Introduction

In this paper, we address how brands participate in discourses on toxic masculinity through advertising. Specifically, we analyse and compare the new brand narratives from Gillette and Lynx to understand the rhetorical strategies these two brands use in their communication on toxic masculinity. Historically, both Lynx and Gillette have had strong brand narratives that portrayed masculinity in particular and stereotypical ways. Since 1989, Gillette has portrayed the dependable, yet sexy man through their slogan ‘The Best a Man Can Get’. However, in 2019, Gillette turned its brand narrative upside down and began a conversation on toxic masculinity and men’s responsibility to change it through their new slogan ‘The Best a Man Can Be’. Similarly, Lynx had a well-known brand narrative focused on ‘laddish’ charm and ‘getting the girls’ (Feasey, 2009), yet in 2017 Lynx changed their brand narrative to addressing less stereotypical masculinities (Radley, 2017).

Recently, more and more brands have engaged in different societal debates, a phenomenon called ‘purpose branding’ (Holt 2016, Godin 2019). This phenomenon is a concept mainly propagated by marketing practitioners, for example Seth Godin (2019), but aligns somewhat with strands of consumer culture theory and approaches such as ‘cultural branding’ (Holt 2016, 46). Purpose branding based on societal issues have been employed with varying results: in some cases, the brands have been critiqued for not being sincere. In other cases, the purpose strategy has backfired because a campaign missed the point of the purpose. This happened with Dove’s campaign Real Beauty Sketches (2017), where the attempt to convince women that they are more beautiful than they think was met with critical perspectives: whether beauty is still the most important characteristic to women. Thus, when brands engage in societal causes and debates, it is fraught with good intentions but also complications. In this paper, we analyse how two brands (Lynx and Gillette) both participate in the current societal debate on toxic masculinity and how they construe a new brand narrative to eliminate it. We show the rhetorical strategies employed in the ads and the possibilities for audience agency (Just and Christiansen, 2012) these rhetorical strategies facilitate. Finally, we discuss their potential in motivating behavioural changes among men and facilitating changing definitions of masculinity. We contribute to the area of ideology and advertising and discuss the value and interventionist perspectives of two opposing communicative strategies: the polemical rhetorical approach that Gillette engaged with, and the open and exploratory rhetorical strategy of Lynx. The motivation of this paper is to understand the transformative potential of advertising’s call to action and how different rhetorical strategies inscribe different subject positions for the audience to enter into.

Theory

In this paper, we work with a social constructivist understanding of masculinity (Connell, 2005). That is, masculinity is a construction that emerges in the meeting of a variety of discourses and ideologies. As such, masculinity in itself does not exist, but is ‘constructed, reproduced, and contested at structural, interactional and individual levels’ (Scheibling and Lafrance, 2019). Building on Connell’s definition of hegemonic masculinity, Thomas (2013) explains how ideas of masculinity emerge in contradiction and juxtaposition to other ideas of gender, as well as other identity categories, such as colour and class. Thus, hegemonic masculinity is the construction of an ideal, the most powerful form of masculinity (Connell, 2005), and it only exists as a construct that defines and is defined by other constructions of masculinity and femininity. Thus, ideas of masculinity are socially, culturally and historically situated (Risman, 2004). Yet, changes to masculine ideals emerge slowly and with resistance.

Advertising as vehicles of cultural myths (Kenney and Scott, 2003) is one genre where ideals of masculinity are particularly visible. Advertising, especially for large brands, are shared cultural texts where pervasive cultural ideas are used to communicate dreams and wishes of better lives. Thus, advertising is a genre where ideals and stereotypes come together to portray culturally acceptable versions of desirable lives. As such, advertising campaigns ‘are a visual presentation of a version of gendered behaviour’ (Smith, 2005, online only). Advertising is, therefore, a specific place to observe ideas about masculinity because it is both ‘aesthetic and political’ (Schroeder and Zwick, 2004, 24). Asserting the social constructivist perspective on masculinity, advertising as a genre both constructs and reproduces ideals of masculinity, where the inherent promise is that through consumption, men can come to embody the hegemonic type of masculinity portrayed in advertising (Kimmel, 2003). Thus, advertising discourse feeds on the experience of inadequacy that real living men (and women) experience, and promises to help ameliorate this lack through consumption choices. In recent years, several advertising campaigns have developed a critical perspective on female stereotypes and ideals. A couple of very prolific examples are Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty (Lachover and Barak Brandes, 2009; Windels et al, 2020) or Always’ Like a Girl (Abitbol and Sternadori, 2016). These, and similar campaigns have entered a feminist discourse on women and representation, suggesting how advertising participates in the construction of ideals of femininity. Where these ads have been criticised for commercialising feminism in an effort to sell more products (Windels et al., 2020), they have also been celebrated for raising questions about negative stereotypes of women (Castillo, 2014). Thus, there has been a strong debate about the effects of advertising stereotypes on women (Rudloff, 2016) and advertising’s role in changing those stereotypes (Abitbol and Sternadori, 2016). The same, however, cannot be said for the masculine stereotypes portrayed in advertising (Kimmel, 2003), even if the ideals of masculinity have changed over time.

