January 16, 2007
Women Without Men
The bestselling book, Are Men Necessary?, by Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, took playful jabs (for the most part) at men seeking to find their way in a society where women are increasingly independent. The answer to Ms. Dowd’s book title, despite attempts in some circles to characterize it as an attack on traditional values and the family, is men are indeed necessary.
While men everywhere can take comfort in knowing they’re worth keeping around, Census Bureau numbers show that, for the first time, more women in the U.S. are without a husband than those that are married.
In 2005, 51 percent of adult females lived in households without a spouse. That was up from 49 percent in 2000.
Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, told The New York Times, “This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives. Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”
William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, said, “For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage. Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with non-married partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”
Age, said Dr. Frey, also plays a factor in the Census Bureau numbers. “Since women continue to outlive men, they have reached the non-marital tipping point – more non-married than married,” he said. “This suggests that most girls growing up today can look forward to spending more of their lives outside of a traditional marriage.”
While more women are living without a spouse, the same is not true of men, where 53 percent are married.
The reason the numbers seem to be at odds is partly because men “remarry more quickly than women after a divorce,” according to Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center.
Discussion Question: How are non-traditional families affecting society and the retailing business?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
First of all, thank you Ryan for making that comment in a much more civil manner than I would have!!!
I may be the sole voice of dissent here, but I just don’t get it. I certainly do not argue that non-traditional families are growing in number. But does a woman shop differently if she happens to have a ring on her left hand than if she does not? Does Sears have to do anything differently for a woman who is buying a chain saw than for a man who is buying a chain saw? I think both would expect a sales person who knew the benefits of the different products and provided basic good customer service.
Perhaps the one place I see change is with the increase of quality pre-made meals available at grocery stores and delis. I think this is more of a product of people’s hectic lives rather than the make up of the family unit, although I would suppose that single parent households would have lives that are a bit more hectic than where there are two adults at home.
I don’t believe things have really changed that much. Just because a woman is not married does not mean she is living without a man. When she goes on a date, who pays? Probably a man. Who is paying her rent or mortgage? Probably a man. Who is providing her with employment? Probably a man.
Do we ever hear of a woman who gets divorced and pays her ex-husband alimony? Maybe in Hollywood. Go down to the social services office at your nearest county courthouse. You will see waiting rooms full of women complaining there is no man to take care of them. They might not be married but independence from a man is the last thing they want. If a man walked in and complained he didn’t have a woman to support him, he would be laughed out of the office. However there are multitudes of government programs that are designed to be surrogate substitutes for a husband. Most women are married, just not in a traditional manner. Boyfriends, fathers, other women’s husbands, or Uncle Sam, it’s just another kind of husband.
In every issue of RetailWire I read, the one thing that keeps coming up is the only thing that is constant in today’s world: change, and this is just another example.
Two points that were not made in the article or in the other comments are: 1. Even though more women are living alone and are the sole support of either themselves or their family, they are still in most cases earning less money then there male counterpart in the same position. 2. Younger women in this country are beginning to do a better job of preparing themselves to compete in today’s new information age labor market by graduating from institutions of higher learning at a greater rate then there male counterparts.
Women already have a major say in most buying decisions and their methods of buying and thinking are going to have a major effect on retailers.
The emergence of solo women has been under the radar for awhile but in the meantime, these women have been taking note of which brands are at least attempting to stay relevant. An interesting batch of books has been published lately to give us more insight: “Singled Out” by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D.(a psychologist and professor) is the latest; and “What Women Really Want” by Celinda Lake and Kellyanne Conway (pollsters who cite “Singular Sensations as the number one trend for women today) and “The New Single Woman” by E.Kay Trimberger (which is a more sociological look based on interviews over quite some years with a variety of single women.)
I’ve been studying the marketing implications of this for the last year or so, and have found that, like marketing to women in general, paying attention to single women doesn’t necessarily mean you have to change your approach completely or start a separate initiative. Rather, reflect your awareness of them by providing more single serving/smaller size products, put the occasional single woman in an ad for your store, teach staff not to look over a woman’s shoulder for the man who will “really” be making the decision — and so on.
