Introducing cross‐gender brand extensions—masculine or feminine brands that extend to the opposite gender—is a growing trend on the marketplace, though not always a successful one. This research examines the effect of consumer multifactorial gender and biological sex on consumers’ evaluation of cross‐gender brand extensions. The influence of gender role attitudes is demonstrated: consumers with traditional gender attitudes are significantly more reluctant to accept these extensions than consumers with more liberal attitudes. Hence the extensions have a negative impact on the subsequent attitude of the former group toward the parent brand, contrary to their effect on more egalitarian consumers. No significant impact of the consumer's biological sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation is identified. The theoretical and managerial implications of these findings for the development of cross‐gender brand extensions are discussed.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between men and brands and specifically how they configure their masculinities in relation to daily used brands. Design/methodology/approach In-depth interviews with projective technique were conducted with 20 men with different masculinities and sexual orientations to explore their practices regarding and relations to various product categories and brands. Findings First, this paper shows how men’s relationships to daily used brands vary according to different forms of masculinities, in a continuum apparently disconnected from sexual orientation. Men with “resistant” masculinities are strongly attached to choosing masculine brands; others with more hybrid masculinities are more open to feminine brands and do not care about brand gender. Second, this paper shows the importance of brand gender salience: Men with more traditional masculinities interpret brands through the prism of gender first and over-interpret gendered cues in brand execution. Third, feminine brands are considered as threats for men with traditional masculinities. Fourth, brand extensions to the opposite sex are criticized by men with more traditional masculinities but appreciated by men with hybrid masculinities, independently of sexual orientation. Originality/value This paper investigates the relationships between men and brand gender for daily used brands, by introducing a diversity of masculinities. Furthermore, it builds on a qualitative approach to capture individuals’ diverse masculinities. This helps capture the complexity of gender and better understand the relationships between men, masculinities and brands.

Purpose Mixed-target brands with strong gender identities, whether it be feminine or masculine, are not always successful at targeting both men and women, particularly in symbolic product categories. While attempting to maximize their sales for both targets, managers often struggle to capitalize on a single brand, and they hesitate between different naming strategies. This paper aims to build on brand gender literature and understand these brands’ (i.e. brands targeting both men and women) potential to adopt an endorsed brand strategy rather than a branded house strategy. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a before/after experimental design to examine the effect that introducing a gender-incongruent endorsed brand (i.e. feminine endorsed brand name of masculine master brands and masculine endorsed brand name of feminine master brands) can have on consumers’ brand attitude. Findings First, adopting an endorsed brand strategy increases the perceived brand femininity of masculine master brands, but there is no increase in feminine master brands’ perceived brand masculinity. Second, this strategy has a negative impact on consumer attitude toward the master brand, with a stronger negative effect for feminine master brands than for masculine master brands, which is mediated by the brand gender perception change. Third, a negative feedback effect on the brand’s gender-congruent users is revealed. Research limitations/implications One limitation of this work is that the focus is on one sole extrinsic brand characteristic (i.e. brand name) in our experimental design, which artificially influences the relative brand name importance for consumers. Moreover, the studies offered a short text to introduce the renaming. This may have made the respondents focus on the brand more than they would have in real-world conditions. Practical implications This research provides many insights for masculine or feminine mixed-target brands managers in symbolic product categories, as it shows that changing from a branded house strategy to an endorsed brand strategy appears to be unsuccessful in the short run, regardless of master brand’s gender. Moreover, the study reveals negative feedback effects on the attitude toward the initial master brand, following its renaming, in the short run. Originality/value This research provides a warning to managers trying to gender-bend their existing brands because it can lead to brand dilution. It also emphasizes the asymmetrical evaluation of masculine vs feminine master brands, as manipulating a brand’s perceived masculinity appears very difficult to do successfully.

This article outlines the relevance of gender, and its measurement, in providing meaningful insights into marketing research. The authors show that gender has evolved towards a multifactorial approach with three main factors: cognitive (with gender identity), affective and behavioral. Gender adds an explanatory dimension to our understanding of consumer behavior beyond biological sex, preferably within a multifactorial approach. The authors also explain when, and how, to apply gender and its measurement, identifying the situations where using gender is relevant, distinguishing between biological, social, cultural and situational contexts.