no cap: striving for authenticity - diva-portal
TRANSCRIPT
No cap: Striving
for authenticity
MASTER DEGREE
THESIS WITHIN: Consumer Behaviour
NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15
PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Marketing
AUTHOR: Matilda K. de Jong & Maximilian J. Ignatzek
JÖNKÖPING May 2022
LGBTQ images and Gen Z’s perception of fast fashion
brand authenticity
i
Master Thesis in Business Administration
Title: No cap: Striving for authenticity
Authors: Matilda K. de Jong & Maximilian J. Ignatzek
Tutor: Adele Berndt
Date: 2022-05-19
Key terms: Brand authenticity, Brand Authenticity Construct, Fashion, Fast fashion,
Advertising, Generation Z, Gen Z, LGBTQ, LGBTQ images, Perception, Perceptual process
Abstract
Background: Brands have started paying attention to brand authenticity since consumer
demand for authenticity is increasing. Especially Gen Z is constantly seeking for authentic,
inclusive, and diverse brands as they are the first generation to choose brands based on
authenticity. Especially the LGBTQ community’s representation in advertising is often
perceived as inauthentic and superficial. Since Gen Z is not only a big consumer of fast fashion
but also the first to include fast fashion as part of their everyday life, the fast fashion industry
is required to be more authentic in its use of LGBTQ in advertising.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore how Gen Z perceives LGBTQ images in fast
fashion advertising and how this impacts brand authenticity.
Method: For this study, an exploratory research design with a qualitative approach was applied.
Using an abductive approach, existing literature was used as a basis to create the conceptual
model of this study. Further, a fictional fast fashion brand including five advertisements were
created and presented to twenty informants during semi-structured interviews to gain a more
in-depth understanding of the research problem.
Conclusion: The study found that Gen Z’s perceptions of LGBTQ images in fast fashion
advertising can be classified into three categories: positive, neutral, and negative perceptions.
Informants with a positive perception perceived the brand to be authentic whilst informants
with a negative perception the opposite. Since informants with a neutral perception sometimes
had similar perceptions as the informants with a positive or negative perception, no clear answer
on their perception of brand authenticity can be given.
ii
Acknowledgements
What an adventure it was! These past six months have been incredibly chaotic, exciting,
insightful, and satisfying at the same time. After coming up with the thesis topic during a cosy
vacation in Lapland, Finland, the whole thesis was written in Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Germany, and the Netherlands. It was mainly characterised by countless Fika and gym breaks,
coffees, Noccos, and constant music in our ears. However, we could not have done it without
the help of several people who are being appreciated in the following.
The first person we would like to express our deepest gratitude and appreciation to is
Adele Berndt, our thesis supervisor. Thank you for being the most caring and professional
professor and supervisor we could have had. Your constant support, input, feedback, critical
view, and positive attitude did keep us going and gave us the motivation we needed when we
felt like breaking down. Further, thank you for always answering our emails within two minutes
even though we know you are an all-time busy person.
Secondly, a big thank you to the other two student teams in our seminar group whose
input and constructive criticism have contributed to the result of this thesis. We had a blast with
you!
Thirdly, we are grateful for all the twenty people who participated in this study and shared
their personal feelings and thoughts with us. We appreciate these immensely as you gave us
incredible insights and consequently made this study possible.
Furthermore, the biggest Aussie “Ta” to Pamela Talevska who took her time and effort
to copy edit this thesis. Your outstanding language skills have contributed to this work, and we
are grateful to have you as a loyal friend down under.
Finally, we would like to express our biggest gratitude and love towards our friends and
families who kept us on track, ensured our social lives, supported us throughout the six months,
and encouraged us at any time. Big shout-out to you!
iii
Table of contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Research problem .............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Purpose of research ............................................................................................ 3
1.4 Key terms ........................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature review ......................................................................................................... 6
2.1 LGBTQ .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Understanding gender and sex ................................................................... 6
2.1.2 LGBTQ images .......................................................................................... 7
2.2 Fashion & fast fashion ....................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Fast fashion advertising ........................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Contemporary representation of LGBTQ in fashion and fast fashion
advertising ......................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Gen Z ............................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Gen Z and LGBTQ .................................................................................. 14
2.3.2 Gen Z and fast fashion ............................................................................. 14
2.4 Perception ........................................................................................................ 15
2.4.1 Definition of perception ........................................................................... 15
2.4.2 The perceptual process ............................................................................. 15
2.5 Brand authenticity ............................................................................................ 18
2.5.1 Definition of brand authenticity ............................................................... 18
2.5.2 Authenticity of fast fashion brands .......................................................... 19
2.5.3 The Brand Authenticity Construct ........................................................... 20
2.5.4 Brand authenticity and LGBTQ in advertising ........................................ 27
2.6 The conceptual model of the research ......................................................... 29
3. Method........................................................................................................................ 31
3.1 Research philosophy ........................................................................................ 31
3.2 Research design ............................................................................................... 32
3.3 Research strategy and approach ....................................................................... 33
3.4 Data collection ................................................................................................. 34
3.4.1 Secondary data ......................................................................................... 34
iv
3.4.2 Primary data ............................................................................................. 34
3.4.2.1 Fictional brand ‘JEMA’.................................................................... 34
3.4.2.2 Image selection & advertisement design .......................................... 35
3.4.2.3 Qualitative interviews....................................................................... 39
3.5 Sampling and informant selection ................................................................... 40
3.6 Data analysis .................................................................................................... 42
3.7 Ethics ............................................................................................................... 42
3.8 Research quality ............................................................................................... 44
4. Findings ...................................................................................................................... 46
4.1 Fashion consciousness ..................................................................................... 46
4.2 Perceptions ....................................................................................................... 48
4.2.1 Advert #1 .................................................................................................. 48
4.2.2 Advert #2 .................................................................................................. 50
4.2.3 Advert #3 .................................................................................................. 52
4.2.4 Advert #4 .................................................................................................. 54
4.2.5 Advert #5 .................................................................................................. 55
4.2.6 Overall perception .................................................................................... 60
4.3 Brand authenticity ............................................................................................ 61
4.3.1 Brand reliability ....................................................................................... 62
4.3.2 Brand consistency .................................................................................... 63
4.3.3 Brand originality ...................................................................................... 65
4.3.4 Brand genuineness ................................................................................... 67
4.3.5 Brand integrity ......................................................................................... 69
4.3.6 Brand symbolism ..................................................................................... 70
4.3.7 Overall brand authenticity ........................................................................ 72
4.4 Additional insights ........................................................................................... 77
4.4.1 Preferences ............................................................................................... 77
4.4.2 Additional comments ............................................................................... 78
5. Analysis & discussion ................................................................................................ 78
5.1 Gen Z’s perceptions of LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising ................ 78
5.2 The impact of Gen Z’s perceptions of LGBTQ images in fast fashion
advertising on brand authenticity .................................................................................... 81
6. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 88
v
6.1. Purpose............................................................................................................ 88
6.2 Theoretical implications .................................................................................. 89
6.3 Managerial implications .................................................................................. 90
6.4 Societal implications and ethics ....................................................................... 91
6.5 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 92
6.5 Future research ................................................................................................. 93
Reference list .................................................................................................................. 95
Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 120
vi
Figures
Figure 1: Calvin Klein #proudinmycalvins capsule collection .................................. 12
Figure 2: ASOS X GLAAD capsule collection ......................................................... 12
Figure 3: Perceptual process ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 4: The Brand Authenticity Construct………………………………………...21
Figure 5: Conceptual model of the research............................................................... 30
Figure 6: Advert including lesbian models ................................................................ 36
Figure 7: Advert including gay models ...................................................................... 37
Figure 8: Advert including transgender/ transsexual models ..................................... 37
Figure 9: Advert including nonbinary models ........................................................... 38
Figure 10: Advert including LGBTQ symbols .......................................................... 38
Figure 11: Revised conceptual model ........................................................................ 87
Tables
Table 1: Overview of informants’ demographics and interview durations ................ 41
Table 2: Informant information on fashion consciousness ........................................ 47
Table 3: Overview of informants' quotes relating to perceptions .............................. 59
Table 4: Classification of informants’ perceptions individually by advertisement ... 60
Table 5: Classification of informants’ perceptions in total ........................................ 60
Table 6: Informants' perception of the most reliable advertisement .......................... 63
Table 7: Informants' perception of the most consistent advertisement ...................... 65
Table 8: Informants' perception of the most original advertisement .......................... 67
Table 9: Informants' perception of the most genuine advertisement ......................... 69
Table 10: Informants' perception of the advertisement that shows the most integrity70
Table 11: Overview of informants' perception of brand authenticity ........................ 72
Table 12: Overview of informants' quotes relating to brand authenticity .................. 76
Table 13: Informant's advertisement preferences....................................................... 77
vii
Appendix
Appendix 1: Definitions of sexual orientations........................................................ 120
Appendix 2: Interview guide .................................................................................... 121
Appendix 3: Coding tables ....................................................................................... 125
Appendix 4: GDPR Thesis Study Consent Form ..................................................... 130
Abbreviations
approx.
bil.
e.g.
et al.
etc.
Gen Z
i.e.
min
n.d.
p.
SEK
approximately
billion
exempli gratia
et alii
et cetera
Generation Z
id est
minute(s)
no date
page
Swedish krona
1
1. Introduction
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The objective of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the context of the research topic.
After providing an overall background to highlight the research topic’s relevance, the
research problem is explained. Further, the chapter continues by clarifying the research
purpose as well as by stating the research question. In the end, fundamental key terms for
the research are explained.
______________________________________________________________________
1.1 Background
Brands try to stand out to consumers by providing unique products and services
(Georgiou, 2021). Yet there is a growing consumer demand that a brand be authentic.
(Portal et al., 2018). ‘Brand authenticity’ is not a synonym for honesty but an element of
brand trust which establishes brand uniqueness and positively influences brand loyalty,
brand equity, and consumer experience (Pec, 2020; Södergren, 2021). According to
Södergren (2021, p. 645), brand authenticity is “a core asset in mainstream marketing”
based on its increasing use in marketing over the past 25 years and the rise of the internet
(Georgiou, 2021). Further, brand authenticity “has overtaken quality as the prevailing
criterion” (Gilmore & Pine, 2007, p. 5) and brands have started paying attention to it
(Beery, 2017). Nevertheless, the latest so-called ‘Authentic 100’ report by Cohn & Wolfe
identified a gap in perceived brand authenticity between a company and a consumer
perspective (Business Insider, 2017; Cohn & Wolfe, n.d.).
This gap is mainly perceived by Generation Z (Gen Z), which encompasses people
aged 12-25 (Georgiou, 2021; Oxford Dictionary, n.d.-a). The second to youngest
generation is educated about brands and consequently searches for authenticity, tolerance,
diversity, inclusivity, transparency, and trustworthiness (Biondi, 2021; Francis & Hoefel,
2018) resulting in the cohort shopping from brands it views as complementary to these
values (Hanbury, 2019). In other words, members of the generation prefer brands that are
“real and organic” (Georgiou, 2021) and hence authentic (Williams, 2020). Research
2
conducted by DoSomethingStrategic (2019) found a positive relationship between high
brand authenticity and Gen Z’s intention to purchase from this brand. However, the study
also acknowledged a lack of acceptance from Gen Z when it comes to an authentic
representation of social causes in advertising (Levine, 2019a; Levine, 2019b).
One of these social causes refers to brands’ use of LGBTQ images in their
advertising (Ciszek & Lim, 2021). LGBTQ is an “evolving acronym (…) that people use
to describe their experiences of their gender, sexuality and physiological sex
characteristics” (La Trobe University, n.d.). Gen Z is known to be the front runner of
LGBTQ acceptance and does not only regard diversity in marketing communication as
essential (Francis & Hoefel, 2018) but takes it also for granted since most of its members
are all “queer in some way” (Schmidt, 2021) and seek for brands that represent similar
values and norms (Gates, 2017). After several decades, the number of people who identify
as LGBTQ based on their sexual orientation and/ or gender identity has significantly
increased and has reached its current peak (Ciszek & Pounders, 2020; Scott, 2021; Jones,
2022). A study by Ipsos (2021) found that 11% of 19,069 adults across 27 countries
globally identify as anything other than heterosexual and 2% as anything other than male
or female. As a common trend, brands “have been become quick to jump on the proverbial
rainbow bandwagon” (Ciszek & Lim, 2021, p. 395) since research suggests brands are
more profitable when their advertising represents different genders, racial diversity, and
LGBTQ (Cox, 2021).
Notably, the fashion industry experienced a prominent rise when it comes to the
inclusion of LGBTQ images in its advertising (Scott, 2021; Nölke 2017). Fashion brands
such as Calvin Klein “teaming up with Gen Z gender-fluidity and LGBTQ+ icons”
(Puttonen, 2021) have experienced praise for their inclusivity and support by Gen Z
(Scott, 2021). Moreover, Puttonen (2021) claims that “gender fluidity is one of the key
elements in life and fashion for this newer generation” which represents the current
zeitgeist of Gen Z members requiring and embracing images of diversity in marketing
communication within the fashion industry seeking for authenticity. In detail, Gen Z
particularly shops in the fast fashion industry, making it the first generation to establish
the industry as part of everyday life (Nguyen, 2021).
3
1.2 Research problem
Brand authenticity is essential for achieving brands’ goals and success which is why
brands engage in creating it (Ciszek & Lim, 2021; Portal et al., 2018; Södergren, 2021).
However, this is seen as an issue they lack within their marketing communication (Ciszek
& Pounders, 2020; Beery, 2017; Business Insider, 2017). Gen Z is the first generation
that chooses and judges brands based on their authenticity reflected in advertising (Talbot,
2021). Primarily, LGBTQ is often perceived as inauthentic due to stereotypical and
superficial displays in advertising (Ennis, 2021; Chitrakorn, 2021). Since Gen Z places a
high focus on inclusivity and is one of fast fashion’s biggest consumption groups, the fast
fashion industry is put under pressure to be more authentic in the use of LGBTQ images
in their advertising to avoid potential loss of Gen Z consumers (Talbot, 2021; Scott, 2021;
Nguyen 2021). Nevertheless, a gap in literature and knowledge regarding Gen Z’s
perception of fast fashion brand authenticity exists (Hernandez-Fernandez & Lewis,
2019; Scott, 2021; Ciszek & Lim, 2021; Ciszek & Pounders, 2020).
1.3 Purpose of research
Consequently, based on the problem mentioned, the purpose of this study is to explore
how Gen Z perceives LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising and how this impacts
brand authenticity. Gen Z is interesting to investigate due to them being considered a
more open and accepting generation (Wang, 2000). Whereas brands recognise
opportunities in displaying the LGBTQ community in their advertising, they are hesitant
to illustrate this community in mainstream advertising due to the fear of negative
responses from consumers (Holz Ivory, 2017). To reach the overall research purpose, the
following research questions need to be answered:
RQ1: How does Gen Z perceive LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising?
A. What aspects attract their attention?
B. How does Gen Z interpret these images?
C. What is their response to the images?
RQ2: How does this perception link to the dimensions of brand authenticity?
4
1.4 Key terms
Advertising: Advertising is a business’s marketing “activity of making products or
services known about and persuading people to buy them” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.-
a) through various channels to reach large audiences (Fill & Turnbull, 2019).
Brand authenticity: Brand authenticity is a subjective evaluation of a brand’s
genuineness, uniqueness, integrity, and pure origin ascribed by consumers, encompassing
the brand to not only be faithful to itself yet also to its consumers in which they are
supported in being true to themselves through continuous and reliable communication.
Additionally, any promises made by the brand are clear and delivered upon (Bruner, 1994;
Bruhn et al., 2012; Morhart et al., 2015; Moulard et al., 2014).
Fast fashion: Fast fashion produces inexpensive clothing in response to the latest
clothing trends from the catwalk and turns them into mass-market products to meet
consumer demand (Adebanjo & Mann, 2000). It demands frequent assortment changes,
quick consumer response and cheap prices (Cachon & Swinney, 2011). Examples of fast
fashion brands are H&M, Forever 21, or Zara (Nguyen, 2020).
Generation Z: According to Oxford Dictionary (n.d.-a), ‘Generation Z’ defines as “the
group of people who were born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s”. Due to their
high exposure to the internet, mobile technology, and social networks, Gen Z members
have been compared to as being “digital natives” (Francis & Hoefel, 2018) and
consequently ‘hypercognitive’.
Image/ LGBTQ image: Images are visual representations of something/ someone and
can be pictures or photographs to be displayed on various channels such as a television,
phone, or a magazine (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.-b). LGBTQ images are visual displays of
people of different sexuality and/ or gender identification as well as symbols and flags of
the LGBTQ community (Gonzalez, n.d.; Gay Times, n.d.).
5
LGBTQ: The abbreviation ‘LGBTQ’ stands for lesbian (L), gay (G), bisexual (B),
transsexual (T), and questioning (Q), but likewise exists in different versions and acquires
additional letters such as an ‘I’ for intersexual, ‘A’ for asexual, ‘Q’ for queer, or a ‘+’
symbol “illustrating the multiple other sexual and gender identities” (Boyd et al., 2020,
p. 1316) “that letters and words can’t describe yet” (Gold, 2018).
Perception: A perception is “an idea, a belief or an image you have as a result of how
you see or understand something” (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.-c). It is based on what kind
of information a person’s body gathers from the outside world using the human senses
(Aque, 2007).
1.5 Delimitations
Since LGBTQ and the associated terminology is subject to different usages, alternatives,
and interpretations in the vernacular as well as in academia, the term ‘LGBTQ’ is
highlighted in this paper using italics to clarify its diversity. Primarily, formulating a clear
and conclusive definition and interpretation of LGBTQ is not the fundamental aim of this
work. In the case of an altered statement of quotations or paraphrases, italic notation is
not used. Moreover, for simplicity and continuity, this paper settles on the common term
'LGBTQ' to avoid misunderstanding and ambiguity. Notwithstanding, social inequality,
exclusion, and discrimination in any form are not intended to be caused or promoted.
Generally, it should be acknowledged that the representation of LGBTQ in
advertising including fashion and fast fashion is highly culture driven. While this paper
focuses on representation within Western societies, which includes Europe, North
America, and other countries with European ancestry (Lexico, n.d.), Eastern ideologies
(e.g., Russia, Poland, Hungary) do not welcome LGBTQ related content in their
advertisements and sometimes even have laws against the inclusion of so-called ‘gay
propaganda’ (Walker et al., 2019; Elder, 2013; Chan, 2017).
6
2. Literature review
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This chapter aims to provide the theoretical background and framework to the research
topic through a literature review creating an overview and understanding for the
following research findings later in the paper. The literature review is separated into two
parts, beginning with the theoretical background on the key terminology used within the
study and transitioning into the theoretical framework.
______________________________________________________________________
2.1 LGBTQ
2.1.1 Understanding gender and sex
‘Gender’ “is a central aspect of how we define ourselves and how those around us define
us” (Seregina, 2018, p. 454). The term encapsulates not only one’s sense of self (i.e.,
identity), but also how this sense of self is communicated to others (i.e., expression)
according to socially defined stereotypes of masculinity/ femininity using language,
clothing, or hairstyle (Bosse & Chiodo, 2016; Matsuno & Budge, 2017).
Notwithstanding, the appropriate and correct adoption of ‘gender’ is not established in
Western society so far and leads to common misunderstandings since the terms ‘gender’
and ‘sex’ are used interchangeably (Bosse & Chiodo, 2016; Ryan, 2018; Matsuno &
Budge, 2017). An individual’s biological sex is characterised by physical aspects such as
hormones or chromosomes (Matsuno & Budge, 2017; Doyal 2003). In contrast, “gender
emerges within the confines of social norms of its context, and largely defines the identity,
behaviour, aims, and desires of individuals enacting it” (Seregina, 2018, p. 454).
However, social and cultural stereotypes and norms cause the allocation of individual
genders to either masculine or feminine, also referred to as ‘binary’ gender (Matsuno &
Budge, 2017; Doyal, 2003). For example, people who only identify with their biological
sex (i.e., cisgender) and regard heterosexuality as the only right orientation of sexuality
and identity are called heteronormative (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.-b; Jackson, 2006).
7
Gender is a complex individual construct that varies from society to culture as well
as intra- and interpersonal factors like class and ethnicity (Bosse & Chiodo, 2016;
Matsuno & Budge, 2017) and can be divided into two categories: binarism and non-
binarism. Binarism refers to the identification with either male or female, whereas non-
binarism applies to someone who “identifies as neither male nor female and sees
themselves outside the gender binary” (Gold, 2018). Non-binary are also those
individuals who can identify as both male and female at different times or with no specific
gender at any time, which is commonly called ‘genderqueer’ (Matsuno & Budge, 2017;
Richards et al., 2016). In other words, ‘non-binary’ serves as an umbrella term involving
transexuals/ transgender, gender fluid people, and androgynes (Monro, 2019; Monro,
2005; Gold, 2018). When talking about sexuality, the vocabulary encompasses a high
variety of terms that are constantly evolving and added. Definitions of each sexuality can
be found in Appendix 1.
People identifying with any of the gender identities and/ or sexual orientations
encompassed by LGBTQ consider themselves as part of the LGBTQ community that
makes up around 20% of the global population (Ipsos, 2021). However, quantifying an
accurate number of community members is seen as vague based on uncertainties towards
term definitions of gender identities and sexualities. In other words, gender identity and
sexuality are personal beliefs that make it complicated to put them in a clear category
(Deschamps & Singer, 2017). Community members worldwide celebrate human
differences in their choice of gender identity and/ or sexuality at Pride, also called Pride
month, taking place yearly in June and usually involves parades, concerts, and parties
(Abad-Santos, 2018; Levesley, 2019).
2.1.2 LGBTQ images
This chapter encapsulates how LGBTQ is visually displayed in images in previous
research and the media. It needs to be acknowledged that there is no clear display of any
LGBTQ orientation and images can only give hints to a sexual and/ or gender orientation
based on how people are displayed according to appearance norms that “can function as
a ‘system of classification’” (Huxley et al., 2013, p. 206). However, it is still important
for LGBTQ members to be recognised based on their appearances to establish a certain
8
degree of status within the community (Clarke & Turner, 2007). Hence, the appearance
of each sexuality and gender orientation is compared to widely used societal hetero-
gendered expressions, meaning male and female, and stereotypes for the sake of
differentiation (Nelson, 2020). Based on the settled term ‘LGBTQ’ to use within this
paper, the focus of this chapter is put on each letter of the abbreviation: lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transsexual/ transgender, and queer/ non-binary. Further, symbols and flags are
presented too.