In advertising, masculine ideals are reproducing old stereotypes that are visible already in the 1930s. Men should be middle or upper class, educated and worldly (Kervin, 1990). For a long time, whiteness and heterosexuality were unquestionable parts of the ideal, so much so that the only way black masculinity was portrayed in advertising was as a ridiculous and childish juxtaposition to the white ideal (Thomas, 2013). Homosexuality was even more invisible until 1998, when Virgin Cola presented a gay male couple kissing (Tsai, 2010). Even if there have been changing tendencies such as ironic advertising, these campaigns still emphasised that the ironic shift was only motivated by addressing a younger segment, yet still maintaining the middle-class, white heterosexual male (Smith, 2005). Thus, ‘new lad’ advertising (Benwell, 2004; Cortese and Ling, 2011) may employ irony to address men in a different way, but still maintain a hegemonic version of masculinity that is contradictory to homosexuality and femininity (Benwell, 2004). Sexism is, therefore, still a pervasive quality of the stereotype portrayed in more recent developments of advertising masculinity (Cortese and Ling, 2011). Furthermore, ads portray the male body as slim yet muscular, and (hetero)sexually attractive (Östberg, 2010). A particular area is grooming advertising: these ads invert the male gaze onto men themselves (Patterson and Elliott, 2002) with their attention to the male body, thereby invoking the allure of male-male desire.

Since the 1970s, hegemonic masculinity has been defined by four characteristics: ‘No Sissy Stuff’, ‘Be a Big Wheel’, ‘Sturdy Oak’, and ‘Give ‘Em Hell’ (Brannon, 1976). These characteristics are not specific to the 1970s, but rather reflect the main ideals of masculinity throughout the 20th century that are both produced and reproduced by advertising. Traditional advertising portrays hegemonic masculinity in a rather limited number of ways. The mythological Marlboro man with his ‘virtues of individualism, autonomy, and self-sufficiency’ (White et al, 2012, 528) is one major stereotype in advertising. Yet, before the Marlboro man came heroic doctors (White et al, 2012), heroic soldiers (Grandstaff, 2004) and confident, successful, sturdy sportsmen (Kervin, 1990). The early stereotypes continue alongside the Marlboro man, and as such the Marlboro man is primarily an addition to existing stereotypes, demonstrating an emphasis on particular values of independence and freedom (White et al., 2012).

More recent advertising stereotypes reflect a stronger focus on male sexuality (Bordo, 1999), but also have a younger presentation than previous masculinity ideals (Cortese and Ling, 2011). Moreover, where these new images of men add layers of being carefree, boyish playfulness and male bonding to our ideals of masculinity, they do so in a way that distances men from women in humorous ways (Smith, 2005). However, even if these new images seem to share an ironic disposition, irony only works on surface level to allow for an even stronger stereotypical and sexist discourse (Benwell, 2004). Similarly, next to the ironic discourse on masculinity, traditional stereotypes such as the heroic sportsman are still prevalent (Wörsching, 2007) and more nostalgic images of men and traditional masculine behaviour are also widespread (Gee and Jackson, 2012). Further, where companies might be perceived to engage in ‘gender-bending’ of traditionally male products such as the Porsche, part of the consumer base actively address and counter the gender-bending in favour of more traditionally male categorising (Avery, 2012). Thus, the idea of hegemonic masculinity in advertising does not seem to change but rather strengthens its adoption of traditional male virtues of strength, sexual potency, competence, freedom and heroism. Recently, however, there have been changes in how masculinity is construed in advertising and how consumers participate in this construction. For example, in a recent paper, Zayer et al. demonstrate that consumers on a global scale resist and delegitimise masculine stereotypes in advertising (Zayer et al., 2019). We argue that this change in the consumer response to advertising is also visible in few but important examples of advertising campaigns.

