Gendered Editing and Camerawork Techniques in Advertisements for Children’s Toys on British Television

        Merris Griffiths and Daniel Chandler

        • Abstract
        • Introduction
        • Methodology
        • Findings
          • Table 1: Target Audience for Each Advertisement
          • Camerawork Features
            • Table 2: Shot Sizes
            • Table 3: Angle of Shots
            • Table 4: Special Angle Shots
            • Table 5: Ped Up and Down
            • Table 6: Blurring
          • Editing Features
            • Table 7: Transitions
            • Table 8: Special Editing Features
            • Table 9: Duration of Shots
            • Table 10: Particular Types of Music
            • Table 11: Voice-overs
        • Conclusions and Discussion
        • Notes
        • References

        Abstract

        Twenty years ago researchers in the USA found that quite apart from the manifest content of television commercials aimed at children, certain camerawork and editing features showed a marked tendency to vary according to the sex of the target consumers. The current study of television advertisements for children’s toys involved a content analysis of formal features in 117 advertisements broadcast on British television. In this study, statistically significant differences (in some cases extreme differences) were found in relation to gendered use of various features: shot sizes; the angle of shots; camera movement; focus; the use of particular forms of transition (cuts and fades); the duration of shots; voice-overs; and the use of jingles and certain types of music.


        Introduction

        A great many studies have explored the depiction of the sexes and of various gender roles on television; Barrie Gunter (1986) offers a useful review whilst Kevin Durkin (1985) has reviewed such research in relation to children. Gender-related research has also included many studies of the non-programme genre of the television advertisement (e.g. Courtney and Whipple 1983, Bretl and Cantor 1988, Craig 1992). A relatively small number of studies have focused on commercials targeted primarily at children (e.g. Doolittle and Pepper 1973, Winick et al. 1973, Verna 1975, Barcus 1977, Cattin and Jain 1979, Macklin and Kolbe 1984, Kolbe 1991, Young 1990, Smith 1994, Kolbe and Muehling 1995). Whilst the content of television ads has been widely studied in relation to gender issues (albeit largely in the North American context) there have been far less studies of the form of commercials, such as the angles of shots and the use of ‘cuts’. 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). A number of researchers have noted the interpretative importance of television’s ‘formal features’ for children (e.g. Salomon 1981, Huston et al. 1981, Wright and Huston 1981, Calvert et al. 1982, Meyer 1983, Huston and Wright 1983, Wright and Huston 1983, Hodge and Tripp 1986, Fitch et al. 1993, Chandler 1997); a brief summary is offered by Condry (1989: 154-6). However, the function of such features of the medium as differentiated gender markers in children’s advertisements has not been extensively researched. In the late 1970s a group of American researchers noted significant differences in the editing and camerawork employed in commercials aimed at boys and those aimed at girls (Welch et al. 1979) but we are not aware of more recent or non-US studies of this issue. The purpose of the current study was to establish the existence and nature of any gendered differences in the formal features of commercials for toys which have been broadcast on television in the UK.

        The pioneering study of this issue is ‘Subtle Sex-Role Cues in Children’s Commercials’ by Renate L. Welch, Aletha Huston-Stein, John C. Wright and Robert Plehal at the University of Kansas, Lawrence (see also Huston et al. 1984). This small-scale study has subsequently been widely cited. The researchers undertook content analysis of 20 toy commercials in each of three categories: male, female and ‘neutral’. They inferred the intended audiences not from the sex-typed nature of the products but from the sex of the children in the commercials, so that their ‘male’ ads featured only males, their ‘female’ ads only females, and their mixed ads approximately even numbers of both sexes. They found that markedly different production techniques were employed for the boys’ and girls’ advertisements studied. Voices in mixed audience and boys’ ads were largely male; female voices were largely limited to female commercials. The researchers suggested that ‘this pattern suggests that males are portrayed as the authorities in most content areas except that small domain reserved solely for females’ (207). The boys’ ads, along with those directed at a mixed audience, had higher cutting rates than ads directed at girls. The ads for boys had more ‘abrupt, instantaneous shifts in view’ (206). In contrast, those directed at girls had more fades and dissolves. Male ads featured more loud music and sound effects whilst ads for girls had soft background music. ‘At the very subtle level of visual and auditory images’, the authors note, the advertisements in their sample reflected ‘stereotypes of females as quiet, soft, gentle, and inactive’ (207).

        Methodology

        Around twenty years on from the American study by Welch and her colleagues, we chose to investigate a sample of children’s television commercials broadcast in the UK. To gather relevant data we used content analysis. This technique has produced useful findings regarding such issues as the differential frequency with which men and women appear in various roles in television genres. It has been used in a number of studies of television and of advertisements generally and also of television commercials aimed at children (e.g. Winick et al. 1973). The term ‘content’ analysis may be potentially misleading, since it may be applied (as in the current study) to the form as well as the manifest content of texts. Indeed, the use of content analysis may be particularly valuable in highlighting the use of various formal features of the medium, and in this study it was upon these that we focused.

        Content analysis is not without its critics. For example, some researchers who employ only qualitative techniques reject content analysis, associating it with the ideology of objectivism. It is true that content analysis is sometimes accompanied by unwarranted declarations of ‘objectivity’. Selectivity and interpretation are unavoidable. However vast the study, a particular collection of texts must be initially selected as a sample, and the identification of relevant features is always subject to individual interpretation in accordance with the aims of a particular study. Even if the purpose of a study is clearly defined, no two researchers would be likely to generate the same initial categories in a collection of texts. As Winick et al. (1973: 47) note, in a content analysis based on advertisements containing a wide assortment of tangible and intangible elements, content item definitions cannot be refined to a point where all subjectivity is eliminated from the coding process. It is not necessary to subscribe to the ideology of objectivity in order to employ content analysis.

