Twenty years ago researchers found that quite apart from the manifest content of television commercials aimed at children, certain formal features showed a marked tendency to vary according to the sex of the target consumers– in particular certain post-production features (transitions and voice-overs). The current study involved a content analysis of formal features in 117 toy advertisements broadcast on British television. Statistically significant differences were found for the same features and also for camerawork.
Television viewers are not normally conscious of the formal features of television commercials such as camerawork, editing, and sound-tracks (see, for instance, Messaris, 1994, p. 158). Commercials, like the television programs which exist to support them, still tend to follow the classic Hollywood tradition of ‘invisible editing’– it is the represented action which is meant to be foregrounded rather than the formal conventions involved in the process of representation. Our own current concern is with gender differentiation in the use of formal features in children’s commercials. Existing academic research into the production features of television advertisements for children has concentrated on their role in attracting and maintaining attention or on their interpretative importance for children (see, for instance, Bryant & Anderson, 1983; Chandler, 1997; Meyer, 1983; Salomon, 1981). Whilst the content of television ads has been widely studied in relation to gender issues, there is relatively little published research on differences in the ‘formal features’ of children’s commercials in relation to the gender of the primary audience targeted. Yet at least to some extent ‘the medium is the message’: even more than in other televisual genres, the form or style of an advertisement is richly meaningful, and ad-makers routinely link this to gender connotations (Messaris, 1997, xv).
The only study we are aware of which has focused on formal features of the medium as gender-differentiated markers in children’s commercials was conducted in the late 1970s by a group of researchers affiliated with the Center for Research on the Influences of Television on Children (CRITC) at the University of Kansas. Welch et al. (1979) undertook content analysis of 20 toy commercials in each of three categories: male, female, and ‘neutral’. Amongst other things, they found that markedly different production techniques were employed for the boys’ and girls’ advertisements studied. The boys’ ads, along with those directed at a mixed audience, had higher cutting rates than ads directed at girls. The ads directed at girls used more dissolves. In addition, voices in mixed audience and boys’ ads were largely male; female voices were largely limited to female commercials. Verna (1975) had previously reported a similar male dominance in this respect, finding that 100% of both male-oriented and ‘neutral’ ads had a male audio track and that even in female-oriented ads 55% had male audio. British studies have also reported male dominance of voice-overs in commercials in general (Livingstone & Green, 1986; Manstead & McCulloch, 1981). Whilst the percentage of female voice-overs increased in the 1970s and 1980s, as much as 80% of voice-overs in commercials are male (Fowles, 1996, pp. 208-9, 211; see also Bretl & Cantor, 1988).
We have not been able to find any published replications of the study by Welch et al. (1979), although some of the same research team have explored related developmental issues (Huston et al., 1984; Wright & Huston, 1983). Although the original study was only small-scale, it has subsequently been widely cited. If particular formal features of commercials are ‘gendered’ in the ways which the authors suggest then such findings are important. Related studies by the CRITC research group have shown that at the same time as children are learning to ‘read’ the semiotic codes of television they are learning that such codes are gender-differentiated. Young viewers use the formal features of the medium (as well as content cues) to determine whether they are designed for them or not (Wright & Huston, 1983). Children as young as 6-years-old can distinguish ads targeted at males from those aimed at females by their distinctive formats and visual styles (Huston et al., 1984). The gender-differentiated use of formal features is often associated with stereotypically gendered content in commercials– and this is likely to be how children initially learn the gender connotations of such features. However, there is empirical evidence that even when content is ‘neutral’ such production features can generate these gender connotations relatively autonomously (ibid.).
Alongside many other socialization factors, regular exposure in childhood to commercials which are sex-typed in style as well as in content may help to establish gendered preferences for particular stylistic traits such as a stereotypical ‘masculine’ taste for a rapid cutting style. Along with content cues, rapid cutting and the shorter duration of shots may also support a masculine self-image which is more action-oriented, whilst the salience of dissolves and longer shot lengths may tend to encourage an acceptance of the stereotypical association of women with passivity. The stylistic modes of address employed in advertisements may thus be a contributory factor in the gendering of tastes in televisual material, the cultural framing of ‘activity’ versus ‘passivity’ and perhaps also particular styles of viewing (Fiske, 1987; Morley, 1986). Findings to date cannot, of course, be taken as evidence for such speculations, but rather generate such questions for further research.
In designing our own study as a follow-up and extension to that of Welch et al. (1979), we predicted that the situation would be different in the UK twenty years on from the American study. There has been an increase in public and professional awareness and critical consciousness of gender stereotyping in the mass media since the growth of the women’s rights movement and subsequent critical media literacy initiatives (Baehr & Dyer, 1987), and even the conservative world of advertisements has witnessed changes in gender representation (Fowles, 1996, p. 211). As for production features, data from the analysis of narrative film has shown that cutting rates have steadily increased over the decades (Salt, 1983; Crisp, 1987) and that non-linear, electronic editing seems to have led to even more rapid cutting (Brandt, 1994). In 1993 one US source cited an average shot-length of 1.6 seconds on MTV videos and 2.3 seconds in 30-second commercials, again reflecting a general increase in cutting rate (MacLachlan & Logan, 1993). A general tendency towards faster cutting has also been subjectively noted by television producers. Often, rapid cutting in television programs is blamed on the influence of commercials (Postman, 1986).
