LogFAQs > #878375811

streamofthesky posted...

55% is a huge difference, so wtf toys are parents buying for girls when plenty of boys' toys are expensive, too? You don't know any actual meaning behind the numbers and when called out for it, resort to passive-aggressive snide remarks. Cool, thanks.

Let's be clear, you just gave an example for more expensive toys. Cool great, lets talk about Legos then.

Legos are marketed to be gender neutral, in fact that article actually talks about it.

Let's look through some of Lego's advertisements, saaaay, this one:
https://d35fkdjhhgt99.cloudfront.net/static/use-media-items/5/4626/full-806x1024/56701a4a/3718434254_c5e2b552b8_b.jpeg?resolution=0

Or this one:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8477/8199007964_31b356a478_b.jpg

Or this one:
https://massivehassle.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/kislanyok.png?w=809

And espically this one:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2315796/images/o-LEGO-REDDIT-facebook.jpg

Now, I'm not cherry picking these past the requirement "google 'lego advertisement' and click on the ones that include people". Notice what that has? A complete lack of gender bias for those images, both boys and girls can play with Legos, which for 1950 to 1960 is a f***ing massive dynamic shift for how things were advertised before.

streamofthesky posted...

It doesn't answer if it's actually a lot more expensive or women have a greater tendency to buy higher priced clothing items, though.

That's a question of the dog wagging the tail, or the tail wagging the dog.

People buy things based off of what's being advertised to them, that's literally what advertisements exist to do and why people pay for ads.
So, if you advertise for just expensive watches (and have a complete market for expensive watches, like a company who produces watches), and then people buy those watches because of ads. That doesn't mean you can claim that everyone wants expensive watches, just that the ad was successful.