        Perhaps the most penetrating criticism of the technique is when attempts are made to equate content and meaning, especially if one professes that meaning arises only through the processes of textual interpretation. Gillian Dyer (1982: 108) points out that a basic assumption of content analysis is that there is a relationship between the frequency with which certain items appear in an advertisement, the intentions of the producer or advertising agency and the audience response. However, viewers may not interpret the content of an advertisement in the ways which might have been intended by ad-makers, and some elements of content identified by analysts may not have been consciously built into the advertisement. Significance, in its richest sense, cannot be reduced to the frequency with which classifiable features appear, so looking beyond formal counts is always essential. Although the equation of content and meaning should be rejected, there can be no dispute that texts do have content and that the generation of meanings is not unconstrained by such content. As long as one avoids reductive assumptions about how such content will be interpreted by others, content analysis can provide useful data: for example, data about statistically significant differences between features in one set of texts compared with another; differences that may not be obvious from simple observation. Furthermore, the use of such a technique is not incompatible with associated qualitative studies of how individuals interpret the same texts. Since content analysis is a technique for a certain kind of textual analysis, the investigation of meaning (i.e. the sense that children make of advertisements) requires other techniques such as ethnographic interviews. Whilst the issue of sense-making by the intended viewers is not discussed in this paper, the study reported here forms part of a broader investigation by one of the authors (MG), who is currently researching the interpretation of television advertisements by children in relation to gender-related issues.

        In order to provide a structure for the content analysis, we drew up a series of hypotheses based on themes which arose from a review of the literature. Those explored in this paper are as follows:

        • More varied camerawork can be found in advertisements directed at boys than in those directed at girls.
        • More shots are used within each advertisement aimed at boys and consequently the average duration of each shot is shorter.
        • More fades and dissolves are used in advertisements aimed at girls.
        • Auditory features, such as sound effects and music, are more obvious and more varied in advertisements aimed at boys.
        • More male than female voice-overs are used overall, even in advertisements for girls.

        Having reviewed existing findings and formulated a series of hypotheses, the next stage was to select a number of advertisements that could be classed as being intended specifically for children. The selected sample included only those advertisements for toys in the period leading up to the Christmas of 1996. Toys were selected because little attention has been paid to them in the past (cf. Winick et al. 1973), 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 (the 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. Taking samples of toy advertisements in the period leading up to Christmas led to an accumulation of a large number of examples. Barcus (1977: 120) noted a threefold increase in toy advertisements between April and November, and a relative decrease in all other product types, emphasizing the strategic targeting of advertisements around particular times of the year. The Christmas period is characterized by a concentration of commercials promoting toys. We deliberately chose to focus on this period in the hope that it might offer the clearest examples of any tendency towards gendered production styles. It also enabled us to collect a large number of such advertisements in a short period of time.

        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. After the advertisements for toys had been selected from the recordings, each ad was then classified (by MG) in terms of whether it seemed to be intended for boys, girls or a mixed audience. The initial audience classification for each advertisement involved considering both the nature of the actual product and the sex of the key characters shown on the screen. This involved making assumptions about the toy preferences of boys and girls. Where boys and girls were shown interacting both with one another and with the product in question, the advertisement was classed as being targeted at a mixed audience. To increase the validity of these gendered product classifications, ten other individuals (five male and five female) were recruited to code the advertisements according to how they perceived the target audiences. 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. They were approached in their homes and shown a 35-minute edited video containing each of the 117 different advertisements in the sample. The coders were required to make verbal responses to the video concerning their judgements of the target audience for each advertisement, and their reasons.

        In terms of the level of complete consensus, where all ten coders agreed without dispute about the intended audience for the advertisement, a total of 85 advertisements in this sample emerged as having clearly defined audience categories, resulting in an inter-coder reliability level of 72.6%. 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.

        Multiple coding goes some way towards avoiding what would otherwise be an interpretational vicious-circle, whereby advertisements which have been subjectively judged as being targeted primarily at males, females or a mixed audience are then examined for differences which may have contributed to the original judgements. However, this problem cannot be wholly eradicated since we can never be completely detached from the societal conventions that subconsciously influence our thinking. In terms of the various reasons given by the coders for their choice of target audience, a number of interesting issues about style and content emerged. 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 colours, and an emphasis on competitive behaviour accompanied by noise and speed.

        After establishing the apparent target sex for each product, the various ‘technical’ features of each advertisement were considered, focusing on those which had already been identified in published research. After we decided which features would be recorded, these were identified by working shot-by-shot through each advertisement in the sample. In this case, a shot was defined as being a filmed sequence uninterrupted by a transition (a cut or dissolve). The formal features considered in this paper are:

        • camerawork features: shot sizes, angle of shots, camera movement, and focus; and
        • editing features: transitions (cuts and dissolves), duration of shots, particular types of music, and voice-overs.

        To analyse the statistical significance of noticeable differences observed in the raw counts of features, we used the Chi-Square test of independence.

        Findings

        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’. 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.

        TABLE 1
        Target Audience for Each Advertisement

        Audience Category

        Tokens

        Types

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        132

        43

        43

        37

        Girls’ Ads

        94

        31

        43

        37

        Mixed Ads

        78

        26

        31

        26

        Total

        304

        100

        117

        100

        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’ advertisements appeared only 94 times.

