A sorry excuse for an article about geek conventions had this bit of misinformation, with no source, presented as fact:"Women make most tech buying decisions, download more movies and TV shows than men, and play more games on certain platforms."
What a ridiculous statement. You can tell just by reading it that it isn't true. But fake geek girls repeat it & repeat it. That's called The Woozle Effect. Using social media engagement as proof that more women purchase these things is nonsensical. Posting about something online is not the same as spending money. These are all businesses. Only money matters. Tweeting & "liking" is not money.
"Women make most tech buying decisions" This can't be verified. It is a judgment statement. Who makes the decisions? Everyone will say that they make the decisions. "download more movies and TV shows than men" This also can't be verified and non-geek media is obviously included based on the wording so it is irrelevant to geek cons. "play more games on certain platforms." The key words in this one are "certain platforms." They play more touchscreen & Facebook games, not consoles. Taken together these unverifiable claims prove nothing more than that this "evidence" does not apply to geek cons.
When the "author" was pressed to back it up she replied with this link & she said Also, just Googling the issue will bring up a slew of other studies and surveys on this point." Even though as the writer it’s her responsibility to back up her claims but this is nothing new when it comes to feminists. “Just educate yourself”
That website has as its "source" this phrase: "According to a new report from Parks Associates" which is not a source. Searching for Parks Associates brings us to their website where they provide ZERO data to justify this outrageous claim. They also provide ZERO links to primary sources. They don't even mention what data they analyzed! They just spout random percentages based on aether. Continued searching brings us to this article where we discover that it was a survey and the so-called "data" was based on what people said they were THINKING of buying IN THE FUTURE. Not what they actually bought. Because what women are thinking of buying in the future now counts as actual purchases. (By that “logic” men buy more time traveling cyborgs than women because I'm thinking of buying a T-800 one day.) But she never mentioned that link; she just included more woozles instead of addressing their pre-cog survey.A site with ZERO citations to where they got this "data"
Another site with ZERO citations to wherethey got this "data."
Has some citations & despite this, merely confirms what all geeks already know. That women use social media all day long & play casual games.
The info cited here says that 45% of gamers are women and also shows thatcasual/social games account for a big chunk of the gaming pie. And oh look, women play more of that type of game:
Women play more casual games, nobody disputes this. That will be relevant when the next C3 takes place, you know, Candy Crush Con. Did you get your 3-day pass yet?
"Beyond that, I've sat in tons of meetings with tech and gadget companies on the issue of engaging women--how to do it, how not to do it, etc.--and each time the marketing folks cite similar numbers and studies. So no, the claim is not "outrageous" or "ridiculous"."
That’s exactly how the woozle effect works. Keep repeating the lie & no one will question it. If this ridiculous claim were true, the market would reflect these purchases. Dollars speak louder than blogs. In certain segments of the market it is true (iCrap, failbook games, Wii, etc.) but for other segments, it simply isn't true or Anita would have nothing to vlog about.
Now, as to whether the market would definitely reflect this if the claims are true, I can only say to you: Have you met the Patriarchy? Do you not know our friend sexism?
Her answer as to why the market doesn't reflect actual spending dollars is "The Patriarchy"?! Yet it very clearly reflects it in terms of iPhones, laptops & other small consumer electronics? You can't argue that the market doesn't reflect women's spending when it clearly does. Oh wait, I forgot: "The Patriarchy!" You win.