What’s best for whom? The effect of product gender depends on positioning

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to investigate how product positioning affects the influence of product gender on consumers’ product evaluations.

Design/methodology/approach

Using experimental designs, this research investigates how hedonic versus functional consumption goals affect consumers’ choice between feminine and masculine products (Study 1) and how positioning products as either hedonic or functional influences consumers’ evaluations of feminine and masculine products (Studies 2 and 3).

Findings

When pursuing hedonic consumption goals, consumers are more likely to choose feminine (vs masculine) products, whereas when pursuing functional consumption goals, consumers are more likely to choose masculine (vs feminine) products. Further, consumers evaluate feminine products more favorably when the products are hedonically (vs functionally) positioned, whereas they evaluate masculine products more favorably when the products are functionally (vs hedonically) positioned. Perceptions of product credibility mediate this effect.

Research limitations/implications

Connecting theories of gender identity, product positioning and congruity, this study extends previous literature by demonstrating that the effects of product gender are context-dependent.

Practical implications

Many companies use visual design cues (e.g. shape, color) to promote their products’ gender. The findings of this study suggest that companies promoting their products as feminine should highlight the products’ hedonic benefits, whereas companies promoting their products as masculine should highlight the products’ functional benefits.

Originality/value

Applying a conceptual congruity approach, this research is the first to demonstrate that the effects of product gender on consumers’ product evaluations depend on the product’s positioning.

Citation

Schnurr, B. (2018), "What’s best for whom? The effect of product gender depends on positioning", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1/2, pp. 367-391. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0207