“Hey ladies. Enjoying the film? Of course not. Because this is our movie and this is our soda. You can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks. We’re good,” says a man pouring Dr. Pepper Ten, a supposedly “macho” diet soda, in a commercial. The rest of the commercial features “masculine” activities like battling jungle snakes and shooting lasers.
Dr. Pepper claims that diet sodas are not “manly” enough and men subsequently shy away from them. While other sodas (Coke Zero and Pepsi Max) have been marketed towards men, Dr. Pepper 10 is the first to overtly pander to men by stating “IT’S NOT FOR WOMEN” as its catchphrase.
This is an example of gendered marketing, a type of market segmentation. Market segmentation is exactly what it sounds like: segmenting the market. The segments are usually determined by buying preferences, typically caused by differing demographics. In the case of gendered marketing, the demographic is gender (duh).
Gendered marketing is a strategy common in children’s toys, hygiene and skincare products, food, and various other merchandise.
It begins with children and toddlers, establishing black and white (or blue and pink) gender stereotypes.
Right out of the womb, male and female babies are immediately slapped with the “color” of their sex: pink for girls and blue for boys. However, the association of blue for boys and pink for girls was not always this way: it used to be the other way around.
According to the Earnshaw Infant’s Department in June 1918, “Pink, being a more decided and strong color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Pink was “associated with the gory vitality of red; blue was considered calming for little girls, evidently always on the verge of hysteria,” according to The Guardian.
However, the association of blue for boys and pink for girls began when sailor suits for young boys were usually blue and white. School uniforms were also usually blue, and blue became associated with seriousness and study while pink was associated with childhood and softness. Since boys were expected to become serious and pursue serious jobs while girls were to remain soft and innocent, the color association began to turn around. By the 1950s, pink was strongly representative of femininity, though not to the extent of modern day.
The color association is one example of how gender stereotypes are built around children growing up. Consumers associate pink, frilly, and sparkly with girls and darker colors, action, and force with boys. For example, on Toys R Us’ website, the page for boys’ toys features action figures, building sets, vehicles, an advertisement for The Amazing Spider-man 2, and brands such as Hot Wheels, LEGO, Star Wars and Transformers. The girls’ page features bath and beauty accessories, dolls, an advertisement for My Little Pony, and brands including Barbie, Disney Princess and Monster High. Although none of these toys and brands explicitly say “for boys” or “for girls”, gender stereotypes are so deeply ingrained that most consumers (the parents) will only buy toys “for” either gender.
LEGO took advantage of this gender divide by releasing LEGO Friends, a line of LEGO toys designed for girls to use simplified LEGO structures as dollhouses in which to move five LEGO girl characters around. The sets offered include “Stephanie’s Beach House”, “Butterfly Beauty Shop”, “Emma’s Horse Trailer”, and “Heartlake Juice Bar”, among other similarly named sets.
Decades previous in 1955, LEGO commercials featured both boys and girls building structures using the same products and parts. By releasing LEGO friends in 2012, LEGO tripled the number of girls using their products and experienced a 25% increase in global revenue. LEGO Friends became the fourth most popular line in only its first year of release behind Star Wars, Ninjago, and LEGO City and surpassed their popular Superhero line. The line doubled sales expectations, demonstrating how powerful and effective gendered marketing is; LEGO pandered to gender stereotypes to garner a significant profit.
However, gendered marketing doesn’t just stop there. Gendered marketing continues to the adult world in hygiene and skincare products, as well as food, as shown through Dr. Pepper 10.
Most bath, skincare and styling products are associated with women and femininity—this begins with bath and beauty accessory toys that are only marketed for girls and continues through the softer colors, rounded edges, stylized names, and use of women in advertising.
Dove caught onto this and released their DOVE MEN+CARE line to pander towards men. According to Sterling Anthony’s article “Packaging along gender lines” forPackaging World, “guys identify with certain avian names, such as the Philadelphia Eagles and the Atlanta Falcons—even some non-predatory ones…however, the name, Dove, lacks macho mystique, especially when rendered in slender italics and accentuated with a stylized bird logo.”
To compensate for these factors crippling sales to male consumers, Dove’s new line printed MEN+CARE in bold capital letters and used a battleship gray color for its packaging rather than the usual white. The bottles have angled tops with harsher edges and even squared off the edges of the iconic Dove soap bar in contrast to the smooth, rounded shape of the regular Dove line, which was now subtly directed towards exclusively women. The advertising for DOVE MEN+CARE focused on assuring male consumers that using Dove’s new products did not conflict with their masculinity through endorsements from sports icons and featuring supposedly “manly” things, as shown in their 2010 Super Bowl “Manthem” ad.