One example I blogged about this past year was the Ford “Bold Moves” ad for their new-ish Freestyle SUV. The story is of a family at the beach together. At the end of the day, the man is dropped off at his apartment and the kids say “bye dad.” That’s reality in many cases — so just by having one ad that represents a divorced family, Ford showed that they were aware of single moms and dads.
Another, more recognizable ad, perhaps, was the whole “right hand ring” campaign from DeBeers diamonds. I’d guess they have found that to be a big success.
This is definitely a market worth studying.
The impact on retailers is a continuation of the current trends. One box for all does not work. Just has we have women’s and men’s apparel stores, there will be some greater segmentation by other retailers. Lowe’s has done well by including a female focus in their stores, which Home Depot has not.
Women living on their own (unpartnered) makes the biggest difference in behavior. Here’s why. There was ALSO a New York Times article this week outlining women’s use of out-right cash to make purchases, especially luxury purchases. This occurred at all ends of the income scale, even among billionaires, and even if the woman earns her own independently-supporting income. The reason women gave: They don’t want to have to explain or justify why they spent $1000 on a pair of shoes to their partner. They just don’t want to have the discussion. So they pay in cash.
It seems to me, then, that the women who live in partnership with a man would have different spending habits than those living on their own. They certainly use a different financial mechanism, which would change the way data is collected. Therefore, I would be curious to know the percentage of unmarried women living on their own without a male spouse or partner. This is the data that would affect spending habits.
(Note: I have no idea if lesbian couples hide their spending. It’s another point, but probably not as important statistically.)
I’d like to know what a “traditional” family is. Let’s look at the facts: 40 percent of births last year were outside of a “traditional” marriage; households of one are the fastest growing household units; there are more unmarried women than married ones; the divorce rate is still hanging near the 50 percent mark; and multigenerational households (three or more generations under one roof) are making a comeback in non-ethnic demographic segments. Add to that the number of openly gay and lesbian households, the rise of virtual families online and the likelihood that in the future we’ll see the rise of unrelated geriatric women living at the same address and I’m hard pressed to understand the question.
The family, like every other institutional social construct is constantly evolving. Our unwillingness to accept this evolution (and in particular the increasing speed of this evolution) severely limits our ability to effectively respond to change. We need to tear down the distinctions between the way the world is and the way we would prefer it was if we are ever going to be effective marketers again. The irony is that the supermarket, the convenience store, the club store and the chain drug store are all responses to profound social change. Of course the retail revolution was like all revolutions — the first casualties were the truly revolutionary thinkers.
Another statistic recently released by the Census Bureau: the percentage of households comprised of married couples has, for the first time, fallen below 50%.
Marriage is alive and well (more than 90% of us eventually marry), but whether you have been aware of it or not, a majority of your customers, clients, employees, suppliers, etc. come from non-traditional households, and that’s been true for many years (especially if you define a traditional household as a first-marriage couple with kids under 18 living at home).
These demographic trends are having an effect on all of your operations, and the success or failure of all of your business strategies. It behooves you to be aware of them, see the effects, and leverage them to strengthen your business.
“I am Powerful!” According to the CARE organization (www.care.org) that is the strong rallying point for women around the world. CARE is oriented mostly to helping women in impoverished and difficult circumstances — but this will be the mantra for women in all walks of life everywhere. It’s not a ‘battle’ cry because I think women aren’t interested in fighting with men anymore, they’re redefining the game.
In Canada, for instance, where over 20% of women live in communities under 1,000 people, there is a movement to encourage those women to establish their own businesses and provide the resources needed for them to do it successfully. It just makes economic and cultural sense…and it’s not a bad political move either.
In the US we still see editorials questioning if America is “ready” for a female president. Do we need to grow up?! Of course we wonder if we’re “ready” for a black president too. What, are we still in the 16th century?
