No evidence is presented that women are the more valuable market, just that on average they spend more time online and using their devices. Which would you pick: 10 customers that use a mobile phone for 20 hours each vs. 100 customers that use a mobile phone for 3 hours each?
No statistics are posted on how much male usage counts for, saying 17 percent more is a big difference when 100% is 4 hours vs. 40 hours.
> One huge reason is the relative lack of women at major venture capital firms, startups, electronics makers, and Internet companies.
This seems like a strange conclusion, the obvious conclusion is that on average 1 18 - 24 Male (the "most valuable demographic") is more likely to spend money with the advertiser after seeing advertising than a female counterpart, isn't it? They present no evidence disproving the obvious conclusion. I also don't see how tech adoption can be that important to a company like Apple. Maybe if it's 25% more likely a female that owns an iPhone will recommend to a friend and have them purchase it and the chances of a female purchasing vs. a male based on an advert is equal then sure, but if a male is 10x more likely to buy after seeing an advert what value is women causing "adoption", isn't people buying your products adoption?
Not a very good article. I would suggest it's just written to fit the narrative ("not enough women in tech") or it's just really badly written: you can't make assertions without proving them.
Sales = adoption.
No statistics are posted on how much male usage counts for, saying 17 percent more is a big difference when 100% is 4 hours vs. 40 hours.
> One huge reason is the relative lack of women at major venture capital firms, startups, electronics makers, and Internet companies.
This seems like a strange conclusion, the obvious conclusion is that on average 1 18 - 24 Male (the "most valuable demographic") is more likely to spend money with the advertiser after seeing advertising than a female counterpart, isn't it? They present no evidence disproving the obvious conclusion. I also don't see how tech adoption can be that important to a company like Apple. Maybe if it's 25% more likely a female that owns an iPhone will recommend to a friend and have them purchase it and the chances of a female purchasing vs. a male based on an advert is equal then sure, but if a male is 10x more likely to buy after seeing an advert what value is women causing "adoption", isn't people buying your products adoption?
Not a very good article. I would suggest it's just written to fit the narrative ("not enough women in tech") or it's just really badly written: you can't make assertions without proving them.
Sales = adoption.