It's not politically correct to even talk about this, but I'm going to do it, anyway.

Some of us, by virtue of temperament, habit, industry, or skills, are better suited to selling to men, instead of women, or vice versa.

For example, if you look at my history in selling my books to editors at major publishing companies, I must be a man's man instead of a ladies' man.

While I have had projects under the stewardship of both, my most profitable placements have been with men, who, to put it simply, have paid me more and hassled me less.

That's more than interesting; it is a cold, sober fact of life.

And of course, it raises a very practical question: When I am using a prospecting list, and I have a choice, who should I call first: men or women?

If I'm putting politics ahead of practicality, and I've been known to do this, I'll dodge the question and call every name, irrespective of gender. After all, I SHOULD be effective, equally, shouldn't I, especially if I purport to be a sales guru?

But let's get back to reality. If, for whatever reason, I cut better deals with men, why shouldn't I seek them out as my primary buyers?

I have the right to choose my business partners based on profitability, don't I?

Of course, what I haven't looked into is WHY I am more effective when dealing with men. I don't know if it is a matter of how I communicate or whether there is an inherent, unchangeable part of me, that's having a differential impact; the timber of my voice, for instance, that is less appealing to female editors.

Do I need to know?

I've always been an amateur social scientist in casinos, and it amazes me sometimes to see when pit bosses change dealers at a blackjack table. Almost always, when a dealer loses many more hands than he wins, he's relieved of duty, and a fresh face is brought in.

In the strictest sense, it should make no difference who is dealing the cards, especially from a "shoe," that contains three or four decks. The cards coming out will be the same cards, right?

But pit bosses will change the chemistry of the table, anyway, if only to diminish the confidence and tempo of the winners that are seated there. It seems good enough for the bosses to say, "Jim is unlucky right now; so bring in Mary."

They don't need to know WHY Jim is not making the house money before retiring him from the table.

Perhaps a similar logic applies to selecting prospects based on gender.

Anyway, I believe this is an interesting and significant area of investigation, and it bears more scrutiny.

Let's say you're more effective selling to women, but you've chosen to work in an industry where the great majority of buyers are men, as might be the case in selling tools to car mechanics and garages.

Aren't you going to be less effective in that arena than you would be, for example, if you sold cosmetics?