To think these posters in Clark's are sexist?

[LittleMissGerardButlerfan]

Probably an overreaction on my part!

I went in to get my sons feet measured today and saw some posters up, the boys one basically said we know boys like rough and tumble so we check our shoes do to type thing. Then the girls one said about knowing that girls like comfort and style (or something like that) and had a picture of smiling girls with pretty pencil cases etc.

A lot of girls I know like rough and tumble too, and need sturdy shoes, and likewise boys still want comfort and style. Why not just have one poster that covers both?

So Aibu to think these posters are wrong?

A lot of children's clothes and shoe advertising is awful.

Boys get posed with foot balls, bikes and skateboards. Girls get flowers and shopping bags, even on pages with leggings, jeans and shorts.

'However, I also think some little girls just naturally love the style and glamorous stuff!'

If that's true, then surely some little boys must naturally love it too? Where's their pink sparkly advertising campaign?!

Advertising works. If it didn't, we wouldn't have companies spending vast sums of money on it.

Reading with interest as I will soon need to get DD1 her first school shoes. They need to be supportive, black with velcro fastening. Something a bit chunky - any recommendations?

Totally agree that it is sexist and that it matters. Great blog about it here: twocoloursinmyhead.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/two-foot-nothing/
I've just written to clarks and complained, see below.
emma xx

Hello all! There's now a petition you can sign to tell Clarks what you think...
www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/melissa-potter-remove-outdated-sexist-signage-from-clarks-shoe-shops-letshoesbeshoes

I have a theory (and it's in no way scientifically researched or backed up with any evidence whatsoever, like all good theories on the internet).

I used to work in financial services and specialised in the retail sector. A few years ago there was a shift towards driving sales and increasing market share through personalised targeted advertising. This largely manifested itself in using customer loyalty cards to collect data about individual customer habits and sending them tailored offers. It also saw the rise of things like ads popping up on facebook and google based on your recent searches.

My theory is that the rise in sexist marketing, particulary of childrens toys etc, is a lazy extension of this. It's difficult to collect data on specific children because they're not the ones with the loyalty cards and the internet, it's their parents that are spending the money. The lazy answer to this lack of data is to resort to stereotypes and sexism. ie We may not know what your daughter likes but generally little girls like pink.

Having data about your customers makes reatailers feel better because they have something they can hold onto and focus thier marketing on. Marketing is about using what you know to convince people that they want to buy your product and access to increased data was seen as a real revolution in getting the right message to the right people. Therefore offering generic toys and clothing and not knowing if they would sell and who bought them if they did sell, would be going against the grain. If I was a buyer for a retailer, in a world where data underpins all decisions, it would be very difficult to justify the decision to stock a generic product.

And this is why we should keep banging the drum about sexism not being cricket. so in at some point in the future there is sufficient data for a specific store to demonstrate that their customers would prefer to buy toys which are gender neutral.

Anyway, that's my theory, it may well not stand up to scrutiny.