It seems that Border’s has a labeling problem in more ways than one. The above mags are clearly aimed at different sexes, what about the others? Modern Drummer, Guns and Ammo, Guitar Magazine, Muscle and Fitness…I’m sure we can agree that the majority of buyers of these magazines are men. That’s not even counting boobie mags.
So, rather than adopt an alphabetical system that would put Poker Monthly right next to Playgirl, such stores need to group all titles that might interest one person in one area. I’m sure you’re aware of the reasoning behind this, both economically, and statistically.
It seems to me that the divisions amongst the magazines make sense in a purely economical sense, but are a far cry from being politically correct.
One could remove the gender labeling in a magazine rack, but I guess they’d sell fewer magazines. I know I’m not going to browse through 70+ magazines to find a mag that I only kind of want. If I saw all the mags I’m likely to want, I might buy more than one.
Either way, there’s no better way to sell mags on a rack than I can think of.
I’m not disagreeing that there is a need for a system of organization and that sure, most of the readers of Guns and Ammo, Bodybuilder Quarterly, and Big Black Jugs are probably men.
But science? Magazines like Discover? How is that any more manly than it is feminine? Hell, I’ll even buy that it’s most logical to put a lot of the history magazines near the men’s stuff- particularly the war history, but science? Seriously?
That said, I really don’t think either should be together under the male title, it just isn’t fair. There, I said it. I’m whining. Go ahead and tell me life isn’t fair.
But how much harder would it be for Borders to have, I dunno, a science section? Or just organize things together- why not put the women’s section near the men’s section, rather than have it completely at the other end of the display- that way the separation isn’t so blatant? Why does the male section have the science, the history, the economics, and the politics. . .while the women have bridal and hair magazines? Oh, and cooking magazines! If it really doesn’t matter, why not switch the science magazines over by the women’s interests?
Oh, we asked her boss that last one. She said corporate dictates where the stuff goes.
How about an “Arts and Sciences” section, which would be conviently genderless? Art magazines, cooking magazines, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Discover, Omni, and various history magazines could all go in that section and be easy to locate by all.
I went into computer engineering (and am now employed as a full time software engineer), and while the girls were outnumbered by the guys by a huge margin, I can’t say I ever saw outright bias against us. The locale where I work is 35 software engineers. There are five females. There’s only one in my entire division. Outnumbered? Yes. Biased against? I’m thought of as one of the top ‘rock stars’. Three of the other four women have been treated with nothing other than respect. The last one gets no respect because she does no work. She seems to consider it her job to go around the office all day sitting on various guys’ desks, and occasionally orders cake.
There was a concerted effort in the university to get more girls into engineering. The interest just wasn’t there. The engineering discipline with the most girls was civil (which included civil-environmental), and after that it seemed to go chemical, mechanical, industrial, electrical, and computer.
So how do you get around the fact that more men than women are choosing to go into the heavy science disciplines?
Huh… I Canada there’s Chapters (same kind of deal) and as far as I’ve ever noticed, magazines are ALL in the big honkin’ magazine section where everyon is standing around reading. I don’t think there’s a “Men’s Interest” area at all, but if you go to the “Health and Fitness” area, you’ll find sections on “men’s health” and “women’s health.”
A “Men’s Interest” area is so vague/broad it seems pretty pointless to even have that as a category.
And suddenly the economics of putting it under “Men’s Mags” makes sence.
Shop displays are not just organised around a “help you find what you’re looking for” idea, they’re a form of advertising to put the product into the faces of as many potentential customers as possible.
We’re talking about a much bigger problem than magazines if there are patterns all through the education system. Don’t blame the store for working within society’s expectations.
Point being, why not have the girlie mags under ‘men’s interests’ (though, again, lesbians might disagree) and put the science magazines under - oh - say - ‘Science’? Which has been suggested a number of times already.
Moreover, I’m betting that any survey of buying patterns will show that the greatest proportion of science magazine buyers is male, while the greatest proportion of bridal magazine buyers is female. In a way, you can’t blame the store for putting magazines in a section the majority of buyers are most likely to peruse.
On the other hand, I think it would work OK to do away with the gender labels, and label by subject instead, so yeah, screw Borders anyway.
On a related note, I noticed last week that the old Harris Teeter (grocery store) nearby has a “Mothers with Children” parking space, whereas the newer store has a “Customers with Children” space. So sometimes there is progress, I guess.
As with everything, money is as good an explanation as any. They’ve probably crunched the figures, the stats, the market research and arrived at an arrangement of magazines that gives them the most (opportunity for) profit. For every girl that is pissed off not being able to locate Civil War Monthly magazine, there could be three other guys who impulse-buy it while they’re picking up Jugs and Football.
This reminds me of my trip to the Topshop (trendy and affordable British female clothing chain, Topman being the male equivalent) flagship store in London. Basically, you have a whole, vast space full of clothes, yet clustered by the checkouts are rows upon rows of brightly coloured candy. To me, it was obnoxious. I could practically hear some marketing arsehole screaming:
“Yeah, you girls like clothes and shopping. You know what you also like? Candy. That’s why we’ve put the candy by the checkouts, because we know you bitches can’t get enough of the brightly coloured confectionery. We’ve put it by the checkouts because our research says that you idiots love to buy it on impulse while waiting to be served. Forget that candy has absolutely fuck all to do with clothing, we want some more money. On your period? Have some fruit chews. Boyfriend upset you by implying that you’re fat? Here, have some chocolate and prove that bastard right! God, you women love that fucking chocolate as much as you like a new pair of boots. Why not get 'em both at the same time?”
Thanks, that made my morning.