Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Pink is for girls, blue is for boys’ exploring brand gender identity in children’s clothing, a post-evaluation of British retailer John Lewis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Brand Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

“I think if my girl knew it was gender-neutral, she wouldn’t want it, because she would say ‘well that’s for boys Mum’ and she wants girls’ stuff, just girls’ stuff like all the other little girls”.

Brand gender identity has been widely explored within academia and is integral to the way brands engage with their respective gendered target audiences. A brand can be seen to adopt a masculine or feminine personality through a myriad of symbolic and functional representations which play a crucial role in conveying a brand gender identity. Prior research suggests that brands with a strong gender identity (either masculine or feminine) will encourage formidable consumer-based brand equity (CBBE). But what if those gender identities are transforming and those typical personality traits are no longer clear? We are in the midst of a gender revolution, a shifting landscape of gender identity which is equally challenging existing brand gender theory and brand management practice. Since the societal shifts in definitions of gender identities, there has been a rapid rise in the adoption of gender-neutral brands in the apparel industry. Despite this rise in popularity, this field has been relatively un-explored in academia and even-less so within the category of children’s clothing. The existing literature has expressed concerns over the impinging factors that impact gender-neutral brands, specifically marketing complexity and confusing consumer proposition. Furthermore, it is not clear within the existing literature how gender-neutral brands combine the masculine and feminine functional attributes in the formation of brand gender identity, or how gender identity and gender stereotypes impact parents' perceptions of gender-neutral childrenswear in the retail environment. Therefore, this explorative research is exceptionally beneficial to practitioners and brand academics based on the growing rise of gender-neutral brands being adopted by the industry. In this paper, we explore brand gender identity in children’s clothing, specifically parent consumer perceptions of gender-neutral brands with the adoption of a specific single study on British retailer John Lewis. This paper is significant because it is valuable to clothing brand strategists planning to adopt gender-neutral approaches, equally this is essential reading for brand management academics as the paper proposes to develop academic thinking on brand gender identity. Qualitative research methods were deployed and the findings support the impact of the cognitive antecedents in the top-down processing of the participants’ formation of perceptions. Moreover, the findings revealed the existing themes of social acceptance, including perceived homosexuality and social in/out-group culture and the role of parents on gender-neutrality for their children which found to have a direct impact on the formation of the negative perceptions. The study proposes a conceptual framework based on the findings which incorporate the negative perceptions of gender-neutral brands, specifically correlating with the existing research on brand gender conformity and non-conformity in symbolic consumption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D.A. 1996. Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, D.A. 1991. Managing brand equity. Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, G.M. 2003. An evolutionary perspective of sex-typed toy preferences: pink, blue, and the brain. Archives of Sexual Behaviour 32 (1): 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, K., L.L. Golden, G.M. Mullet, and D. Coogan. 1980. Sex-typed product images: the effects of sex, sex role self­concept and measurement implications. Advances in Consumer Research 604–609.

  • Alreck, P.L., R.B. Settle and M.A. Belch. 1982. Who responds to" gendered" ads, and how? Masculine brands versus feminine brands. Journal of Advertising Research.

  • Alreck, P.L. 1994. Commentary: A New Formula for Gendering Products and Brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management 3 (1): 6–18.

  • Anderson, N.H. 1965. Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-­combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology 70 (4): 394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avery, J. 2012. Defending the markers of masculinity: Consumer resistance to brand gender-bending. International Journal of Research in Marketing 29 (4): 322–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A., S. Bates, A. Amorose, and D. Anderson-Butcher. 2017. The parent perceptions of overall school experiences scale: initial development and validation. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 37: 251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R.W. 1988. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2): 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S.L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42 (2): 155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S.L. 1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review 88 (4): 354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S.L. 1993. The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E. 1994. Interpersonal relationships. Annual Review of Psychology 45 (1): 79–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. 2007. An Introduction to Content Analysis. In: Berg, B.L., Ed., Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 238–267.

