Mason 1

Sarah Mason

Mass Media and Society

December 3, 2013

Media in the media: Gender-based toy ads

Introduction

A total of 94 million Barbie dolls are sold each year in the United States. That’s one child

per two Barbie dolls (Zimmerman, 2008). Toys are in high demand and media companies spend

an average of $17 billion each year on campaigns and promotional efforts to target children with

ads for their products. A quarter of television commercials targeted at children are for toys,

which are marketed to children according to gender stereotypes. Toys that are targeted at girls

tend to revolve around beauty, domesticity and nurturing. Toys that are targeted t boys tend to

revolve around building, action and aggression. Although it seems clear that children are being

exposed to a significant number of toy ads that suggest gender stereotypes and gender roles are

acceptable, the media does a poor job covering what our society is going to do about the issue.

News media also discusses that marketers use techniques to attract children; however, it does not

incorporate scholarly research or theories indicating relationships between the media and

children’s preferences and attitudes. There is a gap in news media coverage concerning the

media’s influence on children’s behaviors and values and why gender-based toy ads exist in

society that has sought to rid itself of gender inequities in the last 50 years. Coverage of toy ads

by news media tend to suggest that toy companies are at fault. The media says that toy

companies are producing toys within a homophobic society and do not want to risk losing profit

by making gender neutral toys. However, toy companies say that boys and girls are biologically

Mason 2

different and have different drives and therefore different playing patterns, suggesting that

children seek out toys that will satisfy and fulfill them.

The primary function of toys is for children to have the opportunity to be creative.

Scholars fear that toys are constraining and destructive to children because gender-based toy ads

suggest to children that gender stereotypes are functional in society. There is also scholarly

research that suggests children’s brains between the ages of 2 and 11 are malleable and most

open to influences (Bakir & Palan, 2010). Studies that use neuroscience brain imaging have

found that children do not have the cognitive capacity to interpret media messages and are more

susceptible to adopting gender stereotypes. I found scholarly research indicating that social

learning does exist among children and the media (Martinez, Nicolas, & Salas, 2013). Children

learn through observation and when they are exposed to gender-based toy ads, they learn how to

behave and what to expect in different situations. In this paper I will address the gap between the

new media’s coverage of scholarly research indicating the idea that children learn from the

media and the advertisements they are exposed to and therefore gender-based toy ads are

teaching children to value gender stereotypes and traditional gender roles.

News media coverage

Function of toys:

News media tends not to deny that gender plays a role in the toy world. Sweet (2012)

says that toy departments are segregated by pink and blue aisles, specific to gender. The pink

aisles contain toys that involve beauty, domesticity and nurturing. Such toys are Barbie dolls,

kitchen sets, make-up, princess dresses and any pink accessory. The blue aisles consist of toys

are associated with building, action and aggression. Such toys include race cars, action figures,

Mason 3

guns and sports. Dell’Antonia (2012) says that toys that promote gender stereotypes are

exploiting natural play patterns and are limiting creativity because toy companies use gender

stereotypes to promote products to children. The main function of toys traditionally has been to

communicate values and expectations, train children for adult roles and inspire creativity.

Despite the fact that children in today’s society have equal opportunities regardless of gender,

the world of toys is saying otherwise. The main function of toys today is to give children the

opportunity to be creative, understand spatial relationships, develop fine motor skills and learn

about problem solving. Orenstein (2011) says that it is difficult for children to develop life skills

from toys that emphasize, reinforce and create gender differences. News media coverage of

gender-based toy ads indicate that the creative value of toys is being interfered.

Bans and censorship:

Although gender has always played a key role in toy ads, there have been periods in time

that girls and boys have been portrayed in toy ads on equal playing fields. One example that

Orenstein (2011) refers to is the 1981 Lego ad. The poster shows a tomboy wearing baggy jeans,

a T-shirt and sneakers holding a Lego creation, suggesting that girls can enjoy building and

Legos just like boys. She indicates that gender equity in society has become less of an issue that

it was 50 years ago. Gender played a dominant role in toy marketing during World War II, but by

the 1970s gender-based toy ads began to disappear. Boys were seen in ads playing in the kitchen

and girls were shown playing with airplanes and constructing things. Then again in 1995, gender

started reappearing in toy ads again. Now in the 21st century, it is rare to find a toy that is not

marketed through some gender stereotype (Sweet, 2012).

