ILoveGay.NET

 

By Alfred Verhoeven.

This article is a result of my PhD Research Marketing the Rainbow, in which I look at the reasons why and ways how brands and organizations have targeted the LGBT consumers.

In my article “The myth of gay affluence” I showed that the assumption that gays earn more than straights is a myth. So: are they less interesting as a consumer than is assumed? No, there are four reasons why Marketing the Rainbow is good for your business. Plus two bonus reasons.

1. No children

The net income may be slightly lower than that of heterosexual colleagues, but 80-90 percent of LGBT households lack children. They cost (a lot of) money and (a lot of) time: two factors that affect the vast majority of LH people (because little is known about the Bs, and the T is such a small group that it is not a focus group economically) which are is beneficial. There are about one million LGBT people in the Netherlands, 4 million in the UK, 20 million in the US. The freely disposable income of this group is easily resp. 10, 40 and $800 billion. That seems like a pie that many companies would like to have a slice of.

Incidentally, the sexual identity is not so relevant here: heterosexuals without children are (almost) equally interesting. This occurs in less than 20 percent of heterosexual households. But how do you reach them? There are no sports clubs, bridge clubs, Straight Without Kids parades. No magazines or websites for the childless or childfree (subtle difference, but not so relevant here). So this group is invisible and all but untraceable, in contrast to the LGBT.

2. Brand Loyalty

Almost every LGBT person has a traumatic childhood to a greater or lesser extent because of an identity crisis, the lack of role models or the fear of bullying and discrimination. This lasts on average about 18-20 years. The coming-out is often a liberation, but in addition to the still existing bullies and trolls (now mostly digitized) there is another obstacle.

Society appears and remains a ‘paternalistic heterosexual’ system, especially in those societies where religion plays an important role.

Even the former, which has been fought over for a century, is only difficult to break, but the latter also remains stubborn. From pink baby rooms for girls, cars as toys for boys, clothing and make-up regulations that are only broken by the bravest, suburban bliss: almost all images and information we receive are aimed at a straight life, with associated role patterns. The (in)visibility of alternatives strongly contributes to bullying and discrimination, but also to delaying the coming-out. In my youth (I am from ’61) I knew of a few TV celebrities that were rumored to be G (hardly any L, no B and definitely no T), but they were not people I could compare myself to. There were no role models for me ‘in the village’, while the media – and certainly the advertising world – did not cooperate.

Dutch insurer Amev was the first in the world (!) to make a TV commercial in 1992 that featured LGBT people, and at the same time no fewer than three same-sex couples (2x male and 1x female). It was also very daring on Amev’s part because this was at the height of the AIDS crisis and life insurers were in a state of panic: 12 points for Amev. It took years after this before more representation was offered.

You also have to do it right, the tone has to ring true. As an advertiser, you speak with your customers, not with your mates in the café. The people behind a campaign may be gay, or gay-friendly, or just have the best diversity intentions, but the framework has to be right.

It is almost always about couples, because one person is only recognizable as ‘gay’ if the type is portrayed heavily exaggerated – and that often goes wrong. Delta Lloyd got away with stereotyping in a very successful 1999 commercial, but others got burned. I also recently described this in a blog about Heineken, which in the 1990s handled the theme quite badly a few times.

Also puns in print advertisements can go wrong, because they are snapshots, without much context. For example, I found the advertisement of the French Tourist Board rather offensive: “A Trick or the Real Thing?” with a few more jokes about cruising and flirting. That plays too much on the sexual part of the word, and France has no permission to do so. Jokes about gays, Jews, women, blacks or people with disabilities may only be made in good decency by members of those groups. France is not one of them. So, as a company, be careful how you shape that representation.

But if a brand does it well it will resonate with the LGBT community, they will appreciate this by becoming a customer – and return. This does not have to be explicitly (Amev) or funny (Delta Lloyd), but can be very casual, as Zillow has done, or Sourcy, HelloFresh or Zalando. And – in the end – Heineken too.

