Men Are From Mars

Fantasy Football drafts are only a couple of months away. Weren't Fantasy Baseball drafts just three months ago? Yes, they were -- I know this because I hear all about it from my husband and his equally excited male friends.

It seems it's a big deal to them.

It's an extremely small deal to me and to my girlfriends. Actually, it's not even on our radars. And that got me thinking.

I love my husband beyond measure, but I will never completely understand him. In fact, that goes for all males. This goes deeper than their fascination with Fantasy sports or their ability to spend hours on a golf course. This isn't even about their vast knowledge of cars or their inability to remember our friends' names.

What I really want to know is: What is going on up there? What makes them tick?

Men say women are confusing, but I beg to differ. Women are easy! We like to talk -- about our joys, our problems, or anything, really. When I ask my husband what he is thinking, he tells me, "Nothing, really." When he asks me what I'm thinking, I will not only tell him what's on my mind, but I will also tell him why I think I'm thinking what I'm thinking, what I was thinking that led me to my current thought, and how these thoughts make me feel.

In our qualitative work, we often split groups by age (younger vs. older), by status (consumers vs. prospects), and yes, by gender.

Recently I was in the backroom for a group where company X was being discussed. A woman relayed her experience with the company using feelings. She spoke of how she felt when company X didn't meet her standards, how customer service for company X made her feel valued as a customer, and how this feeling of value was the ultimate reason she stayed with the company (even though she still had some unresolved issues).

A man in the same group (for this project, respondents were not split by gender) relayed his experience with company X in facts. This happened, then this, then this. There was an issue; he called customer service; they fixed it.

I've seen this scenario quite a few times while observing in the backroom. One of the things I find most fascinating about our qualitative research is how differently males and females process events.

And I've often wondered: Since men and women are so different, can we really make observations when comparing an all-male group and an all-female group? There are such deep differences in the thought processes of the genders that your learning from each group is almost always very different. Might it be better to always mix genders in groups (at least when the research calls for groups with both genders), and avoid all single-gender groups?

What do you think?

Breakfast (And Lunch) At Wimbledon

It was nine minutes past nine o'clock in London yesterday evening when, deep into the fifth set of the Wimbledon gentlemen's final, Roger Federer eyed a short ball and prepared to hit his forehand, the sport's most dominant shot.

Instead of drilling it into the corner for a winner, as he's done countless times before, he went straight up the middle, directly at Rafael Nadal, his shot landing six inches beyond the baseline. Out. Nadal had secured a break and would hold his serve the next game to win the title, 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7, in four hours and forty-eight minutes of spectacular tennis.

It was Federer's first loss at Wimbledon since 2002, and many have claimed this match marks a permanent change atop men's tennis. Personally, I'm not so sure: Nadal has yet to prove his body can take the pounding of a full year of tennis, and he normally breaks down at some point during the summer hardcourt or fall indoor seasons. I expect Federer to remain No. 1 for the rest of this year.

Nevertheless, the match was fascinating, suspenseful, exhilarating. It was so engaging to watch that, as a tennis fan, I was surprised when I had an odd feeling early in the fifth set, as night began to fall on London and clouds crept toward Centre Court.

I wanted it to rain, and I wanted the completion of the match to be pushed to Monday.

You should know that Monday finals are a disaster for everybody associated with tennis tournaments: the tournaments, the sponsors, the fans, the television partners. Nobody likes them. The last Monday Wimbledon final was broadcast on MSNBC, apparently because they couldn't possibly find a lower-rated news network on which to show the finals of an elite sporting event.

And yet, with the match moving toward conclusion, I started rooting for anything to stand in the way of that happening. And as the match reached 7-7 in the fifth set, I had a real chance: darkness wasn't far away, and just a couple more service holds (there hadn't been a break since the second set) would get us to Monday. Come on!

I should explain myself: We do work for the United States Tennis Association, and I'm always especially excited when we land a new USTA project. I've played tennis almost my entire life and have always loved the game.

You may have heard that tennis in America has seen better days: not only have other countries caught up (and in some cases passed) the U.S. on the court, but overall tennis interest isn't what it could be. While there are some positive signs, the conventional wisdom that is parroted so often in the media is that ratings are bad, the game has become too fast, and there are no compelling rivalries.

Even ESPN.com's Bill Simmons recently stopped writing about himself long enough to critique tennis, making a series of suggestions for improvement that ranged from the thoughtful (shorter sets, but more of them, thus increasing the number of important points) to the absurd (just about everything else in the column).

So here I was, watching one of the most exciting matches of my lifetime, hoping they'd stop playing and come back on Monday, when half of the country (including myself) would be at work. Why? Because I find myself constantly rooting for anything to make tennis more popular, to move it toward the front pages, to stand out among the entertainment options available to the average American. Once people are exposed to tennis, they'll love it, I reason.

I pictured Wimbledon being the No. 1 media story throughout Sunday evening and into Monday. And I thought of anxious coworkers huddling around the office TV early Monday morning, finding themselves caring about tennis for the first time in a long time. This, I thought, could be great for tennis.

But it wasn't to be. The greatest player of his generation couldn't find the court with his best shot, the sport's best shot, and the match ended with about 10 minutes of playable daylight remaining. And I'm left hoping that the overnight ratings were strong, so today's story isn't about how two great tennis players played an historic match but not enough people watched. Such is the life of a tennis fan.

Copyright © 2007 The Taylor Research & Consulting Group, Inc.