Mason 4

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood seeks to limit the quantity of marketing

that children are exposed to. The CCFC took on the issue of gender roles in toy ads and created

the TOADY Award, which stands for Toys Oppressive and Destructive to Young Children. Each

year the Toy Industry Association presents its TOTY (Toy of the Year) Award, so in response

the CCFC chooses the worst toys of the year. One of the nominees this year is the Lego Friends

Butterfly Beauty Shop due to its promotion of gender stereotypes. Dell’Antonia (2012) argues

that the Lego Friends design set is too limiting because it provides girls with supplies to build a

beauty shop using pink and purple Legos instead of the traditional red, blue, yellow and green.

The media suggest that toy companies are producing products based on gender

differences simply because toys are in high demand. What media coverage lacks is the

arguments of the toy advertisers. I can assume that from my mass communication experience,

toy advertisers argue censorship of toy ads violate First Amendment rights. An average media

consumer would likely not take into account the advertising industry’s side of this debate. I find

it interesting that journalists omit an argument that deals with their same rights as creative and

active media producers.

Gender-neutral toy ads:

In countries other than the United States, gender neutrality is coming to life in the toy

world. Molin (2012) refers to Top-Toy, a licensee of Toys R Us based in Sweden that is coming

out with a gender-blind Christmas catalog for toys. Reklamombudsmannen, Sweden’s

advertising watchdog approached Top-Toy about several of their gender-based toy ads, asking

them to avoid showing girls playing with dolls and boys playing with spy gadgets. Molin states

that in response, Top-Toy replaced girls with boys on packages and photographs for dolls, beauty

Mason 5

sets and other girly toys. Jan Nyberg, Top-Toy’s sale’s director says the changes reflect cultural

trends, and the company has had to adjust their packaging for the global market.

Similarly, Hamleys in London now organizes their toys by theme rather than by gender.

For example, an aisle is categorized by toys that are used outdoors or soft toys, such as stuffed

animals. Rather than using traditional blue and pink in favor of gender, Hamleys uses gender-

neutral colors such as red and white (Orenstein, 2011).

The news media recognize other countries who are making changes toward gender-

neutral toys; however, our own society does not appear to be making any sudden changes in

marketing toys. A representative from Sweden says that the advertising industry has recognized

that children do not have the same ability to evaluate marketing communication as adults, and

therefore self-regulatory organizations funded by the industry, such as Reklamombudsmannen

are necessary to ensure gender neutrality in toy ads (Molin, 2012).

Toys as vehicles for social change:

Another trend in news media is that journalists tend to focus on preexisting toys to

promote gender neutrality. For example, Barbie has been a hot topic for toy advertisers to use in

helping transform gender stereotypes and promote gender equity in the realm of toys.

In an article by Zimmerman (2010) he discusses Mattel Inc.’s effort to poll its audience

on Barbie’s next career move. The goal of the campaign was to promote careers that are not

stereotypical for women. Barbie fans were asked to vote whether Barbie should be an architect,

anchorwoman, computer engineer, environmentalist or surgeon next. A number of female

computer engineers caught wind of the campaign and launched their own campaign, urging

fellow female computer engineers to vote their “geeky” job as Barbie’s next career.

Mason 6

Barbie has held 124 professions and has been said to mirror and sometimes anticipate

societal changes. Zimmerman indicates that since Barbie’s birth in the 1950’s, she has served as

a role model for children, especially young girls. In recent years, women leaders have teamed up

with Mattel to create an “empowering” Barbie for children to emulate. Marie Wilson, the

founder of the White House project, helped Mattel create a President Barbie. Mattel has launched

a voting-campaign to get audiences involved in selecting Barbie’s next career path. One possible

change that can be made in advertising toys to children is using toys such as Barbie that have

large fan bases and pushing the boundaries of gender stereotypes. Preexisting toy ads can be used

as vehicles to communicate societal changes and advancements (Zimmerman, 2010).

Scholarly research

The problem exists:

One common trend I found in my scholarly research is that scholars all can agree that the

problem exists and is posing threats on society. In an article by Merskin (2002), she indicates

that because children are exposed to a significant number of advertisements each year, it is

important to examine portrayals of gender in advertising. She says that television commercials

are one of the main sources for children’s expectations and prejudices because studies have

found that the media has the potential to influence children’s behaviors and attitudes.

Merskin coded 381 commercials from the Turner Cartoon Network and found that

commercials tended to target boys more often than girls. The commercials were coded on several

different premises, which included product category, target audience, sex of the narrator, setting,

gender of the cast and race of the cast. She then determined the target audience as either male or

female. Merskin found that the majority of toys ads were male. She also found that networks

Mason 7

tend to use boys more often than girls in their ads. One-third of the commercials contained boys

and less than a quarter of the toy ads had girls in them. Merskin concludes that because there are

so many boys present in toy ads, marketers are demonstrating the safe bet advertising strategy in

which creating a product that boys will enjoy will automatically spark interest in girls too.