        Camerawork features
        Under the heading of camerawork features we have included shot sizes, camera angles, lens and camera movement, and focus. Long-shot is used to refer to all product stills at the end of each advertisement, as well as ‘full body’ shots of any individuals appearing within that advertisement. A ‘full body’ shot, in this instance, is any shot 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 the display of a product too close to be regarded as a long shot, or to a shot of an individual from the waist up. Close-up refers to any shot of product detail, or an above-shoulders view of an individual; this term also includes ‘extreme close-ups’. Counts for shot sizes are summarized in Table 2.

        TABLE 2
        Shot Sizes

        Type

        Long Shots

        Mid-Shots

        Close-Ups

        Types

        c 2

        Significance (df=2)

        N

        %

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys

        134

        18

        337

        46

        264

        36

        B vs. G

        7.88

        p<0.05

        Girls

        73

        13

        292

        51

        204

        36

        B vs. M

        15.89

        p<0.001

        Mixed

        53

        10

        242

        47

        217

        42

        G vs. M

        5.27

        ns

        If we consider just the totals for the three shot sizes, there is a significant difference between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads. In this case the greatest statistical difference is that between the boys’ ads and the mixed ads. In particular we may note that the boys’ ads had a far greater percentage of long-shots than the others and the girls’ ads had a greater proportion of mid-shots.

        We turn next to the angle of shots. High, level and low-angle shots are terms used to note the angle at which the camera is held when viewing a particular scene, product or person. A level shot refers simply to the way that a given scene is focused upon at the same level as if one were looking directly ahead at something within one’s field of vision. A high-angle shot refers to the way in which the scene is viewed from above (overhead shots are considered separately here). A low-angle shot shows the scene from below. As one would expect, the most frequently used angle of shot in this sample was the level shot, but there are more low-angle shots in the advertisements aimed at boys (see Table 3). The differences in the use of high, low and level shots in the advertisements aimed at boys and those aimed at girls emerged as very highly significant, as did the comparison of girls’ ads with the mixed ads. In the case of shot angles, boys’ ads also showed up as significantly different from the mixed ads.

        TABLE 3
        Angle of Shots

        High

        Low

        Level

        Comparison

        c 2

        Significance (df=2)

        N

        %

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        78

        12

        45

        7

        543

        82

        Boys’ Ads vs. Girls’ Ads

        18.23

        p<0.001

        Girls’ Ads

        42

        9

        10

        2

        441

        89

        Boys’ Ads vs. Mixed Ads

        7.14

        p<0.05

        Mixed Ads

        68

        16

        17

        4

        339

        80

        Girls’ Ads vs. Mixed Ads

        16.20

        p<0.001

        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 may be used to refer to a shot which is beyond being classed as a high-angle shot because it is directly over a scene. A canted 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.

        A number of observable contrasts in the data may be lost when considering only the frequencies of occurrence so it is also useful to note whether or not a particular feature appeared in an advertisement, irrespective of the number of times it appeared. When considering the presence or absence of canted shots, a very highly significant difference emerged between the girls’ ads and the mixed ads (see Table 4). 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. There was also a highly significant difference between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads in relation to the presence of overhead shots. These shots were again more often found in the ads aimed primarily at boys than in those for girls.

        TABLE 4
        Special Angle Shots

        Type

        Canted

        Overhead

        present

        absent

        present

        absent

         

        N

        %

        N

        %

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        13

        30

        30

        70

        14

        33

        29

        67

        Girls’ Ads

        5

        12

        38

        88

        3

        7

        40

        93

        Mixed Ads

        16

        52

        15

        48

        7

        23

        24

        77


        Comparisons

        Canted

        Overhead

        c 2

        Significance (df=1)

        c 2

        Significance (df=1)

        Boys vs. Girls

        3.44

        ns

        7.33

        p<0.01 YC

        Boys vs. Mixed

        2.62

        ns

        0.46

        ns

        Girls vs. Mixed

        12.27

        p<0.001 YC

        2.54

        ns

        Note to Table 4: YC Yates’s Correction for continuity

        Of all the varieties of lens and camera movement (zoom in and out, ped up and down, pan left and right, tilt up and down), there was only one statistically significant difference: perhaps a larger sample would reveal more about how far such features may be gendered in children’s commercials. Ped up and ped 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. In the current study there was a very significant difference between girls’ ads and mixed ads in the use of ‘peds’ (see Table 5). Girls’ ads made more use of this feature than the other ads.

        Although the counts were too small for statistical testing, it may be worth noting that the ‘tilt up’ action was used exclusively (though only five times) in the girls’ advertisements. The ‘tilt down’ occurred (three times) only in boys’ advertisements (and once in a mixed ad).

        TABLE 5
        Ped Up and Down

        Type

        Ped

        No Ped

        Peds

        c 2

        Significance (df=1)

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        14

        33

        29

        67

        Boys’ vs. Girls’ Ads

        1.73

        ns

        Girls’ Ads

        21

        49

        22

        51

        Boys’ vs. Mixed Ads

        2.79

        ns

        Mixed Ads

        4

        13

        27

        87

        Girls’ vs. Mixed Ads

        8.85

        p<0.01YC

        Note to Table 5: YC Yates’s Correction for continuity

        The final camerawork feature noted concerned focus. We use the term blurring to refer to the way in which the scene is not quite in focus (Table 6). This feature was identified in eleven of the advertisements for boys but in only one for girls and two for a mixed audience. If we consider the presence or absence of this feature rather than the frequency of its use, the difference between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads registers statistically as highly significant.

