ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

Brand Gender and Its Dimensions

Isabelle Ulrich, Escp Europe et Université Paris 2, France
Elisabeth Tissier-Desbordes, Escp Europe, France
Pierre Louis Dubois, Université Paris 2 et Escp Europe, France

This paper investigates consumer perception of brand gender and its dimensions. An exploratory study reveals this concept salience
and the existence of its six dimensions: 1) the gender of the typical brand user, 2) gendered brand personality traits, 3) gendered
attributes of brand communication, 4) the grammatical gender of the brand name, 5) gendered attributes of the logo, and 6) gendered
attributes and benefits of the products. Leaning on gender theories in psychology, our results suggests a classification of brand gender
in three groups: masculine, feminine, slightly masculine/feminine, with no brand in the high masculine/feminine brand gender
position.

[to cite]:
Isabelle Ulrich, Elisabeth Tissier-Desbordes, and Pierre Louis Dubois (2011) ,"Brand Gender and Its Dimensions", in E -
European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 9, eds. Alan Bradshaw, Chris Hackley, and Pauline Maclaran, Duluth, MN :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 136-143.

[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1007037/eacr/vol9/E-09

[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
 Brand Gender and Its Dimensions
Isabelle Ulrich, Université Paris II / ESCP Europe, France
Elisabeth Tissier-Desbordes, ESCP Europe, France
Pierre-Louis Dubois, Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II / ESCP Europe, France

Abstract In parallel, anthropologists have shown how gender is a key

This paper investigates consumer perception of brand gender
and its dimensions. An exploratory study reveals this concept sali-
ence and the existence of its six dimensions: 1) the gender of the
typical brand user, 2) gendered brand personality traits, 3) gendered
attributes of brand communication, 4) the grammatical gender of
the brand name, 5) gendered attributes of the logo, and 6) gendered
attributes and benefits of the products. Leaning on gender theories
in psychology, our results suggest a classification of brand gender in
three groups: masculine, feminine, low masculine/feminine, with no
brand in the high masculine/feminine brand gender position. (Key
words : Brand gender, gender, brand extension, brand personality)
Introduction
structuring variable of civilizations. Each culture develops a set of
masculine and feminine gender identities, which can differ totally
from one tribe to the other (Godelier 1982; Mead 1928). Yet, each
one is built upon the allocation of distinct social roles to men and
women (Bourdieu 1998; Mead 1928; Lévi-Strauss 1979). Héritier
(1996) reveals how differences between male/female bodies organize
thinking processes. Most civilizations structure thoughts on the basis
of couples of opposites derived from sexual bodily features. Thanks
to their body and hair, women are associated with curved/fluid/soft
versus men with straight/stiff/hard. This was institutionalized long
ago in most cultures via myths or legends. Hence gender seems to
act as a major symbolic processing variable in perception. Does it
impact the perception of products and brands?

