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.

Hear, Hear!

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)

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???

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.

Understand that it is of genuine concern to some.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.