Throughout this essay I will explore how societies perception of gender influences brand identity, by looking at brands who have altered their brand identity in order represent that change in gender roles within society.
A brand is a set of associations a person makes with a company, product, service or organisation. Branding therefor aims to enhance and draw on these associations in order to gain a competitive advantage over the competition by highlighting the difference between a product and what the competition is offering. Furthermore branding has the power to bring certain attributes to mind and add value to a product (Kotler, 2003). These attributes add value to a product as consumers often purchase products based on the brand and the associations the consumer holds with that brand rather than the product itself. However if a company adds too many values/associations to their brand it can result in a loss of identity, as a result of trying to attract a large target audience. One thing that should never change in a brand is the name as this is a main identifier for consumers. However this doesn't mean the name is distinctive on its own as Nike without the swooshing tick would not be as visually effective (Cliffton, R. 2003). Brands rely on their visual distinctiveness through a combination of these elements and consistency at which these are maintained (ibid). A strong brand allows consumers to shop with confidence allowing brands to stand out against the competition due to the strong link to the consumer (ibid). The power of a brand is its ability to meet consumer perceptions, many of which are based on brand personality traits which resonate with the personalty traits of consumers.
Many of the associations consumers have with brands are based on the brands perceived personality traits and how these reflect the personality traits of the consumer, in particular the brands association with masculinity and femininity. Aaker, J. (1997) discusses the importance of masculinity and femininity in relation to branding through brand personality traits. Brand personality traits are a set of human characteristics associated with a brand (ibid) which can help brands target a certain audience such as men or women. By aligning specific brand personality traits with those of the target audience a brand has a greater chance of success as Aaker (1997) states the ‘greater the congruity between human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individuals actual or ideal self and those described by the brand, the greater the preference’. The personality of a brand allows consumers to express their ideal self as supported by Grubb & Grathwohl (1967) who state an ‘individuals product usages is in someway reflective of his or her own image or identity’. Brands become associated with human personality traits through associations such as logos or symbols, advertising styles and price, with many brands reinforcing these associations through advertising symbols, signs, packaging, narratives and codes (Frieden, L. 2013). Furthermore many brands tend to showcase gender using these techniques, such as Harley Davidsons ‘Big Toys for Big Boys’ (Grohmann. 2009). Despite the commonalities of brand and human personality traits they are both influenced by different factors. Human personality traits are influenced by an individuals own behaviours, beliefs and demographics (Park 1986), whereas brand personalty traits are influenced by any direct or indirect contact the consumer has with the brand (Plummer 1985). Furthermore the use of human personality traits to describe brand personality traits has the potential to be inaccurate as they don’t accuratly transfer over, as discussed by Grohmann (2009). This potential inaccuracy discussed by Grohmann (2009) lead to the development of a 12-item scale consisting of six masculine brand personalities traits (adventurous, aggressive, brave, daring, dominant, sturdy) and six feminine brand personalities traits (tender feelings, fragile, graceful, sensitive, sweet). This allows a brand to be identified as either low feminine/high masculine, high feminine/low masculine, low feminine/low masculine, high feminine/high masculine. Therefor allowing the scale to act as a tool to analyse brands in relation to their competition and target audience through consumer perception and a brands perceived gender (Frieden, L. 2013). Brand gender identities are often strongly linked to masculinity and femininity which are based on gender roles within society. Gender roles are culturally derived actions associated with masculinity and femininity whereas gender role attitudes are derived from an individuals view on the roles, responsibilities and rights of men and women (ibid). Gender refers to the psychological traits of masculinity and femininity that exist to varying degrees within an individual, as gender is not a trait given at birth but something that develops based on situated symbolic social interaction. In relation to masculinity and femininity the general perceptions are based on traditional assumptions about gender roles in society. Masculinity is generally perceived as unemotional, dominating and workplace oriented, whereas femininity is generally perceived as nurturing, compliant and empathetic (ibid).
