Magazines And Branding

I’m a fan of newspapers and magazines.
I think they can add value.
I think they can serve a purpose.

However,
I also think they can’t afford to make mistakes,
and they definitely shouldn’t piss off
over 50% of the population.

Which is what The Economist has potentially done
by publishing the most sexist article
I’ve read in a magazine in a long, long time
( The Art Of Selling ).

Not only is it severely sexist
but the article sounds so old fashioned
and out-of-date,
that it makes me doubt
all of the other
well-researched, modern articles.

THAT is how fragile a brand is.
One one-page article can destroy
years of brand building.

Guard your brand.
Protect your brand.
Oh, and if you think something sounds sexist,
it probably IS.

Published By
Categorized as Sales

5 comments

  1. What was sexist about the article? I see nothing disparaging of women; was it the generic pronouns? You seem to always use “she” whereas this author used “he.” Oh, maybe it’s because the author said “salesman.”

    If that is what made the article “severely sexist,” I marvel that you otherwise have so very little to get worked up about.

    It has been said, “He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool, he who takes offense when offense was intended, is also a fool.”

    Be conservative in what causes you offense.

  2. You mean other than the zero examples of female salesPEOPLE?
    The comment about about many doctors being women these days?
    The shining example of Wurth sending letters to congratulate the salesMAN’s wife?
    (with Wurth supposedly having 30,000 salesMEN and not a single salesWOMAN)?

    Other than that, Mike?

  3. Oh, and about the pronouns.
    When writing articles or blog posts, authors really do have to pick one.
    It is awkward to use he/she all of the time.
    I use ‘she’ because everyone else tends to use ‘he’.
    I don’t mind the term salesman, although that term went extinct about two decades (or more) ago because it was… well… sexist.

    I also think (or maybe this is hopeful thinking) the author made a concentrated effort to be sexist.
    I think the goal was to be edgy.

  4. I’d have to wonder if the author got the anecdote about Wurth from Wurth, in which case Wurth would be to blame for marginalizing their saleswomen. You’d be proud of the first comment on the article: “Does your first paragraph mean that the company hires no female sales people?”

    I saw the “many of whom are female these days” as a counter to the sexist sales ploy in the previous sentence: hiring ex-cheerleaders (many of whom are female) to sway doctors — presumably with their non-verbal selling skills.

    To your point, he had no examples of salespeople whatsoever, male or female. However, the four books/authors/gurus he quoted were indeed all male.

    And re-reading specifically for the sales-pronouns, I note the author used:

    salespeople 7 times
    salesman 3 times (and 1 salesmanship. Is there a non-sexist version of salesmanship?)
    salesmen 2 times
    salesfolk 1 time
    sales reps 1 time

    In one paragraph, s/he uses “salesmen,” “reps,” and “salespeople.”

    Rather than deliberately being sexist or edgy, I believe the author was trying avoid repetition. And s/he used gender-neutral sales-pronouns 9 times out of 14.

    Or perhaps he is well over two decades old, and set in his sexist ways.

Comments are closed.