I’m afraid that a good part of the retail mindset is stubbornly stuck in the male as chief purchasing officer mode. Nothing could be further from the truth, which we’ve known for a long time. Women think and process things differently than men. Women find different things funny than men do. Retailers need to take a hard look at who their marketing, store design, buying practices, sales training etc. are aimed at and make adjustments accordingly. What we don’t want is a huge swing of the pendulum where men are minimized, though many think that wouldn’t be a bad idea for a short time, at least. Some grand day we’ll figure this all out and live happily ever after.
The fact that we are examining “non-traditional” families reflects society’s desire to redefine the norm. Non-traditional families are today; they are not blips on a screen.
“Family” — how one defines one’s household — has evolved to include many more flavors than vanilla. The good news regarding the evolving definition; communities should be more tolerant of variation.
For the food business, this is a good opportunity to support the needs reflected by the various household configurations. The rules regarding what one eats and who prepares it have evolved as the demographics in the households have changed. Retailers have the opportunity to serve their communities as food educators (safe handling and good nutrition) as well as meal solution providers.
Moving at a snails pace, most retailers and now restaurateurs have figured out that time-stressed parents, single or a couple, need and want easy and nutritious meal options for on-the-go or eat-in dining. Elderly individuals desire nutritious, easy to prepare or take-away meals.
There are still plenty of challenges and opportunities. For example, individuals living alone might desire smaller item options, which are still rare at retail. Just as food (knock wood) remains central to life, understanding the consumer’s needs and then doing something about it continues to be the key to growing sales at retail.
Yet again, I have to deviate from the standard view of retailers’ duty to customers. It is not to identify a narrow target audience and be there for them come hell or high water. It is, I believe, to offer a selection from which any and all may choose as and when what is on offer suits their particular needs.
There always have been and always will be so many variables in a lifetime, that I cannot help feeling uncomfortable with the principle of targeted marketing. I understand the idea behind it – saving money while making money (is this what they mean by increasing productivity?) but it always feels too much like trying to box people in when they really can’t or shouldn’t be.
Women may live with a spouse or unmarried partner, with or without children or parents, possibly even alone. This doesn’t mean that they always shop for themselves alone. Most people, of both genders, live their lives participating in a range of relationships and generally shop for all sorts of products that affect or are affected by those relationships. The relationships and shopping patterns may change but trying to generalise about how to shape an entire industry around shifting demographic patterns (which will never stop shifting no matter what we may think) is nonsense.
The best marketplace is and always will be the one offering the best products at the most reasonable (and I mean that in relation to the product itself, not in terms of cheapness) prices. If retailers can achieve that then they will always have customers even if those customers may change and not be easily identifiable. And it won’t matter two hoots how families and households are populated.
Fewer marriages means fewer divorces. Fewer divorces means that men will have more disposable income and more women will be seeking jobs in retail. Retailers can then market more heavily to men and hire more women.
First, let’s set the record straight on the reason that the numbers are “at odds” with 49% of women and 53% of men being married. Since there are an equal number of men and women who are married at any given time, the reason for the discrepancy is simply that there are more adult women than men.
The largest impact of this particular trend on retailers would probably be that with greater numbers of men living without women, men will be making a larger percentage of the purchasing decisions that have traditionally been made by women. My guess would be that the average guy without female influence in the home is going to spend more on things with axles and pixels, food and drink (slightly offset by free appetizers at happy hour) and less on clothing and home fashions.
There are many other, probably more important, demographic trends surrounding the marriage/family issue that are not clarified in this article that will also affect retailers.
I will also give my thanks to Ryan–you were kind.
While generally reading both the articles and many of the comments, I remain convinced that there are too many in retail thinking about things that simply don’t matter rather than focusing on the things that really do. karenk’s comments stand out far from the remaining that are nearly nonsensical.
When so few retailers execute well on the basics, it matters not if the customer is a lesbian or a married man with four kids. The basic needs, expectations and lifestyle (and not that type of lifestyle) changes impact most all of the consuming public regardless of the bucket you’d like to put people in.
While I’ve continuously enjoyed these conversations, been inspired by what I’ve learned, gained respect for divergent views and been caused to take thought–this one had very little value. I’m thankful for karenk for finally making sense.