Firstly, characteristics that indicate lesbian women can be easily seen through the
display of two women showing affection to each other in a physical way. Research
identifies two big categories within style and appearance preferred by lesbians: ‘butch’/
‘boyish’ and ‘femme’. ‘Butch’ is most distinctive for a lesbian appearance and
stereotypically involves clothes and hairstyles that are mostly associated with normative
male characteristics such as shorts, sweaters, and short hair. In contrast, femme women
are traditional partners to butch women and appear with normative feminine
characteristics like dresses, make-up, and long hair (Huxley et al., 2013; Manders, 2020;
Hayfield et al., 2013). However, these appearances have evolved and merged over the
last two decades, resulting in ‘boyish’ (i.e., a softer version of the term ‘butch’) as “the
most common contemporary lesbian style” (Huxley et al., 2013, p. 205).
Like lesbians, gay men can be displayed through physical affection for each other
such as kissing or cuddling. Research shows that gay men are usually seen with an
effeminate display and a high engagement in beauty practices, which means maintaining
their physical appearance. Hence, gay men are often displayed with female associated
clothing and make-up (Huxley & Hayfield, 2012; Colman, 2005). Nevertheless, these are
simply the most common identified characteristics since “reciprocal appearance norms of
gay men as overtly masculine” (Huxley & Hayfield, 2012, p. 191) are less documented
and identified.
When it comes to people with a bisexual orientation, there has been little research
conducted on the appearance of bisexual women. The single aspect commonly mentioned
is how bisexual women draw on both lesbian and hetero-gendered styles (Huxley &
9
Hayfield, 2012; Nelson, 2020). Contrary to this, there is no research to be found on a
certain appearance of bisexual men. Thus, women and men can be only displayed with
physical affection for both genders to hint at a bisexual orientation (Gold, 2018).
Regarding the display of transsexuality/ transgender in LGBTQ images, it can be
acknowledged that people identifying with this orientation are not men wearing wigs and
dresses. These are drag queens that did not undergo any kind of surgery to change their
biological sex characteristics (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, n.d.-b; Ciszek &
Lim, 2021; Gold 2018). Since men and women can decide to change their biological sex,
transsexuals/ transgenders are commonly displayed with aspects of both male and female
biological sex characteristics, such as breasts or genitals (Cain Miller, 2018; Human
Rights Campaign Foundation, n.d.-b; Gelbart, 2017; Viloria et al., 2020).
Even though people identifying as non-binary can be transsexual/ transgender as
well, non-binary (i.e., genderqueer) people did not necessarily change their biological sex
and are therefore commonly displayed in clothing that has male and female features but
also not one specific heterogender, making non-binary often look androgynous
(Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.-c; Weiss, 2018; Krischer, 2019; Rasker, 2021). This
androgynous look has influenced the fashion and fast fashion industry and created the so-
called ‘queer fashion’ or ‘queer style’ that queer and non-binary people commonly are
displayed with, e.g., unisex clothing (Vänskä, 2015; Radin, 2019; Krischer, 2019).
Notably, during Pride month, symbols and flags of the community, mainly the
rainbow flag, appear on the streets and are used in marketing campaigns for brands
(Levesley, 2019). Other symbols involve symbols that represent different gender
identifications such as transgender/ transsexual (Wolowic et al., 2016). Moreover, the
LGBTQ community has been signalizing their identity and community since 1977 using
objects and fashion items (Fischer & Bryan-Wilson, 2015; Wolowic et al., 2016).
2.2 Fashion & fast fashion
Fashion is a multibillion-dollar global industry and a “product of the modern age” (Major,
n.d.) that has emerged over the last decades. It is defined as “the style or styles of clothing
10
and accessories worn at any given time by groups of people” (Major, n.d.). Further, the
industry itself encompasses the entire business process and supply chain from designing
to selling clothes and consists of several small industries such as luxury clothes and fast
fashion (Major, n.d.). The fast fashion industry has expanded significantly and
transformed into a business strategy (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010). In contrast to the
fashion industry, continuous expansion and mass production are key phenomena that
represent the so-called fast fashion marketing model in which the focus is on rapidly
producing high volumes of clothing to satisfy consumer demands (Barnes & Lea‐
Greenwood, 2006). The number of fashion seasons has increased, making it a dynamic
and demanding market (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010). Due to constantly changing trends,
the product life cycle has shortened, and higher profit margins are generated through fast
sales (Bhardwaj & Fairhurst, 2010). Altogether, the main difference in the overall fashion
industry is the paste and quantity of production as well as the product price (Dinh, 2020).
2.2.1 Fast fashion advertising
Advertising is an element of a brand’s marketing communication mix with the purpose
to “engage audiences by creating awareness, changing perceptions/ attitudes and building
brand values, or by influencing behaviour” (Fill & Turnbull, 2019, p. 413) while reaching
large audiences. Even though various types and categories already exist, advertising
experiences a continuous transformation due to the latest technologies and conscious
consumers, pushing brands to catch up on the latest evolvements to secure performance
and sales (Juska, 2021).
Advertising is a fundamental and commonly used element within the fashion and
fast fashion brands’ marketing communication, aiming to promote fashion products and
services (Steele & Major, 2018). In comparison to other industries, fashion and fast
fashion, as part of the retail industry, spend up to 26% of total spendings on advertising
in the US in 2021, which is the biggest market share (Buchholz, 2021). Both industries
constantly adapt their advertising channels to the latest trends and the demands of
consumers (Steele & Major, 2018).
Particularly fast fashion brands have invested in a specific social media advertising
tool: influencer marketing. They are perceived as opinion leaders by consumers and as
11
more authentic than traditional celebrity endorsements. Moreover, cheap expenses for
influencers in contrast to expensive celebrity endorsements make influencers an attractive
and lucrative opportunity, especially for fast fashion advertising (Léa et al., 2018;
Symington, 2020).
2.2.2 Contemporary representation of LGBTQ in fashion and fast fashion
advertising
Over past decades, it did not take long for fashion brands to gain “momentum of a social
reform” (Ahuja, 2021) and to start displaying imagery of LGBTQ in their advertising
since fashion always used to be a way of expressing one’s personal self in any kind of
way, including sexuality and identity. In other words, LGBTQ has always been part of the
fashion industry (Steele, 2013; Stokes, 2015). Notably, the first fashion advertisement
including LGBTQ that received mainstream attention was released by Levi’s in 2008,
which was titled “Unbuttoned and Out of the Closet” (Elliott, 2008) by the New York
Times. Over the past decade, numerous fashion brands such as Balenciaga, Michael Kors,
Calvin Klein, or Coach as well as fast fashion brands like GAP, ASOS, H&M, and Old
Navy engaged in the overall topic of LGBTQ and included related imagery in their
advertisements (Courtois, 2021; Bevan; 2020; Matera, 2018; Avery; 2021). Examples can
be seen in Figures 1 and 2.
Ahuja (2021) states that the “inception of the marginalized community of the queer
into the glamorous world of fashion has rather taken a form of global domination which
is a revolution, passive yet powerful in nature, brimming with new ideas to break the
gender binary and to delve out of the conventional”. In addition, fashion is aiming for
“the end of gender” (Friedman & Trebay, 2021) due to more and more people being
gender agnostic, i.e., gender questioning, and societal and political values shifting and
consequently abolishing old symbolism on gender and sexuality (Friedman & Trebay,
2021; Fausto-Sterling, 2012).
12
Figure 1: Calvin Klein #proudinmycalvins capsule collection (Courtois, 2021)
Figure 2: ASOS X GLAAD capsule collection (Mardis, 2018)
13
When it comes to how advertisements including LGBTQ are perceived, research by
Procter & Gamble and GLAAD (2019) found that the presentation of LGBTQ content in
advertising makes 76% of American non-LGBTQ viewers feel comfortable and associate
the certain brand with positive traits like social responsibility and inclusivity. In contrast,
this is not as accepted by members of the LGBTQ community as non-LGBTQ people. For
instance, the number of British LGBTQ members who “feel that representation of the
community in adverts is positive, inspirational and pushes boundaries” (Karmarama,
2020) fell from 74% in 2019 to 65% in 2020. This is mainly based on the fashion and fast
fashion brands’ excessive inclusion of LGBTQ to “fly the flag for Pride Month”
(McGonagle, 2020). Only 32% of brands represent LGBTQ within their advertisements
independently of Pride, making their representation seem tokenistic (Karmarama, 2020).
Thus, fashion and fast fashion advertising is usually regarded as a contribution to so-
called ‘rainbow capitalism’, when brands “are accused of profiting socially and
financially by selling LGBTQ+-themed products” (Elan, 2021). The topic of rainbow
capitalism is further elaborated on in Chapter 2.5.4.
Despite the increasing societal acceptance of LGBTQ, research over the past few
years has shown a small representation of the community in advertising of any kind
(Kirkpatrick & Adam, 2017). For instance, only between 1-3% of British advertisements
presented members of the community in 2019 (Kirkpatrick & Adam, 2017; Simpson,
2019). Not only is the LGTBQ community shown to be highly underrepresented and
portrayed based on stereotypes concerning outward appearances, but the community is
also mainly avoided by brands due to a “fear of offending the audience by getting
representation wrong” (Weissbrot, 2021).
2.3 Gen Z
Gen Z are the “youngest consumers, students, colleagues, constituents, voters, and
neighbors” (Seemiller & Grace, 2018, p. i), encompassing people between the age of 12-
25 (Oxford Dictionary, n.d.-b). The cohort itself highly values integrity, tenacity, care,
and openness. Notably, openness has become an important characteristic of Gen Z due to
its diversity, meaning that Gen Z is the most diverse generation that has ever existed in
terms of ethnicity, race, gender, and sexual orientation (Seemiller & Grace, 2018).
14
2.3.1 Gen Z and LGBTQ
Regarding its sexual orientation and gender identification, Gen Z tends to identify as not
heterosexual and “break[ing] from binary notions” (Schmidt, 2021), with one in five Gen
Z members reported to be LGBTQ in the US (Jones, 2022). This number has almost
doubled since 2017 and is twice the number of Millenials, “five times that of Generation
X and eight times the rate of Baby Boomers” (Porterfield, 2022). Oakenfull (2021) calls
this generational shift a ‘Genderation’. As an example, Jones (2022) identified 15% of
American Gen Z members to be bisexual, 2.5% to be gay, 2% to be lesbian as well as
2.1% to be transgender and 1.2% to be anything else than mentioned. However, these
percentages are growing at their fastest pace as Gen Z members have begun to reach
adulthood. In other words, members “are coming of age, including coming to terms with
their sexuality or gender identity” (Jones, 2022). Based on Gen Z’s circumstances of
growing up in a digital world and participating in social networks, members have had an
easier way of collecting information and contacting like-minded individuals (Schmidt,
2021). Further, members grew up in times of abolishing LGBTQ discrimination laws and
older generations dying; ergo, in a culture where LGBTQ has been perceived as normal
(Mcshane, 2022). As a result, Gen Z has become the queerest generation so far, including
an upward trend. The generation shares a high interest in human rights, specifically ethical
issues encompassing sexuality, gender, ethnicity, and race leading to Gen Z buying from
brands that embrace these values (Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Boyd et al., 2020; McShane,
2022).
2.3.2 Gen Z and fast fashion
Gen Z has a “dangerous love” (Kale, 2021) for fast fashion, being the industry’s biggest
consumer segment. Although the second to youngest generation is known to be socially
and environmentally conscious within its consumption choices, members are labelled as
“rapacious consumers” (Kale, 2021) when it comes to fast fashion. Gen Z’s continuous
attempts to manifest a unique self affects consumption that has become part of everyone’s
identity (Francis & Hoefel, 2018). Moreover, the combination of 24/7h online availability
of fast fashion clothes, daily changing fashion trends (e.g., Asos dropping approx. 5.000
new styles a week) that are pressured by contemporary social norms, social media
15
contributions, and influencers, as well as low prices that meet the generation’s financial
needs (Kale, 2021; Maguire & Arnett, 2020; Nguyen, 2021), creates a “cycle of
overconsumption” (Kale, 2021). Hence, Vogue Business found that over half of Gen Z
members interviewed purchase fast fashion clothing (Maguire & Arnett, 2020). Not only
are fast fashion’s offerings and characteristics the reason for Gen Z’s affection towards
the industry, but also the fact that members “were born during its heyday” (Nguyen,
2021), resulting in low priced clothes perceived as the norm.
2.4 Perception
2.4.1 Definition of perception
Perception refers to the way people try to understand the world around them by organising
and interpreting their sensory impressions to give meaning to their environment (Aque,
2007). It is influenced by several factors, “including the intensity and physical dimensions
of the stimulus; (…) the subject’s experience; attention factors (…); and motivation and
emotional state of the subject” (Draskovic et al., 2009, p. 155). The concept of perception
had its first appearance during the times of Aristotle, who identified understanding as an
outcome of perception, and has ever been widely used within psychology to understand
human behaviour (Aque, 2007; Akins, 1996; Maund, 2003; Aristotle, 2000). In a
marketing and communications context, the concept of perception has been applied to
understand consumer behaviour, where the focus is put on “the physical properties of
stimuli and the perceptual response to this stimuli” (Draskovic et al., 2009, p. 155)
involving emotions and thinking.
2.4.2 The perceptual process
Research identifies a process within the concept of perception and suggests several
frameworks and models (Solomon et al., 2006; Wertheimer, 1938; Benesty et al., 2008).
Originally, the Input-Output (IPO) model, which consists of an input that is being
processed by a person and leads to output, was created to explore intonation but has
become common in understanding the process of perception as well (Benesty et al., 2008).
Based on the IPO model, the perceptual process was modelled, encompassing two stages:
16
sensation and meaning. “Sensation refers to the immediate response of our sensory
receptors (e.g., eyes, ears, nose, mouth, fingers) to such basic stimuli as light, colour and
sound” (Solomon et al., 2006, p. 36) and consequently assign meaning to these.
After exposure to a stimulus and its adaptation to decide whether a person continues
noticing it or not, attention refers to the degree that a person focuses on noticed stimuli.
Further, to decide what things mean, interpretation involves organising and grouping the
received data. A person makes sense of the world by interpreting signs (i.e., icons,
indexes, and symbols). Therefore, the interpretation of the sensory stimuli is the meaning
that is assigned to it and differs from person to person due to their knowledge and past
experiences (Solomon et al., 2006). This assigned meaning to the object results in a
response, involving opinions, values, feelings, and thinking (Draskovic et al., 2009;
Goldstein, 2010; Maund, 2003). Taking all these steps together creates the perceptual
process as seen in Figure 3 (Solomon et al., 2006).
17
Figure 3: Perceptual process (Solomon et al., 2006, p. 37)
18
2.5 Brand authenticity
2.5.1 Definition of brand authenticity
Brand authenticity has become a key concept of competitive advantage, particularly in
times of distress and mistrust. It questions the interplay between a brand’s ‘front-stage’
(i.e., seen by the public), and ‘back-stage’ (i.e., a brand’s private behaviour) in which
authenticity is an overall image assessment of a brand’s veracity (Cinelli & LeBoeuf,
2019).
According to Grayson & Martinec (2004), brand authenticity can be formed around
indexical and iconic cues. Indexical cues are factual connections between a brand’s
objective and time, whilst iconic cues refer to the extent to which an object resembles
something that is ‘originally’ authentic. How authenticity is formed is subjective and
depends on how a brand is experienced by an individual and its context. Brown et al.
(2003) argue that authenticity can be acquired by staying true to the original design and
slowly evolving. Bruner (1994) adds to this that the word ‘authentic’ is used when
something is perceived as being ‘the real thing’ or the original, thereby not being a copy
or imitation.
Any sudden changes to a product or service may confuse consumers which could
lead to questions about a brand’s authenticity. Moreover, brands with a connection to
cultural heritage or history which include customs and beliefs are believed to be credible
(Brown et al., 2003), as this heritage may “become synonymous with certain cultural
values and acquire symbolic meaning beyond its original identity” (Napoli et al., 2014, p.
5). Whether the heritage has a basis or not, such claims help establish legitimacy
(Beverland et al., 2008).
Moulard et al. (2014) found that brands are perceived authentic when being ‘true to
themselves’. This refers to the extent to which brands offer symbolic resources that enable
consumers to enact their true selves (Bruner, 1994; Morhart et al., 2015). The idea is
grounded in the self-determination theory that proposes that intrinsically motivation
stems from oneself. It requires participants to engage in activities that they find interesting
as one is “acting in ways congruent with one’s values, preferences, and needs” (Kernis
19
and Goldman, 2006, p. 302), which is argued to be central to the definition of authenticity
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Ryan, 2019).
Holt (2004) found that brands attain authenticity through a sense of moral virtue,
quality, and genuine love for the product. The development of a sincere story rather than
having a financial agenda conveys authenticity in which place, tradition, and non-
commercial values play an important role.
It becomes evident that brand authenticity is a subjective evaluation of genuineness
that is multifaceted. Returning terms associated with brand authenticity are genuineness,
originality (Ballantyne et al., 2006), uniqueness, evidence, trustworthiness, design
consistency, sincerity (Napoli et al., 2014), realness, quality, method of production, and
dissociation from commercial motives (Beverland, 2006). Even though there is no
commonly agreed-upon term, both practitioners and academics agree on the importance
of brand authenticity regarding the brand image. It is even considered to be central to
brand image, identity, and essence (Napoli et al., 2014), with some even arguing it to be
the “cornerstones of contemporary marketing” (Brown et al., 2003, p. 21).
For this study, the multi-dimensional concept of brand authenticity is
conceptualized since existing studies on brand authenticity are of general nature or focus
on a specific product or market in which brand authenticity’s dimensional structure is
often not defined (Bruhn et al., 2012; Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014). Therefore,
it will be referred to as a subjective evaluation of a brand’s genuineness, uniqueness,
integrity, and pure origin ascribed by consumers, encompassing the brand to not only be
faithful to itself yet also to its consumers. In which they are supported in being true to
themselves through continuous and reliable communication. Additionally, any promises
made by the brand are clear and delivered upon (Bruner, 1994; Bruhn et al., 2012;
Morhart et al., 2015; Moulard et al., 2014).
2.5.2 Authenticity of fast fashion brands
Authenticity has become important for fashion marketers to investigate why consumers
relate to certain brands or items. It has been identified as a key concept for marketers to
respond to paradigm changes in communication and media. Fast fashion can be an iconic
authenticity cue as it focuses on original products, being the products from the runway,
20
that are reproduced to promote a brand at a given time. Fast fashion brands can utilize
iconic authenticity to develop an authentic brand identity that offers quality, performance,
and products that are seasonal to improve consumer experiences with innovative and
unique fashion items. Authenticity in the fashion industry is a striking aspect due to the
product value not being strictly related to objective and observable aspects (Oh et al.,
2019) but to consumers’ overall positive response towards a brand’s actions and products
(Gilmore & Pine, 2007).
2.5.3 The Brand Authenticity Construct
Brand authenticity is conceptualised by The Brand Authenticity Construct and was
created by Bruhn et al. (2012). The construct consists of four dimensions that scale and
assess the intensity with which brands obtain authenticity. The construct is represented
by the following four dimensions: (1) reliability, (2) continuity, (3) originality, and (4)
naturalness. For this study, the term naturalness is replaced by the term ‘genuineness’ and
will be further elaborated in the following. These dimensions can be seen as the building
blocks for brand authenticity and refer to the consumer’s understanding of brand
authenticity.
The identified dimensions only refer to a partial aspect of brand authenticity (Bruhn
et al., 2012) and do not comprehensively reflect which extent continuity, originality,
reliability, and genuineness contribute to the overall concept of brand authenticity.
Therefore, the two dimensions ‘integrity’ and ‘symbolism’, identified by Morhart et al.
(2015), are included to completely cover the overall concept of brand authenticity.
21
Figure 4: The Brand Authenticity Construct (Bruhn et al., 2012; Morhart et al., 2015)
Brand reliability
Bruhn et al. (2012) reviewed literature on brand trustworthiness scales and credibility to
establish the ‘reliability’ dimension. When consumers are uncertain about a brand’s
reliability, credibility becomes an important characteristic in conveying a positive brand
image. Credibility is based on the sum of a brand’s past behaviour and reputation and is
defined as the believability of a company’s intentions. Credibility and reliability go hand
in hand and reflect a brand’s ability and willingness to deliver what has been promised.
However, credibility refers to what can be believed to be true whilst reliability covers
trustworthiness, keeping promises and credibility. If a brand is reliable, then it can also
be seen as credible whilst when a brand is credible, this does not guarantee reliability
(Erdem & Swait, 2004).
Whether a brand can deliver upon promised or expected performances affect the
consumers’ reliability. This assessment is based on both tangible (i.e., product quality)
and intangible (i.e., honesty) brand aspects. This is supported by a study done by Sung &
Kim (2010) who found that brands that are perceived as “honest and sincere are more
likely to be trusted by consumers than brands without (or with few) such personality
traits” (p. 644), and solely offer quality (Portal et al., 2018). Reliability is represented by
a competency-based nature because there are consumers’ expectations to be satisfied and
22
fulfilled by the brand (Delgado-Ballester, 2004). Therefore, reliability is essential in
creating trust as the accomplishment of the promise leads consumers to be confident about
satisfaction. This indicates that reliability is linked to indexical cues as the dimension is
not based on subjective consumer evaluations but evidential based evaluations (Rodrigues
et al., 2021). Altogether, reliability is a fundamental part of the brand authenticity concept
as brand authenticity refers to what a brand claims to be, whilst reliability relates to how
a brand can stand for these facts it attests (MacNeil, 2013).
Brand reliability in fast fashion advertising
The reliability of advertisement has been discussed in research and relates to the
truthfulness and credibility of advertising in general (Cuong, 2020; Napoli et al., 2014;
Soh et al., 2009). Reliability does not only apply to one source yet goes back to the
antecedents of attitude towards a brand (Napoli et al., 2014). Reliable advertisements have
been found to have a positive effect on consumers’ attitudes towards both the brand and
the products. Most literature on advertisement reliability focuses on source credibility,
however, this study focuses on reliability regarding the overall brand. To create a reliable
advertisement, brands need to consider the advertisement’s claim, advertiser, and
credibility. How credibility is measured by consumers depends on their evaluation of
integrity and honesty perceived in the advertisement (Soh et al., 2009).
