We're So Easy to Bait

Ford Motor Company - car-maker, advertiser, sponsor, drowning in red ink, and . . . evil, homophobic, satanic, Bible-thumping . . . AAARGH!!!!

At least, according to our twitchy gay compatriots whose sexual politics must invade every pointless facet of their lives.

As a tangential addendum, did you know Wal-Mart is a sinister right-wing company that would send us gay folk off to concentration camps if they could? So my friends tell me. I don't shop there anyway, because there are several hundred stores closer to me. Sometimes, though, I think about shopping there just to spite my politically obsessed friends. Really. Out of spite. Aside from the fact, you know, I've literally set foot in Wal-Mart once in my entire life, and it was to get an emergency window air-conditioner on a 95+ degree day.

I have a confession to make: I have no idea what companies do and do not advertise in gay publications. I am only vaguely aware of which companies sponsor various GLBT events, and only then because some "family" organization is protesting and the story makes it into the media.

Which is naturally why I find the great soul-rending and gnashing of teeth over the recent advertising war with Ford so absolutely hilarious.

First, allow me to ask my LGBT friends. Do you drive a Ford? Were you planning on buying a Ford in the near future? Of the 4% of you who answered yes (I know of no one in my social circle who does), is a Jaguar or Land Rover the car you currently drive or are planning on driving?

If I had to wager, I'd say 99.999999% of the people reading this said no to the above question. Which is precisely the point. If we're not a demographic buying those two cars in the first place, why do we care whether or not Ford advertises them in gay publications that most of us aren't even reading anyway?

I'll tell you why. Because the American Family Association poked gay people with a stick and we predictably took the bait and had a nervous breakdown. Right now they are reading the gay media - one hand down their pants, the other on a Bible - cackling that the gay hornets are swarming around their nests stroking themselves out over one company's advertising.

Ford lost $2.2 billion last year. No one is buying their cars. Doesn't it make sense they'd rethink their marketing campaigns just a touch? You know which Ford product I do see gay people driving? Volvos. I know many gay men and women who drive Volvos. Guess which car Ford will continue advertising in LGBT publications? That's right.

The AFA told gay activists to jump, and we asked Donald Wildmon, "How high, how high?" This is an organization with a history of useless boycotts. They're currently boycotting Target over Christmas greetings. They've been boycotting Disney for almost nine years. Did you notice? Did Disney even notice? They just recently ended their boycott of Disney because of the upcoming release of the Christian-themed "Chronicles of Narnia." The AFA has a history of claiming "victory" when factors that have nothing to do with their boycotts cut their way. Does anyone think Disney made this movie to appease right-wingers, or is it more likely Disney is hoping for a boatload of cash?

So it is with Ford. Ford needed to seriously rethink their marketing strategies. Volvo advertising to the LGBT market appears to be successful, so they will continue on with that. The Jaguar and Land Rover campaigns seemed to have been fairly useless. They cancelled them.

Ah, but here came the AFA claiming, yet again, one of their "victories," and gay activists are currently tripping over themselves to express their deep outrage and personal pain over this rejection of who they are.

Let me just get this out of the way - if you're looking to a car company's advertising campaign for personal validation, you have bigger problems than a car company's advertising campaign.

If I had to speculate (without pulling a Jon Aravosis and trying to figure out why it's all a malevolent right-wing plot), I'd say Ford made a marketing decision in light of their losses, knew they were going to be pulling two products from LGBT publications, and let the AFA know just to get them off their back. If they were going to be canceling marketing anyway, why not kill two birds with one stone?

Given Ford's history, the AFA's history, and market history, that sounds to me like a fairly common sense scenario.

But then, that doesn't allow us to feel victimized, rage against the world that hates us so much, work ourselves into a boiling froth of self-righteous indignation, and engage in yet another pointless crusade that makes us feel like we're doing something for "the cause."

So, golf clap to you, gay activists. You've picked yet another winning issue.

Woo.

Comments

[Malcontent]

Wow, Robbie, I couldn't possibly disagree more. I have been contemplating, in between slaving away at work in a hotel room, a post that is about 180 degrees diametrically opposed to yours.

Just because AFA is a paper tiger doesn't mean that they didn't spook Ford into at least some degree of appeasement nevertheless, which appears to be exactly what they're admitting. Of course, the left is predictably overdoing it with torture.com-like apoplexy. (A very merry "fuck you" to a few more liberals who compare American religious bigots to the Taliban, by the way.)

