Ford pulls LR/Jag GLBT support due to American Family threat

[Not Afraid]

Ford, the parent company of Jaguar and Land Rover, has caved in to threats of a boycott by American Family and has order Jag and LR to pull all advertising aimed at their sizable GLBT audience.

Today, Ford, the world's second largest auto maker, forced subsidiaries Jaguar and Land Rover) to pull all support for gay/lesbian publications after being threatened by the American Family Association. Intitially Ford fought American Family saying that they do not discriminate. Today, however, they have given in to boycott threats and forced Jag and LR to give up their support of the GLBT community which has been incredibly succesful for the 2 subsidiaries. While American Family supporters may be driving Ford products, they are more along the lines of the Ford F150 trucks and not the higher-end Jags and LR.

If you have a moment to let your voice be heard on this issues, please send a note to:

Jaguar Cars, Attn: Customer Relationship Center
555 MacArthur Boulevard
Mahwah, NJ 07430-2327

Or go to Jaguarusa.com or LandRoverusa.com and choose Contact Us to send an email.

:mad:

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't know if it can be attributed to that. Among evidence to the contrary, they are NOT pulling Volvo (also a FMC subsidiary) ads from these publications. Land Rover and Jaguar have been hemoraging money for the company for a while now, and they've restructured their advertising focus across the board (not just these handful of publications) for those two brands. The fact that they are keeping Volvo in the magazines indicates to me that this was a result of that rather than any pressure from the boycotts.

[Not Afraid]

That's nice. That's Ford's line and you bit. However, that's not the real reason, but, I admit, it sounds good on paper.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't see the logic in them keeping the Volvo ads in if they are trying to appease the boycotters. It accomplishes nothing.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, I don't get it, N.A. The Volvo ads make boycott foldure an unhappening.


Why don't we ask our resident Jag insider what the real scoop is?

[Not Afraid]

Hmmmm. I wonder if he knows.............(think about it folks).

[Gemini Cricket]

I spent a good chunk of yesterday and today writing Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover etc. I think Ford caved. It reeks of the Microsoft caving that was reversed a couple of weeks after their initial announcement.

Not only this, but the executives at Ford who negotiated the deal with the AFA are former senior Bush advisors. They are Ziad Ojakli and David Leitch. And we know how pro-gay the Bush Administration is...

Info on Ojakli -
Prior to joining the White House staff, Ojakli served as the Senate liaison for the Bush-Cheney Transition Team and as Congressional liaison for Victory 2000 at the Republican National Committee....

From 1995 to 1998, Ojakli served as chief of staff to Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) and was Souder's key political and policy advisor. Prior to that, he was a legislative assistant to Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN), specializing in budget, tax, trade, energy and environmental issues.

Info on Leitch-
Leitch was deputy general counsel to George Bush at the White House, and now is the general counsel at Ford.

The descriptions are on the Ford website and on a Ford press release.

-----------------

Here's some Jaguar contact info:
[Deleted by poster request]

[Gemini Cricket]

I don't see the logic in them keeping the Volvo ads in if they are trying to appease the boycotters. It accomplishes nothing.
It could very well be a deal. They pull Jag and LR but not Volvo. I could see Ford making a deal this way to make it sound like they're not completely caving in.

[Gemini Cricket]

The Volvo ads make boycott foldure an unhappening.
It could be Ford trying to appease both sides. I remember hearing how Volvos sell very well with the gay community. I know a husband and husband who have 3 of them.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, I had not seen until now the reports of this confidential agreement with AFA (although if it's confidential, how do they know it exists? I'm not being facetious...is it speculation, or has there been a leak?). Very disappointing if it's true. Still leaves me baffled as to why Volvo remains in the publications. Doesn't seem like the kind of compromise that would make AFA happy at all.

[Prudence]

Not a huge surprise -- various groups are throwing their weight around at the moment. According to this morning's paper, Focus on the Family is making a big stink about dropping Wells Fargo and shopping for a new (presumeably gay un-friendly) bank.

[wendybeth]

I think it's AFA that's going after American Girl as well, because they support Girls Club, Inc, which we all know turns girls into abortion loving Lesbians. I made a point of buying more stuff this year- just got a shipment of several hundred dollars worth of stuff today, and we've been buying their prods for b-day presents, etc. If any of Tori's friends parents are stupid enough to follow the boycott, let them tell their kid why they can't have the stuff.:rolleyes:

[€uroMeinke]

Volvos have long been the car of choice of hippie liberals and queers - no real straight American would buy one - Jags and Land Rovers, well those are prestige cars, you don't want people who see you driving them to think your gay do you?

[Kevy Baby]

What about the segment with what I suspect is probably the largest chunk of their advertising budget: Ford itself. It would not appear that Ford ads are being pulled. Lends me to believe GD's assessment more than the conspiracy theory.

[Not Afraid]

Here's some thoughts/disconnects I have after thinking about this a bit further and hearing/gathering other information (NPR link is coming).


Ford claims that they are pulling ads in gay publications because these ads are not successful.
The GLABT market has historically been VERY successful for both Jag and LR.
AF agrees to hold off on the boycott for 6 months
Ford pulls ads without consulting Jag or LR marketing
Ford claims AF had no impact on the marketing decision
Ford has no plans to introduct new marketing tact to this profitable marketMy initial information came from the inside and further information was received from an aditional inside source. Who knows, maybe they're both wrong.

[wendybeth]

Volvos have long been the car of choice of hippie liberals and queers - no real straight American would buy one - Jags and Land Rovers, well those are prestige cars, you don't want people who see you driving them to think your gay do you?

Hey! We have a Volvo! Well, technically it's the MIL's.

[Kevy Baby]

Hey! We have a Volvo! Well, technically it's the MIL's.Yeah, but you're breeders. You don't count.

[Not Afraid]

I was once a Volvo driver as well. And, damnit, I will be one again someday. I miss my Volvo.

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's something I heard from a reliable source:

Ford is continuing its advertising of Volvo in gay publications, but the ads will no longer be gay specific like they used to be. Now their ads are generic.

AND

Ford has agreed not to sponsor any future gay and lesbian events but will continue to maintain its employee policies, such as same-sex partner benefits.

Ford caved big time.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ugh, pathetic.

[innerSpaceman]

It could be Ford trying to appease both sides. I remember hearing how Volvos sell very well with the gay community. I know a husband and husband who have 3 of them.
Yes, this is exactly what I have heard. Volvo's have been selling well among gays, while Jags and LandRovers haven't.

You want to tell me again why Ford pulled it's gay-mag ads for Jag and L.R., but not for Volvo? Is it possible it could have been (gasp!) a business decision?


Last week I told the sun to rise at precisely 6:12 a.m., and when it did ... heheh, sly devil that I am ... I claimed credit.

[Gemini Cricket]

YYou want to tell me again why Ford pulled it's gay-mag ads for Jag and L.R., but not for Volvo? Is it possible it could have been (gasp!) a business decision?
Nope.
A deal was struck with the AFA. In order to make it look like they hadn't totally given in to the AFA's request, they told them they were going to keep Volvo advertising as is. The AFA decided that the current deal is as good as it's going to get for them so they agreed with Ford's decision.
Is it hard to believe that a deal was made? It isn't always about all or nothing. The way it stands now is pretty bad. The AFA decides what's best for Ford? That's scary.

[BarTopDancer]

So... How about a boycot of Volvo by the gay community?

[Gn2Dlnd]

So... How about a boycot of Volvo by the gay community?

Umm... How about a boycott of Ford by all people who oppose discrimination?

Ford is, of course, entitled to advertise to whom, and in what ways, they see fit. The very fact that Ford met with Dobson at all is astonishing and offensive to me.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

At least it's easy to boycott a car company, especially an American one.

[innerSpaceman]

Where is the leaked memo of this purported deal? I will not accept from members of this board (and will rarely even accept from journalists) the claim that there's an unnamed insider source whose identity must be shielded.

I drive a Ford Explorer, and I've got my own reasons for never again buying a Ford vehicle. In any event, I consider an organized boycott to be an absurd endeavor ... whether it's urged by American Family or by gay Americans.

Ford is continuing its advertising of Volvo in gay publications, but the ads will no longer be gay specific like they used to be. Now their ads are generic.
What in the world does this mean? Gay-specific car ads? (zapppop's gayday shirt slogan "Pumped and Injected" comes to mind, but nothing else.)

I confess I've never seen a car ad in a gay-magazine. I'm one of those traitorous homosexuals who has the gaul to read the same magazines, watch the same tv, and post on the same message boards as other Americans do - with no regard to coloring every aspect of my life with gay, just because I like to have sex with men.

Frankly, I find it insulting that there ever were gay-specific car ads, and I am relieved if anything of the sort is being discontinued.

[Snowflake]

Well, I find that offensive that Ford is trying to backpeddle and claim they are not discriminating. It's well known, at least I think it is, they advertise to ethnic groups, etc. and that they would announce this kind of thing will only backfire on them, I trust.

Of course, this will not force my boss (who is gay) to trade in his Harley edition Ford F150.

[innerSpaceman]

The title of this thread (and the general sentiment in keeping with it) disturbs me. How is it SUPPORT of the GLBT community to advertise to them? Perhaps we should concentrate on Ford's purported (and not yet demonstrated) elimination of GLBT event sponsorship. That kind of thing is support. Having policies in place to serve the relationships of its GLBT employees is support.


Trying to get you to buy a car is not support.

[Gemini Cricket]

I confess I've never seen a car ad in a gay-magazine.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/volvo-ad.gif

Now you have.

Because one reads the magazines and pubs 'everyone else' reads does not mean they can not also read gay pubs. By reading/buying gay publications you give money to a company that without a doubt supports gay people. By supporting companies that are wishy-washy on gay rights guarantees nothing. The idea that the money I spend could be used (campaign donations, support of anti-gay churches etc) to strip me of the rights I have or am fighting for is reprehensible. I'd rather support a company when I know where they stand.

I, for one, like gay specific ads. If they're in a gay pub, why not be? I like to see that a company acknowledges me and who I am. It doesn't guarantee I'll buy a Volvo, but at least I know they are gay friendly in case it comes up. And, if I could ever afford a Volvo one day, I'd definitely consider them. But now with this whole Ford mess, I'm not sure.