Brand continuity
Erdam and Swait (1998) found that consumers perceive brands that maintain a stable
market offering and continuity over time as being more authentic. Continuity refers to
stability, consistency (Bruhn et al., 2012), and timelessness of a brand and is the second
dimension in the construct. Additionally, it refers to the ability of a brand to outlive trends
whilst focusing on the long-term visions and goals and the attributes that need to remain
stable over a long time (Schallehn et al., 2014). The brand’s core attributes can be referred
to as its internal processes yet, besides internal consistency, the external processes need
to be consistent. This includes representations “of the brand name, logo, and slogan
through all communication media and communication tools” (Bruhn et al., 2012, p.
573). Continuity is present when communication and customer experiences are consistent
with the brand’s internal and external identity (Portal et al., 2018). Schallehn et al. (2014)
23
add to this that for any established target group, consistent communication contributes to
brand authenticity.
Brand continuity in fast fashion advertising
Repetitive advertisement allows consumers to build up associations with brands over
time. The extent to which an advertisement displays consistent messaging and brand
values refers to brand continuity. Additionally, it is the degree to which an advertisement
meets consumer expectations about past experiences. Within the fast fashion industry, the
brand’s advertising evolves to meet rapidly changing demands. This includes making
deliberate adjustments to the products and symbols, whilst maintaining brand meaning
and personality in advertisements (Kopot & Cude, 2021).
Even though fast fashion advertising requires frequent adjustments, value
consistency influences how easily consumers can recall a brand and link any activities or
products to it. Kopot & Cude (2021) found that consumers do not only prefer the
consistent use of contact channels to communicate through yet also value consistent
advertisement content. Therefore, new communication that includes consistent and
recognisable brand values can be connected to the brand more easily (Mafael et al., 2021).
This does not mean that brands can never change, hence, continuity provides a foundation
for brands to evolve into more product offerings and for more people. It is the consistency
that allows brands to expand and evolve (Arruda, 2016).
Brand originality
Brand authenticity is also conveyed through how brands use their originality to
differentiate themselves from competitors. Brand authenticity research has shown the
importance of originality which refers to the recognition of difference and therefore
authenticity. Original brands are unique and can clearly distinguish themselves from other
brands and consumers seek brands that have a distinctive uniqueness to help them fulfil
and express their own self-definitional need for originality (Brown et al., 2003). Plucker
and Renzulli (1999) argue that consumers can recognize originality when they agree with
the message, and it deviates from the norm. This distinctiveness is referred to as
uniqueness in which customers experience a brand to be different from competing brands.
The motivation to be distinct from the majority differs per consumer yet, brands with a
24
more original identity have an advantage when it comes to obtaining consumer action (He
et al., 2012). Moreover, uniqueness stimulates brands to analyse what makes them true to
themselves, influencing brand originality (Moulard et al., 2016).
Brand originality in fast fashion advertising
Brands use various techniques to defamiliarize products and services to make consumers
rethink familiar issues from an unexpected perspective in their advertising. Moulard et al.
(2014) add to this that brands that are more creative and independent in their
communication are perceived as more authentic than brands that follow the crowd.
Consumer’s judgement on originality is based on direct experiences with a brand or via
differentiating advertising claims (Netemeyer et al., 2004). Within the fast fashion
industry, the environment is constantly changing, and brands are faced with a high level
of competitiveness. This requires fast fashion brands to constantly differentiate
themselves in an original way.
Consumer’s need for originality derives from their need to self-identify by
differentiating from others whilst developing a social image. A feature of fast fashion
advertisement is that brands promote the trendiest items through the sense of scarcity
which appeals to the consumers who assume that the items are unique (Choi, 2014).
Brand genuineness (naturalness)
The final dimension of the construct has only been covered by a limited number of
literature streams. It is mainly discussed in the food sector where it has become an
important aspect in reflecting the demand for organic products (Bruhn et al., 2012).
Naturalness is not to be confused with the term ‘natural’ which implies whether natural
processes and materials are used (Akbar & Wymer, 2017). Naturalness relates to a brand’s
genuineness, realness (Fritz et al., 2017), and the degree to which a product is not a copy
or fake (Wymer & Akbar, 2017). To avoid confusion and make it unambiguous, the term
naturalness will be replaced by the term ‘genuineness’ for this study.
Akbar and Wymer (2017) argue that brand genuineness is a core concept of a
brand’s perceived authenticity and is becoming more important as consumers and media
undergo cultural changes and habitual shifts (Yang et al., 2021). The word genuine is
often used in the definition of authentic and vice versa. It refers to the idea of something
25
being the ‘real’ version (not an imitation). Louis Vuitton is an example of a brand with a
high level of genuineness as it is perceived to be the distinctive brand others imitate, the
standard other brands copy (Wymer & Akbar, 2017).
Brand genuineness in fast fashion advertising
Gender and sexuality norms in terms of fashion are formed and shaped by external
sources such as family, friends, peers and primarily, through advertising (Luna & Barros,
2019). Despite constant discussions on gender, race, and sexuality, stereotyping remains
present in current marketing communication (van Meer & Pollmann, 2021) in which
certain content is fabricated to an ideological representation of specific groups. This
discourages genuineness towards fashion brands in which consumers constantly question
the standards established by the advertisement (Luna & Barros, 2019). Choi and Rifon
(2007) found that if a celebrity source is perceived as genuine, consumers are more likely
to interpret the message as genuine. Celebrity genuineness “reflects the qualities of a good
person, which included pleasantness, sophistication, comfortableness, wisdom, and
responsibility” (Yang et al., 2021, p. 36). From this, it can be assumed that these qualities
can be used universally in fashion advertisements to convey genuineness.
To avoid a representation of LGBTQ in advertising being perceived as not genuine,
Human Rights Campaign Foundation (n.d.-a) provides a list of characteristics and
recommendations. The list focuses on preventing brands from displaying stereotypes
within their marketing communications and states the following points that are
recommended to use, also meant as encouragement:
- Include people that identify as LGBTQ
- Present “same-sex pairings in everyday situations”, particularly when it comes to
transgenders/ transsexuals as well
- Present “same-sex pairings with physical affections”
- “Utilize verbal, text, or graphic references to sexuality”, especially when it comes
to unambiguous references to bisexuality
26
Brand integrity
There is no universally accepted definition of brand integrity. However, it signifies
responsibility, moral purity, and values to which brands adhere. Additionally, it displays
a brand’s moral courage and the notion of ‘being integral’ (Murphy, 1999). Integrity
reflects upon a brand’s sincere care towards e.g., consumers, products, society, or the
environment. Consumers value a brand that is committed to being honest and reputable
towards its stakeholders in which the alignment of words and deeds of a brand are
assessed (Maak, 2008). Honesty is often used as a synonym for integrity. However,
Murphy (1999) argues that honesty and integrity differ from each other as integrity is
‘honesty with a purpose’.
Based on this reflection, a brand’s integrity is measured, making it a relational
dimension that others evaluate (Maak, 2008). Thus, integrity requires integrative efforts
to ensure the enforcement of external assessments by consumers. This can be done
through transparency in which details about the brand motives, objectives, and processes
are shared and open to the public (Cambier & Poncin, 2020).
Brand integrity in fast fashion advertising
Consumers' caution about marketing claims has intensified because of past brand
scandals, unrealistic claims of product or service performance, and inaccurate information
(Darke & Ritchie, 2007). Led by Gen Z, consumers put pressure on fashion and fast
fashion brands to take a stand toward integrity in political and social issues (Abela &
Murphy, 2007; McKinsey & Company, 2021). Notably, after the events of summer 2020,
involving the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak and the global ‘Black Lives Matter’
movement, consumers have become more conscious of where they purchase their clothes
and mainly prefer brands whose values they can identify with (McKinsey & Company,
2021; Chitrickakron, 2020). This development addresses the overall corporate social
responsibility towards integrity especially when it comes to the use of religion, ethnicity,
and LGBTQ in advertising (Williams, 2021; McKinsey & Company, 2021). Therefore,
proper execution of advertising involving these elements has become crucial.
27
Brand symbolism
Keller (1993) states that “symbolic benefits are the more extrinsic advantages of product
or service consumption. They usually correspond to non-product-related attributes and
relate to underlying needs for social approval or personal expression and outer-directed
self-esteem” (p. 4). Schmitt (2012) adds that symbols are not only used for individual
representation yet also for groups, society, or cultures. Moreover, symbolism can also be
referred to as semiotics, which entails how meaning is created using symbols. This
includes verbal and non-verbal meaning in which the sign is always fundamental
(Hernandez-Fernandez & Lewis, 2019; Mick, 1986).
Consumers “buy products not only for what they do but also for what the product
means” (Torelli et al., 2010, p. 114). When individuals recognise values that they find
important they will associate themselves with the brand and make it part of their identity.
Symbolic consumption helps consumers to classify themselves in society and
communicate to others about who they are or aspire to be (Torelli et al., 2010). This allows
for individuals to self-identify and express using the brand’s symbols or signs. It can be
argued that brands that are expressed through symbolism are authentic as they become
more synonymous with certain consumer values (Morhart et al., 2015).
Brand symbolism in fast fashion advertising
Symbolism can be used to convey a brand’s identified values and integrate them within a
company culture. In the fast fashion industry, it can be incorporated into packaging, the
product/item, through advertisement, or through verbal communication (Moulard et al.,
2016). Fast fashion advertising exposes consumers to the brand’s symbols and signs, yet
this does not mean that everybody who purchases or interacts with the brand possesses
the same symbolic meaning. This depends on what meaning is created by the individual
purchasing the product, as the creation of value is not consistent (Elliott & Wattanasuwan,
1998).
2.5.4 Brand authenticity and LGBTQ in advertising
Authenticity plays an important role when it comes to the representation and expression
of LGBTQ in advertising, including fashion and fast fashion advertising (Ciszek & Lim,
28
2021; Procter & Gamble, 2021; Cleeton, 2018). According to Procter & Gamble (2021),
“81% of advertisers and 41% of agencies agree” on a resulting criticism when executing
LGBTQ in advertising inauthentically as well as recognising a difficulty in adequate
representation. Notwithstanding, brands still make use of LGBTQ in their advertising,
mainly during Pride, even though they face accusations of inauthenticity right after as
they produce their collections in countries where being LGBTQ is illegal or advertise
them only in Western societies to avoid criticism from other cultures (Mellor, 2021;
Cleeton, 2018). As an example, H&M’s Pride campaign donated to the United Nation’s
campaign for LGBTQ+ equality. However, critics claim the display of Pride in campaigns
was to increase donations towards Pride and nothing else (Cleeton, 2018; Elan, 2021).
The existing contemporary landscape of advertising including LGBTQ and their
extensive use during Pride month has led to the creation of rainbow capitalism which is
perceived as inauthentic and unethical (Ciszek & Lim, 2021; Wahab, 2019; Cleeton,
2018). As mentioned in Chapter 2.4, rainbow capitalism, also referred to as pink washing
or rainbow washing, defines the process whereby nations or companies promote
themselves as supporters of the LGBTQ community (Wahab, 2019; Ciszek & Lim, 2021;
Elan, 2021) whilst continuing to engage in various discriminating actions using the term
as an alibi for such violence (Puar, 2015). Moreover, the term ‘pink washing’ is derived
from the verb ‘whitewash’ which means to deliberately conceal crimes or facts through
biased evidence. In the case of false representation of LGBTQ in advertising, a deceptive
form of marketing entails companies disingenuously abusing LGBTQ imagery to make a
profit and hide their false support for the community (Blackmer, 2019). An example of
pink washing is marketers’ usage of the LGBTQ rainbow flag to promote or showcase
LGBTQ support in which the flag is the symbol of diversity. However, often brands do
not support the LGBTQ community, its LGBTQ employees, nor support anti-LGBTQ
politicians (Branchik, 2002).
Particularly Gen Z is not “easily fooled by rainbow capitalism” (Hannum, 2022)
based on their high acceptance of the community. However, most statements and opinions
on LGBTQ’s authentic representation in advertising are claimed by LGBTQ
representatives that belong to generations such as Millenials, but only little research put
29
focuses on perceptions and opinions of non-LGBTQ and LGBTQ people of younger
generations like Gen Z. Based on Gen Z’s positive attitude towards LGBTQ and wide
identification with the community, their perception of authentic representation of the
community in advertising, e.g., fast fashion advertising, can play an important role for
brands to overcome inauthenticity and rainbow capitalism and consequently, to reach
societal acceptance (Ciszek & Lim, 2021; Mathenge & Owusu, 2017; Watson, 2019;
Ciszek & Pounders, 2020).
2.6 The conceptual model of the research
Based on the two theoretical frameworks, i.e., the perceptual process and the Brand
Authenticity Construct, a conceptual model for this research was created (Figure 5). The
first part of the model (i.e., on the left side) is the perceptual process, aiming to answer
the first research question on how Gen Z perceives LGBTQ images in fast fashion
advertising and is therefore adapted to the case of Gen Z informants viewing LGBTQ
images in five fast fashion advertisements. The second part of the model (i.e., on the right
side) is the Brand Authenticity Construct and answers the second research question on
how the perception of the LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising impacts the six
different dimensions of this construct. It needs to be acknowledged that even though the
two frameworks are connected through a line, a causal relationship between them is not
the case, and neither is it assumed.
30
Figure 5: Conceptual model of the research (own representation)
31
3. Method
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this chapter is to present the methodological foundation and process this
research is based. It starts with the philosophical standpoint of the research that results
in the research strategy, approach, and design. After that, the process of data collection,
as well as its analysis, is explained in detail.
______________________________________________________________________
3.1 Research philosophy
A philosophical standpoint is crucial to settle on as it defines how data should be gathered,
analysed, and used (Galliers, 1991). The clarification and settlement of the philosophical
approach lead to a higher outcome of research quality as well as making use of the
gathered data most acceptably and efficiently, creating meaningful value (Nunan et al.,
2020; Galliers, 1991; Saunders et al., 2012).
Philosophy can be split into two branches: ontology and epistemology. While
ontology studies human beings and their existence in the world, epistemology deals with
knowledge and how this is treated (Saunders et al., 2012). Since this research explores
perceptions of Gen Z members, ontology was chosen as the philosophical view. As a
result, one of the four research paradigms, positivism, realism, interpretivism, and
pragmatism can be chosen (Saunders et al., 2012). For this research, interpretivism
seemed to be the most suitable. In contrast to positivism, where only one reality is
attempted to be discovered, interpretivism “stresses the dynamic, participant-constructed
and evolving nature of reality, recognising that there may be a wide array of
interpretations of realities or social acts” (Nunan et al., 2020, p. 153). In other words, the
researcher puts focus on human social interactions, their understandings, motivations, and
effects (Saunders et al., 2012) which applies to this research since Gen Z’s perceptions of
LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertisements are identified and their impact on brand
authenticity explored. Hence, it is important to explore subjective experiences and not
32
objective results. Further, interpretivists’ “own values affect how they observe, question,
probe and interpret” (Nunan et al., 2020, p. 154).
To obtain the best possible understanding of informants’ views, attitudes, and
beliefs, interpretivist researchers are part of each step of the research process (Nunan et
al., 2020; Saunders et al., 2012). Since it can be assumed that individuals are driven by
personal beliefs, attitudes, motivations, and experiences, the philosophic approach of
interpretivism can be seen as the most suitable.
3.2 Research design
The research design provides specific directions for the collection and analysis of the
collected data. Babin and Zikmund (2016) identify three types of research designs,
namely exploratory, descriptive, and causal. The primary objective of exploratory
research is to provide insight into what is already in existence and evaluate existing
studies on related topics to find new insights. Moreover, it can be an attempt to lay the
groundwork for future studies (Saunders et al., 2009; Sreejesh et al., 2013). The objective
of a descriptive research design is to describe or portray accurate characteristics of people,
situations, events, or the environment to formulate an understanding. In other words,
obtaining an accurate picture of the situation as it is (Babin and Zikmund, 2016; Saunders
et al., 2009). Causal research on the other hand focuses on cause-and-effect relationships.
It develops an understanding of the relationships between different variables and requires
a planned and structured design (Nunan et al., 2020).
To gain a deeper understanding of how Gen Z’s perceptions of LGBTQ images in
fast fashion advertisements impact brand authenticity, an exploratory research design is
required (Saunders et al., 2009). This research design identifies what needs to be explored
through interviews and investigates the relationships between different conceptual
frameworks to reach the overall purpose of this research.
33
3.3 Research strategy and approach
Establishing the research approach is important to determine the research design. There
are three types of approaches: deductive, inductive, and abductive. The deductive
research approach uses collected data and literature to test theories and hypotheses. It
implies evaluating data to generalize from existing data to specify the aimed theory
(Saunders et al., 2009), and to draw conclusions from logical reasoning (Ghauri et al.,
2020).
In contrast, the inductive research approach aims at collecting data to develop new
theories, which move from specific observations to broad generalizations (Dubois &
Gadde, 2002). The abductive research approach is a combination of deductive and
inductive research. It uses existing theory to build or modify a framework, after which
the framework is tested through a second round of data collection (Saunders et al., 2009).
This study is based on the existing theories of Solomon et al. (2006), Bruhn et al.
(2012), and Morhart et al. (2015), which were used to create the conceptual model of
this research. Since existing theories were used as a basis and modified to fit this study,
an abductive research approach is applied.
There are two approaches for collecting data regarding the research method and
strategy: the quantitative and qualitative approach (Williams, 2011). Quantitative
research is typically selected to collect numerical data whilst qualitative research is a
holistic approach that involves textural data. Furthermore, qualitative research explores
the understanding of meaning that individuals ascribe to problems or can be used to
generate new ideas for research. Engaging in qualitative research focuses on individual
meaning in the complexity of a situation (Creswell, 2014). For this study, qualitative
research was chosen as the most appropriate approach due to the sensitivity of the LGBTQ
topic. In other words, it was crucial to gain detailed data on informants’ overall
perceptions in an LGBTQ context which could have not been fulfilled applying a
quantitative approach. The aim is to build upon literature research of other studies that
cover the concept of brand authenticity and apply this to Gen Z’s perception of LGBTQ
images through one-on-one interviews that contribute to a deeper understanding of the
research problem.
34
3.4 Data collection
3.4.1 Secondary data
“Secondary data analysis refers to the analysis of existing data collected by others”
(Donnellan & Lucas, 2013, Abstract and Keywords). The theoretical background, as well
as the theoretical framework of this paper, are based on existing data collected by others
since a detailed understanding of them was seen as necessary to comprehensively follow
the primary study of this paper (Nunan et al., 2020). This was found using the databases
of Google Scholar, the Academic Journal Guide (Chartered Association of Business
Schools, 2021), EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, the library database of Jönköping
University, and magazine articles such as Forbes, New York Times, or Vogue due to the
recency of the LGBTQ topic. Keywords searched for within the secondary data collection
were ‘LGBTQ’, ‘LGBTQ advertising’, ‘Gender and sex’, ‘LGBTQ representation’,
‘Fashion advertising’, ‘Fast fashion advertising’, ‘LGBTQ fashion advertising’, ‘LGBTQ
fast fashion advertising’, ‘Brand authenticity’, ‘Brand Authenticity Construct’,
‘Perceptual process’, ‘Perceptions’. Even though secondary data can be seen as
convenient, a careful review of the data collected is still crucial as it might carry
misinformation (Donnellan & Lucas, 2013).
3.4.2 Primary data
Contrary to secondary data, primary data “are data originated by a researcher for the
specific purpose of addressing the problem at hand” (Nunan et al., 2020, p. 86). In this
paper, primary data was collected through the creation of a fictional fast fashion brand
and five advertisements that were presented to informants during semi-structured
interviews which are all further elaborated on in the following.
3.4.2.1 Fictional brand ‘JEMA’
A fictional brand called ‘JEMA’ was created to avoid informant bias towards already
known brands and their characteristics, offerings, and designs. The name, as well as the
brand attributes, were randomly chosen and JEMA was introduced as a brand to be
launched soon to witness informants’ first impressions. JEMA is supposed to be a new
35
fast fashion brand that follows a unique advertising strategy that purely includes LGBTQ
models in its advertisements. Further, taking famous fast fashion brands like H&M and
Zara as examples, JEMA offers clothes for any sex and gender and any fashion style
including basic, casual, chic, preppy, elegant, and sporty. JEMA’s prices are inspired by
big fast fashion brands as well, ranging from 50 SEK for a t-shirt to 700 SEK for coats.
3.4.2.2 Image selection & advertisement design
In this study, five visual advertisements by JEMA including LGBTQ images were created
to serve as stimuli for the informants to interpret and to give a final meaning.
Consequently, informants were able to form a perception of the LGBTQ images in the
advertisements viewed. Since the created advertisements are only images, informants
used their sense of sight to react to basic stimuli such as light and colour displayed in the
images. Moreover, using this kind of visual communication, informants were able to
express their cultural, social, and political attitudes.
To design the five advertisements, images needed to be collected. This was done
using the social media platform Instagram which was selected based on its global
popularity with over 1,13 bil. users and Gen Z as the biggest generation consuming the
platform (Statista Research Department, 2022; Forbes India, 2021). On the platform,
users can share mainly photos and videos that they perceive as creative, entertaining, and
as a medium to stay up to date, making Instagram an attractive platform to exploit
(Sheldon & Bryant, 2016).
Firstly, numerous days were spent looking for suitable LGBTQ images on
Instagram. The different types of LGBTQ images that emerged from the literature review
and presented in Chapter 2.1.2 were aimed to find. Therefore, parts of the ‘LGBTQ’
abbreviation as well as LGBTQ symbols, i.e., ‘lesbian’, ‘gay’, ‘transgender’/
‘transsexual’, ‘queer’/ ‘nonbinary’, and ‘Pride’, served as search terms. However, images
of people identifying as bisexual were left out due to the lack of research and
understanding when it comes to their display (see Chapter 2.1.2). The images needed to
meet three main criteria to be selected and resulted in five final user-generated images:
36
1. Fulfilling the characteristics of each sexual/ gender orientation when it comes to
their display mentioned in Chapter 2.1.2
2. The worn clothes should not display other brand logos
3. Good image quality for further editing
Permission for the photos was sought for all and, in most cases, received. Next, the
raster graphic editor Adobe Photoshop was used to cut the displayed people out of the
selected images. These were placed in front of a generic white background and black
frame including the brand name ‘JEMA’ as the logo in a randomly chosen font. After
that, any visible known brand logos or symbols were covered to avoid distractions and
informant bias. Finally, product names and invented cheap prices to them were added to
highlight the image function as an advertisement for fast fashion. The five advertisements
that came out of this process are presented in the following.