While this degree of marketing and packaging change may seem unnecessary and ludicrous, it worked for Dove—they gained millions of customers globally and saw a $150 million boost in sales revenue.
“There’s a huge stigma associated with styling products and hygienic products,” said Antor Paul. “You’re immediately labelled as ‘gay’ or just ‘weird’ for using girl hair/skin products, however, let’s be real: girl products for those things are just generally better and have a bigger impact. Guys who use heat-based styling products (straighteners, blow dryers) are wrongly labelled as pansies, but hey, if I look good, I’m down to being a pansy.”
Dove was only one of many brands who began a specific line “for men”; skincare brands such as L’Oreal and Olay have a line of “men’s” products while shaving products from Gillette and Bic have a divide between “for him” and “for her”. Some companies have stated that their specific products are better for one gender or another.
By appealing to the “masculine” or “feminine” senses of these products, the companies creating these products draw customers in by boasting not what the product actually does but rather the “feel” or “aura” of the product. This began around the 1920s with the birth of consumerism—previously during the production age, marketing was not as important since consumers would be interested in products solely based on the function they served. Both mass media and mass production contributed to the rise of marketing—since mass production meant that several products would do the same thing, it was more effective to market a “feeling” and uniqueness.
What are the downsides to this kind of market segmentation? First of all, this type of gendered marketing reinforces the gender stereotypes ingrained in us at birth on what is “masculine” and what is “feminine”. While it’s profitable and effective for companies, it contributes (and often establishes) gender stereotypes prevalent in our society.
Secondly, often times one product is priced more for one gender than the other even if the products are extremely similar. This is common for shaving products: shaving cream and razors “for her” are often more expensive than the exact same product “for him”. Gillette’s “Satin Care” Shave Gel (marketed towards women) costs $3.69 for a 7 ounce bottle while the Gillette Foamy Shaving Cream (marketed towards men) costs $2.99 for an 11 ounce bottle—more than twice the price per ounce. Is there really that significant of a difference between the two? The Internet seems to have reached a consensus that the only difference between razors for men and women is the handle, and some claim that men’s disposable razors last longer than those designed for women. Yet, Bic’s “Comfort 3 Advance for Men” razors cost $4.79 for 4 razors while their “Soleil Pivot” razors for women cost $7.99 for 3 (a 122% price increase) even though both offer the same benefits.
“The sheer amount of profit that companies make from gendered marketing proves how deeply ingrained gender stereotypes are in society. Learning about it has forced me to really examine my buying habits, especially my almost automatic gravitation towards products that are supposedly made for women but have no real difference from the same products marketed to men,” said Suzanne Chen.
Thirdly, often the lines “for men” have fewer options for formulation and scent while the regular or “feminine” lines have a wide variety of formulations for different skin and hair types and a variety of scents to choose from. Dove’s MEN+CARE line has only 3 options for their “BODY+FACE BAR” while their “Beauty Bar” has 13 with different formulations for sensitive skin and more options for the different seasons or for scent. This is just one example of the limited options “for men” across various product lines.
Fourthly, (not completely a downside because it’s quite humorous), gendered marketing leads to some quite laughable creations: “brogurt”, Greek yogurt for men that’s “JUST FOR GUYS” and “the super-manly snack”, “broga”, yoga for the men who feel emasculated by attending a yoga class full of women, and “mandles”, man candles or “CANDLES ON TESTOSTERONE” in scents like auto shop, gunpowder, meat & potatoes, stripper’s mouth, and swimsuit model.
Gendered marketing often panders to gender stereotypes to gain more profit for the company—and often it is the consumer that pays from both the wallet and the restrictive societal gender constructs. Often it drives one gender away from certain products—fewer girls enter Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields partially due to the lack of exposure to proper building and engineering sets when young. Men are not the target market for various health products and thus are discouraged from buying these “feminine” items.
Of course, there’s an easy way to escape the system—just buy the products needed based on quality and economical value. There’s no need to purchase an “aura” along with the product—that boost is merely psychological and often comes with an extra fee.
Be a smart consumer and don’t let companies (big or small) hit you over the head with both a hefty price tag along with a gender stereotype to boot.
slightly different version published at uhsswordandshield.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment