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

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.

[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)

[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]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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!

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

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)

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yes, let's all save bunching our panties for something of genuine concern.

Understand that it is of genuine concern to some.

[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.

[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???