone, sometime.  But, I also know who I am.  If I offend, it will be unintentional.

With intercultural communications, while individual characteristics ultimately trump cultural generalizations, you can’t teach or write a book called “6 billion people and here’s how you reach them individually.”  At some point you need to identify common traits, customs or behaviors by culture (or even…gasp…race) to be able to start a dialogue.

The good intercultural communicator will not be afraid to do that.  The trick is to also have the confidence in your own identity to be able to take an unintended offense, and turn it into a doorway for communication and growth.

Who have you offended lately?  How did it turn out?

* Speaking of intercultural communications and marketing to women, I”m using the US connotation of Chicken, as in being afraid, as opposed to the Brazilian connotation of Chicken, meaning a promiscuous woman. 

Photo credit:  Forbes Nutritional Services

It’s funny that after presenting a workshop on communication styles, I’m obsessing about my communication style. 

I think it’s because I’m more aware now that I’m an “emotive-intuitive” communicator (I speak passionately about things I believe in and like to throw out big ideas as they come to me) and the “norm” for the business world (in the US)against which rewards are doled out is “rational,” meaning more direct and impersonal. “Just the facts, Ma’m.”

When we talk about diversity in business, at the end of the day it’s about embracing diverse communication styles.  It’s also about recognizing that there are “norms” dictated by the company, and people may feel like an “insider” or “outsider” based on how their communication style compares to that norm.

This actually played out when I didn’t hug my good friend goodbye after a business meeting yesterday.  Why?  Friend = Hug.  Business Meeting = Handshake.  Could I really have ‘dissed’ my friend and not hugged her goodbye, because subconsciously I thought others would think we were too “girlfriendish” and not “serious about business?”  And what norm was it that I thought I was conforming to anyway?

I decided to do some cross-cultural research about my (seemingly) own culture.  Culturecrossing.net explains it this way:

Man greeting Man – Men shake hands when greeting one another and maintain direct eye contact.  A relatively firm handshake is the way to go.  Light hugs are common between good friends and family. 

Woman greeting Woman- At a first meeting, a light handshake will suffice.  Light hugs are common between good friends and family.

Man greeting Woman-   At a first meeting a regular handshake will do.  Light hugs are common between good friends and family.

I’ve heard the statement ‘women are more emotional and men are more rational’ used to convey males’ better suitability to business, but really these are just alternate communication styles.  It’s only US business culture that places higher value on one style over another. 

Recognizing, including and rewarding a diversity of communication styles is at the true heart of employee engagement and inclusion. 

Think about your day-to-day activities in the workplace. Do you do them because they come naturally, or because you think they are expected of you?  What’s your communication style, and how is it valued within your workplace?

While you do that, I’m calling my friend to apologize!

When I first caught a glimpse of an ad on TV of Mother Nature trying to wake up someone who was sleeping, I thought it type-cast women with an out of date image:  Women can’t do anything when their “little gift” comes each month.

Seeing the vibrant Serena Williams, who is African-American, perfect as a dynamic, young recognizable athlete known for her drive to succeed no matter what, is an immediate visual contrast.  The five second take-away is strong women empowered today, not like the “olden days” characterized by Mother Nature’s dated sytle, when all activity basically stopped for a whole week, every month.

Plus, how else do you dress a perfectly fit woman in a teeny white dress without objectifying her!  It’s less about sexy and more about strong, offering wide appeal for a product exclusively sold to women.

For those of us on the more “prudent side” of what’s appropriate in public, the beautifully packaged red gift with the big pink bow is well-chosen, capturing sarcasm, subtly and euphemism all in one simple image.  Do I really need to listen to two women talk graphically about bodily functions in front of my son to get a point across?  Apparently not!

The generational contrast is done well without alienating ‘older’ target clients, but using an archetype, Mother Nature, rather than just, well a mother…who might be a potential customer,  too. 

Both are solidly in character as they challenge each other in a “game on” approach, athlete vs. nature, in the series.

I wouldn’t mind staying as active and strong as Serena Williams all the time.  See you later, Mother Nature!

My problem with representations of women in advertising is not that they’re beautiful, nor, given my delight with this ad, that they’re scantily clad.  Apparently it’s more of a “boys against girls” mentality.

I like this ad because, basically, the girl “wins.” She’s smarter, stronger, slyer, and ‘wins,’ while teaching the boys a thing or two in between. 

There’s also good product placement:  there’s a close-up of the “Gorilla Gripper” within the first 10 seconds or so, and the function and ease of using it is the primary content of the action.

Plus, is this a “meta-ad?” Does it actually make fun of how ridiculous it would be to have a woman construction worker wearing short shorts and a ripped t-shirt, by having the man work in the same get-up?

Oh, pooh!  There goes my credibility.  Basically, if the woman is the hero, the ad is good.  If the woman is objectified or demeaned, the ad is bad.  Or is that just a good gauge of creating an appealing multicultural (gender inclusive) ad?

What do you think?

Thanks to Diane C. for the tip to the clip.