  • Boe, J.L., and R.J. Woods. 2018. Parents’ influence on infants’ gender-typed toy preferences. Sex Roles 79 (5–6): 358–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. 2001. Masculine Domination. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Bradley, B.S., and S.K. Gobbart. 1989. Determinants of gender-­typed play in toddlers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 150 (4): 453–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. and Bell, E. 2011. Business Research Methods. 3rd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Buss, D.M., and D.P. Schmitt. 1993. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review 100 (2): 204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bussey, K., and A. Bandura. 1999. Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review 106 (4): 676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse. Feminism/postmodernism 327: 347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldera, Y.M., A.C. Huston, and M. O’Brien. 1989. Social interactions and play patterns of parents and toddlers with feminine, masculine, and neutral toys. Child Development 60: 70–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, D. 1998. Performing gender identity. Language and gender: a reader. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, T., B. Connell, and J. Lee. 1985. Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory and Society 14 (5): 551–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D.B., and G.D. Levy. 1988. Cognitive aspects of early sex-role development: The influence of gender schemas on pre-schoolers’ memories and preferences for sex-typed toys and activities. Child Development 59: 782–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltrane, S., and M. Adams. 1997. Children and gender. In Understanding families, contemporary parenting: Challenges and issues, vol. 9, ed. T. Arendell, 219–253. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colucci, E. 2008. “Focus groups can be fun”: The use of activity-oriented questions in focus group discussions. Qualitative Health Research 17 (10): 1422–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condry, J., and S. Condry. 1976. Sex differences: A study of the eye of the beholder. Child Development 47: 812–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, A., R. Russell-Bennett, D. Wang, and S. Whyte. 2022. Branding beyond the gender binary. Psychology of Marketing 39 (8): 1621–1632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. 2000. Fashion and its social agendas: Class, gender, and identity in clothing. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darian, J.C. 1998. Parent-child decision making in children’s clothing stores. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 26 (11): 421–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daymon, C., and I. Holloway. 2002. Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daymon, C., and I. Holloway. 2011. Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications, 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debevec, K., and E. Iyer. 1986. The influence of spokespersons in altering a product’s gender image: Implications for advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising 15 (4): 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denscombe, M. 2010. The good research guide: For small­scale social research projects, 4th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. The sage handbook of qualitative research, vol. 3. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, J. 2015. The fashioned body: Fashion, dress and modern social theory, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagot, B.I., and Leinbach, M.D. 1989. The young child's gender schema: Environmental input, internal organization. Child Development 60 (3): 663–672.

  • Feinman, S. 1992. Social referencing and conformity. In Social referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy, 229–267. Boston: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., and S.J. Arnold. 1994. Sex, gender identity, gender role attitudes, and consumer behaviour. Psychology & Marketing 11 (2): 163–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S.T., and L.E. Stevens. 1993. What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., and S. Radley. 1989. Sex differences in the perception of male and female body shapes. Personality and Individual Differences 10 (6): 653–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S. 2017. Why we put a transgender girl on the cover of national geographic. National Geographic: Gender Revolution.

  • Gregory, R.L. 1997. Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences 352 (1358): 1121–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B. 2009. Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 46 (1): 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennink, M., Hutter, I. and Bailey, A. 2011. Qualitative Research Methods. Sage Publications, London, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC.

  • Hine, B., Ivanovic, K., England, D. 2018. From the Sleeping Princess to the World-Saving Daughter of the Chief: Examining Young Children’s Perceptions of ‘Old’ versus ‘New’ Disney Princess Characters. Social Sciences 7 (9): 161.

  • Hyde, K.F. 2000. Recognizing deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 3 (2): 82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, E.S., and K. Debevec. 2015. Bases for the formation of product gender images. In: Proceedings of the 1989 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference, 38–42. Cham: Springer

  • Jablonski, N.G., and G. Chaplin. 2000. The evolution of human skin coloration. Journal of Human Evolution 39 (1): 57–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansson-Boyd, C.V. 2010. Consumer psychology. New York: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jule, A. 1996. Princesses in the classroom: young children learning to be human in a gendered world. Canadian Children Journal 36 (2): 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, K., 2006. Cross-gender brand extensions: effects of gender of brand, gender of consumer and product type on evaluation of cross-gender extensions. ACR North American Advances.

