How do gender roles and characteristics relate to branding for skin care and cosmetics.
This essay will aim to explore the concept of gender as a social construct by exploring gender roles and characteristics today, to see how they have developed and changed over time to represent the changes in attitude within society. Throughout this exploration the theory of social constructivism and gender theory will be explored in order to establish an understanding of gender as a social construct.
Theories surrounding masculinity and femininity will be explored to determine the origin of stereotypical perceptions surrounding gender to identify how they have developed. In relation to gender Storey (2001) and Alexander (2003) will be used to understand the development of feminism and masculine studies. This understanding will then be used to gain a greater awareness of gender as a social construct by looking at Burkitt (2009) and Lorber (1994). Burkitt will be used to gain an understanding of Butler’s (1999) ideas of gender and performance which will help establish the idea of gender as a social construct. Furthermore Lorber (1994) will be explored in order to understand the argument that no matter what women and men do they will be perceived as masculine or feminine even if they perform the same task.
This exploration will then be linked to the relevance of gender roles and characteristics to branding and packaging to help establish if gendered branding is necessary within a developing society which is becoming more and more accepting of gender fluidity as more brands move towards a gender neutral aesthetic. Image analysis will be used to explore gendered branding within the skincare industry to evaluate if gendered branding is necessary in a traditionally segregated market that is becoming more aware of gender fluidity and the need to represent a new demographic.
The difference between gender and sex must be established in order to understand what gender is. According to Palan (2001) the term sex refers to an ‘individual’s biological sex, whether one is male or female’ whereas gender ‘refers to the psychological traits of masculinity and femininity that exists to varying degrees across individuals’ (Fugate & Phillips, 2010). In addition Freimuth (1982) states that ‘sex refers to biological factors such as genes, hormone and anatomical/reproductive structure’ therefor sex refers to a persons biological traits whereas gender is more physiological, as the traditional assumption has been that just as people are biologically male or female they are also physiologically either masculine or feminine. However this isn't necessarily the case as psychological traits of masculinity and femininity exists to varying degrees across individuals (Fugate & Phillips, 2010). However Burkitt (2009) suggests that sciences interpretation of sex is based on the social construct of gender as ‘in biomedical research, in order to distinguish different chromosomal patterns between males and females, scientists match chromosomes to people already defined as male and female’ (Burkitt, 2009: 116). Therefore Burkitt discusses this in relation to Kessler and McKenna that research to define people’s true sex, is based on prior assumptions and attributes of gender Burkitt (2009). Its important to note the two arguments in order to understand the influences societies perception of gender has throughout the issue.
Although gender and sex are different they are heavily linked as traditional gender roles are based on an individuals sex, as gender construction begins with assignment of sex at birth on the basis of genitalia Lorber (2018). West & Zimmerman (1987) states that gender ‘is not a trait that is given at birth; it is attained through situated symbolic social interaction’ which Lorber would argue begins at birth as a sex category becomes a gender status through naming, dress and the use of other gender markers, as babies are dressed in a way that represents their sex category Lorber (1994). The processes of instilling traditional gender associations based on sex maintains traditional gender norms as according to Pennel (1994) individuals understand gender segmentation by as early as two or three years old. This links to Lorber’s (1994) believe that ‘gender is so pervasive that in our society we assume it is bred into our genes’. These gender norms are heavily associated with stereotypes surrounding masculinity and femininity as ‘masculinity is generally perceived as unemotional, dominating and workplace oriented,while femininity is generally perceived as nurturing, compliant and empathetic’ (Fugate & Phillips 2010). These perceptions aid gender norms as individuals feel they need to conform to societies perceptions of gender based on masculinity and femininity.
