Branding,Masculinities and Culture: Exploring the Branding of Alcohol Product Representations in Thailand

Abstract

This article re-evaluates the use of masculinities to understand brand building by exploring the branding of alcohol products in Thailand. By relying on the subjectivist epistemology, this study employs the constructivist approach, using a range of qualitative methods, including qualitative content analysis, in-depth interviews, and focus groups. The implications of the findings explain how Thai leading alcohol companies seek to instil particular ideal forms of masculinities for brand promotions in Thailand. This article concludes by suggesting the significance of the cultural power dynamics of the local and global domains that are crucially associated with the gendered construction of brand masculinities. It suggests that we need to employ more recent developments in critical masculinity theory to adequately capture the dynamics of men’s lives in the contemporary world.

Keywords

branding masculinities alcohol Thailand mixed-methods

In a recent Thai television advert, Singha, a leading alcohol brand, provides a series of images of King Bhumibol undertaking charitable and selfless work to better the nation. Political figures, military advisors, and religious leaders flash onto the screen, providing what could be viewed as a manual of how to be a good working man. However, since 2009, it has been illegal in Thailand to show alcohol products on TV and in the mass media. Because of this, the advert ends with the phrase “Singha Corporation is honoured to have the King helping the nation.” It is argued that in order to understand how such adverts work, existing approaches to branding and masculinities need to be re-evaluated. Part of this evaluation is to recognize that the relationship between consumers, brands, and contexts is a highly complex one as branding strategies align products with consumers’ personalities and present-day lifestyles (Azar, 2015; Azar et al., 2018; Lieven, 2018; Ulrich, 2013; Zayer & Neier, 2011). It is of critical importance that those managers responsible for brand strategy and brand building understand how “possessions can also symbolically extend self . . . [this] allows us to convince ourselves (and perhaps others) that we can be a different person than we would be without them” (Belk, 1988, p. 145). Furthermore, much work has acknowledged that the gendering of brands is an essential strategy for projecting brand characteristics and potentially increasing sales (Aaker, 1997; Nelson & Hye-Jin, 2008; Siripai & Haywood, 2017, Ulrich & Tisier-Desbordes, 2018).

However, at present, much work on gender and branding (Azar, 2013, 2015; Azar et al., 2018; Lieven, 2018; Ulrich, 2013) tends to draw upon Sex Role Theory approaches (Bem, 1974), which reduce gender to an accumulation of discrete attributes or characteristics. This means that we can identify the gender of a product by measuring the amount of masculinities or femininities within the brand itself, irrespective of the consumer. In contrast, it is argued that understanding the gendering of brands would benefit from recent developments in gender theory, especially regarding masculinities. More specifically, masculinities are currently being understood as more dynamic, embedded within complex interplays with other social and cultural codes such as sexuality, race/ethnicity, age, and geography. In the context of branding, brands are not in themselves gendered but instead rely on the complex interplays between consumer identifications and affective investments, underpinned by meanings co-constructed between consumers and products. For these reasons, the suggested approach could be raised as a new managerial concern for brand builders and scholars to acknowledge the significance of the cultural power dynamics that are crucially associated with the gendered construction of brands. This means that brand builders and scholars should recognize the cultural power dynamics of the local and global domains when characterizing the brand gender to attract the desired target group.

In order to re-evaluate existing approaches to masculinities and branding, this article first highlights the different approaches to how brands are gendered. Second, it suggests the importance of using a more sophisticated approach to gender—in this case, the interplay between masculinities, culture, and power—to understand the branding process. It does this by highlighting the different approaches to masculinities and the limitations of these approaches. Third, the article explores the connections between “Thainess” and masculinities. This is followed by a brief description of the methodology and a summary of the key findings.

Literature Review

Brand Gender Approaches: Brand Masculinity

The current article is based upon research into how leading alcoholic drinks companies in Thailand gender their brands in pursuit of market dominance. This research found that there were two key approaches to understanding how gender is used within branding. The first relies on the dualist/objectivist epistemology; following the model of positivist science, recognizing the brand gender as a fixed type/stable object with particular traits (Azar, 2013, 2015; Azar et al., 2018; Grohmann, 2009; Jung & Lee, 2006; Lieven, 2018; Ulrich, 2013). Embedded in this approach is Sex Role Theory proposed by Bem (1974), which measures the scale of gender traits as a positivist science. In short, from this perspective, objects have distinctive and verifiable traits that can be independently verified as masculine or feminine. For example, one of the key studies on brand gender is that of Aaker (1997). She explains (p. 347) that “human characteristics associated with a brand” are regarded as a brand personality, which is the key way to differentiate brand positioning in a product market segmentation. To create this brand personality, gender can be projected onto a product via imagery and endorsers, and indirectly from other brand associations. In other words, gender is used to create a brand personality to increase sales (Aaker, 2009). It is therefore suggested that masculinities can be measured by the frequency or scale/degree of the masculine content associated with a product (Azar, 2013, 2015; Azar et al., 2018; Grohmann, 2009; Jung & Lee, 2006; Ulrich, 2013). Aaker (1997) cites the examples of Nike and Porsche, which have high levels of masculine content, such as aggressiveness and dominance. This can be seen from the use of particular fonts or colors: it is suggested that display-type fonts can reinforce consumers’ awareness of the masculinities of the brand. The one-dimensional nature of ascribing masculine traits to particular brands is developed in work on the Brand Masculine Dimension (BMD) by Azar (2013). BMD is a quantitative method that measures the contents and patterns of brand masculinity by developing a reliable and valid scale that includes dimensions such as Male Chauvinism, Heroism, Roughness, Machoism, Hardness, Adventurousness, and Courageousness. Importantly, Azar uses the work of Connell to categorize masculinities into four accumulations of traits—Hegemonic, Emerging, Chivalrous, and Subaltern—with brands having different scores across these dimensions. Azar also utilizes Connell’s shift from masculinity to masculinities to suggest that brand dimensions accumulate into different clusters. Despite arguing that we need to understand different brand masculinities, this approach continues to have a fundamental belief in gender as an accumulation of traits.