In addition to these situational differences from the original US study, regulatory differences between the US and UK might lead us to anticipate the possibility of differing findings from studies of commercials, although UK regulation does not extend to the formal features in which we are interested (ITC, 1998). In Britain, the content, timing, and total amount of television commercials is strictly regulated (Hart, 1990; ITC, 1998; Jefkins, 1992): for instance, there is a clear break between programs and ads and sales messages cannot be included within programs. In the UK, programs on ‘commercial’ channels are provided by regional contractors, not by advertisers– although since 1991 there has been regulated sponsorship of some programs (Jefkins, 1992, p. 169). In both countries the standard duration of a commercial is 30-seconds, although ads are occasionally longer (up to 60 seconds), and it is notable that shorter ads are being increasingly used (Condry, 1989, pp. 180ff; Myers, 1999, p. 124). The most obvious difference is that in Britain commercials appear less frequently than in the US– ads can be shown only in three specified time-slots per hour, the duration of each of these slots being three or four minutes. An American-born researcher living in Britain notes that ‘the ads in the US Superbowl alone would use up the allowance for 24 hours’ (Myers, 1999, p. 117).
Methods
The purpose of the current study was to investigate toy commercials broadcast recently on UK television to check for gender-differentiation in the use of specific formal features. We drew up a series of investigable predictions based on a review of the literature. Those explored in this paper are as follows:
|
Most of the existing findings regarding gender-differentiated formal features in commercials referred to post-production features (editing and voice-overs), so we also decided to look for any differences regarding camerawork, specifically shot sizes (long shots, mid-shots, and close-ups), camera angles (high, low, level, overhead), camera movement (panning left and right, pedestalling up and down, tilting up and down) and lens movement (zooming in and out)– features which have been referred to in research into children’s comprehension of televisual techniques (e.g. Bryant & Anderson, 1983; Meyer, 1983; Salomon, 1981).
The next stage was to select a number of advertisements that could be classed as being intended specifically for children. Toy commercials were selected because relatively little attention has been paid to them in the past, despite the fact that play is an integral part of childhood and the development of the self. Recordings were made of the advertisements broadcast on the HTV Wales channel (a regional version of ITV) between 7.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on a number of Saturdays from the beginning of November to the middle of December 1996. Saturday mornings were targeted both for reasons of convenience and because there tends to be a greater number of advertisements aimed at children at this time (Condry, 1989, p. 203). Toys are well-known to be advertised most heavily in the months leading up to Christmas (Barcus, 1977, p. 120; Condry, 1989, pp. 188-9), and other researchers have chosen to study toy commercials during this season (e.g. Feldstein & Feldstein, 1982). We make no claim for the typicality of this seasonal choice, but variation seems likely to be more a matter of density than presentational style– and it was style which was our primary concern. The applicability of our findings to other seasons, days of the week and times of day, would, of course, need to be empirically investigated for the current findings to be generalized.
To codify and quantify relevant data we used content analysis (which may be applied to the form as well as the manifest content of texts). There were two key coding tasks. One concerned the identification of the target audiences for each of the advertisements; the other concerned the classification of various formal features of the advertisement. There are various ways in which one could classify the target audience for ads. We quickly found that both toy manufacturers and advertising agencies tend to be reluctant to disclose to outsiders details of the target markets for products or for the commercials promoting them. In any case, what the promoters may see as their target audience seems less critical to our own concerns than viewers’ perceptions: a separate study by one of the authors [MG] investigates children’s own perceptions; in this study we chose to rely on how parents classified the target audiences of specific ads. In practice, our parental classification of the ads did not differ very much from classification by the presence or absence of boys or girls on screen– the indicator used by Welch et al. which is also known to be used by children as a content marker of target gender (Wright & Huston, 1981, p. 85). Of the ads in our sample which featured people, all but two of those judged to be for boys had only males on screen; all but two of those judged to be for girls had only females on screen; all of those judged as mixed had both males and females on screen (see Figures 1, 2 and 3).