  • Kane, E.W. 2006. “No way my boys are going to be like that!” Parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender & Society 20 (2): 149–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanouse, D.E. 1984. Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behaviour: theory and research. NA Advances in Consumer Research 11: 703–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K.L. 2013. Strategic brand management: Building measuring and managing brand equity [online], 4th ed. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M.S. 1996. Manhood in America. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkham, P. 1996. The gendered object. Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kliamenakis, A., 2011. Understanding the Androgynous Brand. In: Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University.

  • Kollmayer, M., M. Schultes, B. Schober, T. Hodosi, and C. Speil. 2018. Parents’ judgements about the desirability of toys for their children; Associations with gender role attidues, gender-typing of toys and demographics. Sex Roles 79: 329–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J.S. 1959. Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review 37: 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieven, T., and C. Hildebrand. 2016. The impact of brand gender on brand equity: findings from a large-scale cross-cultural study in ten countries. International Marketing Review 33 (2): 178–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieven, T., B. Grohmann, A. Herrmann, J. Landwehr, and M. Tilburg. 2015. The effect of brand design on brand gender perceptions and brand preference. European Journal of Marketing 49 (1/2): 146–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorber, J. 1994. Paradoxes of gender. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccoby, E.E. 1998. The two sexes: growing up apart, coming together. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machado, Joana César., Leonor Vacas-de-Carvalho, Salim L. Azar, Ana Raquel André, and Barbara Pires Dos. Santos. 2019. Brand gender and consumer-based brand equity on Facebook: The mediating role of consumer-brand engagement and brand love. Journal of Business Research 96: 376–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcangeli, S. 2015. Undressing the power of fashion: The semiotic evolution of gender identity by coco chanel and Alexander McQueen. Ph.D: Bucknell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C.L., and C.F. Halverson. 1981. A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development 52: 1119–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C.L., D.N., Ruble, and J., Szkrybalo, 2002. Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological bulletin 128 (6): 903–933.

  • Martin, C.L., and D. Ruble. 2004. Children's search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13(2): 67–70.

  • Mayer, R and Belk, R. 1985. Fashion and Impression formation among children, in Soloman (ed) The psychology of fashion, Lexington books, Lexington.

  • McCracken, G. 1988. Culture and consumption: New approaches to the symbolic character of consumer goods and activities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, C and Gates, R. 2006. Marketing Research Essentials. 5th ed. Wiley.

  • Messner, M. 2000. Barbie girls versus sea monsters: Children constructing gender. Gender & Society 14: 765–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintel, 2018. Fashion retailers shine the light on childrenswear [online]. London: Mintel Group

  • Mintel, 2021. Childrenswear – UK – February 2021 [online]. London: Mintel Group

  • Morse, J.M., and L. Richards. 2002. Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, L., R. Robbie, and B. Martin. 2016. Gender identity and brand incongruence: When in doubt, pursue masculinity. Journal of Strategic Marketing 24 (5): 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, L.W. 2000. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 4th ed. USA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuendorf, K. A. 2002. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Oakes, P.J., S.A. Haslam, and J.C. Turner. 1994. Stereotyping and social reality. London: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C.W., B.J. Jaworski, and D.J. Maclnnis. 1986. Strategic brand concept-image management. The Journal of Marketing 50: 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, S. 2022. Decoding Gender-Neutral Clothing. https://thedailyguardian.com/decoding-gender-neutral-clothing/

  • Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerleau, A., D. Bolduc, G. Malcuit, and L. Cossette. 1990. Pink or blue: Environmental gender stereotypes in the first two years of life. Sex Roles 22 (5–6): 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, V., and R.C. Flores. 1985. A study of psychological gender differences: Applications for advertising format. ACR North American Advances.

  • Ritchie, J., J. Lewis, C.M. Nicholls, and R. Ormston. 2013. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J. 2002. Using case studies in research. Management Research News 25 (1): 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. 2012. Research methods for business students, 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, B.H., and A. Simonson. 1997. Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settle, R.B., and Alreck, P.L. 1987. Marketing to male fantasies. Marketing Communications 12: 13–18.

  • Shergill, G., H. Sekhon, and M. Zhao. 2013. Parents’ perception of teen’s influence on family purchase decisions: A study of cultural assimilation. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 25 (1): 162–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. 1983. The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 10: 319–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M.R., and S.P. Douglas. 1987. Diversity in product symbolism: The case of female executive clothing. Psychology & Marketing 4 (3): 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J.T. 1984. Masculinity, femininity, and gender-­related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experimental Personality Research 13: 1–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J.P. 1980. Participant observation. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace/Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stets, J.E. and Burke, P.J., 1996. Gender, control, and interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly pp.193–220.