Advert #1
Figure 6: Advert including lesbian models (own representation)
37
Advert #2
Figure 7: Advert including gay models (own representation)
Advert #3
Figure 8: Advert including transgender/ transsexual models (own representation)
38
Advert #4
Figure 9: Advert including nonbinary models (own representation)
Advert #5
Figure 10: Advert including LGBTQ symbols (own representation)
39
3.4.2.3 Qualitative interviews
The real-time data can be gathered through, for example, surveys, observations,
interviews, etc. (Nunan et al., 2020). In this study, primary data was generated through
semi-structured interviews which include “a blend of closed- and open-ended questions,
often accompanied by follow-up why or how questions” (Adams, 2015, p. 493) resulting
in flexibility and a high output of information by the informants involved. During the
interviews, informants were presented with the five JEMA advertisements and needed to
answer questions about them. Further, the asked questions within the interview were
occasionally adapted in order, type, and phrasing based on informants’ answers. All
interviews were conducted in either English, German, or Dutch in person at Jönköping
University or online via the video telephony service Zoom and took between 25-50
minutes each. In addition, informants agreed to be recorded which enabled the prevention
of errors and the analysis of findings more intensively (Barriball & While, 1994).
Since semi-structured interviews consist of partly structured questions, they can be
also open-ended and complex on the other hand and therefore need an interview guide
for a useful structure (Mayring, 2002). In this study, the interview guide (see Appendix
2) starts with general questions on informants’ personal information, which is used for
correct interpretation of the results, followed by questions on informants’ fashion
consciousness. Then, questions were asked based on three main categories: perception,
brand authenticity, and preferences.
First, open questions on perceptions were asked regarding each JEMA
advertisement individually, including informants’ attention, interpretation, and response.
The second category involves open questions concerning the six dimensions of brand
authenticity that are presented in Chapter 2.5.4. Here, informants were asked about all
advertisements collectively. Lastly, the third category focuses on informants’ choices in
preferred advertisements collectively and any additional comments or opinions. After a
pilot test interview to avoid any potential misunderstandings and mistakes, the
categorisation of questions structured the interviews in an efficient way (Nunan et al.,
2020).
40
3.5 Sampling and informant selection
In this study, the target population specified on Gen Z members (i.e., aged 12-25) since
this generation is regarded as most tolerant towards LBGTQ and a high consumer of fast
fashion (Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Talbot, 2021). In other words, informants were selected
based on their ages to fit the generational conditions. The researchers of this study chose
judgemental sampling as a form of convenience sampling combined with snowball
sampling altogether as non-probability sampling techniques for the sake of efficiency,
accessibility, and cooperation (Nunan et al., 2020). This means potential informants were
selected by the researchers “because it is believed that they are representative of the
population of interest, or are otherwise appropriate” (Nunan et al., 2020, p. 415). Since
the researchers belong to Gen Z themselves, their friends were approached first and
further potential informants were identified by the interviewed friends, fulfilling the
characteristics of snowball sampling (Nunan et al., 2020). When it comes to the choice of
informants, diversity in gender, age, and nationality (see Table 1) was seen as an essential
criterion to build a detailed database for analysis and comparison purposes. Saturation
was reached after approximately 16 interviews. However, a total of 20 interviews were
conducted for detailedness and further potential insights, resulting in a total of 11.5
interview hours.
41
Table 1: Overview of informants’ demographics and interview durations (own representation)
ID Age Gender Nationality Interview duration in
min
IP 1 24 Male Austrian 38
IP 2 22 Male Spanish 35
IP 3 23 Male Dutch 47
IP 4 23 Male German 46
IP 5 22 Female German 25
IP 6 24 Female German/ Spanish 30
IP 7 22 Female Spanish 43
IP 8 23 Female Hungarian 30
IP 9 23 Female German/ Russian 35
IP 10 23 Female German 44
IP 11 23 Female German 40
IP 12 24 Female German 35
IP 13 25 Female German 35
IP 14 24 Female Finish 28
IP 15 23 Female German 35
IP 16 23 Male German 30
IP 18 18 Female Dutch 27
IP 19 21 Female Swedish 25
IP 20 24 Male Swedish 31
42
3.6 Data analysis
Transcripts of the interviews were made and used as a basis for information gathering and
evaluation. Less attention was paid to pauses and voice pitch during transcription since
the emphasis was on essential data, using the simple transcription system by Dresing and
Pehl (2015). The qualitative content was analysed to establish patterns and understand
the informants’ perceptions of the advertisements. The evaluation was carried out using
an axial coding matrix by Strauss and Corbin (2008), which structures the data in more
coherent, hierarchical categories and sub-categories. The tables (see Appendix 2)
“synthesize and organize data into more coherent, hierarchically structured categories and
sub-categories that add nuance and dimension to emergent concepts and their potential
relationship to other framework elements” (Scott & Medaugh, 2017, p. 1). The required
categories were based on the three dimensions of the perceptual process by Solomon et
al. (2006), the four dimensions of The Brand Authenticity Construct by Bruhn et al.
(2012) and the additional two dimensions added to the construct by Morhart et al. (2015).
Even though this is a qualitative study, the tables used to establish an overview of the
preferred ads and categorize positive, neutral, and negative perceptions are of quantitative
nature.
3.7 Ethics
Ethical considerations are important for any type of research as it prevents any conflict
or harm to the participants, researchers, and the study (Nunan et al., 2020). It refers to the
standers of behaviour that guide the study concerning the rights of the ones involved and
affected by the work (Saunders et al., 2009). The quality of the researcher’s ethical
considerations depends on the level of open-mindedness, fairness, and accuracy to ensure
trust and respect towards all respondents.
Before the interviews were conducted, the research required a consent form
approved by the thesis supervisor, which certified that the research was in line with the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. This entails that all collected
personal data complies with the GDPR. Once consent was given, the informants were
required to sign a ‘Thesis Study Consent Form’ (Appendix 4) by Jönköping International
43
Business School before taking part in the interviews. The form is intended to protect the
informant’s data, as privacy plays an important role in the process of data collection
(Nunan et al., 2020). In this study, the anonymity of informants was ensured through the
change of names to simple numberings. Information on age, gender, and nationality were
kept for differentiation and proper display of findings for analysis. During the interviews,
the researchers remained transparent to the informants by explaining audio and video
recording methods, transcribing procedures, and that the recorded data was safely stored
in the Jönköping University cloud, which was only accessible to the researchers and their
supervisor when requested. Hence, no other third parties were involved at any stage of
this study. Moreover, before each interview, informants were reminded of the GDPR
which includes that they are free to leave the interview at any given time and that they
are not forced to answer anything they do not feel comfortable with.
Due to the qualitative nature of this research, the intimate link between informants
and their responses needs to be kept stable and should not be broken (Nunan et al., 2020;
Saunders et al., 2009). Therefore, the role of the researchers as being part of each stage
of the overall study as well as moderators during the interview needed to be
communicated to informants to guarantee safety and comfort. Especially LGBTQ can be
seen as a sensitive topic that requires total confidentiality as it involves a person’s
orientation of gender, identity, and sexuality, personal data which is prohibited to process
by the European Commission (n.d.) under the GDPR. For informants to trust the
researchers and answer the interview questions truthfully, the researchers of this study
avoided deceiving or misleading the informants in any way. Consequently, the
researchers tried their best to stay neutral and not interfere with informants’ answers,
attitudes, beliefs, emotions, or thoughts. During the data collection and the followed data
analysis, the researchers did not let their knowledge and values influence any actions
undertaken (Saunders et al., 2009).
44
3.8 Research quality
Research quality refers to the trustworthiness of research which is often critically viewed
regarding qualitative studies due to difficulties in generalisation and replication (Nunan
et al., 2020). Trustworthiness is “the degree of confidence in data, interpretation, and
methods used to ensure the quality of a study” (Connelly, 2016, p. 435). For this, Miles
and Huberman (1994) suggest four evaluation criteria: (1) credibility, (2) transferability,
(3) dependability, and (4) confirmability, which are applied to this study.
Credibility is in preference to internal validity and aims to assure that the research
“measures or tests what is actually intended” (Shenton, 2004, p. 64). In this study, to
establish congruence between findings and reality, a suitable research design and methods
have been chosen in combination with asking follow-up questions like “To repeat, you
are saying/ meaning …?” during the interviews. Consequently, misunderstandings were
avoided and the transparency of the overall data collection leads to a level of enhanced
credibility (Shenton, 2004).
Transferability, in preference to external validity, deals with the generalisability
of a study and if it is possible “to demonstrate that the findings and conclusions are
applicable to other situations and populations” (Shenton, 2004, p. 69). To guarantee
transferability for this study, detailed information about the theoretical background and
framework, limitations as well as methodology, specifically data collection, informant
selection, and the interview guide are provided, making the information possible for
others to apply.
Dependability relates to the credibility and consistency of the study and is given
when there has been a clear, transparent, and stable process of data collection and
analysis. Moreover, it is the degree to which the study can be replicated whilst ending up
with the same results and findings (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). To ensure dependability
for this research the research design, approach, and strategy have been described
transparently to showcase the process of data collection. Additionally, the research could
be replicated at any given time and all the conducted interviews followed a consistent
basic structure and were all coded through the axial coding matrix.
45
Confirmability refers to the objectivity of the researchers, their effect on the
outcome and the degree to which the findings could be confirmed by others (Strauss &
Corbin, 1997). This is done by not including personal viewpoints and remaining neutral
throughout the interviews (Korstjens & Moser, 2017). For this study, the transcribing of
the recorded interviews was divided among the two researchers yet, and all transcriptions
were read and analysed by both researchers using the recordings to avoid subjectivity.
Moreover, coding was based on the collected data and used to analyse all data whilst
keeping the conceptual model of this research in mind.
46
4. Findings
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This chapter aims to present the main empirical findings derived from the data collection
process while answering the research questions that underline this study. It starts with a
visual overview of informants’ fashion consciousness, followed by findings regarding
informants’ perceptions of LGBTQ images included in JEMA’s fast fashion
advertisements viewed as well as informants’ perceived brand authenticity. In the end,
advertisement preferences and additional comments and opinions are stated and
described.
______________________________________________________________________
4.1 Fashion consciousness
The interviews started with a section asking about informants’ fashion consciousness as
this information might have been interesting to use for data analysis and to identify
specific patterns. Most informants (16) consider themselves fashion-conscious and
consume fast fashion as well. Notably, Zara was mentioned most as a favourite fast
fashion brand, followed by Weekday, and informants spend on average approximately
550 SEK on fast fashion per month. However, most informants only purchase from fast
fashion every two months. The overall findings on these demographics are presented in
Table 2 in detail.
47
Table 2: Informant information on fashion consciousness (own representation)
ID Fashion conscious
Fast fashion consumption
Favourite fashion/ fast
fashion brand
Monthly spending on fast fashion (in SEK)
Frequency of fast fashion purchases
IP 1 Yes Yes Zara 200 One a month
IP 2 No No Hollister 500 When needed
IP 3 Yes Yes Weekday 500 Every two months
IP 4 No Yes None 800 Once a month
IP 5 Yes Yes Zara 1000 Every two months
IP 6 No Yes Zara 300 Every four
months
IP 7 Yes Yes Zara A lot Three times a week
IP 8 Yes Yes Nike and H&M 1000 Every three
months
IP 9 Yes Yes Zara 300-400 Once a month
IP 10 Yes Yes Zara 1000 Every two months
IP 11 Yes Yes None 400-500 Every two months
IP 12 Yes Yes Weekday 300-400 Every two months
IP 13 Yes Yes Weekday 500 Every two – three months
IP 14 Yes Yes Monki 200-300 Every two months
IP 15 Yes Yes ASOS 200 Every four
months
IP 16 Yes No None 1000-1500 Every three months
IP 18 No No Weekday 0 -
IP 18 Yes Yes Urban Outfitters 500 One every three
months
IP 19 No Yes H&M 500 Twice a month
IP 20 Yes Yes Zara 500 Once every three months
48
4.2 Perceptions
Regarding the first research question on how Gen Z members perceive LGBTQ images
in fast fashion advertising, the findings for each advertisement by JEMA are presented
individually, same proceeded as during the interviews. Further, the findings are structured
according to the various stages of the perceptual process (Solomon et al., 2006).
4.2.1 Advert #1
Attention
Viewing advert #1, informants’ attention was grabbed by three main aspects: the clothes,
the design, and the models. Starting with the clothes, the matching sweaters of the models
seemed appealing. However, attention was grabbed by the clothes looking cheap and
basic, as informant IP12 states: “(…) the clothes, they don't look very exciting like they
look kind of mainstream.”
Moreover, most informants referred to the bad design of the advertisement as attention-
grabbing, listing unenergetic colours and small lettering as the main reasons like IP11
49
did: “(…) it’s not that colourful. Like, you can see that there has not been put too much
effort on it.”
The attention of only four informants was grabbed by the lesbian models displayed in the
advertisement.
Interpretation
For most informants, it was immediately clear that advert #1 is an advertisement for a fast
fashion/ low-quality fashion related brand trying to sell the displayed sweater and trousers
for a low price realised by IP12:
“It looks kind of generic like it's not super special. Maybe even (…) more low
quality. (…) something like that shiny material of the leggings. It's kind of
disturbing. I don’t know. And also, (…) the price is like 25 Euros for the sweater
and 30 for like pants. It's really cheap.”
Besides, the models were interpreted as a loving lesbian couple, for instance by IP16:
“I’d say there’s a lesbian couple sitting on top of each other and having a nice moment.”
Based on these interpretations, informants assumed JEMA to be a liberal brand trying to
make a statement toward the LGBTQ community and normalise non-heterosexual
relationships. Therefore, values/ keywords mentioned encompassed love, friendship,
equality, openness, care, and progress as well as messages like “It does not matter who
you love” (IP15), “Be yourself and feel comfortable the way you are” (IP4), “A brand for
everyone” (IP16).
Response
Regarding informants’ feelings, despite a few who felt uncomfortable because of the
models’ facial expressions or unaddressed since it is not her sex displayed, most felt
normal and comfortable, meaning no hard feelings, like IP9:“(…) this is something
normal, which is part of my life, so I feel quite comfortable with it.”
50
The informants’ thoughts were mixed. While some did not think the advertisement looked
trustworthy due to its design, others appreciated the advertisement’s inclusivity and
movement of society towards tolerance, like IP19: “I just think that it's nice to see
because it feels like we're coming somewhere. We're moving forward.”
Nevertheless, most informants would not purchase from JEMA since the clothes do not
match their fashion style or the advertisement looks boring and not special.
4.2.2 Advert #2
Attention
Attention for advert #2 was mainly grabbed through the perceived happiness of the
couple, the couple being of the same sex and being physical, and the clothes. A sense of
joy was noticed by most of the respondents who felt happy and at peace when faced with
the advert as mentioned by IP14: “(…) I think seeing this one on the street would bring
me joy.”
51
The relationship between the two male models grabbed attention as it is not often used in
fashion advertisements, especially when showing physical affection between two men.
Finally, the type of clothing was preferred by most of the informants which drew their
attention to the advert.
Interpretation
The relationships between the models in the advert were interpreted differently yet, most
of the informants identified it as being a gay relationship. Other relational interpretations
were friendship, brotherhood, or “more than friends”. Additionally, the advert was
perceived to be loving, natural, joyful, warm, down to earth, and open to all types of love.
Besides the interpretation of the relationship, the clothes were perceived to be stylish as
IP7 stated:” (…) two guys can be gay, romantic, stylish, I like it. They are normal and
look normal. I like that it is natural”
Messages that were perceived from the advert were related to normalizing gay
relationships in society as this sexuality is not commonly used in fashion adverts.
Furthermore, feeling comfortable with who you are as an individual was mentioned as a
message.
Response
The response to the advertisement was positive based on the gay couple displayed which
was summarized by IP11 as: “It’s okay to be gay, love who you want (…) be yourself and
feel comfortable the way you are.”
It was also mentioned that seeing a gay couple was more common than seeing a lesbian
couple in advertisements.
52
4.2.3 Advert #3
Attention
Regarding advert #3, the model cast and the displayed clothes were the centres of
attention. While a few found the overall advertisement and clothes to be basic and not
special, the majority were positively grabbed by the mix of models and clothes, like IP13:
“I really like the look. The aesthetics appeal to me the most and since these diverse
bodies are displayed, I would imagine myself to check the outfits and try them on
myself and this appeals to me.”
Interpretation
The informants were all on the same page when interpreting advert #3 regarding JEMA
as a fashion brand that tries to reach out to everyone and offers basics. The models were
identified as diverse genderqueer, femme, and male people, which appealed to IP12:
“The cast is very diverse. When it comes to body types, but also like the look of the
models. They don't look so generic, not like the Victoria’s Secret model type.”
53
Further, several informants referred to the models as a group of friends, like IP10: ”Close
friends (…) hanging around with each other and supporting each other. Being with
people you like to spend time with.”
Consequently, perceived values encompassed friendship, diversity, difference, variety,
self-love, independence, and acceptance in combination with messages like “One fit for
one” (IP12), “Love yourself” (IP15), or “There are no boundaries regarding size, weight,
or cultural difference” (IP16).
Response
The feelings witnessed by the informants were happy, good, confident, wholesome, and
empowering based on thoughts towards a preferred diverse model cast and tiredness when
it comes to old societal norms. Hence, it was mentioned to break these norms and to
include diversity in advertising as much as in everyday life. This led to an overall good
opinion about the advertisement, such as IP14 suggests: “(…) I would like to support them
like that's (...) more aligned with my own values as well.”
Even though there were a few informants who perceived advert #3 as basic and cheap,
felt normal, and thought about the models simply doing their job and pose, every
informant was motivated to purchase from JEMA by looking at the advertisement.
54
4.2.4 Advert #4
Attention
Advert #4 was often chosen as the advert that drew the most attention. The clothing was
perceived as artsy, extraordinary, and as not usually worn by men. Some informants even
mentioned how the advert might upset people who are not used to this kind of fashion in
which men wear more feminine clothes. The models also drew attention as their posing
and unique sense of style were different from normal, to which IP12 added: “This kind of
clothes that open or showing that many parts of the body. (…) I'm not used to this.”
Interpretation
The advert was interpreted as being a niche fashion brand that targets a younger audience
as it may be too extreme for the older generations. The type of clothing and the models
were associated with Berlin, techno music, non-binary, and queer. Messages that were
perceived from the advert were ‘wear whatever you want’, ‘clothing has no gender’,
‘fashion for everyone’, self-love, independence, and acceptance. Furthermore, the
message of courage was often mentioned as the brand was associated with having no
55
boundaries, being cool, and trying something new and unique as summarised by IP7: ”You
either like us [JEMA] or not, we don’t care. They do what they want”
Response
The advert received a positive response as it gave the feeling of belonging, confidence,
and joy. Some informants mentioned that they felt a sense of Pride when looking at the
advert as mentioned by IP9:
“I would say I'm proud of the people, for example, the models who are just the way
they are. And they are just like here I am and I don't care about what you think. And
it is really nice.”
The opinions on the type of clothing were diverse as some informants found it cheap
whilst others would buy it. However, even though not all respondents would buy the
clothing, the advertisement itself was perceived as refreshing and made a positive
impression as it broke societal norms.
4.2.5 Advert #5
56
Attention
The informants were all on the same page regarding what grabbed their attention when
looking at advert #5, summarised by IP11 as: “(…) it kind of screams Pride in your face.”
This refers to the various colours and symbols used within the ad, especially the rainbows.
Additionally, most informants pointed out the boldness of the advertisement and the
LGBTQ overload as the most attention-grabbing.
Interpretation
Advert #5 was understood as a Pride advertisement by all informants which tries to show
support towards the LGBTQ community, break old societal norms and normalise LGBTQ,
and target the LGBTQ community as potential customers, as suggested by IP19:
“I think they just want to show that they stand by the LGBTQ community. (…) I
don't feel like the clothes are the actual message with the ad. I don't think the ad
has the purpose to sell these clothes, maybe more to (…) sell the overall values of
the brand.”
Based on these interpretations, values/ keywords that were perceived involved Pride,
diversity, openness, variety, inclusivity, and equality. Moreover, informants mentioned
messages such as “Love is love” (IP13), “Love who you want” (IP15), or “Being gay is
okay” (IP20).
Response
The informants shared mixed feelings about advert #5, like IP10:
“Yeah, so (…) I feel a bit attacked by it. Like it's (…) the message, whatever it tries
to send, really screams at me but not in a super good way, to be honest.”
While a few people felt good about the advertisement and that JEMA supports the LGBTQ
community by publishing this kind of advertising, most felt overwhelmed, suspicious,
57
and cringe due to their thoughts about advert #5 being pink washing/ Queerbating, bold
and staged, and would rather conduct former research before purchasing from the brand.
For instance, IP14 questioned the brand’s intentions:
“It gives me like oh, it’s Pride month! (…) this shop has to (…) grab the Dollar like
they want to get the LGBTQ people's money. (…) this is like (…) glued on rainbow
Pride. There, I’d think okay, (…) are we getting money for the cause? Are we like,
actually supporting and (…) helping the community? I think the rainbow would be
(…) okay (…). But then I'm looking more clearly and it's tacky. It gives me no style.
These people would not wear this. (…) So, then I would maybe question (…) the
intentions.
As a result, none of the informants would purchase from JEMA based on the thoughts
mentioned before or because the clothes did not match the informants’ preferred styles
like IP5: “First of all, this wouldn't be my style and I don't like to wear my sexuality on
my clothes.”
Altogether, the overall opinions on advert #5 were negative and the advertisement was
perceived as boring, basic, confusing, and not professional. IP20 summarises their
opinion in one short sentence: ”(…) there's no real value in it. It doesn’t draw me in.”
