October 22, 2007
Treating Businesswomen the Way They Shop
By Tom Ryan
Under a new Deloitte & Touche program, associates approach women clients differently than men’s based on lessons learned from observing women’s shopping behavior. The theory goes: just as women consumers shop differently than men, businesswomen shop for professional services differently than men.
After interviewing senior women execs and employees with TrendSight Group, an Illinois consulting firm, Deloitte found that the same discovery process women use when doing personal shopping applies to purchasing business services. For instance, a woman might go to a store to buy a black pair of pants but then buy something else or change her mind. Men, on the other hand, just focus on the black pants.
“Men think, ‘She’s so fickle’,” Cathy Benko, a Deloitte partner who runs the program, told The Wall Street Journal. But “she’s not fickle at all — she’s using this process of discovery.”
Among D&T’s suggestions to its associates:
- Don’t be frustrated if female clients reevaluate or modify their initial requests because women discover as they shop. On the positive side, women may be more receptive to suggestions about other services;
- Sharing personal details can help build trust because women clients want to know and trust their consultants personally as well as professionally;
- Women often prefer business lunches to dinners because they tend to have more responsibilities at home. If given sufficient time to make arrangements, they’ll be more receptive to evening social invitations;
- In terms of body language, men tend to stare as they listen and nod to signify they understand. Women may nod when they don’t yet understand to encourage the speaker to keep talking. Also, while consultants often purposely sit beside a male client as their “right hand man,” women are more comfortable seated face to face.
Ms. Benko says Deloitte doesn’t have statistics on whether the approach has won new business, but she said attendees have told her the training has helped them.
Deloitte’s new approach comes as women are increasingly taking on more decision making roles at corporations, although the Journal found companies haven’t systematically pitched women differently than men outside sponsored conferences and networking events.
The Journal article also points out that the method could easily backfire. While some women are likely to welcome the greater sensitivity behind the approach, others may see it as patronizing.
“It’s a great idea to pay attention to women as a people of influence,” said Meryle Mahrer Kaplan, a vice president at Catalyst, a research and advisory group on women in business. But “if stereotypes seep in there, that’s not helpful.”
Discussion Question: What do you think of utilizing shopper tendencies in approaching women decision makers in the business world? What do you think is useful in such an approach? What do you think are its challenges or shortcomings?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I agree with the findings and the comments above. But to me this is just common sense and certainly no great discovery.
Peter Fader’s comments make perfect sense. I couldn’t agree more.
Would it be impolitic of me to comment that this information is jaw-droppingly vacuous? Sorry, but those are my feeeeelings as I shop for meaning in a sound-bite age. Whatever happened to, “In the workplace, we want to be treated just like men?” Conveniently missing, I surmise, to support the POV of this topic.
The most successful women I know in business would be profoundly offended if they discovered that they were considered a “special circumstance” who had to be spoon fed information in a way that would help them to better understand. I’m not calling it “dumbing down,” but I can understand how a woman recipient could see it that way. It’s insulting.
As a female consultant that often has to represent the female shopper in strategic meetings, I applaud this strategic move. Their observations are dead on and I would very much appreciate being approached for business in this manner.
As an added note, a family member is a female executive at Deloitte and they put their money where their mouth is. She is underneath an executive program which is attempting to retain their female employees’ loyalty and long-term allegiance internally as well–and she adores it. Smart people.
Whether it’s in a retail environment or a professional environment, the critical skill to building a lasting relationship with a customer or client is making a meaningful connection with the customer/client. That connection must be based on a clear understanding of the customer/client’s needs, desires and decision-making process, as well as state-of-the-art product knowledge, and a genuine passion for the product or service being offered.
Like any retail interaction, it is entirely appropriate that any approach to a prospective customer/client in a professional setting should take into account the personal characteristics and interests of the individual.
Great study and great reading. Anyone who would not consider using some of the ideas presented is missing the boat. Most of the learning is applicable across many different lines. More and more, companies are beginning to treat their employees in the same way that they treat their customers and those companies are reducing turnover and improving productivity.
I’ll play the same old worn, tattered card that I’ve used in this forum many times before: the differences among women (or men, for that matter) are far greater than the differences between the “average” man and “average” woman. Coming up with a stereotypical story about the unique ways in which a woman shops is a big mistake. It greatly underestimates the vast differences that exist among women, and will end up catering to an “average” buyer who may not exist at all.
