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

[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

[Gn2Dlnd]

Everything GC said.

[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.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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?

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

[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.

[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.