When one peruses the personal hygiene aisle in search of deodorant — do they genuinely stop to consider how manly Maverick Musk sounds in comparison to Sugar Cookie Sprinkle?
Most people refuse to pay $14 for a deodorant that aligns with their gender identity and, instead, opt for the most affordable option.
Companies, on the other hand, are oblivious to these consumer habits. In an age where liberalization is working to fight against institutional gender norms, companies are still more than happy to take advantage of outdated stereotypes — and it doesn’t just stop at deodorant. Research shows that roughly 80% of products sold are gendered.
Gendered marketing is ubiquitous and rampant in gendered food association, cleaning supplies and toys for youth. Even simple products are marketed through gender biases, employing discriminatory stereotypes for generating maximum profits.
Research conducted on Clinique’s skincare marketing revealed intentional language choices and visual elements based on gender. Male-targeted advertisements are concise and draw attention to the practicality of a product, whereas female-targeted advertisements are more descriptive and model-focused, emphasizing beauty and benefits. These choices aren’t coincidental, they highlight the exploitation of harmful gender norms to fuel consumer purchases — even when the product itself is identical.
This extremely dubious marketing approach reflects a grander scheme of consumer manipulation. Gendered marketing reinforces expectations of gender by subtly teaching consumers how to buy their products, properly fit in with their gender and identify with a socially constructed notion of masculinity or femininity. In doing so, companies abide by their own agendas and pay no mind to the current social changes in gender identity.
Gendered advertising goes as far as shaping consumer self-perception. When a man chooses to buy a clearly marketed male deodorant, he is not only selecting it out of preference, he is subjecting himself into the gendered role of masculinity that companies have narrowed. A woman selecting deodorant labeled “for her” participates in the same cycle of expected femininity. The signs are there, yet no one questions them, allowing companies to reproduce gender stereotypes into the psyche of the consumer.
Gendered marketing actively negatively affects the wallets of women. The pink tax is a phenomenon where products marketed towards females are significantly more expensive than the same products marketed towards men. A 2015 analysis by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs found that women’s products cost 7% more than identical men’s products on average and are priced higher 42% of the time.
Consumers are beginning to take notice and push back. Intentionally chosen unisex products help people reclaim their purchasing decisions and take pride in their identities — free from upcharge. Consumers calling out companies have begun to demand accountability, pressuring corporations to reconsider the societal implications of their marketing. Generation Z, in particular, has been particularly vocal in championing gender nonconformity.
This shift is already gaining publicity and presence in the marketplace, with companies like Nike and Lego committing themselves to gender equality in their branding. This is proof that public accountability, paired with consumer demand, is effective. The growing popularity of unisex products encourages companies to rethink traditional branding and embrace the wave of diversity and inclusion in their marketing practices.
As awareness continues to grow, rejecting gendered marketing is no longer an inconceivable goal, but one in progress. Choosing unisex products and increasing their popularity over time will signal a crucial turning point to companies: that consumers want a marketplace that respects consumer individuality and inclusivity.
Michaela Okuyama is an Opinion Staff Writer. She can be reached at okuyamam@uci.edu.
Edited by Joshua Gonzales