Do Brands, Like Human Beings, Have Gender Identities? Gendered Perception of Products
Gender takes into account the social and cultural difference Studies have shown that consumers have gendered perception
between femininity and masculinity and has also been a key sym- of product categories: some were seen as highly masculine, some
bolic processing variable in our thinking system since Antiquity highly feminine and others moderately masculine and feminine
(Héritier 1996). The male/female categorization process is still one (Allison et al. 1980). Their masculinity/femininity seemed linked
of the first classification systems learnt by children (Powlishta et to the gender of the stereotyped user of the product category.
al. 2001) and is continuously used by adults without full awareness Allison et al (1980) concluded that products did have a gender,
they are doing so (Schneider 2004). demonstrating the existence of two separate constructs: product
Gender is deeply rooted in many languages, with gendered masculinity and product femininity. More recent studies suggest
nouns. In French, the “sea” is grammatically feminine, and the that objects generate gendered associations. Products are classi-
“ocean” is masculine. Many languages have two grammatical gen- fied as masculine or feminine according to their shape and colours
ders (feminine, masculine) or three (feminine, masculine and neuter). (Tissier-Desbordes and Kimmel 2002). Small products with light,
Is Gillette still perceived as masculine and Lancôme as femi- pastel and soft shades are associated with women, while large
nine? These brands used to target men or women only, then started dark-coloured items are associated with men (Kirkham 1996).
to extend across genders with the launch of Gillette razors ”Venus Researchers have shown that round shapes generate ideas like
for Women” or “Lancôme for Men” skincare products. harmony, compromise, and friendship. Conversely, angular shapes
This has been scarcely studied in the literature. Researchers lead to masculine attributes: energy, strength, robustness (Berlyne
often suggest that brands possess gendered images (Aaker 1997; 1976). Both men and women can decode shapes ascribed to their
Fournier 1998; Keller 1993; McCracken 1993) but the concept of gender: facing four unmarked perfume bottles, men choose those
brand gender has not been investigated. How can brand gender be with masculine shapes, and women those with feminine shapes
defined? Which dimensions constitute brand gender? If gender and (Schmitt, Leclerc, and Dubé-Rioux 1988).
masculine/feminine categorization is central to the way we see the
world, it may impact our perception of brands. The objective of Gendered Perception of Brands
this study is to explore consumer perception of the brand gender Consumer perception of brand gender is referred to indi-
concept and its dimensions. rectly in the marketing literature. The phenomenon of humanizing
brands is not new: Martineau (1958) and Levy (1959) observed
BACKGROUND the human dimension of brands fifty years ago. For Levy, brand
personality included characteristics such as personality traits, age,
The Central Role of Gender in Civilization and gender. Some researchers have suggested that brands possess
The biological term sex defines men and women by their feminine/masculine dimensions (Aaker 1997; Alreck et al., 1982;
physical characteristics, their genital organs and their chromosomes. Fournier 1998; Keller 1993; McCracken, 1993). The feminine or
Gender is a social sex, representing the set of characteristics and masculine image of the brand comes from the gender of the main
behaviours that a given society associate and ascribe differently user associated with that brand (Keller 1993). Moreover, people
to women and men: it is our notion of femininity and masculinity transfer to a brand the specific personality traits of its stereotyped
(Burr 1998). Despite societal moves in the egalitarian direction, consumer (Mc Cracken 1986). Recently, Yorkston and De Mello
gender norms are still alive and well. Childcare continues to be (2005) show that Spanish consumers spontaneously use gendered
a feminine role with limited intervention from men (Abbot and associations of brand names, then evaluate more favourably brands
Wallace 2003). Gendered differentiation in upbringing persists with whose grammatical gender name is in line with the gender of the
families encouraging boys to behave in a manly way and girls to typical brand user.
behave in a womanly way (Dafflon-Novelle 2006) In experiments, Yet little research has been focused directly on the gendered
adults tend to give masculine toys to boys, but allow girls to choose perception of brands. Early studies revealed congruency between the
neutral or even masculine toys (Wood et al. 2002). masculine/feminine personality of individuals and their preference
for brands with masculine/feminine images (Alreck et al. 1982; Fry
136 European Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 9, © 2011
 European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 9) / 137

FIGURE 1
The Ten Dimensions of Brand Image (Aaker, 1991)

