Sexist Stereotypes In Pepsi Products
The move that was made by Pepsi's on CEO Indra Nooyi is one that I will consider misplaced and one that does not have a clear target. This is because of some reasons which I will be discussing below. The main reason that makes me disagree with this proposal is that fact that manufacturers appear to be relying on gender stereotypes to come up with sexist products which are meant specifically for women.
Consumer stereotyping is an approach that create generalizations from some consumption objects of individuals who orient from specific social classification. In addition, gender identity is an essential component to be considered when it comes to consumer’s self-concept. This is because many people tend to conform their cultural expectations in term of sex roles. There is an evidence in this tending and a good example would be from comparison of food preferences between women and men. Women for instance like eating fruits while men prefer meat. This can apply here, but it is not the case since there was some specification of products that will be meant for ladies only.
Pepsi did not conduct substantial research and what it looks like is that it conducted its research on a focus group where it was trying to identify how men and women by their snacks. The research results identify that men were very comfortable than women when it came to crunching in public. Hence, PepsiCo does not only develop this line of snacks based on sexism, but it's coming up with a product which is relied on the real-life behaviors which are relied on sexism. This is a wrong since the products will perpetuate sexist stereotypes. This issue that is related with sexist stereotypes is dangerous in the marketing and advertising. In fact, this issue that is related with sexist stereotypes that is less favorable with many consumers since is considered as harmful impacts of the stereotype. Therefore, the line of snacks that Pepsi is developing doesn't meet a purpose when it follows sexist stereotypes, the firm would have developed their products without distinguish this product for women. It would have been better if it created the product and trusted that if you make a new product, consumer will definitely come. Then, the company would have won, the product would have been bought and there would have been no damage on gender norms on any side whatever. So, Pepsi should not have followed this stereotype and Pepsi should have protected its reputation with those consumers who are less favorable with sexist stereotypes in marketing and advertising.
All other items which are considered as meant for ladies due to their pettiness’ or color will at times bring about creation of stereotypes about women forcing some of them to feel as if they are less feminine especially if they don't purchase those products. Some of these marketing tactics are what perpetuate more and more gender stereotypes. Products that have been designed specifically for women have an expensive price as compared to those that are designed for men. This type of practice is what is referred to as the pink tax and this makes women pay more for gendered items such as razors, toys, dry cleaning which in turn contributes to the financial inequality which exists between men and women. Hence, Pepsi should not have proposed an idea that leaded the inequity between the women and men and not have exploited women when it distinguished its products by pettiness’ or color. There is also another tendency where both the genders will negatively respond to marketers who sweep generalizations about what men want or even what women want and gauging outdated stereotypes about the female or male behaviors preferences and attitudes. In terms of packaging and having a pocket-friendly size which would fit into a handbag can be dealt with by coming up with a product that is a bit smaller than the usual quantity. Having products in different shapes and sizes would have made a better sale as compared to changing the name and making it specifically for ladies since most of them did not support the idea due to the fact that they thought it was all about feminism. Another thing which is not right is arguing that women don't like their loud crunchy sound especially when in public. This is because it may apply to a small proportion of women and not all as their company wanted to generalize it. Introducing a new product in the market without having to state that it is for women only will have made even more sales and we'll have heard a better reception as compared to when a specific target group is being focused on.
In conclusion, I don't support the idea that Pepsi had come up with since it was one of those wrong mistakes which ended up being mocked by a lot of people. There could have been better and easier ways of dealing with these than having to categorize people according to the agenda.