From those single parents I know, the hectic in their lives is multiplied by the fact that they do not have a partner to share the household duties with. Finding ways to help these people (women and men both) save time and look after their families (prepared meals at a reasonable cost with real nutritional value for example) is key.
But, beyond what has been written here, there are many types of “non-traditional” families. Perhaps the biggest increase in such households that I’ve noticed within my small social sphere are the number of grandparents that are now the heads of multi-generational households.
To address a previous post, many women who are heads of non-traditional households have never even seen the inside of a social services office and have not looked to the government to be a surrogate anything.
Conversely, there are plenty of men in society looking have someone take care of them (mother, girlfriend, wife) while sliding by without much thought to taking on the responsibilities of adulthood. We may not hear of many women who have to pay alimony, but we do hear plenty of men who should be paying child support or skip out.
In the future, let’s try to refrain from the social commentary unless we can make a clear connection to retailing. That’s why we’re here.
No doubt about it — women are less dependent on men in their lives. My wife has been telling me this for years! (She just keeps me around for laughs.) So how are non-traditional family units affecting society and retail? For one, women are much more a central or even pivotal customer to reach. They are independent, empowered and making decisions for themselves. They have spending power; they are making independent decisions as to purchases, career, lifestyle and as such are changing society. Businesses need to recognize this fact (difficult since so many have an entrenched male-dominated mentality) and adopt a more intelligent marketing approach that recognizes and capitalizes on a non-traditional target audience. There are many business sectors for whom independent women and/or non-traditional customers have changed business fundamentals: automobile manufacturing & dealers, banking, real estate, financial planning & investments and travel are some that come to mind. We now have gay & lesbian cruises and investment clubs for women. And, as someone earlier pointed out, Lowe’s more female-friendly approach has given them an advantage vs Home Depot. Marketers are now producing package sizes that are scaled down for single consumption occasions; grocery retailers have improved their convenience and deli sections to cater to non-traditional households on the go. It’s obvious that a “one size fits all” approach is totally out of touch for todays lifestyle and demographics.
Just a quick note to David. I’m guessing that after reading your posting there are any number of single, working women out there who are baffled by the fact that they still have to write those pesky old rent/mortgage checks themselves! And, while I’m forced to agree that the U.S. government does suffer a bit from an overabundance of paternalistic thinking, I think it’s unfair to say that it represents “a man.” And–shocking as it may seem–I’ve actually met a fair number of women who (gasp) didn’t need or even want a man to support them. Finally, as to alimony–check the stats on how many divorces result in no alimony decree at all. I think you’ll find the number is climbing fast. The world is changing and women are exercising the full economic independence they’ve been denied in the past.
From a data perspective, tracking of demographics typically focuses mostly on number of people in the household, number of kids, ethnic background, income levels, rural or urban (some of your more “traditional” demographic variables). But many of the demographics that Ryan refers to aren’t being tracked. A single mother of 4, that is probably working one or two jobs, and is away from home for most or all of the day, with kids in daycare, will have different shopping habits than a married woman with 4 kids, who doesn’t work. A single woman who is working is going to spending her money on different things than a married woman.
It is important for 3rd party demographic data suppliers to be responsive to these changing demographics, and not measure only “traditional” demographic factors in a “non-traditional” and changing environment. In the example above with the “mothers of 4”, these 2 families are probably bucketed into the same “Large Household with Kids” demographics, despite some huge differences in their shopping behaviors and patterns.
Retailers also have to understand who their (changing) target consumer is, who their core consumer is, and how to meet their changing needs. For those who can figure out how to tune in to the changing consumer and their needs, they will win in the retail environment (for both suppliers and retailers).
My “ah ha” from all of this is that we are in a fluid society, one where the need-benefit sets are constantly in flux, just as lifestyles and life choices are constantly in flux.
A retailer, as a marketer, might see this as a requirement to be dynamic — to constantly question the assumptions about who shops for which products and why. Segmentation schemes are necessary. The real question is how long are they valid?
