Older People in Advertising

Abstract

Despite the increasing market size and consumption power of older consumers, older people seldom appear in advertising, and research activity in this area suggests that advertising scholars have lost interest in the topic. This article proposes some explanations for this neglect of the topic despite its increasing importance and provides a review of knowledge about the representation, portrayal, and effects of older people in advertising. Based on this review, the article identifies several gaps in the literature and proposes an integrative model and agenda for future research. The agenda addresses the definition and operationalization of age and older people and discusses how their representation and portrayal must be evaluated against appropriate baseline figures; how stereotyping can be assessed and measured; how positive perceptions and evaluations of portrayals of older people, despite weak representation and stereotyping, can be explained; and how social and commercial effects can be investigated. The agenda discusses the potential responsibilities of advertisers and the implications of this research for practitioners and public policy.

Older persons represent a growing demographic group in society. In 2019, 9% of the world’s population was 65 years or older, and this figure is projected to rise to 16%, such that one out of six people will be 65 years or older globally by 2050 (United Nations 2019). These figures are considerably higher in developed countries. Japan has the highest proportion, at 28% of the population, followed by Italy at 23%. Finland, Portugal, and Greece round out the top five at just under 22%. As for the major economies in the world, 12% of China’s population is aged 65 or older, while the share is 16% in the United States (United Nations Population Division 2021). The importance of the so-called silver economy is also rising due to their increasing spending power. Together with the age group of 45 to 64 years old, seniors comprise the wealthiest age cohort in the world (Fengler 2021), and generous retirement schemes, lifelong savings, and investments account for their major contribution as consumers to the economy. Despite these figures, older people seldom appear in advertising, and this trend is ongoing (Prieler and Kohlbacher 2016) despite advertisers’ longtime indication that they believe older endorsers will become more important and appear more often in advertising (Kohlbacher, Prieler, and Hagiwara 2011, 2014; Szmigin and Carrigan 2000). Academics seem to have lost interest in this issue, and the inclusion of older people in advertising has become an underresearched topic (Prieler and Kohlbacher 2016). This gap becomes evident when comparing research on older people in advertising with research on other minority or disadvantaged groups and by looking at research activities over time. While research interest in minority or disadvantaged groups in advertising, such as women (Furnham and Lay 2019), sexual minorities (Eisend and Hermann 2019), and ethnic minorities (Rößner, Gvili, and Eisend 2021), has continued steadily or even grown, studies on the representations of older people in advertising have become fewer, as the following review shows. Most of the existing studies are from the 1980s and 1990s, and only a few studies have been published since—most of them not in advertising but in gerontology and aging journals.

Thus, research on the occurrence and portrayal of older people in advertising is outdated, and research on the effects of elderly endorsers is rare. The few, mostly older studies that exist provide inconclusive results and lack coherent explanations for the effects they describe. This article, therefore, sheds light on a neglected but important topic in advertising research: older people in advertising. It provides an overview of existing research, reveals relevant gaps, and develops an agenda through which future research may address such gaps. To that end, the article first explores why the topic has been ignored by practitioners and academics and provides counterarguments to proposed explanations. Second, the article offers a review of two relevant streams of literature: (a) the representations of older people and (b) the perceptions, evaluations, and effects of older people in advertising. Third, based on these reviews, the article suggests an integrative model and puts forward an agenda for future research on older people in advertising.

Why Older People in Advertising Are Neglected: Reasons and Rebuttals

This section details the three main reasons that advertising practice and research have not given sufficient attention to the topic of older endorsers. These reasons can be met with valid counterarguments.

First, innovators and early adopters of many products are typically younger in age (Rogers 2003). Therefore, advertising often targets younger people, even for products used by consumers of all age groups. This trend is especially true for technology products, as companies in that industry often exclusively target young consumers whom they believe will spread the word about their products. However, using age alone to identify the early adopter misses the fact that older consumers are increasingly at ease with technological innovation: for instance, the majority of Twitter and Facebook users are aged 40 years and older, and the adoption rates of social media by the over-65 population are continuously increasing (Nunan and Di Domenico 2019). Older consumers even adopt some innovations earlier than younger consumers (e.g., e-bikes; Wolf and Seebauer 2014). Furthermore, news of new products and technology travels worldwide quickly on social media, with or without the help of early adopters. With the increasing silver economy, more products and variations are being developed, particularly for the elderly, and younger consumers are not early adopters of these products.

