Posted on 01/29/2006 10:05:40 AM PST by prman
In the never-ending quest to sell more product, corporate advertising Solons scrutinize mountains of demographic data to slice and dice market segments into assorted variables – measurable characteristics like age, income, gender, location and other factors that help to pinpoint likely future customers.
There's nothing particularly wrong with this, and in fact, it usually makes a lot of sense. That's why tires, transmission and Super Bowl tickets are advertised in the sports sections of newspapers – preponderantly read by men. White sales, ads for drapes and rug clearances are generally in the women's pages.
Starting in the late 1960s, when Hispanic populations increased geometrically in southern Florida and in Southern states, marketers began to target this distinct segment according to perceived racial and cultural characteristics: Spanish language, dress styles, Hispanic models, and so on. Similarly, unique advertising messages had already been established in venues that catered to blacks.
Today, major corporations and the ad industry are extending this effort to discern target markets according to sexual identity – the so-called "gay advertising" market. To hear advocacy groups talk about it, gay market segments have "growth potential," for which lists can be provided with pertinent data to deliver "thousands of qualified responses."
Profiles and habits of gay and lesbian consumers have been pored over for two decades, and businesses that court them are eager to use events, publications and campaigns to tap their spending urges. The striking difference is that this market defines itself by its lifestyle and sexual proclivities.
I would think that this would be a risky market for companies to target. Other than the fact that gays and lesbians would define themselves by reading gay-focused publications, join gay-oriented groups, and attend gay-themed events, the aggregate profile would be similar to any other economically upscale male or female demographic.
Unless a company offers a product or service that is unique to gays or lesbians, like golf equipment is to golfers, then this self-defined market is no different than, say, that segment of left-handed cellists, who I'm sure have their own preferences.
The great danger for companies that try to curry favor with the gay and lesbian market as an extension of their marketing outreach is that it is likely to cause a backlash among those who do not want to advance the "gay agenda."
Ford Motor Co. recently fell into this trap and found itself on the horns of a dilemma. In a case study of human resources multicultural pandering run amok, Ford (like other corporations) bragged about its forward-looking, gay diversity marketing and ran smack into a threatened boycott from the American Family Association. Ford then waffled and announced it would suspend its gay advertising, but after subsequent haranguing from gay advocacy group representatives, it reversed its position and said it would in fact expand it.
Ford and other corporations have thus clumsily interposed themselves into the raging culture wars surrounding traditional moral and religious values versus the gay agenda to normalize homosexuality, extending to gay marriage and other radical lifestyles.
It is unfortunate that companies feel compelled to take sides on such divisive issues, boasting how their corporate policies are gay-friendly, instead of simply flying below the radar screen. Are their not enough publications and other ad venues that reach a broad market – including gays – instead of selecting those that are politically charged and exist simply to advance an agenda? It is one thing to advertise in Time magazine; quite another to appear in the aptly titled The Advocate.
To advertise and financially support gay publications, organizations and events would indicate that a company essentially has adopted an amoral position on the issue – claiming only an extension of its "marketing to everyone" philosophy. However self-serving or crass this may appear, others may see it as a corporate endorsement to advance the gay lifestyle and agenda.
This will undoubtedly cause strong resentment and disgust among traditionalists, as Disney learned 15 years ago by sponsoring "Gay Day" in Orlando, a raunchfest that annually tarnishes Disney World's formerly wholesome family image.
Companies such as Ford, IBM and Pepsico apparently see only the upside in coddling the gay market, and have discounted the downside. If supporting GLAAD, gay pride parades, Gay.com and PlanetOut.com is OK, why not NAMBLA — the self-described "world of pleasure?"
The culture wars continue to heat up and many people are finding discomfort with such "anything goes" attitudes. And a small, tremulous voice keeps insisting that companies are going do this at their own peril.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@NewsMax.com.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The mini-van is an easy example - Sales almost disappeared when it became viewed as "a housewife-mom's taxicab". Women who drove one suddenly felt old and trapped. They all moved to SUV's insstead.
Another example is Buick - I tried to buy my 70ish mom a Buick, but she rejected it as "an old peoples' car" - and she bought a Toyota Avalon intead. Now the Avalon is a copy of a Buick, but it doesn't carry the negative perception.
