Here, Maddy Ross, a Behavioural Sciences Thinker at Thinkerbell, puts two wildly different versions of masculinity head-to-head in ads for The Bachelor’s Handbag. One dominant and blokey, the other self-aware and warm. Then he watched what people did, and the “nice guy” didn’t just win hearts… he won carts.
There are currently two competing versions of masculinity playing out in culture.
On one side, a return to dominance, control and traditional male roles. On the other, a more modern version built on warmth, self-awareness and inclusivity.
Both are showing up in advertising, and a recent documentary of the most toxic of masculinity inspired us to examine what form of masculinity would perform better in advertising.
So we ran a test.
The Experiment
We created two ads selling (you guessed it) The Bachelor’s Handbag, a handbag styled to look like a roast chicken bag (born out of Thinkerbell’s Pot of Gold initiative in collaboration with Size 11, you can buy it here)
In those ads we changed the portrayal of masculinity. The traditional version leaned into dominance and confidence, with a slightly confrontational tone, while the modern version was warmer, more inclusive, and self-aware.
We then measured what people did, focusing on add-to-carts, cost per result and reach.
Traditional Masculinity Ad:
Modern Masculinity Ad:
The Results:
Before you read the results watch the videos, or at least look at the frames above and have a guess as to what you think would sell more. Then ask yourselves why. Have you done that?
Ok now read ahead for the results.
From around 13,000 impressions per ad, the modern masculinity ad generated 41 add-to-carts, at a $6.36 cost per result. Whereas the traditional masculinity ad generated only 23 add-to-carts, at a $11.43 cost per result.
With all other variables being equal, the modern masculinity depiction drove almost twice as many add-to-carts. In simple terms, it converted much, much better and cost significantly less to do so.
The split by gender tells an even clearer story.
The modern ad attracted a balanced audience, with 23 add-to-carts from men and 17 from women. The traditional ad, however, was almost entirely carried by men, delivering 21 male add-to-carts and just 2 from women.
It suggests the portrayal of masculinity didn’t just influence overall performance, it changed who felt like the product was for them. And unsurprisingly, the more traditional, blokey framing significantly reduced appeal among women, effectively narrowing the audience.
This lines up with broader research showing that stereotypical gender portrayals can create negative cross-gender effects (Åkestam et al., 2020), reducing effectiveness among audiences who don’t see themselves reflected in the ad. In this case, the cost of that narrow portrayal shows up clearly in the data.
What’s Driving this?
Research supports that consumers increasingly prefer depictions of men who are caring, warm, and emotionally intelligent, with a majority of both men and women favouring these portrayals over more traditional ones (Kreicbergs, Ščeulovs, & Bernovskis, (2024). What we’re seeing in this test is consistent with that shift, suggesting the modern portrayal is more aligned with what audiences respond to.
Part of this comes down to how people respond to stereotypes. Traditional masculinity cues can still resonate with some audiences, but they also risk triggering psychological reactance, particularly among those who feel excluded or misrepresented.
Stereotypical portrayals can lead to worse brand outcomes across genders (Åkestam et al., 2020), and our results suggest that effect will be amplified among women. The sharp drop-off in female add-to-carts for the traditional ad points to a stronger sensitivity to how masculinity is being framed, where a narrow identity signal makes people less likely to engage with the brand. In short, we think females are interpreting the traditional male as ‘a bit of a dick’, and don’t want to be associated with him.
There is also a more general behavioural principle at play. Research by Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick (2007) shows that people evaluate others primarily on warmth and competence, and importantly, warmth is assessed first. This means that before an audience considers whether a message is credible or impressive, they are making a faster, more intuitive judgement about whether it feels approachable or likeable. The modern masculinity ad leads with cues of care and relatability, while the traditional version leans more heavily on dominance and correction. That difference in tone may seem subtle, but it shapes whether people lean in or disengage.
What this means for marketers
This isn’t about declaring one version of masculinity right or wrong. It’s about recognising that how you portray it has commercial consequences.
In this case, the modern masculinity portrayal worked better because it aligned more closely with how people want to see themselves, and who they feel included by.
In advertising, that difference shows up at checkout.