Trying to get you to buy a car is not support.
Acknowledgement of your existence is supportive.

How is it SUPPORT of the GLBT community to advertise to them?
Support comes in advertising money from Ford to a gay publication to stay in business reporting on everything from gay rights to gay parenting... If these publications did not exist, how does information spread?

[Gemini Cricket]

Asked about the initial report that Ford would be curtailing advertising with the gay press, Moran told Metro Weekly on Dec. 1 that Land Rover and Jaguar would not be advertising in gay publications in 2006, while Volvo would continue its advertising in such venues as Advocate, Genre and Out because the brand believes ''it's an effective way to market their vehicles.''

When asked if the advertising was being discontinued because of the threatened AFA boycott, Moran said, ''Ceasing advertising is an outgrowth of those meetings.''
The emphasis is mine. Source (http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1875)

[Gn2Dlnd]

Everything GC said.

[Gn2Dlnd]

The very fact that Ford met with Dobson at all is astonishing and offensive to me.

Oops, I meant the other nutball, Donald Wildmon. Thanks GC.

No offense to Dr. Dobson.

Hard to keep my homophobes straight, you should pardon the expression.

[innerSpaceman]

Also from the story G.C. linked to:


However, in later statements to other media outlets, Moran and other spokespersons have maintained that there is no agreement between AFA and Ford to end advertising in the gay and lesbian press, or to end support for gay and lesbian organizations, as part of a deal to end the boycott threat. Instead, in statements to the Associated Press and other outlets, Moran and others maintain that the decision was made for business reasons. Like other domestic automakers, Ford currently faces dispiriting sales numbers that, they say, require revisiting their marketing and advertising budgets.

Moran did not return calls seeking clarification of his statement by Metro Weekly press time. AFA did not respond to repeated requests by Metro Weekly for comment.

I find Moran's initial quote (as referenced in G.C.'s post above) extremely disturbing, and have some suspicions about later backpeddling. Still, if I were to issue two conflicting statements, I would hope that undue reliance would not be given to the one which I uttered first - simply because I uttered it first.


I completely understand that advertising dollars going to gay publications is support of those publications, which in turn support the gay community. But I contend that advertising is not done for support, and that any such support is merely a byproduct. And since car sales are generally sucking, I really cannot put too much stock into advertising being pulled - no matter how suspicious the circumstances. It is no great loss to the GLBT community to lose hucksterism directed towards it. There are far better acknowledgments of our existence than being targeted for consumerism.


To each his own, but I find gay-specific advertising to be creepy, just as I would find jew-specific advertising to be creepy. Again, I contend that it's a far bigger issue if Ford was pressued to stop sponsoring gay events by threat of boycott; but what it does in terms of advertising is strictly its own business.

[Gn2Dlnd]

http://www.jewishglobe.com/Services/Advertise.asp
Ahuva Inc. can promote your Jewish Product or Service prominently and quickly at a fraction of the cost anywhere else.

"We speak English, Hebrew, & Espanol" (!)

[innerSpaceman]

I suppose if a menorah or bris services are being advertised, targeting jews with the ads is alright.

So bring on the dildo ads for us queers, but I don't need my gay appealed to for buying a car.






(unless there are new options available for being rear-ended)

[scaeagles]

To each his own, but I find gay-specific advertising to be creepy, just as I would find jew-specific advertising to be creepy.

Each industry most certainly targets "groups" by the way they advertise. I don't find it creepy. I might think it odd if there was some local auto retailer that had an ad with "We want all the Jew money out there, so bring in your Star of David and get an extra 10% off!".

Look at McDonald's commercials. They used to target kindergarteners. Now they have moved in a more hip-hop direction.

Walmart now has Destiny's Child in their commercials.

I have no problem with targeting specific segments of the population, just as I have no problem with changing advertizing strategies for whatever reason.

Let's say Ford did pull ads because of pressure from what ever group for whatever reason. If that's the case, they are looking ultimately at the bottom line - does a boycott by a certain group reflect a loss of revenue larger than what the current target group is giving them.

Any anger should not be directed at Ford. It should be directed at the group who supports the boycott. But really, that stuff happens ALL the time for whatever reason, and I don't pay much mind to it.

It's ALL about financial pressure, attempting to affect the bottom line. It's all about trying to make a profit. It's all about weighing what will have the most positive (or least negative) affect on that bottom line.

[Gemini Cricket]

Any anger should not be directed at Ford. It should be directed at the group who supports the boycott.
But how does one do that without being suddenly painted as a person who hates Christianity, religion etc.?
I agree, the anger should be directed there, but how?

[Not Afraid]

GC has made some really excellent points here. Fabulous articulation, man.


All marketing is done for a target audience. That's Marketing Principles 101. You would never have a commercial showing a young, hip 20-something guy driving a minivan. What would be the point. However, a Mom with a car full of kids would be advertising to the target audience of the mini van.

What I don't understand is why Ford pulled advertising for Jag and LR. Both lines are VERY successful in the BLAT market and advertising efforts have been successful. This type of move and the perception of the reason why this move would make will do nothing to help their efforts in the GLBT communities. Cutting advertising in successful markets is not a good business move. Increasing marketing in potential markets woujld be a good business move and make a lot more sense. It doesn't make sense to me at all from a marketing perspective.

While I understand the need to question alligations, this one seems too obvious. Ford caved in to AFA and cut a deal. While maybe that seems like a good business decision for for Ford the time being, I think it is a poor choice of direction.

[Alex]

What is the source of the information that the Jag and Land Rover advertising in gay magazines had a large ROI?

Also, since they're all owned by one company you can't look at it at just the single line of business level. If the ads increase Jag/LR sales X% (which is possible, though I would guess it is more effective in model awareness than brand awareness) and decrease Ford sales X+Y% (because of a boycott, which I doubt) then it still makes sense as a business decision.

Ford didn't start running the ads for altruistic reasons and it is unlikely that they would stop for altruistic reasons.

I also don't consider run gay-friendly ads only in gay publications to be supporting gay causes. In gay people this is called being in the closet and more generally is called pandering (which is what targeted advertising is all about). Now, if Ford ran gay ads in Time magazine (and I would bet that more gay people read Time than The Advocate) then I might buy that the advertising is "supportive" of gay causes.

Now, while I would prefer that Ford altruisticly say "**** you" to the AFA (as Wells Fargo kind of did) I don't tend to expect altruism.

I'm not surprised if there was an agreement. I'm also not surprised if it turns out that Jag/LR decided to change their marketing and some executive saw the plans and say "hey, we can also use this to get AFA of our asses."

Regardless, I don't really care who they decide to advertise with or why. As soon as some agreement changes how they actually treat gay people at Ford then I'll be concerned.

[innerSpaceman]

But it stands to reason that, as scaeagles pointed out, Ford's own measure of financial success figured into whether to capitulate or not.

I understand that Jag and RedRoverComeOver may have been selling in the gay community (or the "BLAT" community - huh?), but selling as well as Volvo? Note that Ford decided to keep those ads, but to make them less gay-specific. Well, perhaps Ford discovered that gay-specific doesn't sell any better to gays than non-specific. No tread off its tires, then, to switch the nature of those ads. I suspect that if Jag and Rover gay ads were pulling in as many sales, Ford would have stuck with those as well.


It's funny to hear myself defending Ford. I would NEVER buy another one of their cars. But I think there's overreaction to this business decision.

[innerSpaceman]

What is the source of the information that the Jag and Land Rover advertising in gay magazines had a large ROI?
Well, the identity of this particular source must be protected, but allow me to assure that Not Afraid is indeed in contact with someone in a position to know such information.

Now, if Ford ran gay ads in Time magazine (and I would bet that more gay people read Time than The Advocate) then I might buy that the advertising is "supportive" of gay causes.
Hear, Hear!

Regardless, I don't really care who they decide to advertise with or why. As soon as some agreement changes how they actually treat gay people at Ford then I'll be concerned.
Yes, let's all save bunching our panties for something of genuine concern.




(though if I were not concerned, you might ask why every other post in this thread is mine. Answer: Boredom at work)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Here is what I don't understand. How does an ad showing two men offend someone. The bottom line is that, whether you approve or disaprove, gay people obviously exist and buy cars. What on earth could be wrong with marketing to this segment of the population. Is there any business out there that could conceivably want to limit their market?

While not agreeing, I could see them protesting the fact that a company offers benefits to partners of gay people or other gay-friendly business practices. But to say, we don't want you to try to sell more cars to gay people strikes me as completely illogical. That doesn't promote a lifestyle (using the bigots terms, not mine), all it promotes is making more money.

What the hell am I missing here???

[Not Afraid]

Yeah, what ISM said about my sourcing. Sprry I can't reveal more, but I wouldn't just leap on something if I didn't smell something - and the inside info is good and knowledgable.

Ford planned this very carefully and I suspect they made a very beneficial agreement with AFA.

I actually don't care about Ford's marketing decisions. I do care about the reasons they make them when they involve such hateful groups such as AFA. It's a fine line for me but it has the potential to turn my stomach. And, when I hear information like this from people in the intimate circle of knowledgs, I tend to believe it over the spin.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yes, let's all save bunching our panties for something of genuine concern.
Understand that it is of genuine concern to some.

[Alex]

It is ok that you can't share your source, though I will do what I do with all anonymous sourcing and disregard it as self-interested. But like I said, it doesn't really matter to me if it is true that Jag/LR ads in the gay community has a huge ROI since it would apparently be the case (if a deal was made with AFA) that they were convinced that the positive revenue was outweighed by other revenue losses. While I would applaud them telling AFA to shove it, I don't expect it.

I did like the soundbite on NPR from some gay organization leader that essentially said "when AFA announced their boycott of Ford we ridiculed it as silly and ineffective. So it would be awfully stupid for us to now call for a retaliatory boycott."



What gay events that Ford has previously sponsored has Ford ceased sponsoring with this announcement?

[Not Afraid]

You know, in this case, the self interest thing doesn't make sense. But, you either have to believe me on this or not. I can't go into it further - and Ford knows that their employees and contractors can only say so much.

[innerSpaceman]

Since it's obvious that a retaliatory boycott would be not only ineffective, but hypocritical ... what else is rationally being suggested to express one's displeasure at this turn of events?

