A noticeable area in which the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer (LGBTQ) community is largely ignored is in the world of advertising. I don’t know how many times I’ve flipped through a copy of Elle or Cosmopolitan without seeing a single gay advertisement or even photo spread containing same-sex affection. Opening a copy of The Advocate is an entirely different story, of course, because just about every ad in this publication is directed specifically to gays and lesbians.
According to Echelon Magazine, the source for GLBT Professionals, many national companies are hesitant to publish advertising directed towards the gay community in fear of retaliation from the largely intolerant conservative Christian Right. Companies fear that conservative readers and stakeholders will cancel subscriptions, sell their shares and pull advertising from the magazine, causing cuts in profits that the publication is not likely to recover from.
In the article “Lavender Dollars are Very Green” by David W. Unger, he explains that the proportion of advertising dollars to the amount of disposable income in the gay community is completely out of whack. According to the 2009 Gay Market Report on PinkBananaMedia.com, in 2007, there were an estimated 15 million homosexuals in America, giving this group about $690 billion in buying power. This group of homosexuals had greater buying power than both the Asian American and Hispanic American markets! That is a lot of money to be spent on products and services!
Not only that, but the buying power is estimated to reach $712 billion in 2008 and $835 billion in 2011. You would think that because the gays have such huge available spending power, companies would be vying to compete in advertising to get these dollars.
A minimal amount of $20 million is spent annually on advertising targeted to the gay consumer population, most of which Unger says is spent by HIV drug manufacturers. $20 million is spent to sway 15 million gay consumers to spend their $712 billion in disposable income on their companies’ products and services. That is roughly about $1.00 per LGBTQ person in America. If companies aren’t willing to put out the money to attract this largely untapped market, why should LGBTQ individuals support their companies by buying their products?
Unger stresses that “[the gay community] needs to be more loyal to those national advertisers who support [the community] in a big way.”
By spending money on products produced by companies that make no effort to draw in the LGBTQ community, the gay consumers are saying it’s okay to treat the community like they aren’t worth any money.
One way to tell how supportive a company is of the LGBTQ community is to check out Commercial Closet Association’s website. This non-profit rates companies and their ads on a scale of 1 to 100 based on how they incorporate themes of equality into their ads.
Among Commercial Closet’s top-rated companies were Levi’s, HBO and Apple. Among the worst were Wal-Mart, Dunkin Donuts and Cracker Barrel.
According to Echelon Magazine, the source for GLBT Professionals, many national companies are hesitant to publish advertising directed towards the gay community in fear of retaliation from the largely intolerant conservative Christian Right. Companies fear that conservative readers and stakeholders will cancel subscriptions, sell their shares and pull advertising from the magazine, causing cuts in profits that the publication is not likely to recover from.
In the article “Lavender Dollars are Very Green” by David W. Unger, he explains that the proportion of advertising dollars to the amount of disposable income in the gay community is completely out of whack. According to the 2009 Gay Market Report on PinkBananaMedia.com, in 2007, there were an estimated 15 million homosexuals in America, giving this group about $690 billion in buying power. This group of homosexuals had greater buying power than both the Asian American and Hispanic American markets! That is a lot of money to be spent on products and services!
Not only that, but the buying power is estimated to reach $712 billion in 2008 and $835 billion in 2011. You would think that because the gays have such huge available spending power, companies would be vying to compete in advertising to get these dollars.
A minimal amount of $20 million is spent annually on advertising targeted to the gay consumer population, most of which Unger says is spent by HIV drug manufacturers. $20 million is spent to sway 15 million gay consumers to spend their $712 billion in disposable income on their companies’ products and services. That is roughly about $1.00 per LGBTQ person in America. If companies aren’t willing to put out the money to attract this largely untapped market, why should LGBTQ individuals support their companies by buying their products?
Unger stresses that “[the gay community] needs to be more loyal to those national advertisers who support [the community] in a big way.”
By spending money on products produced by companies that make no effort to draw in the LGBTQ community, the gay consumers are saying it’s okay to treat the community like they aren’t worth any money.
One way to tell how supportive a company is of the LGBTQ community is to check out Commercial Closet Association’s website. This non-profit rates companies and their ads on a scale of 1 to 100 based on how they incorporate themes of equality into their ads.
Among Commercial Closet’s top-rated companies were Levi’s, HBO and Apple. Among the worst were Wal-Mart, Dunkin Donuts and Cracker Barrel.