Second, the advertising industry has a “hipster” image, and most people in the industry are young. A recent study shows that less than 10% of all advertising practitioners in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia are over the age of 45 (Brodmerkel and Barker 2021). Younger advertisers may consciously or unconsciously choose endorsers with whom they can identify, contributing to the high representation of young people in advertising (Carrigan and Szmigin 2000a). While many advertisers seem to be aware that older people should be more prominent in advertising and have indicated for a long time that they believe older endorsers will appear more often in advertising in the future (Kohlbacher, Prieler, and Hagiwara 2011, 2014; Szmigin and Carrigan 2000), the figures show that the use of older people has not increased over time. Researchers have explained this phenomenon with the fact that some advertisers still hold stereotypical prejudices against aging and older people (Carrigan and Szmigin 2000a). Ageism (i.e., prejudices about age, including negative attitudes and views and age discrimination; Butler 1969) is not just a phenomenon in the advertising industry but strongly reflects the fact that society values youths over those of an older age. From their mid- to late twenties and on, most people report a younger subjective age (i.e., how old they feel) compared to their chronological age (i.e., how old they actually are) (Kotter-Grühn, Kornadt, and Stephan 2015), indicating the wish to be around ten years younger. Therefore, even advertisers who want to use endorsers more similar to an older market may still use a model up to 10 years younger than the target group (Prieler and Kohlbacher 2016). A society’s values may change when more and more people in it get older. The public discussion about ageism further raises the awareness of the potential negative effects of overlooking the elderly and emphasizing the youth, which may eventually contribute to a higher appreciation of older people in society and in advertising.

Third, plenty of advertising research has provided evidence that the attractiveness or beauty of endorsers has positive effects on consumers and increases, among other things, their evaluations of the ad, their opinions on the brand, and their purchase intentions (e.g., Amos, Holmes, and Strutton 2008; Kahle and Homer 1985; Shavitt et al. 1994). Older people are, on average, rated lower in attractiveness than younger people, who are judged as equally attractive by younger and older people (e.g., Foos and Clark 2011; Mathes et al. 1985; Mazis et al. 1992). Thus it is not surprising that advertisers make extensive use of younger people that resemble the ideal of attractiveness and beauty. However, attractiveness is but one persuasion factor of endorsers in advertising. Research also finds that older people are considered more credible than younger ones (Bristol 1996; Milliman and Erffmeyer 1989). Everyday consumers, such as the older women appearing in Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign, can increase perceived authenticity and, in turn, advertising effectiveness (Becker, Wiegand, and Reinartz 2019; Shoenberger, Kim, and Johnson 2020). With a growing silver economy leading to more products for the elderly and their adoption of those products, advertising might benefit from trading inauthentic young endorsers for authentic, age-appropriate people. Beyond intended commercial effects, advertising also has social effects, influencing a wide array of non-brand-related perceptions, attitudes, values, and behaviors (Eisend 2019). Any advertising that promotes stereotypes—including age-related stereotypes (i.e., generalized beliefs and judgments about aging, old age, and older people; Kruse and Schmitt 2006), which are universal and share cross-cultural patterns (Fiske 2017)—instead of being inclusive conflicts with diversity-related societal goals, which, in turn, can lead to negative reactions from consumers and reduced advertising effectiveness (Åkestam 2017). Because stereotypes can have negative effects for individuals, some countries have even introduced legislation regulating stereotyping in advertising (e.g., the United Kingdom’s bans against gender stereotypes; Ellson 2019). This action can increase the sensitivity of consumers and reduce their acceptance of advertising practices that promote unfavorable stereotypes.

While these three arguments provide explanations for the lack of older people in advertising and the scholarly neglect of the topic, current developments—such as societal discussion about stereotyping in advertising, changing values in society, the increasing importance of the silver economy, and some positive effects of using older endorsers in advertising—suggest that these explanations do not provide sufficient reason to accept the status quo.

Representation of Older People in Advertising

Many researchers have investigated how often and in what ways older people are portrayed in advertising. We retrieved 66 content analysis studies that report the proportion of older people in advertising and how they have been portrayed alongside several variables, such as role, product, or setting (see Table A in the Supplemental Online Appendix). The studies were identified by prior review studies (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006) and were retrieved through keyword searches in a number of databases and Internet search engines (e.g., EBSCO, Google Scholar, ProQuest).¹ Furthermore, all references in the articles retrieved by the keyword search were scanned and found to be appropriate for the review. Content analysis studies that investigate older people in advertising but lack relevant figures on their representation and portrayal (Francher 1973; Harwood and Roy 1999) and qualitative content analyses that do not provide quantitative figures (e.g., Ylänne, Williams, and Wadleigh 2010; Yoon and Powell 2012) were not included.