So - If a product becomes associated with the gay market - perhaps 6% of the population at best - can Ford's products survive on being a target vehicle for only 6% of the population? Remember, there's no promise that gay's will buy the product being advertised to them, but a really good prospect that others won't as they don't want people thinking that they're gay.
Final Example - How many pink sweaters do you own, guys?
I think that number is overstated.
There's a fellow around here who drives a green "asspor". He owns a BMW Passport and, for some bizzarre reason, decided one day to remove the painted name from the rear of the car. As a linear thinker, he started with the "P" but found it was a lot harder to remove the lettering without removing the paint underneath than he thought. After finally removing the "P", he decided it was too much work. But then he decided he'd never live it down if he drove around in an "assport" so he removed the "T" and now drives and "asspor". I asked him why he didn't just remove the "A" and drive around in a "ssport". He said he thought the "T" would take less time.
Seems like there should be a psychologist willing to speak with him.
On another note to manufacturers: Just build a good product THAT PEOPLE MIGHT WANT, SFU and stay out of social engineering, thank you very much!
Sheesh, I really wonder about this pervert bandwagon that some manufacturers just HAVE to rah rah about.
FYI.
Yes, it is, but instead of living in a fantasy world, what's the real-world approach, where a large corporation can be attacked merely for NOT taking sides, since the debate has already been reframed such that non-action is considered "insensitive"...? Barn door is already open--the horse is gone while conservatives are still pondering whether to tie it up or not.
NewsMax really needs to hire some editors!
How many people buy Motorola phones, despite their huge Motopride initiative, and their mandatory homophobia workshops starting in 1994?
How many still buy Kodak cameras, despite firing a longtime employee who didn't want to receive homosexual-pride oriented messages through the corporate e-mail system?
Do we really think that consumers are that turned off by the pro-homosexual pandering? Again, it's a decision that they have to make, but any path has costs to their business. See this old article from the NYT for more info about gay advertising/marketing. I think that many they are taking subtle approaches, but places like http://www.commercialcloset.org are making it be fed more and more into the "mainstream"...
Isn't Ford laying off 59,000 workers because of a slump in sales?? Hmmmmmm
I wonder who Dr. Pepper was going after with the "Stacey's Mom" ads. I don't even want to think about who Burger King is going after with the King ads.
Most people aren't aware of Kodak's corporate policies, but few people buy Kodak cameras because they suck.
The other problem that advertisers have is to put out a homosexual based ad for their product will create a stigma that will destroy their public image.
IE the revised ford thunderbird was PERCIEVED as being a "gay" vehicle and thus straight men stayed away. For every one homosexual, (2-3% of the population) they will loose the other 98%.
No matter what any looney leftist says, it has been proven time and time again that people do NOT consider homosexuality an acceptable behavior choice. (and most inteligent thinking people do not buy the BS of "born gay".)
It's 30,000 ("59,000?") but if you're implying that sales are off because of Ford's ads in gay magazines, then how can you explain Toyota's growth, since they advertise in the same magazines?
It was just a thought.
Yes Kodak spent too much time and MONEY considering corporate policies which approved and promoted homosexual sex of their employees recreational behavior instead of focusing on making a product that was marketable.
Sad when you think of what they once were.
I bought a new vehicle last week (Dodge Durango), I avoided Ford because of their left leaning world view.
Fuji overtook them in film and photo paper quality in the late eighties/early nineties. With the switch to digital, printer manufacturers started taking a lot of business away from them. Unfortunately, most American businesses have bought into the social engineering concept. They view their diversity initiatives as being their primary business, and their product as a sideline.
Canon has taken over as the leader in professional digital photography, with Nikon a close second.
You're on to something here. The web sites of myriad corporations -- such as Ford -- are filled with blather about their "enlightened" employee policies and corporate positions on the environment, etc. These are generally the result of too much time on the hands of human resources employees (formerly the Personnel Dept.)who as a rule buy into any new fad that comes down the pike, persudae senior management that it is a good thing, and then proceed to drive it into the ground. This is "make work" for them, and defines their duties at the company. In many cases, such as in the Total Quality Management fad in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it even resulted in staffing up on new hires to manage the programs. When people realized after many years that it was a Total Waste of Money, these people were gone with the wind. Now we have "diversity managers." What a crock!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.