Masculinity and Gay-Friendly Advertising: A Comparative Analysis Between the Italian and US Market

  • Eleonora Federici
  • Andrea Bernardelli
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Language, Gender and Sexuality book series (PSLGS)


In this chapter, we look at the representations of masculinity in gay-friendly printed adverts and commercials, focusing on the tensions between marketing and socio-political discourses that occur within them. We also offer a comparative perspective between gay-friendly advertising in Italy and in the USA, starting from two specific campaigns: “Findus Piramide” which consists of a series of commercials for the brand Findus broadcast in Italy in 2014 and Tiffany’s campaign “Will You?”, appearing in commercials and printed adverts in the USA in 2015. These examples reflect a new trend in advertising where non-heterosexual orientations are represented in a positive way and demonstrate that the representation of gay-friendly advertising is connected to marketing strategies and structured differently according to the cultural context and its acceptance of LGBT issues.


  1. Badgett, M. L. V. (2001). Money, Myths and Change—The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, P. (2008). Sexed Tetxs. Language, Gender, and Sexuality. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  3. Bronski, M. (1984). Culture Clash: The Making of Gay Sexuality. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chasin, A. (2000). Selling Out: The Gay and Lesbian Movement Goes to Market. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  5. Choong, K. (2010). Targeting Gay Men: The Cryptic Approach.
  6. Clarke, D. (2000). Commodity Lesbianism. In H. Abelove et al. (Eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (pp. 186–201). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Danesi, M. (2013). Encyclopedia of Media and Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duggan, L. (2002). The Incredible Shrinking Public: Sexual Politics and the Decline of Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Falk, P. (1997). The Benetton-Toscani Effect: Testing the Limits of Conventional Advertising. In M. Nava, A. Blake, I. MacRury, & B. Richards (Eds.), Buy This Book: Studies in Advertising and Consumption (pp. 64–83). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Floch, J. M. (2001). Semiotics, Marketing, and Communication: Beneath the Signs, the Strategies. Basingstoke (UK), Palgrave (first edition: Sémiotique, marketing et communication: sous les signes, les stratégies. Paris: PUF, 1990).Google Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. (1979). Gender Advertisements. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Greimas, A. J. (1987). On Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory (P. Perron & F. Collins, Trans.). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  13. Greimas, A. J. (1989). Figurative Semiotics and the Semiotics of the Plastic Arts. New Literary History, 20(3), 627–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greimas, A. J. (1990). Narrative Semiotics and Cognitive Discourses (P. Perron & F. Collins, Trans.). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  15. Kapferer, J. N. (2000). Les marques à l’épreuve de la pratique. Paris: Editions d’Organisation.Google Scholar
  16. Kates, S. (1999). Making the Ad Perfectly Queer: Marketing ‘Normality’ to the Gay Maen’s Community? Journal of Advertising, 28(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kates, S. (2000). Out of the Closet and Out on the Street! Gay Men and Their Brand Relationship. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kirsch, M. H. (2000). Queer Theory and Social Change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. MacKinnon, K. (2003). Representing Men: Maleness and Masculinity in the Media. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  20. Milani, T. (2014). Queering Masculinities. In S. Erlich, M. Meyerhoff, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Handbook of Language, Gender and Sexuality (2nd ed., pp. 260–278). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oakenfull, G. W. (2013). What Matters: Factors Influencing Gay Consumers’ Evaluation of ‘Gay-Friendly’ Corporate Activities. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 32, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Penney, J. (2013). After Queer Theory: The Limits of Sexual Politics. New York: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  23. Poole, J. (2014). Queer Representations of Gay Males and Masculinities in the Media. Sexuality and Culture, 18(2), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Semprini, A. (1996). Analizzare la comunicazione: come analizzare la pubblicità, le immagini, i media. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  25. Stein, A. (1989). All Dressed Up, But No Place to Go? Style Wars and the New Lesbianism. OUT/LOOK, 1(4), 37.Google Scholar
  26. Talbot, M. M. (2000). ‘It’s Good to Talk?’ The Undermining of Feminism in a British Telecom Advertisement. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsai Wan-Hsiu, S. (2004). Gay Advertising as Negotiations: Representations of Homosexual, Bisexual and Transgender People in Mainstream Commercials. In L. Scott & C. Thompson (Eds.), GCB—Gender and Consumer Behaviour 7 (pp. 1–26). Madison: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  28. Tuten, T. L. (2005). The Effect of Gay-Friendly and Non-Gay Friendly Cues on Brand Attitudes: A Comparison of Heterosexual and Gay/Lesbian Reactions. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 441–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whitehead, S. (2002). Men and Masculinities: Key Themes and New Directions. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wiegman, R., & Wilson, E. (Eds.). (2015). Queer Theory Without Antinormativity, special issue of Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 26(1), 192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleonora Federici
    • 1
  • Andrea Bernardelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi Letterari, Linguistici e ComparatiUniversità degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”NapoliItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Filosofia, Linguistica e LetteratureUniversity of Perugia, Piazza dell’UniversitàPerugiaItaly

Personalised recommendations