Posts Tagged ‘women’

All posts tagged women.

Posted: by carlacthompson on April 15th, 2008 | 4 Comments »

Categorized: Observations

Chris and I engaged in a lively discussion via Skype this morning regarding the merits of Rushmore Drive, a new search engine targeted to African-Americans. I heard about it from SheGeeks, who stated quite clearly how she feels about the service. Especially after hearing Rushmore Drive is under the same corporate umbrella as Ask.com, my immediate reaction was also one of dismissal and “what the hell are they thinking?” You may remember my own rant a couple of months ago about Ask’s development of a search engine targeted to suburban women in the Midwest. My point then – that the path to search success lies in broadening rather than narrowing your audience – holds true with Rushmore Drive. Assuming a group of people wants results from a limited pool denegrates the audience and simply doesn’t hold water.

Chris isn’t necessarily a fan of these sites either but she can’t help but put her experienced analyst hat on and deliver some opposing points. Her argument is that engines like Rushmore are serving a viable subset within a demographic that vehemently holds on to that demographic as their identity. There are enough of those subsets in any demographic to create a business; the question of how big that business is remains to be answered. She concluded by allowing that there are some issues she might turn to a women’s site over a general one, assuming they’ll have better information, i.e., health-related such as breast cancer, pregnancy, or menopause.

It’s easy to deliver emotional responses to such a model, as it’s inherently personal. That, after all, is the intended effect of the engines. Unable to differentiate algorithmically from the Google way of search, these companies are instead aiming to add a personal layer. If I can’t necessarily deliver a better search result to you, dear user, I’ll try appealing to your gut. Who are you and with whom do you identify? It’s a philosophical/psychological approach and it’s risky. To work effectively, the engine must excise some results and/or bring others to the fore. Who’s making that determination? Can one possibly write an algorithm to home in on female or African-American search results? I doubt it and I think that’s the point.

Technology should be blind to race, gender and creed. If you want to appeal to a demographic, create a destination site. Pack it to the hilt with what you think are appropriate links and material and let it be sourced by a general search engine. But the very nature of search is and should be egalitarian. Attempting to attract certain groups of people by rearranging their search results is, at best, touting a product for what it doesn’t do. And that to me, seems bad business.

What do you think?

Posted: by carlacthompson on April 1st, 2008 | 1 Comment »

Categorized: Observations, Startups

It’s time for another look at the womenfolk and what makes them tick, technologically speaking. We return to this topic often on The Guidewire, most recently when Ask.com decided to paint their search engine pink and call it targeted. Women are a lucrative yet elusive demographic and the entrants in this space always seem to launch with the same messaging: We’re different! Women are complicated! We get that! In the end, though, the sites all seem pretty much the same – horoscopes, fashion tips, and recipes packaged in a magazine-style format that continues to look dated in the face of current design trends.

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke with Deborah Piscione, CEO and founder of BettyConfidential, a destination site targeted to women. I’d been contemplating my post about that site when the news broke yesterday of Yahoo’s foray into the space, Shine. (More on BettyConfidential momentarily.) Shine comes equipped with all the obligatory “We’re different!” messaging. According to their site, Shine wants “…to avoid all of the common categories that advertisers or marketers tend to put us in.” Great, I’m on board. But perhaps you could better achieve that by emblazoning your homepage with a headline other than, “Fancy lingerie you can actually afford.”

Epicenter‘s Betsy Schiffman hit the nail on the head in her review:

Shine… will cover parenting, sex and love, healthy living, food, career and money, entertainment, fashion, beauty, home life and astrology — pretty much everything we hate about women’s magazines.

Amy Iorio, general manager of Lifestyles at Yahoo, misses the head, the nail, and the entire carpenter’s bench in an interview with CNET:

This is really a key audience for Yahoo. We’ve been calling them ‘chief household officers’ internally.

This is the problem. You’re trying to recreate Good Housekeeping online. It will work for women who read Good Housekeeping. But it will not work for the rest of us. Most of the women I know don’t like women’s magazines. They’re fluffy, condescending, and poorly written . (Lip gloss reviews, anyone?) So the logical solution would be to build a site that strays as far from the magazine path as possible. Yahoo obviously doesn’t agree with this, as they’ve loaded Shine with content and advisors from Conde Nast and Hearts publications. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: by carlacthompson on March 5th, 2008 | No Comments »

Categorized: Uncategorized

The news from Ask.com today has shocked many. Conceding the broad search space to Google, Ask is narrowing its focus to married women in the flyover states (my wording), who “need help managing their lives.” The new search site will “concentrate on finding answers to basic questions about recipes, hobbies, children’s homework, entertainment and health.” The implication being that women aren’t finding what they’re looking for on Google.

As a married mother living in the Texas suburbs, I’m in the unique position of being both an analyst of search technologies and in Ask’s new target demographic. I see multiple problems from both angles. As a technologist, I believe the path to search success lies in broadening, rather than narrowing, your audience. Searchers, no matter their gender, want to know they’re getting the best result from the broadest range of sources on any subject in the world. Assuming any group of people only want results on and from a limited pool just doesn’t make sense. As a married woman, well, I use a wide variety of engines for various search needs and they’re all filling the bill just fine.

To avoid clouding the issue with bias on either side, though, I interviewed a friend, stay-at-home mom of three boys, Polly. Her response:

What are they filtering out that I won’t/can’t understand? I feel I’m being told that I’m too dumb for Google. I’m not feeling any insufficiency in my search. It sounds to me like an easy way to sell advertising.

She was particularly bothered by the “southern, midwestern” classification, which implies women on the coasts are doing just fine with their searches. Frankly, what Ask is doing is reinforcing every stereotype of a Midwest housewife and I don’t think it will be particularly welcomed in this day and age.

Unless Ask has plans to integrate a heavy social presence into the site, I can’t see this succeeding. One of the biggest mistakes a company can make is to underestimate its users. I think Ask just did that in spades.

**Note: we contacted Ask for commentary and did not hear back. I’d love to hear their reasoning behind this move.

**And another update: Ask is now backpedaling, telling Forbes that the AP report was “erroneous” and has since been changed.  I’m with Blogoscoped here: anyone have a copy of the retraction from AP? It would also seem to me that if Ask truly wanted to correct the messaging, they would have jumped to respond to me yesterday. We’ll continue to keep an eye out…

Tagged: , , ,