        TABLE 6
        Blurring

        Type

        Blurring

        No Blurring

        Blurring

        c 2

        Significance (df=1)

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        11

        26

        32

        74

        Boys’ vs. Girls’ Ads

        7.84

        p<0.01YC

        Girls’ Ads

        1

        2

        42

        98

        Boys’ vs. Mixed Ads

        3.33

        ns

        Mixed Ads

        2

        6

        29

        94

        Girls’ vs. Mixed Ads

        0.08

        ns

        Note to Table 6: YC Yates’s Correction for continuity

        Editing features
        So far we have considered various camerawork features; now we turn to editing features. These include transitions, slow motion, high speed, split screen, shot duration and audio features such as music and voice-overs.

        Cuts, dissolves and fades are collectively referred to as ‘transitions’. A cut is used to describe the clean break dividing one shot and another. The terms ‘dissolves’ and ‘fades’ are used interchangeably here, and refer to the way in which one frame fades out whilst the other is dissolved in, with no clear cut between shots. A cut is generally regarded as a ‘harsh’ transition, while dissolves and fades are classed as ‘soft’ or ‘gentle’ transitions. Another transition noted is one which we have labelled the ‘swirl cut’ , which refers to a shot of a particular screen that is seen to ‘swirl’ away from the viewer before a second shot appears on the screen. The counts for transitions are summarized in Table 7.

        TABLE 7
        Transitions
        Transition

        Cuts

        Dissolves/ fades

        Swirls

        Comparison of Cuts and Dissolves only

        c 2

         

        Significance (df=1)

        Boys’ Ads

        625

        9

        4

        Boys vs. Girls

        43.89

        p<0.0001YC

        Girls’ Ads

        391

        43

        2

        Boys vs. Mixed

        1.17

        ns

        Mixed Ads

        395

        2

        0

        Girls vs. Mixed

        33.99

        p<0.0001YC

        Note to Table 7: YC Yates’s Correction for continuity

        It is dramatically apparent from Table 7 that the boys’ advertisements in the sample used far more cuts, while the girls’ advertisements, in contrast, employed many more fades and dissolves than did the ads for boys. The comparison of cuts with fades and dissolves in boys’ and girls’ advertisements shows up as an extremely significant statistical difference. Comparing the girls’ advertisements with the mixed advertisements with regard to this feature also produces an extremely significant difference.

        Table 8 refers to some special editing features: slow motion, high speed and split screen. Slow motion and high speed are used to refer to the speed at which a particular piece of film footage is played back for the audience. The former may be used to provide greater clarity and detail for the object in focus, while the latter is often used to suggest rapid movement. The term split screen is self-explanatory.

        TABLE 8
        Special Editing Features

        Type

        Slow Motion

        High Speed

        Split Screen

        Boys’ Ads

        15

        4

        9

        Girls’ Ads

        2

        0

        5

        Mixed Ads

        0

        1

        1


        The figures refer to the number of occasions in which the features were employed rather than to the number of advertisements employing each feature. Although the numbers here are too small for statistical testing, it is clear from the counts that those advertisements aimed at boys in this sample employed rather more slow motion and high speed sequences.

        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 9.

        TABLE 9
        Duration of Shots

        Audience

        Above Average

        Below Average

        N

         

        Comparisons

        c 2

        Significance (df=1)

        Boys’ Ads

        6

        37

        43

         

        Boys vs. Girls

        34.07

        p<0.0001YC

        Girls’ Ads

        34

        9

        43

         

        Boys vs. Mixed

        0.09

        ns

        Mixed Ads

        6

        25

        31

         

        Girls vs. Mixed

        23.52

        p<0.0001YC

        Total

        46

        71

        117

           
        Note to Table 9: YC Yates’s Correction for continuity; Average Shot Duration = 1.38 seconds

        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:

        • for boys, the average length of shot was calculated as 1.23 seconds;
        • for girls, the average length of shot was calculated as 1.73 seconds;
        • for a mixed audience, the average length of shot was calculated as 1.17 seconds.

        Audio features include music, sound effects, and voices. When recording the presence or absence of various types of music (rather than frequencies), some interesting differences were revealed (see Table 10). Three distinctive types of music occurred sufficiently often in our sample to generate statistically testable differences between boys’ and girls’ ads: jingles, rock music and ‘slapstick’ music. The term jingle refers here to songs which incorporate lyrics explaining the virtues and features of a particular product, as well as music that is instantly associated with that product even though it may contain no lyrics. Over two-thirds of the advertisements directed at girls in this sample used jingles compared with only six of the ads directed at boys. Advertisements aimed at boys and those aimed at girls showed an extremely significant difference in the use of jingles. There was also a very highly significant difference between advertisements for girls and those aimed at a mixed audience.

        TABLE 10
        Particular Types of Music

        Type

        Jingles

        No Jingles

        Jingles

        c 2

        Significance (df=1)

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        6

        16

        37

        86

        Boys’ vs. Girls’ Ads

        23.32

        p<0.0001YC

        Girls’ Ads

        29

        67

        14

        33

        Boys’ vs. Mixed Ads

        0.43

        ns

        Mixed Ads

        7

        23

        24

        77

        Girls’ vs. Mixed Ads

        12.77

        p<0.001YC

        Type

        Rock

        No Rock

        Rock Music

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        20

        47

        23

        53

        Boys’ vs. Girls’ Ads

        17.65

        p<0.0001YC

        Girls’ Ads

        2

        5

        41

        95

        Boys’ vs. Mixed Ads

        14.54

        p<0.001YC

        Mixed Ads

        1

        3

        30

        97

        Girls’ vs. Mixed Ads

        0.08

        ns

        Type

        Slapstick

        No Slapstick

        Slapstick Music

        N

        %

        N

        %

        Boys’ Ads

        1

        2

        42

        98

        Boys’ vs. Girls’ Ads

        0

        ns

        Girls’ Ads

        0

        0

        43

        100

        Boys’ vs. Mixed Ads

        8.83

        p<0.01YC

        Mixed Ads

        9

        29

        22

        71

        Girls’ vs. Mixed Ads

        11.62

        p<0.001YC

        Note to Table 10: YC Yates’s Correction for continuity

        The term rock music refers here to any music involving the sounds of an electric guitar. Rock music was frequently used in the advertisements directed at boys, but appeared only twice in the advertisements directed at girls. An extremely significant statistical difference again emerged when comparing those advertisements aimed at boys and those aimed at girls. There is a very highly significant difference in the use of rock music in boys’ advertisements and in those aimed at a mixed audience.

