Since I mentioned this before, it’s only fair that I follow up with this:
Ford to Advertise in Gay Press (Washington Post)
Ford Motor Co. yesterday said it will resume advertising Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in gay-themed publications, following an outpouring of fury from gay groups that said Ford’s recent decision to pull the ads fed anti-gay sentiment and emboldened enemies of gay rights.
“I think we’re back in gear with Ford,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce. “They responded to each of the concerns we raised in a positive way. It’s a great outcome.”
In a letter addressed to the groups, Ford said not only will it resume buying corporate ads featuring Land Rover and Jaguar, it will begin advertising Ford’s other brands in gay-themed publications as well. In the past, Ford had not purchased advertisements for the Ford, Mercury and Lincoln brands in gay-oriented publications.
That’s utterly astounding. Someone must have added up some figures differently.
I’ve always been offended that advertisers keep treating the gay community as spenders with lots of disposable income and not much brains. If they start advertising their sensible products, and not just the luxury status symbols, that’s a real about face.
*snort* Definitely! In my lifetime, I’ve known far more queer folk who have been POS Escort drivers than I’ve known who have driven Jaguars or Land Rovers.
That’s funny, because I was thinking the exact opposite. All of my gay friends seem to drive luxury vehicles, while all of my friends with families drive POS Escorts.
Ha, I just got rid of my POS Escort for an import economy car.
Just having an ad in a gay-themes publication isn’t going to sell me, perhaps in part because I have yet to buy a gay-themed publication.
The marketing decision on this is that gay couples are not likely to have children in their family, thus will have the income for luxury status items. Truthfully, its a wise marketing decision, and they really don’t seem to treat them any different than the public at large.. just a focussed demographic.
Then it’s a dubious decision. The majority of gay people are not in couples, do not have double incomes, or high incomes, and their financial situation is often more comparable to that of the single woman than that of a childless yuppie couple.
When has anything in marketing *not* been dubious? I think its the nature of the beast.
It seemed like for a while that Bud Lite was being advertised heavily towards Gays. There is even Bud Lite Gay Pride Flag neon signs in the windows of some bars I have passed. What do you make of that? Does this mean Budweiser thinks Gays like watery over-priced beers? Or is this an appeal to vanity and fear of a beer belly? Just curious.
That’s just commercialism, like any kind of advertising. Since I don’t patronize bars, I wasn’t aware of it at all. I agree with your opinion of Budweiser as a product, but that’s a separate issue from my complaints against Ford.
It’s always an interesting conundrum… and a catch-22. When a product is marketed for minorities with an “angle” in mind for them, it could be called exploitation. But if a product is not advertised and marketed to them with a hook meant for them, then it can be seen as prejudice. But oh well… I won’t loose any sleep over Madison Avenue types being in a moral bind. 🙂
I’d rather see the same marketing in Ebony and The Advocate as in The Washington Post, frankly. That represents a recognition that overall, the same variations of economic class and social interest are spread through the readers of each publication. And truthfully, I believe they are.
For the sake of discussion… Would the Ebony ad feature a white family in a Ford Explorer? Of course not. So I suspect the Explorer ad in the Advocate would be tailored too – perhaps two smiling outdoorsy young men going camping. This would be my conjecture. The sucessful ad not only tells a little story, it brings the viewer in to the story, too, through identification. I suspect you mean the same basic ad, but would allow for the details to change?
In truth, if I bother to look at a car ad I’m looking at the car. So maybe I’m not a good guinea pig? Most of the car ads I see either have no people in them at all, or the people are so reduced or obscured as to be irrelevant.
My perceptions of advertising are probably quite invalid anyway. I agree to that.
It had thrown me that Ford would withdraw advertising their luxury brands in gay magazines, since nationally I would think more gay people drive Land Rovers and Jaguars than families. As a whole, gay people have fewer children to support, and are more likely to be financially secure before having children. Whereas most heterosexual couples seem to have children by accident, well before they’re financially capable of supporting the children.
