The compassion that Eva shows to her patients makes her a devoted researcher. Her research makes her a doctor who can say to patients: "I'm working on a cure."

Take a look here for my profile of Feldman and her research.

So today, I'm embarking on another journey--another labor of love and inspiration. A new book with the working title "The Power of Women." This time we are going global with the idea that the growing economic power of women will change our world.

But first I must make a start. And that's where five years makes a huge difference. When I started my first book in late 2002, blogging was just taking off. There was no Facebook and no Twitter. Imagine that. Today, I can tap into the power of my social networks--and yours as well--to crowdsource statistics and stories.

So today, as Women's History Month gets under way, I'm asking for your help to make this book even more powerful. I'm asking you to do more than follow me on Twitter at farawarner or #faraw. I need your knowledge about what's happening in your world and the world of women that you know to inform and inspire me. So write comments, attach links, tell me stories, email me through the contact button at www.thepowerofthepurse.com and we will start the conversation about the global power of women.

Palin wasn't just playing politics, she was playing branding--or her conservative Republican handlers were.

Her speech was a classic branding play. Here is a brand--call her Brand Palin--who was tarnished right out of the gate. It was easy a week ago to dismiss Palin as unqualified. It was easy to be snarky about her hair. It was easy to criticize her mothering skills. She reminded me of a brand that many of us love to hate--Wal-Mart. We like to be snarky about that brand too: it's too big, it's too brash, it's bad for the environment despite changing its lightbulbs, it's sold guns.

But we forget that there are lots of Wal-Mart moms out there. If we diss and dismiss Palin, we diss those women. Today, Palin and McCain are headed to suburban counties outside of big metro centers--including one in my backyard, Macomb County just north of Detroit. They are reaching out to women who do see themselves in Palin as hard as that is to believe.

They like her brand even if they don't necessarily like her politics. A good number of these women likely have political leanings that would compel them to vote Democrat. But they don't see themselves in the Obama-Biden brand. That brand is too highbrow, too classy. Obama-Biden isn't even Target; it's more of Whole Foods no matter Biden's working class background.

Palin makes them feel proud of who they are. They may not be the salmon hunting, pistol packing, basketball shooting women--as Cindy McCain so proudly pointed out about Palin. But they do like that she tells jokes about being a hockey mom. They are hockey moms--particularly the women of Macomb county who probably can find Red Wings branded merchandise somewhere in their house. Hockey moms are a tougher breed than the old soccer moms. Palin makes them feel good about being one. I'm just waiting for hair salons to receive requests for the "Palin" up-do. That's not being snarky. These women want to identify with someone and Palin gives them a brand that they can wear comfortably--all the way up from her new suits to her hair.

And what of her family? She embraced them, showing off all of them to the world. Just like a good marketer facing crisis she turned her negatives into positives. She was proud of them, all of them. That was a star turn of branding. Of course, now she can't complain when someone wants to question issues surrounding her family. She used them to her advantage. She'll have to learn what marketers often have learned the hard way--when you embrace your faults others will nail you for them. It's not nice, it's not fair, but it's reality. It's politics.

They point out that Barack Obama is equally unqualified for the presidency as Palin. Others are parsing Obama's qualifications against Palin. I'll leave my comments on that for a later blog.

But what these conversations have made me ponder is this: will we choose our president the way we choose our brand of cars, stores we shop at, clothes we where? Are we Target or Wal-Mart? Are we Chevys or Toyotas? Will we choose our president because we see ourselves in them? Do we, in fact, need to see the candidate in the mirror?

But the image in the mirror may end up being the most important on Nov. 4 when we are by ourselves in a voting booth.

Instead of focusing on qualifications such as working with Congress to get laws passed or a working knowledge of a national and global economy or strong foreign policy expertise, (both tickets offer these qualifications in greater or lesser strength) voters will end up choosing between the candidates who make sense on a very emotional level. We will vote because we see ourselves in the candidates.

The question with Palin is whether more women will see themselves in her--and McCain--than they do in Obama, his family and his worldview. I do believe women will be a powerful force in choosing who our next president will be--now even more than they have in the past. McCain's choice points out the deep divisions between women on issues such as women's right to choose and the environment. It reveals the divisions as well between how we see ourselves as women. My reaction to McCain's choice was visceral and emotional. I don't see myself in Sarah.

I had asked in my past blog why McCain couldn't find a woman within the Republican Party who could give him all the attributes of a Palin, but be even more adept at gaining traction with a broader group of women. If he was going to make history, I would have hoped he would have made history with a woman who more of us could have believed in.

Here's a choice since my dissenters have, of course, asked: who would you have picked? A few months ago, I listened to Meg Whitman, the former ceo of eBay, talk about what she was going to do next at a dinner for Detroit's most influential women. At the time she was serving on the Romney ticket as finance chair. She is now working on the McCain team. Whitman is a wife, a mother, a powerful ceo, a woman who had broken down barriers throughout her career, a proven leader who could have given McCain needed experience on economic issues. Now there is a woman I could see myself in.

