As chairman and chief creative officer of Chicago-based Leo Burnett, Cheryl Berman realizes that she’s an anomaly. While there is still a widespread dearth of female creatives in agencies across North America, she has done the seemingly impossible – climbed the ranks from copy editor in 1974 to her current prestigious post, while still finding time to raise three children, Samuel, Jake and Savanna, in the process.

So what’s her secret? Berman believes it has a lot to do with having a supportive and understanding spouse in hubby Randolph Kretchmar. ‘It’s a huge commitment, and I think women believe if they want to start a family, it’s not really going to work.’

For instance, she recalls how a female peer once told her, ‘I could never have a family and do this job.’ In contrast, Berman says she could not have performed as well at her job without having had a family. ‘I think the insights are invaluable.’

She may be right. Under her tutelage, Leo Burnett’s creative group has netted a host of awards, among them Effies, Clios and Cannes Lions, and has produced memorable work for the likes of McDonald’s, Disney and Hallmark.

While in Toronto last November for a Strategy conference on What Do Women Want, Berman took time out of her busy schedule to sit down with us and share her thoughts on the best ways to reach the coveted female segment.

Since women make 80% of all purchase decisions, should advertising that targets men do so without alienating women?

Very few men are actually buying. So you have to get the guy to say, ‘I would want something like that,’ and get the woman to buy it, or just get the woman to say, ‘hey that’s pretty cool, I think he’d like that,’ without even consulting him. I think it can be a risk [to ignore women]. But there’s a really interesting dichotomy that goes on with some of the brands, like even Budweiser. It’s still cool to women, it makes them one of the guys, and it makes them understand men. It’s not entirely simple. Then you have a lot of androgynous brands and what happens is that sometimes they don’t reach anybody. They’re for everyone and then they end up being for no one. A good example of that is Calvin Klein.

You mentioned that icons resonate with women. Why do you think that’s the case?

I think animals, or anything that takes on human qualities, are very endearing to us. It humanizes the brand and it’s like we form these relationships with them.

I’ve been in focus groups on the Pillsbury Doughboy. Women talk about how you can squeeze him and how he’s so cute. If you look at the M&M characters – they have personality, they have hang ups, and they have friends. There’s a whole world they’ve created. And Toys R Us had a great Christmas last year – [spokesgiraffe] Geoffrey’s recall is unbelievable. Icons are easier for the consumer, safer, and it’s not somebody yelling and selling at them.

[According to Paramus, N.J.-based Toys R Us, after Geoffrey the Giraffe came to life in a 60-second TV commercial in 2001, consumer awareness for TRU’s advertising jumped more than 20%. Total sales were also up 4% in the 3rd quarter ended Nov. 2/02 over the previous year.]

How do you get at true insights when targeting women?

[First of all], you don’t get as rich into the insights, and into the experience of a brand when you don’t have women working on [the project]. What I often say to people is if you’re going to get involved in a certain brand, go experience it, go use it, go be a part of it, immerse yourself in it. If it’s clothes, talk to people in their closets. Get out of these research groups that are taking place in rooms, with tables and cameras. It’s more important to start talking to people in their environment – offices, airports, and in stores.

If they’re in their bathroom telling you why they use a certain product, they’re closer to it and more in tune with it. What happens when you get them in a room with a bunch of people is that they want to sound smart. I don’t think you get as much of a true insight or a true meaning.

I think you have to do a lot of qualitative rather than quantitative research, because the numbers are the numbers. People are not numbers, they are emotions, lives, situations and circumstances. You [should] find them in those situations and talk to them about your brands and products. A person is their own brand – and is made up of the brands they use. I’m not sure people really understand why they use those brands, how they use those brands and their true motivation behind it. And I don’t think you can find that out by having someone fill out a questionnaire.

I think clients are always going to rely on research and numbers. In some ways, they should because it’s been very successful for them. [But] they’re willing to try some new approaches, and take calculated and informed risks.

What’s driving that willingness?

Some managers are getting down one-on-one, visiting the agencies, talking about the real issues, like now at Procter & Gamble. It’s really important for companies to have an understanding of the role that marketing plays. I think for many years that role was greatly diminished. [For example], there was a survey done of CEOs and everything was more important than their marketing, even their lawyers.

When you get a CEO who believes in marketing, to me that’s half the battle. If they don’t believe, I think you can see they’re risk-averse, they get nervous, and they cut their advertising budgets. The advertising becomes desperate; it isn’t human. I think it becomes about price or promotion for many brands – people saying ‘we have this, we have that’ and not understanding what a consumer wants. Consumers like to be spoken to so that it feels like what’s said is bubbling up through the culture, rather than coming from some corporation.

Are value messages ineffective then?

Make it valuable before you make it value. You could yell ’99 cents’ forever, but if I don’t want [the product], then it’s not worth it. It almost becomes insulting and patronizing; you have to say ’99 cents’ three times because [the consumer doesn’t] get it. It’s much more motivating to get me to a point where I really want it and then say, ‘and guess what, you can have it for 99 cents’. I think there’s a fear that we need to get the price or the promotion out there, and I think [these companies] don’t realize the consumer is a person. You would never talk to anyone like that. There isn’t any magic to something that’s been devalued to just a price.

What will advertising look like in 2003?

We’re still affected by 9/11. I think it has made us kinder, gentler, a little more real. I think we’ve been able to do some things more emotionally. I think you have to be careful with patriotism, that you don’t take advantage of it – people aren’t into that. But I do think consumers appreciate simple, good messages, and that you’re not going to see as much outrageous humour. Humour will still be a prime source of ideas in advertising. But the things that are important to women now are families, personal lives and the people around them. It’s okay to tap into that, as long as you don’t take advantage of it.

How do you keep creative from getting too cheesy?

You have to get directors who understand how to tell a great story. Less is always more. A 30-second script should be 20 seconds long to really play that out. People don’t understand that, they race through things. But situations don’t happen like that and then it becomes unreal.

I think you need to be able to say that it isn’t working and change it, even while you’re in the process, and bring something back that you believe in. A lot of clients will say bring me back the board. I think you need to be able to say, ‘that would never happen, people would never say that.’ You have to be true to that, because clients will want you to spout out their [reasons to believe]. It has to be translated into real thought, real action and believable behaviour. Consumers want to find themselves in the advertising.