And I could be persuaded to express such displeasure ... if I had any. And that would depend on me getting some information as to cancelled Ford sponsorships of gay events. As of now, however, I've half a mind to thank Ford for ceasing to pander to me as a gay man.



(btw - thanks, Alex; "pander" was exactly the word I was unsuccessfully reaching for.)



And I don't mean to dis anyone who is concerned abou the advertising switch. I may not get it, but anyone has a right to be concerned with whatever concerns them. I just think there's way bigger fish.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

That doesn't promote a lifestyle (using the bigots terms, not mine), all it promotes is making more money.

What the hell am I missing here???You're missing the fact that including a shot of two well-dressed men together (ie; definitely not going fishing or hunting) shows acceptance and tolerance of the gay lifestyle. The opponents want a world where gays are not accepted at all, which means we need to pretend they do NOT exist. There are plenty of other groups that have had inclusion problems in advertising.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Since it's obvious that a retaliatory boycott would be not only ineffective, but hypocritical ... what else is rationally being suggested to express one's displeasure at this turn of events?


I started my day yesterday, after reading about Ford's decision on HuffingtonPost.com, by looking up Ford's and the AFA's website, reading what I could there, and then putting in a complaining phone call to Ford. Mind you, they don't make it easy to talk to a live human being, so you have to be patient to get through their ridiculous phone system, but someone eventually took my name and info and did a fairly good job of documenting what I had to say.

I don't drive a Ford and wasn't planning on getting one. I will, however, encourage anyone I know in the market for a new vehicle to shop elsewhere. An organized boycott would only be hypocritical if "some gay organization leader" heard on NPR participated. I don't recall being asked my opinion on retaliatory boycotts by any gay organization.

Why would a boycott of an organization that caves in to prejudice and homophobia be wrong? Why would a boycott of an organization that gives the time of day to these loonies be wrong? I do think a boycott of an organization that offers recognition and equal service to all of its loyal customers to be potentially "silly and ineffective."

I definitely think these are the sorts of slights that should be addressed forcefully and without debate as to whether the issue is big enough. Do you think these people will stop? If they've got a foot in the door, they'll be going after hiring practices and employee benefits next. Speak up now, before the tide is irreversible.

[innerSpaceman]

Why would a boycott of an organization that caves in to prejudice and homophobia be wrong? Why would a boycott of an organization that gives the time of day to these loonies be wrong?
A personal boycott for homophobia would be no more or less wrong than one for gay pandering would be for those who don't want gay people to exist. They have every right to refuse to buy Ford cars for whatever reason suits them, as does anyone. Crackpot, hateful or otherwise, everyone has a right to their own opinion and purchasing decisions.


While you were on the phone with Ford, did you compliment them for offering same-sex partnership benefits to their gay employees? Did you find out if they are cancelling any sponsorships of gay events? Did you ask why Volvo will continue to advertise in The Advocate, while Jaguar and Range Rover will not? Did you find out whether Ford ever advertises in The Advocate for its own brand of vehicles? And did you inquire whether market research showed gay-specific advertising to be any more effective than non-specific advertising?


Sorry to be facetious about this, Gn2Dlnd, but I'm trying to illustrate some of the many factors that accompany the decision to switch advertising tactics, and which may be worthy of comment should one go to the trouble of successfully negotiating the Ford phoneline obstacles to human contact.

[Ghoulish Delight]

While I do find negotiating with the AFA distasteful, I have to agree with iSm and Alex in one regard. I don't see gay-specific advertising as a hugely supportive element for the gay community. I think the community is better served by things like an ad for a TLC show I saw recently. It was one of their myriad reality shows about come aspect of couple-dom or other. Not about gay couples specifically, but the ad lead off with a clip from an episode about a gay couple, and went on to show a few other couples (I believe the rest were straight couples, but I'm not positive). It wasn't "Hey gays, here's a gay show about gay people. If you like gayity, watch our gay show!" It was, "Here's a show about couples. Here's a couple, here's another couple, and here's another couple."

Yes, supporting gays is hardly a huge leap for TLC, but I was particularly struck by that ad. To me, that's a MUCH bigger step for the gay community. Mainstream exposure, in no way differentiated in presentation from anybody else.

I think an important question to ask Ford is, why don't I see those nice looking couples in the above ad in the Sunday Times? As I see it, they were doing a disservice to the community long before this alleged agreement. Sure they came out with some good, "we don't discriminate" statments, and yet they sure were keen to keep those photos of gay couples enjoying their product away from the general public where, thank the marketing gods, only gay people would see them.

[Gn2Dlnd]

While you were on the phone with Ford, did you compliment them for offering same-sex partnership benefits to their gay employees?


No, any more than I would compliment them on their policy of offering partnership benefits to any of their employees.

Did you find out if they are cancelling any sponsorships of gay events? Did you ask why Volvo will continue to advertise in The Advocate, while Jaguar and Range Rover will not? Did you find out whether Ford ever advertises in The Advocate for its own brand of vehicles? And did you inquire whether market research showed gay-specific advertising to be any more effective than non-specific advertising?

No. I only addressed what I read in the AP article. To quote:Ford's move came nearly a week after the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association canceled a boycott of Ford vehicles that began in May, when the group criticized Ford for being too gay-friendly.

"We are ending the boycott of Ford," association Chairman Donald Wildmon said in a statement Wednesday on the group's Web site. "While we still have a few differences with Ford, we feel that our concerns are being addressed in good faith and will continue to be addressed in the future."

The American Family Association first announced the boycott against Ford and related brands on May 31. The group said Ford gave thousands of dollars to gay rights groups, offered benefits to same-sex couples and actively recruited gay employees.

After a spring meeting with a group of Ford dealers, the association said in June that it was suspending its boycott until at least the beginning of December.

The Human Rights Campaign, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and other gay rights groups expressed concern about reports there was a secret deal between Ford and the American Family Association to end Ford's advertising in gay media.

I said what I've said here, Ford has every right to advertise to whom they want. I have every right to be concerned when major U.S. corporations take the time to meet with people who promote intolerance. If you'd like those questions asked, why don't you call Ford? Do you think people on a chat board have any more insight than the woman in Bangalore that took my call?

Sorry to be facetious about this, Gn2Dlnd

Really?

[BarTopDancer]

I think an important question to ask Ford is, why don't I see those nice looking couples in the above ad in the Sunday Times? As I see it, they were doing a disservice to the community long before this alleged agreement. Sure they came out with some good, "we don't discriminate" statments, and yet they sure were keen to keep those photos of gay couples enjoying their product away from the general public where, thank the marketing gods, only gay people would see them.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Ghoulish Delight again.

Sorry Greg, you forgot to hack the code so you could get repeat mojo. ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Ghoulish Delight again.

Sorry Greg, you forgot to hack the code so you could get repeat mojo. ;)
Just send me a PM next time and I'll go ahead and manually add it in. :p

[wendybeth]

I dislike anyone caving to blackmail, which is what they appear to have done. I find it nearly as distasteful as the actual act of economic blackmail done under the guise of morality, or any one groups' definition of morality.

[Alex]

Out of curiosity, would you then find it distasteful if, simply in response to organized protest by gay groups, Ford reinstated the advertising?

[wendybeth]

I think it would be stupid*, not distasteful, Alex. Too much like "Oh, yeah? Well, we can do that, too!" I would try a more direct approach, like publicizing the apparent cave by Ford, and to shed light on the tactics of such groups as AFA and others.

*For the gay groups to retaliate in kind. Truth be told, there is little Ford could do in my estimation to make me buy one of their cars, since they suck.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I dislike anyone caving to blackmail, which is what they appear to have done. I find it nearly as distasteful as the actual act of economic blackmail done under the guise of morality, or any one groups' definition of morality.Eh, they're just saying they wouldn't support the purchase of their products. That's not blackmail. Everyone has a choice to pay or not to pay, and others have a choice to follow purchasing recommendations by groups such as this one.

(disclaimer - doesn't mean I'm ok with all this...)

[wendybeth]

I realise that, CP- but it's not like these guys just sit around saying "That's it- I refuse to buy their prods!" No, they run around lobbying, garnering press and doing everything they possibly can to achieve their goal, which in this case is to pretend that there is no such thing as a gay consumer. Remember the Baptist boycott against Disney? I got real sick and tired of deleting those assholes' comments from the petition- they pissed me off so much that even if God appeared today and said he was Baptist, I'd have to decline.

[CoasterMatt]

I ran over a Volvo with a Chevy truck in college... Does that count for anything?

[wendybeth]

I ran over a Volvo with a Chevy truck in college... Does that count for anything?

I dunno- were there any occupants in the Volvo?

[CoasterMatt]

Nah, but it was a really ugly green.

OK. I'm takin' off my silly pants and putting on my serious cap now.

This is the sort of situation that really gets me SO upset. Mad would not be the right word. Anyway. I was raised in a very Christian household, church every Sunday - but somewhere along the line, people that I thought were friends turned into wackos. My parents, I love them so, taught me that being a Christian was about love, and the only rule was "Love Thy Neighbor" - we're not perfect, and not in any spot to judge anybody else. These people that are saying they're Christians don't know the first thing about Christ, I hope that somehow THAT message will rise above all these goofballs complaining about other peoples own business.

Just in case anybody's wondering, no, the serious cap is not a tinfoil hat :)

[tracilicious]

To each his own, but I find gay-specific advertising to be creepy, just as I would find jew-specific advertising to be creepy. Again, I contend that it's a far bigger issue if Ford was pressued to stop sponsoring gay events by threat of boycott; but what it does in terms of advertising is strictly its own business.


A Christian pastor lived in the house we are renting before we did and we still get some of his mail. The other day we got a tiny yellow pages that only contained listings of Christian businesses. That was creepy. The thought of a company saying, "You're gay! Buy this car!" does sound a bit odd to me too. What does one have to do with the other?

[wendybeth]

The real point here is that a group objected to marketing to a particular demographic, and threatened to harm the company financially unless the ads were pulled. How much harm they could do isn't the issue, it's the threat, made against a company because of perceived support for the Gay community. Companies market to different demos all the time- that's the nature of marketing. Companies do not cave in to these groups all the time, though- the WDC didn't cave to the Baptist boycott.