But as the news sinks in of Palin's overnight rise to vice presidential nominee, I find myself insulted. Insulted and disrespected and angry. I think every women in America should feel the same way.

McCain's decision reminds me of marketers who think if they put a woman in their ads, paint their products a pretty color, and tell us they are thinking of us that we will buy whatever they are selling.

Many marketers have grown up since then. John McCain, the marketer and politician, still has a lot to learn. Women aren't a single, homogenous market who will be wowed by the simple choice of a woman being on the ticket.

But McCain seems to think that choosing a woman, any woman, is enough. He doesn't realize that choosing this woman--so inexperienced that it's frightening to think of her as the person a heartbeat away from the presidency--could be and should be viewed as condescending and patronizing. I hope he learns the same lesson as those marketers who wonder why we don't buy their products. It's because their ads don't work. We don't like the colors they pick. We won't stand for being patted on the head and told: "see I was thinking of you."

I would have applauded McCain for picking a woman--but out of all the women in the Republican Party--this was his best choice? I think all women should be asking themselves just what was McCain thinking, but most of all I think Republican women should be asking this:
Is this the best you could do, Mr. McCain?

What way? I often ask. The way, they say, in which education, money, and economic independence have made us what we are today. Too often as American women, we take for granted all those foundational elements--education, the right to vote, access to capital, the right to own a business--which have made us powerful consumers, powerful voting blocks, and powerful in the country's economy. It isn't until they listen to what is happening to women in other countries that they begin to see the power of what we have in American society today--and that power isn't just about what we can buy. Indeed it is far more about what we can produce from the education that we receive.

For the whole story click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/business/21leonhardt.html?em&ex=1211515200&en=19b59e1a7d873232&ei=5087%0A

As he writes, for most of American history, education had been the birthright of men, with male-only colleges dominating for more than a century. But in the 20th century that changed as women began going to college in increasing numbers. Today, in many colleges and universities, the graduating class will be a majority of women.

A diploma's worth to a young women is the access it grants her to a world that is still off limits to women around the globe. But as I noted in my speech, that is changing as women around the world harness the power of education. And in the end, for marketers, increased education both here and around the world does actually ring up to more sales as evidenced by a new study of the country's wealthiest consumers.

According to the Luxury Institute, women are in charge of most buying decisions in wealthy households, defined as those with income of $150,000 or more. Married women in these household make two-thirds, or 64 percent, of the family purchase decisions. They make critical decisions on travel and home appliances.

Women in these households also make a majority of the investment decisions. Twenty-two percent make all of the family's investment decisions, while another two-thirds said they made their decisions jointly. Forty-six percent choose the family's bank accounts.

What is most interesting about the survey is the following: the women are spending their own money. According to the survey results, 72 percent of the women work on at least a part-time basis, while 54 percent work full time. Sixty percent earn at least $100,000 a year and one third of them hold positions at the vice president level or higher and 22 percent hold managerial positions.

Those powerful careers are driven by education, according to the institute's statistics. Eighty-eight percent of wealthy women have at least a bachelor's degree and 35 percent have a master's degree. For more information, click on www.luxuryboard.com and www.luxuryinstitute.com.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:u2JK9K4i8HkJ:www.ksa-technopak.com/pdf/DTC%2520Presentation%2520-%25201%2520August%25202006.pdf+india+women+and+consumers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=79&gl=us

The "butterflies" make up 50 percent of the women in the urban affluent class. As the nickname implies these women are all about the looks. They are moving rapidly to luxury goods, especially high-tech products like cellphones and MP3 players. But the second largest group--"old luxury"--make up 32 percent and are not as much about the "bling." These women have grown up with luxury, as the report notes, and may tend toward more traditional luxury goods.

Notably, the third group is called "Mrs. Rationality," a nickname that reflects a more logical, less indulgent buying group. It would be easy to assume that affluent urban women would act and buy alike. But the differences in these three groups show how fast-paced change can shape and mold consumers in unusual ways.

The group of women--the butterflies--reflects how I believe we traditionally look at consumers in less-developed countries. We believe they will adopt more "Westernized" mores and traditions as they become more globally aware. Following on from that, we believe they will be drawn to marketing and brands that show those newly found cultural values. While that is true for some groups of consumers in countries such as India and China, we must remember that not all consumers will adopt completely this globalized view.

That's why the "Mrs. Rationality" group is the most intriguing for me because it highlights the differences we can see among women in the same socio-economic class. This woman draws primarily from her traditional background. She is a saver, frugal and looking for value. She doesn't define herself through expensive goods, but instead define herself through her rational choices to create a home for her family.

Not only is it equitable and just for a woman of equal education and skill to make as much as her male counterpart, it is sound business as evidenced by research that shows the fastest way to grow an economy is invest in a woman--her education most notably--because she will turn around and invest in her community and her family.

American women have shown the rest of the world just how that financial equation works. But our example isn't sterling as long as the pay gap remains.