Product Attributes
Intangible characteristics Product category

Perceived personality Price

Brand image
Places and moments of usage Competitors

Consumer Benefits Associated People

Typical Buyers and Consumers

FIGURE 2
The Seven Possible Dimensions of Brand Gender
Brand name and logo

Communication attributes Product category

Perceived personality Brand Gender Product attributes

Typical Buyers and Consumers Associated People

1971; Vitz and Johnson 1965; Worth et al. 1992). Brand gender has
recently regained attention from researchers analyzing a growing
managerial practice: cross-gender brand extension (Grohmann 2009;
Jung and Lee 2006; Veg 2008). Grohmann (2009) shows that con-
sumers associate brands with feminine/masculine personalities and
successfully develops two scales to measure these two dimensions.
However, we have found no conceptual definition of brand
gender, nor any description of its components, in the existing lit-
erature. Brands can convey masculine or feminine personality traits,
as proved by Grohmann (2009) and generate gendered associations
through the grammatical gender of the brand name (Yorkston and
De Mello 2005). Brand gender is therefore a multidimensional
concept that we will strive to define via its dimensions.
Brand Gender: Towards a Multidimensional Concept
Brands can be considered as a set of associations held in the
memory (Keller 1993). Most authors agree on this conception,
although they may differ in their approach to the nature and the
number of these associations (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993). Given
the central role of gender in our thinking processes, the gender of
brands could be made of all the gendered associations of the brand,
as perceived and memorized by consumers. In socio-psychology,
gender is predominantly considered as a multidimensional concept,
encompassing the various categories of attributes, attitudes and
behaviours that empirically distinguish men from women in a given
culture (Ashmore 1990; Spence 1993). Also, marketing literature
has defined brand personality as “the set of human personality
traits associated with a brand by consumers” (Aaker 1997). We
thus propose to transfer the multidimensional vision of gender to
brand gender with the following definition: brand gender is the
set of gendered brand and product characteristics, attributes and
personality traits associated with that brand by consumers.
What are the possible attributes that make up brand gender?
Brand perception or brand image is defined by Aaker (1991) as a
prism with ten dimensions (Figure 1).
For brand gender, we retain only the dimensions which, based
on our literature analysis, could have gendered associations (under-
lined in Figure 1). This led us to exclude for instance dimensions
such as price. Capitalizing on previous research on the gender of
brand names (Yorkston and De Mello 2005), we propose to add a
dimension consisting of the brand name and logo. Moreover, since
brand advertising can also be perceived as masculine or feminine
(Alreck et al., 1982; Till and Priluck 2001), via colors or sounds
(Wolin 2003) or spokespersons (Debevec and Iyer 1986), we add a
further dimension: communication attributes. Finally, we propose a
concept of brand gender with seven dimensions (Figure 2).
Exploratory depth interviews were conducted with 35 French
individuals1to let the respondents openly express all the brand
associations that came to mind. Our semi-structured guide was
organized by themes, from the general to the specific, beginning
with perception of product categories, the overall perception of the
brand tested in the interview2 and the potential dimensions of brand
gender. We presented various stimuli to consumers (the brand name,
the brand logo, a major product of the brand, brand advertising)
to generate richer vocabulary, then asked again about the overall
perception, without mentioning our focus on gender. To maximize
generalization of results, we selected four product categories (mineral
water, coffee, razors, skincare), either utilitarian or symbolic and
with different genders according to previous literature: masculine
1
Interviews lasted from 45 minutes to 3 hours.
2
The question was as follows: “What are the impressions, images,
words that come to mind about this brand?”
138 / Brand Gender and Its Dimensions
FIGURE 3
Potential Positions of Brand Gender
Masculinity
High
M M+F
Low Neutral F
Low High
(razors), feminine (skincare), or mixed due to mixed usage (coffee,
mineral water). We also chose ten well known brands,3 potentially
possessing a masculine or feminine image.
The respondents consisted of 20 male/15 female users of
these product categories, who were familiar with the tested brand
and varied in age, social group, occupation, marital status, gender,
sexual orientation and place of residence. Each brand was tested
by five participants.
The interviews were analyzed in a two-stage methodology. A
traditional content analysis was conducted, following Denzin and
Lincoln (1994) principles. A lexical analysis was run using the
Alceste software, to reveal the classification of textual data without
any pre-conception of themes or interpretation by the researcher
(Helme-Guizon and Gavard-Perret 2004).
RESEARCH RESULTS
Brand Gender as a Salient Concept and a Categorization Tool
for Consumers
Half of our respondents spontaneously referred to gendered
brands at the beginning of the interview4 (25 references). Contrex
was quoted 10 times (feminine), Taillefine 3 (feminine), Mercedes
3 (masculine), Sveltesse 2 (feminine), then Castorama, Nordauto,
Marlboro, Hépar, Surcouf, Peugeot 106, Aston Martin (once each).
Furthermore, our content analysis reveals that brand gender is
a salient and relevant concept, emerging from the outset for many
brands. From the first associations, brand gender is quoted for
five of our brands by all respondents, whatever their sex, age and
sexual orientation. For example, one male respondent stated that
“Lancôme is sophisticated, feminine, dicreet, seductive, French.”
Another woman commented: “Lancôme is luxury, feminine, not the
modern woman, sophisticated and sensual”. Dior is also perceived
feminine from the first associations: “Dior equals prestige, qual-
ity, aesthetic, graceful: simply feminine,” or “For me it’s luxury,
femininity, Haute Couture, for women only, essentially feminine”
from another individual. Contrex appears feminine just the same,
illustrated by these two participants: “it’s feminine, about being
slim” and “it’s slimness and a mineral water for women, feminine
3
Mineral water: Contrex, Badoit. Razors: Gillette, Bic. Skincare:
Biotherm, Lancôme, Dior, Nickel. Coffee: Jacques Vabre and
Grand-Mère. Some of these brands have launched masculine
brand extensions (Biotherm, Lancôme, Dior) or feminine brand
extensions (Gillette, Bic).
4
These are answers to the first question of the interview concerning
perception of product categories.
Femininity
and light.” Both Gillette and Nickel appear masculine: “Gillette
is about perfection for men, the idea of performance, it’s about
masculinity, for virile men,” which echoes these words: “Macho
advertising, technical and high-performing, very masculine” from a
female respondent. And a last quote for Nickel: “a masculine brand,
intended for men only, selling masculine products in masculine
packs that have automobile connotation.”
Importantly, we can see from these first associations that all
consumers mentioned the gender of the typical brand user for these
five brands, with the words “for man/masculine” or “for women/
feminine.” Other categories of associations emerge, such as product
attributes, brand personality traits or communication attributes: some
of them are gendered associations that we will further analyse in
this paper. Conversely, some of the other brands do not immediately
lead to gendered associations (Jacques Vabre, Grand-Mère, Badoit,
Bic): respondents concluded that these brands are neutral, without
gender, unisex. Biotherm appears with low masculinity and low
femininity for three respondents out of five.
Thus, our set of brands can be classified as feminine (high
femininity/low masculinity–Contrex, Lancôme, Dior), masculine
(high masculinity/low femininity–Gillette, Nickel), and neutral
or genderless (low femininity/low masculinity–Badoit, Jacques
Vabre, Grand-Mère, Bic, and Biotherm at a lesser extent). These
results reflect the gender theories on masculine and feminine traits,
classifying people in four groups: 1) masculine, 2) feminine, 3)
undifferentiated, and 4) androgynous (masculine+feminine) (Bem
1981; Spence and Helmreich 1980). Drawing on these theories, we
arrive at Figure 3. Yet, none of our brands was perceived as both
strongly masculine and strongly feminine, duplicating the results of
Grohmann (2009) on the gendered dimensions of brand personality.
In parallel, the lexical analysis with Alceste revealed four groups
of words, or four universes in the consumers’ discourse on their
overall perception of brands: 1) a masculine universe containing
textual data on the Gillette, Nickel and Bic brands, 2) a feminine
universe associated with the text on skincare brands and Contrex,
3) a theme focussing on coffee and family, and 4) a more minor
theme concerning youth and water.
This lexical analysis covered 51% of the “u.c.e”, which is
satisfactory,5 and results in a classification in which a vocabu-
lary class associated with masculinity contrasts with a class on
femininity/sophistication. It shows that consumers tend to classify
some brands in masculine/feminine categories that extend beyond
traditional product categories. Thus, class 1 (masculine universe)
U.c.e are “units of elementary text” in the Alceste software. To
5
be statistically significant, this percentage should exceed 50%.
 European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 9) / 139

