The Christian Science Monitor reports:
“Iconic Irish beer brand Guinness made waves after it pulled its sponsorship from New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade on Sunday, because the parade excludes LGBT groups. This move came just days after Boston Beer Co., the parent company of Sam Adams, announced it would pull its sponsorship from the Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade. Heineken pulled its sponsorship for New York parade for the same reason”
Here’s why:
“[LGBT economic power] isn’t the overarching driver – it is generational,” says [Bob Witeck, president of Witeck Communications, a marketing group focused on the LGBT demographic]. “What corporations see are the large numbers of younger consumers who are very passionate about human rights and nondiscrimination. Sending a message that anyone is not welcome is wrong.”
On the other hand:
“There are mixed feelings about marketing alcohol to the LGBT community. Studies suggest the LGBT community has higher rates of substance abuse issues than other demographics. Some say heavy marketing efforts by beer and liquor brands have played a role.”
More. How corporate America, acting in its own competitive interest, advances social and legal equality:
The rapid rise in public acceptance of gay marriage also has its roots in the workplace, says Lee Badgett, the director of the Center for Public Policy & Administration at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst. … “Many of the arguments were first tested in the corporate context before they made it out to the broader public,” she says. … “Even if corporations didn’t go into this with the intention of creating social change, in the process they created social change,” says Ms. Badgett.
24 Comments for “Marketing Favors Inclusion”
posted by Don on
I think our tendency to boycott comes from Anita Bryant years. It really was our only successful tactic that we had. Anita crushed us in Miami. But we destroyed her orange juice career.
Usually it’s just easier to scare a company with sales than it is to get 60% of the people to agree with you. Right or wrong, it’s a tactic that tends to work. Not to mention the fact that it takes so little effort to launch a boycott or convince a company to take action. Try getting a bill through a legislative body.
posted by Houndentenor on
The only thing that matters to a corporation is profit/loss. When activists successfully got consumers to stop buying tuna to boycott their practice of killing many dolphins in the process of catching tuna, they only started listening when they stopped making money. It works IF people actually stop buying the product. Personally on gay issues I no longer think of it as boycotting. I just prefer not to give money to people who hate me and actively work to restrict my ability to live my life.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
“There are mixed feelings about marketing alcohol to the LGBT community. Studies suggest the LGBT community has higher rates of substance abuse issues than other demographics. Some say heavy marketing efforts by beer and liquor brands have played a role.”
Ah, the nanny state cheerleaders rear their ugly head yet again. I’m surprised that you cite this sentiment with apparent approval.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Well, I thought I had seem something not too long ago on Fox News (or something saying) that some sort of compromise deal had been reached and some sort of gay Irish American group was going to be allowed to march in the parade. Could they have been mistaken?
2. Some of the earliest big business outlets to market to the gay consumer or the (as some UK friend of mine put it) ‘pink pound’ were alcohol and tobacco product….it is probably something of a mixed blessing.
Gay magazines and big gay events needed the advertising/underwriting/sponsorship revenues and the list of willing companies was probably pretty short….Also some of the only places gay people could meet other gay people, were in the gay bars in urban settings– even those were often harassed/raided. and what — pray tell — do many people tend to do in bars? Drink and smoke. (other their is no smoking in bars in Minnesota)
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. No gay groups cannot march in the Fifth Avenue St. Patrick’s Day Parade. There are other parades around the country (even a couple more in other boroughs of NYC) where they can but not that one. Every new mayor has meetings and emerges thinking they’ve solved the problem and that may be what Fox News reported (in typical Fox fashion only telling part of the story). The parade organizers are fine with gay people marching so long as they don’t identify themselves as gay in any way. That’s not really a compromise of any sort.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I thought I had seem something not too long ago on Fox News (or something saying) that some sort of compromise deal had been reached and some sort of gay Irish American group was going to be allowed to march in the parade. Could they have been mistaken?
