While almost every company involved in the HDTV industry is making a push towards 3D TV, a recent report has revealed that women in the United Kingdom do not display as much interest as men in enhanced viewing technologies like HDTV, Blu-ray and 3D TV. Also, UK’s women remain unconvinced by the benefits of high definition, primarily because of a relative paucity of HD content geared towards this segment of the audience.
Mintel, a UK-based media research firm, compiled and released a report titled “TV and Film: Enhanced Viewing Formats In The UK” in July 2010. Among the valuable nuggets of information contained within this report is the finding that women are generally not as enthusiastic as men when it comes to HDTVs, and are more likely to disagree that high-def image quality are worth the extra amount of money.
The report went on the elaborate that women are almost half less likely as men to be aware of Blu-ray technology, and to approve of paying more for Blu-ray’s better picture quality. According to the report, women are also less interested in 3D TV sets than men, even though nearly an equal number of women as men has experienced 3D and IMAX movies in theatres, and almost as many women as men don’t mind paying higher prices for tickets to watch a 3D film.
The Mintel authors gave a possible explanation for the indifferent attitude among women towards high-definition display technologies. They postulated that women are less likely to be interested in sport programmes which have been been used as a vehicle to drive HDTV adoption, and suggested that TV makers and broadcasters should consider developing other contents in HD that would appeal to the “extremely influential” female audience, such as cooking programmes, fashion and even shopping channels in glorious high definition.
Ah, gendered marketing.
I don’t quite buy that explanation – I don’t care at all about sport, but I do care about beautiful images.
Women not as interested as men in a new toy? How much did these guys get paid to do that ground-breaking piece of research? :-)
I honestly can’t believe my eyes. Did I just read that highly sexist statement correctly in the last paragraph? Make women more interested in HD technology by featuring HD cooking, fashion, and shopping programmes? Do they really think we’re that shallow and stupid?
Fortunately for these (sexist) Mintel authors, I’ve always been interested in the latest technology, and I enjoy watching movies in High Definition. I also see the benefits of HD over SD, as seeing terrestrial channels in SD (and some DVDs) now gives me a slight headache from the blur after having exposed myself to something better. HD is indeed beautiful.
Perhaps the female reluctance with regards to HD and 3D has a better explanation other than a sexist one? Here are my thoughts:
1) Women are more likely to want to save money and tend to get less excited over something new if it’s not entirely ground-breaking enough, or necessary to improve quality of life in general. HD TV is wonderful, yes. But it doesn’t offer enough incentive for the money-saving women to want to upgrade. And aside from Mintel’s sexist views, it’s not just women that feel this way about HD. Those males who aren’t part of the peer pressure rat race to equal the materialistic possession status of their friends won’t be bothered about upgrading, either. Some people just can’t afford to keep on top of the latest trends, or are even bothered about them unless they feel they are absolutely necessary to their lives (which, in the case of HDTV, it will be only when SD is switched off on us all soon — making upgrading a must. How cunning!).
2) 3D technology isn’t anything new. The only difference we have seen with it lately is the improvement on how it is made and delivered to us (e.g. the latest Resident Evil film being filmed using 3D cameras, and geared specifically to the 3D film-viewing consumers). Sadly, 3D isn’t that popular with the movie crowd. You only have to visit the ‘Resident Evil: Afterlife’ forums and threads to see the sheer amount of people who are begging for a location of cinemas that show a 2D version of it (I still haven’t located one yet, even though the official news was that it would be shown in both 2D and 3D). I also know more than a few people who have had to walk out of an Avatar screening because the 3D technology gave them a headache, or — worst case scenario — made them feel sick. Eye strain will do that. Human eyes just aren’t used to being strained to adjust to unnatural and artificial depths of field, or forced to focus on two colours to bring this depth of field into being. So . . . it’s not just women who won’t be so keen on 3D. I think Mintel will find that men can feel this way about it too.
Also, the 3D hype has been done again and again over the years, and then almost immediately fades out into non-existence. Each time, we see new technology or methods to improve it, but 3D has never really caught on. I think a big reason for this is that most people see it for what it is: a bit of fun and a complete gimmick. It doesn’t add anything to a film other than sheer amazement at effects which don’t have any bearing on the film’s story at all. I, for one, would rather concentrate on the film . . . not squeal in delight at a corner of a table that’s poking out at me!
The fact TVs are now pushing for 3D compatibility is not a concern. 3D as a gimmick has not changed, in my opinion. It’s just a bit of fun that will probably only be used on occasion by people that can handle the eye strain. It belongs in the same vein as holographic projections.
Perhaps Mintel feel that more women will be enticed by 3D technology if they see a dangerously sharp carving knife coming out the screen at them as it chops through vegetables on one of these “cooking” programmes?
@Natalie: I think you’ve nailed it. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one surprised at the report conclusion: it’s really only a few stops away from suggesting that manufacturers make a pink TV to appeal to women. That however appears to be the strange bubble that the advertising world resides in. You might find Sony USA’s 2005 BRAVIA ad campaign (which pitched the first BRAVIA LCDs as “The World’s First Television for Men and Women”) as hilarious as I did, or perhaps infuriating:
http://marketingtowomenonline.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/sony_tv_targete.html
If you Mintel’s comments are sexist (am I’m not saying they aren’t) you should hear Sony’s current radio ads at the moment. They starts with the stereotyped [in ad land] pathetic male making some long-winded and incredibly childish excuse as to why a new Bravia TV must be bought. Mercifully for the hopeless man, his partner (after chastising him for being “pathetic”) calmly and intelligently explains that there is an offer on these TVs, so no excuses needed to buy one.
So the ubiquitous dumb man/smart woman setup. Incredibly offensive to men and sexist, yet because men tend not to complain about this type of portrayal/take it in good nature, they persist.
I personally don’t find the comment : “such as cooking programmes, fashion and even shopping channels in glorious high definition” sexist.
I wouldn’t describe myself as having the ‘typical’ tastes or many UK women. I am not into Gok, Cooking, Celbs etc.. and I’m sure that statistics show that the viewers of ‘cooking programmes, fashion and even shopping channels’ are statistically women which is most likely the source of this comment.
Having grown up a largely female family, I am aware that there is a large proportion of my female friends and relatives that firmly tick the boxes of typical female interests.
I can agree that HD and 3D does seem to be geared to particular Genre’s which are followed predominantly by men, such as HD football etc but this is because this group are spending money on HD TV’s.
Personally, I don’t like 3D – it makes me feel sick. If I want to watch a 3D football match, I’ll buy a ticket and watch the game how it was intended.. and I feel a little bit sorry for someone that buy’s a 3D TV to make broadcasts seem more real (male or female).