        We use the term slapstick music here to refer to comical and quirky music akin to that used in comedy sketches by Monty Python. In the case of slapstick music, no significant difference emerged when comparing advertisements aimed at boys and those aimed at girls. Instead, the most strongly marked difference is between girls’ advertisements and mixed audience advertisements (a very highly significant difference), whilst the difference between boys’ advertisements and mixed audience advertisements is statistically highly significant. Slapstick music was used more frequently than any other kind in the ads for a mixed audience, whilst it was not used at all in the girls’ ads and only in one boys’ ad. In addition, the advertisements for girls made greater use of synthesized music (used in eight of the girls’ ads and two of the boys’ ads), while sound effects were comparably frequent in the boys’ advertisements (seven of the boys’ ads compared with three girls’ ads). None of the advertisements directed at girls used music from film or television programmes (six of the boys’ ads did).

        Another key audio feature is the use of voices. The figures in Table 11 refer to spoken (off-screen) voice-overs. The overwhelming use of male voices is dramatically obvious. Absolutely no female voice-overs are used in the boys’ advertisements. The differences between the boys’ ads and the girls’ ads in their use of voice-overs show up statistically as extremely significant, with by far the most dramatic Chi-Square value of all of the items. If we re-interpret the tables in terms of same-sex voices (the same sex as those of the intended viewers), there is still a very highly significant difference (c

        2 16.55, p<0.001) attributable to the fact that 30% of the girls’ ads had no voice-over at all, and three of them had male voice-overs. 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.

        TABLE 11
        Voice-Overs

        Type

        Male

        Female

        None

         

        Comparisons

        c 2

        Significance (df=2)

        Boys’ Ads

        42

        0

        1

         

        Boys vs. Girls

        71.09

        p<0.0001

        Girls’ Ads

        3

        27

        13

         

        Boys vs. Mixed

        untestable

        n/a

        Mixed Ads

        26

        1

        4

         

        Girls vs. Mixed

        46.42

        p<0.0001

        Total

        71

        28

        18

               

        Conclusions and discussion

        Having completed the Chi-Square tests and general observations regarding the various features contained in the advertisements in this sample, we considered the findings in relation to the original hypotheses.

        Hypothesis One was that more varied camerawork can be found in advertisements directed at boys than in those directed at girls. In terms of the observed camera patterns, the boys’ ads differed markedly from both the girls’ ads and the mixed ads in the use of shot sizes: the boys’ ads used more long shots than both of the other types and slightly less mid-shots than the girls’ ads (though they used an identical percentage of close-ups to the girls’ ads, the mixed ads using more). It is sometimes reported that programmes targeted primarily at women tend to have more close-ups than other programmes, though we know of no relevant empirical evidence; Tania Modleski (1982) has argued that close-ups provide training in the ‘feminine’ skills of ‘reading people’ (cited in Fiske 1987, 183). Bearing such remarks in mind, we might have predicted that there would be more close-ups in the girls’ ads, but this is not so: in this sample, the mixed ads have more close-ups (and the smallest proportion of long shots). Nor does the phenomenon of ‘face-ism’ seem to apply here: this term was coined to describe an emphasis in visual media on the faces of men and the bodies of women (Archer et al. 1983). If we compare the depiction of males with that of females in each of the three shots sizes in all ads there is no statistically significant difference. Neither of these two reported patterns seemed to apply to our sample, so perhaps these are confined to televisual material targeted at adults.

        The counts for the uses of slow motion, high speed and split screen were highest for the boys (though figures were too small for comparisons to be statistically testable). The boys’ and the girls’ ads differed in the use of overhead shots and blurred focus: the boys’ ads used both of these features more often. The girls’ ads differed from the mixed ads’ in their lesser use of the canted shot and 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. It is difficult to know what to make of this difference.

        Although the counts were too small for statistical testing, the ‘tilt up’ action was used exclusively in the girls’ ads: this seems to mimic the action of looking up from a subservient position towards someone or something in a superior position. ‘Tilt down’ shots occurred only in boys’ advertisements (and once in a mixed ad); this seems to mimic the action of looking down upon someone or something lowly from a position of superiority. One might perhaps argue that the use of tilts up and down echo stereotypical notions of what it means to be male or female. Erving Goffman’s Gender Advertisements (1979) explored the depictions of male and female figures in magazine advertisements. Probably the most relevant of his observations in the context of this paper is that ‘men tend to be located higher than women’ in these ads, symbolically reflecting the routine subordination of women to men in society (Goffman 1979, 43). A more recent empirical study of American magazines confirmed that females are far more likely to be depicted in a subordinate position (Masse and Rosenblum 1988, cited in Fowles 1996, 211; see also Fowles 1996, 227).