Batman[0], Battle Dome1, Domino Express4[mf], Dragon Flyz Riptor, Dr Dreadful3[mf], Formula Tyco Racing1[0], Hot Wheels Criss Cross Crash, Hot Wheels Electronic Garage, Jonny Quest, Kickmaster, K'Nex, Lock-on 2X24, LSV Action Man, Masked Rider, Matchbox Carwash, Matchbox Rescue Centre, Matchbox Super Service Centre, Meccano Junior, Micromachines Double Take, Micromachines Night Attack, Ninja Action Man, Power Rangers[0], Powerzone4, Pro-Action Football, Rapid Shot, Real Power Workshop, Rebound 4X4[0], Scalextric[0], Scuba Ski Action Man, Space Monkeys[0], Star Wars Boardgame, Star Wars Death Star, Street Sharks[0], Subbuteo, Swimmer Action Man, Syde Wynder4, Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends3[0], Tomy R/C Turbo Sports Car, Tomy Trains2, Tyco Mutator[0], Tyco R/C Dagger[0], V.R. Vision Action Man, Zero G. n Number of coders classifying ad as mixed; [0]no people on screen; [mf]both male and females on screen |
Figure 1. Ads Judged by Parents to be for Boys
Amy’s Pony Tales[0], Baby All Gone[mf], Baby Born, Baby Born Accessories, Baby Expressions, Baby Lou, Baby Sip 'n Slurp, Baby Wiggles and Giggles, Barbie Powerwheels Jeep, Barbie's CD Fashion Designer, Barbie's Dream House, Barbie's Feeding Fun Stables, Barbie's Picnic Van, Barbie's Songbird Horse and Carriage, Barbie's Travelin' House, Blush Art, Cabbage Patch Bath Babies, Cinderella's Castle, Doodle Bear1, Fairy Magic1[mf], Fluffy, Gymnast Stacie, Kittie Baby Kittens and Farm Babies2, Lucy Locket's Dream House[0], Magic Eyes Sindy, New Born Becky, Pattie, Playtime Kitties2, Pocketville Dream House, Polly Pocket's Light Fashionshow, Polly Pocket's Party Playhouse[0], Pop Star Sindy, Popsy, Sindy's 4X4 Jeep, Sindy's Party House, Sindy's Snow Adventure, Sky Dancers, Splish Splash Bubble Bath, Sticker Factory4, Strollin' Fun Barbie and Shelly, Sylvanian Families[0], Teeny Weeny Familes, Tiny Tears and Timmy. n Number of coders classifying ad as mixed; [0]no people on screen; [mf]both male and female characters on screen |
Figure 2. Ads Judged by Parents to be for Girls
13 Dead End Drive, Alligator Golf, Babbag4, Big Fun Kitty and Dogg1, Buckaroo, Chicken Limbo, Collapso-Catapillarsg1, Connect 4b2[0], Crazy Crab, Crazy Golf Machine, Etch-a-Sketch, Gooey Louieb2, Guess Who, Hunchback of Notre Dameg2, Hungry Harryb3g1[0], Incy Wincy Spider, Jibba Jabba, Jumpin' Shipb2, Junior Othello, Magic Colour Copierg4, Magna Doodleg2, Pay Day, Play-Doh Colour Magicb2, Pop-up Pirate, Screwball Scrambleb3, Spirographg2, Tyco Video Camb4, Uno Madnessg1, Uno Stacko, Whack Attack, Wiggly Worms. b Number of coders classifying ad as for boys; gnumber of coders classifying ad as for girls; [0]no people on screen |
After the advertisements for toys had been selected from the recordings, ten individuals (five male and five female) were recruited to code each advertisement according to their perception of its primary target audience. The coders were selected through non-probabilistic sampling of parents known to one of the authors (MG), and they ranged in age from 21 to 55 years. Each was interviewed alone in their home and shown a 35-minute edited video containing each of the 117 different advertisements in the sample. The coders were asked to decide whether each advertisement was aimed primarily at boys, primarily at girls, or at a mixed audience and to offer reasons for their judgements. We elected to read the data in terms of the majority response to an advertisement, where six or more coders agreed on the intended target audience. In this instance, the audiences for 115 of the 117 advertisements in the sample were agreed, resulting in an inter-coder reliability level of 98.3%; a strong level of consensus. Different coders were thus in broad agreement about the audience categories to which particular ads were assigned (see Figures 1, 2 and 3). Furthermore, not one of the advertisements judged by the majority as being aimed primarily at boys was judged by any coder as being aimed primarily at girls, and not one of those judged by the majority as being aimed primarily at girls was judged by any coder as being aimed primarily at boys. Where there was any disagreement, the dissenters classified such ads as ‘mixed’. The consistency of judgement on target gender for these ads was thus startling.
We noted the various reasons given by the coders for their choice of target audience. The majority of the advertisements judged to be for girls showed toys that were pink, soft, and cuddly, designed to be played with indoors, and marketed to encourage mother-baby role-play, household activities and the pursuit of female beauty. In stark contrast, advertisements judged to be for boys showed acts of aggression, dark colors, and an emphasis on competitive behavior accompanied by noise and rapid activity. Our coders’ explicit judgements focused on content rather than the formal features in which we were interested so circularity was not a problem. In any case, there is clearly little dispute that advertisements for boys differ from those for girls– we sought to check some of the less immediately obvious ways in which they differ.
After establishing the apparent target sex for each product, the various ‘technical’ features of each advertisement were considered, focusing in particular on those which had already been identified by Welch et al. (1979), but also including key camerawork features. After we decided which features would be recorded, these were identified by working shot-by-shot through each advertisement in the sample– a shot being defined as being a filmed sequence uninterrupted by a transition (a cut or dissolve). Our use of the relevant technical terms throughout this paper follows professional usage on both sides of the Atlantic (Jones, 1974; Millerson, 1985; Watts, 1984; Zettl, 1992). The formal features considered in this paper are:
|
The codings of the various features were re-checked on a subsequent occasion and some minor differences in counts were rectified. Critical counts were re-checked for a third time. However, we had no funds for multiple coding.
To analyze the statistical significance of noticeable differences observed in the raw counts of features, we used the Chi-Square test of independence. The use of this non-parametric test was appropriate because it was designed for comparisons of two or more independent samples (in our case, boys’ ads, girls’ ads, and mixed ads) where the data counts are also in discrete categories (e.g. long shots, mid-shots, and close-ups) (Wimmer & Dominick, 1991, pp. 234ff). We did not employ multi-variate statistics since this was a small-scale project, the purpose of which was to investigate specific features which had already been identified in existing studies rather than an exhaustive check for features correlating positively with the gender differentiation of target audiences.