Therefore, in this paper, we analyse two campaigns that both address masculinity in new ways. Both of our examples represent major international brands, and as such they are highly visible in large parts of the world. These ads actively engage in a discussion of what masculinity is and how it is performed by men. As such, both campaigns present a new direction in advertising presentation and the construction of ideal masculinity, yet their presentations employ very different strategies and the public response has been equally different. Below, we detail how we methodologically approached the analysis of the respective rhetorical strategies that Lynx and Gillette adopt, and what the results of their strategies are.

Discussion

The LYNX and Gillette campaigns seem different in many respects, but they both claim to address the issue of ‘toxic masculinity’. For example, Rik Strubel, the Lynx global vice president at Unilever, discusses the ‘Is it ok for guys’ campaign: ‘we want guys to see there’s no holds barred on what men can or cannot be. We need to help more men by tackling toxic masculinity, head on’ (Hinde 2017). Toxic masculinity as a theme has emerged out of current debates about feminism in society: how genders have different opportunities and can engage in distinct patterns of practice. These themes have long been part of the address of women, for example in Dove’s Campaigns for Real Beauty, but also in older campaigns that less directly discuss female empowerment yet show women in non-stereotypical ways (Bremer, 1994). The discussion of toxic masculinity has long been a part of the societal debate on feminism and gender equality but has not to the same degree been a part of the address in advertising. Brands have addressed issues of masculinity, for example in 2015 Dove ran the Father’s Day campaign #realstrength, however did so with reliance on very traditional gender norms where men are categorised as ‘sturdy oaks’(Connell, 2005; Brannon, 1976). Dove did not in particular change the masculine ideal, rather they underlined the positive aspects of the existing ideal. With Lynx and subsequently Gillette, the discussion of masculinity in advertising has changed significantly. With the differences in time and space between the two campaigns, Gillette became the poster for more than a cultural change in the way masculinity is portrayed, whilst also seeming to become a participant in the #metoo movement. Thus, the brand purpose seemed to take sides in an already dichotomous debate.

Gillette and Lynx both address the question of what it means to be a man in their changed brand narratives, however, as the analysis demonstrates, the ads’ rhetorical structure, formal properties and expressive capacities are notably different. Where both campaigns address young segments, Lynx is sympathetic to questions and insecurities about being a man and embodying masculinity. Gillette, however, is less supportive of the viewer and their issues of masculinity but confronts and accuses men of being representatives of toxic masculinity or passive bystanders. The Gillette video only offers participation in a highly controlled and self-referential mode: the video is referencing and commenting on previous Gillette advertising; the video’s call-to action is a URL to a product-oriented website; and all links refer back to the Gillette branded platforms on YouTube and Instagram. This seems a mode of discursive closure – a branded echo chamber of well-groomed Gillette masculinity.

Even before the ‘Is it ok for guys’ campaign, LYNX’s use of laddish, sexist humour could be seen as exploring male insecurities in the grotesque and exaggerated effects of ‘spraying more to get more’ (Feasey, 2009, 1). Compared to the ‘straightforward’ metonymical approach of depicting a specific male ideal by Gillette, the dream world of LYNX advertising is far more open, ironic and polysemic. Both brands seem to extend these modes of advertising rhetoric in their approach to toxic masculinity.