Oh, so that’s what Cardinal Dolan was referring to when he said he welcomes the fact that “thousands of gays” were marching. I thought it was a rather odd statement.
From what I gather on the news coverage this year, each side thinks the other side is being ridiculously stubborn. The order that organizes the march supposedly says it’s fine with a gay (LBT?) group marching, but doesn’t want it displaying anything identifying that they’re gay, anything political, etc. Even I think that is a pretext, but thin pretexts have a way of being unstable. Unless you’re a Catholic group like the parade organizers are, in which case they have a way of being immortal.
Democratic politicians have long been boycotting the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. The only reason it’s getting so much attention this year is because this is the first time we’ve had a Democratic mayor since this conflict started. I think it’s probably drawing the attention of people and tactics I wouldn’t be comfortable allying with. The gay Irish who want to represent themselves in the parade have generally acquited themselves well over the years and I wish them a level of success that they can be comfortable with.
posted by Houndentenor on
Well, if Cardinal Dolan is marching, that’s at least one gay person in the parade.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Well, I can appreciate the legal right of the parade organizers to set up their own participation rules, but it seems like someone is telling porkies or coming up with rules that they are not taken seriously.
What if the Irish gays had signs that said something to the effect of, “Its OK To Be Takei!” ?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A side note, following up on the Illinois Republican primary results affecting the three Republican Assembly members who voted in favor of marriage equality last fall:
In Assembly re-election races, pro-equality Representative Ron Sandack (50.6%) narrowly fought off a challenge by social conservative Keith Matune (49.5%), but pro-equality Representative Bob Bednar (41.1%) lost big to social conservative Ed Sullivan, Jr. (58.9%). The marriage equality votes of the two representatives were prominent issues in the campaign.
In the State Treasurer Republican primary, pro-equality Representative Tom Cross prevailed (57.4%) over Bob Grogan (42.6%) by a large margin. Cross’s marriage equality vote does not seem to have been an issue in the race.
posted by Houndentenor on
Ugh. And where were HRC and GOProud during all this? Why the silence from Stephen and the other homocon bloggers?
posted by Mike in Houston on
HRC helped mobilize donors and others in support of these folks… GOProud (sans LaSilvia & Barron) is still nothing more than the sock-puppet it’s always been.
Jeremy Hooper, Joe Jervis and other lefty LGBT blogs (like HRC’s NOM Exposed) have covered this pretty well, too… but since that doesn’t fit Stephen’s usual narrative, you get radio silence.
posted by Jim Michaud on
So Tom, what do these election results mean for Marriage Equality in Illinois? Do these soc cons have Democratic opponents for the general election? Can these victors successfully turn back the clock and undo the progress that’s been made? You living in right next door Wisconsin should have more insight than I do here in Maine.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t think that the balance will turn against marriage equality in either legislative body, and even if it did, a federal court ruling is in place in Illinois. Marriage equality will stick, no matter what, unless SCOTUS rules otherwise.
Illinois Democrats will be running Democrats in every Senate and Assembly district in November, and I don’t think anyone expects the Democratic majorities to shift in either body.
Illinois Republicans have been remarkably moderate (by national standards) in the last decade. The primary results suggest that Illinois Republicans may moving rightward, which I suppose is inevitable given the tenor of the party at large right now, but I don’t think that Illinois will become Wisconsin, where the last moderate standing (Dale Schultz, Senate) declined to run this election cycle.
If you are looking for a little primary humor, check out the Republican primary in the 9th Congressional District (which includes much of Chicago).
Susanne Atanus, who says that she is a “conservative who puts God first” and who believes that God controls the weather and has put tornadoes and diseases such as autism and dementia on earth as in response to gay rights and legalized abortions, won handily over David Williams, a moderate, 52.4% to 47.6%.
Not that it will make a difference. Democrat Jan Schakowsky will win hands down in November.
posted by Doug on
“. . . who believes that God controls the weather and has put tornadoes and diseases such as autism and dementia on earth as in response to gay rights and legalized abortions. . . ”
Why would god indiscriminately kill his/her own supporters on these issues with tornados, especially since tornados are most common where those supporters live?