The information quoted was strictly data. The inferential commentary from other panelists has been extraordinary. That there are more unmarried than married women…what does that mean with regard to how they live? What insight does this give into entertainment choices, discretionary spending trends and lifestyle identification?
The only real answer is to develop new paradigms, test them against observed behavior and then keep testing them for validity. The one thing we know is that the old paradigms fit the old data.
More and more employers are granting benefits to domestic partners, regardless of gender. The Human Rights Campaign 2006 reported that 51% of the Fortune 500 now grant benefits to domestic partners. Serving customers is a retailer’s major focus. When compensation and benefits fall behind, great service is less likely.
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
First of all, thank you Ryan for making that comment in a much more civil manner than I would have!!!
I may be the sole voice of dissent here, but I just don’t get it. I certainly do not argue that non-traditional families are growing in number. But does a woman shop differently if she happens to have a ring on her left hand than if she does not? Does Sears have to do anything differently for a woman who is buying a chain saw than for a man who is buying a chain saw? I think both would expect a sales person who knew the benefits of the different products and provided basic good customer service.
Perhaps the one place I see change is with the increase of quality pre-made meals available at grocery stores and delis. I think this is more of a product of people’s hectic lives rather than the make up of the family unit, although I would suppose that single parent households would have lives that are a bit more hectic than where there are two adults at home.
I don’t believe things have really changed that much. Just because a woman is not married does not mean she is living without a man. When she goes on a date, who pays? Probably a man. Who is paying her rent or mortgage? Probably a man. Who is providing her with employment? Probably a man.
Do we ever hear of a woman who gets divorced and pays her ex-husband alimony? Maybe in Hollywood. Go down to the social services office at your nearest county courthouse. You will see waiting rooms full of women complaining there is no man to take care of them. They might not be married but independence from a man is the last thing they want. If a man walked in and complained he didn’t have a woman to support him, he would be laughed out of the office. However there are multitudes of government programs that are designed to be surrogate substitutes for a husband. Most women are married, just not in a traditional manner. Boyfriends, fathers, other women’s husbands, or Uncle Sam, it’s just another kind of husband.
In every issue of RetailWire I read, the one thing that keeps coming up is the only thing that is constant in today’s world: change, and this is just another example.
Two points that were not made in the article or in the other comments are: 1. Even though more women are living alone and are the sole support of either themselves or their family, they are still in most cases earning less money then there male counterpart in the same position. 2. Younger women in this country are beginning to do a better job of preparing themselves to compete in today’s new information age labor market by graduating from institutions of higher learning at a greater rate then there male counterparts.
Women already have a major say in most buying decisions and their methods of buying and thinking are going to have a major effect on retailers.
The emergence of solo women has been under the radar for awhile but in the meantime, these women have been taking note of which brands are at least attempting to stay relevant. An interesting batch of books has been published lately to give us more insight: “Singled Out” by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D.(a psychologist and professor) is the latest; and “What Women Really Want” by Celinda Lake and Kellyanne Conway (pollsters who cite “Singular Sensations as the number one trend for women today) and “The New Single Woman” by E.Kay Trimberger (which is a more sociological look based on interviews over quite some years with a variety of single women.)
I’ve been studying the marketing implications of this for the last year or so, and have found that, like marketing to women in general, paying attention to single women doesn’t necessarily mean you have to change your approach completely or start a separate initiative. Rather, reflect your awareness of them by providing more single serving/smaller size products, put the occasional single woman in an ad for your store, teach staff not to look over a woman’s shoulder for the man who will “really” be making the decision — and so on.
One example I blogged about this past year was the Ford “Bold Moves” ad for their new-ish Freestyle SUV. The story is of a family at the beach together. At the end of the day, the man is dropped off at his apartment and the kids say “bye dad.” That’s reality in many cases — so just by having one ad that represents a divorced family, Ford showed that they were aware of single moms and dads.
Another, more recognizable ad, perhaps, was the whole “right hand ring” campaign from DeBeers diamonds. I’d guess they have found that to be a big success.
This is definitely a market worth studying.
