Maureen Hupfer is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Michael G DeGroote drill of Business.

Maureen Hupfer is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Michael G DeGroote drill of Business, McMaster University. She wishes to acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Scholarship permanent fund for their support of her doctoral research. She also thanks her thesis committee members and expresse appreciation to three reviewers for their helpful explanations concerning this paper. Inquiries should be directed to her at the MGD train of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main way West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8 4M4 or to hupferm@mcmaster.ca.

One of the mostly widely used demographic segmentation variables, sex - or rather, sex - has proven problematic for advertisers who wish to communicate effectively with male and female target audiences. As the same commentator remarked, "what's good for the tailor's smoothing iron may gag the gander" (Dortch 1994) Focusing in succession the "special problem" of the female consumer this paper first outlines latter practitioner debate concerning sex-specific advertising strategies. nearest the academic marketing and social psychology literature concerning sex and sex differences in information processing is reviewed. In particular, it is propos that practitioners who fabricate sex-specific advertising appeals according to the selectivity hypothesis (Meyers-Levy 1988 1989; Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran 1991; Meyers-Levy and Sternthal 1991) are in danger of alienating the working female audience they wish to attract. Anecdotal evidence, primarily in the form of new messages targeted toward women, demonstrates that many advertisers depart from selectivity hypothesis recommendations, especially when it appears that an independent and goal-directed female audience is targeted. Furthermore, advertisements that address a communal male are becoming more often met with One might conclude that these practitioners are misguided, on the other hand it also is possible that they believe effective communication strategy distinguishes between biological sex and psychological sex identity. It is precisely this fundamental difference between biological sex as a fixed category and sex identity as a construct that can vary within sex or across time and place that the selectivity hypothesis fails to address. Consequently existing marketing research can provide little more than temporary solutions to riddles that shift as fluidly as the form relative to sex roles on which the theory is based. Accordingly, this paper deduces with the recommendation that the selectivity hypothesis be revisited in a manner that examines biological sex independently of certain aspects of sex identity.

THE PRACTITIONER POINT OF VIEW

The difficulties that sex role changes have posed for marketing strategy appear to have more to do with communication strategies than yield development; trade journals reiterate the ne to better understand male and female interests if effective advertisements that "translate" across inflection for sex lines are to be cause to growed (Dortch 1994; Teather 1995). "Learning to match the right language with the right sex as sex roles blur" has become a elucidation marketing challenge ("Beyond Gibberish" 1993 p 17)

The attention that inflection for sex has received notwithstanding, not all practitioners agree upon its importance to marketing strategy. Many firms and industry commentators insist that understanding inflection for sex is a key factor in marketing succes while others rank its importance below other segmentation variables similar as age, income, education, and lifestyle (Bartos 1982; Burton 1995; Cleaver 1988; Kondo 1995; Marketing 1998; Pinkerton 1995; Rickard 1995; Serafin 1994) onward the surface, increasingly blurred part distinctions would appear to argue against the importance of form relative to sex as a marketing issue. However, the prominent position that discussions of sex occupy in trade and practitioner journals cannot easily be reconciled with the view that sex is only a minor consideration in advertising effectiveness. In fact, it is entirely possible that debate persists because sex has become of greater rather than smaller importance as male and female parts continue to shift. Clearly sex is a long-standing source of confusion for marketers.

Practitioners appreciate the attractiveness of the lucrative female portion but opinions concerning the best orders for communicating with women are sharply divided. Since the 1970 undivided camp of marketing practitioners has argued that female part change necessitated adjustments in advertising strategies. "With women's parts changing so rapidly advertisers are struggling to create strange images which relate to the everyday experiences of American women" (Graham 1979 p141) Marketers who ignored changes in female attitudes and perceptions, Bartos argued, would experience "marketing underachievement" while those who reexamined "outmod assumptions" would "reap the benefits of discovering fresh opportunity markets" (1982, p. 66-67) More not long ago IBM US Marketing and Distribution has concurr that messages do ne to be targeted toward women specifically, and has started to advertise in women's magazines (Pinkerton 1995) Strategists at MCI Business Markets agree, still report that reaching women can be a "vexing" and "touchy" task (Kondo 1995) Marketers voice mounting flushs of consternation as female buying power continues to be augmented while their strategies to capture this lucrative market remain les effective than they desire (Leeming and Tripp 1994)