After having worked in the liquor industry for over 8 years I can tell you that the most difficult demographic to appeal to is men. You might think that’s hard to believe but by comparison men are much more difficult to engage than women when it comes to introducing a new spirits brand. Men tend to lock in with a particular brand of liquor or beer (usually what’s cheap) and resist anything new, while women are much more experimentative with choice of intoxicants.
When introducing a spirit such as a bourbon or whiskey, one that is traditionally a male taste, the field is incredibly broad. There are literally thousands of craft brands all vying for the same male demographic, however, only a dozen of these brands are ever commercially successful. Not so with flavored vodkas or rums, which appeal to the much wider female drinking demo. The common mistake is to think men wont drink “froo froo” drinks with umbrellas in them for fear of seeming unmanly. This is the feminized marketing perspective; in actuality the female drinking demographic has much more depth and much more purchasing influence.
That may seem odd considering the aggressiveness with which the better known alcohol brands market to a male, drinking age demographic, but that aggressiveness is necessary to maintain brand awareness with men due to one simple fact: women are the primary consumers in westernized societies.
Alcohol is an easy illustration, not just because I’m intimately involved in the industry, but because it’s one of the few markets that actively tries to engage a male demographic. Most advertising since the rise of social feminization has simply written off male consumer involvement. Men don’t buy shit, women do. Even uniquely male necessities are purchased more often by women (wives or LTR women) than men today, so rather than make attempts at inroads to male brand loyalty advertising and marketing directs its effort to the demographic that is doing the actual purchasing – women.
Feminist love to paint this patronization as some triumph of women becoming more economically equatable with men. The fem-logic being that women have more purchasing influence because they have more money from being more economically successful (only to bemoan the tired 77¢ on the male dollar trope 10 minutes later). Some of that may be true, but the greater influence is men’s general apathy about who’s making purchases in their names.
Men’s innate rationality is a tough obstacle for most marketers. The fact that most advertising is controlled by a female influence further exacerbates the difficulty of reaching men’s purchasing influence. And really, why bother? It’s much easier to induce women’s purchasing decisions with appeals to their predominantly emotional natures. Women buy from feeling good about buying something, while men buy from pragmatism – even when that pragmatism may only benefit themselves.
Means of Production
I was recently reading a forum thread I got a link back from and the topic was the timeless classic, “what make a man a man?” The predictable responses were all present: Confidence, Responsibility, Integrity, and all of the other subjectively definable esoteric attributes you’d expect. I thought about this question in terms of the difference in consumer influence of both men and women. I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.
To maintain a wife, children, even a dog, a man must produce more than his consumption. Once you’ve lost that capacity (or never developed it) you are less of a man – you are a burden. You must be provided either by charity or guile, but you’re not producing.
On a limbic level, women’s hypergamy filters for this. You see, while women have the societal option to provide for themselves, there is no onus on her to produce anything more than she herself consumes. For all the fem-centric male professions of how rewarding being a stay-at-home Dad is, what eats away at them is the hindbrain awareness that he is not producing more than he consumes. This is the same awareness etching into a woman’s psyche when she’s the one doing the provisioning.
Every complaint about men not Manning Up, every article bemoaning the End of Men or the dearth of datable / marriageable men of “equatable” socio-economic, educational levels as the women seeking them, finds the root of its discontent in the very simple formula that men must produce more than they consume. Women’s displeasure isn’t that a man might be less intellectual than they are so much as he can provide for himself, and her, and a child, and a dog, and a relative, etc.
“the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”
I really like that.
When a gal comes to visit me for the first time, she’s generally shocked at how little I have. My place isn’t spartan, but it’s threadbare in many ways. When she visits the kitchen and sees I have 2 plates, 4 forks/knives/spoons, and only a few minor cooking utensils, she’ll usually ask why. And my answer has always been the same: a man produces, a woman spends. With almost 90% of my ecommerce online, our target audience is women. Even if we sell stuff for guys, our ads are directed to married women. That might be one of the reasons… Read more »
“the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”
Then my father was right when he said his biggest goal as a father was to have my brother and I be productive members of society. He achieved that goal.
Regarding the question: “what make[s] a man a man?” … I would have instantly answered pragmatism, but your answer works better.
This brings up another topic about economies and regulation. When you over-regulate, you effectively tell men to stop producing more than they consume. Worse, too much regulation often forces men into situations where they have to produce in insanely inefficient ways. This removes the value of men in society bit by bit, and society suffers for it.