An alternative approach to studying brand gender, specifically brand masculinities, draws upon a transactional/subjectivist epistemology, looking at brand masculinities as co-constructed (Gee & Jackson, 2012; Hirschman, 2014, Strate, 1992; Ulrich & Tisier-Desbordes, 2018). This can be seen in Holt (2003), who explores the constructions of masculinities in beer brands and argues that products serve as vehicles through which target consumers experience gender myths (i.e., the configurations/common-sense of masculinities). An example would be the prevalence of Budweiser beer brand stories in the US, which are primarily imbued with the American myths of masculinities. Significantly, Holt explores the role of media, including motion pictures such as television as key dynamics in the branding process. Of key importance is how consumer identifications drive the nature of masculinities. This corresponds to Hall (1997), who argues that the circulation of media motion pictures contains positive message delivery characteristics (such as icon signs), which are advantageous for the target audience when it comes to decoding the media messages. The centrality of the consumer, rather than the product, was also examined by Hirschman (2014), who found that consumers perceived products as gendered through their cultural linkage of masculinities to brand, and that generational and regional backgrounds of the consumers had significant influence over how brand masculinities were conceived. Likewise, in beer products, Gee and Jackson (2012), using textual analysis and an interview with ad creators, explored how the promotions of the Speight beer brand culturally represented values and attitudes in New Zealand. They found that beer was promoted to link with masculinities underpinning men’s sport and leisure. Furthermore, they suggested that culturally, beer promotions created a powerful gender manual for boys on how to become a man. Both studies (Gee & Jackson, 2012; Hirschman, 2014) explored brand masculinities from a sociocultural perspective, explaining the brand constructions that invoke the power of social and cultural dynamics, rather than a fixed typology of masculine traits that stacks up with particular traits measured by a valid scale.

Interplay Between Masculinities, Culture, and Power

While it is essential to acknowledge that both approaches (i.e., dualist/objectivist and transactional/subjectivist epistemology) provide valuable insights, both in terms of the attributes that are creatively embedded in brands and the process by which brands become gendered, it has been suggested that discussions of brand gender underplay more recent developments in critical masculinity theory. In other words, we need to employ theoretical frames that adequately capture the dynamics of men’s lives. Connell proposed studying masculinities in a way that “focused on the process and relationship through which men and women conduct gendered lives” (Connell, 2005, p. 71). More specifically, Connell’s notion of masculinities also recognized the power relationships among different men; for example, “relations of alliance, dominance, and subordination [that] are constructed through practices that exclude and include, that intimidate, exploit, and so on” (Connell, 2005, p. 37). In Connell’s (2005) formulation of masculinities, a dominant masculinity, a “hegemonic masculinity” (pp. 77–80), is established through the domination of one group of men over other men and women. Hegemonic masculinities promote ways of living that are most desirable, providing an example of what men should aspire to. Hegemony involves advocating and displaying particular social, cultural, and economic values. For example, men occupying hegemonic masculinity will often “other” different groups of men, such as gay men, black men or disabled men, to sustain the legitimacy and normalization of their own masculinity (Kimmel, 2008). Importantly for this article, “Othering” can be practiced by adopting and exhibiting particular brands.

However, the notion of hegemony has limitations. Hegemonic masculinity is often seen as reinforcing patriarchy, so that masculinity can only be understood through processes of discrimination and inequality. Johannson and Ottemo (2015) highlight how hegemonic masculinity may not be simply about the articulation of gendered inequality, but that a dominant masculinity might be a positive, productive way of being a man, such as in certain forms of fatherhood. Furthermore, work by Anderson (2009) suggests that the elements that make up a hegemonic masculinity (e.g., homophobia) are becoming less relevant to men. Men, it is argued, are no longer using homosexuality as a means to establish their masculinities. Rather, men are becoming more inclusivist toward homosexuality by incorporating intimacy between men as part of their identities. As societies become less “homohysteric,” the process of men becoming masculine through the rejection of homosexuality fades in importance. More recently, Haywood et al. (2018) have suggested the possibility of post-masculinities (see also Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2003, 2013), indicating that there are limits to using masculinities as ways of understanding men’s subjectivity. Forcing men’s experiences, practices, and effects through the frame of masculinities, it is argued, limits the possibilities of men’s lives to a series of categories. Alongside this, Siripai (2017) argues that in order to understand masculinities, we need to see them within their specific social, economic, and cultural context. It is men’s lives, situated within circuits of cultural power, that determine the values of identities and practice, and thus patterns of consumption. For example, Thai society relies on cultural values and identifications such as rituals, cultures, significations, norms, television, movies, printed media, internet/social media, arts, museum displays, and so forth, which promote particular ways of being a man.

Masculinities and Thainess

This article argues that masculinities are created for brand masculinity promotions to evoke positive attitudes and lifestyles that appeal to target consumers (Schroeder & Zwick, 2004). More specifically, it argues that the masculinities of leading Thai alcohol brands Singha and Chang extract representations from lived Thai masculinities and forge them into a brand masculinity. These are dynamically applied in association with Integrated Marketing Communications to build brand experiences and brand awareness (Pine, Pine, & Gilmore, 1999). Arguably, the key dynamics of Thai brand masculinity representation are the ideology of Thainess or Love Thai (featuring Love of Nation, Love of Religion [Buddhism], and Love of the Monarchy/the King; Jorgensen, 1995), hybridized with the global aspect of transnational capitalist masculinity (Connell & Wood, 2005) and the global business trend/practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (Shuili Du et al., 2011). The significance of Thainess (or Love Thai) is embedded into social values and norms for every Thai person to adhere to in their everyday life (Mulder, 1985). It can be explained thusly: the king, whom everyone respects as the godfather of the nation, whom all Thai people are grateful for, has developed the nation and preserved Buddhism as the national religion. He has done good things for the Thai people in every way and therefore could be regarded as the father of the family, the Thai people being the king’s children. The expectation is that those good Thai people should respect and be grateful for Buddhism; respect older people; be grateful to parents (or spontaneously to people who helped them); take care of parents, family or relatives; and be loyal to and honour the king/royal family and the nation (Esterik, 1999; Jackson, 2004).