Children learn what to value and prefer:

Bakir and Palan (2010) say that marketers seek to reach the greatest number of children

in the most effective way. Common techniques that marketers use to appeal to children include

portraying fun, action, emotion, the product’s appearance and the product’s unique features. The

authors also indicate that children develop cognitive frameworks to help better understand

gender-related information. This is why children often turn to stereotypes because they are able

to simplify cognitive processes and categorize gender-related information into meaningful units.

Bakir and Palan say that gender-related content is a common element in children’s toy ads and

should be evaluated because children are exposed to a great number of ads. The authors found

that children develop gender-related conceptual frameworks based on a combination of

biological, social and cognitive factors. Therefore, the environment that children are exposed to

is important factors in developing behaviors and attitudes. This is especially true because

children are more malleable and open to influences of gender roles because their brains are less

developed. The authors conclude that it is safe to assume that at some point in a child’s

childhood, an advertisement will have some degree of an influence. This is based on the idea that

children learn through observation.

In another article, Martinez, Nicolas and Salas (2013) coded 595 commercials for toy

typologies, gender values, voiceovers, period, actions and interaction to analyze the differences

Mason 8

between toy ads aimed at girls and toy ads aimed at boys. The researchers found that a greater

number of boys were present in toy ads compared to girls. In addition, the researchers found that

the values associated with boy toys, such as trucks and action figures are competitiveness,

aggression, power, creativity, individualism and ability. The values associated with girl toys are

beauty and motherhood. Martinez, Nicolas and Salas also refer to research that has found toys to

be fundamental instruments in a child’s social and cognitive development. Due to the influential

power of ads that target children, the authors conclude that legislation must urge equal

representation or gender-neutral toy ads.

Harm of gender-based toy ads:

In an article by Shifin (2006), he says that advertisers are beginning to target young

children at an increasingly young age. This is due to toy companies desire to establish brand

preferences among children at a young age. Advertisements promote values and therefore can be

help somewhat responsible for homogenous ideas in our society. Not only are toy ads indicating

the importance of spending money and buying toys, but the advertising industry appears to be

encouraging gender stereotypes and the importance of gender roles.

Shifin refers to neuroscience brain imaging that has found children are defenseless

cognitively and psychologically against advertising. He discusses the techniques that advertisers

use to make viewers more susceptible to their message. Examples of these techniques include

linking toys to popular television programs, product placement and celebrity endorsements. In

addition, technological advancements are allowing marketers to gather personal information

about an individual’s habits, attitudes and behaviors to better target them with products and

services. Toy companies are ignoring research that has found the vulnerability of children to the

Mason 9

media. This poses a great threat on society. Researchers are questioning how far marketers will

go to target children. Shifin refers to capitalism and explains that toy companies are seeking to

maximize profit and therefore do not see a problem in changing their toy products because

people are continuing to buy gender-based toys (Shifin, 2006).

Social learning theory:

The majority of scholarly research that I found regarding my topic discussed how the

social learning theory is at play in toy ads (Sommers, 2012) Children are exposed to a plethora of

advertisements each day. Based on Albert Bandura’s social learning theory, it has been theorized

that children learn how to behave and what to expect based on observations. Advertising in itself

is a mode of communication in which people observe a message and are encouraged to process

the message and make interpretations to apply to their own life. Scholars indicate that children

lack the ability to make their own interpretations, so essentially they are being exposed to

persuasive messages and unable to make any judgment based on their own knowledge (Bakir,

Blodgett & Rose 2008).

Evaluate media coverage and scholarly research

The majority of news coverage does not present scholarly research and findings that

support the influential power of the media in children’s lives.

Improvements:

One thing that I noticed while researching my topic is that there is not a lot of recent

publications regarding gender-based toy ads. The majority of the news media that I found related

to my topics was fairly recent, all of which was published within the decade. However, many of

Mason 10

the scholarly sources that I found while gathering information were from the 1980s and 1990s. A

lot has changed in our society in 30 years and I think it is important to re-evaluate issues

surrounding gender-based toy ads. A new wave of research on the topic might help bring

attention to the issue.

Another improvement that should be made is that the news media should do a better job

of presenting scholarly research and scientific findings to the public in their articles. Studies have

found a significant relationship between the media and social learning; however, journalists do

not do a very good job emphasizing the importance of this finding. This may in part deal with the

fact that journalists are also involved in influencing audiences and do not want to bring attention

to the fact that the media can play a major role in influencing individuals’ behaviors and

attitudes.

Lastly, the news media does not suggest a significant difference between an adult’s and a

child’s ability to interpret media messages. Children are not cognitively developed like adults in

order to fully comprehend persuasive messages and marketing communication. Therefore,

children should be treated as more passive because they are more susceptible to media messages

than adults.