[Alex]

Such directories are common. There is a directory for gay-owned business. Another for woman or minority owned. There is an online business to help you make sure you only patronize business with liberal owners. Being in the Bay Area I assume this is why I only see more progressive versions and that in other areas you'll find similar for more religious and politically conservative categories.

I find it odd that I might care about the politics, race, hobbies, etc., of the person who owns the diner down the road (that makes the best chicken salad sandwich I've ever had). But a lot of people do care, and I just file it away with all the other things that most people do without me understanding why.

[€uroMeinke]

So do you think Jag will develope a mini-van to give it a less gay image?

[Alex]

Companies do not cave in to these groups all the time, though

No, but most companies aren't on the brink of bankruptcy (though not as close as GM) and perhaps feeling a strong need to protect it's bread and butter product line (F-series trucks) that are mostly consumed in regions where an AFA boycott is most likely to have an affect.

Boycott has been a favored tool of protest, for a variety of reasons, for decades. I don't find the tool any more or less stupid (and I think it stupid in almost all cases) just because I disagree with the purpose.

[CoasterMatt]

I found a pic of Ford's next new product Here (http://www.boners.com/grub/794763.html)
Might not be safe for work, though... :evil:

[wendybeth]

I come from a family with a strong union background, but I think boycotts are silly. Always have. Sometimes they work, but usually they are just a tool for getting a message out, or bolstering some fringe groups political clout.

[innerSpaceman]

So what can we do, short of a hypocritical boycott and beyond a harshly-worded email?

I don't know how often corporations capitulate to economic blackmail. Maybe it's a common occurence. I wish I didn't feel so self-serving with my anger when the blackmail affects my minority group. And maybe I'm so angry because I've been such a tool all day, posting in favor of giving Ford the benefit of the doubt.

I've had a chance to do a little research this evening, and I'm convinced that this was NOT a financial decision ... but rather was capitulation to blackmail, and allowing a hate group to dictate corporate policy.

That kind of thing may be commonplace, too. After all, I'm under no illusion that corporate America is any kind of paragon of virtue. But knowing what I do now know about this situation, I am alarmed at the insideousness of it, and wary of the danger this represents.


How do you suppose this could get more publicity? I feel this is not something that should go unchallenged and that Ford must be outted on this one.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I find it odd that I might care about the politics, race, hobbies, etc., of the person who owns the diner down the road...That's a subject I'm personally conflicted on. Part of me says, "Who cares, it's the product that matters,"* but another part of me says, "Do I want them to be supported by my money if it's owned by a Nazi who'd rather I were dead?" I honestly haven't come to terms with a universal answer for myself. My feelings tend to change based on the size of the company (under the nebulous theory of, the smaller the company is, the closer to my money said theoretical Nazi owner is). So I do understand somewhat the boycott motivation.

I still contend that the AFA boycott turned into a convenient way for Ford to pass off gay-pandering as amazing altruistic community support, and allowed them to continue to hide their gay targeted advertising away from the "public" ("public" in quotes to indicate how inane it is to separate "gay" from "public") eye.

*Actually, a better measure might be, "Who cares, it's how they treat me personally that matters."

[wendybeth]

iSm, I think what we are doing now is just exactly that. Researching, discussing and getting angry enough to do something about it. I think it would be nice to try and shame (if that's even possible) Ford into reneging on their arrangement with AFA. A large as possible 'outting' is precisely what they need, and it's an appropriate choice of words. Get as many people to write, call, or otherwise publicise this- don't boycott, because then you're no better than the hate groups. Just publically shame them.

[€uroMeinke]

I suppose one tactic is to approach the shareholders through institutional investors. Is the Comapany really being run in a prudent fashion if it is letting social politics dictate it's fiscal policy? I'd say if they take any sort of a finacial hit, you could have a shareholder lawsuit that might reveal some interesting tidbits come discovery time.

[Alex]

Just for the record, I've been informed of the source.

It doesn't change any of the views I've expressed in this thread.

GD, I don't really find it to be a conundrum. The owner of that diner I talked about could be a vocal Nazi and I would still go there for a sandwich. I wouldn't be his friend but I don't care what other people think. Now, if he acts on his rhetoric (refusing to serve Jews, beating blacks out in the parking lot) then I begin to deny my business.

I don't think refusing to target advertising is in that realm. If they has discriminatory pricing for gays or fire gay employees (the reason I am hesitant to eat at Cracker Barrel) then I'll start to care. The CEO of Ford could stand up at the next shareholder meeting and say "we've decided not to advertise in gay magazines because the AFA has convinced us that homosexuality is a sin and while we won't in any way prevent them from buying our cars, we will not be advertising to them directly. We thank the AFA for opening our eyes to this." and I would still feel the same way. I would disagree but not particularly care. (Of course, this is all academic for me since the last Ford of any brand I drove was the 1975 Grand Torino station wagon in which I learned to drive.)

I do feel bad for all the gay people that now have no way of knowing that the Jaguar brand exists.

[wendybeth]

I don't need to wait for Krystlenacht before I speak out against discriminatory practices, or withhold my support (be it financial or simply quiet acceptance) from people who are acting out in a manner that hurts others that they do not think should exist. Lets face it, the AFA and groups like it do not want homosexual people in our society. So, at the risk of invoking Godwin, which Alex has already done for me, I do think that it's necessary to stop such insidious behavior early on. This sort of thing should be illegal, and would be, were gay people afforded the same rights as most people are in this country.

[Alex]

What sort of thing should be illegal?

And I only said "Nazi" because GD did, so if things are Godwined I blame him.

[wendybeth]

What sort of thing should be illegal?

And I only said "Nazi" because GD did, so if things are Godwined I blame him.

Lol- so, you were sort of a second gen Godwinite? ;)

Discrimination- if a group lobbied against advertising to women because they objected to our existence, you bet your ass there would be lawsuits.

And, we would own them.

[Alex]

I find your idea of what should be illegal very scary.

[wendybeth]

I find your idea of what should be illegal very scary.

Then perhaps you should relocate to Saudi Arabia.

[Gn2Dlnd]

The owner of that diner I talked about could be a vocal Nazi and I would still go there for a sandwich. I wouldn't be his friend but I don't care what other people think. Now, if he acts on his rhetoric (refusing to serve Jews, beating blacks out in the parking lot) then I begin to deny my business.



I'm hoping that you might call the police instead.

[Gemini Cricket]

The CEO of Ford could stand up at the next shareholder meeting and say "we've decided not to advertise in gay magazines because the AFA has convinced us that homosexuality is a sin and while we won't in any way prevent them from buying our cars, we will not be advertising to them directly. We thank the AFA for opening our eyes to this." and I would still feel the same way. I would disagree but not particularly care.
I do care. It's where the thinking of this sort of decision leads that makes me very concerned. Ford is the #2 car company in this country. And what if other big corporations follow suit? What if others pull their ads in gay pubs? That doesn't mean gays disappear. But that's what the AFA wants. So what's their next move then? Targeting Ford sponsoring gay events? Targeting Ford's gay employees? I find it imperative to stop the AFA's efforts with their first try at Ford. It worked with Microsoft. The employees there made the difference and Microsoft backed away from a bad decision concerning the gay community. Now that issue has disappeared. That's what I want for this one.

My question to the AFA is how does stopping Ford from advertising in gay publications protect America's families?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Then perhaps you should relocate to Saudi Arabia.I agree wtih Alex on this one. While I think such advertising decissions to be incredibly hateful and distasteful, they are far from illegal. Such is freedom.

[scaeagles]

Discrimination- if a group lobbied against advertising to women because they objected to our existence, you bet your ass there would be lawsuits.

And, we would own them.

I doubt that. What would be the claim of the litigants? That they were somehow harmed because of the pressure of a group to eliminate specific advertising?

[wendybeth]

We have freedom of speech- up to a point. (You should know that, Scaeagles! I don't see too many people joking about blowing up planes these days without incident, do you?). Same goes with hate speech- when any group is targeted by another for reasons such as color of skin or gender, there is usually some sort of recourse by the injured party, such as civil (or in cases of criminal activity) criminal court. We've seen quite a lot of this up here in the PNW, with the end result being the Order finally packed up and moved on. Right now the AFA and their like are going after large corporations in the form of threatened boycotts. Do you really believe it will stop there? Every success only emboldens them. They do not wish to co-exist with the gay community, they want them gone. I suppose they hope to one day legislate them out of existence, but so long as they think their acting on orders from God, who knows how far they'd take it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hate speech is protected unless it directly incites violence. A decission to not make specifically targeted advertisement for a segment of the population does not incite violence.

[wendybeth]

If I lobbied against marketing to blacks, are you suggesting I wouldn't have consequences? They (The AFA,etc) are walking a fine line, but their activities certainly bear watching, and sooner or later, they will cross that line. If I were a magazine publication that lost advertising clients to such groups, I would take them to civil court and sue them for damages. Maybe I'd win, maybe not, but they would be exposed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If I lobbied against marketing to blacks, are you suggesting I wouldn't have consequences? They (The AFA,etc) are walking a fine line, but their activities certainly bear watching, and sooner or later, they will cross that line. If I were a magazine publication that lost advertising clients to such groups, I would take them to civil court and sue them for damages. Maybe I'd win, maybe not, but they would be exposed.
Perhaps there might be economic consequences for poor marketing decissions, but legal? No, and there shouldn't be. I really don't see a need for a Constitutionally protected right to be advertised at.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Alex said it best...

I do feel bad for all the gay people that now have no way of knowing that the Jaguar brand exists.

No one is restricting anyone's rights. The gay community continues to have the same access to advertisments as the rest of us do. Ford has made a perfectly legal (though likely misguided) decission to change their advertising strategy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted that a small, closed minded group weilds such market-place power. But I don't question their right to do so. And I'm equally disgusted, if not more-so, that Ford felt the need to segregate (and I use that word quite on purpose) gay advertising from mainstreem advertising in the first place.

[wendybeth]

I suppose what I really mean by 'it should be illegal' is just the blatant discrimination directed against the gay community. The military's stupid 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, the fact that churches can deny employment to gay individuals, the lack of civil rights that everyone else enjoys..... This is just another example of how pervasive and accepted it is. If Ford caved in to a threatened boycott regarding advertising to women, I think most people would be outraged. I'd like to think so, anyway.

