Why "Beer For Women" Marketing Won't (and Maybe Shouldn't?) Die

Let's get this part out of the way first: women want out of beer what anyone wants out of beer.  Specifically, something that tastes good, offered at a reasonable price, with a modest dose of alcohol.

Yet every few months I have to read about yet another brewery designing and marketing "beer for her."  

Don't get me wrong, there are all kinds of products out there where I can see a clear and obvious value in focusing on gender as a differentiating factor, since biological differences between men and women are real and substantively significant.  Exercise equipment.  Pharmacy products.  Guns. 

But beer?  Not really.  I'm pretty sure that the things anyone enjoys (or doesn't) about beer are more or less gender-neutral.  

That doesn't mean there isn't some logic behind it, though.  Biscuit, my Goldendoodle, does all kinds of stupid things (because she's, you know, a dog) that still make logical sense in her walnut-sized Doodle brain.

I'm not going to bother with the "they're so patronizing" angle here, though, because that's a waste of your time.  I'm sure there are a dozen such pieces posted every week, especially when some new "beer for her" like "Arousa" (real name) hits the market.    No, what I'd like to do is talk through what the repeated attempts to do this actually suggest about beer culture, and whether that's a good or bad thing.

The "Big Tent" Theory

If we're inclined to be generous here, there's a way to look at this not as (merely) a sexist, patronizing marketing gimmick.  After all, it's a reality that men are more than twice as likely to declare that beer is their preferred alcoholic beverage (in the US, at least, and a shrinking global "gender gap" in alcohol consumption doesn't track to increased beer consumption, which suggests that the finding is at least generally true, internationally and in the aggregate as women drink more of something that isn't beer).  That means that there's a demographic target to be exploited to fuel market expansion, if you can find ways to particularly encourage women to buy beer.

That's not a bad thing.  Hell, it's arguably a good thing for a market segment that's watching its growth slow.  

Yes, the methods and approaches seem to be almost caveman-esque in their blunt and un-nuanced approach ("Put it in a champagne glass!" "Pastel colors and ribbons!"), but as I noted to a friend recently, I HAVE to believe that there's some kind of really compelling market research that actually supports this kind of nonsense. Otherwise, it's so patently silly and potentially offensive as to be an obvious no-go.  Again, I'll refer you to the many other such critical pieces for that argument. 

The generous view here is that this is just an attempt to bring more folks into the "beer" tent.  We notice these because they combine ongoing debates about equality/social identity and beer, but they're really just a symptom of beer's broader shotgun approach to selling beer to all under-participating parties.  

Balancing Act

Another theory is that marketers are just responding to a "dude"-heavy culture in craft beer by turning hard into the "chick" skid at the other end of the spectrum.  If selling beer to men seems to work by marketing to the most obvious cliches about what men like (a cavalcade of sexually-suggestive imagery/language peddled by lumberjacks who talk sports), then why not take a stab at wrapping a bottle in marble-patterned plastic, stick it in a pink six-pack, and call it "Let's Go Shopping Session IPA?"  After all, selling other products via "girly" stereotypes seems to be pretty effective.

Offensive?  Probably.  Over-the-top?  Definitely.  Irrational?  No, not really.

After all, it's no less sexist than selling sets of tools with pink handles, yet we don't see massive social media backlash to it.  I'm pretty sure a 16-ounce head on a hammer is 16 ounces whatever color the handle is, just like I'm pretty sure that a good Kolsch is a good Kolsch no matter what kind of bottle you put it in.

From that point of view, then, it seems appropriate-but-selective that we get up in arms over "beer for women" but not "tools for women."  

What they share in common, though, is a perception (and reality) that the space in question has a gender disparity, and therefore a more-direct appeal (even a clunky one) seems logical.

Reason v. Result

Whether these are just the most-visible examples (by virtue of their in-artfulness) and not really representative of beer marketing strategies and/or simply the contrapuntal gender-invert result of a deliberate effort to "hyper-feminize" the granitic masculine approach to beer marketing (at least in terms of what a patriarchal culture sees as stereotypically "feminine"), I can't say - could b both, and of course I could be completely off.

What I am will to assert, though, is that I don't find these efforts illogical.  I think that the two theories posited here provide at least a reasonable rationale for the why and the how of this phenomenon.  

I'm also aggressively agnostic on whether these sex-based approaches are a waste of time or not, whatever we think of their appropriateness.  

On the one hand, beer drinkers I know - whatever their gender - care about what's in the glass more than anything else (except maybe who owns the brewery, but that's a topic for another day).  I don't know any (except in the Alehole-fringe) who buy beer because of its label or name.  

On the other, though, I know for a fact that there are women out there who refuse to drink beer because it's "for men."  It comes up when I offer them a beer, and nothing I say changes them from that perspective.  If seems-to-me-sexist marketing is what gets them out of their traditionalist attitude towards "appropriate role behavior" and into the beer game, am I OK with the ends justifying the means?

I just don't know.  I welcome you thoughts.

Keep it simple.

JJW