58
59
Table 3: Overview of informants' quotes relating to perceptions (own representation)
60
4.2.6 Overall perception
Table 4: Classification of informants’ perceptions individually by advertisement (own representation)
Table 5: Classification of informants’ perceptions in total (own representation)
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4 Ad #5 Overall perception
IP1 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP2 Negative Positive Negative Neutral Positive Neutral
IP3 Negative Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative
IP4 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP5 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP6 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP7 Positive Positive Positive Positive Negative Positive
IP8 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP9 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP10 Negative Neutral Positive Positive Negative Neutral
IP11 Negative Positive Positive Positive Neutral Positive
IP12 Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative
IP13 Negative Negative Positive Positive Negative Negative
IP14 Negative Neutral Neutral Positive Negative Negative
IP15 Neutral Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP16 Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral
IP17 Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Negative
IP18 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP19 Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
IP20 Negative Neutral Positive Positive Negative Neutral
Positive perception Neutral perception Negative perception
Number of IPs 11 4 5
61
After a data analysis of the findings on informants’ advertisement perceptions, it can be
acknowledged that fashion consciousness did not have a specific influence on their
overall perception, nor could it be used to establish a specific pattern of findings since no
differences between fashion-conscious and non-fashion-conscious informants’
perceptions on the advertisements appeared. In other words, fashion-conscious
informants had the same perception as non-fashion-conscious informants in some cases.
Additionally, Table 3 presents informants’ representative quotes by each advertisement
individually and breaks them down into the three main elements of response as part of
the perceptual process to give a further in-depth overview and understanding of
informants’ perceptions and the process of classifying them.
Notwithstanding, a classification into three types of perceptions was identified:
positive perception, neutral perception, and negative perception. The informants were
allocated to this system of classification based on their response to the presented JEMA
advertisements, meaning their feelings, thoughts, motivation to purchase, and overall
opinion. For this, the researchers looked at each informant’s response to every single
advertisement and then at the response for all advertisements for the bigger picture. As
an example, positive feelings like ‘comfortable’ in combination with a motivation to
purchase from JEMA and a good opinion of an advertisement led to a positive perception
of a single advertisement. If an informant had this perception for most advertisements,
he/ she was classified with an overall positive perception of all the advertisements. The
allocation of informants to one of the three categories can be seen in Table 4 and an
overview of the overall quantity of informants per category in Table 5.
4.3 Brand authenticity
This section answers the second research question on how Gen Z’s perceptions of fast
fashion advertisements impact the elements of brand authenticity. Firstly, informants’
definitions of each element of brand authenticity are described. After this, the findings
are structured according to the classification of perceptions made before to identify the
differences in understanding of brand authenticity.
62
4.3.1 Brand reliability
The informants described a reliable brand as transparent, where consumers know that they
receive sustainably produced good quality products. Further, a reliable brand sticks to its
promises and own values and is consistent in its brand identity and image. Examples of
reliable brands mentioned by the informants encompassed Hollister, Tupperware, Nike,
Apple, Polo Ralph Lauren, Adidas, H&M, and Acne.
Positive perception
Informants with a positive perception of the LGBTQ images displayed in the
advertisements thought that JEMA supports the LGBTQ community to a high extent, even
though they consider potential pink washing. In their eyes, the brand seems honest when
it comes to the LGBTQ topic, however, a negative attitude towards fast fashion honesty
exists, like IP15 mentions:
“(…) I always think with fast fashion, it's kind of like two sides. Because of course,
you value on that one side (…) the LGBTQ situation, but like on the other side, fast
fashion (…) in general is just (…) not really an honest thing in my opinion.”
Moreover, JEMA makes the impression of selling the latest fashion trends and will
represent the LGBTQ community in the future.
Neutral perception
Contrary to the positive perception, informants with a neutral perception are sceptical
towards JEMA’s support of the LGBTQ community. Even though the brand seems honest,
also in delivering current fashion trends, the brand does not seem to represent the LGBTQ
community in the future since the displayed images are incomplete in representing the
whole community.
63
Negative perception
Informants with a negative perception only understood JEMA as a brand that delivers
current fashion trends but does not support the LGBTQ community, neither seems honest.
Most informants such as IP3 suggested conducting former research before purchasing
from JEMA:
“(…) a lot of brands brand themselves as inclusive and whatnot. But, I mean, there's
always the question like, do they really mean it? And obviously, the main driving
force behind it is still like, not missing out on different target groups, and ultimately
getting more money, company growth.”
Summary
Adverts #2 and #3 were perceived as the most reliable. Regarding advert #2, informants
described it as most professional and natural-looking, where the clothes look like the
highest quality too. Advert #3, on the other side, was selected as the most reliable as it
looks the most decent. In other words, informants felt that with this advertisement, JEMA
would not promise more than it could deliver.
Table 6: Informants' perception of the most reliable advertisement (own representation)
4.3.2 Brand consistency
The informants described brand consistency as a brand that offers a consistent style, stays
up to date, follows trends, targets the same target group, and has consistent quality over
time. Following trends included not only fashion trends but also consumer trends, which
requires brands to understand what consumers demand at a specific time. Examples of
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4 Ad #5
Most reliable 1 8 8 5 1
64
consistent brands that were mentioned are Nike, Adidas, H&M, Apple, Carhart,
Patagonia, and Monki.
Positive perception
Informants with a positive perception of JEMA’s consistency found the brand to have a
clear concept that it pursues in which it stays true to itself in including the LGBTQ
community in its adverts. Additionally, the adverts are perceived as consistent in
portraying different types of sexualities, yet showing diverse types of clothing to which
IP9 added:
“(…) it seems like JEMA does have a clear vision of the brand communication due
to their clothing style, the group of people they are targeting, and the models that
they're using for the brand.”
Neutral perception
Informants with a neutral perception struggled to understand what the message of JEMA
was and whether the LGBTQ community would be used consistently in the future. Since
the advertisements only gave a snapshot, instead of a yearly overview, it was found to be
difficult to judge JEMA’s consistency. Moreover, the informants were sceptical about
JEMA would stay consistent in using LGBTQ community members in its advert as argued
by IP20: “I'd say that they (…) will not be so consistent as (…) when this trend settles,
(…) they will move on to something else.”
Negative perception
Contrary to informants who found JEMA to stay true to itself, informants with a negative
perception disagreed. They perceived the brand to be messy, not consistent in the use of
clothing and images, unclear, and lacking an overall goal. The brand was perceived as
using the LGBTQ community for sales as mentioned by IP17:
65
”I feel like this would be a brand who would be like, oh, the LGBTQ community is
(…) in the news right now a lot and (…) people are opening up more so let's make
all our advertisements with gay people and rainbows.”
Summary
Advert #4 was perceived as most consistent due to the clothes not being gendered which
would allow anyone to buy clothes from JEMA. Moreover, the type of fashion was
perceived as being the newest which would indicate that the brand adapts to trends.
Table 7: Informants' perception of the most consistent advertisement (own representation)
4.3.3 Brand originality
In the informants’ eyes, an original fashion brand differentiates itself from its competitors
and offers unique styles and patterns as well as aesthetics that are typical for the brand
and that others copy. Examples mentioned were Monki, Desigual, Tesla, Uniqlo, Levi’s,
and Apple.
Positive perception
All informants could identify with the brand, especially when it comes to the inclusion of
LGBTQ, which is what makes the brand original to IP4: “I think so. (…) I don't really
know another brand that tries to make that clear of a point [supporting the LGBTQ
community].”
However, informants did not find fast fashion to be original and therefore, could not
identify with the brand when it comes to its products.
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4 Ad #5
Most consistent 2 4 7 9 2
66
Neutral perception
In comparison, informants with a neutral perception reacted similar to the positive ones,
however, even more of them could not identify with the brand since it is fast fashion. For
instance, IP10 mentions:
“I guess it's not really unique. I mean, in the fashion industry, it's (…) also very
hard to be different than your competitors because everybody jumps (…) on the
same trend (…). So, I guess you could see these kinds of clothes (…) on different
brands too.”
Negative perception
Neither the LGBTQ inclusion nor JEMA’s products seemed original to informants with
negative perceptions as the advertisements seem familiar and consequently exchangeable
with other brands. Further, they could not identify with the brand. IP13 highlighted their
confusion:
“(…) everything that I see in front of me is something that I have already seen at
other brands, like the clothes, the looks, but also the display of it all. You could
write down any other fast fashion name down there such as, for example, H&M,
and it would fit too. Even C&A would do this, and it wouldn’t make a difference.”
Summary
Advert #4 came out as making the brand look most original due to the models’ confident
attitude, their unconventional fashion style as well as gender identification. Altogether,
the advertisement was regarded as out of the mainstream which made it unique.
67
Table 8: Informants' perception of the most original advertisement (own representation)
4.3.4 Brand genuineness
Brand genuineness was described by the informants as brands that deliver upon their
promises and are real, in the sense of not copying others. High fashion brands, such as
Gucci, were perceived by the informants as being genuine as fast fashion brands often
copy high fashion. The respondents found it easier to mention non-genuine brands such
as H&M, Shein, Zara, and Zawful, which in their opinion all copy styles from other
designers.
Positive perception
Informants that had a positive perception of JEMA’s genuineness perceived the brand as
honest, real, and bold by targeting different target groups. Moreover, the choice of
LGBTQ images was perceived as appropriate and not too pushy. IP4 summarised JEMA’s
realness as:
“(…) you should be the version of yourself, that you really want to be. So why would
you fake something, when you want to spread to be yourself, if that makes sense?
There’s a reason to stay real.”
Neutral perception
Informants with a neutral perception were not sure about JEMA’s genuineness as the
adverts confused them and did not include all LGBTQ members. The use of rainbows was
perceived as a supportive symbol towards the LGBTQ community yet, LGBTQ
community members do not necessarily wear this as stated by IP10: “(…) I don't think
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4 Ad #5
Most original 1 1 16 2
68
that (…) it's very authentic because the (…) people I know from this community don't
dress like that. Maybe through Pride Week, not in their daily life.”
Further, the LGBTQ members that were displayed in the adverts were perceived as a good
representation however, as mentioned by IP5: “(…) even in 1000 pictures, you can never
show everyone (…).”
Negative perception
Informants with a negative perception found JEMA not genuine, not appropriate in
representing the LGBTQ community, and showed gay love as too forced. Inappropriate
display of the LGBTQ community was due to a heteronormative perspective as
mentioned by IP13:
“The brand works with images and representations that are a based on
heteronormative perspectives and norms and just exchanged these people with
same-sex couples or, looking at number three, that’s a presentation of commonly
normative thinking but only with an LGBTQ stamp on it. So, it seems a bit like
something that heteronormative people would imagine about how LGBTQ looks
like.”
Moreover, some informants perceived the advertisements as part of a trend in which the
LGBTQ community is only supported regarding sales and not supported consistently.
Summary
Advert #4 was perceived as the most genuine advert as it was the most different compared
to standard fashion adverts, grabbed the most attention, and was unique.
69
Table 9: Informants' perception of the most genuine advertisement (own representation)
4.3.5 Brand integrity
Brands that take care of sustainability, social causes, and the environment were perceived
as showing integrity, as they support other initiatives besides their sales. Additionally,
brand integrity was described as brands that are trustworthy and deliver upon their
promises. Brands with integrity that were mentioned as an example are Patagonia, LEGO,
Benetton, Armedangles, Henkel, and Persil.
Positive perception
Informants with a positive perception of JEMA’s brand integrity perceived the brand to
be supportive of the LGBTQ community as they were included in all advertisements.
However, brand integrity was lower regarding sustainability and the overall society as
fast fashion was associated with negative social responsibility. Moreover, the brand was
perceived as trustworthy as it represents a vulnerable group as stated by IP18: “(…) they
[JEMA] display a group that is vulnerable and not represented enough so then, in my
eyes, they have to be trustworthy.”
Neutral perception
Informants with a neutral perception acknowledged JEMA’s efforts to include the
LGBTQ community in its advertisements although, did not perceive brand integrity as
fast fashion, in general, is not sustainable. Scepticism was also perceived, as the
informants were not certain whether JEMA truly supports the LGBTQ community and is
connected to the community as mentioned by IP10:
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4 Ad #5
Most genuine 2 7 7 10 1
70
“(…) it looks like JEMA didn't really inform or connected with their target group.
So, they don't really know the people they want to approach to. So yeah, I think
that's why it doesn't really look very integrative.”
Negative perception
The advertisements were perceived as a bad representation of the LGBTQ community by
the informants with a negative perception of JEMA. This was mainly due to advert #5 in
which the rainbow was used too excessive in showing support for the community.
Moreover, the advertisements were perceived as part of a phase in which JEMA would
only support the LGBTQ community for sales purposes. IP17 added to this: “(…) I don't
know if they really care. I just think they want money and make it look like they care.”
Summary
Advert #4 was chosen by most informants when showing brand integrity. This advert was
perceived as most real and supportive towards the LGBTQ community as the models were
found empowering and unique.
Table 10: Informants' perception of the advertisement that shows the most integrity (own representation)
4.3.6 Brand symbolism
When asked about brands that can be identified by their symbols, informants mentioned
Nike, Adidas, Chanel, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Indiska, Lacoste, H&M, Zara, Apple,
Versace, Polo Ralph Lauren, McDonalds, Tommy Hilfiger, and Balenciaga due to their
logos and specific designs. Referring to JEMA, the brand logo as well as the rainbows,
the rainbow flag, and the transgender symbol were spotted.
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4 Ad #5
Shows most integrity 3 4 4 9 7
71
Positive perception
Most informants with a positive perception would not recognise JEMA by the display in
the future but did not find the usage of LGBTQ symbols unsuitable. Nevertheless, doubts
were mentioned, such as by IP15: “(…) I’d guess that they [JEMA] don’t have a problem
to show this symbol and stand behind it, but I assume that other people might have
problems with it.”
In the end, the informants still perceived the usage of LGBTQ symbols to have a positive
influence on their overall perception of the brand.
Neutral perception
The informants with a neutral perception were able to identify the rainbow flag and
transgender sign however, were not sure about the placement of the symbols and if they
were used appropriately as mentioned by IP10: “(…) The transgender logo it's a bit weird
that it's placed on the person now because I don't know what it should say to me, that this
guy is transgender or that the brand is clothing for transgender people? So I don't know
it's not very clear. And it's also (…), I wouldn't see the sense why it is there.”
Negative perception
The informants with a negative perception went even further and acknowledged a
negative influence on their overall brand perception as it makes the brand look tacky and
does not add value to the brand itself since LGBTQ symbols are not associated with
JEMA. A few informants suggested potential adjustments to make JEMA seem
authentically inclusive, like IP3:
“(…) the brand can identify themselves way better [with the LGBTQ community]
by showcasing (…) different target groups instead of only rainbows all the time.
But for example, when you’re demonstrating, it’s easy to obviously bring a
colourful rainbow flag to showcase which group you belong to, or you stand for.”
72
4.3.7 Overall brand authenticity
Table 11: Overview of informants' perception of brand authenticity (own representation)
Table 11 summarises informants’ perceptions of brand authenticity. While
advertisements #2 and #3 were regarded as the most reliable, advertisement #4 was
selected as the most consistent, original, and genuine as well as the advertisement, that
shows the most integrity.
To give a further detailed overview of informants’ perception of brand authenticity,
Table 12 presents representative quotes for each dimension of the Brand Authenticity
Construct, divided into positive, neutral, and negative perceptions to highlight the
differences in perceptions.
Ad #1 Ad #2 Ad #3 Ad #4 Ad #5
Most reliable X X
Most consistent X
Most original X
Most genuine X
Shows most
integrity
X
73
74
75
76
Table 12: Overview of informants' quotes relating to brand authenticity (own representation)
77
4.4 Additional insights
4.4.1 Preferences
Table 13: Informant's advertisement preferences (own representation)
Table 13 summarizes which advertisements were preferred as favourite ones and gave the
highest motivation to purchase. Informants were also asked to choose their least favourite
advert. The informants with a positive and neutral perception rated advert #2 as their
favourite. This was due to the positive feeling of happiness informants felt and the
preferred style of clothing displayed. Advert #4 was rated as a favourite advertisement by
the informants with a negative perception as this advert was perceived as the most
different, appealing, and bravest advert with the coolest style of clothing. Additionally,
the informants felt like they could sympathise with the overall design of the advert as it
felt genuine.
The adverts that gave the informants the highest motivation to purchase from JEMA
were all fashion style based in which the type of clothing was the decisive factor. Further,
most informants with a positive, neutral, and negative perception all chose advert #5 as
the least favourite one. This was due to the feeling of JEMA pretending to care about the
LGBTQ community, pink washing, and coming across as ‘too much’.
Preferences Positive
perception
Neutral
perception
Negative
perception
Favourite advert #2 #2 #4
Highest motivation to purchase
advert
#3 #2 & #3 #4
Least favourite advert #5 #5 #5
78
4.4.2 Additional comments
Informants were also asked about any additional comments or opinions they would like
to share. The informants that had something to share mentioned that the overall aesthetic
of the adverts was inconsistent however, JEMA’s support towards the LGBTQ
community was something that should be pursued in advertising.
5. Analysis & discussion
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this chapter is to analyse and discuss the empirical findings of this study
by considering previous literature. By discussing the gathered data, a deeper
understanding of Gen Z’s perceptions of LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising and
their impact on perceived brand authenticity is aimed to be created. Regarding the
structure, this chapter starts by answering the first research question, followed by the
second research question.
______________________________________________________________________
5.1 Gen Z’s perceptions of LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising
The first research question of this study dealt with how Gen Z perceived LGBTQ images
in fast fashion advertising. Generally, perceptions were primarily based on the use of
LGBTQ models and the informants responded positively when it came to the inclusion of
LGBTQ in advertising. Nevertheless, regarding the specific advertisements by JEMA, this
study identified three categories of perceptions: positive, neutral, and negative. These
were based on informants’ perceptual responses toward JEMA advertisements. Previous
research has examined homosexual and LGBTQ images in advertising (Shepherd et al.,
2020; Hester & Gibson, 2007; Johns et al., 2022; Berisha & Sjörgen, 2016; Eisend &
Hermann, 2019; Hooten et al., 2009), however, did not provide insights into Gen Z’s
perception of LGBTQ images in fast fashion. Therefore, this study aims to fill this
research gap by considering the three identified categories of perceptions.
79
Positive perceptions
Informants with a positive perception were found to like all JEMA advertisements. This
positive perception was driven by three main aspects: (1) the type of fashion style
displayed, (2) the LGBTQ models used, and (3) the message of supporting the LGBTQ
community. The informants that mentioned that their attention was grabbed by the
clothing paid less or no attention to the sexuality of the models. This indicated that the
use of LGBTQ models in fast fashion advertising did not affect their perception. When
attention was grabbed because of the use of LGBTQ models, this was because it was
perceived as something new. LGBTQ models were not often seen in fast fashion
advertising and therefore, they were able to attract attention. Additionally, the display of
LGBTQ models was related to JEMA supporting the LGBTQ community and including
them more in fast fashion advertising. The underrepresentation of the LGBTQ community
was also found by Mikkonen (2010) who stated that open homosexual relationships are
rare in mainstream advertising.
Due to JEMA’s inclusivity, the brand was perceived as honest and reliable which
would motivate the informants to purchase from the brand. This is similar to Francis &
Hoefel’s (2018) findings that state that most Gen Z members support and purchase from
brands that are inclusive, diverse, and ethical.
Further, a pattern between male and female informants with a positive perception
of the inclusion of LGBTQ community members in the advertising could not be identified.
This is contrary to the findings of Oakenfull & Greenlee (2004), who found that
“heterosexual males have a more negative attitude than heterosexual females toward
advertisements with gay imagery, and a more favorable attitude toward advertisements
with lesbian content than do heterosexual females” (p. 1284). Since their study did not
focus on Gen Z and did not cover the full spectrum of LGBTQ either, the findings of this
study can be regarded as new insights.
Neutral perceptions
Most informants with a neutral perception liked JEMA’s inclusion of LGBTQ models in
the advertisements yet, were unsure and hesitant about JEMA’s intentions. Informants
mentioned that they were sceptical because of past experiences with other fast fashion
brands that only included the LGBTQ community in advertisements during Pride to make
80
a profit. Hannum (2022) stated that this scepticism is because of Gen Z’s cautiousness
toward rainbow capitalism as they have a high acceptance of the LGBTQ community. Our
study found that Gen Z has a high acceptance of the LGBTQ community. Two of the
neutral informants mentioned that they liked the inclusion of LGBTQ models but
questioned whether older generations would accept it. This is since Gen Z is the first
generation with the highest number of members accepting and identifying with LGBTQ
in contrast to older generations (Porterfield, 2022). Moreover, they questioned whether
LGBTQ community members would like the advertisements since they might be offended
by advertisement #5 which was perceived as too wanted.
Even though most of the informants with a neutral perception were sceptical,
JEMA’s efforts of including the LGBTQ community were appreciated. Inclusion was
perceived as a positive contribution to fast fashion advertising since the LGBTQ
community is not represented enough according to their thoughts. However, the
informants were still neutral with their overall perception of JEMA since this positive
thought was not towards all advertisements. If JEMA would continue displaying and
supporting the community in the future, the informants would tend to become positive
toward the brand since generational members prefer brands that are aligned with their
values (Francis & Hoefel, 2018).
Negative perceptions
The third identified category includes informants with a negative perception which is
mainly based on the viewed clothes and the way the various sexual orientations and
gender identifications were presented. The portrayal of the different LGBTQ orientations
and identifications was seen as stereotypical and tokenistic. This matches what van Meer
& Pollmann (2021) and Luna & Barros (2019) found, especially for the representation of
marginal groups, where advertising content is produced to meet a specific ideology of
how these marginal groups should be presented. Consequently, informants with a
negative perception interpreted the presented advertisements as pink washing which can
be supported by Hannum (2022). Pink washing was perceived based on the stereotypical
and tokenistic display of the LGBTQ models and notably the used symbols in advert #5
which made the informants think this inclusion is only temporal for Pride used for sales
81
purposes. Here, it needs to be acknowledged that even though this category of informants’
perceptions is described as negative, it does not mean the informants turned out to be
homophobic or discriminating, but more critical and socially invested than the others. As
a result, the informants with a negative perception would not pursue purchasing from
JEMA notably after identifying pink washing within the advertisements. This is
contradictory to research by Johns et al. (2022, Abstract) which did not find any
“significance between consumer attitudes towards rainbow-washing and their intention
to purchase”. However, the study alludes to the importance of corporate social
responsibility perceived by consumers which plays a role in consumers’ purchase
intentions and overall attitude and perception towards the brand. This is supported by our
findings since the informants with a negative perception were hesitant to purchase from
JEMA because of a perceived lack of JEMA’s overall care and inclusion of LGBTQ.