In the present article, these dominant social values and norms can be seen in the representations of Singha and Chang brand images. Leading Thai alcohol brands Singha and Chang create appeals through brand masculinities to increase consumer brand awareness. Critical to the formations of Singha and Chang are that their ideal male brand images are extracted from the everyday lives of Thai men. The particular brand images that are created to appeal to targets across Thai society include Loyalty to the Monarchy, Thai Nationalism, Inspirational Capitalism, Cosmopolitanism, and Socially Responsible/Caring men following traditional Buddhist norms. Singha and Chang bring these different masculine representations together, primarily through the invocation of the ideology of Thainess combined with global aspects: transnational masculinity and corporate social responsibility. This can be seen from the representations of Singha and Chang ideal males. Ideal males represent the significations and identifications of soft culture, high societal association and high collectivist values (i.e., compassion, caring/‌thoughtfulness; Hofstede & Arrindell, 1998; Niffenegger et al., 2006). This contrasts with the features of more orthodox masculine countries in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, such as assertiveness and competitiveness. From this perspective, the Singha and Chang masculine images could be suggestive of more feminized Westernized versions of manhood (Richmond-Abbott, 1992). A quantitative study of cultural dimensions by Hofstede and Arrindell (1998) illustrated that Thailand had relatively low validations of individualism and masculinity.

Objectives and Research Methods

Relying on the subjectivist epistemology, this study employs a constructivist approach (Lincoln et al., 2011) to explore how the leading alcohol brands represent their brands as “brand masculinities” to achieve market dominance in Thailand. It is a qualitative research study, employing three key methodological approaches: a qualitative content analysis of television adverts, in-depth interviews with marketing directors and advertising executives, and focus groups of a sample of audiences to explore how they understand the messages. This project has been approved and taken place in accordance with the Newcastle University Code of ethics; confidentiality and participants’ personal data were handled accordingly (Christians, 2000, 2011; Lincoln et al., 2011).

The exploration of this study was underpinned, first, by a qualitative content analysis of the television advertising of the 10 most popular alcohol brands in Thailand. These were selected from research conducted by BrandAge marketing magazine (2013), which indicated that the 10 most admired/popular alcohol brands in Thailand in 2013 were: Regency Thai Brandy, Sangsom, 100 Pipers, Johnnie Walker, Blend285, Heineken, Singha, Leo, Chang, and Archa. The 10 most admired/popular brands of 2013 were applied as the samplings. They were the best practice during that period after the amendment of state regulations on alcohol advertising at the end of 2008 in Thailand, which banned the use of sexual appeal advertising, and the showing of products’ images in the media. Only commercials that encouraged people to make social contributions were allowed.

At this stage, the intention was to explore the brands’ main uses of gender and themes in their promotions. The analysis was conducted on adverts aired on television between January 1, 2009 and July 31, 2013. This period was objectively selected to explore the shift of alcohol promotions, after state regulations on alcohol advertising in 2008. The study analyzed the significations, symbolic meanings, configurations, and cultural norms of gender. For instance, configurations of men and masculinities were analyzed through significations of patriarchy, authority, aggression, assertiveness, violence, strength, adventurousness, autonomous manners, and representation of the male body (Connell, 1987, 1995, 2005). Meanwhile, women and femininities were considered through significations of maternity, being softer, the female body, submissiveness, or being a sex object (Carter & Steiner, 2004; Van Zoonen, 1994). Since qualitative analysis aimed to examine overall connotations of masculinities and femininities, all adverts were analyzed for their symbolic meanings, advertising appeals and executions, background music, male voiceovers, and images of male/female celebrities or brand endorsers. At this first stage, the study found that masculinities were the key dynamic employed in association with alcohol brand promotions; for example, those of Singha and Chang (see Table 1).

Table 1.

A Summary of the Qualitative Content Analysis Categorized by Gender Representations and Themes.

No.	Brand	CSR		ML	TN	Capitalist masculinity				VAA	n = 387Total
No.	Brand	♂	♀	♂	♂	♂ Inspirational	♂ Cosmopolitan	♂ Friendship	♂ Responsible drinking	VAA	n = 387Total
1	Singha	40	—	53		47	—	—	—	47	187 ♂
2	Regency	—	77	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	77 ♀
3	Chang	5	—	—	23	—	15	—	—	27	70 ♂
4	Leo	18	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	18 ♂
5	Sangsom	—	—	—	8	—	—	—	—	—	8 ♂
6	Archa	—	—	—	—	—	—	8	—	—	8 ♂
7	JW	—	—	—	—	7	—	—	—	—	7 ♂
8	Heineken	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	3	4 ♂
9	Blend 285	—	—	—	—	4	—	—	—	—	4 ♂
10	100 Pipers	—	—	—	—	—	—	4	—	—	4 ♂
Total		63	77	53	31	73	15	12	1	77	387
Total		140		53	31	73	15	12	1	77	387

Note. SR = Social Responsibility; ML = Monarchy Loyalty; TN = Thai Nationalism; VAA = Value Added Advertising.

Masculinities were crucially represented in relation to alcohol brand promotions, especially with the Singha and Chang brands. In contrast, femininities were only found in the Regency brand. At this stage, several codes of masculinities emerged; these were then grouped before being developed into the potential brand masculine themes. Examples included Monarchy Loyalty, Inspirational Capitalist, Thai Nationalism, Cosmopolitanism, Friendship, Drinking Responsibly, and Social Responsibility. Remarkably, most of these themes were significantly represented in association with brand masculinities, especially those of Singha and Chang. However, only femininities were found for Social Responsibility in the Regency adverts. Therefore, qualitative content analysis aimed to focus on themes of masculinities represented in association with the Singha and Chang brands.

Three key items of empirical evidence were: (i) the number of alcohol adverts on television in Thailand during the specified period (Mediawrap, 2013), (ii) the alcohol/beer market sales (Euromonitor International, 2013, 2015), and (iii) the top 10 most-admired beer brands in Thailand (BrandAge Research Team, 2013). All seemed to illustrate that Singha is the leading brand, and Chang the challenging brand. To appeal to men across Thai society, these two leading brands were seeking to appeal to ideal/hegemonic forms of men. Singha and Chang were therefore deemed to be the most representative case studies for investigating the phenomenon of brand masculinities in Thai society in the remaining phases of in-depth interviews with marketing directors and advertising executives (the key brand-message-senders) and focus groups with sample consumers to evaluate their connections with Singha and Chang brand representations.

Content analysis demonstrated that Singha and Chang are the two leading brands that use a range of gendered semiologies to represent their brands. For examples, representations of Singha Monarchy loyalty men and Chang Nationalist men that figuratively extracted from the local values of Thainess (i.e., loving of Nation, Buddhism, and the king), blending/hybridizing with global forms of transnational masculinities (i.e., modern, love challenging, assertive, liberal, hard-working, characteristics).