TABLE 1
Classification of the Textual Data on Brand Perception Using the Alceste Software

Masculine Universe Feminine Universe Coffee Universe Water Universe

38% of u.c.e 20% of u.c.e 29% of u.c.e 13% of u.c.e

Masculine (13/19)* Sophistication (6/25) Coffee (23/64) Water (6/28)

Razor blade (6/10) Perfume (7/20) Grandma (5/13) Bottle (6/29)
He (29/10) Woman (10/11) Family (4/10) Young (9/9)
Innovate (8/9) Feminine (6/8) Quality (5/7) Sparkling (3/21)
Macho (5/3) Aesthetic (6/5) Mother (3/8) Friendly (3/21)
Dynamic (8/3) Elegant (5/5) Old (4/4) Green (5/35)
Performing (3/2) Soft (3/3)
Aggressive (3/2) Discreet (3/3)

*(n / m): occurrence frequency of the word / associated/ Khi2.

TABLE 2
Gender of Product Categories, Brand Gender and Gender of the Typical Brand User

Interviewee Gender of the Brand’s Perceived Gender of the

Brand (Sex) Product Categories Brand Gender Typical User

Nickel P. “Skincare: more feminine than” “For men, with an original “Young men”
(Man) masculine vision, scientific, masculine”
E. “Skincare: masculine and feminine, “Masculine brand, thinks “Elegant and
(Woman) was feminine only” about men only” masculine men”

Lancôme M. “Skincare: now mixed” “Sophisticated, feminine,” “Women”

(Man) “Make-up: feminine market” discreet, seductive
F. “Skin care: mixed” “For all women , elegant, “Women”
(Woman) “Make-up: feminine” fashionable and trendy”

Contrex K. “Mineral water: “Old brand, institution “Women”

(Man) undifferentiated, no gender” , feminine, helps in slimming”
M. (Woman) “Mineral water: no gender, “Slimness, a mineral water “Women”
for everybody“ for women, feminine and light”