OK, so the left overdoes it, but that doesn't mean that they're right about how wrong Ford is. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

By the way, I am a now former faithful Ford owner.

And to all who think Robbie and I can't/don't/won't think for ourselves: nuh uh.

[mary]

I drive a Ford Escort and it's a piece of crap. My next car will be a VW or some type of Hybrid. So count me in the 4%!

[Robbie]

Now see, I read that link (under "admitting") and I don't see them bowing to pressure. Had Ford caved purely under AFA pressure, what is Volvo still doing advertising in gay publications? From what I know of gay people and cars, advertising Volvo is a sound business decision. I don't see that with Jaguar or Land Rover. When they say it's a business decision, I do not find that difficult to believe under their financial circumstances.

Just to reiterate, I think Ford figured "Well, if we're going to pull some of our advertising from LGBT publications, why not point that out to the AFA to get them off our backs? They get their victory, we don't have to do anything we weren't going to do anyway, and everybody's happy." Well, everybody except the gay community.

As far as boycotts and things go (from both sides), I think they're good democracy, but also a little loopy. I have friends I'll not be Christmas shopping with this year because it is a soul-deadening experience. I'll be at the mall with them, and they have a list of which stores we can and cannot enter due to whatever political conviction and oh just forget it. I just want to buy things, I don't want to validate my entire worldview.

I don't buy Fords anyway. I prefer foreign cars. I would be willing to bet a lot of the people whose heads are exploding over this aren't Jaguar or Land Rover owners to begin with.

[Robbie]

Mary, Ford escorts are crap, and shame on you for buying one =)

My philosophy is buy whichever car you like, works well, and fits your driving preferences. I won't buy Ford anyway, simply because I don't like the vehicles they offer.

It's just strange to me to rely on pure political motivation. And it's always so pick and choose about which political motivation is worthy of consumer preference. Like Wal-Mart. So many people think it's satanic and won't shop there. I don't shop there anyway. But, if our politics are now dictating where we should and should not shop, some of my friends really shouldn't be leaving the house.

Seems they're more interested in fashionable causes than earnest, foundational convictions.

[mary]

Mary, Ford escorts are crap, and shame on you for buying one =)

When you're 19 and poor, well...you get the picture. ;)

And as for the whole Ford fiasco - it's super fun watching all of you queens duke it out! Keep it coming, babe!

[Robbie]

Well, not that I can talk. I'm driving the Neon that was bought the week I got my license ten years ago. (Though, to be fair, I've bought, sold, and totalled several cars in the interim). I'm currently looking at Scions and Jettas, with a decision coming down before the New Year.

Mal and I aren't duking it out. We're simply . . . engaging in a bit of trans-hemispheric wrassling.

[Malcontent]

Robbie, even if your theory is true, it is still pretty breathtaking. But I don't think it's all that innocent -- there seems to be a lot of fire to go along with the smoke Ford has been sending up.

I can understand a post criticizing the (again, predictable) excesses of the über-gay warlords, but I think anger at the very least is well-placed, in this case. It is almost as if you expect people not to be upset with such a slap.

[Robbie]

I'm tired of people predictably taking the AFA's bait. They boycott everyone and anyone, and they're typically unsuccessful. They have a history of claiming "victory" based on something a company is doing anyway. Disney and the Narnia release is textbook when it comes to them.

I think Ford didn't know what to do, and their attitude was not to do anything at all. "We'll make our marketing decisions, and let them think whatever they like." Of course, the AFA went running off to the media screaming "Victory is ours!" which is what they always do.

And we always fall for it, and work ourselves up, and freak out, and . . . well, we're a bunch of drama queens about these things.

Allowing a two-bit, right-wing organization that no major company in America takes seriously to consistently send us into orbit is getting to be a bit much. As a community, we have this penchant for being unable to objectively and carefully go over facts and react on a reasonable, thoughtful level before our emotional odomoters go into overdrive. We heard AFA claim victory, Ford went "We, ah, uh, we, uhm, er . . ." and we went into immediate hysteria and assumed the worst.

Sitting back, examining the financial situation of the company, it does not seem terribly unreasonable that Ford actually is doing this based on financial calculations.

