Written - The first chapter draft

Chapter 1 – Gender within advertisement

The ‘hypodermic syringe model’ (Livingston, 1996) looks at how the media convey underlying messages and representations that as the audience we absorb passively and unaware. Thus meaning, we automatically believe what we see and are shown, as we may know no better. This raises the issue then that we could be being sold into products that are potentially harmful to our emotions and behaviour for the sake of profit of the brand.

"The model of power underlying this theory is simplistic and one-dimensional as the media have all power to impose their messages on an entirely powerless audience (Gauntlett 1997)" – page 152 Gender and Popular Culture (2012)

The media have the power to construct a stereotypical image of what it is to be a particular gender; which roles we should adhere to within that, and how we should portray ourselves. It can be said that they then use this to fool the audience into thinking that they should thus buy a product in order to adhere to these stereotypes; to properly maintain their role within society. They often convey messages about femininity and masculinity through exaggerated imagery of what it means to be a successful man or a woman - not just in the sense of having a successful career, but successfully completing your role; whether that be as a housewife, a sexual being, a businesswoman or a businessman.

" Early feminist researchers into gender and the media in the 1970s, such as Germaine Greer or Gaye Tuchman, saw the mass media as maintaining patriarchy by indoctrinating women with stereotypical images and narratives which construct femininity as different and inferior to masculinity (Ang and Hermes 1996). " – page 152 Gender & Popular Culture (2012)

" The assumption of such research is that female and male audiences simply accept these messages and thereby become complicit victims of the sexist media." – page 152 Gender & Popular Culture (2012)

This then raises the question of how much power the media has over its audience and whether we really are affected by these messages, adhering to these sexist roles. If we are aware, why do we still buy into it? It could be said that we are aware, but strive towards the imagery conveyed as an ideal goal for ourselves. Perhaps as the audience we seek what the companies are offering and look to the product as means of becoming that ideal, thus seeking comfort from it.  Ultimately, the question is, who has the most power, the mass media or the people?

" Adorno would say that we are still drones, manipulated by the system to want the pleasures which it offers. " – page 22 Media Gender & Identity (2008)

It can be argued that the media are manipulators, but equally that we are aware of this and conform without question because we wish to imitate these gender roles and seek the ideology it offers. Opposing Adorno is Gender and Popular Culture (2012) which looks at Rosalind Ballaster et al.'s (1991) research with female readers of women's magazines where she speaks about how women are aware of these negative connotations and criticize them. The argument raised here are towards magazines but it shares the same notion of how much we are influenced by the media.

“many women are very critical of the ways in which these magazines present women. The narrow feminine beauty ideal reproduced in images and descriptions is rejected by many readers as stereotypical, objectifying and unrealistic."

Equally it highlights how men too have different views in citing research by Rosalind Gill et al (2000) whereby some of the men  'aspired the male beauty norm of a toned, slim and muscular body' and yet others perceived it as just 'shallow’. Furthermore some perceived it as shallow, and yet aspired to having a good body, so they were aware, but still strived for the ideology that it offered. It could be said then; that as the audience we are not drones, and are fully aware of the negative aspects of advertising, but selectively chose what we want to take from it in order to better ourselves.

*INCLUDE SEXISM IN ADVERTISEMENT HERE*

·      MEDIA GENDER & IDENTITY NOTES ON MENS MAGS, FHM, LOADED, MAXIM, JACKIE

·      THE MALE GAZE

·      HOW CERTAIN PRODUCTS ARE TARGETTED AT CERTAIN GENDERS I.E CLEANING PRODUCTS, COOKING TARGETTED AT WOMEN. HOW IT DIFFERS WHEN ITS FOR MEN.

·      WOMEN BEING SEXUALISED – FOOD PRODUCTS, SUPERBOWL.

·      ADS THAT ARE BREAKING SEXIST STEREOTYPES

 Another cause for concern is how much we are manipulated by this ideal, how much a product influences and affects our behaviour internally and towards one another. Particularly for a younger audience, who are more inclined to strive for these ideals and compete against one another.

Celebrity endorsement is another successful tool of advertisement. ‘The Secret Science of Advertisement’ - an online YouTube video pointed out that in the 1970’s ‘Miller Light’ used celebrities and sports personalities in their ads and their sales increased from 7 million to 31 million. However, using these celebrities can influence negatively as people wish to become their idols; assuming by buying a certain product that the celebrity promotes, they will do this and reach that ideal. David Gauntlett looks at the influence celebrities have within magazines on their readers. Celebrities are being used to target audiences and influence them into looking and acting a certain way according to their gender, as they portray within the ad campaign, sending out the message that if you buy the product, you will achieve the result. Sometimes however, as Gauntlett has highlighted, it can be a positive message, with positive role models.

