Yahoo! launched a new site this morning called Shine aimed at women aged 25-54. All the news accounts we've read trumpet how Shine plans to package news and information of interest to females. When we visited the site, all we really wanted to do was scream. Oh, boy! According to Shine, all women care about fashion, beauty, love, and astrology! Geez, Yahoo!, stereotype much? So, what would the male version of this site look like? Would topics include cars, sports, tech, and beer? We know plenty of guys interested in treating acne and being better parents, and plenty of women who could code Yahoo!'s developers into a corner.
We guess what Yahoo! thinks passes for cogent topics of interest to women should come as no surprise since the site's editor-in-chief used to run Jane and Elle Girl, two print magazines that aren't exactly known for encouraging women to put down their lip gloss and pick up a book.
While we appreciate that Yahoo! is willing to dedicate a site to women, perhaps they could be a little less condescending. Women do change their own oil, build their own computers, travel, happily raise kids on their own, invest, and -- gasp! -- pursue lifestyles outside of what Yahoo! apparently considers "the norm."
Until Shine realizes that there's more to women than nail polish and a need to know the best way to hook a guy, this is one Web site we'll skip.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-31-2008 @ 9:24AM
gojeda said...
Lisa - you sound bitter.
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 9:44AM
Lisa Hoover said...
Heh.
Hardly. I just think it's ridiculous when Web sites try to pigeonhole a particular demographic. Take Download Squad, for example. We assume are readers are smart and good at lots of stuff so we have articles that cover a wide variety of topics. If we suddenly started focusing on, say, Windows-only apps or vendor-locked software that can't be customized in any way, I suspect readers would have something to say about that. I'm guessing we'd hear a lot about how "there's more to life than just Windows-only apps" and "hey, give us some credit, we can troubleshoot/install/manage/use more than just this basic stuff." Know what I mean? :-)
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 9:56AM
Peter said...
Lisa - You have a point, but there's nothing wrong with targeting a specific audience. Download Squad covers Macs, and I have absolutely no interest in Mac stuff. So if you eliminated Mac stories I'd be happier since I'd have less to sift through to find the stories I want to read.
I like college basketball, but I don't expect DS to have stories about that. The same way I don't expect ESPN to cover open source software.
Every site doesn't need to be all things to all people. Just because Yahoo thinks women are interested in that stuff doesn't stop women from looking elsewhere for other items of interest.
3-31-2008 @ 2:21PM
gojeda said...
Lisa, by your response, I am going to gather that you have not been around downloadsquad too long. More than once has downloadsquad been accused of, for example, being a stool for Apple. When Leopard and the iPhone were being introduced, it was as if downloadsquad decided there was nothing else going on in the world of tech. It got so bad here, at one point, that people were accusing downloadsquad of being Steve's mouthpiece. The complaints from many readers to this effect are there in the annals of this site for all to see.
But I digress.....
If downloadsquad.com had "defined" itself, from the get-go, as a Windows apps site, then its target audience would have been well defined and established early on. The site would have become one of thousands of sites in the Internet that purvey soley in Windows apps. The complaints would have been moot.
Similiarly, Shine's demographic audience is defined from the outset. Your idea of feminism is, apparently, quite difference from that of Shine's vision. Your disposition, rabid as it apparently seems, precludes you from a balanced analysis of the site. Your bias is pronounced, and in this case, it makes you look....well, bitter.
Branding the site as one-dimensional seems rather unfair. A quick scan of the front page of Shine, as I write this, reveals the following articles:
- Al Gore's $300 million dollar ad campaign about global warming (of course, polls often say that women are more sensitive to environmental issues than men are).
- The popular women's TV program "The View" tackles racism.
- A short article comparing similarities between the TV characters of Mary Tyler Moore and Tina Fey.
One dimensional? Bubblegum feminist journalism? I think not. I mean, really, what did you expect - a site about Richard Feynman's discourses on Quantum Electrodynamics?
Mind you, I am a guy - so I can care less about Shine or any other women's site. But you are remiss in giving your readers a substantive analysis of the site which, in the end, endeavors to attract an underserved portion of the Internet population.
Your opinions are your own, of course. But your borderline irrational verbal castration is over the top.
3-31-2008 @ 4:07PM
jj said...
Christina... your opinion doesn't count. You are Lisa's personal friend. Lisa's attack on Shine is more of a reflection of her being hypocritical. Less than three years ago Lisa didn't even know Linux. If you asked her then she would have said, "Hey, isn't that the character on Peanuts?" Now she writes for Linux. She didn't think beyond painting her toenails three years ago. She landed a job that someone else deserved. There are millions of men who understand Linux better than Lisa Hoover. She utilized her "female assets" and Linux was lucky to find a hot chick for the guys to drool over. She's not a bad writer... just not deserving of the status and is now abusing her newfound power. She slams Shine. That's like saying she rejects all those years of comparing which star was hotter. It's quite simple folks. Lisa has a BIG HEAD fill with nothing but hot air. She thinks she's far superior to girly girls. Lisa is like George Bush and Rob@linux is like Carl Rove. He pulled the strings and you know what happened. If we're going to analyze the corporate structure of Shine we might look at the author of this article and her bias. She doesn't even know who the president elect of Russia is without using google.
3-31-2008 @ 9:58AM
Kristin Shoemaker said...
It's actually kind of funny that Shine has a headline "Miss Bimbo - like Barbie - only more disturbing..." Ah, the irony.