What is well-known and what is lacking:

It seems to be true that both news media and scholarly research on the topic clearly

indicate that there is an issue at hand. Toy advertisers do not seem to be denying the fact that

gender-based ads are the dominant way of communicating toys to children. It also seems to be

well-known in scholarly research that children are incredibly vulnerable to the media and are

likely to adopt the values that are communicated through advertisements. This knowledge is

Mason 11

lacking in news media because journalists do not refer to scholarly research indicating the

relationship between social learning and advertisements among children.

In addition, news media tended to refer to other countries like Sweden and London that

are transitioning into gender-neutral toy ads and censoring toy ads for gender stereotypes.

However, such advancements have not occurred in the United States, or if there have been

movements, it was difficult to find information about gender-neutral toy ads occurring in

America.

Gaps in research:

One gap in research is that it is a known fact that advertisers spend billions of dollars

each year on marketing products to children. Why then, do advertisers refuse to fund studies to

research the effects of the media on children’s preferences? If marketers are willing to spend

money on targeting children with ads, it would seem that funding research would not be that

costly. Also, journalists and scholars agree that gender-based toy ads exist in society; however,

there is no real research on why they exist in a culture that has said to have made great strides in

the last 20 years regarding gender equity. Lastly, there have only been two documented studies

on monkey’s and toy preferences. The research that has been conducted has found a significant

difference between male monkey toy preferences and female monkey toy preferences. There are

two non-human primate species that can be researched and compared with human findings. This

is a significant advancement in technology and should be looked into and published (Hines &

Alexander, 2008).

Conclusion:

Mason 12

There is an obvious issue concerning gender stereotypes and toy ads that target children.

News media does a sufficient job identifying the problem, but it does not present enough

scholarly research identifying why the problem is important to address. I know from my own

experience researching the effects of the media on children that scholarly research is the primary

place to learn about how advertisements influence children. Other countries are making

advancements toward gender-neutral toy ads and American journalists cover these

transformations well. It would be helpful to bridge the gap of research if news media journalists

were to include scientific research indicating social learning. I did not find a single news media

source that indicated a mass communication theory was at play in the issue of gender-based toy

ads. This surprised me at first, but then after reflecting on what I have learned this semester, it

makes sense for journalists to not want to publish information that makes the media look like a

negative impact. The authors of most scholarly research articles are doctors and psychologists

that are seeking to publish their findings, they are not interested in protecting the media like

news media journalists are.

\

Mason 13

Bibliography

Bakir, A., Blodgett, J. G., & Rose, G. M. (2008, June 1). Children’s responses to gender-role

stereotyped advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(1), 35-48.

Retrieved from EBSCOHost Academic Search Premier.

Bakir, A. & Palan, K. M. (2010, March 1). How are children’s attitudes toward ads and brands

affected by gender-related content in advertising? Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 35-

48. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Academic Search Premier.

Dell’Antonia, K. J. (2012, November 29). ‘Worst toy awards’ target Lego Friends. The New

York Times. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/d6bb36b

Hines, M. & Alexander, G. M. (2008, August). Commentary: Monkeys, girls, boys and toys: A

confirmation comment on “Sex differences in toy preferences: Striking parallels between

monkeys and humans.” Hormones and Behavior, 54(3), 478-479. Retrieved from http://

tinyurl.com/kss2hj2

Martinez, E., Nicolas, M. A., & Salas, A. (2013, October 1). Gender representation in advertising

of toys in the Christmas period. Comunicar, 21(41), 187-194. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost Academic Search Premier.

Merskin, D. (2002, March 1). Boys will be boys: A content analysis of gender and race in

children’s advertisements on the Turner Cartoon Network. Journal of Current Issues

and Research in Advertising, 24(1), 51-59. Retrieved from EBSCOHost Academic

Search Premier.

Molin, A. (2012, November 28). In Sweden, playtime goes gender-neutral for holidays. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/laguzh4

Mason 14

Orenstein, P. (2011, December 9). Should the world of toys be gender-free? The New York

Times. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/7llug6j

Shifin, D. L. (2006, December 1). Children, adolescents and advertising. Pediatrics, 118(96),

2563-2569. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/m4skdwt

Sommers, C. H. (2012, December 6). You can give a boy a doll, but you can’t make him play

with it. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/ar7vccq

Sweet, E. (2012, December 21). Guys and dolls no more? The New York Times. Retrieved

from

http://tinyurl.com/azqj74v

Zimmerman, A. (2010, April 9). Revenge of the nerds: How Barbie got her geek on. The Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/klwjzy5