Results
In summarizing the classifications of the sample in terms of the target gender, it is useful to adopt the distinctions made by linguists and semioticians between ‘tokens’ and ‘types’ (Carroll et al., 1971; Chandler, 1994). In the case of this sample, the count of tokens is a count of the total number of advertisements, regardless of whether any samples are repeated; a count of types, in this case, is a count of the number of different advertisements shown. For the purpose of the content analysis, we are only concerned with the types in this sample. Overall, the sample included a total of 117 different advertisements. After incorporating the results of the inter-coder reliability study, 43 advertisements were classed as being aimed at boys, 43 as being aimed at girls, and 31 designed for a mixed audience. A summary of the counts of tokens and types is provided in Table 1.
Lois Smith’s findings supported previous research in that she found more single-sex advertisements positioned towards boys than girls (55 for boys compared to 27 for girls) (Smith, 1994). In our own sample there were forty-three types for boys and the same number for girls. However, the frequency with which these were shown is where the real contrast lies, since the boys’ advertisements appeared 132 times, while the girls’ ads appeared only 94 times.
Some brief descriptions of prototypical examples of each type of ad may be helpful here. Accordingly we have chosen ‘Subbuteo’, unanimously judged to be for boys, ‘Barbie’s Dream House’ unanimously judged to be for girls, and ‘Pay Day’, unanimously judged to be for both boys and girls. ‘Subbuteo’ is a table-top British football (‘soccer’) game with model footballers which the players control with their fingertips. A lively graphic labeled ‘The Subbuteo World Football League’ shrinks to a sign behind a man sitting at a desk like a sports news anchor-person. We then hear another male voice in the style of an excited commentator as we watch the fingers of two (boy) players flicking the ball around the pitch from a range of rapidly-changing camera angles. ‘Barbie’s Dream House’ is a large pink plastic model of a doll’s house which opens up to be used with Barbie dolls. An establishing shot shows the house in soft focus and then as the camera pans we see two small girls playing with dolls in the house. The soundtrack consists of women’s voices singing a jingle together with excited girls’ voices. ‘Pay Day’ is a family board-game which was judged to be for both boys and girls. The ad uses a mixture of live action shots showing a mother, father, son, and daughter playing the game, interspersed with cartoon animation. The live action features the emotional reactions of each member of the family to playing the game. The soundtrack consists of cartoon-style sound effects with an excited adult male voice-over.
Editing
Since the findings of Welch et al. (1979) related to post-production features we will begin with these. As with that study, the editing features which we considered were transitions and shot durations.
Cuts, wipes, fades, and dissolves are collectively referred to as ‘transitions’. The term ‘cut’ refers to the clean break dividing one shot from another one with a different viewpoint or location, whilst ‘dissolve’ refers to the way in which one frame fades out whilst the other is dissolved in, with no clear cut between shots. We found no statistical differences in the (rare) use of wipes: a fairly obtrusive special effect which ‘wipes’ off a frame and replaces it with another in a discernible pattern (such as downwards or from left to right). Fade-outs to black also occurred at the end of each advertisement. The counts for cuts and dissolves are summarized in Table 2.
It is dramatically apparent from Table 2 that the boys’ advertisements in the sample used far more cuts, while the girls’ ads, in contrast, employed many more dissolves than did the ads for boys. The comparison of cuts with dissolves in boys’ and girls’ advertisements shows up as an extremely significant statistical difference. Comparing the girls’ advertisements with the mixed ads with regard to this feature also produces an extremely significant difference.
We turn now to the main editing feature which controls the pacing of the ads: shot duration (and consequently the total number of shots per ad). In the current study the duration of each advertisement was timed in seconds and a count was made of the number of different shots in each. The average length of shot was established by dividing the total duration by the number of shots. The overall average length of shot was 1.38 seconds. From this could be calculated the number of advertisements which were either above or below the overall average. This is summarized in Table 3.
An extremely significant difference emerged when comparing the boys’ ads with the girls’ ads and also when comparing the girls’ ads and the mixed ads in relation to shot duration. The average duration of each shot in boys’ ads was shorter; there were consequently more shots per ad in these ads and they were thus faster-paced than the girls’ ads (in line with previous studies). A calculation was also made of an overall average length of shot in advertisements directed at each of the target audience groups:
|
Voice-overs
Alongside editing, another post-production feature is the dubbing of voice-overs. The figures in Table 4 refer to spoken (off-screen) voice-overs. The overwhelming use of male voices is dramatically obvious. Absolutely no female voice-overs were used in the boys’ advertisements. The differences between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads in their use of male voice-overs, female voice-overs, and no voice-overs show up statistically as extremely significant, with by far the most dramatic Chi-Square value of all of the items. What is distinctive about the girls’ ads is that 30% of them had no voice-over at all and three of them had other-sex voice-overs. If we re-interpret the tables in terms of same-sex versus other-sex voices (the same sex as those of the intended viewers), then the statistical differences between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads disappear. However, the pattern in the mixed ads over-rules a reading of the data in terms of same-sex voices, since rather than featuring male and female voices fairly equally, they resemble the pattern for the boys’ advertisements.
