Advertising Article Critique and Review

Advertising Article Critique and Review

Part 1: Article Overview

This essay is a critique and review of the article titled “Influence of gender stereotypes on advertising offensiveness and attitude toward advertising in general” by Bruce A Huhmann and Yam B. Limbu published in the International Journal of Advertising in 2016.

What was the purpose of the study?

The authors investigate the unclear and understudied relationship between gender-related stereotypes and advertising.  They evaluate the typical stereotype of capitalizing on the sex appeal of the female decorative model.  The purpose of the study is to find out whether gender-related advertising is considered offensive and whether gender-related advertising is offensive to consumers. It also discusses the impact of gender-stereotyped advertising on male and female audiences and on young and old audiences. Finally, it evaluates whether there is any role for governmental regulation (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). They find that the more consumers perceive that advertising reveals gender stereotypes, the less favorable their perception. The perception of harmfulness is likely to be higher among women than men. Gender stereotypes harm advertising impact among younger and female consumers, but not among older or male customers. Their ultimate finding is that gender stereotypes result in unfavorable perception, which increases calls for governmental interference and oversight in the advertising industry (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). They finalize by urging advertisers to focus on proscribing gender stereotypes and erotic advertising that may seem offensive to strengthen self-regulation and wad-off governmental interference.

What theory or theories were used to underpin this study?

The study proceeded on four conceptual theories. The first one is that gender-stereotype advertisements capitalize on sexism portraying women as inferior to men in their potential and capabilities. The second theory is that advertisers feature unrealistic portrayals of women and men to suit the demands of consumerism. The third theory is that the perception that stereotyped advertisements are offensive as they cause resentment or displeasure. The fourth theory is that people have predisposed perceptions of advertising practices (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). The theoretical framework they adopt posits that criticisms of advertising focus on the perceived negative role of advertising in society and the techniques used by advertisers. They expound that due to pre-conceived notions of sex/nudity and gender have a disproportionate effect on an individual’s attitudes or beliefs, which influences how the individual reacts to an advertisement. They use multi-group analyses to evaluate how the theories hold up across different demographic groups.

How did the authors carry out their study – that is, describe the method?

The authors conducted their study among adults living in a metropolitan area in South-western Us. They recruited respondents from the membership lists of local community service organisations.  They randomly selected 500 participants and sent paper questionnaires by mail (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). Participants were given a $5 donation to their community organizations as an incentive for participation. The authors discarded several participants due to careless response patterns or incomplete information to narrow down to a final sample of 249. The sample ranged from 19-63 years of age, with 49.6% female participants and 50.4% male participants. 39.9% were married, 54.9% were single, while 5.2% were widowed/divorced (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). 38.0% had high school diplomas, while 61.6% had graduate or college degrees (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). Respondents rated each question on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree).  All the remaining participants in the final sample answered all the featured questions, creating a balanced methodology approach. The authors employed various methods in formulating the questions and conducting the analysis, including statistical power, hypotheses tests, tests of model fit, and multi-group analyses.

Part 2: Article Critique

The authors claim that most advertisements portray women in decorative or traditional laws. They back the claim with literature review from reputable studies.  They note that gender stereotypes directed at women include portrayers of appearing in domestic settings using home products, as product users or shoppers, performing traditional roles such as child caretakers and homemakers, and as younger performing decorative tasks. The underlying implication of stereotypical portrayal of women is that women are primarily sex objects, women are dependent on men, women do not make important decisions, and a woman’s place is in the home (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). The subordinate portrayal of women is in contrast to that of men who are depicted as authoritative and influential protagonists. Individual beliefs and attitudes influence consumer perception towards advertisements, purchase intentions, brand attitudes, products, and rimes. Consumers with traditional values find gender stereotypes to be less offensive than consumers with modern values.

Assessment of the quality of the work and the value of the knowledge gained.

The article creates a balanced assessment of gender roles and gender stereotypes in advertising. The authors focus majorly on women but also show that gender stereotypes also feature in the portrayal of men. They demonstrated that advertising inaccurately depicts both men and women. 63% of the surveyed respondents answered that advertising portrays men inaccurately, while 75% responded that advertising portrays women inaccurately (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016).

What is the originality and value of the article?