Following the work of Holt (2003), in-depth interviews were therefore employed to explore these as case studies. The aim was to explore dynamics of cultural impact, as well as any engagement with men and masculinities, that companies used for their brand promotions. In-depth interviews with Singha and Chang marketing executives established an understanding of how they create their brands and adverts, for example through brand identities; their big ideas; their histories, developments, and future plans; their targets and brand strategies; their selection processes for brand endorsers; the significance of gender identities; their media planning; state regulations and cultural constraints; and so on. In other words, in-depth interviews aimed to explore how the message senders create and characterize their brands as brand masculinities. This fulfils the subjective epistemology element of the project, which aimed to understand holistically the knowledge or perspectives of message senders and how they generate masculinities in their TV advertisements when promoting their brands.

The last methodological approach was a series of focus groups with a weighted sample of Thai participants, conducted to examine how the Singha and Chang brands were being interpreted. Focus groups were also used to triangulate the validity of the other methods employed (content analysis and in-depth interviews) and to subjectively investigate how audiences decoded brand messages represented on television. Key questions included: “in your opinion, tell me about the story of this advert/brand?”; “whom do you think they aimed to talk to?”; and, “how/why do you think this ad/brand represents linking to masculinities or femininities?”

A non-probability purposive sampling approach was applied to search for focus groups participants. A purposive technique was used to determine the characteristics of focus groups attendees. A snowball technique (Patton, 1990) was used to find further individual participants. Hester (1996) argued that focus group participants should be a heterogeneous mix, including members from a variety of backgrounds, genders, classes, and employment types. This provides varied perspectives and insights that are useful for contributing to the given issue. In contrast, if a group is very homogeneous with the same particular demographic characteristics, a diversity of information might not emerge (Kinnear & Taylor, 1996).

Importantly, the focus groups used mixed-gender participation as their dynamic so that both males’ and females’ perspectives could thereby be reflected in the agreements or common sense (of gender practice) of how to become Thai men through ideology and masculinities; or, as Connell (2005) argued, “the cultural dynamic by which a group claims and sustains a leading position in social life” (p. 77). At the same time, Crouch and McKenzie (2006) argued:

Rather than being systematically selected instances of specific categories of attitudes and responses, here respondents embody and represent meaningful experience-structure links. Put differently, our respondents are “cases,” or instances or states, rather than (just) individuals who are bearers of certain designated properties (or “variables”). (p. 493)

This means that although there was a flexible sampling strategy to ensure some generic characteristics of those attending the focus groups, there was no attempt to capture every specific identity characteristic. The discussion from the focus groups became an epistemological tool to understand the ways that brands were being interpreted; how the brands made sense to the focus group participants was more important than ensuring a weighted distribution of personal characteristics.

For this study, it was decided that there would be five participants in each focus group, following Patton’s (1990) suggestion that the most suitable focus group size is five to eight people. It was considered that five was a number that would allow myself, as moderator, to encourage everyone to talk. All participants gave informed consent to participate and received remuneration. See Table 2.

Table 2.

Focus Group Participants.

Age	Bangkok and surroundings	Upcountry and Rural areas	Total
18–27	5	5	10
28–37	5	5	10
38 UP	5	5	10
Total	15	15	30

Findings

Qualitative Content Analysis: Singha Versus Chang

Above, it was demonstrated that masculinities were predominantly represented in the two leading brands: Singha and Chang. The researcher, therefore, went on to search for potential themes of ideal male images represented by Singha and Chang. Several codes were grouped before developing them into themes. See Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of the Qualitative Content Analysis of the Singha and Chang Ideal Male Representations.

Singha (187 ads)	Chang (70 ads)
Monarchy Loyalty men (53 ads)	Thai Nationalist men (23 ads)
Inspirational Capitalist men (47 ads)	Cosmopolitan men (15 ads)
Socially Responsible/Caring men (40 ads)	Socially Responsible/Caring men (5 ads)
Value-Added Ads (47 ads)	Value-Added Ads (27 ads)

The Monarchy Loyalty theme represented the codes relating to the configurations of men who were being strongly honourable and loyal to the king and monarchy. These loyal men signified the ideal/hegemonic man who dedicated his life to doing anything for the king and the royal family. Thai men should follow this ideal image to be regarded as good men in society, as the king is regarded as the godfather of the nation. Significantly, Singha was the only one who represented this theme.

The Thai Nationalism theme emerged from the codes associated with the representations of patriotic men. Men who are strongly proud of Thai citizenship, their nationality and the history/longevity of the nation are regarded as the ideal type of man that Thai people should appreciate. Chang was the key creator of this representation. Although this theme is fundamentally associated with the notion of Thainess, which encourages Thai people to love their country, the key idea was the importance of loving the Thai nation. In contrast, Monarchy Loyalty was also created upon the Thainess idea, but its crucial concern was loving the king and monarchy.

The Inspirational Capitalist theme emerged from the codes that were dynamically associated with the global hegemonic form of capitalist transnational men who assertively worked hard, striving for achievement in their lives. At the same time, they were altruistic, had integrity and kindly aimed to inspire other men to accomplish their goals in life as they had. The codes that emerged in this theme included hard-working men; successful men who thought of helping other people (marginalized, disabled, poor/rural/hill tribe people, etc.), society, and the environment. These hard-working men’s codes were clustered and then developed into the Inspirational Capitalist men theme. Notably, Singha was the essential brand representing this image. Significantly, this theme seems not only to relate to the global hegemonic form of capitalist transnational men but also blends with the local value of Thainess-Buddhism (i.e., integrity, helping, and caring for others). This seems to illustrate that successful/hard-working men, altruistically thinking of others, are the ideal type of men in Thai society.

The Cosmopolitanism theme emerged from the codes that dynamically involved the ideal forms of modern, young, multicultural men who enjoyed living their lives, were educated at Western universities, were highly influenced by Western cultures, and had interesting lifestyles (i.e., extreme sports, rock music, and Electronic Dance Music or EDM). This can be seen from a crucial emergence of Western music and sports event sponsorship promotions, encouraging young modern men to engage with Western sports, EDM music, and modern lifestyles that came from the West. Noticeably, Chang was the essential brand representing these codes.