contains the textual data relative to razors brands and Nickel (skin-
care) while class 2 (feminine universe) consists of the textual data
for the other skin-care brands and Contrex water. The strength of
masculine associations is evidenced by the repeated use of words
like masculine, masculinity, men, he, macho in class 1, combined
with instrumental6 personality traits (realize, dynamic, performing).
Regarding feminine associations, there are many occurrences of the
words woman/feminine/femininity, in addition to expressive traits
(soft, discreet) and archetypal attributes of femininity (sophisticated,
elegant, aesthetic).
The Six Dimensions of Brand Gender
Our content analysis reveals six dimensions of brand gender.
1. The Gender of the Typical User of the Brand. From the first
associations for Lancôme, Dior, Contrex, Nickel and Gillette, all
consumers mentioned the gender of the typical brand user, as says
individual L.: “Dior evokes star system, it’s for women, fashion-
addicts and trendy women.” This replicates previous research about
the gender of products (Allison et al. 1980) and is in line with the
Instrumental and expressive traits refer to Parsons and Bales theory
6
(1955), which indicated that men are characterized by instrumental
attributes and women by expressive attributes.
brand literature (Keller 1993). The gender of these brands appears
to be associated with the gender of the typical brand user, inde-
pendently of the gender of the product category of the brand. For
example, a man (P.) perceives the skincare category as feminine
and the Nickel brand as masculine, because of its stereotyped user
(Table 2). The gender of the typical user associated with the brand
can be considered as a main dimension of brand gender. In contrast,
the gender of the brand’s product category was never mentioned as
a component of the brand gender and thus does not appear as one
of its key component.
2. Gendered Personality Traits of the Brand. From the first
associations, a majority of respondents expressed gendered as-
sociations qualifying the feminine or masculine personality of
the brand. These attributes are for instance “discreet, seductive,
sophisticated, soft, tender, cheerful” versus “assertive, forceful,
technical, high-performing, competitive, aggressive” (for the
Lancôme, Dior, Contrex brands versus Nickel, Gillette). To il-
lustrate, one respondent quotes on Lancôme: “For women, ultra
feminine, images of advertising.. a sophisticated, soft, refined,
tender brand, sensual and graceful.” Globally these attributes are
the same as those used by our interviewees to define the masculinity
and femininity of individuals,7 stereotyping the archetypal woman
(“soft, tender, graceful, sophisticated, cheerful, compassionate,
140 / Brand Gender and Its Dimensions
TABLE 3
Gendered Attributes of Brand Communication
Gendered Attributes Brand Examples of Brand Associations
Objects and Symbols Lancôme “The rose on the ad : it’s the feminine side” (F), “You get
this feeling of being in a comforting universe, everybody is tender,
kind, beautiful, it’s ultra feminine” (O)
People in the Ad Contrex “Always women in the ad” (B)
Gillette “The ads show virile men” (G), “Ads with macho men” (K)
Spokesperson Dior “Sharon Stone cream” (L), “Dior and Brigitte Bardot,
Emmanuelle Béart in the ad” (I)
Bic “In the ad, footballers, rugby players, Cantona” (Y)
Baseline Gillette “The base line of the ad : the best a man can get” (G)
sensual, sensitive...”) or the traditional man (“macho, aggressive,
performing, competitive, assertive, strong, rough...”). They are also
similar to the items on the scales developed by Grohmann (2009)
on the masculine/feminine personality of the brand.
3. The Gendered Attributes of Brand Communication. A
majority of our respondents expressed gendered associations with
brand communication (Table 3) for all our brands. These associa-
tions relate mostly to the gender of the advertising spokesperson
(Debevec and Iyer 1986), the advertising baseline (Gillette), or
a gendered symbol (such as the Lancôme rose). In the end, we
presented current advertisements for the brands, eliciting a larger
number of gendered associations that can be classified as follows:
the gender of the people in the advertisement, their attitudes (“a
macho, forceful, sportsmanlike young man”- Gillette; “ a romantic,
gentle woman ”- Contrex), the shades, graphics and images (“pastel
shades, it looks feminine, sophisticated”- Dior; “blurred images that
convey femininity”- Contrex) or the sounds (“the bomb explosion
at the end of the advertising : that’s so masculine”- Gillette). These
results are in line with past research on advertising (Alreck et al.
1982; Wolin 2003).
4. The Gender of the Brand Name. The grammatical gender
of the brand name emerged in the first associations for the Nickel
brand (three respondents out of five). One interviewee stated that
“the name makes me think of industrial materials, so it’s a masculine
name and a masculine brand”. Another expressed that “Nickel is a
chemical element, cold masculine, evokes a masculine brand”. For
the other gendered brands (Gillette, Lancôme, Dior and Contrex),
only three consumers expressed this kind of association spontane-
ously. For example, this participant:”With the e at the end, Gillette
is rather a feminine name.” Yet when questioned specifically on
the brand name,8 all consumers mentioned a gender for the brand
name, related to the sonority: “Lancôme, rather voluptuous in
resonance, it sounds round, secure, soft, so it is feminine.” This
result is consistent with previous work (Yorkston and De Mello
2005). It thus seems appropriate to conceive the gender of the brand
name as another component of the perceived gender of the brand
in French language. However, our study reveals that brand gender
is more related to the gender of the typical brand user and to the
gendered personality of the brand, than to the actual brand name.
7
In reply to the following question: “In your opinion, what adjectives
and words define the masculinity or femininity of a human being?”
8
This question was as follows: “And for brand name X: what
thoughts and words.”
The names Contrex and Dior have masculine connotations for our
French consumers, yet they are perceived globally as feminine.
The Gillette name has feminine connotations for French speakers,
but the brand is seen as masculine. The gender of the brand name
helps to convey masculinity or femininity to the brand, yet other
dimensions make greater contributions to the overall perception
of the brand gender.
5. The Gendered Attributes of the Logo. Occasionally, a few
interviewees mentioned the gender of the brand logo. Its colours,
shapes, symbols appear to have masculine or feminine connota-
tions: “The Biotherm logo is red and grey, no special design for
the B, just a solid letter: it looks masculine” (F) or “I recall the
rose, the flower on the Lancôme logo, it looks feminine” (A), or
”Gillette is a neutral and basic logo; I remember Wilkinson looks
more masculine, because of the two swords” (J). This is in line
with past literature (Kirkham 1996). Yet this dimension appears
less contributive to the brand gender than previous dimensions,
generating fewer spontaneous associations.
6. The Gendered Attributes and Benefits of Brand Products. For
some brands such as Dior or Nickel, gendered associations concern-
ing product attributes are expressed by a majority of consumers.
Products are perceived as masculine or feminine due to their colours
and shapes, as previously shown in the literature (Kirkham 1996),
and due to the materials used or the sophistication and subtlety of
the design. Hence this comment on Dior: “Magnificent packag-
ings, such quality in the materials they use, the product textures : a
feminine universe.” Or another respondent on Nickel: “I remember
the shape looks like a petrol can, so masculine, straight, abrupt
shapes.” Product benefits are also referred to as gender-specific:
for Contrex, the benefit of being slim is seen as feminine. For the
other brands, all consumers express similar comments on gendered
product attributes after being shown the brand products at the end
of the interview, as shown on Lancôme: “a precious cream jar,
looks like a treasure, pearly material at the top of the pack and its
curved shape look so feminine.”
DISCUSSION
This research aimed to understand brand gender and its com-
ponents. Our results show that brand gender is a salient and relevant
concept, coming first when we ask consumers to talk about brands.
Using a lexical analysis, we found that brand gender is a key factor
to categorize brands, which seems to overtake the product catego-
ries. Moreover, this study enabled us to define the components of
brand gender, which is a multidimensional concept. We identified
six dimensions (Figure 4): 1) the gender of the brand’s main users,

