Gender Polarization May Serve Marketers, But Not Consumers
Is this perpetual hunt for the ways in which people are so extremely different from one another – Republicans from Democrats, women from men, “macho” men from “feminine” men, “strong” women from “soft” women – really necessary? Of course there are differences among us all, and if we are honest with ourselves and our business interests, we should know that it is crucial to embrace them in order to make the world a better, more balanced place. However, taking those differences all the way to the extremes of polarization, or breaking humans up into opposing factions or groupings (as per Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary, 10th Edition, definition of “polarize”), is never a good route. And, during this culturally evolving time, how gender is handled within the marketing discipline, specifically, will be a significant challenge.
A recent Brand Science Institute article on male-oriented advertising research got me thinking about the tendency of marketers to, when gender implications arise at all – get caught up in that aspect over any broader clues to buyer behavior. According to that research, there is even a way that gender polarization can get so out of hand as to become “intra-gender.” Remember – we’re talking about marketing to men here:
A new study shows that men with characteristics such as sensitivity and tenderness are put off products promoted by advertisements featuring squared-jawed hunks, preferring those featuring more feminine looking male models instead.
The specifics on this study: 244 university men were put into groupings of men who scored either high on traditionally feminine traits or high on traditionally masculine traits. Then, the researchers noted the reactions of the men in those opposing groups to print ads for a mobile phone using either a more masculine or a more effeminate male model.
It is no surprise that the participants in each group veered toward the like-image ad (read the article for the other angles covered by the research). But, the results just make me wonder: Would an advertiser be most effective in catering to either “manly” men or “girly” men alone? Or, would there have been a way to appeal to both at the same time? In the case of this study, there had to be more to the ads than just how the male model came across. Would a manly man discount a phone, despite the fact it had all the features he desired, if the model in the ad was more effeminate than macho? I have to believe we’d be underestimating a lot of savvy male consumers if we believed that.
Rather, findings like these and others that pit men vs. women or “a manly someone” versus “a womanly someone,” should just be an element on a marketers long list of consumer traits/influencers worth consideration. The greater issue at this point in time may actually be how we are defining “traditional” gender traits.
If that same research was conducted with female participants, the results would very likely be similar: that womanly women would respond to a more feminine model in the ad while less womanly women wouldn’t. But, the whole premise would, again, rest on how “femininity” has been traditionally defined.
As for what defines femininity and masculinity for women and men today, all bets are off. That sure does make it hard on marketers.
Now, ours is not to reason why. Instead, take that possible “traditional gender assignment” trap into account for your own work. You might be surprised to see that you too are guilty of gender stereotyping – purely by going with “what has always been” as opposed to how your customers behave/buy today.
On that note Interbrand’s Dyfred Richards recently published an article on The Seven Rules for Communicating With Men that it is worth a look for both its gender-specific wisdom AND for the way, I suspect, that that same wisdom applies without gender-specificity.
Two of Richards’ rules, with my gender-inclusive edits:
#1 Stop Boring Him (Her), and;
#5 Teach Him(Her) Something.
Today’s men and women are more alike, especially as savvy consumers, than they are different. That is not to say that there aren’t cases where a more gender-specific approach isn’t wise, but simply to note that marketers should be careful of falling into “opposing groups” default mode.
Consumers are no longer accepting polarization without question, and neither should we.