Building on the perspective, that choices of film style are also expressions of ideology, we argue that the choice of style in brand videos that pose as critique of toxic masculinity are clearly harnessing marketing techniques for the benefit of this cause. Nevertheless, these choices of visual rhetoric are themselves ideological choices that may function as a ‘symptomatic form of ideological maintenance in its own right’ (Blakesley 2007, 6). Both campaigns are offering agency to their audiences, though of vastly different kind: while the explicit justification of both videos are to challenge toxic masculinity, only LYNX seems to embrace a more diverse (re)construction of masculine ideals. The POV-style is a manifested expression of the identification(s) offered: the multitude of voices, insecurities, questions and invitations to explore these and the doubt of others. In contrast, Gillette is maintaining a classic ‘heroic’ ideology of masculinity as an ‘authoritative problem solver’, Gillette is stepping in to confront evil through physical intervention. Gillette is setting itself centre stage, and the ‘problem-solution’ structure of the video echoes the decades of advertising strategy where the ‘product-as-hero’ solves domestic problems, often backed by authoritative (male) voices (Percy and Rosenbaum-Elliott 2016). The Gillette video is a representation of ‘the right masculinity’ and an explicit call to join the brand in the action against ‘the wrong masculinity’. A mode of instructive visual rhetoric directing the audience to see themselves as part of a movement: as ‘one people’ under the leadership of Gillette. LYNX, on the other hand, is acknowledging the many different anxieties of the individual and the right to interpret masculine ideals. In all the different segments and follow up videos of the LYNX campaign, there is never anyone who is correcting the wrong masculinity of other men. Thus, in the LYNX video, the laddish voices of the audience are questioning masculine ideals. In contrast, in the Gillette video, the deep, fatherly voice of Gillette is performing the masculine ideal by correcting masculinity.

Where Lynx experienced growth following their campaign (Fleming, 2018), Gillette experienced a veritable backlash (Godin, 2019). According to Brian Weston from Grey, the backlash to Gillette’s campaign was unexpected (Bui et al., 2019). Both brands were aiming at younger demographics with their campaigns, yet it is hard to know whether they were successful in getting their messages against toxic masculinity across to these segments. Arguably, the two campaign strategies inscribe different subject positions and possibilities for identification. However, in terms of addressing toxic masculinity on a societal level, Gillette has most likely had a more visible impact on the current debate, whereas Lynx probably impacts on a more individual level. Thus, from a social constructivist perspective, both campaigns influence and create some change to the current image of hegemonic masculinity.

Conclusion

Before we conclude this paper, we must outline the limitations of this study. First and foremost, this is a rhetorical investigation into the communicative strategies employed in two purpose branding texts. This suggests that, where we can speculate as to the audience agency inscribed in the campaigns, we cannot detail actual audience responses. Future research into purpose branding could investigate the ways in which different segments respond to different kinds of purpose branding and how these campaigns translate into changed understandings of masculinity. Further, these campaigns were early adopters of a trend that had previously been targeting primarily women (Lachover and Barak Brandes, 2009; Abitbol and Sternadori, 2016; Windels et al, 2020), adopting a feminist perspective to address and change the stereotype of toxic masculinity. Thus, longitudinal studies of the changes that masculinity ideals undergo will shed more light on the level of success that these campaigns achieve, and how they influence future campaigns addressing hegemonic masculinity.

The value of a rhetorical analysis is to demonstrate how audience agency is inscribed in texts, thus allowing us to anticipate part of the response to texts like the above. The contribution of this study is to demonstrate the combination of rhetorical analysis and a text-agency perspective (Just and Christiansen, 2012) in explaining both the inherent ideology of the campaigns and the potential value to society. Our point is that the societal value is not simply seen as a functional and measurable communication-effect on society or specific groups, but is inscribed in the text-agency of the rhetorical strategies in the texts themselves. We have shown how purpose branding can work at different levels depending on their communicative strategies. That is, Gillette may not change our core concept of the hegemonic masculine ideal of reliable father figures that take responsibility for society’s weaker member (Brannon, 1976). However, Gillette did manage to bring the discussion of toxic masculinity and #metoo to new societal levels and attention. Further, Gillette also firmly put responsibility to address and change toxic masculinity in the hands of men, which has been a feminist agenda for years – now men’s own brand adopted that agenda. Compared to this, the purpose branding strategy of Lynx was less outspoken, however changing the image of masculinity into masculinities on an individual level. Further, the strategy Lynx employed enabled empathy and openness between different generations and different enactments of masculinity. Both of these campaigns attempt to address and change masculine stereotypes and they each accomplish raising awareness and creating debate at different societal levels. Thus, the arena for masculine performances has widened, bringing new (less toxic) ways to identify and do masculinity to the table.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.