"A young man contemplating his decreasing significance on the world stage" ...hilarious.
There's some truth in this. And it's what often concerns me about the tech world- that it's a big echo chamber of young, tech savvy people that actually represents a tiny demographic. It's one of the reasons I like living in New York- it gives me perspective. I see hundreds of people that are using 'dumbphones' and are quite happy with them. I know I've been reading too much TechCrunch when my friends who work in fashion, media, finance- anything but tech- tell me to shut the hell up.
"Path? What's that? A social network that limits how many friends I can have? Why the hell would I use that?". Sometimes it's good to be exposed to a little cynicism in life.
Entrepreneur bubble, inside of the hacker bubble, inside of the "internet culture" bubble, inside the Anglophone bubble, inside of the white male firstworlder bubble...
It's really quite hard to get actionable perspective, sometimes.
Great example- the latest figures I can find state that only 13% of the US population use Twitter. I have to imagine the figure is even lower internationally, and only a tiny minority of that 13% post to it regularly.
However, I suspect a lot of those are bot's / sockpupets. Not necessarily spam, but a weather feed does not a twitter user make. I have seen estimates ranging from 24%-50% of all accounts are bots, and many users are over represented with a corporate account and a user account. Leaving perhaps 15-50 million actual users worldwide.
PS: I have been linked to tweets and I know plenty of people that do the same, but I don't have an account so by their accounting I am not a user and neither are the 100 or so other people I have talked to about it.
We will see a huge, cataclysmic shift in the next 20 years in terms of the demographic online. By the time I am my parent's age we will have 50 and 60 year olds who grew up with the internet, along with their children, and the next generation.
This is an extremely bold and unsupported assertion:
"[Men] were the one who decided what products failed and what products succeeded. That's why companies like Asus tweet ridiculous, sexist stuff. That's one reason why less than 10 percent of venture capital-backed companies have female founders and there is a massive gender gap in tech."
There are plenty of industries where there is a huge discrepancy between the gender ratios of consumers and entrepreneurs. Fashion and cosmetics companies for example are far more less female-dominated than one might presume from the extreme over-representation of females in their customer bases. The author hasn't given any reason to suspect that male dominance in tech is caused by gender-linked consumer trends influencing employer demand rather than more mundane explanations like gender differences in employee preference for developing programming skills.
Indeed. Despite the fact that women's fashion is far more lucrative and with a larger market, the majority of top end fashion houses are headed by men or whose label is a man's name.
Indeed, but they are men who have made it their life's mission to understand their audience needs and enjoy everything that comes with that. I think the issue is young men in tech (and many other indistries) presuming that everyone is just like them and have their needs and interests.
No evidence is presented that women are the more valuable market, just that on average they spend more time online and using their devices. Which would you pick: 10 customers that use a mobile phone for 20 hours each vs. 100 customers that use a mobile phone for 3 hours each?
No statistics are posted on how much male usage counts for, saying 17 percent more is a big difference when 100% is 4 hours vs. 40 hours.
> One huge reason is the relative lack of women at major venture capital firms, startups, electronics makers, and Internet companies.
This seems like a strange conclusion, the obvious conclusion is that on average 1 18 - 24 Male (the "most valuable demographic") is more likely to spend money with the advertiser after seeing advertising than a female counterpart, isn't it? They present no evidence disproving the obvious conclusion. I also don't see how tech adoption can be that important to a company like Apple. Maybe if it's 25% more likely a female that owns an iPhone will recommend to a friend and have them purchase it and the chances of a female purchasing vs. a male based on an advert is equal then sure, but if a male is 10x more likely to buy after seeing an advert what value is women causing "adoption", isn't people buying your products adoption?
Not a very good article. I would suggest it's just written to fit the narrative ("not enough women in tech") or it's just really badly written: you can't make assertions without proving them.
"No evidence is presented that women are the more valuable market, just that on average they spend more time online and using their devices."
Perhaps that's because the evidence has already been stated clearly?
Here are the stats:
"Women account for $7 trillion in consumer and business spending in the United States, and over the next decade, they will control two thirds of consumer wealth.
Women make or influence 85% of all purchasing decisions, and purchase over 50% of traditional male products, including automobiles, home improvement products and consumer electronics.
BUT 91% of women say that advertisers don’t understand them."
Those aren't real stats. Those are just numbers on a page. That link doesn't include any methodology for how they collected these numbers, doesn't include any references, doesn't included any reason I should believe any of them whatsoever. Some of those numbers are either obviously false or obviously misleading, such as the theory that 51% of private wealth is controlled by women when we know the huge concentration of wealth in the US and know the huge disparity in sexes in the top 1% of earners. This statistic thus is either completely false (perhaps they surveyed a power law distribution or something), or their definition is extremely poorly represented by their choice of words.
Edit: It's probably not a good sign that they have two directly contradictory statistics for the amount of US private wealth controlled by women.
Not really interested in this specific argument about whether or not the OP has real statistics, but I thought this was interesting (and includes sources, which I haven't checked).
>Some of those numbers are either obviously false or obviously misleading, such as the theory that 51% of private wealth is controlled by women when we know the huge concentration of wealth in the US and know the huge disparity in sexes in the top 1% of earners.
Whether the top earners are men and the huge disparity on Bill Gates/Larry Ellison level wealth do not matter at all in this discussion.
Advertisers and companies are not competing for THOSE people's money (except if they make private jets and luxury cars), they want the money of the average household. 100,000,000 families have brought Apple products, for example, and all of the top 1000 wealthiest guys just bought another 1,000-10,000 combined.
So, when they say they control 51% of private wealth, that might or might not be true overall, but it is very true for the kind of wealth that matters to companies/advertisers. And it is even more true that women also influence what the family will buy, even more so than men.