Hence, they would appreciate the knowledge of the brand including LGBTQ not only
within the company itself but also regarding society in form of charity. It needs to be
mentioned that Johns et al. (2022) study did not only focus on Gen Z which is why the
findings of our study can be regarded as new insights.
5.2 The impact of Gen Z’s perceptions of LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising
on brand authenticity
JEMA was perceived as a reliable brand by the informants with a positive perception as
the advertisements included members of the LGBTQ community. This was not often seen
by the informants in fast fashion advertising and therefore, they perceived JEMA to be a
brand that supports the LGBTQ community. Auten (2018) found that 66% of the LGBTQ+
community feels unrepresented in advertising however, no research was found on how
Gen Z perceives this display in fast fashion advertising. Therefore, this can be regarded
as a new insight. Moreover, JEMA was perceived to be a brand that would deliver upon
promises. The LGBTQ community was displayed in every advertisement and the
informants perceived the message behind the adverts to be that JEMA would support the
LGBTQ community. Due to the feeling of inclusivity, acceptance, and care towards the
LGBTQ community, JEMA was perceived as trustworthy and reliable.
82
The informants with a neutral perception perceived the adverts to be supportive of
the LGBTQ community, however, were not certain whether the brand would continue
doing so in the future. Consequently, they were not sure whether JEMA was reliable.
Informants with a negative perception perceived JEMA to be unreliable. This was
due to their perception of JEMA only using the LGBTQ community in advertising as part
of a phase to make money. Further, the informants found the advertisements to be forced
and did not believe that JEMA would support the LGBTQ community which is a
characteristic of pink washing (Blackmer, 2019). For advert #5 the perception of the
excessive use of the rainbow was perceived as ‘too much and contributed to the
perception of JEMA pink washing.
Informants with a positive perception found JEMA to be a consistent brand as the
concept of showing only LGBTQ models were perceived as clear, especially when it
comes to the brand’s marketing communication, which made JEMA seem true to itself.
This matches Kopot & Cude‘s (2021) research on brand continuity which describes how
repetitive advertising, including consistent messaging and brand values, allows
consumers to build up associations with the brand over time. This means that JEMA is
perceived as a fast fashion brand that only adjusts its advertisements according to the
latest fashion trends, but not to the choice of models, making the brand recognisable to
the informants with a positive perception (Kopot & Cude, 2021). This is also the reason
why advert #4 was perceived as most consistent by the informants. Additionally,
Schallehn et al. (2014) explained that consistent brands outlive trends and remain stable
in their vision, goals, and attributes overtimes.
In contrast, informants with a neutral and negative perception were sceptical or
disagreed with JEMA being a consistent brand especially based on advert #5 as they
thought JEMA’s advertising could be or is a trend due to its current popularity within
society which contradicts the previously mentioned work by Schallehn et al. (2014).
However, these perceptions can be supported by Karmarama’s (2020) study that found
only 32% of brands represent the LGBTQ community in their advertisements
independently of Pride month and consequently making LGTBQ inclusion seem like a
trend and tokenistic.
83
Regarding brand originality, informants with a positive perception and similar the
ones with a neutral perception were able to identify with JEMA and its inclusion of
LGBTQ in the advertisements. Hence, they agreed upon JEMA’s inclusive message
which deviated from the norm and was perceived as unique, as argued by Plucker &
Renzulli (1999). Nevertheless, in the informants’ eyes, the clothes in four of the
advertisements were not perceived as original since most fast fashion brands sell similar
clothes.
Moreover, informants with a negative perception did not identify with the brand
since LGBTQ inclusion as well as the advertised clothes seemed familiar and
consequently not original. The informants were mainly confused with the overall concept
of JEMA which relates to Moulard et al. (2016) who argue that uniqueness stimulates a
brand and how it stays true to itself, referring to brand reliability, continuity, and finally
originality.
However, what all perceptual categories agreed on is that advert #4 seemed the most
original not only when it comes to the choice of models, but also regarding the advertised
clothes. As a result, the differentiating advertisement created originality (Netemeyer et
al., 2004).
Regarding brand genuineness, informants with a positive perception perceived
JEMA to be genuine. This was due to the genuine and appropriate display of the LGBTQ
community which was not perceived as too much. Inclusion and ‘being the best version
of yourself’ were perceived as the message to which JEMA adhered by including different
sexualities. Brand genuineness concerning the LGBTQ community in advertising has not
previously been studied yet, Wymer and Akbar (2017) found that brand genuineness
related to the degree to which a brand was not a copy or a fake. This was also
acknowledged by the informants who perceived JEMA as real since the LGBTQ
community was displayed in every advert and therefore was perceived as genuine.
Especially advert #4 was perceived as genuine because of the unique fashion style and
the models being their true selves and not fake.
The informants with a neutral perception were not certain whether the adverts were
an appropriate representation of the LGBTQ community. One neutral informant
84
mentioned that no image could represent the whole LGBTQ community however, JEMA
was perceived to be trying to include everyone.
Luna & Barros (2019) found that consumers constantly question standards
established by brands since the content is fabricated to ideological representations. This
was also perceived by the informants with a negative perception. They perceived the
adverts as being forced and an inappropriate representation of the LGBTQ community.
One informant mentioned that the advertising was based on a heteronormative
perspective and did not genuinely represent the LGBTQ community. The display of the
LGBTQ community in rainbow clothing in advert #5 and the stereotypical lesbian ‘butch’
look of the model in advert #1, were reasons for the informants to perceive JEMA as not
genuine. This was also found by Nölke (2017, p. 224) on “how erasure of multiply
marginalized groups in mainstream advertising continues to perpetuate a
heteronormative, domesticized version of “gayness””. Additionally, fast fashion, in
general, was perceived as not genuine and the informants perceived JEMA to only support
the LGBTQ community as part of a phase.
Brand integrity was perceived by informants with a positive perception who
thought JEMA cares about the LGBTQ community due to their inclusion in the
advertisements. In this way, the brand’s moral courage and the notion of ‘being integral’
were signified to the informants which they mostly saw in advert #5 as a brand’s
contribution to Pride was perceived as caring (Murphy, 1999). Notwithstanding, Maak
(2008) claims integrity reflects upon a brand’s sincere care towards consumers, products,
society, or the environment which was not fully perceived by the informants with a
positive perception as they think fast fashion as a product category, in general, does not
care about the environment. This finding is similar to Petro (2021) and Kale (2021) who
found a change in Gen Z consumption to being more environmentally conscious. The
informants with a neutral perception went one step further and questioned JEMA’s
honesty regarding their LGBTQ inclusion which can be referred to Murphy (1999) and
how integrity is honesty with a purpose.
In contrast, informants with a negative perception did not think JEMA would care
about the LGBTQ community, nor consumers, society, products, or the environment.
Further, the LGBTQ inclusion seemed only temporal to them and further information on
85
the brand would be crucial to them before proceeding. This matches what Cambier &
Poncin (2020) on brands’ integrative efforts to ensure enforcement of external
assessments by consumers through transparency in which details about the brand motives,
objectives, and processes are shared and open to the public. Consequently, the informants
with a negative perception selected advert #4 as the one that shows integrity the most.
The interplay of design and selection of models gave the impression as JEMA would have
conducted former research on the LBGTQ community.
In the end, all informants of each perceptual category appreciated JEMA’s attempt
to include the LGBTQ community which supports what has been found by McKinsey &
Company (2021), Abela & Murphy (2007), and Williams (2021) regarding Gen Z’s
importance of corporate social responsibility.
JEMA’s usage of symbolism was only perceived in advert #5 because this was the
only advert in which symbols were placed on the clothing. The rainbow was recognized
as a symbol by all informants whilst the transgender sign was not always recognized. The
informants with a positive perception perceived that JEMA used the symbols to illustrate
that they support the LGBTQ community and that everyone is included. Morhart et al.
(2015) stated that brands that express symbolism are more authentic since consumers can
relate to brand values and self-identify. This was also found in our study since informants
who liked the use of JEMA’s symbols had a positive perception of the brand. Even though
the positive informants liked the symbols, they were not certain whether the symbols were
used appropriately which was also the case for the informants with a neutral perception.
This related to scepticism in which JEMA solely used the symbols to increase sales whilst
not truly caring about the LGBTQ community which refers to brands adding LGBTQ
symbols to their advertising to purposely present themselves as inclusive found by
Shepherd et al. (2020).
The informants with a negative perception perceived the rainbow and transgender
sign as inappropriate as it belonged to the LGBTQ community and not to JEMA. Further,
they perceived the symbols as not adding any value and even affecting the brand
negatively since the symbols were not associated with JEMA. A negative perceived effect
of Gen Z members towards a brand because of the usage of LGBTQ symbols in
advertising is something that so far has been unexplored and serves as new insights.
86
Thus, to answer the second research question we found that informants with a
positive perception perceived JEMA to be more authentic than informants with a negative
perception. This can be because informants with a positive perception fulfilled more
dimensions of the Brand Authenticity Construct than the ones with a negative perception,
who disagreed with almost every question. Regarding the informants with a neutral
perception, a clear answer on how they perceived brand authenticity cannot be stated
since these informants were sometimes similar in their answers to informants with a
positive perception, and sometimes similar to informants with a negative perception. For
illustrative purposes, this phenomenon is presented in Figure 11 as the revised conceptual
model of this research.
87
Figure 11: Revised conceptual model (own representation)
88
6. Conclusion
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In this chapter, the discussed and analysed findings are used to formulate theoretical,
managerial, and societal implications. Afterwards, the limitations of this study are stated
and suggestions for future research are provided.
______________________________________________________________________
6.1. Purpose
The purpose of this research was to explore how Gen Z perceives LGBTQ images in fast
fashion advertising and how this impacts brand authenticity. Based on secondary
literature, a gap in this area was identified since scholars have previously not focussed on
Gen Z in an LGBTQ fast fashion advertising context, but rather on other generations,
homosexual advertising, or brand image and brand sincerity (Scott, 2021; Shepherd,
2020; Hester & Gibson, 2007; Eisend & Hermann, 2019). By conducting qualitative
research using a sample of 20 Gen Z members the identified gap could be closed and the
following research questions could be answered.
RQ1: How does Gen Z perceive LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising?
Gen Z’s perception of LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising can be classified into
three categories: positive, neutral, and negative perceptions. The informants with a
positive perception liked the use of LGBTQ models since this indicated support towards
the LGBTQ community and contributed to inclusivity, reliability, and honesty. Informants
with a neutral perception were hesitant about JEMA’s support of including the LGBTQ
community since this could be only temporal. However, they appreciated the effort of
including them which was contrary to the perception of the informants with a negative
perception who perceived the portrayal of the different LGBTQ orientations as
stereotypical and suspected pink washing.
89
RQ2: How does this perception link to the dimensions of brand authenticity?
The three identified perception categories were related to the six dimensions of the Brand
Authenticity Construct to determine how brand authenticity was perceived. Informants
with a positive perception perceived JEMA to be authentic whilst informants with a
negative perception perceived JEMA to be inauthentic. Since informants with a neutral
perception sometimes had similar perceptions as the informants with a positive or
negative perception, no clear answer on their perception of brand authenticity can be
given.
6.2 Theoretical implications
Based on Gen Z becoming the next big and important consumer group for brands in
combination with the increasingly present topic of LGBTQ and brand authenticity, a need
for a theoretical exploration and contribution was determined.
Firstly, this study provides an overview of Gen Z’s perceptions of the inclusion of
LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising. The findings uncovered that Gen Z members
appreciate brands’ social inclusiveness, however, when it comes to the execution of
advertisement design creation including LBGTQ, three categories of Gen Z perceptions
could be identified (i.e., positive, neutral, and negative). These findings serve as
significant insights for brands due to the creation of the fictional brand JEMA which
prevented any kind of brand transfer. This way, informants did not have any former
associations with the brand and their perceptions had a common base.
Secondly, we discovered a pattern between the perceptual categories of Gen Z
members on LGBTQ images in fast fashion advertising and the perceived brand
authenticity which, to our knowledge, has not been discovered yet. As a result, informants
with a positive perception of the LGBTQ images perceived JEMA to be authentic,
whereas the neutral perceptions of the informants had a mixed impact on brand
authenticity, and informants with a negative perception did not perceive JEMA to be an
authentic brand. It needs to be acknowledged that no specific dimension of the Brand
Authenticity Construct was less impacted by the informants’ perceptions than others
which is why all dimensions can be treated equally.
90
Lastly, for the sake of future research in this area, the research process of this study
was visually displayed in a conceptual model exploring the previously mentioned
phenomena. In consequence, this research serves as a contribution to fast fashion brands’
market research as a preliminary groundwork for advertisement design creation to explore
Gen Z’s perception of LGBTQ images in advertising and its impact on their perceived
brand authenticity.
6.3 Managerial implications
This study provides valuable insights for fashion retailers and marketing managers to
develop effective marketing advertisements that include the LGBTQ community. Our
study can help managers to understand Gen Z’s perception of LGBTQ imagery in fast
fashion advertising and how to incorporate this into an effective marketing strategy.
Managers should consider researching the LGBTQ community to display them
appropriately in advertisements. Our study can be used as a basis to avoid stereotyping
however, additional research will contribute to increased corporate social responsibility
and inclusion. Since Gen Z is aware of pink washing and this has made them sceptical
about brands including the LGBTQ community in advertising, an honest representation
and support towards the LGBTQ community are required. This encompasses consistent
LGBTQ inclusivity throughout the year and not only during Pride months.
Furthermore, managers should try to convert consumers with a negative and neutral
perception of LGBTQ advertisements into consumers with a positive perception. Since
consumers with a negative perception tend to be hesitant about the reliability and
trustworthiness of brands supporting the LGBTQ community, consistency will strengthen
a brand’s credibility and reassure these consumers.
Brands should be cautious about incorporating the LGBTQ community in
advertisements since they should focus on the product rather than ‘selling’ a community.
This can be achieved by not pushing aggressive LGBTQ advertisements to the consumer
but rather adding LGBTQ community models to existing campaigns.
Lastly, the use of LGBTQ related symbols such as the rainbow flag and transgender
signs should be avoided in fast fashion advertising. These symbols were solely associated
91
with the LGBTQ community and using them increases Gen Z’s scepticism since they
perceived it as ‘too much’. Accordingly, managers should convey the message of
inclusion and support of the LGBTQ community by including these sexualities in
advertisements without exaggerating them with LGBTQ symbols.
6.4 Societal implications and ethics
From a societal perspective, this study gives insights on perceptions of LGBTQ as a part
of society, Gen Z. Nevertheless, the findings cannot be generalised to the entire
generation. Even though Gen Z has been the most tolerant and accepting generation so
far, homophobia, discrimination, and abuse of LGBTQ members within Gen Z still exist
(McShane, 2022). This questions brands’ conscious use of the LBGTQ community in their
advertising since consumers’ perceptions are subjective and individual and hence could
have different effects on the overall brand authenticity. Further, not only Gen Z would
see the advertisements but also older generations which are known to be less accepting
of LGBTQ which would have an impact on their brand preferences and consumption
behaviour (Porterfield, 2022).
The conscious inclusion of LGBTQ in advertising, especially in the fashion
industry, raises ethical questions. The appearance of LGBTQ members is not fixed and
therefore very diverse and flexible. This can lead to societal criticism from people not
only from people who identify as LGBTQ since some may feel left out or incorrectly
displayed or stigmatised. Moreover, in general, the purposeful inclusion and highlighting
of LGBTQ in advertising can be questioned and whether brands should not mainly focus
on advertising what their product or service is. All these aspects can cause pink washing
which is seen as unethical as brands try to signal virtue but take advantage of a
marginalised group within society.
After all, the findings of this study can contribute to society to further support the
LGBTQ community, resulting in an overcome of societal discrimination. The inclusion
of this marginalised group by fast fashion brands has the chance to not only further
normalise the inclusion of Gen Z members but for older generations as well. As a result,
92
fast fashion brands should involve their customers and consumers in the design of LGBTQ
inclusion in advertising to avoid the potentially negative effects on ethics and society.
6.5 Limitations
Every study faces limitations that may influence the findings which require further
discussion. Firstly, regarding the primary data collection in this study, the selection of
informants can be biased especially when it comes to informant self-selection (Nunan et
al., 2020). It needs to be acknowledged that the informants’ answers may not have been
honest in referring to the social and sensitive topic of LGBTQ that this research is based
on. In other words, informants could have changed their answers to not seem unsocial or
discriminating due to the social desirability of accepting and supporting LGBTQ.
Notwithstanding, the informants’ answers were assumed to be correct and truthful and
consequently considered sufficient sources. Additionally, for ethical reasons, this study
did not ask informants about their sexual orientation or gender identification which could
have influenced their answers.
Secondly, qualitative research has been criticized to be subjective and can be
influenced by the perspective of the informants (Bell et al., 2019). Since this study made
use of semi-structured interviews, the informants were partially in control of the
interviews. Additionally, the axial coding matrix was based on the characteristics of the
established dimensions which means that any meaning in communication was defined to
fit the characteristic of the dimension. Therefore, leaving no room for implicit meaning
from the informants’ answers in which “the significance of the message may lie more in
its context than in its manifested content” (Nunan et al., 2020, p. 249). Furthermore, since
most of the interviews were not conducted in the informant’s native languages (i.e.,
English, German, and Dutch), translation issues and errors could have affected the results.
Thirdly, the images included in the created advertisements were chosen based on
common and stereotypical displays of LGBTQ within existing literature and the media.
However, it needs to be highlighted that LGBTQ is a flexible and diverse term for
numerous categories and subcategories of sexualities and gender identification which
consequently cannot be fully displayed and categorised in single images. Further, it was
93
not possible to standardise the models’ body language as well as displayed fashion in the
chosen LGBTQ images since some LGBTQ orientations and identifications can only be
displayed through these differences which however might have had an impact on the
informants’ answers.
Specifically, advert #5 was the only one including LGBTQ symbols which meant
that informants only focused on brand symbolism when it came to advert #5. In other
words, this created an imbalance since all other advertisements were considered for
dealing with the remaining dimensions of the Brand Authenticity Construct.
Consequently, the findings on brand symbolism cannot be equally treated in comparison
to the rest.
Furthermore, this research only focused on the term ‘LGBTQ’ as a whole and did
not differentiate into each specific sexuality and gender identification encompassed by
the abbreviation. Notwithstanding, by doing so, we were not able to identify informants’
attitudes towards every single sexuality and gender identification of LGBTQ. This means,
for instance, that informants could have had a positive attitude towards gay, lesbian, and
bisexual people, but not transgender/ transsexuals and queer.
A final aspect is the conscious decision of the researchers who did not inform the
informants about JEMA’s special advertising strategy which made the informants look at
the advertisements without any certain focus. This means that informants might have put
their focus rather on the displayed fashion within the advertisements and not on the
LGBTQ models. Moreover, it is not fully clear if all informants identified the models as
LGBTQ or not. As a result, informants’ answers could have differed with this knowledge.
However, the researchers wanted to collect the full perception of the informants since
these findings could have been useful for data analysis and potential future research.
6.5 Future research
This study can be used as a starting point for future researchers since the limitations leave
room for improvement. Future research could be carried out using advertisements
including the LGBTQ community in which all the models wear the same clothes. The
same goes for the use of symbols that could be placed in every advertisement. This would
94
prevent the clothes and symbols from impacting the informants’ perceptions of the
advertising.
Further, all informants in this research lived and came from West Europe. Aksoy et
al. (2020) provided evidence that differences in a country’s LGBTQ policies do have an
effect in terms of consumers’ attitudes. Therefore, studying different geographical areas
could be interesting since LGBTQ rights and the level of acceptance differs per country
(Earle et al., 2020). Besides considering consumers from different geographical areas,
exploring how the LGBTQ community regarding Gen Z perceives LGBTQ advertising
could be interesting. Other studies on how the LGBTQ community perceives LGBTQ
advertising have been carried out, however, not regarding Gen Z and LGBTQ images in
fast fashion advertising. Further, our study explored the LGBTQ community as a whole
whilst it could be interesting to explore each sexuality individually and, in more detail.
Additionally, the presented conceptual model and images of this study can serve as a
framework or basis for future research on brand authenticity. Each dimension can be
further explored to find relationships between perception and authenticity. Brands that
show a moderate or low value for a specific dimension of the overall brand authenticity
should shift their focus to each authenticity dimension individually and implement an
analysis. Identifying which dimension has a lower value and implementing an analysis
could be carried out through a quantitative approach.
Since our study focused on how Gen Z perceives LGBTQ images in fast fashion
advertising using a fake brand, future studies could be conducted on existing fashion
brands or different areas in fashion. These could be luxury brands or neo-luxury brands.
Besides other areas in fashion, different product markets such as the beauty industry or
home-deco industry could be studied using the conceptual model.
95
Reference list
Abad-Santos, A. (2018). LGBTQ Pride Month: how brands turned Pride Month into a
corporate-sponsored holiday. Vox.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17476850/pride-month-lgbtq-corporate-
explained
Abela, A. V., & Murphy, P. E. (2007). Marketing with integrity: ethics and the service-
dominant logic for marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
36(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0062-0
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. Handbook of Practical
Program Evaluation, 1(4), 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Adebanjo, D., & Mann, R. (2000). Identifying problems in forecasting consumer
demand in the fast moving consumer goods sector. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 7(3), 223–230.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770010331397
Ahuja, T. (2021). LGBTQ+ Inclusion in the Fashion Industry. Fashion & Law Journal.
https://fashionlawjournal.com/lgbtq-inclusivity-in-the-fashion-industry/
Akbar, M. M., & Wymer, W. (2017). Refining the conceptualization of Brand
Authenticity. Journal of Brand Management, 24(1), 14–32.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-016-0023-3
Akins, K. (1996). Perception. Oxford University Press.
Aksoy, C. G., Carpenter, C. S., de Haas, R., & Tran, K. D. (2020). Do laws shape
attitudes? Evidence from same-sex relationship recognition policies in Europe.
European Economic Review, 124, 103399.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103399
Aley, M., & Thomas, B. (2021). An examination of differences in product types and
gender stereotypes depicted in advertisements targeting masculine, feminine, and
LGBTQ audiences. Communication Research Reports, 38(2), 132–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2021.1899908
96
Ambrosino, B. (2017). The invention of “heterosexuality.” BBC.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170315-the-invention-of-heterosexuality
Aque, C. (2007). perception. The University of Chicago.
https://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/perceptionperceivability.htm
Aristotle. (2000). On The Soul. Alex Catalogue; NetLibrary.