The methodologies of these studies vary, and they also differ in, for instance, the kind of media they investigate and which characteristics they apply to describe how older people are portrayed in advertising. They also vary in terms of how they define “elderly” (e.g., people over 50, 60, or 65 years): While the gerontology literature tends to use 65+, the typical age of retirement, to define old age, some marketing papers define older people as those 50+, in line with commonly applied segmentation criteria or media target groups (see Prieler and Kohlbacher 2016). Nonetheless, the majority of studies confirm that older people in mainstream media advertising are underrepresented when compared to population figures. For instance, if the elderly are considered to be 65 years and older, they represent between 15% and 28% of the population in most developed countries, but most studies indicate that less than 10% of all ads—and often even less than 5%—portray them. If the number of people in ads instead of the number of ads is taken as a basis, these figures are even lower. The studies that do provide the percentage of elderly people in the general population of the country in which the content analysis was conducted for comparison consistently show that it is often two to three times higher than the percentage of elderly people in advertising. Some studies have looked at media and ads targeting exclusively older people, and even here a maximum of only 70% of ads depict the elderly; some studies even show considerably lower percentages (Carrigan and Szmigin 1999; Clarke, Bennett, and Liu 2014; Kvasnicka, Beymer, and Perloff 1982; Langmeyer 1993; Roberts and Zhou 1997; Smith 1976). The figures do not indicate any trends of increasing appearance of the elderly in advertising. Furthermore, most research was conducted in the previous century, with 24 papers published in the 1990s and only 10 papers in the past decade, most of them not appearing in advertising journals. These figures underline the suggestion that the topic is underresearched, given the contradiction described: While the percentage of older people in society is increasing steadily, research about older people in advertising has decreased.

As for the way older people are depicted in advertising, the findings show some variation but many commonalities across studies: older women are underrepresented compared to older men; the predominant race of older people is Caucasian; older people mostly take a secondary, minor, or background role; they are more often depicted with others than alone; the most common setting is at home or outdoors; common stereotypes are the golden ager or grandparents; the portrayals are mostly favorable; and the most common product categories are health, hygiene, and medical products, as well as food. In summary, the portrayals often reflect simplified or generalized beliefs and judgments about aging, old age, and older people (Kruse and Schmitt 2006). Several survey studies have confirmed that respondents perceive these portrayals as stereotypical (e.g., Kolbe and Burnett 1992; Smith, Moschis, and Moore 1982).

Perceptions, Evaluations, and Effects of Older People in Advertising

Aside from the set of studies that explore the portrayal of older people in advertising, few studies look at how older people in advertising are perceived and evaluated and what advertising effects they achieve. We found 27 studies through the search procedure described here and by scanning relevant review articles (Bradley and Longino 2001). They are separated into two categories: 12 survey studies on the perception and evaluation of older people, further divided into consumer studies and practitioner studies, and 15 experimental studies that manipulate endorser age and analyze its effects (see Table B and Table C in the Supplemental Online Appendix). The findings are mixed and partly inconclusive.

Both consumer and practitioner studies on the perceptions and evaluations of such portrayals find evidence for stereotyping—that is, respondents identified stereotypical depictions of the elderly in advertising, often reported that such images are inaccurate and simplified, and noted that older people are underrepresented in advertising (e.g., Festervand and Lumpkin 1985; Smith, Moschis, and Moore 1982). On the other hand, consumer studies also find favorability—that is, positive evaluations of advertisements with older people and the perception that older people are depicted favorably (e.g., Langmeyer 1984; Niu and Zhou 2019). Practitioner studies have further indicated that they believe the demand for and use of elderly in advertising will increase (Kohlbacher, Prieler, and Hagiwara 2011, 2014; Szmigin and Carrigan 2000).

All the existing experimental studies investigate commercial advertising effects while ignoring social effects. Some of them find a next younger effect (Bristol 1996; Chevalier and Lichtlé 2017), where senior consumers prefer mature and somewhat younger people in advertising because they are considered more credible than very young endorsers and more likable than older, same-age endorsers. Credibility—as well as competence or expertise—is a typical explanation for the positive effects of older people on all consumers (Milliman and Erffmeyer 1989). Several studies support a match-up effect, wherein a fit between endorser and product is most effective because of similarity; for instance, research shows that older people work better for advertising medical products than for technology products (Kwon, Saluja, and Adaval 2015; Nelson and Smith 1988; Rotfeld, Reid, and Wilcox 1982). Huber et al. (2013) prove an endorser–product image transfer effect, where the perceived brand age is positively related to the age of the endorser, an effect which is stronger for high product–endorser fit and when mental images about the age of consumers are very salient. However, several studies also find no effects of older versus younger people on advertising effectiveness (Greco and Swayne 1992; Skurpin, Beldad, and Tempelman 2019). Overall, the findings are not conclusive and do not provide much infomation about the effects that older people have; rather, they suggest that these effects are more nuanced and require moderators that can explain the differences in results.

Agenda and Directions for Future Research

These reviews reveal several inconsistencies in the findings and interpretations of an underresearched but important topic, leaving researchers and practitioners with many questions and several research gaps regarding older people in advertising. These gaps include the definition and operationalization of age, the assessment and explanation of representation and stereotyping, the perceptions and evaluation of elderly portrayals, their commercial and social advertising effects, the advertisers’ responsibility, and the resulting implications for practitioners and public policy. Figure 1 provides an integrative model clarifying the agenda for future research on older people in advertising. The relevant topics of this agenda are elaborated in the next sections. They are summarized in Table 1 along with the corresponding research gaps and research directions.

Figure 1. Integrative Model of an Agenda for Future Research on Older People in Advertising.