The impact on retailers is a continuation of the current trends. One box for all does not work. Just has we have women’s and men’s apparel stores, there will be some greater segmentation by other retailers. Lowe’s has done well by including a female focus in their stores, which Home Depot has not.
Women living on their own (unpartnered) makes the biggest difference in behavior. Here’s why. There was ALSO a New York Times article this week outlining women’s use of out-right cash to make purchases, especially luxury purchases. This occurred at all ends of the income scale, even among billionaires, and even if the woman earns her own independently-supporting income. The reason women gave: They don’t want to have to explain or justify why they spent $1000 on a pair of shoes to their partner. They just don’t want to have the discussion. So they pay in cash.
It seems to me, then, that the women who live in partnership with a man would have different spending habits than those living on their own. They certainly use a different financial mechanism, which would change the way data is collected. Therefore, I would be curious to know the percentage of unmarried women living on their own without a male spouse or partner. This is the data that would affect spending habits.
(Note: I have no idea if lesbian couples hide their spending. It’s another point, but probably not as important statistically.)
I’d like to know what a “traditional” family is. Let’s look at the facts: 40 percent of births last year were outside of a “traditional” marriage; households of one are the fastest growing household units; there are more unmarried women than married ones; the divorce rate is still hanging near the 50 percent mark; and multigenerational households (three or more generations under one roof) are making a comeback in non-ethnic demographic segments. Add to that the number of openly gay and lesbian households, the rise of virtual families online and the likelihood that in the future we’ll see the rise of unrelated geriatric women living at the same address and I’m hard pressed to understand the question.
The family, like every other institutional social construct is constantly evolving. Our unwillingness to accept this evolution (and in particular the increasing speed of this evolution) severely limits our ability to effectively respond to change. We need to tear down the distinctions between the way the world is and the way we would prefer it was if we are ever going to be effective marketers again. The irony is that the supermarket, the convenience store, the club store and the chain drug store are all responses to profound social change. Of course the retail revolution was like all revolutions — the first casualties were the truly revolutionary thinkers.
Another statistic recently released by the Census Bureau: the percentage of households comprised of married couples has, for the first time, fallen below 50%.
Marriage is alive and well (more than 90% of us eventually marry), but whether you have been aware of it or not, a majority of your customers, clients, employees, suppliers, etc. come from non-traditional households, and that’s been true for many years (especially if you define a traditional household as a first-marriage couple with kids under 18 living at home).
These demographic trends are having an effect on all of your operations, and the success or failure of all of your business strategies. It behooves you to be aware of them, see the effects, and leverage them to strengthen your business.
“I am Powerful!” According to the CARE organization (www.care.org) that is the strong rallying point for women around the world. CARE is oriented mostly to helping women in impoverished and difficult circumstances — but this will be the mantra for women in all walks of life everywhere. It’s not a ‘battle’ cry because I think women aren’t interested in fighting with men anymore, they’re redefining the game.
In Canada, for instance, where over 20% of women live in communities under 1,000 people, there is a movement to encourage those women to establish their own businesses and provide the resources needed for them to do it successfully. It just makes economic and cultural sense…and it’s not a bad political move either.
In the US we still see editorials questioning if America is “ready” for a female president. Do we need to grow up?! Of course we wonder if we’re “ready” for a black president too. What, are we still in the 16th century?
I’m afraid that a good part of the retail mindset is stubbornly stuck in the male as chief purchasing officer mode. Nothing could be further from the truth, which we’ve known for a long time. Women think and process things differently than men. Women find different things funny than men do. Retailers need to take a hard look at who their marketing, store design, buying practices, sales training etc. are aimed at and make adjustments accordingly. What we don’t want is a huge swing of the pendulum where men are minimized, though many think that wouldn’t be a bad idea for a short time, at least. Some grand day we’ll figure this all out and live happily ever after.
The fact that we are examining “non-traditional” families reflects society’s desire to redefine the norm. Non-traditional families are today; they are not blips on a screen.
“Family” — how one defines one’s household — has evolved to include many more flavors than vanilla. The good news regarding the evolving definition; communities should be more tolerant of variation.