But the AFA ("smoke") is there, and I think that has a major effect on how people are reacting. I think the entire "controversy" is overblown, and getting this worked up about it is playing right into the AFA's hands. We're doing what they want us to do. It wasn't an actual victory for them until we reacted and made it one.

[Queer Conservative]

I think this is more of a business decision than anything else. Ford is hurting and they have to make cuts. The only Ford brands that advertised in gay publications were Land Rover, Jaguar, and Volvo. Volvo will continue to advertise in those publications because "the company believes it's an effective strategy for that market." Which means that the Volvo ads were working and the Land Rover/Jaguar ads weren't. Ford plans to shut five North American plants that employ 7,500 workers; and the company's total U.S. vehicle sales in November fell by 15%. These advertising decisions are economics, not homophobia or cowtowing to the religious right.

Let Donald Wildmon have his "victory," such as it is. The reality is that Ford will still be advertising in gay publications, but like all companies they have to be selective in where they spend their advertising dollars.

[Stephen]

Robbie, speculate if you wish about the two birds with one stone hypothesis. Maybe it's even true. But it's as coherent as Ford's decision to drop advertizing at the very same time that AHA rackles them and not being a part of a conspiracy. There are faeries after all.

The AHA is an economic force and powerful lobby, whether we like it or not. The religious right seems to have these wingbats almost everywhere. Even Bill O'Reilly is boycotting stores that use "holiday" instead of "Christmas." Will it never end?

Well, it can and it has. Remember the Microsoft decision? Whatever else you may think of John, he was very instrumental in getting Microsoft to reconsider its position. Microsoft decided equality was a better marketing tool than capitulation to the fundies. It also helped that Microsfot employees threatened a walkout. Moral of story? Political action DOES work.

The Ford issue has nothing in common with the Wal-Mart dispute. The Ford issue is capitulation to the religious wingnuts who threatened to take their business elsewhere IF Ford did not stop its advancement of "the homosexual agenda." First, I doubt seriously Ford has given an iota of thought to the "homosexual agenda" -- assuming there is one. Second, I cannot imagine a queer driving anything other than a Mazda or Jaguar that Ford makes. Third, despite the first-two, Ford should have the guts of its own conviction to do what's best for shareholders, and marketing to the gay market makes excellent economic sense. If Ford cannot deliver the goods to its shareholders, THEY should take steps to remedy the matter.

That said, I still think John's counter-campaign against the AFA makes perfect sense, if only to make the point that gays have just as much economic clout as the AFA. If a company wants to burn its bridges to build alliances with bigots, they should know many of us will not buy their products for THAT reason alone. Of course there MAY be other reasons, but this ONE reason is sufficient for many of us not even to consider buying Ford.

The bottom-line is ALWAYS profit. If we allow Ford to capitulate to the AFA, the AFA profits, not Ford. If Ford's decision wrecks havoc with their bottom line, great, it proves the point. Telling Ford that it WILL makes an economic decision also a political one. Joining John and thousands of others in writing Ford takes only a few minutes, but the payoff could be immense. This is certainly one time I can join with John in his boycott scheme, precisely because it makes BOTH economic and political sense. Thus, we really are hitting two birds with one stone.

[Downtown Lad]

Even Ford doesn't deny that they caved into the AFA threats. They have acknowledged it.

AFA (and rightly so) sees Volvo as a foreign car.

Ford has just given a big middle finger to the gay community. It is appropriate for the gay community to give a big middle finger back.

Ford is about to lay off 30,000 employees. Hope they have a Merry Christmas.

[Jack Malebranche]

What confuses me is...

Don't homos LOVE Land Rovers??

I remember it being THE West Hollywood auto of choice. And I have a friend who looks lovingly at Land Rovers and Range Rovers every time he gets bored at work. I don't really care what Ford does, but this just seems like a bad marketing decision.

However, one could easily say that homos don't buy Land Rovers because they're in "The Advocate" or whatever gay,gay,gay publication. I mean, who reads "The Advocate," anyway? Isn't it just soft-core porn and HIV medication ads?

They probably get just as much play in the homo market by advertising in "Entertainment Weekly," or, one would hope, something hipper. You are right, it probably just isn't the best use of their ad dollars.