Table 1. Research gaps and agenda for future research on older people in advertising.

Topic	Research Gap	Research Agenda and Directions
Definition and operationalization	No standardized operationalization of “older people”; identified based on a fixed age group threshold with weak comparability across contexts (time, culture)	Allow for differences in age thresholds to define “older people” across contexts and use a time- and country-specific operationalization, such as legal or average retirement age, or refer to age distributions and percentiles. If appropriate, differentiate between several age groups of older people.
Assessing representation	A comparison based on general population figures from national statistics	Use national statistics for general interest media; use figures of special interest media users or target groups for ads in these media. Assess representation only by comparing figures across contexts and time.
Portrayal and stereotyping	Description of older people along various and differently operationalized variables in prior research, but no standardization and tests to assess the degree of stereotyping; no contextualization of ads considered	Develop and code standardized categorizations of stereotyping variables. Compare the portrayals of older people with the portrayals of younger people, assuming either equality of portrayal (“ideal” standard) or similarity to real-world distributions (“real” standard). Perform tests and measure the degree of stereotyping. Contextualize and consider ad and media context when coding stereotyping. Perform research in an online social media context. Develop new portrayal criteria through qualitative studies.
Explaining representation and stereotyping	Lack of empirical evidence and theoretically sound explanations as to why the elderly are not well represented and stereotyped	Variations in occurrence and stereotyping of older people are context dependent (i.e., time and culture). Age salience explains why age can have an effect and why it varies across contexts that provide different age salience triggers.
Perceptions and evaluations	Older people in advertising perceived as stereotyped but evaluated as favorable, in particular by older people	Low age salience explains why older people perceive stereotyping but evaluate portrayals positively. The explanation requires empirical evidence that is linked to findings on portrayal effects.
Explaining advertising effects	Advertising effects of older people explained by similarity, credibility, and authenticity, but mechanisms not compared The commonly investigated but unexplained moderator is consumer age; other moderators neglected	Conduct mixed-method studies that combine content analysis and experiments to provide more current and consistent findings. Compare three mediators: Similarity is stronger for older consumers, as is credibility for younger consumers, while authenticity is a general mechanism. Integrate studies with older celebrities. In addition to chronological age, consider biological or cognitive age (perceptions) as better effect predictors. Test moderator effectiveness based on congruence between portrayal, product, media, and consumers. Include exogenous moderators that are more relevant than endogenous moderators from a practical point of view.
Social effects	Research tending to focus on commercial advertising effects but ignore social effects	Social and commercial advertising effects are interrelated. Include both types of effects in empirical studies. Investigate the valence of these effects and their relationships.
Advertiser responsibility	Lack of research on whether advertisers promote negative age stereotypes (“mold”) or simply depict society’s age-related values (“mirror”)	Provide empirical evidence on whether advertisers mirror or mold ageism and negative stereotypes. Use evidence to inform the discussion about advertiser responsibility.
Implications for practice	No empirical evidence on what portrayal achieves high commercial effects and avoids negative social effects; lack of evidence-based input for public policy debates	Optimize portrayals that increase commercial effects but avoid negative social effects. Provide policy input for an evidence-based debate on the responsibility of advertisers that balances business and social goals of various stakeholder groups.

Definition and Operationalization of Older People and Assessing Representation

To address the context-dependent nature of age conceptualization and enable the comparability of findings across contexts, researchers first need a better operationalization of the term older people and, second, an appropriate and generalizable standard against which to compare the representation of older people in advertising.

The operationalization of what constitutes an older person varies. Several studies use 65 years as the age threshold for defining a person as “old,” which is a figure that reflects the current average retirement age in many developed countries and thus corresponds to an important change in the life cycle and related consumption patterns of consumers (Barnhart and Penaloza 2013; Prieler and Kohlbacher 2016). While this measure is a meaningful threshold from both a consumer and marketing perspective (Moschis 2021), retirement ages differ across countries and time in line with variation in life expectancy. For instance, in Greece and Israel, the average retirement age for men is 67; in Indonesia, it is 57 (Trading Economics 2021). The current research practice is oriented toward the standards in developed countries and thus is neither inclusive nor sustainable. Rather than a fixed age threshold to operationalize “older people,” a more flexible and context-dependent measure, such as the average or legal retirement age in a particular country at a particular time, could be a more appropriate way to identify important life cycle changes. Another flexible approach is age distribution. By taking those people who fall into, for instance, the 20th percentile according to age, older people could be operationalized across different contexts. Such a standardized operationalization, although allowing for different age thresholds in different contexts, facilitates generalizable findings and conclusions on older people in advertising that are comparable across contexts. Furthermore, older people are a heterogeneous group that varies in health, roles, activities, and interests. Younger members of this age group appear more often in advertising than older ones, and thus distinguishing between various age groups within the designation of older people can provide further relevant insights (Prieler 2020). While content analysis studies typically assess chronological age, coding perceived cognitive or subjective age may be more important for consumers’ responses to advertising with older people, which is discussed next.

