Advertisement

Consumers’ Perceptions of Gender-Neutral Advertising: An Empirical Study

  • Aikaterini Stavrianea
  • Antonios Theodosis
  • Irene Kamenidou
Conference paper
  • 39 Downloads
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Traditionally, but also nowadays, advertising employs gender representations which are widely used and recognized. At the same time, we witness a constantly growing number of advertisements and brands that attempt to challenge the prevailing images and entities of masculinity and femininity. This paper presents the outcome of research regarding perceptions towards gender-neutral advertising and stereotypes. Specifically, it explores gender differences related to gender-neutral advertising and also differences regarding stereotypes amongst members of two different generational cohorts. The targeted population consists of the Greek generation Z and generation Y cohorts. Statistical analysis was employed to examine the hypothesized differences. Discussion based on results and advertising techniques is pointed out for a brand’s communications strategies.

Keywords

Generation Z Advertising Gender-neutral marketing Gender fluidity Stereotypes 

References

  1. 1.
    Timke E, O’Barr WM (2017) Representations of masculinity and femininity in advertising. Adv Soc Rev 17:3. Project MUSE.  https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2017.0004
  2. 2.
    Champlin S, Sterbenk Y (2018) Agencies as agents of change: considering social responsibility in the advertising curriculum. J Advert Educ 22:137–143.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1098048218807138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Champlin S, Sterbenk Y, Windels K, Poteet M (2019) How brand-cause fit shapes real world advertising messages: a qualitative exploration of ‘femvertising’. Int J Advert 38:1240–1263.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1615294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lieven TG (2014) The effect of brand gender on brand equity. Psychol Mark 31:371–385.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCrindle M (2006) New generations at work: attracting, recruiting, retaining and training generation Y. The ABC of XYZ. McCrindle Research, NSW 2153, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hickman MK, Ozuem W, Okoya J (2019) Gender fluidity in the age of technologically mediated environments: implications for fashion industry. In: Gender economics: breakthroughs in research and practice. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 135–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steensma TD, Kreukels BPC, de Vries ALC, Cohen-Kettenis PT (2013) Gender identity development in adolescence. Horm Behav 64:288–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.02.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mishna F, Khoury-Kassabri M, Gadalla T, Daciuk J (2012) Risk factors or involvement in cyber bullying: victims, bullies and bully–victims. Child Youth Serv Rev 34:63–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budgeon S (2013) The dynamics of gender hegemony: femininities, masculinities and social change. Sociology 48:317–334.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513490358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vantieghem W, Vermeersch H, Van Houtte M (2014) Why “gender” disappeared from the gender gap: (re-)introducing gender identity theory to educational gender gap research. Soc Psychol Educ 17:357–381.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9248-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grau SL, Zotos YC (2016) Gender stereotypes in advertising: a review of current research. Int J Advert 35:761–770.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1203556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ratten V (2017) Gender entrepreneurship and global marketing. J Glob Mark 30:114–121.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2017.1316532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laughlin S (2016) Gen Z Goes beyond gender binaries in new innovation group data. J. Walter Thompson Intelligence. https://www.jwtintelligence.com/2016/03/gen-z-goes-beyond-gender-binaries-in-new-innovation-group-data
  14. 14.
    Read GL, Innis IJ, van Driel II, Potter RF (2019) Mates or married? Implications of gender composition and physical intimacy on evaluation of images tested for advertising. Commun Res Rep 36:220–230.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2019.1605894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Snyder B (2015) LGBT advertising: How brands are taking a stance on issues. Think with Google. Retrieved from https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/lgbt-advertising-brands-takingstance-on-issues.html
  16. 16.
    Åkestam N, Rosengren S, Dahlen M (2017) Think about it – can portrayals of homosexuality in advertising prime consumer-perceived social connectedness and empathy. Eur J Mark 51:82–98.  https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2015-0765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eisend M, Plagemann J and Sollwedel J (2014) Gender roles and humor in advertising: the occurrence of stereotyping in humorous and non humorous advertising and its consequences for advertising effectiveness. J Advert 43(3):256–273.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.857621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisend M (2016) Comment: advertising, communication, and brands. J Advert 3(45):353–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guevremont A, Grohmann B (2015) Consonants in brand names influence brand gender perceptions. Eur J Mark 49:101–122.  https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2013-0106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKeage K, Crosby E, Rittenburg T (2018) Living in a gender-binary world: Implications for a revised model of consumer vulnerability. J Macromark 38:73–90.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146717723963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aikaterini Stavrianea
    • 1
  • Antonios Theodosis
    • 2
  • Irene Kamenidou
    • 3
  1. 1.National and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Athens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece
  3. 3.International Hellenic UniversityKavalaGreece

Personalised recommendations