  • Stuteville, J.R. 1971. Sexually polarized products and advertising strategy. Journal of Retailing 47 (2): 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Independent., 2017. John Lewis gender neutral clothing labels faces public backlash[online]. The Independent Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-­style/fashion/john-­lewis-­gender-­neutral-­ clothing-­labels-­response-­sex-­boys-­girls-­men-­women-­a7928006.html [Accessed 24 May 2018].

  • The Telegraph., 2017. John Lewis removes 'boys' and 'girls' labels from children's clothes [online]. The Telegraph. Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/02/john-­lewis-­removes-­boys-­ girls-­labels-­childrens-­clothes/ [Accessed 24 May 2018].

  • Thompson, S.K. 1975. Gender labels and early sex role development. Child Development 46: 339–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Till, B.D., and R.L. Priluck. 2001. Conditioning of meaning in advertising: Brand gender perception effects. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 23 (2): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tissier-Desbordes, E., and A.J. Kimmel. 2002. Sex, gender and marketing: definitions of concepts and analysis of literature. Decisions Marketing Paris 26 (94).

  • Tuncay, L., and C. Otnes. 2008. The use of persuasion management strategies by identity-­vulnerable consumers: The case of urban heterosexual male shoppers. Journal of Retailing 84 (4): 487–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vacas de Carvalho, L., S.L. Azar, and J.C. Machado. 2020. Bridging the gap between brand gender and brand loyalty on social media: Exploring the mediating effects. Journal of Marketing Management 36 (11–12): 1125–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tilburg, M., Herrmann. A., Townsend. C. 2015. Beyond “Pink It and Shrink It” Perceived Product Gender, Aesthetics and Product Evaluation. Psychology & Marketing 32 (4): 422–437.

  • British Vogue., 2017. Childrenswear Goes Genderless at John Lewis [online]. British Vogue. Available from: http://www.vogue.co.uk/article/john-­lewis-­ genderless-­childrens-­wear [Accessed 24 May 2018].

  • Weisgram, E.S., and S.T. Bruun. 2018. Predictors of gender-typed toy purchases by prospective parents and mothers: The roles of childhood experiences and gender attitudes. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research 79 (5–6): 342–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T.D. 2010. Fifty years of information behavior research. Fifty Years of Information Behavior Research 36 (3): 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, W.I., and M. Hines. 2015. Preferences for pink and blue: the development of color preferences as distinct gender-typed behavior in toddlers. Arch Sex Behavior 44: 1243–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuen, T.W., M. Nieroda, H. He, and Y. Park. 2021. Can dissimilarity in product category be an opportunity for cross-gender brand extension? Journal of Business Research 135: 348–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Media and Communications, Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK

    Jill Nash

  2. Weymouth House, Talbot Campus, Bournemouth University, Fern Barrow, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK

    Cindy Sidhu

Authors
  1. Jill Nash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cindy Sidhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Nash.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1. Coding Guide

Theme

Bullying

Theme

Social acceptance (I.e. In-­group / out-­group, acceptance from other people)

Theme

Responsibility as parents

Theme

Children’s confusion

Theme

Sexuality (perceived homosexuality)

Theme

Societal social norms

Theme

Differences between boys and girls

Theme

Gender-neutral not necessary

Theme

Complexity/Confusion

Theme

Segregation separate for girls/boys

Theme

More choice

Theme

Pinks and blues gender markers

Theme

Gender-neutral colours

Theme

Fit/style

Theme

Motifs/images

Theme

Materials

Theme

Improvements to ‘gender-neutral’

Theme

Political correctness

Theme

Damaging

Theme

No difference

Theme

Unfit for John Lewis brand

Theme

Consumers interested to go in store

Theme

Consumer put off going into store

Theme

Consumer perceptions of brand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nash, J., Sidhu, C. ‘Pink is for girls, blue is for boys’ exploring brand gender identity in children’s clothing, a post-evaluation of British retailer John Lewis. J Brand Manag 30, 381–397 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-023-00310-3

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-023-00310-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation