Everything GC said.

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.

Also from the story G.C. linked to:

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.

http://www.jewishglobe.com/Services/Advertise.asp
"We speak English, Hebrew, & Espanol" (!)

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.