Your definition is in line with social psychologist Baumeister wrote in his book “Is There Anything Good About Men?”: “the core achievement that defines manhood in a culture is that a man produces more than he consumes.”
as a never married, no kids guy I work part-time…
I get sideway glances from the cubicle slaves who work 40+….
they drive nice cars but some have declared BK, have divorces….
—
on the alcohol note-I always hated hard liquor…..
I love dark beer and IPA’s….
You see this in the vast differences in how advertising has changed. Take for instance a television commercial for a car from the 50’s or 60’s when men generally controlled those buying decisions. The ad will talk about performance, suspension, braking… all practical considerations. Cut to a car ad today. Rarely do you ever hear about those practical considerations. It’s all about painting the consumer into this pretty picture where they feel good and the car just so happens to be there too. Apple’s advertising is a fantastic example of this. There is practically nothing about the details of the… Read more »
“the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”
Form an evolutionary biology perspective, this is absolutely correct. Really, when you get down to it, women and men serve two very different roles that are both vital to the survival of the species.
Women are breeders and lactaters.
Men are meatshields and mules.
All of our behaviors and attitudes flow from those roles, and from our socio-sexual strategies and preferences.
so lets drill down further. Your physical fitness, social fitness, and creative intelligence set the stage for providing the capacity to generate net resources. ie. initial attractiveness. Your willingness to commit those resources and/or capacity long term and maintain them are the qualities that define a females non-negotiable desire to remain faithfull, around, etc. Notice that how you feel, or what she cares about dont play, only ability and the harsh reality of physical resources. Women then trade emotional connectiveness (and sex is ultimately self same for a man, unless procreation results) for that capacity or tangible resource. Everything else… Read more »
Did SSM really delete her blog!?! Rollo tell us what’s up
@30, I really don’t know. I think Dalrock is looking into it.
I have phrased this as “overproduce or perish”.
In modern American society, men cannot opt out of this reality. A woman can by having a child, whether or not she cares for it well.
Not to echo the others too much, but, Yes. Goddamned genius, and no mistake. As Mr. Mintner says: Pop pop.
Rollo, this is one of your finest (and I consider you the guy with the best posts in the manosphere).
Esther Vilar said something similar: “A man is a human being who works. A woman is a human being who doesn’t work”. This was before feminism.
But, after feminism, your definition is more accurate. “A man is a human being who produces more than he consumes” and “A woman is a human being who consumes more than she produces”.
Or as a Dada said more succintly: “a man produces, a woman spends”.
Warriors destroy more than they create, yet nobody questions their manhood.
warriors are enablers for the tribe, destroying the evil so everyone else can live. unless they are destroying the tribe, in which case they are the evil themselves.
“A man will spend 2$ on a 1$ item he really wants. A woman will spend 1$ on a 2$ item she doesn’t want.”
After the first paragraph I thought I was going to read a lot of men lock in on one type of alcohol and stay with it because they are prone to oneitist.
“the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.”
I would add “and with a purpose”
There is nothing wise or manly in a production for the sake of production itself. To produce more than is needed it’s just to waste resources, especially in times when fiat money rule the world.
Also…
Pyrat Rum with Coke.
This also explains why women get irate at Captain Capitalism for going minimalist and producing only enough for himself.
>>>>Cut to a car ad today. Rarely do you ever hear about those practical considerations. Cupholders, Hero. Cupholders. That is what car sales to women are all about. My truck? Two cupholders. One of them contains a leatherman tool. >>>>the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.” Sure, that and a pair of testicles. – Jeff Lebowski. Sorry, it was apt. But serious question for Rollo, relating to the liquor marketing – what is driving the over-the-top ironic ad campaigns for Dos Equis (the Most Interesting Man in the World) and for the… Read more »
Second Yohami with a caveat. Warriors, at least the US kind, destroyed communism, National Socialism and slavery, among other things. And more freedom resulted. Not a bad result.