        Blurred shots were primarily found in boys’ ads. Salomon (1981) argues that the camera provides a model of the mental process of focusing on specific parts of the stimulus. It may be that the technique of blurring is a symbolic representation of the way in which the eye focuses and the mind registers particular situations. It is a feature of ‘subjective’ camerawork and may perhaps be used to make boys feel as if they were there in the scene, seeing for themselves— actively involved rather than passively watching staged events (Messaris 1997, 32).

        Each of the three types of ads - boys’ ads, girls’ ads and mixed ads - was fairly distinctive in their use of the basic shot angles (high, low and level). Overall, then we may note somewhat greater variety of shots in the boys’ ads than in the girls’ ads.

        Hypothesis Two was that more shots are used in advertisements aimed at boys and consequently the average duration of each shot is shorter. Clearly, the current findings strongly support the existing research. In the ads directed at boys the average duration of each shot was shorter than in the advertisements for girls, and the statistical difference between the two types in this respect was considerable. Since the differences are in fractions of a second the difference is not likely to be immediately obvious to the casual observer. The highlighting of such differences illustrates one of the advantages of content analysis. The rapid pacing of ads for boys echoes the stereotype of masculinity as action-oriented.

        Hypothesis Three was that there are more fades and dissolves in advertisements aimed at girls. The findings of the current study in this respect clearly support existing research in this field. This analysis demonstrated that the girls’ advertisements stereotypically reflect the consensus that girls are assumed by advertisers to prefer gradual and gentle transitions, while boys are assumed to favour more abrupt changes of scene. So-called ‘soft’ transitions (fades/dissolves) tend to be seen as ‘feminine’, while ‘harsh’ transitions tend to be viewed as ‘masculine’ (Welch et al. 1979). Even young viewers recognize such coding (Huston et al. 1984).

        Hypothesis Four was that auditory features such as sounds effects and music are more obvious and more varied in advertisements aimed at boys. Although the raw counts showed that the boys’ advertisements more often employed sound effects than the ads aimed at girls the numbers were too small for statistical testing. The music in the boys’ advertisements was more strident, with more instances of rock music than any other group. Rock music was thus (stereotypically) gendered as a masculine feature. Slapstick music was almost exclusively a feature of the ads for a mixed audience. Such music may perhaps be seen as appealing to all children’s sense of the absurd and comical, irrespective of sex. Perhaps the advertising of gender-specific products is seen as a more serious business than the promotion of toys with universal appeal. None of the advertisements directed at girls used music from film or television programmes, whilst six of the boys’ ads did, suggesting that media parallels and cross-media merchandising may be more usually associated with products intended for boys. In general, the findings regarding these auditory features once more supported previous research in this field.

        Hypothesis Five was that more male than female voice-overs are used overall, even in advertisements for girls. There were no female voice-overs whatsoever in the advertisements aimed at boys in this sample; there were also more male voice-overs in the advertisements for mixed audiences. This overall pattern is perhaps hardly surprising in the light of research which suggests that, whilst the percentage of female voice-overs increased in the 1970s and 1980s, as much as 80% of voice-overs in commercials (not just children’s ads) are male, ‘inflecting this gender with an aura of authority and ominiscience’ (Fowles 1996, 208-9, 211; see also Bretl and Cantor 1988). However, in stark juxtaposition to the 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 advertisements directed at girls. Gerran Thomas, a departmental colleague, made a most interesting point when he asked: ‘When exactly do girls become women in the world of advertising?’ At what point, indeed, do male voices take over from female voices in addressing women?

        Our findings in the current study of advertisements shown on British television generally support the findings of Welch et al. (1979) from nearly twenty years before in the USA, although we had expected (or perhaps hoped) that there would have been a noticeable shift in recent years in line with the gradual movement away from traditional gender-related stereotypes in televisual content (Fowles 1996, 211).

        So far we have confined ourselves to conventional content analysis. But content analysis is only one mode of textual analysis and we do not regard its use as incompatible with the use of others. We have found it analytically useful here to draw on a concept derived from an approach with which content analysis is rarely combined (though see Leiss et al. 1990 and Jhally 1990): we refer here to semiotics. From the perspective of 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 clearcut alternative paradigms then the form most commonly used in similar contexts is ‘unmarked’ whilst alternative forms are ‘marked’. 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). So we may note that the girls’ ads were the marked category in relation to these features: canted shots, peds up and down, cuts and dissolves, shot duration, jingles and voices.

        The existence of marked forms is not simply a structural feature of semiotic systems such as television commercials. As Kathryn Woodward notes, ‘it is through the marking out of… differences that social order is produced and maintained’ (Woodward 1997: 33). The unmarked form is ‘transparent’, drawing no attention to its invisibly privileged status: such forms reflect the naturalization of dominant cultural values. Alternative paradigms are typically gendered and are consistently weighted in favour of the male. As Trevor Millum puts it, ‘To be male is to be in some way normal, to be female is to be different, to depart from the norm, to be abnormal’ (Millum 1975, 71).

        More often than not, formal features in the mixed ads in our sample were similar to those in the ads directed at boys. This applies to canted and overhead shots, peds up and down, blurring, cuts and dissolves, shot duration, the use of jingles and voices. The similarity of mixed ads to boys’ ads found in our study serves to normalise the male option and to present the female as ‘other’. Where the ads directed primarily at one sex differ markedly from those directed at a mixed audience these features may be taken as marking a distinctive trait which is being associated with that sex. Only in two special cases in our sample did the boys’ ads exhibit formal features which distinguished them from the mixed ads, making these forms the marked features. These particular features thus seem to be distinctively ‘male’: shot sizes and rock music, the latter being easier to account for than the former. Additionally, all three categories (boys’ ads, girls’ ads and mixed ads) displayed their own distinctive patterns in relation to the basic repertoire of angles of shots (low, high and level), whilst ‘slapstick’ music seemed to be a distinctive feature of mixed ads.