It would be refreshing to see the 'gay organizations' just brush something off once in a while. Wouldn't it be rather shrewd to simply respond by highlighting all of the other auto-makers who DO target the 'community,' such as it is? Something to the tune of "Oh well, I suppose consumers in our community will simply turn their attention to other marvelous autos like blah...blah...blah, which won motor trend car of the year, incidentally..." Reward those who support what you want them to with free press in your release. Say they are simply better cars. Get sneaky. Why always take the victimized, defensive side?

[Aside: Robbie, Wal-Mart is also not particularly Satanic. Just for the record. It's just inane, though it has its uses, as every trip to Wal-Mart is a compelling argument for eugenics. I've been known to go there for tires and Dickies. ;) ]

[Robbie]

There is a huge difference, however. With the Microsoft case, you're discussing company benefits, and I can certainly get involved in pushing companies to offer domestic partnership benefits. Not only is it morally right, it's a sound business decision.

This Ford issue is an entirely different kettle of fish. They're making a marketing decision. If they are not seeing a return on their marketing money, they are going to stop spending that money. I would not expect a company to spend money on advertising in gay publications out of weird sense of solidarity, if that money isn't money well spent. They have an obligation to their share-holders to make economic sense in their advertising decisions. Hence, you see the Volvo advertising continuing.

This didn't become a cultural and political issue until the AFA made it one. Now, our reaction could've been, "Can we see your Jaguar and Land Rover demographics? Can you tell us how much you're spending on LGBT marketing, and what kind of returns you're getting on these two products?"

Then we could decide if it was AFA pressure, or if their numbers are just sheer crap.

Instead we went, "Wha? AFA?! Boycott! Boycott! Boycott!"

That's not rational decision-making. It's really along the lines of demogoguery. The AFA basically went, "Hey, wanna fight in the mud?" and plently of LGBTers went, "Meet ya in the back of the school yard!"

And now we're playing at their level.

Sorry if that bothers me.

[Queer Conservative]

DL, Jaguar and Land Rover are both recognized as foreign cars. I bet most Americans don't even realize Ford owns the brands.

[Robbie]

It would be refreshing to see the 'gay organizations' just brush something off once in a while. Wouldn't it be rather shrewd to simply respond by highlighting all of the other auto-makers who DO target the 'community,' such as it is? Something to the tune of "Oh well, I suppose consumers in our community will simply turn their attention to other marvelous autos like blah...blah...blah, which won motor trend car of the year, incidentally..." Reward those who support what you want them to with free press in your release. Say they are simply better cars. Get sneaky. Why always take the victimized, defensive side?

That would be such a refreshing change of pace, I'd probably lose bowel control out of sheer surprise if we ever showed that level of maturity.

I'm not sure what the deal with Wal-Mart is. There's one about 5 miles from me, however, there are also Targets, Best Buys, two malls, etc. between them and me. So I've never really had cause to shop there. It never crosses my mind.

My friends though, my friends can never stop telling me what an evil corporation it is, and anyone who shops there is an uneducated hick, and on and on. It's fascinating to watch them sputter. To get that worked up about a store? Ok then. Where I decide to shop comes down to 1. Is it close? and 2. Do they have what I want to buy?

QC - I certainly had no idea Jaguar was owned by Ford. I assumed it was a foreign company until this incident.

[Jack Malebranche]

I'm not sure what the deal with Wal-Mart is. There's one about 5 miles from me, however, there are also Targets, Best Buys, two malls, etc. between them and me. So I've never really had cause to shop there. It never crosses my mind.

My friends though, my friends can never stop telling me what an evil corporation it is, and anyone who shops there is an uneducated hick, and on and on. It's fascinating to watch them sputter.

Well...people do get a little hysterical, don't they? I don't know if it's particularly evil. Their mega-mega-super-city-size-stores do tend to close all surrounding businesses and suck all of the character out of quaint little middle-American towns. But if you believe in a free market...that's how it works. No use getting all upset about it, right?

That would be such a refreshing change of pace, I'd probably lose bowel control out of sheer surprise if we ever showed that level of maturity.

Well, I don't think there's any reason to pre-emptively start wearing incontinence garments, because it ain't gonna happen. But I did notice your use of we in place of them...I mean, it's pretty obvious it's not you, right? It's just this nutty political machine that obviously doesn't quite represent your interests. I sure as Hell know I'm not part of that we. I'm always very suspicious of the word we, but hey, that's just me.