Camerawork
So far we have considered post-production features; now we turn to camerawork, under the heading of which we have included shot sizes, camera angles, and lens and camera movement. Long-shot is used to refer to ‘full body’ shots in which the whole body of an individual, or the head, torso, and legs-to-the-knee are shown. Mid-shot is used to refer to a shot of an individual from the waist up. Close-up refers to an above-shoulders view of an individual; this term also includes ‘extreme close-ups’. Counts for shot sizes featuring people are summarized in Table 5.
Clearly, and as we might expect, the dominant shot size was the mid-shot. If we consider the three shot sizes taken together, we found a highly significant difference between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads and a significant difference between the boys’ ads and the mixed ads. Most obviously, the boys’ ads had a greater percentage of long-shots and a smaller percentage of close-ups than the others. Separate checks of the use of one shot size compared with the other shot sizes taken together showed a highly significant statistical difference between the boys' ads and the girls’ ads attributable to differences in the use of long-shots (p<0.01) and a significant statistical difference between the boys' ads and the mixed ads attributable to differences in the use of close-ups (a minimal difference, p<0.05). There was no statistical difference between any of the ads in their use of mid-shots.
We turn next to the angle of shots. High, level, and low-angle shots are terms used to note the angle from which the camera views a particular scene, product or person. A level shot is at eye-level. A low-angle shot shows the scene from a viewpoint markedly lower than eye-level. A high-angle shot is a view from markedly higher than eye-level (the more extreme overhead shots are considered separately).
As one might expect, the dominant angle by far was the level shot, the least common being the low shot (see Table 6). The differences in the use of high, low, and level shots (taken together) in the advertisements aimed at boys and those aimed at girls emerged as extremely significant, whilst the comparison of girls’ ads with the mixed ads showed a very highly significant difference. With regard to these shot angles, boys’ ads also showed up as significantly different from the mixed ads. Separate checks of the use of each one of these shot angles compared with the two alternatives taken together highlighted the differences. Boys’ ads were significantly different in relation to girls’ ads in relation to the use of low angles (p<0.0001) and level angles (p<0.001) but not in relation to high angles; boys’ ads used low angle shots more than girls’ ads and they used level shots slightly less. There was no significant difference between boys’ ads and mixed ads in relation to low or level shots but only in relation to high angle shots (p<0.05); boys’ ads used high angle shots slightly less than mixed ads did. Girls’ ads were significantly different from mixed ads in relation to each of the three types: level shots (p<0.0001), which they used more often; high angle shots (p<0.01), which they used less often; and low shots (p<0.05), which they also used less often.
In addition to the basic repertoire of high, low, and level shot angles, there were also some rather more unusual shot angles. An overhead shot is a shot which is beyond being classed as a high-angle shot because it is directly over a scene. There was a highly significant difference between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads in relation to the presence of overhead shots (see Table 7). They were more often found in the ads aimed primarily at boys than in those for girls. A canted (‘tilted’) shot depicts a scene as if the viewer is leaning to one side; this type of shot may require the viewer to tilt his or her head to see the scene properly (Jones, 1974, pp. 201-202). In the use of canted shots, a highly significant difference emerged between the girls’ ads and the mixed ads. Whilst it was in mixed ads that canted shots were encountered most often, they were more common in the boys’ ads than in the girls’ ads.
Of all the varieties of lens and camera movement (zooming in and out, pedestalling up and down, panning left and right, tilting up and down), there was only one statistically significant difference. Pedestal (‘ped’ in UK usage) up and down are terms used to describe the way in which the camera moves vertically up and down in the same base-position, showing the same scene from different levels. ‘The pedestal control on a camera changes its point of view just as though you viewed a scene sitting down and then stood up to look around’ (Wurtzel & Rosenbaum, 1995, p. 383-384). In the current study there was a significant difference between girls’ ads and mixed ads in the use of ‘peds’ (see Table 8). Girls’ ads made more use of this feature than the other ads.
Discussion
Beginning with editing features, one of our initial predictions (following existing research) was that more shots would be used in advertisements aimed at boys and consequently the average duration of each shot would be shorter. Clearly, the current findings strongly support this. Since the differences are in fractions of a second the difference is not likely to be immediately obvious to the casual observer. In the context of increasingly rapid cutting in film and television, the rapidity of boys’ ads compared to girls’ ads in our sample suggests that fast cutting rates are typed as stereotypically ‘masculine’ and cutting rates in general can thus be seen as being ‘masculinized’. Whilst generally rapid pacing is often noted to be one of the perceptually salient features of commercials which serves to attract and maintain children’s attention (e.g. Meyer, 1983; Welch et al., 1984; Wright et al., 1984), film-editing theorists refer to the ‘expressive’ function of rapid cutting in terms of building dynamic moods such as ‘excitement’, ‘intensity’, and ‘tension’ in contrast to slower cutting which tends to develop more reflective moods such as ‘tranquillity’, ‘calm’, and ‘relaxation’ (Brandt, 1994; Crisp, 1987; Zettl, 1992, p. 349; Zettl, 1999, pp. 250 & 256). Experimental research by Penn (1971) has shown that rapid cutting led viewers to rate films highly in terms of ‘potency’ and ‘activity’ (see also Heft & Blondal, 1987 and Hochberg & Brooks, 1978, pp. 291-295). The rapid pacing of ads for boys in our sample can be seen as echoing the stereotype of masculinity as action-oriented.