To assess whether and to what degree older people in advertising are not well represented, a baseline condition needs to be defined that indicates the correct representation of older people (see Eisend 2019). Previous research has often referred to national statistics on the age distribution of the general population in a society to assess whether older people are appropriately represented in advertising. Such a comparison assumes that each group in society should be depicted in the same proportion as they occur in the population, which would be a strong normative assumption for advertisers and contradict the liberal economic activity of markets. The comparison figures are helpful, though, when comparing representations over time or across contexts and cultures. For instance, if the percentage of older people in a society increases over time, but the percentage of elderly in advertising decreases, the question of whether older people in advertising are well represented becomes more pressing, unless there are other plausible explanations for this trend. These comparison figures, however, function only when advertising is addressed to the society as a whole (e.g., in general interest media); it needs to be adapted when the advertising is in or for users of special interest media by using the age distribution of the target group of the media or advertisement as a comparison standard (e.g., Clarke, Bennett, and Liu 2014; Kvasnicka, Beymer, and Perloff 1982).

Portrayal and Stereotyping

Misrepresentation and stereotyping of older people’s portrayals in advertising has been described through many variables and attributes in prior content analysis studies. For instance, the variable “role” is coded in some studies as major versus minor (e.g., Idris and Sudbury-Riley 2016) and in other studies as spokesperson, testimonial, background, and so on (e.g., Atkins, Jenkins, and Perkins 1990). For the purpose of the comparison, identification, and quantification of stereotyping, researchers need to recode different variable categories into a standardized category. For instance, the variable “role” could be coded as primary role (including major, spokesperson, testimonial) versus secondary role (including minor, background). The portrayals can be compared along these standardized variable categories to identify and measure misrepresentation and stereotyping. For instance, the distribution of minor versus major roles can be compared between older and younger people in advertising by means of a simple 2 × 2 table and corresponding tests (e.g., chi-square). Stereotyping could be assumed when the distributions differ significantly (e.g., when the chi-square result is significant). The size of the effect inferred from the test (here, the odds ratio) then indicates and measures the degree of stereotyping (Eisend 2010; Knoll, Eisend, and Steinhagen 2011). However, stereotyping also needs to consider reasonable comparison standards and baselines (Eisend 2019).

Most previous research does not apply any tests but rather describes the stereotyping of older people in advertising rather intuitively. For instance, several studies indicate that older people tend to be depicted more often in home settings than in other settings and hence infer stereotyping (Baumann and de Laat 2012; Ho and Smith 1992). However, evidence of stereotyping requires comparison standards and baselines (Eisend 2019). The comparison can follow an ideal or real-world standard. An ideal standard assumes that younger and older people should be depicted alike. For instance, if younger people in advertising are depicted less often at home than older people, the discrepancy would indicate stereotyping, but if the portrayals at home are the same for older and younger people, stereotyping would not be indicated. The real-world baseline compares the portrayal of older people in advertising along certain variables, with the distribution of these variables mirroring those among older people in reality. For instance, many studies have shown that older men occur more often than older women in advertising (e.g., Baumann and de Laat 2012; Langmeyer 1984). Because the reality indicates that the proportion of older women in the general population is higher than that of men, this real-world comparison can be used to measure stereotyping. Real-world comparison figures are available for overt variables, such as occupations or gender, but not for other variables, such as role or character. Note that both comparison standards (ideal versus real) suggest different perspectives. The ideal presentation proposes that younger and older people should be depicted in similar ways and thus follows an idealistic view of equality—that is, how the world “should be.” This view is very normative for advertising practitioners: For instance, why should older people be shown as often with friends as younger people if in fact younger people spend more time with friends than with family? The reality baseline takes into account differences between younger and older endorsers in advertising as long as they reflect differences in reality, and thus follows a view of how the world “is.” Neither of these baselines suggests that advertising must reflect how the world is or should be; it is merely a measure to determine an objective fact (i.e., whether stereotyping is or is not present).

The assessment of age stereotyping along different variables in previous studies has also ignored the fact that advertising uses older people as endorsers in different ways. Advertising with older people can be directed toward older consumers or applied to products for older consumers, but it can also use the concept of age in humorous ways, such as by breaking age stereotypes to emphasize the youthfulness of a product (Zhang et al. 2006). Although all ads with older people can be stereotypical, the way age is contextualized in the advertisement (e.g., as humorous or not) can lead to different consumer responses toward the stereotyping. Hence, further research needs to mobilize a more holistic view by applying content analysis to the context of an ad and its medium.

Most studies have been conducted on advertising in traditional media, while the humorous contextualization of advertising with older people is more common online and on social media, which provides interesting future research opportunities (Boxman-Shabtai and Shifman 2015). Future research should therefore consider new media when applying a holistic view that considers the contextualization of age stereotyping. To better understand age portrayals in advertising and to develop further categories that better describe the portrayal of older people in advertising, qualitative studies are a helpful approach. However, few qualitative studies exist (e.g., Ylänne and Williams 2009; Yoon and Powell 2012), indicating the need for more qualitative research in this area.