FIGURE 4
The Six Dimensions of Brand Gender
Gendered attributes of communication
Gendered brand personality Brand Gender
Gender of the brand
Gender of the brand name
the dimension that makes the greatest contribution, 2) gendered
personality traits of the brand, 3) gendered attributes of brand com-
munication, 4) the gender of the brand name, 5) gendered attributes
of the logo, and 6) gendered attributes and benefits of the products.
If we consider that there are potentially four possible brand
genders–1) masculine, 2) feminine, 3) slightly masculine and
feminine, 4) strongly masculine and feminine–trying to adapt the
theories of gender to brand gender (Bem 1981; Spence and Helm-
reich 1980), we found brands in all the first three categories but not
the last. These results are congruent with the quantitative research
by Grohmann (2009) on gendered brand personality, who found
a similar mapping pattern for brands according to their degree of
masculine or feminine personality, but could not identify a brand
with a strongly masculine/feminine (androgynous) personality.
The possibility of finding androgynous brands, and how consumers
would react to them, could be addressed by future research. This
study also provides support for the importance of brand gender as
a distinct concept from brand personality concept (Aaker 1997) and
from masculine/feminine brand personality by Grohmann (2009).
Finally our findings have managerial implications for marketers
considering extensions to the opposite gender. If a brand has a gen-
der, and if this gender is mainly created by the gender of the typical
brand user, how can firms extend a brand with a perceived strong
feminine gender to men? Conversely how to extend a perceived
strongly masculine brand to women? Understanding the gender of
brand and its components could help to avoid marketing mistakes.
However, there are some limitations to this research. We
examined ten brands from four product categories, varying in
gender and in their symbolic/utilitarian dimension. It would be
interesting to analyse the gender of other categories of brands:
fashion, distribution, services, high tech brands. For instance, does
Apple have a gender? In addition, we identified some dimensions
of brand gender for French consumers, but it would be useful to
measure more accurately the gender of brands and the influence of
each dimension. Another avenue for future research concerns the
effect of consumer gender identity on the perception of the brand
gender. Is there a link between the consumer’s gender identity or
gender ideology and the perceived brand gender? Is it possible to
buy a feminine brand if you are strongly masculine? Is perception
of brand gender homogeneous, or affected by certain characteristics
of the interviewee? Just as age has an effect on an individual’s sex
role perceptions, it may also affect perception of brand gender.
Specific research could also focus on children and explore their
perception of the masculinity and femininity of brands. Finally,
further consumer research could be conducted to investigate condi-
tions for successful cross-gender brand extensions, capitalizing on
the recent work by Jung & Lee (2006) or Veg (2008).
European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 9) / 141
Gender of main brand user
Gendered attributes and benefits of the products
Gendered attributes of the logo
REFERENCES
Aaker, David (1991), Managing Brand Equity, NewYork: The
Free Press.
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (3), 347-356.
Abbot, P. and Wallace C. (2003), An Introduction to Sociology.
Feminist Perspectives, Londen: Routledge.
Allison, Neil K., Linda L. Golden, Gary M. Mullet, and Donna
Coogan. (1980), “Sex-Typed product Images: the Effect of
Sex, Sex Role Self Concept, and Measurement Implications,”
Advances in Consumer Research, 7, J. C. Olson (ed.), Ann
Arbor, MI: ACR, 604-609.
Alreck, Pamela L., Settle R. B., and Belch M. A. (1982), “Who
Responds to Gendered Ads, and How?” Journal of Advertis-
ing Research, 22, 25-32.
Ashmore, Richard D. (1990), “Sex, Gender and the Individual,”
in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, L. A.
Pervin (ed.), New-York: Guilford, 486-526.
Bem, Sandra L. (1981), “Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive
Account of Sex Typing,” Psychological Review, 88 (4), 354-
364.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1976), “Speculative and Scientific Psychol-
ogy of Aesthetics,” Bulletin de Psychologie, 30, 618-621.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1998), La Domination Masculine, Seuil, Paris.
Burr, V. (1998), Gender and Social Psychology, London: Rout-
ledge.
Dafflon Novelle, A. (dir.) (2006), Filles-garçons. Socialisation
Différenciée? Grenoble, PUG.
