There's gender bias in your Tinder profile all the way to your marketing photography

Gender bias comes in all shapes and sizes and in many ways through the marketing and advertising process from the products we create, the packaging we design, the media strategy and research projects, well before we even think about making anything creative. The creative process is last in the chain but can be one of the most powerful. Let's put aside any particular product category for now and just think about creative we produce. So, what does gender bias look like in photography and what can we do about it?

Before we go further; yes, it is Ok to have photography that is reinforcing a woman's femininity and it is also Ok to have photography that reinforces a man's masculinity but the issue is that we do it blindly and without deliberate care. We also make judgements about others when it doesn't fit within a certain 'box' of expectation in a way that it is harmful (to all genders) and that's what I care about for our industry. So, let's be deliberate with our creative decisions and don't just operate on auto-pilot as it is doing a lot of harm. There will be a lot of people who can show examples where this won't be the case too of course, but the data is there people... our imagery is doing harm out there. So, let's be open to being conscious about our creative decisions at every micro-step of the way together.

Watching the Netflix show MissRepresentation I shouldn't have been surprised to find a solid study on photography use by women and men across the Tinder platform. It was the majority of men who had photographed themselves with the camera below and looking up to them to create a presence of authority, confidence and strength, yet the women mostly filmed themselves from above with their eyes looking up creating an impression of submissiveness and vulnerability. The professor in the show even claimed it made their eyes more round and baby-like to make women appear younger to be more attractive to fit with our stereotypes around beauty and youth.

There are obvious art direction choices that make something masculine and feminine. If we look at these images from automotive photography you'll see that we can go hard in either direction. Of course this is fine if genuinely your niche audience is masculine or feminine and I'll refer to this as male and female here (that's the most common assignment of energy type with gender, but not always of course). The issue we have is that masculine cues are often on auto-pilot when our actual audience is majority female and as a result the target buyer feels misunderstood.

Whether the photography has a woman in the shot or not is not the driver for a masculine or feminine art direction. These two images below are both with female talent in them, but one is a feminine approach, and the other is clearly masculine. No amount of argument could convince me that the women on the right are empowered feminists with this art direction.

Soulless cars that are all about the sheet metal, or product based photography with the absence of people can be a very masculine device. The angle of the wheels turned aggressively, the tilted angle of the camera to accentuate speed and power are clearly masculine cues. To have some a sense of people and a community (often family) and showing a sense of personal connection in the photography is a strong feminine cue by contrast.

We might see couples in a car in our photography for example, but who is driving? In my experience it is rare we see a woman driving other than on her own or with children or girlfriends. If she's in the car with a man she'll mostly be the passenger.

We're also focusing here on binary gender so far with a male and female bias when I acknowledge clearly that we have multiple genders in fact (and always have). One of my favourite photographers is Sue Stubbs who is doing some great work at breaking down stereotypes of all types and celebrating gender fluidity and gender diversity.

The ever so subtle use of camera position in Sue's work and the flipping of the colours we assign to gender is getting us off balance, and starting some good questions here. The subjects chosen are respectfully represented in this photographic series.

There is a place for gender neutral in order to be more respectful to our community whether they are male or female (or anything in between). Letting go of some of the biased conventions is timely. I propose the challenge for all of us is how to know if something we are working on has inherent bias or not? The most effective process we can put in place in all steps of the creative process is swapping a lot of the elements out and see where we react to this in our body or in our minds. Can the image pass the test with either gender swapped around, or does it seem weird for some reason? These two images to follow pass the gender test to me and are successfully neutral. If we put a guy on the roof of the car in a rug would that be fine? Yes. If we put a man behind the wheel of the car and filmed it from above like this on the right, would that be fine? Yes. Then we have removed the bias successfully.

Some might say that if we put men in the shot of the two women sitting on the green convertible above (with the Santa hats on) it could be no longer sexist because it is showing nude men and not women. Over-sexualisation and objectifying anyone for the sake of a brand is another topic altogether and just as inappropriate - regardless of the bias. If we had a man and a woman both in the shot we'd be equally representing them here but still bringing up those other questions.

The goal for us as marketing creatives is to be certain that we are producing creative that is purposeful and consciously supporting the widest possible segment of the client's target audience. It is when we are reinforcing stereotypes as most of the images in this discussion has done that we are doing harm to society and our clients' customers feel completely misunderstood. The solution is not to start putting non-binary people in every advertisement either as the segment is still only 0.4% for transgender females and 0.2% for trans men so it could slip into tokenism if we do this for effect. A little gender ambiguity or making it unclear who is driving is another possible solution to keep brands out of trouble too.

This same gender neutral approach goes for any product segment of course. Think about parenting products for a moment... Try searching the stock libraries for 'parents in the supermarket' and all you get is women. Showing both parents involved in the raising of children isn't hard to do.

Speaking to photographer Sue Stubbs about what makes for great gender neutral photography, she says "Shooting gender neutral is about a mood created by combining backgrounds, lighting, colours and balancing them so it’s not obviously aligned with gender. It’s not intentional to confuse the viewer but to distract them so that more often than not they are not aware of gender bias or gender neutral. The subtleness of a hand shape or broadening or narrowing of the shoulders can make all the difference. Eye level and eye expression to the camera play an important role".

Even if we have no interest in the social cause at least we should care about being strategically aligned with the market. As I always say, a lot of brands just don't have the budget to market to two sets of audiences, or to annoy a big portion of their customers either and communicating to both without polarising the other is a massive growth opportunity for savvy brands. At the same time we'll be doing some good out there too.

Anne Miles is founder and Managing Director of Suits&Sneakers, a collective of strategists (the suits) and creative and tech talent (the sneakers) and is passionate about removing unconscious bias from the marketing and advertising creative process.

Download your own checklist for masculine, feminine and gender neutral communications at the Suits&Sneakers website here: http://suitsandsneakers.global/free-resources/