Regardless of what caused Ford to reverse their stance, it makes me very proud to be driving one of their vehicles right now.
It makes me feel better about taking my non-Ford vehicle to the Ford dealer for mechanical work, as I’ve been doing because they have the most reliable mechanic in town.
But I disagree with the notion that gays drive more luxury or status symbol cars than straights do. Most gay men do not have large incomes and are not in dual income pairings. The most visible ones who are often selected as representatives for their image and appearance may fit that particular stereotype, but on the whole, just no. Gay men, and especially young (under 40 or so) gay men who are not in couples often have serious financial struggles and are in situations more like those of single women.
I agree that MOST gay men do not have large incomes, most straight men do not have large incomes either. Nonetheless, studies have shown that gay men make, on average, slightly more than their straight counterparts (In part due to higher 4-year college graduation rates)… Meaning that both gay and straight single people are about equally likely to buy a luxury car. HOWEVER, when you put these people into couples, something like 80% of straight couples have children, while only 25% of gay couples do (according to the 2000 census). Leaving a higher percentage of dual-income gay couples with increased expendable income.
Gay men, regardless of their age, are just as likely to have serious financial struggles as their heterosexual counterparts… The only difference being that gay men are significantly less likely to be making child-support payments on top of everything else.
And comparing the financial status of a single woman to a single gay man makes sense on absolutely no level. Single women make 24% less (2004 figures) than men. 30% of single women have children (2000 census). And only 26% of women have a 4-year degree or more, while 37% of gays do (average of men and women, couldn’t find men only).
Look, I’m in my upper 20’s, my friends are all in their 20’s or 30’s, and we’re all successful urbanites. Is my viewpoint skewed? Of course. But the numbers back me up. You can, of course, feel free to attack the numbers, since every census is flawed, but I hope you can at least see the intent.
Actually, the myth of “gay affluence” is just that, a myth. There have been numerous studies which disprove that idea. Here are some conclusions from the studies:
* heterosexual-couple households and male same-sex-couple households have roughly equal household incomes.
* female same-sex couples bring home 18 to 20 percent less income. The economic picture for female same-sex households becomes more grim considering that at least 22 percent of lesbian couples living together have children.
* Gay men who work full-time earned as much as 27 percent less than heterosexual men in terms of race, education, location, occupation, and experience.
* Lesbians and heterosexual women have little income difference; however women as a category persistently make significantly less than their male counterparts.
* Gay, lesbian and bisexual people are found throughout the spectrum of income distribution: some are poor, a few are rich, and most are somewhere in the middle, as are most heterosexual people.
While affluence is a nice stereotype that we like to sell to ourselves, it can also have a nasty backlash, as when Justice Antonin Scalia cited the myth in his opinion in Romer vs. Evans that “high disposable income” gives gay people “disproportionate political power”. Likewise, it feeds the continuing antipathy of “special rights” crowd.
I realize that I’m not directly refuting what you’ve said above, nor am I intending to – I’m just trying to present a fuller picture. Looking at the numbers I have here, I’m a little puzzled where the extra wealth for male same-sex couple with no kids is represented in the studies, but I wonder if perhaps it’s because there are fewer long-term relationships among gay men? That’s pure speculation, though.
Nor would I say that you refuted anything I said, if anything, you backed it.
Interesting…
I am of two minds. On one hand, it is nice to see a large company [apparently] come to it’s senses in terms of marketing to everyone. On the other… US car makers in general have not produced anything worth the inflated price tag for years when compared to their Asian counterparts (my opinion).
I’ll be intrested to see if they run targeted ads or ads that are generic and simply exist to create name saturation. In any case, I am not expecting miracles from an American car company in the near future.
Actually I don’t care if they advertise at all in The Advocate or whatever. But since they were already advertising their, it was their poorly-based decision to withdraw in response to threats from right wingers that angered me.
What I saw: following an outpouring of furry from gay groups
LOL!