Explaining Representation and Stereotyping

Prior research suggests that older people are not well represented in advertising and that they are depicted stereotypically. Because empirical figures from these content analysis studies vary across years and countries, culture and time are important explanatory variables discussed in the literature, as the meaning of age is embedded in different and changing contexts (Ward 1984; Zhang et al. 2006). Both variables can explain whether age representation and stereotyping have changed over the years and differ across cultural contexts. However, a theoretically sound explanation for such variations is lacking. Age is a category that is not permanently salient, but age salience (i.e., the perceived relevance of chronological age for the self and others; Kruse and Schmitt 2006) is triggered by certain events that can increase age identification (i.e., the importance of age to a person’s overall identity), make people aware of their age, and have them feel their age, whether younger or older (Giles et al. 2010). If the social context does not provide such triggers, old age is not important and is neglected by society and in particular by the “young” advertising industry (Prieler 2020). If older age becomes salient due to, for instance, important political decisions on age-related topics (e.g., changes in state-run pension schemes), the recruitment of older managers in the advertising industry, or an increase in the appearance of older celebrities (Prieler et al. 2010), age becomes a more visible topic, and the sensitivity toward older people increases, eventually reflected by better representation of older people in advertising. The social context also provides age-related expectations that serve as a standard or the norm, and if these expectations are based on simplified categories (e.g., older people should not work, should refrain from professional activities), they increase age stereotyping (Freund 1997). Increasing old age salience leads to the visibility of and sensitivity toward the topic, and thus expectations will be modified and become more complex and less simplistic. In turn, stereotyping decreases. A positive example of age salience triggers that benefit the representation of the elderly and reduce age stereotypes is provided by streaming services that produce more inclusive shows, including shows that represent older people with positive portrayals. These shows provide a more nuanced picture of aging and seem to reach a large audience, as evidenced by the successful Netflix show Grace and Frankie, the four lead actors of which are in their seventies and eighties (Mohammed 2021). However, high salience of young age can counteract the positive effects of old age salience and lead to a self-reinforcing mechanism: Social media content and discourses often make young age salient and reinforce negative discourses about old age, triggering an age identification that focuses on feeling young, which again leads to an orientation toward youth and the invisibility of older people in social media and related advertising (Makita et al. 2021).

Perceptions and Evaluations

Research on the perceptions and evaluations of portrayals of older people in advertising finds some evidence for perceived stereotyping, but it also highlights favorability—that is, a positive evaluation of portrayals, particularly by older consumers. This seeming contradiction can be explained by the low salience of age. “Being old” is not generally salient or considered a stigma in the lives of older people, as indicated by the high well-being of older people and generally positive attitudes toward retirement, but it becomes salient occasionally through certain triggers, such as when reaching certain age markers or when facing age-related diseases (Ward 1984). Older people further perceive themselves at a lower subjective age, often show resistance to aging, and do not fear consequences when violating age-related expectations (Freund 1997; Giles et al. 2010). While the low salience of age can explain the overall positive evaluations of portrayals of older people in advertising by older consumers, empirical evidence for this explanation is still lacking. The positive low-salience effect on perceptions and evaluations does not necessarily extend to the commercial and social effects of older people’s portrayals because of different empirical settings (survey versus experiments) and different outcome variables (e.g., evaluations of older people versus evaluations of brands).

Explaining Advertising Effects

Prior research consists of either content analyses on the portrayals of older people or experimental studies on the effects of older people in advertising. Both research streams have not been combined by, for instance, using both methods in a single study in which current portrayals of older people in advertising are captured and categorized through content analysis and their effects tested experimentally. Such an approach would be helpful in providing more realistic research findings and generalizable evidence on the effects of the current portrayals of older people in advertising.

The findings of studies investigating the effects of older people in advertising are mixed, as described previously. Different mechanisms (mediators) and conditions (moderators) can help to explain the variations in the findings. The three main mechanisms that act as mediators are similarity, credibility, and authenticity. Of these, the mechanism that dominates presumably depends on the consumer’s age. Similarity effects are most likely for consumers who feel similar to older endorsers—that is, those that have a similar age (Chevalier and Lichtlé 2012). Older people are considered more credible than younger people (Bristol 1996); therefore, from a relative age point of view, the credibility of older people should work better for younger consumers. Authenticity is a more general and holistic mechanism (Becker, Wiegand, and Reinartz 2019) that is related to both similarity and credibility: Authentic portrayals are considered credible, and older people can better relate to them, as they perceive a similarity between authentic older endorsers and themselves. An important question for future research is which of these three mechanisms leads to the strongest effects and is best able to outweigh the potentially negative effects of older people in advertising (e.g., due to reduced attractiveness). The effects of older celebrity endorsers can be integrated here as well. Age seems to play a lesser role for celebrities (Prieler et al. 2010; Yoon and Powell 2012), and celebrities benefit from credibility, while at the same time suffering less from lower attractiveness than average consumers. Furthermore, instead of chronological age, which most studies have tried to manipulate, studies on the effects of older people in advertising should consider the subjective/cognitive age (perceived age) of consumers as independent variables, as these age concepts are better effect predictors (Kuppelwieser and Klaus 2021).

