Selling to women aka exploiting the weaker sex?

b..but thats sexist!!! science is sexist!!! REEEEEEE

Good point.
Well how does this put money in my pocket user? I don't want your politics, I want your commercial insights.

le epic meme fellow r/incel. upvote! you sure would've btfoed me if I wasn't a guy
>breitbart
but since you're going to get mad if my only argument was that you're posting a biased newspaper that markets towards racist, sexist baby boomers and autistic alt right nerds then here's another argument. Did you check the website that most of the articles based on? Not only is the website itself dated as fuck, the two main studies it's based on are from the 1980s.
As I said about stupidity, this is also completely true for men. There are tonnes of men who only care about their appearance, and looking good is a goal for a lot (I'd say even the majority) of men in today's society. Sure, some men don't try as hard because there isn't as much societal pressure on them to, but it's not like EVERY woman cars only about appearance and EVERY man doesn't.

IQ is a very useful and standard psychometric to utilize. Let us analyze. The female IQ distribution is concentrated in the middle, why? The anthropological and sociological point of view would say it is culturally influenced as women aren't encouraged to pursue high IQ modes of existence. IQ however is rigid, extremely rigid. It is highly heritable, it can't be increased (even with intervention in childhood), and it can only really be suppressed (by malnutrition, lack of education) but correcting suppression is actually possible and quick. Any idiot can see the pattern, IQ is a fundamentally biological trait, which opens the doors to evolutionary analysis.

And how does that, for example, affect marketing efforts? I'm intrigued by what you say about "women aren't encouraged to pursue high IQ modes of existence" which seems to fit in well with why women are in less technocratic/high bureaucratic positions.

Conversely however, keeping on the hiring theme, I'm under the impression the reason why Donald Trump hired so many women in the Trump Organization is negative assumptions about women motivates them to out-perform and put more effort than male counterparts into the same job.

I was just wondering how this could be exploited in marketing - does this mean that we should avoid loquacious, "High IQ" predisposed copy or should we actually emphasize the intellectual cachet of a product (for example: technology products, books, maybe even cars...) because women will want to over compensate?

In fact could we put a price premium on that?

Why did this particular IQ distribution arose arise in women? And let's not forget about the men's own unique bell curve. Women concentrate in the middle and occupy much less space in the IQ curve as we go up standard deviations. It is also important to note, the same behavior is seen as we go down, that is there is less genius and less retard in the female spectrum. The men are opposite, less average, more genius, but more retard. Analyze this within context, women are fragile, they rear our children, and face great risk in the natural world. Now, men are stronger, more dominant, and have much less risk imposed on them by nature itself. Women already face enough risk as is, so why would they ever increase it? Men however develop much riskier behavior, they adopt much higher risk and higher reward strategies. Women first and foremost, must raise their children to be healthy and be a good mother. Men must provide for and protect their family from the dangers of the world. Thus men are forced into a biological routine of high risk, high IQ allows for this and the same is seen in personality traits (men are LOWER in agreeableness and neuroticism than women). Evolutionary speaking women do not need high IQ Intelligence as a whole is not useless to them, which is why they still maintain the average, but their social and biological being is not built upon the routines of a high IQ high risk strategy.
What does this implicate for the market at large? Women will take less risks in general and will tend toward the mean, regardless of external pressures. To market your product you must not deviate too far from the mean, and must make every effort to make it meld to the current social and cultural climate. Women are often criticized for following the crowd and not being willing to stray from the trends of today, but this is their fundamental routine. They must lay low and get with the program, the low risk play.

You now understand people like Jean Paul Gautier.

selling to women is all about advertising.

Sooo... for example with Crypto (just as an example, I'm eager to hear broader range of industries) we'd have to lie about volatility? Emphasize rewards?
We'd also need to normalize it I guess. Market materials showing everyday people laughing around a dinner party with "real people" quotations
>"Now that I invested in Buttcoin I can focus on the things I enjoy in life"

Or what you're saying about them being criticized for not following the crowd: should we sort of do a double think - portray it as edgy, new, unconventional but not so much that it feels risky and non-normalized as a social endeavor?

Kek

What does that even mean?

it means what youre shilling has to look cool and socially beneficial

To conclude (I'm rambling at this point)
women will go for the general "community" marketing whereas men will chase the focused interest. Women will choose to go into the crowd and meld and men will be more willing to leave and chase greater reward. This is already exploited (probably not deliberately) in formerly fringe mediums such as video games. Ultimately the video game as a product became a social and competitive medium allowing for overlap into the male and female market.
So for men: tailor a product to increasing their worth, competition, and high risk/reward
For women: make your product a social and bonding experience, and refrain from polarized fringe interests

If you make crypto about helping the unbanked and empowering refugees and other emotional slop roasties will eat it up.

women dont play vidya tho, they play shitty phone apps that call thrmselves "games".

I think the key to crypto is making including it within the class of current social trends. Make it something characteristic of the current generation and the zeitgeist of today. I think the way to do this is detach further from the past and make emphasize the future of the product. Women's innate neuroticism will make them avoid extremely volatile products so we need to offset that with acceptance of this as the new norm. I've seen a lot of hatred for the baby boomer generation and I think this should be exploited. Use them as a scapegoat, make crypto the Messiah. Make crypto "our thing" and women will flock. The how is the difficult part. Fortunately meme culture becoming mainstream has facilitated this but using it must avoid seeming disingenuous at all costs. One wrong step and women will see the crypto market as a scam and a risk, paying little attention to marketing.

women are followers, they wont give a shit about anything that doesnt have mainstream interest

I'm speaking statistically, sorry I should've stated this from the beginning. By and large, MUCH more women play games today than they did a decade ago. It is still few, but I believe this is a result of faulty marketing as I said earlier they addressed some issues indirectly. The market is currently in an artificial battle against a non existent sexist enemy. The simple truth is, they can design a product that caters women and exploits their interests. This however betrays their narrative and requires admitting defeat. This will happen sooner or later, the video game market right now is like a toy company not making dolls and painting jets pink and wondering why girls just continue to avoid it.

We need a book on this topic.

Something along the lines of how to market to Women, Old People, and Minorities.

>principal buying motivators
Makeup, hair, clothes, and alcohol and I'm not kidding. I have tried getting some females into... anything other than things that make them look good (objective) and it's hopeless. They don't like risks and want to be taken care of, even the tolerable ones. I was shilling ETH to a female family member back in May, one that would benefit greatly from a boost of income this year desu, and you know what she did? She went to the bar, told her friends, came back and said, "I'm literally retarded when it comes to this stuff and we just don't understand it." I told her last month how much the rest of us made in crypto this year and all I get was, "Geez." They don't even want to try. Sad. The women who are above basic consumerism and aren't slaves to advertisers are already invested, which probably isn't many if I'm going to assume.

Stop thinking /pol/ and cryptofags know anything about economics

>dude /pol/ lmao
alright

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Women make the majority of purchasing decisions for the household. If you don't know how to talk, or sell, to women then you don't know business.

cuntblasted roastie detected

>gets utterly btfo and doesn't have a reply
>a-angry roastie detected

...

That ship sailed decades ago. Now it's sinking, and ripe for plunder. It's an amoral calcutaion, sure. It also makes perfect sense. That's what this is about.

pathos, egos, logos is all you need

Entire companies exist to make money off women. Countless studies

I worked in a pharmacy for a few months. Cosmetics is the one of the MAJOR ways to make money off them.

I suppose clothes and clothing accesoires are too. Yesterday I was having a drink with one of these creatures and she told she was considering buying a $400 handbag.