Traditional stereotypes surrounding masculinity tends to suggest the idea that men are hyper masculine and should be the ‘bread-winners’ within a family structure. Alexander (2003) discusses Brannon (1976) themes of masculinity in which he describes the four key themes of masculinity. No Sissy stuff relates to emotion as ‘real men present themselves as invulnerable, and they repress expressions of affection toward other men’ Alexander (2003), supported by Brannon (1976) who states ’a ‘real man’ must never, never resemble women, or display strongly stereotyped feminine characteristics’. This lack of emotion is a key element in the stereotypical assumption of masculinity. The big wheel is next element in Brannons' (1976) themes of masculinity which centres around the ability of men to obtain wealth Alexander (2003), which can be achieved through occupation or achievements such as becoming a champion. This links to the next theme, the sturdy oak which ‘conveys manliness, confidence, and self-reliance’ (Alexander, 2003:537). Finally give em’ hell is the last theme which aims to ‘emit an aura of aggression and violence and use it to obtain sex from women’ (Brannon, 1976:119). These themes clearly show how the stereotypes associated with masculinity have developed based on the dominance of men over women and within society in general. To be a man according to Brannon (1976) themes is to dominate and be aggressive, a ‘mans man’. However Alexander (2003) discusses how men today are classed under ‘tough guise’ which ‘is a performance in which violent masculinity is the norm. It represents a backlash to feminism, gay rights, racial and ethnic equality’. The prevalence of the aggressive and overtly masculine association with masculinity has resulted in more and more men becoming aware of body image in a negative way, leading to the Adonis Complex. The Adonis Complex is used to describe ‘an array of usually secret, but surprisingly common, body image concerns of boys and men’ (Pope, Phillips and Olivardia 2002:6). This rise is awareness has lead to transformation of men’s understanding of masculinity from that presented in Brannon’s ‘No Sissy Stuff’ as more men are subscribing to publications such as Men’s Health are being socialised to ‘read’ masculinity as a consumer product’ Alexander (2003). This form of branded masculinity focuses on outward’s appearance rather than the male role of production Bordo (2000) indicating a departure from the form of hegemonic masculinity associated with the past Alexander (2003). This is further supported by Burkitt (2009) who says’ ‘men will often feel ashamed of their more feminine inclinations and feelings, thinking that they make them less masculine’ (Burkitt, 2009:122) due to the overly aggressive ‘mans, man’ stereotype associated with masculinity. Furthermore Burkitt says this feeling extends to women too as ‘women may feel their more masculine aspects will be frowned on because they make them less feminine’ (Burkitt, 2009:122).
Traditional gender stereotypes surrounding women are based on the traditional view that women are emotional, gentle, understand and devoted Kite, Deaux & Haines (2008). This view is based on the assumption that women are seen as ‘caregivers who shop, tend the home and provide emotional support Cejka & Eagly (1999)’. These traditional stereotypes are based on pre-war gender roles when women where seen mainly as stay at home mothers who didn’t work. This nurturing association also created the belief that emotions where firmly associated with femininity, as women were ‘believed to both experience and express a broader range of emotions’ Kite, Deaux & Haines (2008). This created the stereotypes of the ‘emotional woman’ which still persists today. Furthermore a woman physical appearance was traditional seen as very important as the stereotypical women was thought to be dainty, pretty, soft-voiced and graceful (Denmark & Paudi, 2008:207). This lead many modern women to struggle to remake the body seen in the mirror into a ‘tall, ultra-slim, large-breasted Barbie doll’ (Alexander, 2003:539) which was the image of traditional femininity. However Gauntlett (2008) would disagree that such stereotypes still exists today as most ‘modern women are not generally very bothered about fitting their identity within the idea of femininity’ (Gauntlett, 2008) as being feminine is merely a performance that modern women can choose to portray. This is supported by Beverley Skeggs (1997) study in which her subjects explained that they had a complex relationship with femininity as they ‘sought the ‘respectability’ which was associated with the ‘feminine’ role, but had no interest in being associated with its connotations of passivity or weakness’. Therefore indicating that some stereotypes associated with femininity do still effect women within society however due to the changes in gender roles women are not restricted to the stereotypical definition of femininity. This development in gender roles due to World War Two saw more and more women seeking work due to the shortages created by men going to war (striking-women.org, 2013). The allowed the stereotype that women should be home keepers to be diminished but not completely distorted as women where still seen as ‘secondary workers’. It was not until 1961 when the equal pay act was passed that gender roles started to change more significantly. However although this assumption has diminished over the past few decades women only hold 15.6 per cent of top corporate office positions in Fortune 500 companies Gauntlett (2008) showing that progress is still needed as masculine characteristics such as assertiveness and power are heavily associated with these roles.
