The following is a short extra-credit paper I did for an anthropology class. My goal was to see if big-box retailers' in-store advertisements perpetuated social and cultural views of who should be in our (the consumer's) peer group. This wasn't a serious study by any means. The idea was to get myself and others to use their 'sociological imaginations' so that we could (hopefully) stimulate conversation. I just wanted everyone to be more aware of their surroundings and to ask why.
D
Who Do We Expect?
Does in-store advertising (e.g. signage and product packaging) affect our perceptions of who should be in our peer or class groups? Do they reinforce racial and gender stereotypes? These are the questions that I set out to try to answer for this extra-credit project. I know: these are really big questions with no readily available answers to them. Unfortunately, I did not have the hours to research through the relevant peer-reviewed studies (if any exist, which I’m sure they do); nor was I able to use the triangulation method of gathering data. If was to use triangulation, I would have observed, surveyed consumers, and I might have used an interview method to gain the rest of my data (this method, I feel, would have been a rich source of data). There is also another short-coming with my “study:” the sample is not random. The stores I picked were all in one particular area, located in close proximity to one-another.
All of the short-comings of my “study” aside, I think we can still draw some very basic, surface, superficial conclusions. Though it was not my intention to make any deep, concrete, or peer-review worthy conclusions in the first-place. This project is not meant so much to be concrete or prescriptive but, rather, it is meant to stimulate conversation. So while we may not be able to draw solid conclusions here, I would like to have some fun and look at my findings through the lens of Conflict Theory; with just a touch of Feminist Theory (I know it technically falls, at least partly, within the realm of Conflict Theory). Again, my primary hope for this paper is that it stimulates thought and conversation.
I took a Saturday afternoon and went to two stores: two big-box (a general retail store and a sporting goods store) retailers. What I had found was there are many similarities between the two big-box stores. In the big-box retail stores, most of the in-store signage was dominated by “white” people. In particular, areas of business and business casual clothing, white males (females for the female clothing) were portrayed the most. The same went for teenage casual clothing and women’s clothing. While other ethnicities were not excluded, “whites” were portrayed in in-store signage at a rate of 4:1 (roughly). Interestingly enough, once I reached the sporting apparel and sporting goods, “blacks” were represented at higher rates, around 1:1 or 2:1 (this is in comparison to “whites”). Another interesting observation, with sporting goods in particular, was that “whites” were portrayed as participating in activities such as: fishing, camping, hunting, and swimming. In all of these sporting categories, only “whites” were portrayed as participating in such activities. It is also worth noting that women were represented in sporting goods very poorly.
The portrayal of women was also typical, in a stereotypical way. Women were mostly represented in the following areas: apparel, fashion accessories, make-up, and housewares. Again, “whites” represented most of those being portrayed on the in-store signage and product packaging. “Black” females had higher representation within the realm of high, trendy women’s fashion, but again, they were not equally represented. However, the most diversified women’s section was with make-up. This was the only place within the store where there was roughly equal representation for many ethnicities. But women were still advertised as people who wear “feminine” colors, take care of children and house, and are sexually available at all times. This is as opposed to the men, who, appear rugged, tough, and economically successful.
On a positive note, the pharmacy area and children’s toy sections were very well diversified. In these areas the ratio of represented “whites” in comparison to other ethnicities dropped to anywhere from 1:1 to 2:1. In the toy section in particular, children were portrayed as cooperating and sharing with those of a different social, ethnic, or cultural background.
What does all of this mean? My observations have led me to this conclusion (remember, this is superficial, and at this point for fun): in-store signing represents the large ideals and stereotypes of our society. Gender, racial and class roles are still completely intact and represented inside these big-box retailers: girls are to wear pink; women are to be sexually available and take care of children and house; men are to be rugged and successful; “blacks” play basketball; and so on. While each department signage had diversity within it, “white” males were still the most represented in all categories except for make-up and women’s clothing (this is for obvious gender role reasons). Again, my observations herein are superficial, and noi concrete, viable conclusions can be drawn here. However, this has left me wondering if in-store signing does affect the perceptions of the consumer, in particular as to who that consumer is supposed to find within their class and peer group. On the surface in-store advertising does, to a degree, tell us who we should expect along with where and how.