Arruda, W. (2016). Why Consistency Is The Key To Successful Branding. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamarruda/2016/12/13/why-consistency-is-the-
key-to-successful-branding/?sh=4833c4267bbd
Auten, J. S. A. D. (2018). The $1 Trillion Marketing Executives Are Ignoring. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/debtfreeguys/2018/08/14/the-1-trillion-marketing-
executives-are-ignoring/?sh=742e8edda97f
Avery, D. (2021). 15 brands that are giving back to the LGBTQ community in Pride
Month. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/select/nbc-out/pride-month-
brands-ncna1269835
Babin, B. J., & Zikmund, W. G. (2016). Exploring Marketing Research (11th ed.).
Cengage Learning.
Ballantyne, R., Warren, A., & Nobbs, K. (2006). The evolution of brand choice. Journal
of Brand Management, 13(4–5), 339–352.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540276
Barnes, L., & Lea‐Greenwood, G. (2006). Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the
research agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal, 10(3), 259–271.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020610679259
Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview:
a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing-Institutional Subscription,
19(2), 328-335.
Beery, Z. (2017). What Cohn & Wolfe’s Authentic 100 reveals about global brand trust.
Campaign US. https://www.campaignlive.com/article/cohn-wolfes-authentic-100-
reveals-global-brand-trust/1445935
97
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business Research Methods (2nd ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Benesty, J., Mohan Sondhi, M. & Arden Huang, Y.. (2008). Springer handbook of
speech processing. Springer.
Berisha, E., & Sjögren, M. (2016). Homosexual-themed Advertisement in Mainstream
Media: Heterosexual Consumer’s Attitude Toward the Brand and its Social
Impact (pp. 1–71) [MSc Thesis].
https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8879007&fil
eOId=8879021
Bevan, P. (2020). Pride 2020: 10 fashion brands supporting the LGBTQ+ community.
The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/gallery/2020/jun/24/pride-
2020-10-fashion-brands-supporting-the-lgbtq-community
Beverland, M. (2006). The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade.
Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 251–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.04.007
Beverland, M. B., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting Authenticity
Through Advertising: Consumer Judgments of Advertisers’ Claims. Journal of
Advertising, 37(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367370101
Bhardwaj, V., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion
industry. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 20(1), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593960903498300
Biondi, A. (2021). How Gen Z is changing beauty. Vogue Business.
https://www.voguebusiness.com/beauty/gen-z-changing-beauty
Blackmer, C. E. (2019). Pinkwashing. Israel Studies, 24(2), 171–181.
https://doi.org/10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.14
Bosse, J. D., & Chiodo, L. (2016). It is complicated: gender and sexual orientation
identity in LGBTQ youth. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(23-24), 3665–3675.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13419
98
Boyd, C. S., Ritch, E. L., Dodd, C. A., & McColl, J. (2020). Inclusive identities: re-
imaging the future of the retail brand? International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 48(12), 1315–1335. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijrdm-12-
2019-0392
Branchik, B. J. (2002). Out in the Market: A History of the Gay Market Segment in the
United States. Journal of Macromarketing, 22(1), 86–97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027467022001008
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry, J. F. (2003). Teaching Old Brands New Tricks:
Retro Branding and the Revival of Brand Meaning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3),
19–33. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.3.19.18657
Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012). Brand Authenticity:
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Its Conceptualization and Measurement.
Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 567–576.
https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v40/acr_v40_13106.pdf
Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as Authentic Reproduction: A Critique of
Postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397–415.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.2.02a00070
Buchholz, K. (2021). The Top Ad Spending Verticals in the U.S. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19241/top-10-digital-ad-spending-verticals/
Business Insider. (2017). Brands Fail to Deliver to Canadians According to Cohn &
Wolfe Global Authenticity Index.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/brands-fail-to-deliver-to-
canadians-according-to-cohn-wolfe-global-authenticity-index-1006297887
Cachon, G. P., & Swinney, R. (2011). The Value of Fast Fashion: Quick Response,
Enhanced Design, and Strategic Consumer Behavior. Management Science, 57(4),
778–795. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1303
99
Cain Miller, C. (2018). What Being Transgender Looks Like, According to Stock
Photography. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/upshot/what-being-transgender-looks-like-
according-to-stock-photography.html
Cambier, F., & Poncin, I. (2020). Inferring brand integrity from marketing
communications: The effects of brand transparency signals in a consumer
empowerment context. Journal of Business Research, 109, 260–270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.060
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-a). advertising.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/advertising
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-b). heteronormative.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/heteronormative
Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-c). androgynous.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/androgynous
Chan, S. (2017). Russia’s “Gay Propaganda” Laws Are Illegal, European Court Rules.
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/russia-
gay-propaganda.html
Chartered Association of Business Schools. (2021). Academic Journal Guide. Chartered
Association of Business Schools. https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-
2021/
Chitrakorn, K. (2020). How fashion got marketing right in 2020. Vogue Business.
https://www.voguebusiness.com/companies/how-fashion-got-2020-marketing-
right-politics-tiktok-gaming-fashion-weeks
Chitrakorn, K. (2021). Beauty weak spot: Why marketing still has an LGBTQ+
problem. Vogue Business. https://www.voguebusiness.com/beauty/why-beauty-
marketing-still-has-an-lgbtq-plus-problem
100
Choi, H., Ko, E., Kim, E. Y., & Mattila, P. (2014). The Role of Fashion Brand
Authenticity in Product Management: A Holistic Marketing Approach. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 32(2), 233–242.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12175
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2007). Who Is the Celebrity in Advertising? Understanding
Dimensions of Celebrity Images. The Journal of Popular Culture, 40(2), 304–
324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2007.00380.x
Choi, T. M. (Ed.). (2014). Fashion Branding and Consumer Behaviors. International
Series on Consumer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0277-4
Cinelli, M. D., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2019). Keeping It Real: How Perceived Brand
Authenticity Affects Product Perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
30(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1123
Ciszek, E., & Lim, H. S. (2021). Perceived Brand Authenticity and LGBTQ Publics:
How LGBTQ Practitioners Understand Authenticity. International Journal of
Strategic Communication, 15(5), 395–409.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2021.1988954
Ciszek, E. L., & Pounders, K. (2020). The bones are the same: an exploratory analysis
of authentic communication with LGBTQ publics. Journal of Communication
Management, 24(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-10-2019-0131
Clarke, V., & Turner, K. (2007). V. Clothes Maketh the Queer? Dress, Appearance and
the Construction of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities. Feminism &
Psychology, 17(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507076561
Cleeton, J. (2018). The end of pink washing: why waving the rainbow flag as a
marketing strategy can no longer fly. The Drum.
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/07/03/the-end-pink-washing-why-waving-
the-rainbow-flag-marketing-strategy-can-no-longer
Cohn & Wolfe. (n.d.). Authentic 100. http://www.authentic100.com
101
Colman, D. (2005). Gay or Straight? Hard to Tell. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/fashion/sundaystyles/gay-or-straight-hard-
to-tell.html
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research. Medsurg Nursing,
25(6), 435–436.
http://proxy.library.ju.se/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/trustworthiness-qualitative-research/docview/1849700459/se-
2?accountid=11754
Courtois, M. (2021). Pride Month: 13 brands that are supporting the LGBTQ+
community. Vogue France. https://www.vogue.fr/fashion/article/pride-month-
fashion-brands-supporting-lgbt-community
Cox, J. (2021). Pride Pays: LGBT-Friendly Businesses Are More Profitable, Research
Shows. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/josiecox/2021/05/24/pride-pays-
lgbt-friendly-businesses-are-more-profitable-research-shows/?sh=7283d2633d07
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design. SAGE Publications. https://ap.lc/bmE5j
Cuong, D. T. (2020). The Impact of Brand Credibility and Perceived Value on
Customer Satisfaction and Purchase Intention at Fashion Market. Journal of
Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 12(SP3), 691–700.
https://doi.org/10.5373/jardcs/v12sp3/20201308
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. (2007). The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception,
Defensive Processing, and Distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 114–
127. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.1.114
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human
Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004). Applicability of a brand trust scale across product
categories. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 573–592.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410529222
102
Deschamps, D., & Singer, B. L. (2017). LGBTQ stats: lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer people by the numbers. The New Press.
Dinh, A. (2020). The Effect of Sustainable Fast Fashion Marketing on Purchasing
Decision [Thesis].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343548051_The_Effect_of_Sustainable
_Fast_Fashion_Marketing_on_Purchasing_Decision
Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2013). Secondary Data Analysis. Oxford Handbooks
Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199934898.013.0028
DoSomethingStrategic. (2019). Cause is working, your marketing isn’t.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c1bd73389c172a7f8d754d9/t/5cda1093eb3
931262072e57f/1557794999725/DSS+REPORT+ON+BRANDS+TAKING+STA
NDS_MAY+2019.pdf
Doyal, L. (2003). Sex and Gender: The Challenges for Epidemiologists. International
Journal of Health Services, 33(3), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.2190/cwk2-u7r6-
vce0-e47p
Draskovic, N., Temperley, J., & Pavicic, J. (2009). Comparative perception(s) of
consumer goods packaging: croatian consumers perspective(s). International
Journal of Management Cases, 11(2), 154–163.
https://doi.org/10.5848/apbj.2009.00028
Dresing, T., & Pehl, T. (2015). Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse:
Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende (6th ed.). Self-publisher
Marburg.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to
case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(00)00195-8
103
Earle, M., Hoffarth, M. R., Prusaczyk, E., MacInnis, C., & Hodson, G. (2020). A
multilevel analysis of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights
support across 77 countries: The role of contact and country laws. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 60(3), 851–869.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12436
Eisend, M., & Hermann, E. (2019). Consumer Responses to Homosexual Imagery in
Advertising: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Advertising, 48(4), 380–400.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1628676
Elan, P. (2021). Pride rainbow merchandise is everywhere, but who gets the pot of
gold? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/13/pride-
rainbow-merchandise-is-everywhere-but-who-gets-the-pot-of-gold
Elder, M. (2013). Russia passes law banning gay “propaganda”. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/russia-law-banning-gay-
propaganda
Elliott, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the
construction of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131–144.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.1998.11104712
Elliott, S. (2008). Levi’s, Unbuttoned and Out of the Closet. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/media/15adcol.html
Ennis, D. (2021). See How GLAAD Shows Being LGBTQ Is “More Than Pride And
Protest”. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2021/06/02/see-
how-glaad-shows-being-lgbtq-is-more-than-pride-and-protest/?sh=5973a2ba2f5d
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_02
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/383434
104
European Commission. (n.d.). How is data on my religious beliefs/sexual
orientation/health/political views protected? https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-
topic/data-protection/reform/rights-citizens/how-my-personal-data-protected/how-
data-my-religious-beliefs-sexual-orientation-health-political-views-protected_en
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). The Dynamic Development of Gender Variability. Journal
of Homosexuality, 59(3), 398–421.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.653310
Fertik, M. (2019). As Trust Among Consumers Wavers, Authenticity is Critical. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelfertik/2019/01/14/as-trust-among-
consumers-wavers-authenticity-is-critical/?sh=1a34513772a4
Fill, C., & Turnbull, S. (2019). Marketing communications: touchpoints, sharing and
disruption (8th ed.). Pearson.
Fischer, H., & Bryan-Wilson, J. (2015). “Gay Semiotics” Revisited. Aperture.
https://aperture.org/editorial/gay-semiotics-revisited/
Flanders, C. E., LeBreton, M. E., Robinson, M., Bian, J., & Caravaca-Morera, J. A.
(2016). Defining Bisexuality: Young Bisexual and Pansexual People’s Voices.
Journal of Bisexuality, 17(1), 39–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2016.1227016
Forbes India. (2021). Which Social Networks Have The Highest Usage Among Gen Z
And Millennials? https://www.forbesindia.com/article/lifes/which-social-
networks-have-the-highest-usage-among-gen-z-and-millennials/72471/1
Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). “True Gen”: Generation Z and its implications for
companies. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-
insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies
Friedman, V., & Trebay, G. (2021). The End of Gender. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/fashion/the-end-of-gender.html
105
Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding – exploring
antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of
Marketing, 51(2), 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-10-2014-0633
Gates, G. J. (2017). In U.S., More Adults Identifying as LGBT. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx
Gay Times. (n.d.). 10 of the best LGBTQ inclusive commercials.
https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/culture/10-of-the-best-gay-inclusive-commercials/
Galliers, R. D. (1991). Choosing information systems research approaches: A revised
taxonomy. In: Nissen, H. E., Klein, H. K. Hirschheim, R. (eds.), Information
Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier
Science Publishers, 327–345.
Gelbart, H. (2017). “Don’t give us flak for trying to fit in”, transgender woman says.
BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38761068
Georgiou, M. (2021). Council Post: How And Why To Build Brand Authenticity. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2021/03/15/how-and-
why-to-build-brand-authenticity/?sh=5c8d970455b5
Ghauri, P., Grønhaug, K., & Strange, R. (2020). Research Methods in Business Studies
(5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, J. (2007). Authenticity: what consumers really want. Harvard
Business School.
Gold, M. (2018). The ABCs of L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/style/lgbtq-gender-language.html
Goldstein, B. (2010). Sensation and Perception. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5681729/mod_resource/content/1/Goldst
einSensation%20e%20Perception.pdf
Gonzalez, N. (n.d.). How Did the Rainbow Flag Become a Symbol of LGBTQ Pride? In
Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/story/how-did-the-
rainbow-flag-become-a-symbol-of-lgbt-pride
106
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer Perceptions of Iconicity and
Indexicality and Their Influence on Assessments of Authentic Market Offerings.
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/422109
Hanbury, M. (2019). Gen Z is leading an evolution in shopping that could kill brands as
we know them. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-
shopping-habits-kill-brands-2019-7?r=US&IR=T
Hannum, E. (2022). Gen Z is much more likely to identify as LGBTQ—and they’re not
easily fooled by rainbow capitalism. Fast Company.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90723188/gen-z-lgbtq-poll-gallup
Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., Halliwell, E., & Malson, H. (2013). Visible lesbians and
invisible bisexuals: Appearance and visual identities among bisexual women.
Women’s Studies International Forum, 40, 172–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.07.015
He, H., Li, Y., & Harris, L. (2012). Social identity perspective on brand loyalty. Journal
of Business Research, 65(5), 648–657.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.007
Hernandez-Fernandez, A., & Lewis, M. C. (2019). Brand authenticity leads to perceived
value and brand trust. European Journal of Management and Business
Economics, 28(3), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejmbe-10-2017-0027
Hester, J. B., & Gibson, R. (2007). Consumer Responses to Gay-Themed Imagery in
Advertising. Advertising & Society Review, 8(2).
https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2007.0039
Holt, D. B. (2004). How Brands Become Icons (illustrated edition). Reed Business
Education.
Holz Ivory, A. (2017). Sexual Orientation as a Peripheral Cue in Advertising: Effects of
Models’ Sexual Orientation, Argument Strength, and Involvement on Responses
to Magazine Ads. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(1), 31–59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1391558
107
Hooten, M. A., Noeva, K., & Hammonds, F. (2009). The Effects of Homosexual
Imagery in Advertisements on Brand Perception and Purchase Intention. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(9), 1231–1238.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.9.1231
Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (n.d.-a). LGBTQ Marketing and Advertising: Best
Practices. https://www.thehrcfoundation.org/professional-resources/lgbtq-
marketing-and-advertising-best-practices
Human Rights Campaign Foundation. (n.d.-b). Transgender and Non-Binary People
FAQ. https://www.hrc.org/resources/transgender-and-non-binary-faq
Huxley, C. & Hayfield, N. (2012). Non-heterosexual sexualities: The role of sexual
identity in appearance and body image. In N. Rumsey and D. Harcourt (Eds). The
Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Appearance (pp.190-202). Oxford
University Press.
Huxley, C., Clarke, V., & Halliwell, E. (2013). Resisting and Conforming to the
“Lesbian Look”: The Importance of Appearance Norms for Lesbian and Bisexual
Women. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 205–219.
https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2161
Ipsos. (2021). LGBT+ PRIDE 2021 GLOBAL SURVEY A 27-country Ipsos survey.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-06/lgbt-pride-
2021-global-survey-ipsos.pdf
Jackson, S. (2006). Interchanges: Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The
complexity (and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7(1), 105–121.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700106061462
Jones, J. M. (2022). LGBT Identification in U.S. Ticks Up to 7.1%. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
108
Johns, A. N., Chapa, S., Brooks, N. Coleman, H. & DuBois, M. (2022). Rainbow-
Washing Away Customers: Does the Consumer’s Perception of Rainbow-
Washing Affect Purchasing Behavior? Association of Marketing Theory and
Practice Proceedings 2022. 9.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/amtp-proceedings_2022/9
Juska, J. M. (2021). Integrated marketing communication advertising and promotion in
a digital world. Ny Routledge.
Kale, S. (2021). Out of style: Will Gen Z ever give up its dangerous love of fast fashion?
The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/oct/06/out-of-style-
will-gen-z-ever-give-up-its-dangerous-love-of-fast-fashion
Karmarama. (2020). Positive perception of LGBTQ+ representation within advertising
drops. https://karmarama.com/2020/06/30/positive-perception-of-lgbtq-
representation-within-advertising-drops/
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252054
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of
authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
Kirkpatrick, D., & Adams, P. (2017). Ogilvy: Consumers value LGBT-inclusive brands,
but authenticity is key. Marketing Dive.
https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ogilvy-consumers-value-lgbt-inclusive-
brands-but-authenticity-is-key/446126/
Kopot, C., & Cude, B. J. (2021). Channel Depth or Consistency? A Study on
Establishing a Sustainable Omnichannel Strategy for Fashion Department Store
Retailers. Sustainability, 13(13), 6993. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13136993
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2017). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part
4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice,
24(1), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
109
Krischer, H. (2019). Beyond Androgyny: Nonbinary Teenage Fashion. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/style/nonbinary.html
La Trobe University. (n.d.). What does LGBTIA+ mean?
https://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/support/wellbeing/resource-hub/lgbtiqa/what-
lgbtiqa-means
Léa, C., Malek, P., & Runnvall, L. (2018). Influencers impact on decision- making
among generation Y and Z Swedish females when purchasing fast fashion. (pp. 4–
53) [Undergraduate Dissertation]. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1214227/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Levesley, D. (2019). Just putting a rainbow flag on something isn’t enough support for
the LGBTQ community. GQ. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/lgbt-
rainbow-flag
Levine, B. (2019a). Brands’ cause marketing efforts fail to break through with Gen Z,
report says. Marketing Dive. https://www.marketingdive.com/news/brands-cause-
marketing-efforts-fail-to-break-through-with-gen-z-report-sa/554437/
Levine, B. (2019b). Study: Gen Z cares about issues and is skeptical of brands.
Marketing Dive. https://www.marketingdive.com/news/study-gen-z-cares-about-
issues-and-is-skeptical-of-brands/555782/
Lexico. (n.d.). Western world. https://www.lexico.com/definition/western_world
Luna, C. P., & Barros, D. F. (2019). Genderless Fashion: A (Still) Binary Market. Latin
American Business Review, 20(3), 269–294.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2019.1641412
Maak, T. (2008). Undivided Corporate Responsibility: Towards a Theory of Corporate
Integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 353–368.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9891-0
MacNeil, H. (2013). Trusting Records: Legal, Historical and Diplomatic Perspectives.
Springer Science & Business Media, 58(1), 136–139.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jd.2002.58.1.136.14
110
Mafael, A., Raithel, S., Taylor, C. R., & Stewart, D. W. (2021). Measuring the Role of
Uniqueness and Consistency to Develop Effective Advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 50(4), 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1883488
Maguire, L., & Arnet, G. (2020). Gen Z still loves fast fashion, but Boohoo investors
are spooked. Vogue Business. https://www.voguebusiness.com/consumers/gen-z-
still-loves-fast-fashion-but-boohoo-investors-are-spooked
Major, J. S. (n.d.). Fashion industry. In Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/art/fashion-industry
Manders, K. (2020). The Butches and Studs Who’ve Defied the Male Gaze and
Redefined Culture. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/13/t-magazine/butch-stud-
lesbian.html
Mardis, P. (2018). ASOS & GLAAD team up for a star-studded Pride collection
celebrating unity and togetherness. GLAAD. https://www.glaad.org/blog/asos-
glaad-team-star-studded-pride-collection-celebrating-unity-and-togetherness
Matera, A. (2018). H&M Launches Their First Ever Pride Collection. Teen Vogue.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/hm-first-ever-pride-collection
Mathenge, T., & Owusu, K. (2017). Is gay advertising out of the closet? A look into
how explicit and implicit marketing is perceived by consumers. (pp. 2–50) [MSc
Thesis].
https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8918587&fil
eOId=8918588
Matsuno, E., & Budge, S. L. (2017). Non-binary/Genderqueer Identities: a Critical
Review of the Literature. Current Sexual Health Reports, 9(3), 116–120.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-017-0111-8
Maund, B. (2003). Perception. Chesham, Bucks Acumen.
Mayring, P. (2002). Einfuhrung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Beltz.
111
McGonagle, E. (2020). Fashion and beauty brands fly the flag for Pride Month.
Campaign. https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/fashion-beauty-brands-fly-
flag-pride-month/1684678
McKinsey & Company. (2021). The State of Fashion 2022.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/st
ate%20of%20fashion/2022/the-state-of-fashion-2022.pdf
McShane, J. (2022). A record number of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ. Gen Z is
driving the increase. Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/02/17/adults-identifying-lgbt-
gen-z/
Mellor, S. (2021). Why are corporations still finding it so difficult to fly the Pride logo?
Fortune. https://fortune.com/2021/06/23/pride-rainbow-logo-gay-pride-facebook-
google-unilever-daimler/
Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of
Signs, Symbols, and Significance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 196.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209060
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Sage Publications.
Mikkonen, I. (2010). Negotiating subcultural authenticity through interpretation of
mainstream advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 303–326.
https://doi.org/10.2501/s0265048710201166
Monro, S. (2005). Beyond Male and Female: Poststructuralism and the Spectrum of
Gender. International Journal of Transgenderism, 8(1), 3–22.
https://doi.org/10.1300/j485v08n01_02
Monro, S. (2019). Non-binary and genderqueer: An overview of the field. International
Journal of Transgenderism, 20(2-3), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1538841
112
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand
authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006
Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2016). Brand Authenticity: Testing the
Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Management’s Passion for its Products.