Previous research has investigated mostly the age of consumers as moderators, dismissing the rich research stream that has already looked at the ad processing of older consumers, even if not in the context of advertisements with older people. Based on age-related differences in processing, elderly consumers prefer affective over rational ads and better remember them (Drolet, Williams, and Lau-Gesk 2007; Fung and Carstensen 2003; Williams and Drolet 2005); they also comprehend difficult ads less (Estrada, Moliner, and Sánchez-Garcia 2010), are more susceptible to misleading advertisements (Gaeth and Heath 1987), and show lower memory effects due to reduced cognitive speed (Johnson and Cobb-Walgren 1994; Stephens 1982). Using these insights can help to explain consumer age as a moderator and illustrate how elderly in advertising influence elderly consumers differently than younger consumers when, for instance, elderly endorsers are put in an emotional context (e.g., with family) compared to a rational context (e.g., at work).

The primary focus on age as moderator hides other important moderators, such as product fit, media context, or message characteristics. Whether and how any of these moderators increase or decrease the effects of older people in advertising depends on congruency (see Osgood and Tannenbaum 1955) between the portrayals on one hand and the products, messages, and consumer characteristics on the other (e.g., De Meulenaer et al. 2018; Orth and Holancova 2004). For instance, if older people in advertising are perceived as congruent with certain products, media contexts, or the values of consumers (e.g., young consumers who seek credible and expert advice), the effects are positive; the opposite is also true. From a practical point of view, the moderators that are exogenous and can be influenced by marketers or public policymakers, such as product fit, media fit, or advertising message characteristics, are most relevant.

Social Effects

There has been an exclusive focus in previous research on commercial advertising effects, ignoring social effects. Research on the effects of representation and stereotyping of older people in media suggests several mostly negative social effects, such as promoting negative images of aging or reduced self-concepts of older people, which can even affect their mental health (Donlon, Ashman, and Levy 2005; Haboush, Warren, and Benuto 2012; Tunaley, Walsh, and Nicolson 1999). The socialization effects of underrepresented and stereotyped elderly in media, leading to misperceptions and negative views about the elderly, are explained by both cultivation theory, with its focus on the long-term cultivation of views and values through media consumption (Gerbner et al. 1980), and social cognitive theory, with its emphasis on learning through observation, which also includes media consumption (Bandura 1994). The nonexistence of research on the social effects of older people in advertising indicates a need for more studies, not just for potential ethical reasons but also because social, non-brand-related effects and commercial, brand-related effects are interrelated (Åkestam 2017). On one hand, advertising that uses older people increases age salience and visibility, which can cultivate values and attitudes related to the treatment of older people in society (Gerbner et al. 1980). On the other hand, social effects such as negative feelings among older people that are caused by misrepresented older people in advertising (Tunaley, Walsh, and Nicolson 1999) can transfer onto the advertised brand. Future effect studies need to include both commercial and social advertising effect variables and investigate their relationship. While research on portrayals of older people in advertising focuses on negative social effects, positive social effects are also feasible (e.g., Åkestam 2017), such as the reduction of ageism in society and the increased self-esteem of older people due to more favorable age identities. The evidence of potentially negative social effects of representation and stereotyping of older people in advertising raises in turn the question of advertisers’ responsibility—that is, whether they should do anything to avoid negative social effects and, if so, what.

The Responsibility of Advertisers

Stereotyping as a method of social categorization is part of human information processing and is not necessarily negative, false, or misleading. Age stereotyping can lead to expectations that can provide a useful orientation in everyday life (e.g., that an older person can live a happy and healthy life). However, it can have negative effects on stereotyped people if the images being proliferated lead to oversimplification that restricts life opportunities and thus becomes a so-called stereotype threat (Davies et al. 2002). Content analysis studies show that although a high percentage of older people—between one-third and two-thirds of all ads—are shown as happy and content (Balazs 1995; Clarke, Bennett, and Liu 2014; Jiao and Chang 2020; Robinson 1998), up to 23% of ads with older people characterize them as sick, feeble, or confused (Ho and Smith 1992; Robinson 1998; Swayne and Greco 1987). Although older people are less healthy than younger ones, advertising can create negative stereotyping effects by overemphasizing certain characteristics of the elderly (e.g., unhealthy elderly in drug advertising). For instance, when media categorizes individuals in their sixties as feeble and weak, society might be inclined to deny these people access to important life activities (e.g., denying a driving license from a certain age on) or to identify them as people that belong at home and in the background. For example, Zhou and Chen (1992) find that older characters are almost twice as often shown at home—67% versus 40%—compared to younger characters. Older people might thus not be trusted to take over tasks or play major roles in daily activities. If such negative stereotyping effects occur, it raises the question of whether advertisers can be held accountable.

