Text 13838, 65 rader
Skriven 2007-04-23 13:45:08 av Amy Guskin (201.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: Finesse contest finalists - thanks to all!
==========================================================
>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:16:47 -0400, Amy Guskin wrote
(in article <0001HW.C2522A4B00286447F0182648@news.verizon.net>):

>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:53:08 -0400, Matthew Vincent wrote
> (in article <1177332788.147159.133250@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>> 
> 
>>> There are all sorts of reasons that could explain why you didn't end
>> up being counted in the top 20. It could be anything from nepotism, to
>> qualitative interpretations, to the type of standards used -- for
>> example, statistical techniques that gave less weight to 1s and 10s as
>> we were discussing earlier. You may, for example, have been 25th out
>> of nearly a thousand in terms of what it was determined that your
>> unbiased score was, but 6th in terms of the approximation of your
>> score that was provided. It's entirely plausible that Finesse may have
>> used an approximation without correcting for 1s and 10s, etc., until
>> such time as voting was closed and the statistical analysis was
>> performed. <<
> 
> It also occurs to me that we answered a few pointed questions on a form upon 
> entering the contest.  I wonder if the fact that I'm not a mommy knocked me 
> out of the running.  Generally, companies with products like that, who are 
> looking to appeal to women my age (and at least some of the finalists are 
> women in their 40s), are looking at the 'mommy angle.'  Finesse is a very 
> un-sexy sort of shampoo company, and I think they're more likely targeting 
> 'mommies' in my age group rather than career women, or single women, or women


> whose children are in the care of nannies, etc.  Beauty products targeted to 
> women like me are sold in Sephora (fancy-schmancy cosmetics boutique).  I'm 
> an odd demographic, being a married woman in my 40s with no children.<<

A little clarification, now that I've had a shower and a think (I do my best 
thinking there).

In my demographic -- women in their 40s -- I'm less 'relatable' to most other 
women, because most women in their 40s in this country, particularly the ones 
who are married, have children.  And I think that this product is 
_particularly_ looking for the "mommy demographic" in that age bracket.

You can imagine that I've been ultra-conscious of Finesse products over the 
past five months, so I've been looking for it everywhere.  And I notice that 
it is _not_ in most of the places where I shop for toiletries -- salons, 
cosmetic boutiques.  Where I _do_ see it -- some supermarkets and drugstores 
-- it is invariably on a lower shelf, often the bottom shelf.  When I buy 
hair care products in a supermarket or drugstore, they're usually 'upper 
shelf' products, and in fact are actually _physically located_ on upper, or 
top shelves.  Women who shop on the bottom shelf, for large (economy) sized 
bottles of products -- and Finesse shampoo and condition only seems to come 
in an 'economy' size currently -- are generally women who are on a budget.  
Because they are buying products for an entire family.  I'm not saying that 
everyone who has children can't afford salon products, but my suspicion from 
everything I've absorbed about Finesse over the past half-year is that they 
are trying to re-establish themselves as a viable brand (which they were in 
the 70s), and are doing so with a very specific niche in mind: beautiful hair 
care on a budget.

We have no idea what the judges based their decision on, and while I'm sure 
it was at least partly motivated by appearance, it's also not out of the 
realm of possibility that they were looking at personal data, as well.  And 
I'm definitely not the "mommy demographic."

Amy (who loves the mysteries of marketing and demographics)  :-)
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)