Debevec Kathleen and Easwar Iyer (1986), “The Influence of
Spokespersons in Altering a Product’s Gender Image: Impli-
cations in Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Advertising,
15 (4), 12-20.
Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (1994), Handbook
of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Develop-
ing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 24, 3, 343-373.
Fry, Joseph N. (1971), “Personality Variables and Cigarette
Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8, August,
298-304.
Godelier, Maurice (1982), La Production des Grands Hommes,
Paris: Fayard.
Grohmann, Bianca (2009), “Gender Dimensions of Brand Per-
sonality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 2, 105-119.
Helme-Guizon, Agnès and Marie Laure Gavard-Perret (2004),
“L’analyse Automatisée de Données Textuelles en Marketing:
Comparaison de Trois Logiciels,” Décisions Marketing, 36,
4, 75-90.
142 / Brand Gender and Its Dimensions
Héritier, Françoise (1996), Masculin / Féminin, la Pensée de la Wolin, Lori D. (2003), “Gender Issues in Advertising–An
Différence, Odile Jacob. Oversight Synthesis of Research: 1970-2002,” Journal of
Jung, Kwon and Winston Lee (2006), “Cross-gender Brand Advertising Research, 3, 111-129.
Extensions: Effects of Gender of the Brand, Gender of Wood, Eileen, Serge Desmarais, and Sara Gugula (2002), “The
Consumer, and Product Type on Evaluation of Cross-gender Impact of Parenting Experience on Gender Stereotyped Toy
Extensions,” Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 67-74. Play of Children,” Sex Roles, 47 (1-2), juillet.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring and Worth, Leila T., Jeanne Smith, and Diane M. Mackie (1992),
Managing Customer-based Brand Equity,” Journal of Mar- “Gender Schematicity and Preference for Gender-Typed
keting, 57, 1, 1-22. Products,” Psychology and Marketing, 9, 1, 17-30.
Kirkham, Pat. (ed.) (1996), The Gendered Object, Manchester: Yorkston, Eric and Gustavo E. De Mello (2005), “Linguistic
University Press. Gender Making and Categorization,” Journal of Consumer
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1979), “La Famille,” in Textes de et sur Research, 32, 224-234.
Claude Lévi-Strauss, Bellour R., Clément C., and Claude
Lévi-Strauss (eds.), Paris, Gallimard.
Levy, S.J (1959), “Symbols for Sales,” Harvard Business Re-
view, 37 (4), 117-124.
McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theo-
retical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cul-
tural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, June, 71-84.
McCracken, Grant (1993), “The Value of the Brand: An Anthro-
pological Perspective,” in Brand Equity and Advertising,
D. A.Aaker and A. Biels (eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Martineau, P. (1958), “The Personality of a Retail Store,” Har-
vard Business Review, 36, 6, 47-55.
Mead, Margaret (1928/1963), Mœurs et sexualité en Océanie,
Paris: Plon.
Parsons, T. and Bales R. F. (1956), Family Socialization and
Interaction Process, London: Routledge & Kegan.
Powlishta, K. K., et al. (2001), “From Infancy Through Middle
Childhood: The Role of Cognitive and social Factors in Be-
coming Gendered,” in Wilay J. Handbook of the Psychology
of Women and Gender, R. K.Unger (ed.).
Schmitt, Berndt H., France Leclerc, and Laurette Dubé-Rioux
(1988), “Sex Typing and Consumer Behavior: A Test of
Gender Schema Theory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
June, 122-128.
Schneider, David J. (2004), The Psychology of Stereotyping, The
Guilford Press, New York: London.
Spence, Janet T. (1993), “Gender-related Traits and Gender
ideology: Evidence for a Multifactorial Theory,” Journal of
Personality and Social psychology, 64 (4), 624-635.
Spence, Janet T. and Robert L. Helmreich (1980), “Masculine In-
strumentality and Feminine Expressiveness: Their Relation-
ships with Sex Role Attitudes and Behaviors,” Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 5 (2),147-163.
Till, Brian D. and Randy L. Priluck (2001), “Conditioning of
Meaning in Advertising: Brand Gender Perception Effects,”
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 23,
2, 1-8.
Tissier-Desbordes, Elisabeth. and Allan J. Kimmel (2002),
“Sexe, Genre et Marketing, Définition des Concepts et Anal-
yse de la Littérature,” Décisions Marketing, 26, 55-69.
Veg, Nathalie (2008), “Valeurs du Genre de la Marque et Con-
cept D’Ouverture: Implications Pour L’Etude des Extensions
de Gamme Homme-femme,” 7ème Congrès des Tendances du
Marketing en Europe-Venise, 17-19 Janvier.
Vitz, Paul C. and Donald Johnston (1965), “Masculinity of
Smokers and the Masculinity of Cigarette Images,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, 49 (3), 155-159.
 European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 9) / 143