These right wingers are a mentally challenged group IMHO.
posted by Jorge on
Humph. Mentally challenged people actually know bull**** when it hits them. This is pure closed-mindedness. Wait until you have a bigger audience before you confront it.
posted by Lori Heine on
The private sector definitely is leading the way in inclusion. This is what I think the loons are reacting to in trying to force through their “religious freedom” bills. They think they’ll stand astride the market and yell “Stop!” That’s not going to work out, either.
My two cents in this is that tyranny has a broader context than just bad stuff government does. Tyranny, from a libertarian standpoint, is power without responsibility. I’ve been going around and around with my cable/Internet/telephone provider because — since the government severely limits my choices on whom I can interact with in these matters — I’m pretty much stuck dealing with one mega-giant corporation. I see no difference between dealing with them and dealing with the MVD, the IRS or the TSA.
This is why I’m gravitating toward left-libertarianism. That principle is understood on that side. Jeffrey Tucker has a very interesting piece about this in “The Freeman” — and I’m kicking myself because I started to write about this here without getting the link. But his article is causing quite a stir in libertarian-land, because it’s sort of a manifesto of progressive libertarianism, and a huge departure from the sort of Ayn Rand stuff a lot of people think all libertarians believe.
Unless we stand up to tyranny in the marketplace, it will do us little good to combat it in the government.
“States’ rights” arguments generally leave me cold, too. As I have stated on other threads here, I believe the president did the right thing by sending federal marshals into the South in the civil rights era. Tyranny at any level of government is evil. It doesn’t matter, on principle or in practice, whether it happens at the federal, state or local level.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Certain corporations have had a pretty good policies with respect to their gay employees. Sometimes it may be driven by an effort to show a ‘kinder, gentler’ side to ‘human’ corporation. Other times it may be a sincerely desire to make the world a better place.
Not all corporations have a good record in this record (setting aside their other record on say, labor or the environment). I just picked up an old gay resource book (gay new york community center book circa 1995) and it got an interesting list of the best and worst companies (circa 1994).
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Lori;
I think that many of the first libertarians we (non-libertarians) meet and interact with tend to Ayn Rand fans. That was certainly my experience with a University club.
One of the first meetings I went to — mainly because of my then boyfriend — involved a “documentary” explaining how the Federal Income Tax was never ratified and does not exist.
Not too many of them bought the idea that Peter Seeger or Norm Chomsky could be called members of the libertarian-left. Heck, they pretty much rejected the idea that a left-wing version of the philosophy existed.
posted by Lori Heine on
When I found out that the Pete Seeger/Noam Chomsky/Nat Hentoff/Howard Zinn/”Mother” Jones wing of the libertarian movement existed, I was relieved. It meant I didn’t dwell on some desert island all by myself.
Most of the libertarians I have contact with locally are of the typical Arizona, gunslinging, keep-off-my-ranch style. They lean right, if not hard-right, and though I share the same basic beliefs about libertarian principle, I have little in common with them. To them, I’m an incomprehensible exotic.
Then I found the local chapter of Out Right Libertarians, all of whom are LGBT social liberals like me. I’m at home with them. And via the Internet and my contacts with Our Right, I have found more like me. It’s good to know I’m not so exotic after all.
posted by Tom Jefferson on
Remember that Norm Chomsky identifies as being part of the libertarian-left. Seeger never did so, but much of his music certainly speaks to a need for freedom/love/peace. true, he had a brief love affair with Soviet Union, but he did apologize.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
In Minnesota, it is almost impossible to be a serious GOP candidate who is not hardcore, social conservative, if not totally bat-sh## crazy.
You find plenty of moderate Democrats and the centrist Independence Party runs some candidates, but sometimes its hard to see where the MN GOP ends and the MN Constitution Party (very crazy theocratic third party) begins.