        Why might these gendered differences in editing and camerawork exist? Addressing this question was not part of the current study, but a little speculation may be in order here. We have no easy answers. The advertising of certain products primarily to one sex rather than another is probably an inescapable part of the targeting of advertisements, and one might understand that this might sometimes tend to lead to the favouring of certain differentiated production techniques. 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’. But it remains disturbing that the editing and camerawork features of commercials which are aimed at both boys and girls seem to be consistently more similar to those in ads aimed primarily at boys than to those aimed primarily at girls, highlighting girls as ‘other’. The differentiated use of formal techniques according to the sex of the primary audience may sometimes be a deliberate policy on the part of the producers of toy commercials rationalized on the basis that this seems appropriate for the product. It may even be justified on the grounds that it seems to succeed in attracting the intended audience. It may well be a largely unconscious habit, part of a tacit professional code of gendered techniques in the use of a medium acquired through repeated exposure to the same genre and to others within the same medium.

        Outside the genre of commercials, the well-known stereotypical preferences of men for the action-adventure genre with its rapid cuts and loud audio features and of women for romantic drama with soft dissolves and quiet music is likely to be a major influence on those who make commercials. But commercials themselves may be one of the factors which lead to the shaping of such preferences. 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 to determine whether they are designed for them or not (Wright and 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). Welch et al. commented that:

          Without ever really thinking about it, a child of either sex can come to decode production features that have been stereotypically associated with masculine content as conveying the aura and expectation of male-appropriateness to any content with which these features are associated. The converse would hold for forms associated with manifestly feminine content. (Welsh et al. 1979, 208)

        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 fades and dissolves and longer shot lengths may tend to encourage an acceptance of the stereotypical association of women with passivity.

        It is also possible that such ads may also influence the development of differentiated styles of viewing. In a small-scale empirical study, David Morley noted within the domestic setting of the family a frequent preference of men for watching television with full attention, whilst women often appeared content with a more distracted style (Morley 1986). Social factors are clearly key factors in developing such patterns of viewing: for instance, since the home is still primarily a place of work even for women with jobs outside the home, many women may have little choice but to watch with less than full attention. However, formal features of the medium may also play a part: since the pace of boys’ ads is faster than that of girls’ ads then regular viewing of such ads may help to ‘train’ boys to favour playing close attention to the screen if they wish to understand what they are seeing.

        The stylistic modes of address employed in advertisements may thus be a contributory factor in the gendering of tastes in televisual material, particular styles of viewing and the cultural framing of ‘activity’ versus ‘passivity’. The current findings cannot, of course, be taken as evidence for such speculations, but rather generate such questions for further research.

        Reflecting on their own study, Welch et al. argued that:

          The messages about masculine and feminine behavior conveyed by the features mentioned here may be more influential than the blatant stereotypes presented in the content. Because these messages are subtle, they may generally go unrecognized, making them more difficult for adults to counter via training or modeling. They are more likely to be passively and unconsciously accepted by the child viewer, and may be more generalizable to other situations than the more obvious and specific content stereotypes. (Welsh et al. 1979, 208)

        We do not ourselves see the issue in terms of the ‘effects’ of advertising since a wealth of other evidence (e.g. Hodge and Tripp 1986) seems to us to suggest that even young viewers have considerable scope for creative engagement with media. Indeed, as one commentator quips in relation to the popular claim that advertising exploits consumers, we may fruitfully consider the possibility that ‘consumers exploit advertising’ (Fowles 1996: xvi). We do not have to buy the goods in order to draw on the imagery of advertising in the construction of personal styles. Stylistic features as well as narrative content may be seen as providing viewers with a repertoire of codes which they adapt to their own needs and purposes. The potential role of media materials in the construction of gender identities through the practice of bricolage (Lévi-Strauss 1974, 21) is a key reason why the techniques used in children’s commercials are of interest to us. This, of course, requires the investigation of how young viewers actually interpret and make use of ads: neither content analysis nor structuralist semiotics can address this issue.

        Advertising is well-known as a haven of gender stereotyping (Courtney and Whipple 1983), 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. A contributory factor might be the dominance of the mainstream film tradition of ‘invisible editing’ even within commercials: we are not usually intended to notice camerawork and editing– it is typically meant to retreat to transparency, foregrounding the content. Our close focus on form in this paper is not meant to suggest that the manifest content is inconsequential: indeed, the interaction of formal features with specific content needs detailed investigation. However, we hope that we have demonstrated that a more widespread concern with the formal features of advertisements (and not only those of children’s commercials) is long overdue.

        Notes

        The authors reserve the right to publish online versions of this paper. The work described here was supported in part by a grant from the James Pantyfedwen Foundation, Aberystwyth for which the authors express their thanks.