[AGJ]

Interesting, thank you. You all have given me much to think about while driving in my Honda on the way to Wal Mart... ;-)

[olivier]

Interestingly, the Chronicles of Narnia are not being advertised as a christian fable in Britain, a predominantly agnostic country, since it would be a massive turn off. The religious angle is being used only in America. The possibility of a christian reading is there, but subtle enough to be entirely ignored, depening on what you're looking for. And so it probably is with Ford and the AFA: they are making a decision which can be read favorably by the AFA and shouldn't make much of a difference as far as our spending habits are concerned.

And on a completely different note: Robbie honey, please get out more. Interesting as all this is, I am worried that you aren't getting enough daylight or exercise or something.

[Aatom]

I think I'm with Mal on this one, Robbie. I agree with you that it was a marketing decision, but it is one that should have consequences for them vis-a-vis the gay community. They are clearly banking on the fact that demographically they are better off catering to the far right (i'm sure the AFA paints it as the mainstream "family" demographic) and not targeting the gay community. That is all well and good, but we shouldn't toss gay dollars their way anyway. If they don't feel that they need our money, fine. But in order for the marketplace to register our discontent we have to actually withhold it from them. Mal's right, you have to ignore the jumping up and down on both sides of the fringe and look at the real impact of Ford's marketing choices. With the kind of spending power that the gay community wields in this country, it is not merely symbolic to vote with our wallets.

[Queer Conservative]

Olivier,

You may be able to willfully ignore the central Christian theme in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, but the allegory is anything but subtle. Not to mention C. S. Lewis himself said it was intended to be a re-telling of the Gospel for children.

[John]

I wonder if all the people who are so concerned about Wal-Mart shutting down Main Street America ever shop at Lowe's or Home Depot. Do they worry about all of the small town hardware stores that are their competition? Is it just Wal-Mart or all "big box" stores?

[olivier]

QC - This lit student approach you take on your blog reminds me of my Uncle's reading of The Matrix. (He's a fundamentalist christian minister.) I can assure you that the average Brit isn't the least bit interested in the christian message and won't have to be at all wilful in ignoring it. It's not 'wilfulness', just disinterest.
(I do wish that I could count my own family amongst the formerly mentioned 'average Brits' since I will be hearing about the damn movie ad nauseum next time I am back.)

[Malcontent]

Robbie: Why do all of YOUR posts get the most comments?? :-)

Seriously, though, I don't know how you can divorce "marketing" decisions from "business" decisions and put them in hermetically sealed silos or something. To most Americans, Ford is Ford, and their marketing will redound to the success or failure of their company. If they had wanted not to piss off the gay community, they had it in their power to do so. They need merely have made the case for "necessary business strategies," but as it is, they're too interested in playing footsy with wackos. So if they're trying to kill a second bird with this stone, then as DTLad said, we should rightly give them the bird right back.

Speaking of which, DTLad, here is the problem I have with you: On some issues (a few, at least), you just about have me ... and then you lose me. You were making a perfectly reasonable argument until your insensitive comment about thousands of people who are about to lose their jobs, most of whom couldn't care a fig about all the Machiavellianism that is going on re: AFA, gays, etc. (I know you claim to be a libertarian, but to me it sounds like a classic "progressive" who loves "humanity" but hates people.)

Olivier: "Chronicles of Narnia" the book was indeed written with a Christian subtext. But Disney is intentionally marketing "Chronicles of Narnia" the movie franchise with intentional ambivalence. I have even seen interviews from two different Disney execs where they both confirm and deny the Christian subtext of the story.

But it is obvious that their strategy is quite simple: the audiences for Harry Potter + Passion of the Christ = HUGE numbers for Narnia. Whether it works or not is anyone's guess. But the company gave advance screening copies to fundamentalist churches in the U.S., so it's clear it is a calculated effort. (And it is only being marketed this way to a niche, not the entire nation.)

[Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)]

Malcontent--his posts get all the comments because he's clever, adorable and single.

[Jack Malebranche]

Seriously, though, I don't know how you can divorce "marketing" decisions from "business" decisions and put them in hermetically sealed silos or something.

Aren't 'marketing' decisions and 'business' decisions the same thing? It's all calculated. Someone calculated the potential loss from the 'angry gay community' and said, "fuck it." On the opposite side, someone did the same with 'Gay Days' at Disney. Isn't it all a cost/benefit analysis? Coporations don't serve the 'greater good,' they serve 'the bottom line.'