I suspect that their are many moderate GOPers in Minnesota. In fact I know quite a few — not of all them gay, but generally more liberal on social issues — They are just generally being told to shut up or talk a walk.
posted by Mike in Houston on
The meme that “the market favors inclusion” does short shrift to the actualities.
Yes, most big companies today are ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBT-inclusion — whether in the market for talent or in terms of selling their wares… but that didn’t magically happen because of Adam Smith’s dead hand.
Getting business to the “well duh” point on LGBT issues is the result of a lot of work by LGBT employees and allies over the past thirty years. HRC’s Corporate Equality Index has been a particularly useful bench-marking tool — but even getting your company to participate in the annual survey (and be rated) can be a struggle… much less working within your corporate culture to change policies & practices.
What we’re seeing today are the fruits of that labor… so much so that millenials entering the workforce today take it for granted that they’ll be able to be their authentic selves. It’s also why companies with any sort of market presence are loathe to embrace discrimination. (Having nearly a trillion dollar market in the LGBT community doesn’t hurt.)
posted by Houndentenor on
I was working for a CEO when a Fortune 500 Company decided to add gays to its nondiscrimination policy. The gay employees had organized and went in with a proposal. It went something like this:
Company: Are there currently discriminating against gay people?
Employees: No. We’d just like it in writing.
Company: Well, okay then.
Of course this was the late 90s when recruitment was an issue. For those of you who graduated from college after 2001, there was this magical time when companies actually came looking for people to work for them and had to make their workplaces look as attractive as possible in order to recruit the best people.
There was some backlash, of course. There were ugly letters protesting this policy. Fortunately for the gay employees none of the letters came from customers who did more than a tiny amount of business with the company so no one had any damns to give what they thought about it. (Someone high up in the company actually apologized to me for having to read these letters before forwarding them to the right department. I think they were embarrassed. Straight people sometimes don’t realize what crap gets thrown at us until they are nearby when it happens.) Anyway, that’s how that happened in one company and from what I have read that was pretty typical. Sadly, a few companies rescinded such policies when they merged (Mobil employees lost these policies when their company merged with Exxon, for example). But they are pretty standard now. There haven’t been the problems that right-wingers claim when they fight against ENDA.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, most big companies today are ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBT-inclusion … but that didn’t magically happen because of Adam Smith’s dead hand. Getting business to the “well duh” point on LGBT issues is the result of a lot of work by LGBT employees and allies over the past thirty years. HRC’s Corporate Equality Index has been a particularly useful bench-marking tool — but even getting your company to participate in the annual survey (and be rated) can be a struggle… much less working within your corporate culture to change policies & practices. What we’re seeing today are the fruits of that labor …
That’s right. In the corporate arena, as well as in the political arena and the public arena, hard work was the key.
As the article Stephen cited notes:
I think that it is fair to say that wherever gays and lesbians put in the work, things changed, that work is the common denominator as a change agent.
I’m not so sure, though, about the author’s conclusion that ““Many of the arguments were first tested in the corporate context before they made it out to the broader public.”
The arguments that we used in the corporate arena in the 1980’s and 1990’s — bottom line arguments having to do with keeping valued employees — were quite different than the “fairness” argument used to turn the Democratic Party and the “love is love” argument that seems to have been successful in changing public attitudes as a whole.
I’m not questioning the effectiveness of bottom line arguments as we move into the final stages of the marriage equality battle — after all, “anti-gay laws drive away business” hammer home by the Chamber of Commerce and major corporations seems to have been the biggest factor in bringing Governor Brewer (no fan of equality based on her past statements), to heel.
But I would suggest that we should not rewrite history too blithely.
The “bottom line” argument was the driver in turning the Fortune 500. The “fairness” argument was the driver in turning the Democratic Party. The “love is love” argument seems to be the most effective argument in turning the general public.
Lumping the different efforts together without nuance ignores reality.