I just finished a book called SheMarketing: the science of marketing to women by Amanda Stevens. I bought it several months ago, but saw it on my shelf two nights ago and decided I should actually read it!

It's quite funny that because I'm a woman and a marketer, I probably thought at least subconsciously, ‘What can this book teach me?', but reading it helped me slow down and think about the mental processes involved in marketing. That served to give me a fresh outlook.

What I found most interesting about the book is it explored the neurological aspects of the differences between men and women. It also provided segmentation information based on lifestyle stages and provided concrete examples of the do's and don'ts of marketing to women. It also keenly reminded me of the information I greedily absorbed during my Consumer Behaviour studies. From what I remember though, they definitely need to revise the sections on psychographics to include some of the techniques mentioned in this book, but that's a topic for another post!

It made me smile when Amanda indicated that some marketers (presumably male) still think of women as a niche. How on earth can more than half of the population be a niche, especially when they purportedly at least influence 80% of purchase decisions? That kind of thinking is probably on the don't list!

SO, in summary, this book will definitely remain on my marketing bookshelf as a reference, both for its inherent usefulness, but also simply because it encouraged me to ‘think pink'.

PS  I've just noticed that the cover is, indeed, pink, but Amanda does caution companies against thinking that turning a product pink will automatically endear them to women.

I was rather bemused yesterday when I logged in to Twitter as everyone was foaming at the mouth about the seemingly innocuous rebranding of ... an iconic Aussie brand that's ... owned by an American company.

Correction: A friend just pointed out that Kraft hasn't changed the original vegemite to iSnack 2.0. They've actually come up with another version of it (probably as icky! sorry ... but I'm not a fan), but I think the rest of this article still stands! Send hate mail ... somewhere else.

First of all, Kraft would have to mental to not realise that Aussies are not happy about a foreign, especially American, company buying their true blue brand.

There is almost nothing that's more Aussie than vegemite. It's one of those things that you're pretty much either raised on from birth or you just don't get it.

Now, there are Aussies that don't like vegemite, but they're forced to skulk on the edges of humanity and are viewed the same way as 'that' Uncle who turns up half-pissed to every holiday and spends his time alternating scratching himself and chasing the cat. If you don't have that sort of Uncle, you might want to make sure you're not that Uncle!

But I digress ...

Kraft apparently chose from a wide range of names and decided that iSnack 2.0 would be the best one to connect with its target market because it's so ... hip and happening, you know?

Apart from hitching its wagon to another brand's flagship, it just reminded Aussies of the foreign ownership link because it doesn't sound Aussie and just smacks of commercialism.

Did they do any testing for this? I mean, who's going to say, 'Hey, luv, can you pass the iSnack 2.0?'

It just doesn't work.

And I think Kraft is belatedly finding that out.

Boy, I really cannot wait to hear what the next name will be ... Stay tuned!

Reference: http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/unhappy-little-vegemites-vent-their-fury-over-isnack-20-20090928-g997.html