In relation to the forms of transition used, the findings of the current study support existing research: whilst cuts were by far the most common transition used, the girls’ ads used dissolves markedly more than the boys’ ads did. The author of one standard production textbook suggests that ‘sudden change has a more powerful audience impact than a gradual one, and here lies the cut’s strength’ (Millerson, 1985, p. 111)– although the conventions of ‘invisible (continuity) editing’ seek to make cuts unobtrusive. It has been suggested that, in contrast to the abrupt and direct instantaneousness of cuts (Huston et al., 1984, p. 708; Millerson, 1985, p. 115; Welch et al., 1979, p. 206; Wurtzel & Rosenbaum, 1995, p. 445), the ‘softness, gentleness, predictability, and slow gradual change’ of dissolves connotes passivity (Welch et al., 1979, p. 207)– though we know of no phenomenological studies of viewers’ perceptions of this aspect of televisual transitions. Even young viewers recognize the gender connotations of such coding (Huston et al., 1984).
Turning from editing to another post-production feature– voice-overs– another of our predictions was that more male than female voice-overs would be used overall, even in advertisements for girls. There were no female voice-overs whatsoever in the ads aimed at boys in this sample; there were also more male voice-overs in the advertisements for mixed audiences. The dominance of commercials in general by male voice-overs has been seen as investing male voices with ‘an aura of authority and omniscience’ (Fowles, 1996, pp. 208-9, 211). In relation to their own findings, Welch et al. suggested that their own findings, in which voices in boys’ ads and mixed audience ads were largely male and female voices were largely limited to female commercials, suggested ‘that males are portrayed as the authorities in most content areas except that small domain reserved solely for females’ (Welch et al., 1979, p. 207). In stark juxtaposition to the dominant use of male voice-overs in adult advertisements directed at women, in our sample of children’s commercials there were many more female than male voice-overs in the ads directed at girls. A departmental colleague made a most interesting point when he asked: ‘When exactly do girls become women in the world of advertising?’
We turn now to camerawork (not considered by Welch et al.). In the use of shot sizes featuring people the boys’ ads showed statistically highly significant differences from the girls’ ads (showing much more use of long shots). Long shots often function as establishing shots, and we might speculate that a higher percentage of such shots might help to encourage field independence (crudely, ease at separating parts, or details, from a whole), which has been reported as showing some statistical tendency to be greater in males than females (Witkin, 1970). In any event, a greater use of long shots may suggest greater ‘distance’. The boys’ ads were also significantly different from the mixed ads in making much less use of close-ups. In relation to the use of close-ups of people, although the difference between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads did not reach the 5% level of significance, the percentage in girls’ ads was much closer to that in the mixed ads than in the boys’ ads. Close-ups mimic an ‘intimate’ face-to-face distance between oneself and the person depicted (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, pp. 130-135; Zettl, 1999, p. 190), and tend to focus attention on a person's feelings or reactions (Millerson, 1985, p. 61). According to Zettl they ‘intensify the event’ depicted (Zettl, 1999, p. 187). Empirical studies have shown that close-ups lead to increases in both attention and involvement (Lombard, 1995; Reeves et al., 1992, both cited in Messaris, 1997, p. 29). It is sometimes reported that programs targeted primarily at women tend to have more close-ups than other programs, though we know of no relevant empirical evidence; Tania Modleski has argued that ‘close-ups provide the spectator with training in "reading" other people’, a stereotypically ‘feminine’ skill (Modleski, 1996, p. 106).
Boys’ ads and girls’ ads were fairly distinctive in their use of the basic shot angles (high, low, and level). The boys’ ads used low angle shots more than the girls’ ads and they used level shots less. Low shots are conventionally interpreted as suggesting greater ‘potency’ in what is depicted: we literally ‘look up’ to people who are portrayed in this way (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 146; Messaris, 1994, p. 158; Messaris, 1997, pp. 34-35; Millerson, 1985, pp. 68-69; Wurtzel & Rosenbaum, 1995, p. 44; Zettl, 1999, p. 190). The boys’ ads in our sample differed from the mixed ads only in relation to the use of high angle shots, whereas the girls’ ads differed from the mixed ads in relation to the use of each of the three angles of shot. As for special shot angles, the boys’ and the girls’ ads differed in the use of overhead shots: the boys’ ads used these more often. Extreme high level angles are often referred to as suggesting detachment (Millerson, 1985, pp. 68, 70).
The girls’ ads differed from the mixed ads in their lesser use of the canted shot– the tilted shot which has been associated with dynamism, energy, and activity (Zettl, 1995, p. 74; Zettl, 1999, p. 91). The girls’ ads also differed from the mixed ads in their more frequent use of peds up and down. Of the camerawork features in which there were statistically significant differences between boys’ ads and girls’ ads, peds were the only camerawork feature which girls’ ads used more than boys’ ads did. Peds are a distinctive camera movement and the only form of movement for which we found any statistical differences, so for them to be associated more with girls than boys is notable. The perceptual psychologist James Gibson suggested that ‘the moving camera… is the reason for the empathy that grips us in the cinema’ (Gibson, 1979, p.298): this feature may enhance the viewer’s sense of involvement. For camera movement to be associated more with girls than boys might tend to associate girls more with this sense of involvement. The greater use of long shots, the lesser use of close-ups and the greater use of overhead shots in boys’ ads may tend to support a sense of the stereotypical ‘masculinity’ of detachment in contrast to the ‘femininity’ of closer involvement.