[Alex]

As I said to a person who PMed me about this, my response would be the same if Ford had cancelled advertising that targeted women, suburban moms, hispanics, blacks, etc.

The problem with making hate speech illegal is that what constitutes hate speech is a very malleable concept and you may not like it when someone else gets to define it.

[wendybeth]

As I said to a person who PMed me about this, my response would be the same if Ford had cancelled advertising that targeted women, suburban moms, hispanics, blacks, etc.

The problem with making hate speech illegal is that what constitutes hate speech is a very malleable concept and you may not like it when someone else gets to define it.

You mean that you would wait until they started beating women in the parking lot before you respond?;)

I realise how malleable a concept it is every time I turn on Hate Radio.

[scaeagles]

I realise how malleable a concept it is every time I turn on Hate Radio.

Do you listen to Air America? I never have.

[innerSpaceman]

Whether the criminal law has been violated is doubtful, but certain civil laws might have been. And lawsuits can certainly be filed whether or not such laws have actually been broken. And lawsuits mean publicity for the actions of Ford and the AFA in concert. And what this situation calls for most, I believe, is publicity - and plenty of it.

Euro suggested a shareholder lawsuit. Does anyone know how to get a contact list of Ford's institutional investors?

Wendy suggested a lawsuit by such publications as The Advocate for economic interference against the AFA and malfeasance against Ford.

These are both good routes for action, I'd say. How would we, the common folk, lobby for such action?

[scaeagles]

I think ISM is having some posting problems.

[innerSpaceman]

Huh, whatever are you talking about?



(iSm, the poster, may be a retard ... but iSm, the moderator, has the power to remove all evidence of it)





I like pancakes.

[Alex]

You mean that you would wait until they started beating women in the parking lot before you respond?

Essentially, yes. I would disagree with them prior to that. But people are allowed to think and say whatever they want, regardless of how ridiculous and that means you get to try and convince other people to see it your way.

If boycotting and threats of boycott should be criminalized (though I think they are rarely effective I don't think they should be illegal) then the bus boycotts that started the modern civil rights movement should have been illegal. Or is the method only illegal if you disagree with the goal?


iSm: All instituional investors are required to file Form 13Fs with the SEC that list their holdings. I'm sure there are tools that would allow you to search 13Fs for Ford. If you look at the annual prospectus from Ford it would also list major shareholders, but that it triggered, I think, by 5% ownership which it is possible no institutional investor reaches (Disney has no major shareholders, for example).

The top 10 institional investors for Ford are:

Brandes Investment Partners
Barclays Bank
Deutsche Bank
State Street Corproration
Vanguard Group
Northern Trust Corporation
Capital Research and Management Company
Goldman Sachs
LSV Asset Management
American Century Invemestment Management

The first on that list is the only one that owns more than 5% of outstanding shares. A more detailed report can be found on Lexis-Nexis using information provided by Vickers Stock Research. Full reports can be had from various companies but are expensive.

[katiesue]

If you go to http://www.edgaronline.com and type in Ford's ticker symbol F you can view all of their SEC filings.

Yahoo Finance also has information on which financial companies do research on Ford.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I agree with Alex...

[wendybeth]

Again, and then I am not going to say it anymore: I don't have a problem with boycotts, other than they are often inneffective and plain stupid. I have a problem with discrimination, and this so-called boycott reeks of it. I could care less if Ford advertises to my demo group, but if some fundie whackjobs were to pressure Ford into specifically not advertising to my demo group based on their objection to my participation in society, then I should have recourse. Same for the publications that depend on the advertising dollars.

Slightly off subject- does anyone know if the AFA pays taxes?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I could care less if Ford advertises to my demo group, but if some fundie whackjobs were to pressure Ford into specifically not advertising to my demo group based on their objection to my participation in society, then I should have recourse. Are you saying you have "a right to be advertised at"? :confused:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Basic scenario:

I put an ad in a gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) publication. A person comes up to me and convinces me that gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) people are evil. I pull my ads.

Obviously, it sucks that I was swayed to such a crappy opinion. But still, it's my choice what to advertise in and what not to. If I've been converted to Crazy NutJob and only want to advertise in Crazy NutJob Quarterly, then that's my right.

Again, it sucks, but that's life.

[wendybeth]

Basic scenario:

I put an ad in a gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) publication. A person comes up to me and convinces me that gay (black, female, elderly, overweight) people are evil. I pull my ads.

Obviously, it sucks that I was swayed to such a crappy opinion. But still, it's my choice what to advertise in and what not to. If I've been converted to Crazy NutJob and only want to advertise in Crazy NutJob Quarterly, then that's my right.

Again, it sucks, but that's life.

I was as clear as I am going to get on this, and I cannot state it any better. I believe discrimination is wrong, and such tactics as those employed by AFA for the reasons they employed them are wrong. If Ford caved, then Ford deserves the backlash they're going to get. If you don't have a problem with looking away when these types of people pull this ****, then that's between you and your conscience. If something strikes me as being completely wrong, I'd like to think I would always have the backbone to stand up against it. I'm not, nor have I ever been, the type to just let the affected party handle it.

Oh, and I would intervene if such a scenario as I presented to Alex ever occured in front of me. In fact, I have.

[Alex]

I'm not arguing against a backlash against Ford just your comment that what Ford did should be illegal.

I have absolutely no problem with everybody in the world telling Ford what they think of the situation. Though I don't think cutting advertising to the Advocate is that big of a deal any more than I was bothered when GM cut advertising to the Los Angeles Times because they didn't like the message of that newspaper, if you do, then trying to convince Ford to change its mind is exactly what you should do.

Criminalizing opinions you disagree with is not.

wendybeth, I'm not sure what "scenario" you mean. I didn't think you literally meant beating beating women in the parking lot. I've intervened in such as well. But in the metaphorical sense I thought you meant it, yes. Mysogynists are allowed to be mysogynists until such time as they act on that mysogyny in ways that go beyond speech.

[wendybeth]

Of course I meant literally. This kind of crap leads to such behavior, eventually. Let hate win out, and people get hurt. I know that there is a fine line between legal and illegal activities when it comes to defining discrimination, but I have a hard time seeing the difference between this group and groups like the Order, Aryan Nations, the KKK, etc. It took a severe beating by some AN thugs, but a Native American woman and her son wound up owning their compound up here.

I don't think what Ford did was illegal; it was cowardly, but not illegal. I think what the AFA did should be.

[Alex]

And again, what you think should be illegal is scary to me. The Aryan Nation, KKK, and AFA are free to think whatever they want and try to convince other people to think the same.

They are not free to beat Native American women or their children.

[wendybeth]

No, they are not. It cost them, dearly. Too bad they had to beat the **** out of someone first though, eh? It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a social scientist, or really any kind of scientist to know that if this sort of filth is allowed to run amuck, it will. I'm not saying that we should outlaw freedom of speech, but I am saying that if your freedom of speech hurts me or mine, watch out. I will not lay down and take it- I will fight back. What AFA is doing hurts people I love. It diminishes them, dilutes their rights, and I don't have to have a degree in any sort of science to know that these groups have a dangerous agenda. I also don't have to stand back and let it happen.

[Gemini Cricket]

I just read a interesting article in the WSJ that I wanted to post here regarding the AFA boycott. The boycotting idea is spreading. I can't believe corporations are running scared from them:

With Ford out of the way, the AFA has now set its sights on Target Corp. The group attacked Target last year for banning Salvation Army fund-raisers from its stores. But it launched a new boycott just two weeks ago, attacking Target as well for declining to use the word "Christmas" in any of its promotions. (Meanwhile, a separate group, Focus on the Family, says it has closed all of its accounts at Wells Fargo & Co. because the bank contributed to a gay-rights group.)

Target is taking a different strategy than Ford, refusing to deal with the AFA. It says it doesn't allow anyone to make solicitations in its stores -- the Salvation Army included. And it says its holiday merchandise includes "Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa merchandise, along with Thanksgiving, New Year and other winter-related items." Tim Wildmon, president of the AFA and son of the group's chairman, calls that statement "political correctness run amok."
Source (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113391527906615664-bUPUeJf7YLycICexxUHknbl1W_c_20061206.html?mod=blog s)

[Ghoulish Delight]

No, they are not. It cost them, dearly. Too bad they had to beat the **** out of someone first though, eh? You're talking about thought police. It's a firm principle in this country that you have to either do harm, or have a specific plan to do harm to be punished. Thinking about doing harm, or talking generally about doing harm, or (in the Ford case), talking about what you think is wrong, with zero actual harm even implied, is not, and should not, be illegal.

[wendybeth]

You're talking about thought police. It's a firm principle in this country that you have to either do harm, or have a specific plan to do harm to be punished. Thinking about doing harm, or talking generally about doing harm, or (in the Ford case), talking about what you think is wrong, with zero actual harm even implied, is not, and should not, be illegal.

So, if I wander into a airport terminal and mutter something about blowing the place up, I am merely engaged in the thought of doing harm, and won't get into trouble? If I joke about harming the President to a Secret Service person, there would be no actions against me? I could go on and on with instances such as these where I believe I might get into mischief just by excercising my freedom of speech, but I have to go to work! Have a great day, all!:coffee:

[Ghoulish Delight]

So, if I wander into a airport terminal and mutter something about blowing the place up, I am merely engaged in the thought of doing harm, and won't get into trouble? If I joke about harming the President to a Secret Service person, there would be no actions against me? I could go on and on with instances such as these where I believe I might get into mischief just by excercising my freedom of speech, but I have to go to work! Have a great day, all!:coffee:
As a matter of fact, I think things have gotten way too sensetive in that arena.

But let's take a step back here. Show me where the AFA has advocated or even hinted at violence against gays and I'll agree with you.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

What Alex and GD said.

Making thoughts and opinions illegal....<shudder>

[BarTopDancer]

I think I see what WB is saying... Please correct me if I am wrong.

You can think however you want, you can hold whatever opnions you want. But threatening to cause someone or something harm (financial, physical, mental etc...) because that someone or something doesn't think how you do or hold the same opnions you do is the problem.

The AFA can think however they want, hold whatever opnions they want, but they are threatening financial harm to corporations who don't think how they do and don't hold the same opnions that they do.