The Social Responsibility theme emerged from the codes that involved men who were aware of social responsibility, such as concern for preserving Thai culture, Buddhism, the Thai nation, folk wisdom, and the rituals of the Thai royal family. This theme is dynamically associated with the notions of social responsibility and Thainess, signifying that men who care for society are the ideal type of men in Thailand. Singha and Chang both represented this brand image.

The Value-Added Adverts did not fit into any themes. They did not represent any particular images or symbolic meanings. Instead, they only aimed to encourage people to attend the events that specific brands sponsored; for example, New Year countdown events or business education seminars.

Information Box: Singha and Chang Backgrounds

It is essential to understand the historical context through which brands emerge. Singha and Chang are the original Thai beers that significantly dominate Thai alcohol market for decades. Empirically, the Singha and Chang brands have been competing against each other to be the market leader for decades. Singha is the original Thai brand, the oldest Thai beer brand; established in 1933, it monopolized the Thai alcohol market for years. However, in 1994 its market position was significantly challenged by the arrival of a newcomer, Chang. Singha lost its brand hegemony to Chang in 1997 (Sankrusmee, 2008). Intriguingly, Chang, around two decades ago, conquered Singha with a brand image of the local/laboring Thai man that exploited the pride of Thai nationalism as the key to its brand promotion. A decade later, in 2007, Singha fought back; it deconstructed the Chang brand image and articulated new forms of masculinities in the wake of changes in society and alterations in consumers’ lifestyles. In consequence, Singha became the hegemonic brand masculinity in Thai alcohol consumer culture. For this reason, it could be argued that there is a battle between the two brand masculinities, constructing, and deconstructing the idea of actual Thai masculinities for brand promotions. In terms of Thai alcohol consumer culture, this article argues that Singha is the dominant brand and thus is generating a hegemonic brand masculinity in order to increase its product appeal. Furthermore, Singha is socially recognized as part of the Thai cultural mythology, as a result of the longevity of the brand itself in Thai society and culture (Sinsuwan, 2012). In contrast, Chang is the challenger brand, trying to promote a masculinity that, in many ways, is designed to endorse a particular kind of hegemonic brand masculinity and, in the process, subordinate the masculinity that is promoted by Singha.

Interviews: Singha and Chang Executives: Transforming Men’s Lives into a Brand?

According to the interviews with Singha and Chang marketing executives, in terms of the brand identities, cultural dynamics, and engagement with men and masculinities, Singha and Chang arguably exist to market products for men. Therefore, they have an explicit gender target, focusing on particular kinds of men. Females and femininities are not concerned in association with either Singha or Chang advertising representation; this focus can be seen at the highest level of the company. The Singha MD asserted that using a female presenter in adverts representing the products might not make a strong impact in Thailand, in comparison with Western countries:

If you have a woman presenter in alcohol advertisements like those in foreign [Western] countries . . . as a result, both women and men may not drink the alcohol.

The implication of Singha MD perspective reflected that men and masculinities were the key principles when creating the ad-stories representing the ideal forms of men appealing their target consumers.

Furthermore, Chang MD also gave a significant reason why Chang targets men:

Thai people generally order beer/alcohol following opinions of the groups [they are in], which are mainly males. . . . So . . . males are the decision-makers, and they are maybe heavy drinkers. . . . They love sharing drinks . . . because alcohol drinking is about sharing in Thai culture. . . . thus, our advertising communication targets males . . . because they are the key consumers.

The perspective of the Chang MD allows us to understand that the alcohol drinking culture in Thailand is dominated by men. This is significant for the company in relation to its strategy for definite brand positioning, characteristics, identity, or directions for the company or brand visions for sales.

Consequently, the interviews with Singha and Chang executives enable us to comprehend how they use representations of men to develop “brand masculinities” in order to sell their alcohol products in Thailand. This is in order to maintain or gain brand awareness/popularity for the hegemonic brand position in the Thai alcohol/beer market. They extract their ideal masculine representations from lived Thai masculinities and forge them into a brand masculinity, primarily through the hybridization of Thai conventional values (Thainess), social responsibility, and the global hegemonic form of the transnational capitalist man.

Focus Groups: Exploring Consumers’ Perceptions—Global Versus Local Men?

Through the focus groups, examining how Singha and Chang were being interpreted, it was found that the brands extracted representations from lived masculinities and forged them into their masculine brand images to appeal to targets for product selling. All masculine representations involved the ideal forms of how to become good men in Thai society. This was because of the state regulations that do not allow sex-appeal content in alcohol brand promotions in Thailand. Therefore, portrayals of men’s bodies as resources of self-expression of individuality, as is done in the Western context, were absent (Gill et al., 2005; Nowosenetz, 2007; Towns et al., 2012). The absence of projections of Thai men’s bodies in Singha and Chang brand promotions thus seems to suggest that the good acts of men and masculinities are far more important in achieving masculinities: a good act is far more than something you do for yourself. This can be seen from how, overall, the men and masculinities projected tended to involve the ideal forms of good Thai men, linking to collectivist values such as national identity; community, and cultural citizenship; and love of the Thai nation, Buddhism, and the king.

Critical to the forms of Thai ideal masculinities that were represented in product selling, negotiation took place between global transnational capitalist and local Thai masculinities. Significantly, the results from the focus groups highlight that most Singha and Chang masculine brand images are primarily engaged with the invocation of Thai cultural heritage or Thainess (love of nation, Buddhism, and the monarchy). This raises a pertinent question about the impact of globalization and capitalism, in that there appears to be the emergence of a new hybridized Thai masculine form that is a blend of global transnational capitalist and local Thai masculinities. The evidence of the focus groups revealed that most people from all age groups and areas seemed to be susceptible to all the masculine representations. This was especially true of young and middle-aged people. Thus, for example, Pek (pseudonym) demonstrated that he was susceptible to the messages. As can be seen, he could understand the key significance of the Singha Monarchy Loyalty image linking with the Thai monarchy, one of the three pillars of Thai cultural identity or Thainess:

I can understand that the Singha men must work hard for success in life. . . . As can be seen from the Singha advert that employed the king as an idol who has been working hard for the country. . . . Singha emphasised that Singha men must work hard for success and think of others, be kind. . . . Singha encourages me to work hard, to live my life and think about helping other people, and to be kind like our beloved king. . . . This can be seen from the kindness of the king, who has never stopped developing his country for his people . . . we should follow in his footsteps. (Pek, aged 22, male, from the upcountry and rural areas)

Regarding the above, Pek’s interpretation not only reflects the importance of Thainess but also the significance of the “transnational capitalist masculine characteristics” (Connell & Woods, 2005, p. 361); the type of men who are focused on working hard in order to be successful in life. This susceptible interpretation, therefore, reflects a combination or hybrid of global transnational capitalist and local Thai masculinities, drawn from contemporary Thai life.