For the food business, this is a good opportunity to support the needs reflected by the various household configurations. The rules regarding what one eats and who prepares it have evolved as the demographics in the households have changed. Retailers have the opportunity to serve their communities as food educators (safe handling and good nutrition) as well as meal solution providers.
Moving at a snails pace, most retailers and now restaurateurs have figured out that time-stressed parents, single or a couple, need and want easy and nutritious meal options for on-the-go or eat-in dining. Elderly individuals desire nutritious, easy to prepare or take-away meals.
There are still plenty of challenges and opportunities. For example, individuals living alone might desire smaller item options, which are still rare at retail. Just as food (knock wood) remains central to life, understanding the consumer’s needs and then doing something about it continues to be the key to growing sales at retail.
Yet again, I have to deviate from the standard view of retailers’ duty to customers. It is not to identify a narrow target audience and be there for them come hell or high water. It is, I believe, to offer a selection from which any and all may choose as and when what is on offer suits their particular needs.
There always have been and always will be so many variables in a lifetime, that I cannot help feeling uncomfortable with the principle of targeted marketing. I understand the idea behind it – saving money while making money (is this what they mean by increasing productivity?) but it always feels too much like trying to box people in when they really can’t or shouldn’t be.
Women may live with a spouse or unmarried partner, with or without children or parents, possibly even alone. This doesn’t mean that they always shop for themselves alone. Most people, of both genders, live their lives participating in a range of relationships and generally shop for all sorts of products that affect or are affected by those relationships. The relationships and shopping patterns may change but trying to generalise about how to shape an entire industry around shifting demographic patterns (which will never stop shifting no matter what we may think) is nonsense.
The best marketplace is and always will be the one offering the best products at the most reasonable (and I mean that in relation to the product itself, not in terms of cheapness) prices. If retailers can achieve that then they will always have customers even if those customers may change and not be easily identifiable. And it won’t matter two hoots how families and households are populated.
Fewer marriages means fewer divorces. Fewer divorces means that men will have more disposable income and more women will be seeking jobs in retail. Retailers can then market more heavily to men and hire more women.
First, let’s set the record straight on the reason that the numbers are “at odds” with 49% of women and 53% of men being married. Since there are an equal number of men and women who are married at any given time, the reason for the discrepancy is simply that there are more adult women than men.
The largest impact of this particular trend on retailers would probably be that with greater numbers of men living without women, men will be making a larger percentage of the purchasing decisions that have traditionally been made by women. My guess would be that the average guy without female influence in the home is going to spend more on things with axles and pixels, food and drink (slightly offset by free appetizers at happy hour) and less on clothing and home fashions.
There are many other, probably more important, demographic trends surrounding the marriage/family issue that are not clarified in this article that will also affect retailers.
I will also give my thanks to Ryan–you were kind.
While generally reading both the articles and many of the comments, I remain convinced that there are too many in retail thinking about things that simply don’t matter rather than focusing on the things that really do. karenk’s comments stand out far from the remaining that are nearly nonsensical.
When so few retailers execute well on the basics, it matters not if the customer is a lesbian or a married man with four kids. The basic needs, expectations and lifestyle (and not that type of lifestyle) changes impact most all of the consuming public regardless of the bucket you’d like to put people in.
While I’ve continuously enjoyed these conversations, been inspired by what I’ve learned, gained respect for divergent views and been caused to take thought–this one had very little value. I’m thankful for karenk for finally making sense.
From those single parents I know, the hectic in their lives is multiplied by the fact that they do not have a partner to share the household duties with. Finding ways to help these people (women and men both) save time and look after their families (prepared meals at a reasonable cost with real nutritional value for example) is key.
But, beyond what has been written here, there are many types of “non-traditional” families. Perhaps the biggest increase in such households that I’ve noticed within my small social sphere are the number of grandparents that are now the heads of multi-generational households.
To address a previous post, many women who are heads of non-traditional households have never even seen the inside of a social services office and have not looked to the government to be a surrogate anything.