“the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.” I wonder who it is that consumes the rest of what the man produces lol Seriously though, this reminds me of the “Wasp And Spider” concept that I read about in “The Predatory Female.” There’s a wasp that’s like a woman. A tarantula (i.e man) is bigger and stronger but the wasp can sting that tarantula until he’s in a coma. Then she’ll build her nest on his back. Then she’ll lay her eggs. She’s raise her young and feed from his living body. These… Read more »
Ace, I think the concept of “more, more, more” does not arise from pure greed but sexual/resource competition between women. More for me and my children means less for other women and any children she may have. Sexual/resource competition does not end with divorce unfortunatel y
“the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume” That’s is a very “manly” viewpoint. Very Promethean. But, sorry, it is an entirely Femcentric definition of what “manly” is. And a very convenient one if you happen to have a vagina to trade for that surplus the man produces. The reality, if you scape away all the social and cultural conditioning and break it down to the biological function of men, is that to be man you have have an orgasm and deliver sperm. Anything other than that is a social invention. And the… Read more »
@ Mark “The reality, if you scape away all the social and cultural conditioning and break it down to the biological function of men, is that to be man you have have an orgasm and deliver sperm. Anything other than that is a social invention.” Mark, you are failing to think this through. That sperm is useless if it doesn’t result in conception, and that fetus is born healthy, and the child lives long enough to reproduce. Sperm is cheap, yes. But that is only part of the story. Humans are a highly sexually dimorphic species for a reason. Men… Read more »
The image used is very apropos, for me what is interesting is how advertising has changed over the years… http://www.businessinsider.com/18-ads-that-changed-the-way-we-think-about-women-2012-10?op=1 This was an unbelievable read on advertising to men and the trends…. “The End of Men, For Real.” http://www.aef.com/industry/news/data/2012/1235 The later link and Rollo’s “man is to produce more than you consume” points to a blurring of this role. In which men can’t realistically make this claim anymore. Even looking at IRA contributions women contribute more than men, when given the opportunity by their company to do so. http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/men-better-at-saving-for-retirement-weston.aspx If its not apparent, I am leaning away from the idea… Read more »
Sounds good in theory, or generations past. In reality most hot women under 40 spent their 20s with bums who produced sweet fuck all. They gave (and still give) their youthful sexuality by hookup or serial monogamy to men are unemployed or not much more. I agree with MM, this is the femcentric postwall definition of “MAN”, and does, even for me, give a nice fuzzy warm feeling inside to be a producer, creator or things and wealth. But it is certainly not the definition of “man I want to fuck” for most hot women out there. Only the married… Read more »
“the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume” I agree that it’s very convenient for this to be en vogue and not “to be a man is to produce for yourself and consume what you want”. Basically being self-interested which is what you see women doing when they come into good careers. They don’t want to support any man but nobody gives them shit for it because they’re strong and independent. Because if they’re queens and they only want kings (or Gods,) these men better drop out of the sky and magically in… Read more »
I suspect “most men” would cheerfully and unselfishly struggle by on moonshine and homebrew, if it wasn’t such a hassle. Rather than waste a penny that could be better spent on vehicles, tools or gambling.
Looking at advertising, a few years ago I was visiting a friend in Seattle. A huge billboard on the West Seattle Freeway — heavy traffic area — for Dodge Trucks read, “More reliable than most husbands.” I couldn’t believe it. It was up there for awhile until I wrote Dodge a letter saying that billboard is uncalled for, wrong, and just who in the hell do you think your clientle is? Not long it came down, not sure if my letter did the trick or not. My Seattle friend had a good comment: “If the billboard said, “More reliable than… Read more »
@Phero, Lover / Provider dichotomy operating there. Women 16-33 (roughly) are not looking for long term provisioning. They exhibit no long term time horizon in their decision making. Its all about now. As a result, the main values fueling hypergamy during these years are Charisma and psycho-sexual dominance (i.e. superior “frame”). So the cocky wise-ass who is unemployed or underemployed can sex up all the pretty young girls while the hard working betas end up with nothing or far less attractive women. Witness Roosh V. In a sane culture women would spit on him. But today he is an “alpha… Read more »
“This also explains why women get irate at Captain Capitalism for going minimalist and producing only enough for himself.” I’ve resolved to do the exact same thing. I don’t want kids, so my free time is all mine and there’s no point in working any harder than I have to. In the dating market, women invariably want you to be career-oriented (they always mention something to this effect in their profile), even though they have their own careers and produce for themselves. If I can pay my own way, why care what I do or whether or not I’m passionate… Read more »
hey rollo,
I am a huge fan of your writing. regularly follow it first time writing to you.