Marketers need to embrace this source of variability and fully understand it, instead of naively focusing on averages alone.
What would be wrong with learning about your prospective customer by asking a similar line of questions that would reveal tendencies, sensitivities, and desires, that would not matter which gender you were speaking to? Offering solutions based on the answers and the gender, would appear to be the most fair, ethical and least stereotypical way of satisfying a customer. This applies in professional, personal, and social occasions.
In an era of increasing demand from consumers for customization and personalization, focusing on the differences between male and female shoppers seems like a very small step. Differences don’t stop with being male and female. There are many more differences that need to be investigated.
Kudos to Deloitte for providing credible data and raising awareness of things many of us certainly believed to be true. Many years of a dual career marriage provide more support for this study than our household’s double Kellogg MBAs and 35 years of CPG experience could ever support. Certainly it is easy to believe that men and women are different and need to be treated differently. The hard part is acting on this insight in a way that is sustainable and improves relationships with all associates–internally and with customers.
As it pertains to retail, we consistently find that thinking about men and women differently is the first step. Then it is important to understand that attitudinal differences vary greatly within each gender. The key is to identify the attitudes of our unique target, whether for employment or business development, and to develop custom solutions to meet the needs of each group. All business women aren’t the same, just like all shoppers are not the same.
Except for luxury retailers, almost all US retail stores are self-service, so the Deloitte study might not be very helpful. Well-run luxury retailers generally know how to treat shoppers, regardless of gender. Poorly-run luxury retailers (car dealers, for example) treat everyone badly and haven’t changed their behavior for decades. Furthermore, Deloitte is training its staff because they don’t expect 100% annual turnover, which is the common of experience of most non-luxury retailers.
Ah, Deloitte and Touche’s study demonstrates that men and woman are different. Under a separate study, they also concluded that water is wet.
Seriously, I do feel that this is important from a directional perspective. Not so much in the specifics of businesswomen’s shopping behaviour but that a shoppers mind-set is key to enhancing the shopping experience and driving increases in transaction size and customer loyalty.
Now we need to extend this to approaches to merchandising, staff interactions with shoppers, promotions and the complex matrix of in-store communications with store demographics, locations…even down to day-parts.
I applaud this research and new training approach at Deloitte, but am also wondering–would any of the things they learned in their research (that women make decisions through a perhaps-longer “discovery” process and prefer face to face meetings, for example) send a man packing? Women may be tougher customers, but perhaps if you learn to serve their longer discovery process, you’ll end up serving men much better too. So, I’m not so sure you need to serve women and men differently. Rather, make the higher, more-involved/engaged approach that came about from the Deloitte study, for instance, the standard for your excellence–and use it to reach both men and women.
At this point, a lot of companies are still using the traditional/male-oriented model and no longer serving anyone very well. If you want the customer’s attention, you need to go way above and beyond what they’ve long since experienced and resolved to expect from every company they come across.
Resist generalizations since differences abound by age, gender, interests etc. To me, this research emphasizes the importance of focusing on customer needs-both male and female.
Glad to see attention being paid to the fact that people are different and sales forces must use great listening and client understanding techniques to relate to all their customers.
Frankly, some of the elements of the report are about relating better to people in general, which some say is a traditionally “female” skill. Not sure I buy it all. The article missed the #1 difference I see between professional women, especially moms, and our male colleagues. TIME. There is none, so doing things faster for us may be more important than all the tips in the article.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
I agree with the findings and the comments above. But to me this is just common sense and certainly no great discovery.
Peter Fader’s comments make perfect sense. I couldn’t agree more.
Would it be impolitic of me to comment that this information is jaw-droppingly vacuous? Sorry, but those are my feeeeelings as I shop for meaning in a sound-bite age. Whatever happened to, “In the workplace, we want to be treated just like men?” Conveniently missing, I surmise, to support the POV of this topic.
The most successful women I know in business would be profoundly offended if they discovered that they were considered a “special circumstance” who had to be spoon fed information in a way that would help them to better understand. I’m not calling it “dumbing down,” but I can understand how a woman recipient could see it that way. It’s insulting.
As a female consultant that often has to represent the female shopper in strategic meetings, I applaud this strategic move. Their observations are dead on and I would very much appreciate being approached for business in this manner.
As an added note, a family member is a female executive at Deloitte and they put their money where their mouth is. She is underneath an executive program which is attempting to retain their female employees’ loyalty and long-term allegiance internally as well–and she adores it. Smart people.