        References

        • Archer, D., Iritani, B. Kimes, D. and Barrios, M. (1983) ‘Face-Ism - 5 Studies of Sex-Differences in Facial Prominence’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(4): 725–35.
        • Barcus, F. Earle (1977) Children’s Television: An Analysis of Programming and Advertising. New York: Praeger.
        • Bretl, D. J. and 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.
        • Calvert, Sanda L., Huston, Aletha C., Watkins, Bruce A. and Wright, John C. (1982) ‘The Relation between Selective Attention to Television Forms and Children’s Comprehension of Content’. Child Development 53(3): 601–10.
        • Cattin, Philippe and Jain, Subhash C. (1979) ‘Content Analysis of Children’s Commercials’. Educators’ Conference Proceedings (ed. N. Beckwith), 639–44.
        • Chandler, Daniel (1997) ‘Children’s Understanding of What is ‘Real’ on Television: A Review of the Literature’. Journal of Educational Media 23(1): 67–82.
        • Condry, John (1989) The Psychology of Television. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
        • Courtney, Alice E. and Whipple, Thomas W. (1983) Sex Stereotyping in Advertising. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
        • Craig, R. Stephen (1992) ‘The Effect of Television Day-Part on Gender Portrayals in Television Commercials: A Content Analysis’. Sex Roles 26(5/6), 197–211.
        • Doolittle, John and Pepper, Robert (1975) ‘Children’s TV Ad Content: 1974’. Journal of Broadcasting 19(2), 131–42.
        • Durkin, Kevin (1985) Television, Sex-Roles and Children: A Developmental Social Psychological Account. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
        • Dyer, Gillian (1982) Advertising as Communication. London: Methuen.
        • Fitch, Marguerite, Huston, Aletha C. and Wright, John C. (1993) ‘From Television Forms to Genre Schemata: Children’s Perceptions of Television Reality’, pp. 38–52 in Gordon L. Berry and Joy Keiko Asamen (eds.) Children and Television: Images in a Changing Sociocultural World. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
        • Fowles, Jib (1996) Advertising and Popular Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
        • Goffman, Erving (1979) Gender Advertisements. London: Macmillan.
        • Gunter, Barrie (1986) Television and Sex Role Stereotyping. London: John Libbey.
        • Hodge, Bob and Tripp, David (1986) Children and Television: A Semiotic Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.
        • Huston, Aletha C., Wright, John C., Wartella, Ellen, Rice, Mabel L., Watkins, Bruce A., Campbell, Toni and Potts, Richard (1981) ‘Communicating More than Content: Formal Features of Children’s Television Programmes’. Journal of Communication 31(3): 32–48.
        • Huston, Aletha C. and Wright, John C. (1983) ‘Children’s Processing of Television: The Informative Functions of Formal Features’, pp. 35–68 in Jennings Bryant and Daniel R. Anderson (eds.) Children’s Understanding of Television: Research on Attention and Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
        • Huston, Aletha C., Greer, D., Wright, John C., Welch, Renate and Ross, R. (1984) ‘Children’s Comprehension of Televised Formal Features with Masculine and Feminine Connotations’. Developmental Psychology 20(4): 707–16.
        • Jhally, Sut (1990) The Codes of Advertising: Fetishism and the Political Economy of Meaning in the Consumer Society. London: Routledge.
        • Kolbe, Richard H. (1991) ‘Gender Roles in Children’s Television Advertising: A Longitudinal Content Analysis’, pp. 197–206 in J. H. Leigh and C. R. Martin (eds.) Current Issues and Research in Advertising. Ann Arbor, MI: Division of Research, University of Michigan Business School.
        • Kolbe, Richard H. and Muehling, Darrell (1995) ‘Gender Roles and Children’s Television Advertising’, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 17(1): 50–9.
        • Leiss, William, Kline, Stephen and Jhally, Sut (1990) Social Communication and Advertising: Persons, Products and Images of Well-Being. London: Routledge.
        • Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1974) The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
        • Macklin, M. C. and Kolbe, Richard H. (1984) ‘Sex Role Stereotyping in Children’s Advertising: Current and Past Trends’. Journal of Advertising 13(2): 34–42.
        • Masse, M. A. and K. Rosenblum (1988): ‘Male and Female Created They Them: The Depiction of Gender in the Advertising of Traditional Women’s and Men’s Magazines’. Women’s Studies International Forum 11(2): 127–44.
        • Messaris, Paul (1997) Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
        • Meyer, Manfred (ed.) (1983) Children and the Features of Television: Approaches and Findings of Experimental and Formative Research. Munich: K G Saur.
        • Millum, Trevor (1975) Images of Women: Advertising in Women’s Magazines. London: Chatto & Windus.
        • Morley, David (1986) Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure. London: Routledge
        • Salomon, Gavriel (1981) Interaction of Media, Cognition and Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
        • Smith, Lois J. (1994) ‘A Content Analysis of Gender Differences in Children’s Advertising’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38(3): 323–37.
        • Verna, Mary Ellen (1975) ‘The Female Image in Children’s TV Commercials’, Journal of Broadcasting 19(3): 301–9.
        • Welch, Renate, Huston-Stein, Aletha, Wright, John C. and Plehal, Robert (1979) ‘Subtle Sex-Role Cues in Children’s Commercials’, Journal of Communication, 29(3): 202–9.
        • Winick, Charles, Williamson, Lorne G., Chuzmir, Stuart F. and Winick, Mariann Pezzella (1973) Children’s Television Commercials: A Content Analysis. New York: Praeger.
        • Woodward, Kathryn (ed.) (1997) Identity and Difference. London: Sage.
        • Wright, John C. and Huston, Aletha C. (1981) ‘Children’s Understanding of the Forms of Television’, pp. 73-88 in Hope Kelly and Howard Gardner (eds.) Viewing Children Through Television. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
        • Wright, John C. and Huston, Aletha C. (1983) ‘A Matter of Form: Potentials of Television for Young Viewers’. American Psychologist 38(7): 835–43.
        • Young, Brian M (1990) Television Advertising and Children. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

        1st September 1998

        The preferred form of citation for the online version of this paper is as follows:

        • Griffiths, Merris & Daniel Chandler (1998): 'Gendered Editing and Camerawork Techniques in Advertisements for Children’s Toys on British Television' [WWW document] URL http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/toyads.html [Date of Visit]

        However, please do not cite this draft without the written permission of both authors.

        This page has been accessed times since 1st September 1998.