Consumers say gender roles have changed. Why hasn’t advertising?
MarketingCharts staff
Through a special arrangement, presented here for discussion is a summary of articles from MarketingCharts, which provides up-to-the-minute data and research to marketers.
Three in four Americans believe that traditional gender roles have changed, but advertising isn’t keeping pace with expectations for gender inclusivity, according to a study from Omnicom Media Group (OMG).
Virtually all respondents believe that a range of societal roles and behaviors — from cooking family meals to caring for children, purchasing groceries, caring about one’s appearance and being career-focused — are appropriate for both men and women. Indeed, half of men and 59 percent of women identified themselves as not completely masculine or feminine.
Yet respondents are more likely to believe that there is equal gender representation in media than that there is already non-gendered advertising (57 percent and 38 percent, respectively). In fact, respondents are as likely to believe in equal career opportunities as they are in non-gendered advertising.
These results bring to mind research that came out last year from J. Walter Thompson that showed:
- In an analysis of ads released in 2017, men portrayed in commercials were twice as likely as women to have a job, widening a gap seen in ads from 2006 – 2016;
- An analysis of ads released from 2006 – 2016 found women being almost 50 percent more likely than men to be shown in the kitchen.
In the OMG survey, 39 percent believed that advertising does not accurately represent all genders, and 30 percent felt that brands misrepresent them and their gender.
There are some potential pitfalls to brands taking a stand, as only around one-third of respondents believe that brands should do so on gender issues. And brands risk alienating their existing customers: almost three-quarters would have a negative response to a brand they currently like or use if it became publicly known that the brand’s opinions on gender issues were different than the consumer’s. That includes almost one-third who would stop purchasing the brand.
But research last year from Weber Shandwick found almost half (48 percent) of Americans believe that CEOs and business leaders should express their opinion about gender equality, against 30 percent who feel they shouldn’t. More recently, survey results from Sprout Social indicated that a similar 48 percent of social media users feel that all brands should take a stand on gender equality, against 26 percent who feel that it’s not a brand’s place.
- Consumers: Gender Roles Have Changed. Advertising Hasn’t. – MarketingCharts
- People Complain of Gender Stereotyping and Lack of Diversity on TV – MarketingCharts
- CEO Activism: The Issues Americans Do and Don’t Want to Hear About – MarketingCharts
- Championing Change in the Age of Social Media – Sprout Social
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Is there a logical reason why much of advertising may still be resorting to stereotypes in depicting genders? Is gender-neutral advertising the answer or is that an over-simplification?
Poll
BrainTrust
Lyle Bunn (Ph.D. Hon)
Strategy Architect – Digital Place-based Media
Nikki Baird
VP of Strategy, Aptos
When thoughtful message marketing through copy and creative gave way to media buying, the charm of marketing gave way to mass advertising. It served Madison Avenue well as quantity over quality filled bank accounts. But the wide range of communications devices now begs micro-marketing and contextual messaging.
Eventually gender-neutral advertising will become the norm, but right now advertising, like many other aspects of society, can be polarizing, and retailers need to determine how far they want to go into these turbulent waters.
Advertising generally does not look to set our society’s norms, it merely tries to reflect and leverage general understanding to promote its message. Perhaps there is a natural time lag between the advertising and society with society setting what is the norm — advertising for the most part is merely a follower.
Yes, because the gap between the realities of the “creative” community and the “fly over” states continues to increase, and, as it does the gap between how life is portrayed in advertising and how it is lived continues to widen. And when social change is recognized the advertising compensating behaviors are exaggerated. Take race, for example. Not so many years ago you saw almost no multi-racial or bi-racial couples in ads. Today, bi-racial couples are the default. Nothing wrong with this of course but, it’s almost as though somebody was checking a box as they reviewed the storyboards. And checking off a box isn’t the same thing as truly embracing diversity — of gender, age, ethnicity, income, etc., especially in an era when people self-select ethnicity and race and may move easily from traditional cohort to traditional cohort.
Now, when it comes to gender the problem gets equally, if not more, complex. Tinder recognizes 37 gender identities, Facebook 51 and American advertising maybe four or five. Now, this doesn’t mean that every ad should contain at least one individual from each category, say gender fluid to skoliosexual, but it does mean these communities ought to be recognized somewhere in the advertising universe. Gender neutrality isn’t the answer any more than putting people of different ethnicities in traditional “white bread” roles. Celebrating diversity means celebrating diversity not making everyone fit into the same conceptual lifestyle box. That’s just another form of institutional racism and sexism.
Today, a majority feel gender depictions are properly represented so there is no reason for a mass-market buyer to change their approach. What will be interesting is watching how fast cultural norms shift as advertisers choose to speak appropriately to the 30 percent.
For years in my presentations I’d give examples of how advertising was the place to look for the earliest indicators of what was to come. The quality movement, for example, was first evident in advertising and then became a popular management cause. Even more so, the “spirituality movement” about the meaning and soul of work was evident first in advertising. In short, advertising used to be the best predictor of the future. I guess not so much any more.