3. The PFLAG Effect

This effect was defined by Bob Witeck, and is perhaps the most important factor – one that is almost always overlooked. PFLAG is the American organization that until 2014 was known as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, but has now adopted the abbreviation as its name. The so-called PFLAG effect concerns the allies, family, friends and colleagues who appreciate that ‘their’ gay or lesbian is represented and thus appreciated. This is reinforced by the millennials, who are growing up as the most tolerant generation ever. To this effect, you soon find yourself in a group and purchasing power that is many times greater than that of the community itself.

In a 2014 Google Consumer Survey, 54 percent of consumers under 34 say they prefer a brand that values ​​equality (on all fronts). A 2019 Emarketer survey is even more specific: a quarter of all Americans say they are willing to do business with companies that are LGBT-friendly. This applies to 71 percent of gays and lesbians, 54 percent of bisexuals, 32 percent of millennials and 34 percent of high earners (who are often higher educated, and therefore have a more ‘liberal’ view of life).

The fact that it is not 100 percent in the first three groups is because there is still a lot of mistrust about Marketing the Rainbow. Bad intentions are often assumed first: rainbow capitalism and pinkwashing. That is quite exhausting, because I have been trying to explain for ten years that it is not all that bad, and that the LGBT people are indeed seen as people and not just as cash cows. Yet it is a common response, because decades of neglect and underrepresentation are not easily made up for. But we’ll get there!

So the PFLAG effect is an important accelerator, keep that in mind!

4. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

What started with sustainability quickly became broader. My professor, Prof. Arjo Klamer of Amsterdam VU University, wrote the book ‘Doing The Right Thing’. In this he argues that companies consist of people and therefore also display human traits. While in the last century a company’s primary, if not only, objective was to make a profit, that has changed in this century. It no longer has to be primary: a company can very well show itself from its good side(s), while profit is seen as a secondary goal. Secondary does not mean that less profit is made – on the contrary!

CSR starts with determining strategy and policy, which will soon be reflected in HR policy. It can then be applied to supplier selection, and usually as the last step in marketing and communications. If earlier steps are skipped, the communications may not seem sincere.

This is never just about LGBT: it will always be combined with the role of women and the representation of ethnic minorities, for example. Conversely, LGBT will not always be included (from the start) as a factor if a company wants to promote gender equality, because of the last whiffs of taboo and stigma of sexual identity.

Bonus reason (5): Staff

As mentioned, CSR is often reflected in HR policy, in the form of diversity and inclusivity provisions (D&I, although some companies opt for I&D because they consider inclusiveness more important). Allowing an employee to be appreciated, to be themselves, leads to more satisfaction, higher productivity, fewer sick days and longer employment: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. Your HR costs go down, your reputation goes up. It has been established that millennials in particular look with a keen eye to the D&I image of potential employers and will drop out if this is not in order.

In this frame of reference, the theory also applies to B2B and non-profits.

Production value and contribution to the economy

In addition to the income of LGBT people, there is another important aspect of their economic value: their contribution to GDP. The US National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) reported in 2017 that an LGBT ‘owned and operated’ company has been around for more than 12 years on average, that this group contributes more than $1.7 trillion to the US economy and more than 33,000 jobs were created. This makes them a factor to reckon with. In addition, many – and increasing numbers – organizations and companies (according to the NGLCC press release “more than a third of the Fortune 500, many federal agencies, states, major cities and public utilities”) have implemented D&I policies, which also prescribe how to apply supplier diversity.

While it is fairly easy to determine when a business is owned or run by women, and with a little more effort by ‘someone with a migrant background’, it is a bit more complicated for LGBT: so they are ‘certified’ through the NGLCC. In Europe there is now a GLCC in Germany, Italy and Sweden plus an East Meets West Chamber, and a European umbrella organization.

Note: In a recent study, Lee Badgett found that homophobia and transphobia can come at the expense of 1 percent of GDP. She indicates that this economic impact has contributed to the realization of marriage equality. The opening up of marriage has been good for the economic well-being of LGBT families and has given a boost to local businesses in particular.

Yet another reason to do Marketing the Rainbow. And that’s six.