Still more and more countries are waking up to the power of women both as consumers and producers. While Saudi Arabia has a long way to go in catching up with other countries--even compared to some of its Middle East neighbors--it is showing signs of recognizing the power of its women.

The country is hosting its first women's economic forum this week (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/517720-arab-womens-commercial-participation) to focus on women and business issues. Women are now allowed to apply for commercial licenses, but only 14 percent of businesses in Saudi Arabia are run by women and make up only 13.5 percent of the country's workforce.

Those statistics lag far behind countries such as the U.S. and those in Western Europe where women own at least one-third of businesses and more than 50 percent of the workforce is made up of women.

However, according to the director of the businesswomen's center at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry, women hold 35 percent of the kingdom's bank accounts. The banking industry in Saudi Arabia has taken notice and shifted its marketing to reach women investors. Several years ago, banks began offering women’s-only branches because of Saudi Arabia's strict laws that segregate men and women. Banque Saudi Fransi went so far as to create a women’s advertising campaign to reach women who were working outside the home. See this International Herald Tribune story for more details. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/06/business/ad07.php

Saudi women also are joining the global fitness craze I touched on in my last blog post about Adidas and its focus on women in China. Health clubs such as Bally’s and Gold’s are opening up in Saudi Arabia as well. See this article in Arabian Business. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/515846-fitness-boom-set-for-ksa

We still have far to go in closing the pay gap both in the U.S. and around the world. But women are making strides even countries such as Saudi Arabia where only a few years ago women weren’t even allowed to own a business.

Some of the eBrandmarketing.com blogs will appear in this forum over the next few months, but I am working toward creating two separate blogs...but with the same end goal in mind.

I want to start a conversation about the global power of the purse. What issues are you facing as marketers in the global market? Do you recognize women as an important part of your marketing mix when you head overseas? Do you have success stories of reaching women around the world? What obstacles have you found? What would you like to know more about in terms of research and case studies?

As we head into the Marketing to Women Conference May 8-9, 2008 in Chicago, I would like to get the conversation started about the importance of the women's market globally and the economic power of women around the world.

Here is a link to a blog on "womenomics" and pdf of the study: http://psdblog.worldbank.org/psdblog/2006/04/womenomics.html.

What intrigued me about these two ideas--women and the Internet--as Whitman spoke was that The Economist may have missed a larger point. The economic equation may not be that women are more important than the Internet, China, or India in terms of economic growth, but that women have been a primary reason for why the Internet, China, and India have become so important to our global economic growth.

Women also have been at the heart of growth in countries such as China and India. In China, a growing number of women are breaking free from centuries of tradition that cast them as liabilities, not assets. As they move up the economic ladder, from farm to factory to the offices and high-rises of Shanghai, Chinese women are tracing the same path--albeit far faster--than women did in America and Western Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. They are showing the world--and their families--that they are as important to China and the world's economy as their male counterparts. In India, women make up a sizeable population of the call center and outsourcing industries that have helped put India on the map economically. In rural areas in India, the Internet also is helping women sell what they produce around the world—directly and without having to pay a middleman.

At a time when many of us take the Internet for granted, it was inspiring to hear that Whitman still has as much passion for the technology as she did when she quit Hasbro for a job running a tiny start-up that wanted to connect buyers with sellers and vice versa. It was even more inspiring to consider that women--including Whitman--have been at the heart of making the Internet a powerful force in the global economy.

Hard to imagine that we are still doing ads like this, right? But as many executives at the Yahoo! event noted, many of their bosses okay these types of ads because they make sense to them. They are safe, if unimaginative. They don't rock the cart and maybe they'll sell a few phones or mp3 players. How do we argue against this? I ask you--those of you who are in the trenches--how do we make our bosses understand that these ads are as likely to turn off women as they are to sell products?

I don't have a problem with pitching high-definition televisions, laptop computers, videogames and mp3s to men as gifts for the women in their lives or vice versa. In fact, I think it's a perfect acknowledgement that technology is increasingly "genderless." But why do we always default to wrapping this idea in a pink cart. That muffles the smart idea that someone inside a company had: that young women want a flat-screen television or smart phone as much as young men do

This brings me to the Super Bowl. The conventional wisdom tells us that it is a man's event--no ladies please. But even a quick straw poll or anecdotes will tell you that conventional wisdom is very wrong in this instance--and has been for years. My mother and I watched the Super Bowl together--and couldn't believe Tom Brady's performance--without any man in sight. More qualitative studies over the years have shown that the Super Bowl is less about whether men or women are watching and more about the truth that we watch the Super Bowl together with friends. We watch together--inclusivity--not the old exclusivity.

That was obvious in the ads that ran last night. From Planters with its funny ad of a not-so-attractive woman who makes men swoon with her "cashew" perfume to the Sunsilk commercials that drove women to an online site, www.lifecantwait, it's obvious that some marketers are getting the idea of inclusion, instead of exclusion. Now we just need to stop wrapping the idea in pink.