However, some participants aged 38 and over, from all areas, did not actively agree with any of the masculinities promoted by Singha and Chang. This contradiction reflects a struggle between the forms of global (or modern) and local Thai masculinities. For example, Ooy (pseudonym) was against the Chang image of masculinities:

It is quite surreal . . . men in reality are not like that . . . it’s too idealistic . . . too traditional . . . out of date . . . today men are looking for some fun . . . party . . . music . . . a reward in life . . . this type of men is too Thai . . . too traditional . . . even look rural . . . low prestige. (Ooy, aged 45, male, Bangkok and surrounding areas)

Ooy’s perspective showed that he was against what the Chang male image portrayed. This sample result shows the contradictions in the perspective between global and local forms of ideal masculinities in the context of Thailand.

Significantly, these ideal male brand images were designed to be associated with a sophisticated emotional appeal intended to have a substantial impact on the target audiences, encouraging them to admire these representations and to aspire to purchase a product that exhibited traits similar to that personality (Belk, 1988; Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Wattanasuwan, 2005). This is an excellent example of sign consumption: consuming the symbolic commodities of a product rather than its intrinsic value (Goldman, 1992; Harvey, 1990; Leiss et al., 1990; Schroeder & Salzer-Mörling, 2006). This raises a pertinent question about cultural branding in that there appears to be the emergence of a brand masculine consumption culture. It is apparent from the review of the focus groups that the masculine representations that have been built by these leading Thai brands are associated with power, leadership, success, and patriarchy.

In terms of the male body and physicality, the findings reveal that projections of Thai men’s bodies and physicality were absent from Thai alcohol promotions. However, the absence of projections of Thai men’s bodies in Thai alcohol leading brand masculinities (Singha and Chang) seem to suggest that good acts of men and masculinities are far more important for becoming a man: a good act is far more than what you do for yourself. It can be seen from these results that overall, men and masculinities tended to project the ideal forms of good Thai men that link to collectivist values such as national identity; community and cultural citizenship; and loving of the Thai nation, Buddhism, and the king.

Critically, the implications of the formations of the Singha and Chang brand masculinities show an incoherence. Each contradicts and could ultimately create fragility within the brand masculinity. The contradictions occur because some images created by Singha and Chang are associated with local/conservative values and some with modernity. In other words, it is as if there is a struggle between the traditional ideal Thai male concept and the modern Thai ideal for men. For instance, within Singha, a conflict occurred between the Monarchy Loyalty and Inspirational Capitalist men. With Chang, the incoherence arose between Cosmopolitanism and Thai Nationalism. However, from the marketing perspective, the contradictions within the masculine representations have benefited brand promotions and sales because they hit a diverse range of targets, including old traditional consumers and the younger generations.

Discussion

Notwithstanding the different brand strategies of Singha and Chang, they have dynamically employed three key cultural values in their ideal male representations. These are blended as the ideology of Thainess or Love Thai, the global forms of Transnational Capitalist masculinity, and the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR; see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The three key social values that are involved in Singha and Chang brand masculinities.

Significantly, the formulation of Thai masculinities is normatively embedded with the Thainess ideology that features loving of Nation, Buddhism, and the king/monarchy (Jackson & Cook, 1999; Reynolds, 2004, 2014). These principles are so-called the three pillars of Thai national identity (Jorgensen, 1995; Mulder, 1985), which are culturally articulating the forms of Thai masculinities in Thai everyday life (Kitiarsa, 2005, 2012). Thainess ideology is significantly involved in patriarchy and reinforcing men’s superiority over women. For instances, to be good Thai males is to be associated with Thainess norms, such as men should respect and be grateful for Buddhism by ordaining (traditionally women are not allowed to be ordained), respect older/senior people, be grateful to parents, take care of parents, family or relatives, and be loyal, and honour the King/Royal family that links to national identity, cultural belonging, and citizenship, as discussed in the earlier section (Jory, 1999). Consequently, according to Singha and Chang ideal male brand representations, Thainess values were blended with the capitalist ideology, creating the mixed/hybridized forms of Thai masculinities in the contemporary life appealing target consumers for selling their products.

In some ways, this research illustrates that the forms of Thai masculinities used in brand promotions are the products of hybridism (Aboim, 2016; Appadurai, 1990; Hannerz, 2002). Significantly, hybridization is a kind of cultural blending process, mixing between the locality and the globality as due to the globalization transformation (Bhabha, 1990; Hannerz, 1990). It is, therefore, the creolization process, mixed forms out of the encounter between periphery, and thus developing to something to a more or less open continuum of diversity (Hannerz, 1996, 2002). This can be explained as being due to the transforming impact of globalization in social, economic, and political life (Appadurai, 1990; Schiller, 1992; Tomlinson, 1991). This has influenced the development of the forms and practices of Thai masculinities in everyday life, bringing about the global modernity (i.e., the global forms of transnational business masculinity) that blends with the local values (i.e., Thainess). As Robertson (1992) has argued, globalization has not only homogenized the world in terms of socioeconomics, society, culture, technology, and politics; it has also impelled the world’s pattern of consumption into the same consumer culture.

It should be added that the new forms of Thai hegemonic masculinity operate through hybridity, fluidity, and plurality; not as a fixed or stable object. As Aboim (2016) has argued, “nowadays men’s practices and identities tend to be multiple, hybrid, even paradoxical forms . . . they are largely the development of contradictory forces contained within the traditional archetypes of masculinity” (pp. 5, 112). In some ways, this seems to suggest that we should not downplay the significance of the local cultural power dynamics negotiating with the global influences; this can be seen from the Thai hybrid masculinities. Empirically, it can be seen that the representations of Singha and Chang brand masculinities were built up by relying on the ideology of Thainess (Nation, Religion [Buddhism], and the Monarchy [the King]), also incorporating the global forms of transnational business masculinity and the CSR concept. As a result, these substantial features were therefore formulated into new forms of Thai masculinities by hybridizing with the global values.