In addition Butler (1999) discusses the idea that ‘gender is the mechanism by which notions of masculine and feminine are produced and naturalised’ contributing to the idea that having constructed the categories male and female, we implicitly deny that such categories are constructed and take them to be given in the ‘natural world’ Frieden (2013). Therefore we fail to recognise that what we see as natural ‘male and ‘female’ is constructed based on societies perceptions of stereotypes surrounding masculinity and femininity as these characteristics are key in defining conventional gender categories. This is further supported by Lorber (1994) who says ‘for human beings there is no essential femaleness or maleness, femininity or masculinity, womanhood or manhood, but once gender is ascribed, the social order constructs and holds individuals to strongly gendered norms and expectations’.These strongly gendered norms and expectations are heavily bases on the stereotypes associated with masculinity and femininity. Traditional gender norms are held in place by ‘gendered social arrangements that are justified by religion and cultural productions and backed by law, but the most powerful means of sustaining the moral hegemony of the dominant gender ideology is that the process is made invisible; any alternatives are virtually unthinkable‘ (Lorber, 1994:38). Furthermore this is supported by Butlers (2004) idea that the social arrangement of gender has created a restrictive discourse that insists on the binary of man and woman as the exclusive way to understand the gender, which ‘performs a regulatory operation of power that naturalises the hegemonic instance and forecloses the think-ability of its disruption’ (Butler, 2004:43). This dominate power, according to Burkitt (2009) means that to ‘survive in this world, a person’s sex has to be in some way readable and intelligible to others otherwise they are liable to be cast into a non-existence or non-recognition by others’ Burkitt (2009) as those who identify outside of traditional gender norms are seen as outcasts or ‘unnatural’ as they fail to fit within the naturalised norms created within society. These normal interactions are ‘enforced through informal sanctions of gender-inappropriate behaviour by peers and by formal punishment or threat of punishment by those in authority, should behaviour deviate’ from the natural standard within society Lorber (1994). In addition we learn these expectations throughout our lives as ‘individuals learn what is expected, see what is expected, act and react in expected ways and thus simultaneously construct and maintain the gender order’ (Lorber,1994:114). This is supported by Alexander (2003) who says ’women and men ‘read’ images of femininity and masculinity and then attempt to mimic them when giving a gender performance’
Bulter (1999) discusses the idea that an individuals gender is gained through performance. This can be understood through Burkitts’ explanation of Butlers’ theory of performance in which Butler (1999) says ‘performance creates the sense of male and female as natural facts’, using a Foucauldian analysis Butler argues that performances are compelled by regulatory norms and the overlapping networks of power and knowledge Burkitt (2009). Burkitt (2009) explains Butler’s (1999) theory of performance as a performative theory of gender, in which ‘gender is understood as nothing more or less than the performance of actions, behaviours, and gestures that have gendered characteristics’. Therefore highlighting that societies perceptions of an individuals performance is what defines their gender, Burkitt (2009) ‘there is no essence of male or female at the heart of our own selves which is expressed in these performances. It is the performance itself that creates the illusion that each one of us has a natural sex’. The idea of performance doesn’t relate to the physical actions of a person but more the characteristics traditionally associated with gender displays, this is not conscious decision. Lorber (2018) states that ‘individuals are born sexed but not gendered and they have to be taught to be masculine and feminine’. Butler believes gender identified through performance whereas Lorber believes gender stereotypes and roles are learned based on the performances of those around an individual.This links to Frieden (2013) who states that ‘gender roles consist of culturally derived actions and behaviours related to masculinity and femininity that one chooses to adopt’ (Frieden,2013:24) which implies individuals have an active choice in their performance as they choose the levels of masculinity and femininity that they want to show to society. However Burkitt (2009) recognises that these choices are both conscious and subconscious a he states that the regulation of social norms produce ‘gender performances, which are both iterative and improvisational’. This is supported by Butler (1999) who recognises that an individual does not conform to a set of normative regulation in a self-conscious way but is deeply inscribed by these norms which animate their performances creating a sense of identification.
In relation to branding, gender is very important as a brands personality and gender associations can play a large role in consumer choice as it can ‘be instrumental in helping consumers express their self-concept and provide a sense of comfort to consumers who have found a brand that ‘fits’ their self-concept’ (Malar et al,2011:36). Brand personality traits can be formed and influenced by any direct or indirect contact that the consumer has with the brand (Plummer 1985). This close association between brand personality and consumer gender is based on gender display in which individuals reveal through verbal and nonverbal demeanour’ how they fit in with societies masculine and feminine ideas Cohen (2001). This gender display is often influenced by the media as ‘women and men ‘read’ images of femininity and masculinity and then attempt to mimic them when giving a gender performance’ (Alexander, 2003:539), which is heavily influenced by advertisements which show the importance gender construction within popular culture. Individual consumers use ‘products as a way to define themselves to others and purchase brands with a particular personality to express their self-concept’ (Malar et al,2011:36). This is important within the skincare market due to the extremely segregated nature of masculine and feminine products, which can alienate some consumers who don’t subscribe to traditional gender roles. Therefor it’s important to explore the use of gendered branding to identify if it is a necessary approach within the skincare market as everyone requires similar products such as face wash, moisturiser, razors etc. Furthermore consumers use products as a way to express there actual or ideal self as ‘the actual self is based on the perceived reality of oneself’ (Malar et al,2011:36) whereas the ideal self is formed based on ideals and goals that a person believes he or she would like to aspire too. Therefore ‘consumers associated human personality traits with brands because they relate to brands as they would to partners or friends (Fournier 1998), because they perceive brands as extensions of themselves (Belk 1988)’. This perception strengthens the connection between consumer and brand creating a strong emotional attachment as a ‘consumer can achieve self-congruence by consuming a brand with a personality that he or she regards as similar to either their actual or ideal self’ (Malar et al,2011:36).