Thanks to intelligent posters like yourself, roissy and pook my concepts about men and women have been revolutionised.
Here is a link of my latest activity while bored.
thought I’d share it with you for some comic relief. My name is Mohsin
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=548990101802058&id=548434521857616&comment_id=6242798¬if_t=feed_comment
check it out. you’d be amused
Top post. The natural order of society is a positive feedback mechanism where pair bonded males create excess production that is invested in the family social unit which creates growth. So excess male production is purpose driven and is contingent on pair bonding and having a family. Take away those drivers and you get men who only produce enough to get by (No Ma’am provides an excellent example of prideless lions only working to 40% of capacity to survive). Given social planner’s Zero Growth mantra, lower percentage of total male employment, increased female employment and lower rates of pair bonding… Read more »
“females virtually spend everything they produce.” that’s good for the economy though
“I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume. To maintain a wife, children, even a dog, a man must produce more than his consumption. Once you’ve lost that capacity (or never developed it) you are less of a man – you are a burden. You must be provided either by charity or guile, but you’re not producing. On a limbic level, women’s hypergamy filters for this. You see, while women have the societal option to provide for… Read more »
I came to the same realization a few months ago and have wondered since then why i couldn’t see it before.
The articles on a man without wife and kids being a “man-child” made sense now.
Thinking back there was never a time where a discussion on getting a job and moving out didn’t also include getting a girlfriend.
I am not so sure that over consumption is in the very nature of women. I think they might have been conditioned over the past 100 years to consume as they do. But whatever, they are damn good at it. I think it would be more accurate to say that consumption is in the very nature of women, and that a healthy society keeps this nature in check. When everyone is relatively wealthy the societal constraints come off and you begin to see the “over” consumption we have now. Women are pragmatic, but only when they need to be. It… Read more »
That’s not being a man, that’s being an adult. It’s children and seniors, not women, who aren’t expected to put in more than they take out. They are expected to still contribute age-appropriately, but they are not expected to be net producers because they are not adults.
If women are not expected to be net producers, they are not adults.
We need a label for this common misconflation of masculinity with maturity and femininity with immaturity. Any suggestions?
@ doug Def agree with you. But many are unmarried (or LTR) with kids. The other point is the obvious resentment many show that i am never married, no kids and have done ok. Many a snide comment I have heard like “it’s ok for you, you’re made of money” and similar. Some very resentful and insulting from entitled princesses over 35 who fucked all those losers in their 20s and felt way to good for me at that time. Mostly I just reply with “we all made our choices” unless they piss me off or I want to fuck… Read more »
I have kind of funny personal story. My mother came home from shopping. She was quite laden with bags of purchases. She began to explain all of the purchases. I had 4 brothers and sisters so a haul like this wasn’t uncommon. The form of her explanation was “I got these shoes for Kristal because they were 30% off and I saved you 20 dollars. I got this dress for Joette because it was on sale and I saved you 30 dollars and ……” and on and on she went through the list of purchases. My father said “Evelyn, if… Read more »
>>>>Cut to a car ad today. Rarely do you ever hear about those practical considerations. Cupholders, Hero. Cupholders. That is what car sales to women are all about. My truck? Two cupholders. One of them contains a leatherman tool. Ha. Reminds me of the time I observed my married buddy buy a car. Basically, his wife totally controlled the process. She vetoed one car he really liked because she didn’t like the cupholders. I didn’t say anything, but I remember thinking how pathetically whipped he was. At the end of it, he explained to me “she is going to pick… Read more »
my girlfriend buys me sweaters, exotic teas, and all Ive ever bought for her was a $7 water bottle because she loves running.
call me a woman all you want at least im not Skittles guy and I get all the tang I want…..
@Tarl
When my parents got a look at the cars the couple next door had (two identical family vans) they knew the husband was whipped.
The family seemed so perfect but my parents could see right through the image they were selling.
So they had some laughs when the recently divorce man (they weren’t shocked by it nor the wife asking for it) traded in his identical family van for a new car.
Was it Hitler that said something along the lines of;
“First you get the women and the children and so follow the men.”
The marketeers and corporations learnt this long ago.