Alongside this, brand builders can apply this concept of cultural brand genders (i.e., brand masculinities) to positioning or characterizing their brand personalities and identifications by linking them with cultural dynamics (e.g., myths, common-sense of gender, signs, symbolic meanings). These cultural links are useful for brand builders in making a connection to touch consumers’ configurations subjectively or common-sense (Connell, 1987, 1995, 2005), as well as in appealing to targets who want to be like the ideal forms/imageries that are portrayed (Belk, 1988). Significantly, in understanding the constructions of brand gender, we should not downplay the dynamics of social inequality in the social analysis of power. Understanding social dynamics would enhance brand builders’ ability to manipulate their brands to be the vehicles through which their targets experience myths that symbolically and sustainably resolve the contradictions in society (Holt, 2003). Nowadays, consumers are no longer passive audiences (Azar et al., 2016); instead, they are active (Hall, 1997). Therefore, cultural links, myths of gender, social values, and norms in everyday life could be the key dynamics for brand builders to be aware of when constructing their brand personalities and building their ideal brand images to appeal to their targets, because the brand is as the self and is symbolic consumption to represent what type of person you are in society (self-representation; Elliott & Wattanasuwan, 1998; Wattanasuwan, 2005).

Conclusion

This article illustrates the significance of power cultural dynamics which articulate the production of cultural brand gender (i.e., brand masculinities), as can be seen from the dynamics of local and global values shaping brand masculinities in Thailand. In some ways, the arguments of this article are likely to challenge experts in brand gender (i.e., brand masculinities) to explore how we frame the relationship between local and global cultural dynamics in formulating brand gender, from a perspective of cultural power dynamics and relationships in a particular context embedded with cultural heritage, social powers, and so on.

In focusing on brand gender that involves the cultural dimension and power dynamics, this study has only studied the dynamics of brand masculinities. Future research could apply this approach to explore other types of brand gender or sexual associations based on gender configuration or gender regimes, as proposed by Connell (1987, 1995, 2005). Also, the present exploration of brand masculinities has been limited to the Thai context, despite the fact that these brands investigated in this research sample are also marketed worldwide. A future study could also explore how Singha and Chang are promoted in the international context. Also, cross-cultural research may compare brand promotions in Asia, and, say, the UK, US, or Australia. This will enable us to comprehend how brand masculinities are represented in their ideal images for selling their products in a different context; whether they rely on local Thai values or capitalist ideology.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jhitsayarat Siripai

Author Biography

Jhitsayarat Siripai, PhD, is a lecturer at the Faculty of Mass Communication Technology, Rajamagala University of Technology Pra Na Khon, Bangkok, Thailand. He is specifically interested in how advertising and branding use representations of men and masculinities as part of their marketing and branding strategies, - Critical Brand Masculinity representations.

References

Aaker

D. A.

(2009). Managing brand equity. Simon & Schuster.

Aaker

J. L.

(1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.

Aboim

(2016). Plural masculinities: The remaking of the self in private life. Routledge.

Anderson

(2009). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities. Routledge.

Appadurai

(1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global culture economy. In Featherstone

(Ed.), Global culture: nationalism, globalization, and modernity; theory, culture & society special issue (pp. 295–310). Sage Publications.

Azar

S. L.

(2013). Exploring brand masculine patterns: Moving beyond monolithic masculinity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(7), 502–512.

Azar

S. L.

(2015). Toward an understanding of brand sexual associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 24(1), 43–56.

Azar

S. L.

Aimé

Ulrich

(2018). Brand gender-bending: The impact of an endorsed brand strategy on consumers’ evaluation of gendered mixed-target brands. European Journal of Marketing, 52 (7/8), 1598–1624.

Azar

S. L.

Machado

J. C.

Vacas-de-Carvalho

Mendes

(2016). Motivations to interact with brands on Facebook–Towards a typology of consumer-brand interactions. Journal of Brand Management, 23(2), 153–178.

10.

Belk

R. W.

(1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

11.

Bem

S. L.

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgeny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

12.

Bhabha

(1990). The third space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. In Rutherford

(Ed.), Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp. 207–221).

13.

BrandAge Research Team. (2013). Thailand’s most admired brands 2013. BrandAge (Thai Edition), 14/1, 137–138.

14.

Carter

Steiner

(2004). Introduction to critical readings: Media and gender. In Carter

Steiner

(Eds.), Critical readings: Media and gender (pp. 1–10). McGraw-Hill Education.

15.

Christians

C. G.

(2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 133–155). Sage Publications.

16.

Christians

C. G.

(2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 61–80). Sage.

17.

Connell

(1987). Gender and power: society, the person, and sexual politics. Stanford University Press.

18.

Connell

(1995). Masculinities. Polity.

19.

Connell

(2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Polity.

20.

Connell & Wood. (2005). Globalization and business masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 7(4), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184x03260969

21.

Crouch

McKenzie

(2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499.

22.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2011). Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science, 57(9), 1528–1545. https://doi.org/doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1403

23.

Elliott

Wattanasuwan

(1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17(2), 131–144.

24.

Esterik

P. V.

(1999). Repositioning gender, sexuality, and power in Thai studies. In Jackson

P. A.

Cook

N. M.

(Eds.), Genders and sexualities in modern Thailand (pp. 275–289). Silkworm Books.

25.

Euromonitor International. (2013). Alcoholic drinks in Thailand. http://www.euromonitor.com

26.

Euromonitor International. (2015). Market report database: Alcoholic drinks in China, Japan, South Korea, and Japan. http://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/magazine/homemain

27.

Gee

Jackson

S. J.

(2012). Leisure corporations, beer brand culture, and the crisis of masculinity: The Speight’s ‘Southern Man’ advertising campaign. Leisure Studies, 31(1), 83–102.

28.

Gill

Henwood

McLean

(2005). Body projects and the regulation of normative masculinity. Body & Society, 11(1), 37–62.

29.

Goldman

(1992). Reading ads socially. Routledge.

30.

Grohmann

(2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 105–119.

31.

Hall

(1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage, in association with the Open University.

32.

Hannerz

(1990). Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. In Featherstone

(Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity (pp. 295–310). Sage Publications.

33.

Hannerz

(1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. Taylor & Francis.

34.

Hannerz

(2002). Flows, boundaries and hybrids: Keywords in transnational anthropology. Oxford University Press.

35.