Edit: They aren't threatening within their group, they are going to the companies and saying if you don't stop supporting people who are gay then we will boycott you. If they went to their members and said "hey, Ford supports gay people lets boycott them" IMHO it would be different. I still wouldn't agree with them but they wern't threatening a company.

Come to think of it, isn't this type of behavior coercion? And isn't that illegal?

[innerSpaceman]

I don't think what Ford did was illegal; it was cowardly, but not illegal. I think what the AFA did should be.
I believe what the AFA did IS illegal. It's called intentional interference with economic advantage, and it's actionable in courts of law. I have written to The Advocate urging them to sue AFA. People have been sued for lots less.

Where the AFA crossed the legal line was in meeting with Ford Motor Company. They have every right to state their intention to boycott, but once they meet with Ford directly to make that statement and gain concessions, they are interfering in the business relationship that Ford has with publications such as The Advocate.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think I see what WB is saying... Please correct me if I am wrong.

You can think however you want, you can hold whatever opnions you want. But when you threaten to cause someone or something harm (financial, physical, mental etc...) because that someone or something doesn't think how you do or hold the same opnions you do is the problem.

The AFA can think however they want, hold whatever opnions they want, but they are threatening financial harm to corporations who don't think how they do and don't hold the same opnions that they do.

Edit: They aren't threatening within their group, they are going to the companies and saying if you don't stop supporting people who are gay then we will boycott you. If they went to their members and said "hey, Ford supports gay people lets boycott them" IMHO it would be different. I still wouldn't agree with them but they wern't threatening a company.

Come to think of it, isn't this type of behavior coercion? And isn't that illegal?
But that's simply a boycott - an often used tool throughout the decades. Alex mentioned that Rosa Parks helped start one. While I may not always agree with the boycotters, I support the right to boycott.

EDITED TO ADD - too much editing and posting going on here, I'm all confused :p

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's an email letter I sent out recently amongst many others...

December 9, 2005


Mr. William Ford
c/o Ford Motor Company
Customer Relationship Center
P.O. Box 6248
Dearborn, MI 48126


Mr. Ford,

My partner and I are Ford truck owners. We purchased our truck in Tehachapi, California with my partner's father who buys nothing but Ford automobiles and trucks. Before buying our vehicle, my partner and I did extensive research into which motor companies are supportive of gay and lesbian rights in our country. We found that Ford was one of those companies that showed tolerance towards gay and lesbian Americans and decided to purchase our vehicle from your company. We have been pleased with the performance of our truck and have had no problems with it in the 3 years of owning it.

However, a couple of days ago, I was informed by Advocate Magazine and newspapers countrywide that Ford has been in secret meetings with the anti-gay extremist group the American Family Association. The meetings resulted in Ford acquiescing passively to the demands of the AFA and deciding to pull all Jaguar and Land Rover ads from gay publications in 2006. I am stunned that any logical corporate company would cater to the views of an extreme group that does not have the best interests of Ford in mind but also aids in disenfranchising a group of American citizens.

Today, I question our decision of purchasing our Ford truck in the first place. When one spends a formidable amount of money with a company, one hopes that they are not supporting a business that can flip-flop from support to intolerance of gay issues so easily. But it seems as though we have.

The company's official word on the matter is that this was a business decision and had nothing to do with the AFA. However, it seems that the meetings with the AFA and the decision to ban advertising (which supports the publication's existence) are too much of a coincidence to be simply deemed 'good for business'.

Mr. Ford, I am deeply disappointed with your company. I am not angered, nor surprised by this sort of tactic, but I will question my choice of automaker in the future. At this point in time, I can not favorably endorse Ford or its products. I will be speaking with Ford buyers (gay and straight) to inform them of this new development in Ford's business practices. It's a small step to reclaim dignity in making a poor choice in the Ford Motor Company.


With regrets,


Mr. Brad XXXXXXXX

XX XXXXXX XX XX
Somerville, MA 02144-1201
(XXX) XXX-XXX

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I believe what the AFA did IS illegal. It's called intentional interference with economic advantage, and it's actionable in courts of law. I have written to The Advocate urging them to sue AFA. People have been sued for lots less.

Where the AFA crossed the legal line was in meeting with Ford Motor Company. They have every right to state their intention to boycott, but once they meet with Ford directly to make that statement and gain concessions, they are interfering in the business relationship that Ford has with publications such as The Advocate.Thanks for the explainer!

[innerSpaceman]

Thinking about doing harm, or talking generally about doing harm, or (in the Ford case), talking about what you think is wrong, with zero actual harm even implied, is not, and should not, be illegal.

Sorry to be playing post-by-post catch up here.


In this case, the AFA made a deal with Ford to stop advertising in certain publications. This is not speech. This is action. And it's actionable.


(Ford may not have any legal liability - they have the right to act on whatever advise they please. It's the AFA which took actions, not mere speech, to interfere with existing business relationships. They can, and should, be sued).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Huh? So, I have a contract with party A, but one that I have the option of ending at any point (some sort of escape clause). Party B comes along and offers me a better deal, so I exercise the escape clause with party A and enter a deal with party B. So you're saying party B has done something illegal?

[BarTopDancer]

But that's simply a boycott - an often used tool throughout the decades. Alex mentioned that Rosa Parks helped start one. While I may not always agree with the boycotters, I support the right to boycott.

EDITED TO ADD - too much editing and posting going on here, I'm all confused :p

What iSm said!

[innerSpaceman]

Contract negotiations are legal. One-upsmanship in contract negotiations is legal.

INTERFERING with someone's contract negoations is ILLEGAL.




(Um, it really is. I'm not merely stating my opinion about the law. This is what I do day in and day out. I sue people for interference with prospective economic advantage for breakfast, and I swallow all their assets for lunch.)

[Gemini Cricket]

(Um, it really is. I'm not merely stating my opinion about the law. This is what I do day in and day out. I sue people for interference with prospective economic advantage for breakfast, and I swallow all their assets for lunch.)
That's why you never end and argument with iSm by saying, 'So, sue me!'

:D

[Alex]

So, does a boycott only become illegal if it is successful? It is ok to boycott, but not to meet with the boycotted party and detail the boycott? If The Advocate editorial staff met with the Ford leadreship and said "unless you renounce your agreement with the AFA, we'll ask our subscribers to boycott" would this be illegal interference? Was it illegal interference when gay groups met with television stations attempting to keep Dr. Laura's television show off the air?

If a behavior is illegal only when you disagree with the idea behind it then that is that is thought policing.

Personally, I disagree with the famous dictate that you can scream "fire" in a crowded theater. Or "bomb" in an airport. Or "I'm going to shoot the president" at a Presidential rally.

That is not to say you aren't responsible to some degree for reasonable responses to what you say (shout fire, cause a panic that tramples someone and you're responsible; but not responsible for the person who says "well, I'm going to die anyway, might as well rape this woman). But the actual utterance should not be criminalized. If you shout "fire" in a crowded theater and are completely ignored, I don't think a crime occured.

Too bad they had to beat the **** out of someone first though, eh?

No, not too bad. That is exactly the way it should be. What is too bad is that they beat the **** out of someone. People are punished for crimes they commit, not crimes they might commit. Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't oppose them, but that is not the same thing as criminalization. As a libertarian it is generally my position that society should make more use of direct social forces rather than governmental coercion.

[And yes, I oppose the "hate crime" categorization. I do not think it a worse crime to beat someone to death because he's black than to beat him to death because you wanted his baseball cap.]

[Alex]

dp

[Alex]

iSm, I get what you're saying, I really do (and the same tact was used in an attempt to break quite a few of the Civil Rights boycotts). Though I don't really think you'd have a winner if persued on those grounds.

For one, we have an idea of what Ford told Jaguar/Land Rover but do we have any idea what was said in the meeting between AFA and the Ford executives?

Do we have any evidence that AFA ever requested this specific economic interference? Perhaps all that was said was "We're disturbed by your promotion of the gay agenda and unless we feel you change your ways we will encourage our members to stop buying Ford products." And the response was "ok, we'll try to think of something that will make you happy but you have to call off the boycott first."

Was there still any specific intereference?

Again, if this were criminalized, it would mean that a popular tool of progressive ideas would be criminalized. All those students who staged sit ins until their university agreed to boycott companies operating in South Africa were engaging in economic interference.

[CoasterMatt]

I sue people for interference with prospective economic advantage for breakfast, and I swallow all their assets for lunch.
Maybe you should try an occasional bran muffin :p

[innerSpaceman]

For one, we have an idea of what Ford told Jaguar/Land Rover but do we have any idea what was said in the meeting between AFA and the Ford executives?
Well, that's the very purpose of a lawsuit, Alex. To find out these things.

It seems fishy, so you make formal allegations based on information and belief in a court of law. Doing so gives you the power to find out things that you will never have if you don't sue. If I name Ford in this lawsuit, they become obligated to turn over to me the minutes of their meetings with the AFA. Then we find out. If there's nothing to it, the lawsuit goes nowhere. If there's economic interference demonstrated by the minutes of those meetings, then that goes to evidence that AFA is liable for damages.


I would caution against throwing around the word "criminal." None of this is criminal, but it is illegal. They are not the same thing, and I think the important distinction must be pointed out to those who are fearing the Thought Police. No one is going to be hauled into jail for telling Ford to stop advertising to them damn faggots. But someone can be held liable for damages if they interfere with the contractual or business relationship between two parties.



Edited to add: Some things are interference, and others are not. Sitting outside Ford headquarters in protest is not interference. Telling Ford that you intend to boycott for their gay advertising policy is not interference. The line begins to be crossed when you tell Ford you will organize a boycott (that you have the actual power to organize) if they do not do as you say. And the line is trampled when you meet with them and work out a deal with specific terms and conditions. The discovery process of civil law allows litigants to (attempt to) find out whether such a deal was made.

Please don't jump to the conclusions that protest will be outlawed or thought controlled by implants. That's for Patriot Act 3 to determine. These are the laws in place right now and they are not being used to stop protests or control anyone's thoughts. Economic interference lawsuits have been going on for hundreds of years.

[Alex]

Yes, I'm aware that economic interference is by no means a new thing. But historically such claims have failed in circumstances like this.

I'll defer to your expertise, though. I wonder to what extent is matters if the interfering party gains no economic benefit? Such as in the many groups that threatened boycotts (and had meetings with officials) against companies operating or dealing with South Africa during Apartheid and were successful in reaching such specific agreements.