Whether it’s in a retail environment or a professional environment, the critical skill to building a lasting relationship with a customer or client is making a meaningful connection with the customer/client. That connection must be based on a clear understanding of the customer/client’s needs, desires and decision-making process, as well as state-of-the-art product knowledge, and a genuine passion for the product or service being offered.
Like any retail interaction, it is entirely appropriate that any approach to a prospective customer/client in a professional setting should take into account the personal characteristics and interests of the individual.
Great study and great reading. Anyone who would not consider using some of the ideas presented is missing the boat. Most of the learning is applicable across many different lines. More and more, companies are beginning to treat their employees in the same way that they treat their customers and those companies are reducing turnover and improving productivity.
I’ll play the same old worn, tattered card that I’ve used in this forum many times before: the differences among women (or men, for that matter) are far greater than the differences between the “average” man and “average” woman. Coming up with a stereotypical story about the unique ways in which a woman shops is a big mistake. It greatly underestimates the vast differences that exist among women, and will end up catering to an “average” buyer who may not exist at all.
Marketers need to embrace this source of variability and fully understand it, instead of naively focusing on averages alone.
What would be wrong with learning about your prospective customer by asking a similar line of questions that would reveal tendencies, sensitivities, and desires, that would not matter which gender you were speaking to? Offering solutions based on the answers and the gender, would appear to be the most fair, ethical and least stereotypical way of satisfying a customer. This applies in professional, personal, and social occasions.
In an era of increasing demand from consumers for customization and personalization, focusing on the differences between male and female shoppers seems like a very small step. Differences don’t stop with being male and female. There are many more differences that need to be investigated.
Kudos to Deloitte for providing credible data and raising awareness of things many of us certainly believed to be true. Many years of a dual career marriage provide more support for this study than our household’s double Kellogg MBAs and 35 years of CPG experience could ever support. Certainly it is easy to believe that men and women are different and need to be treated differently. The hard part is acting on this insight in a way that is sustainable and improves relationships with all associates–internally and with customers.
As it pertains to retail, we consistently find that thinking about men and women differently is the first step. Then it is important to understand that attitudinal differences vary greatly within each gender. The key is to identify the attitudes of our unique target, whether for employment or business development, and to develop custom solutions to meet the needs of each group. All business women aren’t the same, just like all shoppers are not the same.
Except for luxury retailers, almost all US retail stores are self-service, so the Deloitte study might not be very helpful. Well-run luxury retailers generally know how to treat shoppers, regardless of gender. Poorly-run luxury retailers (car dealers, for example) treat everyone badly and haven’t changed their behavior for decades. Furthermore, Deloitte is training its staff because they don’t expect 100% annual turnover, which is the common of experience of most non-luxury retailers.
Ah, Deloitte and Touche’s study demonstrates that men and woman are different. Under a separate study, they also concluded that water is wet.
Seriously, I do feel that this is important from a directional perspective. Not so much in the specifics of businesswomen’s shopping behaviour but that a shoppers mind-set is key to enhancing the shopping experience and driving increases in transaction size and customer loyalty.
Now we need to extend this to approaches to merchandising, staff interactions with shoppers, promotions and the complex matrix of in-store communications with store demographics, locations…even down to day-parts.
I applaud this research and new training approach at Deloitte, but am also wondering–would any of the things they learned in their research (that women make decisions through a perhaps-longer “discovery” process and prefer face to face meetings, for example) send a man packing? Women may be tougher customers, but perhaps if you learn to serve their longer discovery process, you’ll end up serving men much better too. So, I’m not so sure you need to serve women and men differently. Rather, make the higher, more-involved/engaged approach that came about from the Deloitte study, for instance, the standard for your excellence–and use it to reach both men and women.
At this point, a lot of companies are still using the traditional/male-oriented model and no longer serving anyone very well. If you want the customer’s attention, you need to go way above and beyond what they’ve long since experienced and resolved to expect from every company they come across.
Resist generalizations since differences abound by age, gender, interests etc. To me, this research emphasizes the importance of focusing on customer needs-both male and female.
Glad to see attention being paid to the fact that people are different and sales forces must use great listening and client understanding techniques to relate to all their customers.
Frankly, some of the elements of the report are about relating better to people in general, which some say is a traditionally “female” skill. Not sure I buy it all. The article missed the #1 difference I see between professional women, especially moms, and our male colleagues. TIME. There is none, so doing things faster for us may be more important than all the tips in the article.