Saturday, 21 June 2008

The Boycotts

Just to let regular visitors to my Blog know that I have removed the two recent tongue-in-cheek 'boycott' posts, following today's Sunday Times article, which I think has rather taken everything too seriously.

I really don't want to cause any trouble, the point of the original post was that in business I think it is a mistake to insult women as they now make or influence 70% of all purchasing decisions.

As to Red Letter Days being my 'baby', the comment I have made in the past is that I think women tend to have much more emotional attachment to the companies they create than men. However to me my Red Letter Days era has long since passed, and while the company now owned by Peter and Theo has the same name, it bears little resemblance to the company I created.

And because so many great things have happened for me in the past few years, it would be impossible for me to wish that I was back owning or running it.

14 comments:

julesbrad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
julesbrad said...

Hi Rachel
Not sure why you felt the need to remove the posts as I did not think you had said anything which warranted their removal.
Even though you have removed them from your blog, they are still viewable via Google's cached resource and with 15 responses to the 'Theo' post shows that it was a popular post.

(could not edit so removed and re-posted to note that there are 23 responses, not 15, so it was even more popular post)

Ian said...

"I think women tend to have much more emotional attachment to the companies they create than men"

I find that sexist and rude to believe that a woman could have more or less attachment to a business than a man. I run my own companies, I eat, sleep and breath them, and have lost relationships because my life is so deep inside them. Many of my male and female friends are business owners, and would never say that either gender has more or less attachment, as we all give 100% of our time to them otherwise the business wouldn’t exist.

If a man was to say that kind of comment reversed “Women have less attachment to their businesses”, he would be a chauvinist, what’s the difference in your comment?

Nick said...

I am afraid I agree with Ian...

Its a comment I found irritating as its essentially pidgeon-holing men and women into 2 stereotypes.

Now having a general debate about our attachment to our businesses, and what they mean to us is worth having..

MrRobot said...

I guess what Rachel was saying is that it is the more sensitive side of human personality that integrates leaders with their brands.

You have to love your brand passionately, like only a woman can love a man.

I know where shes going with it.

Wake up and lighten up guys!

Anonymous said...

Rachel,

I agree that you should have taken down the blog as it was getting a little too serious!

Here is something that I picked up recently:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2008/06/22/dragon-s-den-star-duncan-bannatyne-to-give-310m-to-charity-98487-20616945/

I think that this shows that Duncan Bannatyne is not just in it for the money. I really take heart from donating his fortune to charity.

John

MrRobot said...

Duncan and all smart entrepreneurs are always in it for the money, but they realise later on that the big guy is going to get you at some stage and that you better stop playing that same old game and start playing a different game.

If it was me i'd give much of it away before i died so i could make sure it was really doing some good.

Good on him and Bill Gates.

Anonymous said...

mrrobot, what a load of twaddle!

"more sensitive side of human personality that integrates leaders with their brands", "You have to love your brand passionately, like only a woman can love a man."

I dont think I have ever heard 2 more ridiculous statements than these!

So what about all the brands that men are passionate about and cant a MAN love a women passionately?

Please engage brain before mouth, or in this case, fingers.

Rachel Elnaugh said...

Actually I've now proved it statistically for you... See my latest post.

Rachel

Graham Kemp said...

Well Rachel, if that's your idea of 'proof', I'm sure glad you are not a scientist.

Roberta said...

What Rachel is saying is indeed quite true - business acumen and IQ will always vary from person to person and will usually bear no correlation to gender, whereas EQ (emotional quotient)as I understand it, does.
In general women are more 'attuned' emotionally in certain ways whilst men are 'in general' better equipped to detach emotionally.

In business, neither is good and neither is bad, each trait can have its strengths.
There will, of course always be exceptions in society today which is why it's dangerous to generalise about our various forms of intelligence and varying degrees of passion whether in business, interests or one's personal life.
Women and men are, by design, meant to differ - it's called human nature.

That said, women's brains do not turn to 'mush' - that was such a male comment (ie said without thinking) which would inevitably provoke any sane woman!

As women our hormones alter around the time we have babies in order to keep the species going!
When we tune differently to the needs of our young - I'm sure we're just acting in the same way any mother lion/tiger/dragon would to protect what she most cares about!

Debbie said...

From a woman who has had MANY discussions about the difference between men and women in business or otherwise, I have found it to be debated heavily no matter what the issue at hand.

Most people want to think that people are just people and one shouldn't generalize. But there are thousands of studies out there that prove (within statistical reason) that there ARE differences, there ARE certain tendencies that show up in the male versus female when it comes to business, money, sex or whatever.

But most people (men or women) don't want to admit it because then they might have to do something or change their perceptions to allow things to more equitable (or diffential depending on the subject)between male and female.

For example, and I' aware it doesn't have to do with the topic at hand, but I'm using it to make a point. It is proven within all of the studies I've seen that more females are subjected to abuse and violence across the world than males (outside of war). Abused, violated or murdered women can be counted, emotional attachment cannot. Does that make it untrue?

Anybody want to refute that one?

Leona said...

lol well he was right in my instance my brain definitely went to mush when I was pregnant in fact I think it just up and left and didn't come back until my son was a couple of months old. This also happened to all of my friends.

It was very bizarre but my dizziness certainly entertained my friends and family!

Anonymous said...

From a male standpoint, I'd have to agree with the comment about women being more emotionally attached to a business than a man.

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the emotional attachment with the effort that both men and women put in to starting a business. That baby's still yours, male or female, but I know from experience that I'm able to walk away from something, that had my money and effort invested in it, a lot easier than my wife was.

If you don't put 100% into your business, unless you have an extremely big lamp out back that can muster up a genie, you won't get over the first stumbling block in your enterprise.

Now, if she'd said that men don't have to put as much effort into building their business as women, then I'd have been p****d off.

As for the emotional side of things, I think it's something they can lay claim to.