Several researchers propose that advertisers have a social responsibility based on ethical guidelines (i.e., “advertisers should not cause harm”) and thus need to become active in reducing ageism, or else they propose that regulations should be introduced (e.g., Carrigan and Szmigin 2000a, 2000b). The question of advertisers’ responsibility is addressed by the mirror versus mold debate. If advertisers only mirror the values that already exist in society (Holbrook 1987)—that is, if ageism and negative stereotyping is a societal problem—advertising is not to be held accountable. However, if advertising molds negative stereotypes—that is, creates, shapes, and reinforces age stereotypes and ageism (Pollay 1986, 1987)—advertisers hold some general ethical responsibility. Even if many consumers might be able to identify and evaluate stereotypes competently, the influence of stereotypes can be subtle and lead to an unconscious bias. Furthermore, vulnerable consumer groups such as children are less likely to identify and evaluate stereotypes in advertising and thus need to be protected.

Research that uses longitudinal data is needed to provide empirical evidence for the role of advertising in age stereotyping and determine whether advertising causes negative age stereotypes in society or whether society’s age-related values lead advertisers to depict these values. The data can inform discussions about the implications for advertisers and help answer important questions. For instance, if advertisers simply mirror societal values, can we expect them to promote realistic portrayals of older people that might be desirable for a more just society but jeopardize sales among consumers who prefer to see younger endorsers? If advertisers indeed mold negative stereotypes, can they be held accountable? How can their activities be monitored and regulated? The question of responsibility is complex and needs to balance the various goals of society on one hand and the goals of businesses and the interests of different stakeholder groups on the other.

Whether and how advertisers are held accountable for social effects also depends on the economic freedom in a country. More capitalist economies, such as the United States, are less likely to introduce governmental regulations that restrict the economic freedom of companies (Gwartney et al. 2020). For instance, restrictions on advertising quantity are less common in the United States compared to the European Union, with current European Union directives limiting the advertising quantity of broadcast television stations to 12 minutes per hour (e.g., Zhang 2018). Similar differences in restrictions apply to stereotypical depictions in advertising with the aim of reducing negative social effects. For instance, the Advertising Standards Authority of the United Kingdom banned two TV commercials under new rules introduced in June 2019 to combat gender stereotyping in advertising (Andrews 2019; Ellson 2019). In 2008, European Parliament suggested a resolution that demands less stereotyping in advertising. France and Israel have begun to adopt legislation requiring a minimum body mass index for fashion models, targeting also the digital altering of models’ physical characteristics by requiring labels that indicate such changes (Danthinne, Giorgianni, and Rodgers 2020) to avoid the negative effects of idealized body images in the media and advertising.

Implications for Practice

Understanding the advertising effects of older people provides important information to advertising and marketing managers. Because of the potential negative social effects of ageism and age stereotyping, it is important to consider ways to optimize commercial advertising effects while avoiding negative social effects. While prior research gives some indications about age-appropriate portrayals, further empirical evidence is required. As described, advertisers are encouraged to consider social effects not only for ethical reasons but also because social and commercial advertising effects are interrelated. Research on older people in advertising further provides implications for policymakers and regulators, given that stereotyping in advertising has emerged as an important public policy issue. Age stereotyping and low representation of older people is a persistent issue in advertising and requires a more evidence-based political debate about appropriate regulations. Advertising regulations often result from a complex political process and pressure from interest groups, and their outcomes are not necessarily strongly supported by empirical evidence and academic research (Ringold 2016).

Conclusion

This article sheds light on a neglected but important topic in advertising research: older people in advertising. Based on a review of research about the representation, portrayal, and effects of older people in advertising, the article identifies several gaps in the literature and proposes an integrative model and agenda for future research. The agenda suggests a better definition and operationalization of age and older people and shows how their representation and portrayal must be evaluated against appropriate baseline figures. It recommends standardized categorizations of age stereotyping variables to assess and explain the degree of stereotyping of older people in advertising. The agenda proposes the concept of age salience to explain positive perceptions and evaluations of portrayals of older people, despite weak representation and stereotyping. The agenda further introduces mediators and congruency-based moderators to investigate the commercial effects and recommends more research on social effects of older people in advertising. Finally, the discussion about advertisers’ potential responsibilities requires further empirical evidence on whether advertisers mirror or mold ageism and negative stereotypes. It is hoped that the directions provided by the research agenda will contribute to a more evidence-based political response.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Martin Eisend

Martin Eisend (PhD, Free University Berlin) is a professor of marketing, European University Viadrina.

Notes

1 The following keyword combinations were used: “endorser” and “age” and “advertis*”; “older” and “people” and “advertis*”; “older” and “endorser” and “advertis*”; “elderly” and “advertis*,” all combined with “content analysis.”