It is worth noting at this point that we are of course discussing not only the ads directed primarily at boys and those directed primarily at girls but also those seen as aimed at both boys and girls. We might reasonably expect that the use of formal features in this ‘mixed’ category might tend to reflect an intermediate position between the counts of each feature in boys’ ads and in girls’ ads. But our data did not reflect this simple pattern at all: it was true of close-ups but not long shots or mid-shots, low shots but not level shots or high shots, overhead shots but not canted shots or peds, cuts but not dissolves, male voice-overs but not shot duration. The feature counts for the ‘mixed’ ads were more often closer to those for the boys’ ads than to those for the girls’ ads.
We have found it analytically useful here to draw on some concepts derived from semiotics. Constructing an advertisement involves a multitude of stylistic choices between alternative ‘paradigms’ within the various technical ‘codes’ of the medium and the genre. For instance, within the televisual editing code such paradigms include using a cut or a dissolve, whilst within the code of camerawork they include using a long shot or a close-up. Where there are clear-cut alternative paradigms then the form most commonly used in similar contexts is ‘unmarked’ whilst alternative forms are ‘marked’ (Chandler, 1994). The technical options are accorded different values; the unmarked option seems to be neutral, normal and ‘natural’ whilst the marked form is presented as unusual and ‘different’. A gendered category of ads (boys’ ads or girls’ ads) can be seen as unmarked when it is similar to the mixed ads. It is marked when its use of a particular formal feature differs from the mixed ads, especially if it also differs from the ads directed primarily at the other sex (unless there are distinctive differences between all three categories, which applied only to the use of high, low, and level shots, taken together). More often than not, formal features in the mixed ads in our sample were similar to those in the ads directed at boys and different from those in the ads aimed at girls. This applied to low angle shots, level shots, canted shots, peds up and down, cuts and dissolves, shot duration, and the use of male voice-overs. The similarity of mixed ads to boys’ ads found in our study serves to normalize the male option and to present the female as ‘other’. For instance, fast-paced ads are ‘normal’, slower ads are ‘feminine’. In our sample, only in the case of shot sizes and one of the shot angles did the boys’ ads exhibit formal features which distinguished them from the mixed ads (boys’ ads made less use of close-ups of people, plus less use of high angle shots; such uses of shots are thus marked as distinctively ‘male’). The girls’ ads showed far more differences in their use of formal features. The girls’ ads were the marked category in relation to several features which they used more than other ads did– level shots, peds up and down, dissolves, and female voice-overs– and several which they used less– low angle shots, canted shots, cuts, and voice-overs in general. The girls’ ads were also the marked category in relation to shot duration (since shots tended to be longer than in other ads). All of these features are thus marked as distinctively ‘female’. We found it disturbing that the formal features of commercials which are aimed at both boys and girls seem to be so frequently more similar to those in ads aimed primarily at boys than to those aimed primarily at girls, highlighting girls as ‘other’. The advertisers no doubt operate on the pragmatic assumption that girls will readily accept a ‘masculine’ mode of address whilst boys will systematically reject anything regarded as ‘feminine’ on the same principle of conventional wisdom as that which suggests that ‘boys will not watch girls on television, but… girls will watch programs for boys’ (Seiter, 1995, p. 166).
Advertising is well-known as a haven of gender stereotyping, but whilst the manifest content of commercials has been widely debated in relation to the representation of gender roles, the gendering of the stylistic features of commercials tends to be almost ignored. Our close focus on form in this paper is not meant to suggest that the manifest content is inconsequential, but whereas some video producers make the deterministic point that 'form follows content' (i.e. that the techniques used in a particular ad are determined by inherent functions of the product featured), we are seeking to highlight the 'relative autonomy' of formal features in commercials, which may function as a constant symbolic reaffirmation of the broader cultural stereotypes which associate certain qualities with gender– especially when accompanied by gender-stereotyped content. The gender-differentiated use of production features which characterizes these children’s commercials reflects a series of binary oppositions– fast vs. slow, abrupt vs. gradual, excited vs. calm, active vs. passive, detached vs. involved– and their close association in such ads leads them to line up consistently together as ‘masculine’ vs. ‘feminine’ qualities.
Whilst in this study we have applied content analysis to the ads themselves, the investigation of meaning (i.e. the sense that viewers make of advertisements) requires the use of phenomenological interviews. Similarly, there is a need for detailed ethnographic studies of the process of making toy commercials. However, the general patterns in the use of formal techniques which the current study highlights are suggestive, and we hope that we have demonstrated that gender differentiation in the production features of advertisements deserves further investigation.
Notes
The work described here was supported in part by a grant from the James Pantyfedwen Foundation, Aberystwyth for which the authors express their thanks. The authors reserve the right to publish online versions of this paper.
References
Baehr, H. & Dyer, G. (1987). Boxed in: Women and television. London: Pandora.
Barcus, F. E. (1977). Children’s television: An analysis of programming and advertising. New York: Praeger.
Brandt, M. (1994). Traditional film editing vs. electronic nonlinear film editing: a comparison of feature films [WWW document] URL: http://www.nonlinear3.com/brandt.htm [19/7/99].
Bretl, D. J., & Cantor, J. (1988). The portrayal of men and women in US television commercials: a recent content analysis and trends over 15 years. Sex Roles, 18(9/10), 595–609.