" Magazines for women encourage their readers to be assertive and independent. Pop stars like Beyonce and other media icons such as Oprah Winfrey, convey the same message. Magazines for men, whilst sometimes going overboard with macho excess, encourage men to understand women and face up to modern realities. " - Page 7 Media Gender and Identity (2008)

Though these are some ‘positive’ role models, they can often be used in campaigns that can have negative effects. For example the Daily Mail explores Beyonce’s 2013 L’Oreal Feria and Infallable make up ad campaigns. The images showed her looking flawless and radiant; however the leaked versions of her pre-photoshopped shoot show different results. Her skin is blemished and acne-ridden under a thick layer of foundation and most certainly glow-free. Beyonce is a global positive role model for mums, middle-aged women, teenagers and young girls. It gives false hope that these looks can be achievable and in turn could give a complex to someone suffering with a skin disorder that strives for perfect skin. Should the message not be showing the latter images of Beyonce as she really is in her truest form; encouraging girls to be comfortable in their own skin, instead of subconsciously giving them the goal of having flawless (and often Photoshopped) skin? This would certainly give young girls a more achievable and realistic goal to reach towards - being comfortable in yourself.

Jean Kilbourne supports this notion in ‘Cant buy my love – How advertisement changes the way we think and feel’ (1999) as she explores how children see celebrities as their heroes.

'Todays little girls constantly rate the supermodels high on their list of heroes, and most of us know them by their first names alone... Cindy, Ellie, Naomi, Iman. Imagine - these women are heroes to little girls, not because of their courage or character or good deeds, but because of their perfect features and porcelain skin.' – Page 60.

Developing on from this is the 'Gender schematic processing theory' (Martin 1991) suggesting that at an early age children learn through activities and shared interests that are appropriate for their gender known as the ‘gender schema.’ They then learn and adapt to the world through this schema. It can be said that companies buy into this yet again through their products and the advertisement of them. For example with gender specific toys in stores and the colours used to advertise them: pink for girls, blue for boys.

"People who did not want to conform to gender conventions could be seen to have 'failed' to have acquired 'gender consistency' which children interested in non-stereotypical activities could be said to have an incomplete gender scheme." – Page 39 Media Gender & Identity (2008)

This is suggesting that if, as a parent you do not raise your child to behave in a correct manner according to their gender role then they are failing to be consistent with the rest of society; which is a huge pressure and in turn subconsciously forces us into, not only moulding ourselves into these roles, but our children as well. There are many underlying messages in products and advertisement to children that go unnoticed. One huge factor is that of colour association and how certain genders should only play with certain types of toys. The advertisers then display these toys in the particular colours associated with that gender. For example guns and cars for boys can be seen using blue and green colours; and in turn for girls they are seen advertising ironing boards; and baking products in pinks and yellows. Toys ‘R’ Us in Stockholm, Sweden saw the negative connotations this had and the effect it had on children and decided to manufacture its own ‘gender neutral’ toys claiming 'Children are not coded to blue for boys and pink for girls – they should be free to choose what they want to play with.’ Supporting this argument is David Gauntlett who claims:

" Sales of the Barbie doll are reportedly falling because only the youngest girls will accept such a 'girly' toy nowadays, and the pretty-but-passive Barbie doll is easily beaten at Christmas time by toys and games related to Dora the explorer, the inquisitive and multi-lingual adventurer whose animated TV series is highly popular." – Media gender and identity (2008)

They are suggesting that children are becoming much more inquisitive about their gender and steering more towards toys that are not particularly masculine or feminine, but actually due to a positive television role model. This may suggest that the issue lies at the beginning - the TV icons and characters that have a huge influence on the audience; affects the product, and thus in turn the advertisement of that. But who decides what makes those characters and icons positive? Us as the audience?

Often stores encourage gender segregation by categorizing certain toys into gender specific areas; so that as a shopper we immediately go to the section relevant for that gender without considering any other aisles as they are not ‘relevant’ to us. These techniques are known as ‘Marketing Segmentation’. When Lego produced ‘Lego for girls’ it ultimately tripled the sale of Lego and scored the company a 25% increase in global revenue by use of a specific gender. This applies for all products however; if the company make two types of the same thing, they can sell more of the same product (also the products are often sold at different prices). The company creates a decision for us without us realizing, forcing us into these gender categories.

 “Advertisers like to tell parents that they can always turn off the TV to protect their kids from any of the negative impact of advertising. This is like telling us that we can protect our children from air pollution by making sure they never breathe. Advertising is our environment. We swim in it as fish swim in water. We cannot escape it.” - Page 57 Can’t buy my love

Advertisers are aware of what we can perceive as being negative and once again are one step ahead. They use psychologists to analyse our reactions and highlight our concerns before we get chance to. This brings me onto my next chapter of how much research is undergone by companies into their audience, in order to ensure successful promotion.