Women make or influence 85% of all purchasing decisions
That's awfully meaningless without the partner stat. If you stop and think about it, women and men could both "Make or influence" 85% of all purchasing decisions, at the same time.
Have we forgotten the difference between articles and source/reference material?
I see far too many blog posts and junk articles posted as sources or evidence in this day and age. No references to studies, or exposed facts that were collected by census.
Just someone else who cracked open Wordpress and says 90% of people do something 10% don't.
That's one reason why less than 10 percent of venture capital-backed companies have female founders and there is a massive gender gap in tech.
and then
It turns out women are our new lead adopters. When you look at internet usage, it turns out women in Western countries use the internet 17 percent more every month than their male counterparts. Women are more likely to be using the mobile phones they own, they spend more time talking on them, they spend more time using location-based services. But they also spend more time sending text messages. Women are the fastest growing and largest users on Skype, and that's mostly younger women. Women are the fastest category and biggest users on every social networking site with the exception of LinkedIn. Women are the vast majority owners of all internet enabled devices--readers, healthcare devices, GPS--that whole bundle of technology is mostly owned by women.
That's a whole world of difference. There is production, and there is consumption. In the first part, he talked about production. In the second part, he is talking about consumption. I can't make a link.
The OP is describing what he believes to be an emerging trend.
Specifically, he is challenging the stereotype that technology is still a male-dominated market on the consumption side. Part of his argument centers around the fact that because the production side is heavily lined with men, they can be partially blinded to the fact that women are becoming a very important tech market.
To piggyback on the above, consumption logically would precede production. Most of those working in technology today had some interest in it prior to their career. If the author is correct, we can probably expect to see the gender gap narrow over the coming years.
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but honest question -
How come that ASUS tweet message was considered so sexist? Using attractive women in advertisements has been around since the dawn of, well, advertisements. And she definitely had a nice rear.
I mean what if the woman was replaced with a strong muscle man and the tweet said "Nice biceps" or "Nice pecs" or something? Hell, say "Nice rear" for a man, why not? Would that also be sexist?
"there are clear business reasons for technology companies to focus their efforts on women. But few do."
Well, for example I am creating a writers' tool (basically a markdown editor). I wonder if there is anything in the product design with which I can target man/woman. I was thinking in terms of ease of use, intuitivnes, efficiency, etc...
I am thinkging in terms of power users / casual users, geeks / non-geeks, etc... but should I think in terms of women / men?
The article says Asus has sexist tweets... Wouldn't it be sexist if I had prejudices about women's use of a 'word processor'? I am not cynical, I genuinely ask this.
'Sexist' has as many definitions as there are English-speakers. It's not a useful word unless you're a politician or a journalist.
If you thought women never used words longer than three letters, then you could design some very useful features for them, like smarter autocomplete, spell check, and inserting the space automatically after three characters. Then you'd do what everyone building a product should do - try to sell it, and if it won't sell, try to find out why. You'd quickly learn that women can use big words just fine, and you'd redesign your product accordingly.
I used an example misconception in which you underestimated women, because in the other direction it'd be politically incorrect. But, you need to be objective about what you see. You can't be afraid of the political ramifications of knowing the truth about your market. If the data were to tell you something drastically politically incorrect, like that Brits and Canadians never buy your word processor because they're too busy eating babies, you still need to redesign your product to fit your customers, and your spell checker should not accept "colour", "lorry", or "hockey".
To be honest, I was hoping for something more intellectual like Hacker News. It would be nice to have a website where I could get my fix of thoughtful discussion that didn't feel like a sausagefest.
Any idea how more intellectual discussion sites could cater to women?
I think just the fact that most of these discussions really revolve around technology is the reason that we aren't seeing many females- there just aren't that many in our field comparatively.
On the other hand, I think that another contributor is that I sort of assume everyone is male unless there is some indicator otherwise, and I'm sure most women prefer not to put themselves out there with a "Hey everyone, female here!" I wonder if there was an actual poll how many people on HN are actually female?
Honestly I think the ones who have a problem are the ones who see a difference. Those that just put what they have out there and discuss openly, maturely will generally find (regardless of where they go) some kind of return. Even on PInterest you'll find immaturity and other negative qualities, merely exhibited by men instead of women. Does that make it innately better?
So it turns out if you want to find out what the future looks like, you should be asking women.
No, that's the wrong lesson to take home. If you want to see what the future looks like, you should be asking women AND men. It's not an either/or proposition. This comment just reverses the bias.
A great place to see this in action is with smartphone ads.
Almost all of the smartphone companies have been producing ads that cater only to the young male (see: those terrifying Motorola Droid ads). Apple is an exception, as usual.
They finally seem to be getting their act together, however. The latest Droid ad is almost Apple-esque.
I wonder if it is true only in geographies like the USA or Canada, or whether it holds true in countries like India which have a much younger population?
Although this was surprising to me at first it doesn't take long at all to realize why this is: women communicate more. They're all about communication! We think of men as being all about tech specs and building new tech but really it's the user of the tech that's important. What is the Internet but a big communication platform. That's probably why women are using it more. I realize I may be called sexist for saying this but I thought it was pretty widely accepted as fact that women are far more adept at and likely to use communicate with others via any channel than men are.
There's some truth in this. And it's what often concerns me about the tech world- that it's a big echo chamber of young, tech savvy people that actually represents a tiny demographic. It's one of the reasons I like living in New York- it gives me perspective. I see hundreds of people that are using 'dumbphones' and are quite happy with them. I know I've been reading too much TechCrunch when my friends who work in fashion, media, finance- anything but tech- tell me to shut the hell up.
"Path? What's that? A social network that limits how many friends I can have? Why the hell would I use that?". Sometimes it's good to be exposed to a little cynicism in life.