APPENDIX
Description of the Interviewees
Soc. Marital Sexual
Brand Name Sex Age Profession Gp Residence Status Orientation

Lancôme
M H 22 Student A Paris Single Heterosexual
O H 41 Computer technician B Paris Cohabiting Heterosexual
F F 22 Student B Tours Single Heterosexual
J F 33 Cleaning lady C Montreuil Cohabiting, 1 child Heterosexual
E H 26 Financial manager A Paris Cohabiting Homosexual

Biotherm A H 23 Student A Angers Cohabiting Bi-sexual

B F 23 Student B Angers Single Heterosexual
N F 64 Doctor A Concarneau Married, 3 children Heterosexual
F H 26 Professor A Paris Cohabiting Homosexual
C H 33 Professor A Paris Married, 3 children Heterosexual

Dior I F 27 Teacher A Paris Single Heterosexual

L F 41 Marketing director A Boulogne Married, 3 children Heterosexual
H F 23 Student B Le Mans Cohabiting Heterosexual
F H 40 Sales director A Neuilly Married, 2 children Heterosexual
B H 25 Communication clerk B Paris Cohabiting Heterosexual

Nickel E F 30 Manager A Paris Cohabiting Heterosexual

C F 24 Recruiting assistant B Carrièr/seine Cohabiting Heterosexual
L H 25 Student B Paris Single Heterosexual
P H 46 Sales consultant A Paris Married Heterosexual
M H 46 Make-up artist B Paris Cohabiting Homosexual

Contrex M F 42 Assistant A Paris Widow, 3 children Heterosexual

then Badoit B F 26 Youth leader B Amiens Married Heterosexual
K H 40 Distribution manager A Paris Cohabiting, 1 child Heterosexual
(or the reverse) H H 28 Economist A Paris Cohabiting Homosexual
S H 22 Fish monger C Paris Single Heterosexual

Gillette J H 40 Teacher and consultant A Paris Cohabiting, 1 child Heterosexual

then Bic U H 33 Consultant A Paris Cohabiting, 2 children Heterosexual
Y F 22 Student A St Germain Cohabiting Heterosexual
(or the reverse) K F 41 Sales manager A Neuilly Married, 3 children Heterosexual
G H 26 University clerk A Versailles Single Homosexual

Jacques Vabre E F 26 Student A Paris Single Heterosexual

Then O F 64 Doctor A St Raphael Married, 2 children Heterosexual
Grand-Mère R H 40 Consultant A Paris Single Heterosexual
D H 20 Unskilled worker C Paris Single Heterosexual
(or the reverse) T H 50 Cheese Shopkeeper C Paris Cohabiting Homosexual