However a consumers gender identity doesn’t have to directly correlate with their gender role within society as women have been seen to take on characteristics traditionally seen as masculine such as money, work and birth control (Frieden, L. 2013). Furthermore this is supported by Palan (2001) who states that gender identity is a combination of gender related phenomena which exist in varying degrees within an individual such as attitudes, interests, role behaviours and gendered personality traits. In addition Bem, 1981 who discusses gender schema theory, states that a persons traits, attitudes and behaviours are adopted to be consistent with a persons gender identity. Gender schema theory was formally introduced by Sandra Bem in 1981 as a cognitive theory to explain how individuals become gendered in society, and how sex-linked characteristics are maintained and transferred to other members of a culture. Furthermore Bem (1974) development of two-dimensional model where masculinity and femininity are established as two separate uni-dimensional bipolar opposites on one continuum, allowing it to be possible for masculinity and femininity to co-exist at different levels within one individual (Frieden, L. 2013). Furthermore this is supported by Palan (2001) who states there are multiple influences on gender identity. This test consisted of 60 adjectives representing certain characteristics, 20 represented female traits, 20 represent male traits and the remaining 20 are considered gender neutral. From these adjective individuals rate themselves on a sale of 1-7 based on how they relate to each adjective. The scoring originally stated that if an individuals raw femininity score was higher than their masculinity score they would be classed as feminine. However this has been developed to consider those who score high or low on both, as this wasn’t considered in the original test. Therefor allowing four groups to be identified masculine, feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated with the androgynous group consisting of people who scored high on both masculine and feminine dimensions whereas the undifferentiated group identifies those who score low on both masculine and feminine dimensions. Frieden, L. 2013 discussed the significance of Bem’s (1974) model in relation to market research, as it allows questions to be raised about the general assumption that masculine products only attract men and feminine products only attract women. As gender identity develops to become more fluid many brands have turned to cross-gender brand extension (Jung & Lee, 2006), using the same name to target both men and women as discussed by Frieden, L. (2013) as they realise traditional gender roles are becoming outdated as men and women start to take on roles traditionally associated with the opposite gender. This is further supported by Ye (2008) who states that consumers often use brands that fit their own gendered image while showing others a gendered self beyond traditional gender roles. Furthermore men tend to show their gender identify through material goods, tending to see brands in extremes so that masculine brands are more masculine and feminine brands are more feminine (Frieden, L. 2013). Therefore meaning its easier to make a male-oriented product attractive to females rather than the other way around. This change can be achieved through multiple avenues, the most common strategy to showcase gender identity is imagery within advertising which is derived primarily from traditional stereotypes surrounding masculinity and femininity within society. However both men and women respond differently to advertising as female attitudes are effected by rationality, expectations and self image whereas male attitudes are effected by elements such as confidence and price of the product (Frieden, L. 2013).
Adidas successfully changed their brand gender and personality to focus on men and women at all performance levels, ‘aims to meet sport-specific needs of athletes at all performance levels’ Berntson, A. (2006) rather than focusing on professional male athletes which was their target audience for many years. The main focus on getting people involved in sports speaks specifically to women who for a long time, due to perceived gender roles within society, where discouraged to take part in sport. Therefore allowing Adidas to attract women without using traditional imagery focusing on masculinity and femininity. However due to the ingrained assumptions by consumers that Adidas was mainly for professional male footballers it took years to change their brand gender and personality traits. This is supported by Berntson, A. (2006) who states that it can be difficult to change the associations consumers have with an existing brand as its easier to gender a new brand as consumers don’t have any preconceived expectations. This move to attract women marks change in society resulting in women being just as involved in sport as men (Costa, 1994) than when Adidas first entered the market. Furthermore this change allows Adidas to attract a larger demographic and increase their equity as women are responsible for 80% of individual consumer spending (Cohan, 2001). Originally Adidas used professional athletes (figure 1) within there advertising in order to build their brand to attract other professional sports stars, it was the first company to do so. This use of professionals was a main contributors to the brands early association with professional athletes which later became difficult to change as they where the first company to adopt this style of adverting resulting in it creating a larger impact on consumers compared to brands who followed suit. However this use of professionals doesn’t necessarily discourage the average consumers from interacting with the brand as Adidas still include professionals within there advertising today however both men and women are equal represented, with women being shown in the same level of strength and agility rather than using traditional stereotyped imagery, that women where too weak to take part in sport (figures 2-3). This allows the changing perceptions of gender roles within society to be reflected as its more acceptable for women to show characteristics traditionally associated with masculinity such as strength. However this inclusivity of women can only be seen in some areas of Adidas branding as women are still under-represented within some of their individual sport branding such as football.
