Uhmmm... RTFA - it's a real piece of work: ---------------------------------------------------- Women are put off spending money in electronics shops because of the way they are treated, a survey suggests.
Contrary to popular myth, female consumers are interested in technology, the study found - but they do not feel confident asking questions in stores.
In the poll by Saatchi and Saatchi, a third of women internet users said they would spend more on gadgets if retailers learned how to approach them.
One respondent said electrics shops reeked of a "strong scent of men".
However, only 9% of those questioned felt it was important that gadgets looked feminine.
In addition, many said that they felt patronised by pink digital radios and diamante-encrusted mobile phones. ------------------------
Everything about this article is wrong. The initial assumption - women are uninterested in technology - is strange, I mean how did they come up with that? Then the "survey" - apparently an internet poll. Haha. OK, I'll bear with you there. Finds that "women would spend more if stores learned how to approach them". Duh!
And finally, the woman to represent all women world-wide: "One respondent said electrics shops reeked of a "strong scent of men"." Wow, really? She said that?! It must be true then! OMG!!!
And then "only" 9% say that gadgets need not look feminine. That's just dumb. If you asked me whether gadgets need to look masculine, I'd say no too. If anything, 9% is pretty high, but then again an internet poll is not exactly trustworthy.
"...many said that they felt patronised by pink digital radios..."
Many... why not continue with the straight-up % numbers in stead of saying many? Because maybe it was only 1?
This would be a straight F in Journalism 101. The article is amazing in how many fallacies it can pack in just four short paragraphs though.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Uhmmm... RTFA - it's a real piece of work:
----------------------------------------------------
Women are put off spending money in electronics shops because of the way they are treated, a survey suggests.
Contrary to popular myth, female consumers are interested in technology, the study found - but they do not feel confident asking questions in stores.
In the poll by Saatchi and Saatchi, a third of women internet users said they would spend more on gadgets if retailers learned how to approach them.
One respondent said electrics shops reeked of a "strong scent of men".
However, only 9% of those questioned felt it was important that gadgets looked feminine.
In addition, many said that they felt patronised by pink digital radios and diamante-encrusted mobile phones.
------------------------
Everything about this article is wrong. The initial assumption - women are uninterested in technology - is strange, I mean how did they come up with that? Then the "survey" - apparently an internet poll. Haha. OK, I'll bear with you there. Finds that "women would spend more if stores learned how to approach them". Duh!
And finally, the woman to represent all women world-wide: "One respondent said electrics shops reeked of a "strong scent of men"." Wow, really? She said that?! It must be true then! OMG!!!
And then "only" 9% say that gadgets need not look feminine. That's just dumb. If you asked me whether gadgets need to look masculine, I'd say no too. If anything, 9% is pretty high, but then again an internet poll is not exactly trustworthy.
"...many said that they felt patronised by pink digital radios..."
Many... why not continue with the straight-up % numbers in stead of saying many? Because maybe it was only 1?
This would be a straight F in Journalism 101. The article is amazing in how many fallacies it can pack in just four short paragraphs though.