Bryant, J., & Anderson, D. R. (eds.) (1983). Children’s understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Carroll, J., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book. New York: Houghton Mifflin/American Heritage.
Chandler, D. (1994). Semiotics for beginners [WWW document] URL: http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/semiotic.html [6/1/99].
Chandler, D. (1997). Children’s understanding of what is ‘real’ on television: a review of the literature. Journal of Educational Media, 23(1), 67–82.
Condry, J. (1989). The psychology of television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crisp, C. (1987). The rediscovery of editing in French cinema, 1930-1945. In T. O’Regan & B. Shoesmith (Eds.), History on and in film (pp. 57–67). Perth: History & Film Association of Australia; [WWW document] URL: http://kali.murdoch.edu.au/~cntinuum/hfilm/CRISP.html [19/7/99].
Feldstein, J. H., & Feldstein, S. (1982). Sex differences on televised toy commercials, Sex Roles, 8, 581–587.
Fiske, J. (1987). Television culture. London: Methuen.
Fowles, J. (1996). Advertising and popular culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hart, N. A. (ed.) (1990). The practice of advertising. Oxford: Heinemann.
Heft, H., & Blondal, R. (1987). The influence of cutting rate on the evaluation of affective content of film. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 5(1), 1–14.
Hochberg, J., & Brooks, V. (1978). The perception of motion pictures. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of Perception, Vol. 10, Perceptual ecology (pp. 259–301). New York: Academic Press.
Huston, A. C., Greer, D., Wright, J. C., Welch, R., & Ross, R. (1984). Children’s comprehension of televised formal features with masculine and feminine connotations. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 707–16.
ITC (1998). ITC Code of advertising standards & practice (London, Independent Television Commission); [WWW document] URL
http://www.itc.org.uk/word_docs/ads_standards98.docJefkins, F. (1992). Advertising. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Jones, P. (1974). The technique of the television cameraman. London: Focal Press.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.
Livingstone, S., & Green, G. (1986). Television advertisements and the portrayal of gender. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 149–54.
Lombard, M. (1995). Direct responses to people on the screen: television and personal space. Communication Research, 22, 288–324.
MacLachlan, J., & Logan, M. (1993). Camera shot length in commercials and their memorability and persuasiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(2), 57–61.
Manstead, A. S. R., & McCulloch, C. (1981). Sex-role stereotyping in British television advertisements. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 171–180.
Messaris, P. (1994). Visual ‘literacy’: Image, mind & reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, M. (ed.) (1983). Children and the features of television: Approaches and findings of experimental and formative research. Munich: K G Saur.
Millerson, G. (1985). The technique of television production. London: Focal.
Modleski, T. (1996). The rhythms of reception: daytime television and women’s work. In H. Baehr & A. Gray (Eds.), Turning it on: A reader in women and media (pp. 104–110). London: Arnold.
Morley, D. (1986). Family television: Cultural power and domestic leisure. London: Routledge.
Myers, G. (1999). Ad worlds: Brands, media, audiences. London: Arnold.
Penn, R. (1971). Effects of motion and cutting rate in motion pictures. AV Communication Review, 19(1), 29–50.
Postman, N. (1986). Amusing ourselves to death. London: Methuen.
Reeves, B., Lombard, M., & Melwani, G. (1992). Faces on the screen: pictures or natural experience? (Social Responses to Communication Technologies, Paper 103) (Stanford, CA).
Salomon, G. (1981). Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Salt, B. (1983). Film style and technology: History and analysis. London: Starword.
Seiter, E. (1995). Toy-Based Video for Girls. In C. Bazalgette & D. Buckingham (Eds.), In front of the children: Screen entertainment and young audiences (pp. 166–185). London: British Film Institute.
Smith, L. J. (1994). A content analysis of gender differences in children’s advertising. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38(3), 323–337.
Verna, M. E. (1975). The female image in children’s TV commercials. Journal of Broadcasting, 19(3), 301–309.
Watts, H. (1984). On camera: How to produce film and video. London: BBC.
Welch, R., Huston-Stein, A., Wright, J. C., & Plehal, R. (1979). Subtle sex-role cues in children’s commercials, Journal of Communication. 29(3), 202–209.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1991). Mass media research: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Witkin, H. A. (1970). Psychological differentiation. In P. B. Warr (Ed.), Thought and Personality: Selected Readings (pp. 195–211). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Wright, J. C., & Huston, A. C. (1981). Children’s understanding of the forms of television. In H. Kelly & H. Gardner (Eds.), Viewing children through television (pp. 73–88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wright, J. C., & Huston, A. C. (1983). A matter of form: potentials of television for young viewers. American Psychologist, 38(7), 835–843.
Wright, J. C., Huston, A. C., Ross, R. P., Calvert, S. L., Rolandelli, D., Weeks, L. A., Raeissi, P., & Potts, R. (1984). Pace and continuity of television programs: effects on children’s attention and comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 20, 653–666.
Wurtzel, A., & Rosenbaum, J. (1995). Television production. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zettl, H. (1992). Television production handbook. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zettl, H. (1995). Video basics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zettl, H. (1999). Sight, sound, motion: Applied media aesthetics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[keywords: advertisements, commercials, television, children, gender, editing, camerawork, voice-overs]