You are correct that I was loose with my terminology in saying criminalized. So change it to regulated (though I would argue that any time the government says you can be punished for something, even if it is only through financial penalty in civil court it has essentially been criminalized).

[€uroMeinke]

I think as ISM alludes to, that the benefit of threatened suit is the discovery process in itself. That a Ford AFA meeting took place is suspicious considering the timeing and the presumed outcome. It's something I suspect the shareholders would also like to know about.

[Alex]

Something I'm curious about (honestly, I have no idea how this works).

If you file a lawsuit, is the discovery process in which defendent would have to turn over records essentially automatic or does there have to be any kind of certification of merit by the court before it proceeds to that point?

I am in no way saying that is what should happen to such a lawsuit (whether I think something should be against the law has little to do with whether it is), just curious of the discovery process is a guaranteed outcome of filing or if there is some threshold of validity that must first be met?

[wendybeth]

Bless you, iSm. It's been difficult to articulate, mostly because I knew their actions stunk, and went beyond the pale of a regular boycott. Several times I was going to post that in some instances, boycotts have achieved great things when all else has failed, such as the transportation boycotts initiated by Rosa Park's arrest. (I didn't because I didn't feel like arguing that view and the one I am currently defending concurrently). What AFA is doing stinks to high hell, and it just didn't seem to me like it was either ethical or entirely legal. I never said that what Ford was doing was illegal- I said AFA and their ilk are doing should be illegal. Ford deserves nothing but scorn for caving in to these blackmailer's demands.

[wendybeth]

As a matter of fact, I think things have gotten way too sensetive in that arena.

But let's take a step back here. Show me where the AFA has advocated or even hinted at violence against gays and I'll agree with you.
Actually, it seems that there are many, many examples of the AFA's 'activities' available online - I ran a Google search and read through a couple, but this one sums up the group quite nicely: AFA exposed (http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=AFA+anti-gay&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D2 3a1d747063af4c0%26clickedItemRank%3D9%26userQuery% 3DAFA%2Banti-gay%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thet askforce.org%252Faboutus%252Ffordafa.cfm%26invocat ionType%3D-%26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetaskforce.org%2Fabo utus%2Ffordafa.cfm)

It seems that this is the group behind the failed Disney boycott. They had a fun time writing some really nice stuff on the petition- some of the stuff was beyond offensive, and there were quite a few that threatened violence to gays. These are not nice people- they are dangerous.

[Alex]

For those who want to watch such things,

AFA also recently pulled their deposits from Wells Fargo Bank after the bank met their demands with a hearty "bite me." According to today's Chronicles the AFA's vice president said they moved their money to First National Bank of Omaha and "[f]rom our disucssions with their executives, we were satisfied that they would not do what Wells Fargo did." What Wells Fargo did was give $50,000 to GLAAD. So it looks like another case where AFA met with a company's executive and reached an agreement to deny money to third parties. You might also want to watch and see if FNBO continues its support of Youth Emergency Services in Omaha which provides assistance to troubles teens, including programs for gay youths.

I don't know if what the AFA did is illegal and I don't think it should be illegal even if they did what iSm says would be illegal. But more power to you if you can convince Ford to change their mind.

[€uroMeinke]

Something I'm curious about (honestly, I have no idea how this works).

If you file a lawsuit, is the discovery process in which defendent would have to turn over records essentially automatic or does there have to be any kind of certification of merit by the court before it proceeds to that point?


The key is relevence to the claim, but a Company can claim that the information is privilaged in some fashion. Usually the claim is that it is a trade secret and would give competitors an unfair business advantage if disclosed - but sometimes courts don't buy that. The better claim is attorney-client privilage, in which the defendants claim the meeting was a discussion with counsel.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, the privilege generally has to be attorney-client, or attorney work product. Trade secrets doesn't cut it. And any litigant has a right to such non-privileged discovery right from the get-go, without any by-your-leave from the court (though the court is almost always necessary to get at the really juicy stuff that one side does not want to disclose)

Alex is right that it would be helpful to any lawsuit if the AFA gained financially by interfering between Ford and The Advocate, but it's not stricly necessary.

Oh, and pulling their own funds from a bank is not any kind of interference with that bank. Different animal altogether.

[Alex]

I wasn't trying to suggest that they interefered with Wells Fargo by pulling their funds, but perhaps they interefered with unknown gay organizations by reaching an agreement with FNBO, particularly if FNBO now pulls their historical funding of YES-Omaha.

It seems to be the same deal as with Ford. "Stop spending money for the queers and you can have our business."


Thanks for the answer on discovery. What is the first step in the process when a judge has the opportunity to dismiss a civil lawsuit as without merit?

[Not Afraid]

AFA also recently pulled their deposits from Wells Fargo Bank after the bank met their demands with a hearty "bite me."

I had just just exclaim the joy I felt with first reading this sentence. Bless you Wells Fargo - and I didn't think I'd EVER say that!

[Gemini Cricket]

AFA also recently pulled their deposits from Wells Fargo Bank after the bank met their demands with a hearty "bite me."
Focus on the Family severed ties with Wells Fargo, not the AFA.
Last week, Focus on the Family withdrew its funds from Wells Fargo, citing "ongoing efforts to advance the radical homosexual agenda," according to a statement by Jim Daly, Focus's chief executive officer.
Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20051206/co_po/antigayeffortstargetfordwellsfargo)

[Alex]

Whoops, you're right. The article I read was talking about the Ford thing and then switched to this. I didn't notice the organization involved changed with it. Anyway, my head's up still applies, just with a different group.

[Gemini Cricket]

Interesting news from sfgate.com:
Ford Motor Co. executives will meet early next week with leaders of gay rights organizations to discuss the automaker's decision to pull advertisements for its Land Rover and Jaguar lines from gay publications, a Ford spokesman said Friday.

"We look forward to the dialogue with the leadership of the gay community," said spokesman Mike Moran.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the group will ask Ford to explain why it dropped the ads and encourage company officials to reconsider the decision Monday.
Source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/10/MNGGEG62C81.DTL)

[innerSpaceman]

Just to catch up with Zlick's legal primer, the first opportunity that a party being sued has to have the case thrown out is when they must answer the lawsuit (within 20 days of being served, if the plaintiff makes the proverbial federal case out of it) with what's called - with a straight face no less - a Demurrer. It sounds as if the defendant is simply too shy to answer the charges, but it means that they want the court to notice that the plaintiff does not have a case.

Most demurrers do not succeed. If there are defects in the plaintiff's allegations of their initial complaint, they are usually given leave by the court to amend that complaint to fix such defects. Rarely is a case just thrown out, because it's very rare that attorneys file a complaint that is insufficient on its face to allege a cause or causes of action against the defendant.


The next chance the defendant has to have the case disposed of is to make a motion for a summary judgment, in which the actual merits of the case are considered and not merely the allegations. This, however, is almost always done by the plaintiff - believing they have a slam-dunk case - and very rarely by a defendant trying to prove there's no valid case against them.


If both of these things go south for the defendant, they can look forward to about a year and half of discovery battles, and depositions ... and a trial at the end of that almost two year process.






Then, the appeals begin. And big cases can usually see swift justice resolve the matter in about a decade.

[Gemini Cricket]

Ford met with gay rights organizations the other day.

Ford told the gay rights groups that the company is still gay-friendly and that their sponsorships of gay events and causes would continue at the same level, although the ad cutback announcement stands.

Source (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid23316.asp)

It's good to hear that they would still sponsor gay events.

[innerSpaceman]

Glad to hear it about the event sponsorships, and I hope it proves true.

The advertising is, I believe, in the purview of Ford to decide. I think think The Advocate should sue over the dirty deal done against their economic interests.

[Gemini Cricket]

John Stewart's take on the issue.
QT (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Ford.mov)
WMV (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Ford.wmv)
Funny stuff.
:D

[Gemini Cricket]

The headline to this article caught me off guard. Nice:
"Under Pressure From KKK, Ford Pulls Ads From Black Media"
Source (http://www.holmesreport.com/holmestemp/story.cfm?edit_id=5051&typeid=2)
Forty years ago, at the height of the civil rights struggle, the KKK had about the same economic influence, popular support and moral authority the American Family Association enjoys today. It’s hard to imagine that Ford then would have negotiated with the Klan, far less given it an excuse to claim victory. The company’s surrender to the AFA tells you all you need to know about the quality of leadership at Ford today.

[Isaac]

Found this a moment ago:

Reuters - Wed Dec 14, 5:32 PM ET
DETROIT - Ford Motor Co. on Wednesday said it will run advertisements in gay publications, reversing a decision last week to pull all advertising of its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands from that sector. In a letter to some gay, lesbian and human rights groups, Ford said it has decided to run corporate ads for all its eight brands, including its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands, in the targeted publications.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051214/pl_nm/autos_ford_ads_dc;_ylt=AoiowS435ULGN4j_rdc40qpdlak A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Just saw this (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Gays_and_Lesbians)...

DETROIT - Ford Motor Co. on Wednesday said it will run advertisements in gay publications, reversing a decision last week to pull all advertising of its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands from that sector.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Well, that was good timing. :)

[Isaac]

Jinx :p

[Gemini Cricket]

Wow! That's great news.
Ford Motor Co. on Wednesday afternoon said it will run ads in gay publications, reversing a decision last week to pull advertising of its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands from such publications. In a letter to gay, lesbian and human rights groups, Ford said it has decided to run ads for all eight of its brands--Ford, Ford Truck, Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover in gay targeted publications. Previously, Ford did not advertise Ford, Lincoln, Mercury in gay publications.
Source (http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/)

[wendybeth]

Very cool. Frankly, I'm glad this happened- it's put the spotlight on the AFA and their own agenda, and all of corporate America on alert. I am also curious to see what the AFA pulls next....

[Gemini Cricket]

I am also curious to see what the AFA pulls next....
Looks like they're after Progressive Insurance now... Click me (http://www.afa.net/progressive.asp).

"And go round and round and round in the circle game..."

:rolleyes:

[Fab]

It's amazingly smart: appease AFA, then appease those the AFA hates, while telling AFA "Honest, we tried, but we'd be ruined financially."