Gender is just one demographic and the concept of “neutral” is antithetical to the purpose of marketing so I don’t quite get that part.
I do want to point out an equally ignored yet influential demographic and that is age. Only 10 percent of marketing dollars are aimed at the senior category. Meanwhile seniors are becoming extremely active, submitting patent applications, are a huge source of entrepreneurship — and have a lot of money. They are not content to sit in the sunroom waiting for Bingo Night. There’s about 200 million of us in North America. Advertising needs to wake up to this dimension as well. This isn’t your grandmother’s world any more.
This gets into a tricky territory for discussion. I’m personally quite pleased to see indications society has begun to accept and recognize the reality of a wide variety of roles.
That said, when 80 percent or more of your customers see themselves within gender stereotyped roles (while being open to other people challenging those stereotypes), it is not smart for much advertising spending to portray anything other than your core customer or an expert they respect.
Yes, advertisers should push into some new territory — but do it carefully. Business is business. Businesses may have some ability to help social change — but promoting change in advertising is not good for the economy, their customers, their employees or their suppliers.
Doug, I’d be interested in why you say “promoting change in advertising is not good for the economy, their customers, their employees or their suppliers.” I have a different view and that is that the ONLY purpose of advertising is to promote change. If it doesn’t do that there is no point to it. You do say advertisers should do it carefully and I sure agree with that. I always appreciate your commentary.
Here’s my thinking: Promoting social change is not the primary goal of business. If it happens as a side effect that’s superb.
We clearly see that when businesses become distracted by purposes other than their core of delivering products/services at a profit, they end up closed. And the more companies that end up closed, the worse it is for the economy.
So maybe the connection isn’t instant — but the economy needs businesses to focus on what they do: get products into consumer hands and do it well.
I certainly DO think businesses should constantly be changing and evolving. And sometimes that change overlaps with social change — like in changing hiring practices. Hiring great people who break the stereotypes makes business more effective.
But I don’t think it’s their job to do that via advertising. I’ll add that advertising is usually far better than the programming or content it appears within. Once saw a headline on a national magazine about “40 actresses who weight under 100 pounds.” Think an ad could get away with that? Never — and they shouldn’t.
This is a subject that is in some ways difficult to focus on. There are more than two sides to consider. One, and the most important to the advertisers, is who are they sending the messages to? They hope they are the ones who are going to buy the products. But what age and demographic do they fall in? Are they older and not readily acceptable to the changes of gender roles? It is hard to determine. And where do they draw the line on who they depict in the advertising? Is it determined again by the customer or the product? If it is the product; then the buyer and that person’s age, etc. will determine how the advertising is generated. This is just the tip of the iceberg. As time goes on, things will change and become acceptable where they have not been before. Time always seems to be the determining factor of when something is acceptable.
The only ads I have notices that consciously address changing gender roles are those for Tide and some cereals. The brand and advertising managers realize that not only women do laundry and eat cereal with their kids. Why have I not noticed anyone else making that change? The laggards will lose market share.
I think there are a lot of different dynamics at play. One, there are a lot of tropes that are easy to tap into. You’ve got 30 seconds or less to tell a story, to grab interest, to establish a connection. Tropes and stereotypes are very easy ways to “offload” some of the effort that has to go into telling the story or making the connection by tapping into roles that people already understand well.
The problem is, we’re in a period where a lot of those tropes are evolving, fast. They’re starting to look very long in the tooth. You can respond to this by fighting it – by complaining, by listening to consumers who want to politicize the shifts (which are generationally driven, not politically driven). Or you can be an early adopter and actually gain attention by running counter to the trope – breaking through the noise, at least in the short term.
It’s those early adopters that start the trend, and I think we’re starting to see the evolution now. Cultural norms usually take a long time to change, but I would look to Millennials and Gen Z behind them before assuming this one has not reached a tipping point. We may already be there.
The question — and to some extent the survey — seems to confuse “not gender specific” with “equally represented,” but that’s hardly the case. There may be both male/female construction workers, fire…fighters (yes, I started to write “firemen”) or nurses, but the numbers are hardly 50/50. And of course there’s nothing to say advertising is supposed to be a mirror of reality.
So my short answer is “yes, it’s an oversimplification” — a big one.
Mass advertising platforms (TV, magazines, mainstream websites) will remain as is — using stereotypical gender roles because they must by definition appeal to the “average” perceptions. I’ve seen studies that show that most people prefer the comfort of traditional portrayals rather than their own reality. I do think this will change over time as Gens Y & Z age into mass consumerism, but don’t expect major shifts.
The place to see modern gender roles and other realities is in niche advertising platforms as well as from those brands that self-identify as catering to modern families and other growing entities such as LGBT, elderly, etc. As these niche platforms continue to grow in importance and in their ability to micro-target individuals, there will likely be a tipping point where this will spill over somewhat into mass advertising.