The article is valuable as it is an immense addition to scholarship because although researchers have published extensively on gender-stereotypes in advertising, their impact on advertising is not well- documented. The article creates a new dimension by dissecting the effects of gender stereotypes on the advertising business.

Are some of the findings surprising, or do they contradict previous research?

The findings of the article are in alignment with those of previous research. However, the article has a few shortcomings. The article overlooks the social context and dynamics of how people react to gender stereotypes. It does not touch on the issue of how changing roles in the labor force and the family have affected viewer perceptions (Grau & Zotos, 2016). The article focuses so much on the issue of the implications of stereotypes in advertising and, in the process, fails to address the root causes of such stereotypes, which should be the starting point (Åkestam, 2018). It also does not explicitly define stereotypes, creating confusion between references to stereotypes and references to mere attitudes or perceptions. The reach of the sample population is quite narrow due to a focus on South-Western USA instead of various regions or states in the country.

Are there any wrong claims, interpretations, conclusions, etc. made by the authors?

The authors do not make any wrong interpretations, conclusions, and claims since all their assertions are supported by data and literature review. They do arrive at different conclusions from other authors, conclusions cannot be wrong just because they are different as substantial scholarship supports the author’s findings.

Are there any interesting issues raised by the article?

The article raises several interesting issues. The article challenges the conventional belief that sex appeal sells by showing that consumers demonstrate unfavorable attitudes towards sex-based advertisements (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). The article critically centers the marginalized purchasing power of women in business and marketing by showing their power to shift away from advertisements that showcase negative female portrayals. It illustrates that women, in general, display more significant advertising avoidance than men, are less tolerant of offensive gender stereotypes, and are more favorable of advertisements that portray women in non-traditional roles.  It demonstrates the need to differentiate between younger and older audiences. Younger audiences are likely to find sex-positive ads less offensive than older generations.

On the other hand, younger audiences are likely to find advertisements depicting gender stereotypes more offensive than older generations (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). The article is equivocal about the implications of advertising on the welfare of the women and the overall impact on gender equality. The authors demonstrate how advertising may stagnate or undo the progress made in the fight for gender equality by reinforcing negative stereotypes.

How might this article inform the development and management of an advertising campaign?

The information gleaned from the article can be very instrumental in the management and development of a gender-responsive advertising campaign. An advertiser seeking to appeal to a younger female advertise would have to display women in progressive modern roles. An advertiser trying to reach a broader audience would have to have different messages and portrayals in different channels.  An advertising message which shows women in modern and powerful roles can be run on social media channels whose demographic is vastly younger and female. The same message can be run on mainstream media channels whose demographic is mostly older and male showing women occupying balanced positions.

 Are the findings of this study useful to practitioners? If so, how? If not, why not?

The findings of the study are useful to practitioners since it demonstrates the importance advertisers should attach to investigating the gender-stereotype attitudes of their target market. One highlight of the study is the public policy implications of gender-stereotype advertising.  The article highlights how such advertising is harmful to the overall health of the advertising industry since it invites unwarranted governmental intervention (Huhmann & Limbu, 2016). It gives a resounding clarion call for advertisers to stop gender-stereotyped advertising if they want to retain and strengthen self-regulation.

 Future research – what do you think the next study should focus on? 

Future research in this area should take a more practical approach in terms of demonstrating the revenue impact of gender-stereotyped advertising on advertising dollars. It is one thing to say that offensive gender stereotypes created a negative attitude towards a brand among female and younger consumers. The assertion is purely theoretical and is unlikely to trigger any significant changes in the advertising industry. It is another thing to say that as a result of offensive gender stereotypes in an advertisement, brand X lost Y number of customers translating in losses of 100 million dollars. In summary, future advertisements require a quantitative rather than a qualitative research approach.

References

Åkestam, N. (2018). Caring for her: the influence of presumed influence on female consumers’     attitudes towards advertising featuring gender-stereotyped portrayals. International Journal of Advertising, 37(6), 871-892.

Grau, S. L., & Zotos, Y. C. (2016). Gender stereotypes in advertising: a review of current research. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 761-770.

Huhmann, B. A., & Limbu, Y. B., (2016). Influence of gender stereotypes on advertising offensiveness and attitude toward advertising in general. International Journal of        Advertising, 35(5), 846-863.