L’Oreal is one of the leading brands within the skincare and cosmetics industry which has traditionally been associated with women due to the strong stereotypes of femininity found within it’s branding. This association has allowed the brand to target women for years based on the stereotype that a woman’s physical appearance was a defining characteristics of their femininity. The pressure placed on women to be perfect and similar to the ideals portrayed within L’Oreal adverts has allowed the company to succeed for so many year based on the idea of ideal and actual self as consumers purchase products that they regard to be similar to their ideal or actual self Alexander (2001). However based on the changes in gender roles within society due to the ‘huge rise in the prominence of non-binary gender identification' (Thompson, 2017) and the changing perceptions on masculinity L’Oreal have diversified by creating a sub-brand targeted at men. However the branding for both the female (figure 1) and male brands (figure 2) of L’Oreal are very similar which could be the reason L’Oreal is still so closely associated with women, as L’Oreal appear to have failed to change their brand personality within their male sub-brand. Brand personality is a set of human characteristics associated with a brand Aaker (1997) which consumers get attached too as ‘consumers tend to anthropomorphise products, giving them humanlike characteristics and evaluating them in the same way they evaluate other people’ (Tilburg, 2015:422). The failure to properly distinguish the male brand means that the aesthetic of the packaging and branding still invokes the same emotions within consumers as the existing female products. Therefor putting some men off the brand as ‘consumers are motivated to hold a set of beliefs about themselves that motivate them to act in ways that reinforce their self-concept’ (Malar et al,2011:37),resulting in lower purchase intent due to the feminine connotations with the brand. Although the similarities create a more feminine association to the male sub-brand, the sub-brand doesn’t look disconnected from L’Oreal for women allowing for consistency across the L’Oreal name. This could be helpful if the brands where to merge and become one, with the aim of targeting everyone rather than separate brands for men and women. Furthermore this would allow L’Oreal to represent and attract consumers who don’t fit within traditional gender roles, allowing the brand to keep up with the changes in gender roles as society is becoming more aware and accepting of gender fluidity, as ‘gendered marketing begins to look out-dated and out of touch’ (Simon, A, 2018).
Lynx is a traditionally masculine personal care brand that uses stereotypical images of masculinity within its branding. Although Lynx say their mission is to change outdated masculine stereotypes they use traditionally masculine imagery within their branding from celebrity endorsers to bold block type. The use of celebrities such as Anthony Joshua, unified world heavyweight champion boxer counters their mission to get rid of traditional stereotypes as Joshua is the definition of a ‘mans man’ due to the aggressive and dominant associations with boxing, as Joshua represents the ‘tough guise a performance in which violent masculinity is the norm’ (Alexander, 2003: 538). Furthermore in relation to the branding use by Lynx the logo featuring a wide block inspired typeface further contributes to the masculine image as block bold type represents dominance and authority, characteristics traditionally associated with men. This is further shown through the use of colour within the branding and packaging, as dark grey and metallics are used in order to avoid any associations with femininity that may occur from using colours not traditionally associated with men as according to Brannon (1976) men should never display traditional female stereotypes. Furthermore the packaging and branding are heavily inspired by an industrial aesthetic, further enforcing the masculine stereotype of a man’s man as traditionally mens role in society centred around working and being the breadwinner within the family. Furthermore the majority of Lynx adverts focus on the ability to attract women by wearing and consuming Lynx which allows men to achieve power, success and status through consumption as society suggesters ‘that constructing one’s gender identity is merely a matter of purchasing acceptable brand-name products’ (Alexander, 2003:552). This focus on traditional stereotypes allows Lynx to be dominant in the male personal care market as individuals are ‘regulated by gender, and this sort of regulation operates as a condition of cultural intelligibility for any person’ (Butler, 2004:52). Therefore in relation to Alexander (2003) consumption of products traditionally associated with masculinity such as Lynx allows men to maintain their masculine image within society as they are conforming to traditional gender ideals through consumption, as a form of conscious ‘performance’ as this consumption demonstrates their gender identity to others. In relation to Butler this act of following social norms spreads the idea that gender is shown through performance as we don’t notice that we are contributing to these norms as the need to consume brands associated with a specific gender is ingrained within society.
