Scholastic Award Winner: Gender In Advertising Gender In Advertising Honorable Mention in Critical Essay By IkeGrade 10 From the billboards we pass daily to the commercials we see online, advertising shapes not only our product preferences but also our societal values. For years, it has often reinforced narrow gender roles, casting men as authoritative figures while women are subservient or focused solely on their appearance. Although there has been slight progress toward diversity in advertising, these issues persist. This essay will examine how gender is represented in advertising, drawing insights from Jane Cunningham and Philippa Roberts’ Brandsplaining: Why Marketing is (Still) Sexist and How to Fix It, as well as research by the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. While recent “femvertising” trends show efforts to reframe the roles of women, the inequalities in advertising show that they need change. Throughout advertising history, gendered stereotypes have been a reliable tool to shape narratives about men and women. Cunningham and Roberts explore this in Brandsplaining, showing how advertisements commonly depict women in domestic settings, often portrayed as passive, nurturing, or preoccupied with self-improvement and appearance. According to the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, 25% of advertisements feature only men, while 5% feature only women. Men are often given three times as much speaking time as women. This imbalance suggests that men’s perspectives and voices are prioritized over women’s, reinforcing a social hierarchy where male voices dominate public narratives. By allowing men three times more speaking time, advertisements inadvertently uphold a cultural perception that women’s voices—and by extension, their opinions—are secondary. These trends reduce the visibility of women in ads, often making them appear secondary to men. Beyond diminishing women’s roles, this suggests that advertisements maintain a broader societal message: women are less central to decision-making, innovation, and influence. This subtly reinforces some existing power imbalances in the real-world, from the workplace to politics, where women often struggle to be noticed. Such portrayals in ads do not exist in isolation—they mirror and amplify these inequalities, shaping perceptions of gender roles. The gender disparity in ads is not just a public-facing issue but one rooted within the industry itself. Historically, male dominance in advertisements has been echoed behind the scenes. Cunningham and Roberts note that while women make up nearly half the advertising workforce, men hold 71% of creative director positions, which helps to shape the content in ads. This lack of effective female leadership helps explain why advertisements continue to reflect a male-dominant perspective that emphasizes the traditional gender roles seen outside of advertisements, normalizing the typical standards as opposed to challenging it. In response to criticism, some brands embraced a concept known as ‘femvertising,’ advertising that promotes messages of female empowerment and body positivity. Campaigns like Dove’s ‘Real Beauty’ aim to celebrate women of diverse ages, sizes, and ethnicities, gaining widespread attention and sparking important conversations about inclusivity. However, femvertising has received some negative reactions. While some consumers praise these campaigns for challenging traditional beauty standards, others criticize them as insincere attempts to capitalize on social movements without addressing deeper issues. Critics also say that the nature of femvertising exploits empowerment, reducing it to a marketing tool rather than a genuine attempt at striving for equality. This skepticism has even fueled an anti-femvertising sentiment, with some audiences rejecting these campaigns as performative or hypocritical when not backed by a systemic change within the brands themselves. However, Brandsplaining critiques these trends as “sneaky sexism,” in which brands subtly reinforce these outdated traditional gender roles. For example, terms like “ageless” replace “anti-aging,” yet they both imply the concept of aging being bad. Femvertising thus comes with a hidden catch. While it appears to promote empowerment, Cunningham and Roberts argue that it often subtly reinforces societal expectations, suggesting that even ’empowered’ women should still conform to idealized standards. Femvertising also risks commodifying feminism, reducing it to a marketing trend rather than a genuine commitment to social progress. While campaigns aimed at empowerment may generate positive publicity, the Geena Davis Institute cautions that these short-term “femvertising” strategies often fall short of creating lasting impact. Such superficial approaches can lead consumers to question the sincerity of brands that promote empowerment only when profitable, inadvertently diminishing the value of these messages. To make actual strides toward gender equality, the Institute recommends that advertisers go beyond occasional empowerment campaigns, instead embedding balanced, thoughtful representation consistently across all advertising efforts. This commitment would involve companies holding themselves accountable to represent diverse body types, backgrounds, and identities authentically, showing that they value inclusivity not as a trend but as a standard (Geena Davis Institute). Addressing the issues in gender representation requires more than surface-level changes. It demands systemic reform within advertising agencies themselves. The Geena Davis Institute specifically recommends that agencies increase female leadership and integrate women’s perspectives at every stage of the creative process. By ensuring that women occupy more decision-making roles, agencies can create content that reflects diverse perspectives and challenges the status quo. However, increasing female leadership is not just about representation, but about fostering an environment where ideas can flourish with a variety of experiences and voices. Such reforms could lead to a cultural shift within the industry, promoting not only gender equality but also more authentic and relatable advertising that resonates with a wider audience than just an average man. This systemic change would ultimately benefit both the industry and society, as it encourages the creation of ads that genuinely reflect the diversity of the modern world. The Geena Davis Institute recommends agencies increase female leadership and integrate women’s perspectives throughout the creative process of advertisement if they feel it is negatively stereotyping them (Geena Davis Institute). This consumer pressure may incentivize companies to create more representative and thoughtful advertisements. Overall, while there has been small progress in the representation of gender in advertising, issues like femvertising and the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles suggest that change remains necessary. As Cunningham and Roberts argue, brands must stop “brandsplaining” and instead focus on serving the needs of women, rather than dictating how they should look or behave. Advertising agencies and producers must strive for authenticity, consistency, and inclusivity in their portrayals of men and women. By promoting a broader range of identities and narratives, advertising can contribute to a more fair and inclusive society that respects gender diversity. Works Cited: Altman, Mara. “Yes, Marketing Is Still Sexist.” Nytimes.com, The New York Times, 26 Aug. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/08/26/us/marketing-industry-sexism-brandsplaining.html. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024. “Gender Bias in Advertising: Research, Trends and New Visual Language.” Geena Davis Institute, 19 Apr. 2024, geenadavisinstitute.org/research/gender-bias-in-advertising/. Accessed 4 Nov. 2024.
