Designing Masculinity: The Role of Typography in Constructing Power, Strength, and Dominance in Product Branding

Hendri Hartono; Eko Hadi Wahyono; Emmanuel Putro Prakoso; Taufiq Annas; Nur Sitha Afrilia

doi:10.55606/concept.v5i2.2944

Authors

Hendri Hartono Universitas Bina Nusantara
Eko Hadi Wahyono Universitas Bina Nusantara
Emmanuel Putro Prakoso Universitas Bina Nusantara
Taufiq Annas Universitas Bina Nusantara
Nur Sitha Afrilia Universitas Bina Nusantara

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55606/concept.v5i2.2944

Keywords:

Branding, Consumer Culture, Gender Representation, Masculinity, Visual Semiotics

Abstract

Typography has communicated messages through images displayed on a package. The thickness of the letterforms, the sharpness of their corners, and the proportions in the placement of symbols carry meaning. These characteristics not only convey information but also shape an identity. This study highlights how the systematic process of typography in producing masculine meanings in product branding. Therefore, this study developed the Typographic Masculinity Index (TMI), an original semi-quantitative framework, and then applied it to eight male-oriented brands spanning the energy drink and grooming product categories: Red Bull, Extra Joss, Monster Energy, Warrior Energy, AXE, Old Spice, Gillette, and Biore Men. This analysis is based on Roland Barthes' visual semiotics and R.W. Connell's theory of hegemonic masculinity. The research findings confirm that bold, sharp-angled, condensed typographic forms and the use of capital letters consistently function as visual codes for authority, power, and dominance. Energy drink brands achieved significantly higher TMI scores (M = 36.5/40) than personal care brands (M = 23.5/40), reflecting deliberate strategic differences in how masculinity is visually packaged across product categories. From these patterns, four typological categories emerged: dominant masculinity typography, aggressive masculinity typography, heroic masculinity typography, and modern masculinity typography. Overall, these findings support the argument that typography is not a neutral vessel for verbal content, but rather an active participant in the cultural production of gendered identities.

References

Barnard, M. (2005). Graphic design as communication. Routledge.

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Paladin. (Original work published 1957)

Barthes, R. (1977). Image-music-text. Fontana Press.

Beirut, M., Helfand, J., Heller, S., & Poynor, R. (Eds.). (1999). Looking closer 3: Classic writings on graphic design. Allworth Press.

Beynon, J. (2002). Masculinities and culture. Open University Press.

Brumberger, E. R. (2003). The rhetoric of typography: The persona of typeface and text. Technical Communication, 50(2), 206–223.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637

Conley, C. (2018). Typographic persuasion: How letterform design influences consumer attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 388–404.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Davis, M. (2012). Graphic design theory. Thames & Hudson.

Drucker, J. (1994). The visible word: Experimental typography and modern art, 1909–1923. University of Chicago Press.

Edwards, L. (2011). Semantic differential scales for assessing masculinity in typography. Visual Communication, 10(1), 62–80.

Felton, E. (2019). Design and gender: How do graphic elements communicate cultural identity? Design Studies, 63, 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.04.003

Gill, R. (2003). Power and the production of subjects: A genealogy of the new man and the new lad. The Sociological Review, 51(S1), 34–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2003.tb03602.x

Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage.

Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2004). Impression management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.60.42736

Hormuth, S. E., & Mattes, E. (2017). Brand typography and consumer personality congruence: An experimental investigation. Journal of Brand Management, 24(5), 461–474.

Jury, D. (2004). About face: Reviving the rules of typography. RotoVision.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203619728

Lupton, E. (2010). Thinking with type: A critical guide for designers, writers, editors, and students (2nd ed.). Princeton Architectural Press.

McLean, R. (1980). The Thames and Hudson manual of typography. Thames & Hudson.

Meggs, P. B., & Purvis, A. W. (2016). Meggs' history of graphic design (6th ed.). Wiley.

Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Beacon Press.

Noble, I., & Bestley, R. (2005). Visual research: An introduction to research methodologies in graphic design. AVA Publishing.

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–8). Harvard University Press.

Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth. (Original work published 1916)

Schroeder, J. E., & Zwick, D. (2004). Mirrors of masculinity: Representation and identity in advertising images. Consumption Markets & Culture, 7(1), 21–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1025386042000212383

Skolos, N., & Wedell, T. (2012). Type, image, message: A graphic design layout workshop. Rockport Publishers.

Spencer, H. (1969). The visible word. Lund Humphries.

Stöckl, H. (2005). Typography: Body and dress of a text—A signing mode between language and image. Visual Communication, 4(2), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357205053403

Unger, G. (2007). While you're reading. Mark Batty Publisher.

van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Towards a semiotics of typography. Information Design Journal, 14(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.14.2.06lee

Williamson, J. (1978). Decoding advertisements: Ideology and meaning in advertising. Marion Boyars. https://doi.org/10.1558/isbn.9780714522708

Winkielman, P., Halberstadt, J., Fazendeiro, T., & Catty, S. (2006). Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychological Science, 17(9), 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01785.x