In this ad by Lumin titled Mansplaining How To Avoid Dull Skin, we see a man trying to convince another man to pay more attention to his skin and to use their moisturizer. At the beginning of the ad, the man is looking in the mirror when a hand pops out and offers him skincare, at which he says skeptically, “skincare… for men?!”. The man who gave him the cream then goes through all the reasons why he should be using the skincare product and taking care of his skin, most of the reasons relating to being masculine and being attractive. He says that skipping skincare is like skipping leg days (and shows a man with skinny legs), he points at all the problems with the man’s skin, and at the end of the ad, the man is convinced of the need for the product and is shown using it, the other man saying to him, “We got this, I’ll spot you”.

 This ad incorporates lots of prevalent ideas about gender norms and expectations. In US society today, women are typically expected to put more effort into their appearance than men in terms of skincare – this ad is trying to market their moisturizer to the male market using certain gendered advertising strategies to market a typically feminine product to a masculine market. The title of the ad plays on the idea of mansplaining, which was first used in the comment section of an article from 2008 called “Men Explain Things To Me”, and is used when men explain things to women in a condescending manner and with the assumption that the women is ignorant of the topic. The man in the video claims that “skipping skincare is like skipping leg day”. The advertisers are assuming that most men work out and would appreciate a fitness reference. In saying this, they are comparing skincare to something more stereotypically masculine in order to dissociate it from femininity to make it seem more acceptable to be used by men. They show a man with skinny legs working out his arms, to instill fear into men that it’s just as bad to have bad skin as it is to have skinny legs. This brings in the idea of body image, and how toxic masculinity tells men that they need to be muscular and strong in order to be attractive, worthy, and manly. The ad uses words like ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ to play on common insecurities of men and guilt men into feeling like they are actually less masculine by not paying attention to their skin. The man in the video shown as the one with ‘skinny legs’ is also shown in all pink clothes and using pink weights. This is another way that they make this man resemble femininity, thus relating not taking care of your skin as something that’s bad because it makes you look more girly. With this logic, they’re saying that being girly is an inherently bad thing and something to be embarrassed about, whereas it should be normalized for men to wear pink and do things that may be considered girly and be proud of it. This ad is shaming men who may prefer to embrace the feminine aspects of themselves and tells men that they need to be manly in order to be respected by others and that men who are not hyper-masculine are failing as men.

This ad also brings up what we saw in the Poretsky and Everts readings in which they discuss how companies have created problems and insecurities in order to sell a product to solve that problem. In this case, men are told that they should be worried about having dull, wrinkly skin, and that this cream is something that they need to buy in order to be more attractive. The man in the video seems to have not cared about these aspects of his skin before, and now will spend money to fix something that Lumin has deemed a problem, not himself. In these ways, this simple, 30-second advertisement has very deliberately and blatantly played into gender stereotypes and marketing strategies that perpetuate stereotypical ideas of ‘masculinity’ and create insecurities in order to sell a product. In addition, all of the settings shown within the ad tell the viewer something about class and wealth, as all of the rooms and fixtures are expensive and fancy looking. This may be a way for the advertisers to make it feel like people who use this cream are fancy and wealthy, and so anyone who uses it will also come across this way.

It is also noteworthy that Lumin’s ads feature many men of color, non-white men, and racially ambiguous men. It is impossible for us to know whether this diversity is due to genuine race-blind casting or simply an attempt to appeal to the growing public awareness of the lack of diversity in advertising in order for the company to appear woke.

The whole Lumin skincare line is advertised as being specifically for men, which relates to other posts I’ve seen online about examples of things being unnecessarily gendered so that they can be advertised as ‘for men’ or ‘for women’. The whole Lumin skincare line is advertised as being specifically for men, which relates to other posts I’ve seen online about examples of things being unnecessarily gendered so that they can be advertised as ‘for men’ or ‘for women’. Companies then use different marketing strategies for the two so that they appeal to each gender in different ways. These gendered products are completely unnecessary and are simply ploys for the companies to make more money by perpetuating gender norms and stereotypes. I would be interested to see the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) of what makes these “men’s” products different from women’s products, as they claim substantial differences between men and women’s skin on their website. Personally, I see no need for products to be different from one another in accordance to gender, but plenty of people buy into the need for such products. Where do these gendered products leave non-binary people, gender-fluid people, transgender people, and anyone not within the gender binary? They are left with needing to choose either the male product or the female product.