Offering products ‘for him’ or ‘for her’ is risky business

Share your science:

SHARE YOUR SCIENCE: Only when consumers perceive a relevant biological difference between men and women, do they accept gendered marketing as legitimate. 

Over the past decade, multiple brands have been accused of sexism as
they offered products that seemed unnecessarily gendered: from BIC with ‘BIC
for her’, a line of pens just for women, to Kleenex with its ‘Mansize’ tissues. 

The epitome of this phenomenon may have been reached when the CEO of PepsiCo
announced Doritos was working on ‘lady-friendly’ crisps, arguing that women ‘don’t like to crunch too loudly in public’. Consumers were outraged by this
announcement, accusing Doritos of sexism.

To better understand this phenomenon, I investigated how consumers
respond to gendered products, focusing on whether they view the brands behind
those gendered products as sexist.

Consumers are negative about gendered products

To start my
investigation, I conducted an experiment in which I told participants that
SodaCola — a fictive brand — announced they would
launch a low-calorie soda. 

Half of the participants were told that this new soda would be called ‘LadySodaCola’ and have pink packaging. The other half were told it would be called ‘Diet SodaCola’ and have yellow packaging. 

I then asked participants how sexist they perceived SodaCola to be
and how likely they were to share information about it through word-of-mouth.

As I predicted,
participants informed about ‘Lady SodaCola’ (a gendered product) viewed
the brand as more sexist than participants informed about ‘Diet SodaCola’ (a non-gendered product), and they were more willing to spread negative
word-of-mouth about it. 

Besides, launching a low-calorie soda named ‘Lady
SodaCola’ was perceived as a less legitimate practice than launching a low-calorie
soda named ‘Diet SodaCola’. In sum, these results confirmed that consumers
respond adversely to a gendered product.

Consumers’ personal
beliefs affect how they respond

I also predicted that
two personal characteristics could modify how consumers respond to gendered products:
if they are feminist and if they endorse sexist beliefs. I found this was
indeed the case. 

Consumers who identify as
feminist are more inclined to view brands behind gendered products as sexist. Conversely,
consumers who endorse sexist beliefs are less prone to view brands behind gendered
products as sexist.

Gendered products seemingly
based on biological differences are viewed legitimate

Noting that consumers
seem less sceptical towards some types of gendered products than towards other
types, I decided to distinguish between products that are gendered based on a stereotype
(e.g., men like and tolerate spicy food more than women) and products that
are gendered based on a seemingly biological difference (e.g., men need, on
average, a higher protein intake than women). 

I tested this in a new study and
found that launching protein-rich chips ‘for men’ was perceived to be more
legitimate than launching spicy chips ‘for men’. 

Furthermore, participants who believed that men and women have
different biological needs in terms of protein intake viewed launching protein-rich chips ‘for men’ as less sexist than launching spicy chips ‘for men’.

Reference

• Caruelle, D. ‘Are brands that
  perform gendered product differentiation perceived as sexist? An experimental
  investigation’, The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2024. DOI: 10.1108/JPBM-07-2023-4590 (Abstract)