Does your brand resonate more with men or women*? To the extent that a brand resonates with one, it is probably losing from the other. (No, we’re not talking about beer or menstrual products).
Some brands set out to appeal to men or to women. This can make sense for categories which are very high involvement or the specific usage of the product is polarized by gender roles. Think Lulu Lemon or Toyota Hilux.
But what about categories where there is no intuitive gender polarity? Like peanut butter? Peanut butter just has to be ‘yummy’, right? Not really. Brand strength, and therefore sales success, is also about what makes sense and what resonates with men differently from women.
Peoples’ awareness of a brand, and their feelings about whether it is unique, relevant, easy to get, good value, etc. will all play a role in brand choice. In categories where there need not be a gender-based preference, unless a brand has a defendable positioning directed at men or women, the brand will benefit by being appealing to both sexes.
But often, this is not the case. And from the visible and tangible manifestations of the brand (its packaging, comms, and the product itself) this seems to be unintentional. Taking peanut butter as an example, although most brands offer variants using different flavours and nut compositions, these appear to be aimed at variety, rather than specifically ‘male’ or ‘female’ tastes. It’s notable that Fix & Fogg released pride labelling in support of the rainbow community, but this is more inclusive, rather than exclusive of any gender.
What is Gender Polarity?
Using Brand Essentials data for 2024, we looked at whether men or women ‘get’ brands differently. Not by asking them directly but by looking for patterns in responses to levels of perceived brand equity that consistently emerge between males and females.
Some brands (Nut Brothers, Mother Earth and to a lesser degree Sanitarium), have a much stronger connection to males than to females. For Fix & Fogg, Forty Thieves and Ceres Organics, the bond is much stronger with women. For a bit more than half of peanut butter brands, there’s a balance.
So what? Does gender polarity matter for a brand?
It seems to. We also look at the link between these brand impressions and claimed purchase of the brand, again splitting between men and women. The chart below shows gender polarity and claimed purchase for each brand. That dotted line of best fit shows that gender polity is a factor: brands which are gender polarized generally have less sales. It also shows that having a balanced appeal to both men and women is no guarantee of success (Bega, Macro Organics, Chantal Organics) which means other factors are at work too – price and distribution being the key ones.
Should a gender polarized brand do anything differently?
Depending on your category and brand strategy, gender polarization may be an inhibitor to trial or loyalty.
Strive for a more balanced featuring of women and men in your communications
Look out for secondary elements too – content that is traditionally anchored to gender roles. For instance, featuring, babies, young children and many pets will easily ladder up to female associations.
Mix it up a bit. Work in usage occasions that cross the traditional boundaries – kids at the breakfast is a traditional female trope; men digging post holes or fishing a male one.
Push the boundaries but be careful of going too far too fast. Your current loyalists want you because of who you were until now; even a calculated repositioning needs to minimize possible disillusionment.
Wondering what gender polarity means for your brand?
If you make #kombucha, #peanutbutter, #mueslibars, #RTEmeals, #sausages, #dumplings, #donuts, #honey or #breakfastcereal, let us know!
* This analysis focuses on male and female consumer preferences, as our dataset reflects the way respondents self-identified in the panels we used. We acknowledge that gender identity is diverse, and while the sample size for non-binary consumers was too small for separate analysis, we recognize the importance of inclusivity in consumer research.
Comments