Conversely, there are plenty of men in society looking have someone take care of them (mother, girlfriend, wife) while sliding by without much thought to taking on the responsibilities of adulthood. We may not hear of many women who have to pay alimony, but we do hear plenty of men who should be paying child support or skip out.
In the future, let’s try to refrain from the social commentary unless we can make a clear connection to retailing. That’s why we’re here.
No doubt about it — women are less dependent on men in their lives. My wife has been telling me this for years! (She just keeps me around for laughs.) So how are non-traditional family units affecting society and retail? For one, women are much more a central or even pivotal customer to reach. They are independent, empowered and making decisions for themselves. They have spending power; they are making independent decisions as to purchases, career, lifestyle and as such are changing society. Businesses need to recognize this fact (difficult since so many have an entrenched male-dominated mentality) and adopt a more intelligent marketing approach that recognizes and capitalizes on a non-traditional target audience. There are many business sectors for whom independent women and/or non-traditional customers have changed business fundamentals: automobile manufacturing & dealers, banking, real estate, financial planning & investments and travel are some that come to mind. We now have gay & lesbian cruises and investment clubs for women. And, as someone earlier pointed out, Lowe’s more female-friendly approach has given them an advantage vs Home Depot. Marketers are now producing package sizes that are scaled down for single consumption occasions; grocery retailers have improved their convenience and deli sections to cater to non-traditional households on the go. It’s obvious that a “one size fits all” approach is totally out of touch for todays lifestyle and demographics.
Just a quick note to David. I’m guessing that after reading your posting there are any number of single, working women out there who are baffled by the fact that they still have to write those pesky old rent/mortgage checks themselves! And, while I’m forced to agree that the U.S. government does suffer a bit from an overabundance of paternalistic thinking, I think it’s unfair to say that it represents “a man.” And–shocking as it may seem–I’ve actually met a fair number of women who (gasp) didn’t need or even want a man to support them. Finally, as to alimony–check the stats on how many divorces result in no alimony decree at all. I think you’ll find the number is climbing fast. The world is changing and women are exercising the full economic independence they’ve been denied in the past.
From a data perspective, tracking of demographics typically focuses mostly on number of people in the household, number of kids, ethnic background, income levels, rural or urban (some of your more “traditional” demographic variables). But many of the demographics that Ryan refers to aren’t being tracked. A single mother of 4, that is probably working one or two jobs, and is away from home for most or all of the day, with kids in daycare, will have different shopping habits than a married woman with 4 kids, who doesn’t work. A single woman who is working is going to spending her money on different things than a married woman.
It is important for 3rd party demographic data suppliers to be responsive to these changing demographics, and not measure only “traditional” demographic factors in a “non-traditional” and changing environment. In the example above with the “mothers of 4”, these 2 families are probably bucketed into the same “Large Household with Kids” demographics, despite some huge differences in their shopping behaviors and patterns.
Retailers also have to understand who their (changing) target consumer is, who their core consumer is, and how to meet their changing needs. For those who can figure out how to tune in to the changing consumer and their needs, they will win in the retail environment (for both suppliers and retailers).
My “ah ha” from all of this is that we are in a fluid society, one where the need-benefit sets are constantly in flux, just as lifestyles and life choices are constantly in flux.
A retailer, as a marketer, might see this as a requirement to be dynamic — to constantly question the assumptions about who shops for which products and why. Segmentation schemes are necessary. The real question is how long are they valid?
The information quoted was strictly data. The inferential commentary from other panelists has been extraordinary. That there are more unmarried than married women…what does that mean with regard to how they live? What insight does this give into entertainment choices, discretionary spending trends and lifestyle identification?
The only real answer is to develop new paradigms, test them against observed behavior and then keep testing them for validity. The one thing we know is that the old paradigms fit the old data.
More and more employers are granting benefits to domestic partners, regardless of gender. The Human Rights Campaign 2006 reported that 51% of the Fortune 500 now grant benefits to domestic partners. Serving customers is a retailer’s major focus. When compensation and benefits fall behind, great service is less likely.