Curves: Relevance Trumps Politics
You’ve all heard it or read it before in the marketing to women books and articles - "it all matters" to women as consumers.
I, for one, can tend to get on a soapbox about how brands can do a better job identifying and working for a particular social cause. This particular element of "it all matters" seems to get the short shrift. My thought is that women may not decide to purchase from you based solely on your social cause support, but they do take it in for future reference. And, it may be what makes your brand not "add up" at some later date.
A quick, albeit fairly unlikely, example of such a disconnect in action: It doesn’t make sense for a thriving car racing organization to fund research to help premature babies, right? But, it does make sense for such a brand to fund a program that a) offers technical training to get more young women involved in auto mechanics, or b) offers scholarships for women interested in studying automobile design in college. (I’m sure there are even better examples - but you get the idea.)
Anyway, from social cause to another social topic with the potential to cause major disconnect with women - politics: My friend Michael called me this morning to let me know of a very interesting article (who knows how long it will be archived) in yesterday’s Boston Globe Magazine. The piece by Elaine McArdle, entitled "Sweating with the Enemy," is all about the Curves franchise, and how the male founder’s antiabortion politics don’t seem to be harming membership as much as might be expected, even in traditionally "blue" state/urban areas.
This goes against the theory that women, in most cases, will be less inclined to buy from brands if there isn’t perfect integration of brand mission/tone/beliefs/experience at crucial customer touchpoints. This could mean something like really unfriendly in-store salespeople and bad music while the phone-based service is unparalleled and the hold music a better match, or it could be a social cause that makes no sense when lined up with the rest of the brand’s attributes.
Because it blows the "it all matters" theory out of the water, I think the Curves example makes a great point. It highlights how much women reward brands that have committed time and dollars to be relevant in their lives.
The 4 million women who work out at these franchises have been searching for just such a fitness solution, many for a very long time. Even the most abortion-rights oriented Curve members, and there are a few profiled in the Globe piece, will try to figure out a way to justify going to their local franchise because the experience serves their health/fitness needs SO well.
For so many women, it has been a dream to discover a solution like Curves. So, even politics, which has the capacity to ruin even the closest business and personal relationships on a dime, can be swept aside when the passion for the brand is there.
Highly political topics likely do not even come into play in your industry (here’s hoping), but you should still be trying to forge a relationship with customers that could weather such a challenge.
Wow.
I’m impressed by the Curves story, and I will never say never again.
June 22nd, 2005 at 9:42 am
I agree with you that women will not usually make a purchase decision based solely on a company’s politics, social values or charitable involvement. It can be icing on the cake…
In the Curves example, the idea of a 30-minute, convenient workout obviously trumps the politics. But, we have to take a step back for a minute and examine two things. One: a better idea usually wins. Not only in the hearts and mind of consumers, but also in the marketplace. And two, There are plenty of Republican women out there who support their party’s stance on abortion, so the choice to join Curves is in alignment with their values…
July 16th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
FYI, in the Monterey, CA area there is an active group of women who ARE cancelling their memberships in CURVES as they discover the politics of the owner, and are spreading the word so others do the same.