1of1442

I am confident that at one time I read an Oldsmobile interoffice memo or something that described an new market approach in I believe early 1969. The general gist as I recall was marketing the 442 to a specific "gender" that would be interested in the performance of the 442 but not as interested in the image i.e. Stripes, Hood scoops , manual trans, his and hers shifters etc.
Did I make this up in my head or does some one recall reading this memo or better yet have a copy. I am pretty sure I saw it in the archives once , but attempts to locate it now have been fruitless. I would expect that potential for it being deemed "sexist" is why it disappeared.

don71

You have a good point and an interesting discussion. I'm sure lots of things were considered back in the day.

I don't have much to ad, but I hope that a member or two might have some perspective. I know we've had some members that could shed some light on that subject, but I'm just not sure they are still around...I mean, I hope their alive, but don't participate in this forum anymore.

joe_padavano

Is this the document you were thinking of?

MDchanic

I don't recall any mention of gender in that document, and I've just skimmed it and haven't noticed any, but I could have missed it, so if anyone knows where it is, I'd be interested.



I'm not sure why you say this. Market researchers and product developers have explicitly considered sex, as well as age, education, interests, and other demographic details, when creating and selling products. Whether cigarettes, cosmetics, kitchen devices, or cars, there are always explicit breakdowns of interests, motivations, and selling points based on sex.

- Eric

joe_padavano

I'm kinda with Eric on this. And the document hasn't "disappeared", since I just provided a link to it on the web.

Koda

"cuz bitches can't HAND-ELL da Dub-Yeah Thirtaay; yeh yeh."

Rocketguy

The document Joe provided is a great read. Why wouldn't dealer training material speak of marketing performance cars mostly to men when (probably) 97% of all performance car buyers were men? Only by today's way hypersensitive observance of gender would it be seen as sexist.

The document also does show that these men ARE interested in the image i.e. Stripes, Hood scoops , manual trans, his and hers shifters etc.

This is my favorite part:







.

Koda

My favorite part was how they talked about the doll packages and having an engine upgrade in them, like the 72 442. The reason the previous years' ones were good is because it meant "Big Honking Engine In Here."

CRUZN 66

The only gender issue reference I see is "Him", "He" and "His"... That in its self, IMO does not make it sexist... It simply relates to the higher volume market buyer at the time...

MDchanic

And I realize I should state the obvious, for those who may have been born too late to understand the idiom:

The term "doll package" refers to a car's being "dolled up" or superficially made more attractive.
This term would have been universally understood in the 1960s, and would have borne no trace of ambivalence in its meaning.
It had nothing to do with the car's potential customer base, and related only to the car itself.

- Eric

RROLDSX

Aside from all that, what is termed as sexist now was not back then. That same fact goes for what was "normal" then would likely seem barbaric now. Personally I find many of the latest commercials aimed at the female gender (hopefully I can still call a female a female) offensive to the male ego. I figure fair is fair though as the females have been the target of much worse in commercials. Aside from that I'm not a big fan of being gender neutral as what's being proposed in today's society. OK, I'm off my soapbox, didn't mean to hijack the thread if I did.

Koda

Indeed. I've found that historical culture understanding varies among people who weren't around then. The only "sexist revisionism" I have ever seen in Olds is removing the lock from the His and Hers Shifter and naming it Dual Gate. I personally don't care for the Dual Gate; it's cool and all, but why didn't you just get a 4 speed if you want to row the gears? I don't own any floor shifted automatics, I have 3 column shifted automatics, a floor shifted manual, and an old van with a 3 on the tree.

joe_padavano

Hurst did that, not Olds. And the name "dual gate" was used from the very beginning in 1963.

Rocketguy

And in '63 it came with a key to lock her out! I wonder if it fit her chastity belt?

1of1442

Thanks for all the response.
Joe, loved reading that document, and the early stuff on he Hurst shifter is Awesome!
I apologize for the p.c. vibe, but being a newbie, I try to err on the side of caution. The specific document in question specified that some "ladies" would prefer the performance options,but would be more interested in a car that is subtle and more drivable than the current high performance W machines. If I recall correctly it even may have suggested a "W" number or code but apparently never caught on. I believe it even had percentage numbers for that group of buyers. A one or two page doc, typewritten with a letterhead.
The reason for my interest is that when I read that memo, I truly felt it described my 1970 442 to a T. A very subtle outside appearance with bucket seats , column shift automatic , the 3:42 with anti-spin limited slip diff. and power disc brakes added to a very early build (3rd week of June 1969,).

VC455

Thanks Joe. That document was a fascinating window into the automotive marketing world of almost 50 years ago.

There are those who still feel about cars the way Joe's document described. If GM had continued to think that way I would probably be driving a high-performance Buick GS instead of a Challenger SRT.

I felt I was the target market for the high performance Challengers in the same way buyers in the 60s did with reference to the super cars of that era.

1of1442

It sounds like this is something I may have made up in my head (not)? I can't imagine I am the only one that recalls this. I am fairly sure I saved a copy but that computer went away with the ex and I don't want either back. Please tell me I'm not going crazy. Anyone?������