A recent report from the University of Texas suggested that men will choose music as a way of indicating their "tribal affiliation". Women on the other hand, choose music that reflects their current mood and are less concerned by what people will think if they are known to like a particular artist.
What might these researchers have found if they had looked at technology rather than music? Are women “moody” and less brand conscious when it comes to buying technology? Are men more likely to want to make a statement? Might the technology we allow ourselves to be seen with play a similar role to a football-strip or a bumper-sticker?
Last week I was in the Kings Cross Eurostar business-lounge. Most of my fellow loungees were men. I observed the knowing glances between Mac users as they silently acknowledge each other as part of a fraternity of subversive creative types. Meanwhile the sharp-suited alpha-males wielded the Thinkpad. It's the sign of a serious player whose work is important enough to require the industry-standard laptop. Even when out of uniform, the choice of technology says which side they belong to.
I asked my Lady Geeks friends about their relationship with technology:
When it comes to laptops, it seemed that choice was driven by practicality. However, when they spoke about their ipod, speakers, phone, HD TV, Internet Radio and almost any other category of home electronics they became a great deal more enthusiastic: Any kind of technology that existed along the same terms as household furniture provoked the same kind of tribalism.
“Oh god," remarked one lady-geek, "I think the TV you have, absolutely says who you are and how you are different from others,”. She went on to explain how Sony Bravias should only ever be bought by over-40s, Philips was for over-50s and everybody her age HAS to have Panasonic.
If tribalism is defined as“the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates oneself as a member of one group from the members of another", then for both genders technology is a badge. It seems that the design of the badge is somewhat arbitrary since there's almost no practical difference between TVs made by Sony, Panasonic or Philips. It means as much as "the Reds" versus "the Blues".
The technology we choose to display in our homes and on our bodies say as much about who we think we are as our shoes and our clothes, however technology is rarely marketed as a cultural, social construct. Marketers wrongly assume that we select their technology rationally. The reality is that both genders select technology in tribalistic way: its emotional, instinctive and helps position the buyer in their social clade.
I've been listening to Emmylou Harris today, not sure what that says, but I'm not sure personally that brands come into much for me when it comes to tech. I bought a Dell laptop based on the screen size, a Blackberry on keyboard and ability to email and wide screen TV on the basis of...I can't even remember. That was kind of random purchase.
"Sony Bravias should only ever be bought by over-40s, Philips was for over-50s and everybody her age HAS to have Panasonic"
Can you please explain how your friend came to the above conclusions? I may be wrong but it does seem somewhat narrow, 3 brands of television......that's it?
Got to say I'm equally sus about this. There is segmentation in consumer electronics (different people buy Bang & Olufsen, Sony and Bush) but it's basically about price. Within the same price category there's far less brand differentiation than there is with, say, cars. The same is increasingly true of mobile phones.
Not sure that you can simply DEEM something industry standard on a site frequented by marketing people. <a href="www.displaysearch.com/.../HP_1_in_Notebook_Shipments_8th_Straight_Quarter_Acer_Struggling.asp">Latest figures</a> show HP (disclosure: client) continuing to lead globally, and Dell continuing to own the US market. If by "standard", you mean "most often purchased" - a pretty good marker, then HP probably wins. If you mean "company that created the category" - that wasn't Lenovo either. Or, indeed, IBM. Open for debate here, but it's a run-up between NEC in 1989 or Apple two years later.
I'll agree that branding has a lot to do with my technology decisions. And I'll agree that we're all badging. But really - since the suits didn't buy their own computers, and the guys with the Macs probably did, you're comparing apples and oranges (damn, missed easy opp for a pun there, I think)
The statement 'The reality is that both genders select technology in tribalistic way: its emotional, instinctive and helps position the buyer in their social clade.' is true for all categories - we buy things simply because people like us buy them. I know this may seem unpalatable but we rarely ever make rational decisions based on product efficacy. There are exceptions but this applies to only about 3% of the population.
aspergers? No inclination to strive for social acceptance, so all decision based on pure rationale>
I bought an Acer laptop (which probably makes me some sort of technological buffoon) - but for quite a bit less than 400 squid I got 17" screen, dual core processor and upgraded to WADS OF RAM (that's a technical term - check me out!). All purely rational - I need laptop that was cheap and quick - bought Compaq previously and it went a b*ll*ck after 13 months (Compaq - you're laptops are rubbish - and your customer service is laughable!), so Acer can't be any worse. In fairness, other that Vista Home Premium being pants, I've got a bargain - but no brand motivation involved in the purchase - I mean, Acer!?!? (and I don't have asperger syndrome).
Fantastic comments. Thank you. Let me address some of your points:
1. Technology is a rational decision and is based on price.
The reality is that it is much more complex. The debate is not whether a decision is a rational or emotional one. A decision can feel very 'rational' but actually its backed up by a lifetime of experiences, both rational and emotional. As the neuroscientist, David Lewis states,
“Our conscious is a bit like a PR company. It justifies our decisions on an intellectual level and seeks to explain behavior that feels right“
So what I am saying is that decisions are rarely just based on rational criteria. Even if we are buying something because its cheap, its the feeling we get of having a bargain which is a much more emotional feeling. 3% of decisions based on product efficacy seems about right.
2. A choice of 3 TV brands is very narrow
Most people can't cope with the amount of choice and normally reduce their choice to a list of 3 or 4. For many, choice is confusing. I bought a washing machine this weekend and it was a play between the LG, Bosch or Miele. That was bad enough.
3. Cars are differentiated by brand than technology.
Agree but this has changed so much in the last few years thanks to the amazing technology you can now buy. Technology is desirable. Its beautiful. And most importantly its accessible. Women are huge drivers of growth particularly HDTV, cameras and games consoles.
4. Most PC users didn't choose to have a PC and Mac users probably chose their mac.
This is a really interesting point as its the same reason that the Blackberry has dominate the corporate world: companies support and promote it. Its not always choice. I do see a lot more people as they become more tech literate, wanting to be part of the decision and voicing their preference. And as the recent proud owner of an Asus eee, I am one of those annoying people who badger the IT dept!
Belinda Parmar
Blogging for:
Member since: 17 Aug 2008
Last login: 18 Nov 2009
Total Posts: 54