Furthermore another example of a brand changing their brand personality traits in order to attract a wider market, in particular women, is Nike who aimed to increase their market share among women (Grow, J. 2008). Nike’s decision to move away from its masculine brand image (Grow, J. 2008) and focus more on its sub-brand to attract women was a response to changing markets due to more and more women becoming involved in sport (Costa, 1994). However despite the move to attract women Nike’s sub-brand often challenged social constructs of gender and sport as women participating in sport was still a new concept during the initial move to attract more women into sport. Nikes iconic tag line of ‘just do it’ defines the identity making it easily identified however when it was first introduced it had strong associations with masculinity (figure 4) as Nike’s main focus was men during this time (Grow, J. 2008). This was difficult to incorporate within the branding for women due to this association making it harder to change consumer perceptions as it didn’t fit within the objective of trying to get women involved in sport (Grow, J. 2008). However within women’s ads the ‘just do it’ tag line was framed by a ‘culturally bound, gender separateness, with images and copy that did not articulate the same masculine paradigm’ Grow, J. (2008), allowing the tag line to both comment and separate the sub-brand (figure 5). In more recent times the representation of both men and women has become more even with men and women being shown as equals within sports brands such as Nike and Adidas due to the change in gender roles within society which have made it more acceptable for women to participate in sport.
To conclude a strong brand allows consumers to shop with confidence (Cliffton, R. 2003) which is possible due to strong brand personality traits built within a brand and how they reflect the personality traits of the consumer, in particular the brands association with masculinity and femininity. These traits must resonate with the consumer as the ‘greater the congruity between human characteristics that consistently and distinctively describe an individuals actual or ideal self and those described by the brand, the greater the preference’ Aaker, J. (1997). As discussed by Grohmann (2009) and Bem (1974) there are different scales/methods to identify a brands gender identity, both of which act as tools to analyse brands in relation to their target audience and competition through consumer perceptions based on a brands perceived gender (Frieden, L. 2013). Gender roles within society play a big role in a brands perceived gender identity and the effect this has on the brands personality traits and the associations consumer hold, as consumers often use brands that fit their own gendered image while showing others a gendered self beyond traditional gender roles Ye (2008). As a result of this over time brands have changed their personality traits and associated gender in order to reflect the changing gender roles within society such as Nike and Adidas who both moved away from their heavily masculine brand personality in order to attract women in a bid to increase market share and equity among women (Grow, J. 2008). This moved has allowed both Nike and Adidas to build a strong brand that consumers trust allowing them to shop with confidence (Cliffton, R. 2003) as a result of responding to society, as women have begun to take on roles traditionally associated with men such as work and money (Frieden, L. 2013). Overall this movement has allowed both Nike and Adidas to become two of the main competitor within the sport clothing industry due to their ability to change the associations consumers had and create a gender neutral brand, that speaks to both men and women without having separate advertising campaigns and treating women as sub-brands (Grow, J. 2008) rather than one collective brand, which is now possible due to the change in consumer association. Therefor showing that in order for brand to succeed and grow they must respond to the changes within society especially those relating to gender.
Bibliography:
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2003). Marketing management. 14th ed. pp.242-243.
Clifton, R. and Ahmad, S. (2009). Brands and branding. New York: Bloomberg Press, pp.16-19.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. SSRN Electronic Journal, pp.347-348.
Frieden, L. (2013). The role of consumer gender identity and brand concept consistency in evaluating cross gender brand extension. Post Graduate. University of South Florida.
Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), pp.105-119.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), pp.155-162.
Ye, L. (2008). The impact of gender effects on consumers' perceptions of brand equity: a cross-cultural investigation. University if North Texas.
Berntson, A. (2006). Branding and Gender: how adidas communicate gender values. Post Graduate. Karlstad University.
Costa, E. (2003). How the world changed social media. UCL Press, pp.114-115.
Cohan, J. (2001). Towards a New Paradigm in the Ethics of Women's Advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 33, pp.323-337.
Grow, J. (2017). The Gender of Branding: Antenarrative Resistance in Early Nike Women's Advertising. [ebook] Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=comm_fac [Accessed 22 Nov. 2017].
Jung, K. and Lee, W. (2006). Cross-gender brand extensions: Effects of gender of the brand, gender of consumer, and product type on evaluation of cross-gender extensions. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, pp.67-74.
Grubb, E. and Grathwohl, H. (1967). Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism and Market Behavior: A Theoretical Approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(4), pp.22-27.
Palan, k. (2001). Gender identity in consumer behaviour research: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Marketing Science Review, pp.1-26.
 |
| Figure 1 |
 |
| Figure 2 |
 |
| Figure 3 |
 |
| Figure 4 |
 |
| Figure 5 |