Haywood

Mac

Ghaill

(2003). Men and masculinities: Theory, research, and social practice. Open University.

36.

Haywood

Mac

Ghaill

(2013). Education and masculinities: Social, cultural and global transformations. Routledge.

37.

Haywood

Johansson

Hammarén

Herz

Ottemo

(2018). The conundrum of masculinity: Hegemony, homosociality, homophobia and heteronormativity. Routledge.

38.

Harvey

(1990). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell.

39.

Hester

E. L.

(1996). Successful marketing research: The complete guide to getting and using essential information about your customers and competitors. Wiley.

40.

Hirschman

E. C.

(2014). Branding masculinity: Tracing the cultural foundations of brand meaning. In Cotte

Wood

(Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 42, pp. 324–329). Association for Consumer Research.

41.

Hofstede

G. H.

Arrindell

W. A.

(1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures. Sage.

42.

Holt

D. B.

(2003). Interview with Steven Jackson. Advertising & Society Review, 4(2).

43.

Jackson

P. A.

Cook

N. M.

(1999). Introduction. In Cook

J. A.

(Ed.), Genders & sexualities in modern Thailand (pp. 1–27). Silkworm Books.

44.

Jackson

P. A.

(2004). The performative state: Semi-coloniality and the tyranny of images in modern Thailand. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 19(2), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/41308172

45.

Johansson

Ottemo

(2015). Ruptures in hegemonic masculinity: The dialectic between ideology and utopia. Journal of Gender Studies, 24(2), 192–206.

46.

Jorgensen

N. E.

(1995). Media and identity creation in contemporary Thailand (MA thesis). San Jose State University.

47.

Jory

(1999). Thai identity, globalisation and advertising culture. Asian Studies Review, 23(4), 461–487.

48.

Jung

Lee

(2006). Cross-gender brand extensions: Effects of gender of brand, gender of consumer and product type on evaluation of cross-gender extensions. In Pechmann

Price

(Eds.), Advances for Consumer Research: North American Advances (Vol. 33, pp. 67–74). Association for Consumer Research.

49.

Kimmel

M. S.

(2008). The gendered society (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

50.

Kinnear

T. C.

Taylor

J. R.

(1996). Marketing research: An applied approach (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

51.

Kitiarsa

(2005). ‘Lives of hunting dogs’: Muai Thai and the politics of Thai masculinities. South-East Asia Research, 13(1), 57–90. https://www-scopus-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-18444388561&partnerID=40&md5=27260bcc5b3fae7a18937f801ca2a133

52.

Kitiarsa

(2012). Of Men and Monks: The Boxing-Buddhism Nexus and the Production of National Manhood in Contemporary Thailand.

53.

Leiss

Kline

Jhally

(1990). Social communication in advertising: Persons, products & images of well-being (2nd ed.). Routledge.

54.

Lieven

(2018). Brand gender: Increasing brand equity through brand personality. Palgrave Macmillan.

55.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Lynham

S. A.

Guba

E. G.

(2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Sage.

56.

Mediawrap. (2013). Alcoholic TV advertising 2009–2013 (Quarter 1). http://mymediawrap.com

57.

Mulder

(1985). Everyday life in Thailand. Bangkok: Duang Kamol Publications.

58.

Nelson

M. R.

Hye-Jin

(2008). Nudity of female and male models in primetime TV advertising across seven countries. International Journal of Advertising, 27(5), 715–744.

59.

Niffenegger

Kulviwat

Engchanil

(2006). Conflicting cultural imperatives in modern Thailand: Global perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 12(4), 403–420.

60.

Nowosenetz

(2007). The construction of masculinity and feminity in alcohol advertisements in men’s magazine in South Africa: A discourse analysis (Unpublished MA thesis). University of Pretoria.

61.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage.

62.

Pine

B. J.

Pine

Gilmore

J. H.

(1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business Press.

63.

Reynolds

(2004). Phibun Songkhram and thai nationalism in the Fascist Era. European Journal of East Asian Studies, 3(1), 99–134. https://doi.org/10.1163/1570061033004686

64.

Reynolds

C. J.

(2014). Homosociality in modern Thai political culture. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 45(2), 258–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463414000095

65.

Richmond-Abbott

(1992). Masculine and feminine: Gender roles over the life cycle. McGraw-Hill.

66.

Robertson

(1992). Globalization: social theory and global culture. Sage.

67.

Sankrusme

(2008). A Study of the Beer Market Leader, Challengers, and Niche Strategies. World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology.

68.

Schiller

H. I.

(1992). Mass communications and American empire (2nd ed.). Westview Press.

69.

Schroeder

J. E.

Salzer-Mörling

(2006). Brand culture. Routledge.

70.

Schroeder

J. E.

Zwick

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

71.

Sinsuwan

(2012). Textual analysis and decoding of the symbolic meaning of alcoholic beverage advertisements in Thai society (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Chulalongkorn University.

72.

Siripai

(2017). Branding Men: Exploring how leading Thai alcohol companies use masculinity to increase consumer market share in Thailand (PhD Thesis). Newcastle University.

73.

Siripai

Haywood

(2017). Branding men: Exploring men, masculinity and Thai alcohol brands in East Asian global markets. In Lin

Macan Ghaill

Haywood

(Eds.), East Asian men (pp. 143–161). Palgrave Macmillan.

74.

Strate

(1992). Beer Commercial: A manual on Masculinity. In Craig

(Ed.), Men, masculinity, and the media (pp. 78–92). Sage.

75.

Tomlinson

(1991). Cultural imperialism: A critical introduction. Pinter.

76.

Towns

A. J.

Paker

Chase

(2012). Construction of masculinity in alcohol advertising: Implications for the prevention of domestic violence. Addiction Research and Theory, 20(5), 389–401.

77.

Ulrich

(2013). The effect of consumer multifactorial gender and biological sex on the evaluation of cross-gender brand extensions. Psychology & Marketing, 30(9), 794–810.

78.

Ulrich

Tisier-Desbordes

(2018). ‘A feminine brand? Never!’ Brands as gender threats for resistant masculinities. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 21(3), 274–295.

79.

Van Zoonen

. (1994). Feminist media studies (Vol. 9). Sage.

80.

Wattanasuwan

(2005). The self and symbolic consumption. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6(1), 179–184.

81.

Zayer

L. T.

Neier

(2011). An exploration of men’s brand relationships. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14(1), 83–104.