Have you ever wondered why we’ve never seen Martha Stewart power tools or Betty Crocker BBQ sauce in stores? Considering how well-known and ubiquitous these brands are, extending into adjacent product categories makes a lot of sense. However, something might feel off about attaching a female brand name to stereotypically masculine products. At the same time, brands like Mr. Clean and Scrub Daddy have found much success in the more stereotypically feminine cleaning product category.

New research published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology provides insight into why this might be the case.

“Anthropomorphizing a brand almost necessitates gendering it, and gender stereotypes are very strong,” says Pankaj Aggarwal, a professor of marketing at the University of Toronto. “Men are associated with competency and agency, while women are associated with warmth and compassion. If a certain trait is associated with masculinity, people will also associate that trait with a non-human entity when it is humanized. It’s just a reflection of our society.”

 Aggarwal found that the gendering of an anthropomorphized brand affects how it is perceived such that consumers expect brands anthropomorphized as female to conform more strongly to gender norms.

“There is asymmetry in the acceptance of gender non-conforming behaviour,” he says. “Consumers don't want a female brand to try to be masculine, but they don't mind when a male brand offers something feminine.”

Aggarwal conducted three studies and found that consumers had a lower preference for brands anthropomorphized as female when they exhibited stereotypically masculine traits. These female brands were also viewed less favourably when their products had stereotypically masculine characteristics or when they sought to expand into a stereotypically masculine product category.

The first study looked at brand personality fit for real brands. Aggarwal analyzed 545 anthropomorphized brands from Young & Rubicam’s Brand Asset Valuator dataset, focusing on how a brand’s personality traits influenced consumers’ preferences. The study found that male brands (such as Mr. Clean, Captain Morgan) weren’t negatively affected when presented with more feminine traits, such as helpfulness, trustworthiness and kindness.  In fact, when male-presenting brands leaned into these feminine traits, there was an increase in consumer preference.  In comparison, female brands (such as Victoria Secret or CoverGirl) that displayed stereotypically male traits (such as daring, arrogance or independence) put them at a disadvantage, reducing consumer preferences.

The second study looked at product feature fit and was conducted in a lab setting. More than 500 study participants evaluated a fictional coffee brand, which featured a smiling, coffee bean mascot that referred to itself as either Java Gal (female) or Java Guy (male). The mascot described the brand’s signature coffee blend as either feminine (light, delicate, sweet) or masculine (dark, robust, smoky). While participants perceived the feminine flavors as equally suitable for the Java Guy and Java Gal brands, they rated the masculine flavors as more appropriate for the Java Guy compared to the Java Gal brand.

The last of the three studies looked at brand extension fit. Another lab study, it centered on a fictional paint company. The brand featured a humanized, gender ambiguous paint brush mascot called either Mr. Chroma (male) or Ms. Chroma (female). Then participants read that the brand planned to extend into the residential construction (masculine product category) or interior design industry (feminine product category). Similar to the other studies, participants viewed Mr. Chroma’s expansion into interior design as a suitable, but did not view Ms. Chroma’s foray into residential construction as being a good fit.

“Society is androcentric. Men are at the centre of how we define humanity. Women are seen as a kind of ‘other’ and are more strongly gendered,” says Aggarwal. “Our research question was whether this would be true for how you define brands as well. When we humanize a brand, we imagine it as a person. Men are stereotyped as stronger and more agentic, and that agency gives masculine brands the freedom to be more different things.”

In the real world, this might mean that Mr. Clean could successfully launch a floral, gentle cleaner, while a feminine-anthropomorphized competitor brand like Mrs. Meyers Clean Day would have more difficulty launching a “tough” or “harsh” line. According to Aggarwal, the findings hold lessons for marketers who might consider anthropomorphizing a brand.

“If a brand plans to enter multiple product categories, it might be better not to anthropomorphize it as feminine,” he says. “As a feminine brand, you are much more sharply defined. People will believe you are good for one specific thing, compared to a male brand, which could be perceived as good for many things. Down the line, you might not have as much flexibility.”