Psychology & Marketing, 33(6), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20888
Moulard, J. G., Rice, D. H., Garrity, C. P., & Mangus, S. M. (2014). Artist Authenticity:
How Artists’ Passion and Commitment Shape Consumers’ Perceptions and
Behavioral Intentions across Genders. Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 576–590.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20719
Murphy, P. E. (1999). Character and Virtue Ethics in International Marketing: An
Agenda for Managers, Researchers and Educators. Journal of Business Ethics,
18(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006072413165
Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring
consumer-based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090–
1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.06.001
Nelson, R. (2020). “What do bisexuals look like? I don’t know!” Visibility, gender, and
safety among plurisexuals. Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 144078332091145.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783320911455
Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., Ricks, J., &
Wirth, F. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0148-2963(01)00303-4
Nguyen, T. (2020). Fashion Nova, H&M, Zara: Why we can’t stop buying fast fashion.
Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/2/3/21080364/fast-fashion-h-and-m-
zara
Nguyen, T. (2021). Fast fashion is as old as Gen Z. Why do we expect teens to out-thrift
retailers? Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2021/7/19/22535050/gen-z-
relationship-fast-fashion
113
Nölke, A.-I. (2017). Making Diversity Conform? An Intersectional, Longitudinal
Analysis of LGBT-Specific Mainstream Media Advertisements. Journal of
Homosexuality, 65(2), 224–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1314163
Nunan, D., Birks, D. F., & Malhotra, N. K. (2020). Marketing Research (6th ed.).
Pearson Education. https://ap.lc/b0nf5
Oakenfull, G., & Greenlee, T. (2004). The three rules of crossing over from gay media
to mainstream media advertising: lesbians, lesbians, lesbians. Journal of
Business Research, 57(11), 1276–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-
2963(02)00451-4
Oakenfull, G. (2021). Talkin’ ‘Bout The Genderation Within LGBTQ+ Marketing.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gillianoakenfull/2021/06/08/talkin-bout-the-
genderation-within-lgbtq-marketing/?sh=5209d0a67493
Oh, H., Prado, P. H. M., Korelo, J. C., & Frizzo, F. (2019). The effect of brand
authenticity on consumer–brand relationships. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 28(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-09-2017-1567
Oxford Dictionary. (n.d.-a). generation-z.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/generation-z
Oxford Dictionary. (n.d.-b). image.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/image?q=image
Oxford Dictionary. (n.d.-c). perception.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/perception?q=perc
eption
Pec, T. (2020). The Importance Of Building An Authentic Brand. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/06/18/the-importance-of-
building-an-authentic-brand/?sh=5ca7210136d4
Petro, G. (2021). Gen Z Is Emerging As The Sustainability Generation. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregpetro/2021/04/30/gen-z-is-emerging-as-the-
sustainability-generation/?sh=4d0874186995
114
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Handbook of Creativity (2nd ed.). Cambridge
University Press. https://ap.lc/ZeGji
Portal, S., Abratt, R., & Bendixen, M. (2018). The role of brand authenticity in
developing brand trust. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 27(8), 714–729.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2018.1466828
Porterfield, C. (2022). Gen-Z Drives Surge Of More Americans Identifying As LGBT.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/02/17/gen-z-drives-
surge-of-more-americans-identifying-as-lgbt/?sh=21813748525a
Prause, N., & Graham, C. A. (2007). Asexuality: Classification and Characterization.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-
9142-3
Procter & Gamble & GLAAD. (2019). LGBTQ Inclusion In Advertising & Media.
https://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files/P%26G_AdvertisingResearch.pdf
Procter & Gamble. (2021). P&G and GLAAD Announce “The Visibility Project” and
Release New Research to Advance LGBTQ Visibility in Advertising. Procter &
Gamble News. Retrieved 18 May 2022, from https://news.pg.com/news-
releases/news-details/2021/PG-and-GLAAD-Announce-The-Visibility-Project-
and-Release-New-Research-to-Advance-LGBTQ-Visibility-in-
Advertising/default.aspx
Puar, J. K. (2015). Homonationalism as Assemblage: viral travels, affective sexualities.
Revista Lusófona de Estudos Culturais, 3(1), 319–337.
Puttonen, M. (2021). How Gen Z fashion has embraced gender fluidity. Vogue
Scandinavia. https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/how-gen-z-fashion-has-
embraced-gender-fluidity
Radin, S. (2019). How Fashion And Beauty Brands Are Capitalizing on Queerness By
Selling Rainbow Pride Products. Teen Vogue.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/rainbow-capitalism-fashion-beauty-pride-
month
115
Rasker, R. (2021). “It’s not a box you fit into”: What it means to be non-binary. ABC.
https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/what-does-it-mean-to-be-non-binary/100293656
Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Nieder, T. O., & T’Sjoen, G.
(2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry,
28(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446
Rodrigues, P., Pinto Borges, A., & Sousa, A. (2021). Authenticity as an antecedent of
brand image in a positive emotional consumer relationship: the case of craft beer
brands. EuroMed Journal of Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/emjb-03-2021-0041
Ryan, M. J. (2018). Core concepts in sociology. John Wiley & Sons.
Ryan, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2019). Toward a Social Psychology of Authenticity:
Exploring Within-Person Variation in Autonomy, Congruence, and Genuineness
Using Self-Determination Theory. Review of General Psychology, 23(1), 99–112.
https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000162
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business
Students (5th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business
students (6th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Schallehn, M., Burmann, C., & Riley, N. (2014). Brand authenticity: model
development and empirical testing. Journal of Product & Brand Management,
23(3), 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpbm-06-2013-0339
Schmitt, B. (2012). The Consumer Psychology of Brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.005
Schmidt, S. (2021). 1 in 6 Gen Z adults are LGBT. And this number could continue to
grow. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-
va/2021/02/24/gen-z-lgbt/
Scott, C., & Medaugh, M. (2017). Axial Coding. The International Encyclopedia of
Communication Research Methods, 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0012
116
Scott, G. (2021). Is fashion coming out of the closet? to what extent can LGBTQ+ in
marketing communications of fashion brands impact brand image. (pp. 1–38)
[Undergraduate Dissertation].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350241721_Is_fashion_coming_out_of_
the_closet_to_what_extent_can_LGBTQ_in_marketing_communications_of_fash
ion_brands_impact_brand_image
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2018). Generation Z A Century in the Making. Routledge.
Seregina, A. (2018). Undoing gender through performing the other. Consumption
Markets & Culture, 22(4), 454–473.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2018.1512254
Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to
narcissism and contextual age. Computers in Human Behavior, 58:89-97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research
projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-
2004-22201
Shepherd, S., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2020). Sincere, Not Sinful: Political
Ideology and the Unique Role of Brand Sincerity in Shaping Heterosexual and
LGBTQ Consumers’ Views of LGBTQ Ads. Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1086/712608
Simpson, C. (2019). Channel 4 drive for better LGBT representation in advertising.
Independent.ie. https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/channel-4-drive-for-
better-lgbt-representation-in-advertising-38184346.html
Södergren, J. (2021). Brand authenticity: 25 Years of research. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 45(4), 645–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12651
Soh, H., Reid, L. N., & King, K. W. (2009). Measuring Trust In Advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 38(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367380206
Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. K. (2006). Consumer
Behaviour: A European Perspective. Pearson Education.
117
Sreejesh, S., Mohapatra, S., & Anusree, M. R. (2013). Business Research Methods.
Springer Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00539-3
Statista Research Department. (2022). Number of Instagram users worldwide from 2019
to 2023. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183585/instagram-number-of-
global-users/
Steele, V. (2013). A a queer history of fashion: from the closet to the catwalk.
http://exhibitions.fitnyc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Essay-Preview-
Steele.pdf
Steele, V., & Major, J. S. (2018). Fashion industry - Fashion retailing, marketing, and
merchandising. In Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/art/fashion-industry/Fashion-retailing-marketing-and-
merchandising
Stokes, A. (2015). The Glass Runway. Gender & Society, 29(2), 219–243.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214563327
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice. Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin J. M. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage.
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.
Psychology and Marketing, 27(7), 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20349
Symington, S. (2020). The Social - “Social media is fuelling fast fashion fads.” BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/44rQcnNMDXz2vyvNzhfhXqf/social
-media-is-fuelling-fast-fashion-fads
Talbot, P. (2021) Best Practices For Marketing To Gen-Z. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultalbot/2021/03/23/best-practices-for-marketing-
to-gen-z/?sh=7dc89af54319
Torelli, C. J., Keh, H. T., & Chiu, C. Y. (2010). Cultural symbolism of brands. Brands
and brand management: Contemporary Research Perspectives. https://ap.lc/tyGrP
118
van Meer, M. M., & Pollmann, M. M. H. (2021). Media Representations of Lesbians,
Gay Men, and Bisexuals on Dutch Television and People’s Stereotypes and
Attitudes About LGBs. Sexuality & Culture, 26(2), 640–664.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09913-x
Vänskä, A. (2015). From Gay to Queer—Or, Wasn’t Fashion Always Already a Very
Queer Thing? Fashion Theory, 18(4), 447–463.
https://doi.org/10.2752/175174114x13996533400079
Viloria, H., Nieto, M., & Law, A. (2020). The spectrum of sex: the science of male,
female, and intersex. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Wahab, A. (2019). Affective Mobilizations: Pinkwashing and Racialized Homophobia
in Out There. Journal of Homosexuality, 68(5), 849–871.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1667158
Walker, S., Davies, C., & Tait, R. (2019). Anti-LGBT rhetoric stokes tensions in eastern
Europe. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/25/anti-lgbt-
rhetoric-stokes-tensions-in-eastern-europe
Wang, W. (2000). How Has the Fashion Industry Reacted to Gen z’s Completely
Different Consumption Concepts and Shopping Habits? Academic Journal of
Humanities & Social Sciences, 4(10), 72–80.
Watson, I. (2019). 72% of LGBTQ+ community believe their representation in
advertising tokenistic. The Drum. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/06/17/72-
lgbtq-community-believe-their-representation-advertising-tokenistic
Weiss, S. (2018). 9 Things People Get Wrong About Being Non-Binary. Teen Vogue.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/9-things-people-get-wrong-about-being-non-
binary
Weissbrot, A. (2021). Pride in authenticity: Increasing visibility of the LGBTQ+
community. Campaign. https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/pride-authenticity-
increasing-visibility-lgbtq+-community/1717884
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A sourcebook of Gestalt
psychology (pp. 1–11). Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1924)
119
Williams, C. (2011). Research Methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research
(JBER), 5(3). https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v5i3.2532
Williams, R. (2020). Gen Z wants brands to be “fun,” “authentic” and “good,” study
says. Marketing Dive. https://www.marketingdive.com/news/gen-z-wants-brands-
to-be-fun-authentic-and-good-study-
says/581191/#:~:text=Gen%20Zers%20prefer%20brands%20that
Williams, J. (2021). Fashion Must Take a Meaningful Stand on Social Issues.
FashionUnited. https://fashionunited.uk/news/business/fashion-must-take-a-
meaningful-stand-on-social-issues/2021020253321
Wolowic, J. M., Heston, L. V., Saewyc, E. M., Porta, C., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2016).
Chasing the rainbow: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth and
pride semiotics. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(5), 557–571.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2016.1251613
Wymer, W., & Akbar, M. M. (2017). Brand authenticity, its conceptualization, and its
relevance to nonprofit marketing. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing, 14(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-017-0177-z
Yang, J., Teran, C., Battocchio, A. F., Bertellotti, E., & Wrzesinski, S. (2021). Building
Brand Authenticity on Social Media: The Impact of Instagram Ad Model
Genuineness and Trustworthiness on Perceived Brand Authenticity and Consumer
Responses. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 21(1), 34–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2020.1860168
120
Appendix
Appendix 1: Definitions of sexual orientations
While heterosexual people love the opposite sex, which means men loving women and
the other way around, people with a homosexual orientation form the opposite and
consequently do feel attracted to the same sex as their own. Men loving men are called
gay whereas women who love other women can be identified as lesbian (Ambrosino,
2017; Gold, 2018). Bisexuality is seen as the “midpoint between heterosexuality and
homosexuality” (Flanders et al., 2016, p.40) and defines one’s attraction to males and
females. Contrary to this, pansexual people are into all genders existing and prefer to
love based on character and qualities (Gold, 2018). Further, asexuality describes the state
in which a person lacks in a general interest in sexual desire (Prause & Graham, 2007).
Transexuals/ transgender are “people whose gender identity or gender expression
differ[s] from the biological sex they were assigned at birth” (Gold, 2018) while ‘gender
fluid’ stands for the constant fluctuation of someone’s gender choice (Matsuno & Budge,
2017). Moreover, in the case of intersexuality, it is not possible to medically determine
the individual’s biological sex. Therefore, the term ‘intersexual’ stands for itself and does
not belong to neither binarism nor non-binarism (Gold, 2018; Richards et al., 2016).
121
Appendix 2: Interview guide
General information
1. What is your age?
2. What gender do you identify with?
3. Where are you from?
4. Where do you live?
5. Are you aware of the LGBTQ community?
“The abbreviation ‘LGBTQ’ stands for lesbian (L), gay (G), bisexual (B), transsexual
(T), and questioning” (Q) (Boyd et al., 2020, p.1316).
Information related to fashion
1. Do you consider yourself as fashion conscious?
2. Do you consume fast fashion?
3. What is your favourite fast fashion brand?
4. How much do you spend on fast fashion per month?
5. How often do you buy from fast fashion brands?
Repeating questions for each advertisement:
Category 1: Information on perception
Attention
1. Does this ad grab your attention?
a. What is it/which aspects specifically?
b. Why/why not?
Interpretation
1. What is your interpretation of this ad?
2. What is your interpretation of the displayed people (’s relationship to each other)?
3. How do you understand this advertisement? What is the message?
122
Response
1. What are the values that you see in this ad? How do you perceive them?
2. How do you feel when looking at this ad?
3. What do you think when looking at this ad?
4. Would you buy this brand?
5. Overall, what is your opinion on this ad?
a. Why?
Questions to ask for all advertisements collectively:
Category 2: Information on brand authenticity (give introduction on each term by
asking participants on their idea of each dimension of brand authenticity)
Reliability
Brand reliability can be defined as a brand’s ability, believability, and willingness to
deliver what has been promised (Erdem & Swait, 2004).
1. What is a reliable brand to you?
a. Why do you think it is reliable?
2. To what extend do you think this brand supports the LGBTQ community?
3. To what extend do you perceive this to be an honest brand?
a. Why/what makes you think this?
4. To what extend do you think this brand delivers current fashion trends?
5. Which ad/ads makes you think the brand is reliable (or not)?
a. What is it about the ad/ads that gives you this perception?
Continuity
Brand continuity can be defined as brands that maintain a stable and consistent market
offering over time, whilst focusing on the long-term goals (Bruhn et al., 2012; Schallehn
et al., 2014).
1. What is a consistent brand to you?
a. Why do you think this brand is consistent?
2. To what extend do you think the brand stays true to itself?
3. To what extend do you think the brand has a clear concept that it pursues?
4. To what extend do you think the brand will be consistent over time representing
the LGBTQ community in the future?
5. Which ad/ads makes you think the brand is consistent?
a. What is it about the ad/ads that gives you this perception?
123
Originality
Brand originality can be defined as brands that are unique and can clearly distinguish
themselves from other brands (Brown et al., 2003).
Distinguishes form others
1. What is an original brand to you?
a. Why do you think this brand is original?
2. To what extend do you think this is a unique brand?
a. Why?
b. Is it different from other brands?
3. Can you identify yourself with the brand?
4. Which ad/ads makes you think the brand is original?
a. What is it about the ad/ads that gives you this perception?
Genuine
Brand genuineness can be defined as the idea of something being the ‘real’ version, the
degree to which a product is not a copy or fake (Wymer & Akbar, 2017).
The real thing, not a fake
1. What is a genuine brand to you?
a. Why do you think this brand is genuine?
2. Does the brand make a genuine impression on you?
3. To what extend do you perceive the images as an appropriate display of the
LGBTQ community?
4. Which ad/ads makes you think the brand is genuine?
a. What is it about the ad/ads that gives you this perception?
Integrity
Brand integrity can be defined as a brand’s sincere and moral care towards consumers,
products, society, or the environment, in which the words align with the brand’s deeds
(Maak, 2008).
1. Which brands represent integrity to you?
a. Why do you think this?
2. To what extend do you think this brand cares about consumers and society?
3. To what extend do you believe that this brand cares about the LGBTQ community?
4. Which one of the ads makes you think that the brand cares about the LGBTQ
community?
a. What is it about the ad/ads that gives you this perception?
124
Symbolism
Brand symbolism can be defined as the use of symbols or signs to signify individual
identity, a group or society which fulfils internal needs (Keller, 1993; Schmitt, 2012;
Torelli et al., 2010).
1. Which brand can you recognise by its symbols (such as logos)?
a. Why do you think this?
2. What kind of symbols can you identify in the ads?
3. How do you interpret these symbols?
4. To what extend do you think you will be able to recognise the brand by the
symbols in the future?
5. To what extend do you think the brand makes use of the displayed symbols in an
appropriate way?
a. How do these contribute to your perception of the brand?
Category 3: Questions related to preferences
1. Which one of the ads do you prefer and why?
2. Which one of the ads would motivate you to purchase from this brand?
3. Which one of the ads do you not like and why?
4. What would you change about the ads that you do not like?
5. If this was an ad of your favourite brand, what would you say?
a. What would you do?
b. What would you think?
- Any additional comments and/ or opinions that you would like to share?
125
Appendix 3: Coding tables
Interview Question Open Coding Axial Coding Selective
Coding
Perception – advertisement 1
1. Does this ad grab your
attention? What is it
specifically and why?
Attention
2. What is your
interpretation of the ad?
Interpretation
3. What is your
interpretation of the
displayed people?
Interpretation
4. How do you understand
this advertisement?
What is the message?
Interpretation
5. What are the values that
you perceive?
Response
6. How do you feel when
you look at the ad?
Response
7. What do you think
when you look at the
ad?
Response
8. Would you buy from
this brand?
Response
9. Overall, what is your
opinion on the ad?
Why?
Response
Perception – advertisement 2
10. Does this ad grab your
attention? What is it
specifically and why?
Attention
11. What is your
interpretation of the ad?
Interpretation
12. What is your
interpretation of the
displayed people?
Interpretation
13. How do you understand
this advertisement?
What is the message?
Interpretation
14. What are the values that
you perceive?
Response
15. How do you feel when
you look at the ad?
Response
126
16. What do you think
when you look at the
ad?
Response
17. Would you buy from
this brand?
Response
18. Overall, what is your
opinion on the ad?
Why?
Response
Perception – advertisement 3
19. Does this ad grab your
attention? What is it
specifically and why?
Attention
20. What is your
interpretation of the ad?
Interpretation
21. What is your
interpretation of the
displayed people?
Interpretation
22. How do you understand
this advertisement?
What is the message?
Interpretation
23. What are the values that
you perceive?
Response
24. How do you feel when
you look at the ad?
Response
25. What do you think
when you look at the
ad?
Response
26. Would you buy from
this brand?
Response
27. Overall, what is your
opinion on the ad?
Why?
Response
Perception – advertisement 4
28. Does this ad grab your
attention? What is it
specifically and why?
Attention
29. What is your
interpretation of the ad?
Interpretation
30. What is your
interpretation of the
displayed people?
Interpretation
31. How do you understand
this advertisement?
What is the message?
Interpretation
32. What are the values that
you perceive?
Response
127
33. How do you feel when
you look at the ad?
Response
34. What do you think
when you look at the
ad?
Response
35. Would you buy from
this brand?
Response
36. Overall, what is your
opinion on the ad?
Why?
Response
Perception – advertisement 5
37. Does this ad grab your
attention? What is it
specifically and why?
Attention
38. What is your
interpretation of the ad?
Interpretation
39. What is your
interpretation of the
displayed people?
Interpretation
40. How do you understand
this advertisement?
What is the message?
Interpretation
41. What are the values that
you perceive?
Response
42. How do you feel when
you look at the ad?
Response
43. What do you think
when you look at the
ad?
Response
44. Would you buy from
this brand?
Response
45. Overall, what is your
opinion on the ad?
Why?
Response
128
Interview Question Open
Coding
Axial
Coding
Selective
Coding
Brand authenticity
1. What is a reliable brand to you? Why do you think it is reliable?
Reliability
2. To what extend do you think the brand supports the LGBTQ community?
Reliability
3. To what extend do you perceive this this to be an honest brand? Why?
Reliability
4. To what extend do you think this brand delivers current fashion trends?
Reliability
5. Which ad/ ads makes you think the brand is reliable? Why?
Reliability
6. What is a consistent brand to you? Why?
Continuity
7. To what extent do you think the brand stays true to itself?
Continuity
8. To what extent do you think the brand has a clear concept that it peruses?
Continuity
9. To what extent do you think the brand will be consistent over time representing the LGBTQ community in the future?
Continuity
10. Which ad makes you think the brand is consistent? Why?
Continuity
11. What is an original brand to you? Why?
Originality
12. To what extent do you think this is a unique brand? Why?
Originality
13. Can you identify yourself with the brand?
Originality
14. Which ad makes you think the brand is original? Why?
Originality
129
15. What is a genuine brand to you? Why?
Genuineness
16. Does the brand make a genuine impression on you?
Genuineness
17. To what extend do you perceive the images as an appropriate display of the LGBTQ community?
Genuineness
18. Which ad makes you think the brand is genuine? Why?
Genuineness
19. Which brand represents integrity to you? Why?
Integrity
20. To what extend do you think that this brand cares about consumers and society?
Integrity
21. To what extent do you think that this brand cares about the LGTBQ community?
Integrity
22. Which ad makes you think that the brand cares about the LGBTQ community/ society? Why?
Integrity
23. Which brand can you recognise by its symbols? Why?
Symbolism
24. What kind of symbols can you identify in the ads?
Symbolism
25. How do you interpret these symbols?
Symbolism
26. To what extent do you think you will be able to recognise the brand by these symbols in the future?
Symbolism
27. To what extend do you think the brand makes use of the displayed symbols in an appropriate way?
Symbolism
28. How do these symbols contribute to your perception of the brand?
Symbolism
130
Appendix 4: GDPR Thesis Study Consent Form
131
132