Lisa, it seems that you and I aren't the most, er, girly girls on the planet... But I guess my reaction to Shine would be lackluster even if I *were* into lipstick and going into throes of grief when my favorite TV character dies (are they for real?)
I mean, there appear to be other sites out there that do this just as well... if not better...
Ah, perhaps I should shut up, get back to installing the additional RAM in the MythTV box, and finish feeding the snakes. :)
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 10:35AM
Thomas Paine said...
"Ah, perhaps I should shut up, get back to installing the additional RAM in the MythTV box, and finish feeding the snakes."
Please tell me you are single and are free this Friday evening!
3-31-2008 @ 10:49AM
Kristin Shoemaker said...
Flattered, but alas, happily married to the guy who knew me well enough to tape the engagement ring to the back of a turtle.
3-31-2008 @ 10:34AM
jmartone said...
Lisa,
I understand your comments. But I feel there is room for both "meaningfull" content and for blogs that pander to More stereotypical demographic models. Your example about the hypothetical Men's site exist today in hundreds of places. Men and women are sophistocated enough to know how to find the content they need, be it parenting advice, tech tips, or fashion advice. Although a fan of download squad and its sister sites, I do not expect them to be my "complete solution". I agree with the first repondant that you may wish to "lighten up" a bit. There is still a massive audience for women directed magazines that cover these "stereotypical" topics. It is probably due to desire on the part of (a substantial #) of that audience in the topics.
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 10:34AM
jason said...
i don't think the site was aimed to reach just you. do some online research about women, age 25 to 54 and you'll find out that the majority of women online, most of the time, go to sites that feature "fashion, beauty, love, and astrology." i should know, i work for a company that advertises to women online.
notice i didn't write ALL women, ALL the time. while you personally aren't the typical target looking to read about nail polish and how to get a man; most women are. and i'd venture to guess that the number of women to this site is a minority both in total site visitors and overall online population further making my point.
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 10:36AM
Matt said...
Content producers produce what sells. Getting upset about it is pointless. Anyone that wants to expose a different point of view is free to do so, and their views can rise or fall in the marketplace of ideas.
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 11:00AM
Michael said...
Um, yeah.
Thing is, it's women who support Hollywood, and these chick magazines, which support this "stereotype."
So it isn't a stereotype.
Is is true of ALL women?
No.
Of course not.
Stereotypes generalize.
But it is obviously true of MOST straight women.
Evidence?
This is the way you vote, both at the ballot box and with your purses.
Sorry.
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 11:05AM
Gail Kaufman said...
Lisa - Problem for me is not that *something is written about a "feminine" topic, but rather that a site puts this in their first paragraph:"Internet company Yahoo launched Monday a new website focusing on women-related subjects, such as fashion, relationships, parenting, and entertainment." Sound like girlie topics to me, as opposed to topics of interest to women. I'll read about those subjects, but enjoy reading about finances, do-it-yourself home repair,sports even running a business. Oh my, could that be because I have been Owner/President of one for 11-1/2 yrs? (I still enjoy make-up & clothes, but they don't define me).
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 11:18AM
Lisa Hoover said...
Bingo. I get girly with the best of 'em (ask anyone who's ever seen the metric ton of shoes and the unholy amount of makeup I own), but, yeah, it doesn't define me.
Guess I should have been more clear when writing this. I don't mind that they have the content, I mind that it's the *only content.
For another spin on why Shine is a bad idea, have a look at what Calacanis wrote: http://www.calacanis.com/2008/03/31/content-owners-should-drop-yahoo-for-google/
3-31-2008 @ 11:38AM
V said...
I loved your comment on the subject.
I absolutely agree with your view on the subject.
And regarding that male version of the website... We should seriously be expecting something like that in the near future.
Keep well,
V
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 12:00PM
kingkool68 said...
My 22 year old girlfriends response: "boring looking"
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 2:55PM
Christina Warren said...
I consider myself a girly-girl but I still find the site completely boring and banal. I mean, I subscribe to Cosmopolitan, Elle, Vogue and W -- but I also subscribe to Fortune, New York Magazine, Wired, Rolling Stone, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair (and yes, I subscribe to far too many magazines -- because that isn't even a complete list). This site reads like a copy of Good Housekeeping -- and that's fine, it just doesn't fit with the broad (too broad, in my opinion) demographic it is attempting to serve.
I don't expect a site to be personalized to my liking, but if the aim is women 25-54, the content could be a little more diverse -- especially in the money & work section.
I get what they are going for -- I just fail to see how it is any different from typical MSN fare. Sure, they slap the under-30 label on it and then attempt to pander to that audience with pictures of celebrities (the ageism is actually what bothers me more than the relative simplistic look at femininity) -- something I'm all about , but not exclusively -- but at its root, this is just another generic site aimed at married women over 30 who have children. Even in that niche, the site obviously doesn't (and truthfully, can't) serve what many would argue would be a majority of women -- instead, it seems to continue to aim at that stereotype, going one step further and attempting to apply it to an even broader age range.
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 8:14PM
Gail Kaufman said...
JJ - Sorry YOU didn't get the job ??? Your comments sound personal rather than a critique of Lisa's professional work.
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 9:22PM
Sally Wu said...
I am so glad I don’t care about technology or websites... Yahoo Shine has shown me the way... And I blogged about it too.. http://webpoet.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/superfluous/
Reply
3-31-2008 @ 9:33PM
Dolores Parker said...
Wow. To think such a shallow site like Shine could bring out the depth in people.
Reply