One brand that does reflect the changes in attitudes towards gender is Aesop, one of the most popular gender neutral personal care brands. Aesop is based on ‘shared attitudes and values, instead of gender ideals’ (Thompson G. 2017) which has allowed the brand to have a universal impact as it relates to almost all consumers. Aesop's branding is heavily inspired by the functional approach to product development and design, reflecting the natural and lab made ingredients within products, Aesop (2018). The use of a scientific aesthetic adds authenticity to the brand making it more trustworthy, which is reinforced by the heavy focus on research and product testing within Aesop’s production processes (Thompson G. 2017). Furthermore this clinical approach to design has little gender connotations as Aesop has neither high feminine or high masculine brand associations. This focus on design has allowed Aesop to bypass the higher purchase intent commonly associate with gendered products as this has been addressed by adding value through effective design and packaging. This is supported by Tilburg (2015) who found that ‘higher levels of product gender resulted in stronger purchasing intent; however by positively influencing attitude, aesthetic value, and functionality, these three variables completely mediated this effect’. Furthermore Aesop’s customer focused approach results in a strong emotional brand attachment as consumers feel listened too due to Aesop’s focus on creating products their customers ask for. Emotional brand attachment is the ‘bond that connects a consumer with a specific brand and involves feelings toward the brand’ (Malar et al,2011:36). This allows consumers to feel involved with the brand and product, increasing purchase intent and brand loyalty as they feel the brand is more relevant to their actual or ideal self. When an individual feels connected to a brand, ‘personally relevant knowledge is activated in the memory, a motivational state is created that energises or drives consumers cognitive behaviour’ (Malar et al,2011:37) therefor increasing purchase intent as the consumer feels they need this product in order to demonstrate there actual or ideal self. Furthermore this strong brand attachment based on brand personally increases consumer preference and usage (Sirgy 1982), evokes emotions in consumers (Biel 1993) and increases levels of trust and loyalty (Fournier 1994) which has allowed Aesop to be one of the leading gender neutral skincare brands within skincare and personal care market. The lack of focus on gender within Aesop’s branding allows the company to attract multiple demographics as by not referencing gender it’s including those who are more gender fluid without dismissing those who fit within traditional gender roles as the focus is on the consumers needs and how the products can help them rather than their gender identity.
In addition to Aesop, The Ordinary is another successful skincare brand the targets those who are gender fluid as well as those who identify with traditional gender roles. The main focus of The Ordinary is to raise awareness for ‘pricing and communication integrity in skincare’ Feelunique.com (2018) due to the system within the skincare market that implies that products with a high price point are more likely to solve your skincare issues. In contrast to Aesop, The Ordinary has a significantly lower price point, however is still regarded as a high quality brand by consumers due to the scientific influences within the branding. The use of focus on a clinical aesthetic within the branding allows the consumer to feel comfortable with the use of harsh chemicals and acid within the products as there is a level of trust established through the clear communication within the packaging design. Stating the key chemical component within some of the products on the front of the packaging makes it clear to consumers what they are using, creating a trustworthy bond between brand and consumer. This is because the consumer doesn’t feel lied too, as ‘packaging is a product element or characteristic’ Evans and Berman (1992). Therefore the honest approach to packaging design, transfers an element of trust to the product as the consumer is being told what the key ingredient that is going to help them is, even if it is a harsh chemical. This approach to packaging is important in establishing this bond of trust as the packaging and information featured is the first thing that the public sees before making the final decision to buy Vidales Giovannetti (1995). Therefor this trust creates an emotional brand attachment causing consumers to have high brand loyalty due to the emotional response created by establishing trust between consumer and brand. This is because The Ordinary presents itself as genuine allowing an authentic relationship to be established as ‘presenting something as ‘genuine’ to someone else creates strong emotions and bonds based on intimacy and trust’ (Malar et al,2011:44). This approach eliminates the need to discuss gender within the branding as the main focus is how the ingredients will help an individuals problem such as acne or dry skin rather than focusing on issues of beauty such as fine lines or wrinkles, as most skincare issues are not limited to one gender. Therefore the focus on packaging design and trust within The Ordinary's branding further shows that gendered branding within the skincare market is unnecessary as brands could target both men and women by focusing on the product itself rather than the gender of the consumer as taking care of yourself is an act no-longer associated with just women.