[€uroMeinke]

I am also curious to see what the AFA pulls next....

I predict we'll see a hybrid car sticker of Calvin praying at a cross while peeing on the Ford logo.

[Gemini Cricket]

I predict we'll see a hybrid car sticker of Calvin praying at a cross while peeing on the Ford logo.
lol! :D
Did you know that the creator of 'Calvin and Hobbes' doesn't get a cent from those stickers? That stinketh.

[Fab]

Yes, I always thought it was funny they were stealing intellectual property to promote what good Christians they are.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

lol! :D
Did you know that the creator of 'Calvin and Hobbes' doesn't get a cent from those stickers? That stinketh.He publicly denounced all of those stickers - they're not things that Calvin would do.

[Gemini Cricket]

He publicly denounced all of those stickers - they're not things that Calvin would do.
I'm glad. Too bad he can't sue...

[Kevy Baby]

He publicly denounced all of those stickers - they're not things that Calvin would do.If I recall correctly, he has not allowed licensing of ANYTHING C & H except for the books.

[€uroMeinke]

If I recall correctly, he has not allowed licensing of ANYTHING C & H except for the books.

Probably becasue he's one of those Ford Driving Gay Loving Atheists

[Alex]

What I read today in the Chronicle said that Jaguar and Land Rover will still not be specifically advertised in the gay publications but rather that Ford will be running corporate ads that feature all eight lines of cars (as I interpret it this means a single ad will show all the brands offered by Ford). They reiterated that the decision to pull the J/LR ads was a business decision and that it still stood.

The quoted Ford executive sidestepped the question of whether the ads would be specifically "gay" (see above in threads for examples) but if they're corporate ads I doubt it.

I don't know how exactly it works but it sounds like the Jaguar and Land Rover brands will still not be making their own marketing decisions on this one.

[wendybeth]

What I read today in the Chronicle said that Jaguar and Land Rover will still not be specifically advertised in the gay publications but rather that Ford will be running corporate ads that feature all eight lines of cars (as I interpret it this means a single ad will show all the brands offered by Ford). They reiterated that the decision to pull the J/LR ads was a business decision and that it still stood.

The quoted Ford executive sidestepped the question of whether the ads would be specifically "gay" (see above in threads for examples) but if they're corporate ads I doubt it.

I don't know how exactly it works but it sounds like the Jaguar and Land Rover brands will still not be making their own marketing decisions on this one.
Hmmm. Why on earth would gay people buy anything other than Jaguars and Land Rovers? Why... they're proposing a sort of ad campaign that would imply that homosexuals are like regular people, and have varying tastes and needs in an automotive vehicle. That's just so darned revolutionary!:rolleyes:

[Alex]

Hey, I have no problem with it really. I made that point way above (that it might make more sense for Ford to target gays reading Time than The Advocate.

I'm just saying that it doesn't appear to be a return to the type of advertising that was done before. And that it might still be a net reduction in paid advertising at those magazines (I don't know what they bought before but it is easy to imagine that two ads, one each for Land Rover and Jaguar, will now be replaced with one ad).

[wendybeth]

Sorry, Alex- I wasn't mocking the messenger, just the message! (The fact that Ford is going to advertise in a less stereotypical manner). You have a good point- I wonder if they plan on expanding the ads to compensate.

[BarTopDancer]

Front page of Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_bi_ge/ford_boycott)

We had an agreement with Ford, worked out in good faith. Unfortunately, some Ford Motor Co. officials made the decision to violate the good faith agreement," AFA Chairman Don Wildmon said in a news release. "We are now considering our response to the violation and expect to reach a decision very soon.

SNIP

All we wanted was for Ford to refrain from choosing sides in the cultural war, and supporting groups which promote same-sex marriage is not remaining neutral," Wildmon said. :rolleyes:

[innerSpaceman]

Gays have more disposable income than rednecks.

End of economic battle.

[Not Afraid]

All we wanted was for Ford to refrain from choosing sides in the cultural war, and supporting groups which promote same-sex marriage is not remaining neutral," Wildmon said.

Does the word "oxymoronic" come to mind for anyone else?

[BarTopDancer]

Does the word "oxymoronic" come to mind for anyone else?

Thank you! That's the word I was looking for.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Gays have more disposable income than rednecks.

End of economic battle.But I'll bet there are a lot more Bible-thumpers than there are gays.

[BarTopDancer]

I wonder how many gay (closeted or not) bible thumpers there are.

What was that about people who are homophobic are scared they might be gay?

[innerSpaceman]

Bible thumpers who can only afford to buy a car once ever 23 years vs. gays who get a new vehicle every 5. Math, please.


Oh, and the word I would have been looking for was simply "moronic," no oxy required.

[scaeagles]

Bible thumpers who can only afford to buy a car once ever 23 years vs. gays who get a new vehicle every 5. Math, please.

Hey! I am a thumper, and I (well, my wife and I) have purchased 5 new vehicles in the last 14. :p

[Gemini Cricket]

Hey! I am a thumper...
Sorry, an image of 'Bambi' just flashed through my head for a second.
:D

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Bible thumpers who can only afford to buy a car once ever 23 years vs. gays who get a new vehicle every 5. Math, please.Uh... it was my understanding there would be no math. ;)

But since you asked for math, here's some.

The following is a hypothetical situation. I do not know the actual demographics for car-buying purchases (dammit, if I were still working at my old job, I could have told you) involved in this situation, I am merely suggesting a possible scenario.

If there are at least 4.7 times as many Bible-Thumping-Rednecks who purchase new vehicles every 23 years as there are Limp-Wristed-Homos who buy new vehicles every 5 years, then the Thumpers have greater buying clout.

So do the Thumpers outnumber us 'Mos five to one? As a nation, possibly. Do they outnumber us in the Bible Belt! Almost certainly. Does Ford need to be concerned for their dealers located in those wretched regions? From a business standpoint, I think they do.

Look, I'd [i]love it if Ford would tell the AFA to go fück themselves. (Hell, I'd love it if the AFA and their moronic brethren all drank grape Kool-Aid in Guyana!) But with the financial instability so prevalent in the automotive industry right now, I can hardly blame Ford for trying to appeal to the widest number of people possible. I think they went about it the wrong way, but I can understand their motivations.

[innerSpaceman]

And, if I understand things correctly, it all ended up well anyway. Ford will (correct me if I'm wrong) continue to advertise in gay publications, The Advocate will thus have no basis on which to sue, and the ads will merely be targeted to gays as if they were ordinary people motivated by vehicle needs rather than sexual partner preferences.

I think I rather like the way this turned out. (The ends, though certainly not the means.)

[Ponine]

I'm late into this thread, but caught this article yesterday...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/12/16/ford.adverts.ap/index.html
DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- The conservative American Family Association says it will consider reinstating a boycott against Ford Motor Co. because the automaker plans to continue running advertisements in gay publications.

Ford said last week it planned to stop advertising its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands in gay publications to reduce its marketing costs.

But after gay rights groups complained and held meetings with the automaker, Ford reversed course and said Wednesday it would continue to advertise all of its eight brands in gay publications.

There was a Jaguar ad Thursday afternoon on the Web site of The Advocate, a biweekly gay magazine.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Think maybe Ford will switch sides again? ;)

[€uroMeinke]

Maybe Ford should stop meeting with special interest groups and let their marketing department do their job.

[Not Afraid]

Maybe Ford should stop meeting with special interest groups and let their marketing department do their job.

Ya think???

[Gemini Cricket]

Got a few of these responses this week from Ford, LR, Jag etc.

Let me paraphrase for you:

Dear Brad,

Blah Blah Blah. Yaddah yaddah yaddah.

Sincerely,
Colleen Hogan
Jaguar Cars

:D

-----------------

Dear Mr. Brad XXXXXXXX,

Thank you for contacting Jaguar Cars. We were sorry to learn of your
dissatisfaction regarding our projected advertising plans.

At Jaguar we will, as we have said previously, shift our marketing to
the GLBT community from more mass above-the-line communications, to a
more focused below-the line approach. We believe it will provide a
stronger and more effective platform to showcase and demonstrate our
vehicles. The change in emphasis reflects the development of new brand
campaigns and an accompanying sharpening of our media focus. These
decisions were taken entirely for business reasons. We fully understand
the concerns that were raised, and regret the way in which the plans
were unfortunately characterized.

We want to reaffirm that Jaguar values diversity among all of our
constituents and pride ourselves on strong and clear values -respect for
our customers, communities, employees, suppliers and dealers; acceptance
of our differences; inclusion of different people with different
perspectives; and integrity to always do the right thing. We value all
people - regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation
and cultural or physical differences. This is a strong commitment we
intend to carry forward with no exception.

We can only hope that, perhaps in the future, you will give us a chance
to restore your confidence in Jaguar.


Sincerely,


Colleen Hogan
Jaguar Cars

[Fab]

These cats just did a study on Coors. Wonder if there's anything in their tome about Ford?

Bellant, Russ. The Coors Connection: How Coors Family Philanthropy Undermines Democratic Pluralism. Political Research Associates, 1990. 96 pages.
Coors was behind much of the influence of think-tank Reaganism, as shown by this detailed analysis. Some of the 1980s groups that received Coors money are profiled: the Heritage Foundation (pages 11-20), the Free Congress Foundation (pages 21-36), the Council for National Policy (pages 37-45), and smaller sections on the National Strategy Information Center, the American Security Council Foundation, and the Conservative Caucus. Obligatory sections on PC diversity are also included: Coors and women, Coors and gays, Coors and African-Americans, Coors and Chicanos, etc.

Political Research Associates (1310 Broadway, Suite 201, Somerville, Massachusetts 02144, Tel: 617-666-5300) began in Chicago as Midwest Research in 1981, and moved to Cambridge with their new name in 1987. Russ Bellant (Detroit) and staff analyst Chip Berlet are the principal writers, and Jean Hardisty, Ph.D., is chairman of the board and the major donor. Besides Ms. Hardisty, other directors include Prof. Lucy Williams (Northeastern Law School, Boston), Rev. Sally A. Dries (Shamokin PA), Prof. Robin Gillies (Northwestern University), and Prof. Deborah Bright (Rhode Island School of Design). Their 10-year report is titled "Unmasking the Political Right."
ISBN 0-915987-06-6