@ Jeremy This brings up another topic about economies and regulation. When you over-regulate, you effectively tell men to stop producing more than they consume. Worse, too much regulation often forces men into situations where they have to produce in insanely inefficient ways. This removes the value of men in society bit by bit, and society suffers for it. Yep. Essentially why produce 60k when you’re going to get taxed 20k of it when you can work a much easier 40k job and be taxed maybe 10k. A much harder job for an increase in 10k take home pay is… Read more »
You betas are putting words into Rollo’s mouth. Notice how nowhere in this article did he talk about a man’s obligation to allow women to leech off him. A man produces more than he consumes, period.
^^^^
Disco.
boxsterpaul: Even looking at IRA contributions women contribute more than men
Phew! It’s some sort of US pensions thing then? That’s all right then.
For a minute there I thought we were in Noraid country.
>>A man produces more than he consumes, period.
>^^^^ Disco.
Again, no. That’s not being a man, that’s being an adult.
Whether people like it or not women and children are net consumers and men are net producers. That’s why government intervention exists (welfare, Goverment employment, affirmative action) to bypass the basic social unit (families) and transfer wealth from men to women indirectly. Problem is where are the incentives for males to contribute to such a system? Japan is the prime example, massive government social spending, low marriage rates, high divorce rates, negative population growth and you get the herbivores. Remember these people use to be the hardest working ballsiest race on the planet who would rather die than surrender. What… Read more »
[…] ….Consumer Confidence…. […]
“I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.” In bold letters and is the gist of the post. And obviously his role as a “man” as he sees it. “A man produces more than he consumes, period.” Why? Why can’t I enjoy and spend every dollar I make? To whom do I owe excess production? A man should produce/build what he wants, and consume as much of it he wants. He should be in charge and control… Read more »
What about Donavon’s distinction, producing more then you consume make a good man or someone who is good at being a man?
The only alcohol I drink is foo foo drinks. Love Mai Tais. I can’t do scotch on the rocks, etc. I’d rather just not drink,
““You thin just because you have money you can date young chicks?” Yeah baby, I fuck them too!” I love when they say crap like that. It just confirms what Rollo has said many times on here about how women either misunderstand their own SMV, or try to prevent men from understanding their true market value. One of my cousin’s was a classic AFC when he was in his 20’s. Now he is 35, makes over 300,000 a year, lives in a 3 million dollar house, drives an expensive car etc, and dates women in their mid 20’s. The girls… Read more »
what do you think of this….
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201112/how-would-more-women-help-the-economy
“Why can’t I enjoy and spend every dollar I make?”
Because as soon you as you’ve spent every dollar you make, you will immediately go out and produce more dollars.
Because a man produces more than he consumes.
That’s Rollo’s message. A man is self-sustaining. He’s not a burden. He’s no one else’s debt. He doesn’t spend frivolously like women.
Many of you are mistaking the word ‘produce’ with ‘provide’.
I thought women drink what they think that their man thinks is cool. Hence all the manosphere females blowing on about micro beer and “no fizzy yellow”. These are parroting words.
Never considered the problem that most advertising is done by women, so of course its predictable they ‘think’ they know what we want, but dont have a clue.
donalgraeme Humans are a highly sexually dimorphic species for a reason. Men are larger, stronger, faster, tougher, more logical and more focused for a reason. We are meant to produce more than we consume. Youve got that backwards. I see this a lot in discussions of evolutionary biology. Even professional academics do it. Humans are designed for…. intended to….meant to, etc. We aren’t intended or meant to do anything. The physiology, behaviors and character traits you see in modern humans all exist because they’re reproductively favorable, not because anyone/someone intended them to be or designed them that way. Men are… Read more »
Western Culture is your Operating System but it is not your friend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU
Gawd, people are really tying themselves in knots over the men/production business.
OK, how about “men are capable of consuming far less than they produce (and generally do so)”. For the female equation, substitute “more” for “less”.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022495414
^for a giggle or facepalm^
You poor, poor women. These men are trying to give you exactly what you don’t want and have too much of already.
Hi,
Nice post .. new follower here
[…] “The nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.” […]
@ Chuck Hammer You are correct that my language was off. I should have said this: “Humans are a highly sexually dimorphic species for a reason. Men are larger, stronger, faster, tougher, more logical and more focused for a reason. We evolved to produce more than we consume.” However, you erred in your observation later: “Men are sperm delivery machines. Our success in delivering the sperm on target is dependent on a whole slew of traits and behaviors that are constantly evaluated and weighted by women. The way in which women assess those traits is somewhat dependent on the environment… Read more »
[…] […]