The Illusion of Power: Marketing to Gays and Lesbians

Fred Fejes examines the affects of media and advertising on gay and lesbian identity and culture in “Advertising and the Political Economy of Lesbian/Gay Identity.” Fejes claims that despite the fact that advertisers now specifically market to homosexuals and value them as consumers, Gays and lesbians still have a long ways to go in gaining political, legal and social equality. Also, Fejes explains how gays are valued over lesbians to consumers, because of their supposedly higher income and greater readership of magazines targeted to homosexuals. However, gays were not always considered valuable to advertisers, who used to be hesitant to associate their products with the gay community. In the early 1970’s, Advertising Age ran reports involving the possibilities of marketing to gays, and the Advocate hired an independent marketing research firm to collect data about marketing to gay men. To reach the gay market, advertisers and magazines toned down their explicitly sexual content, upgraded their quality and changed their formatting. Thus, in the 1990’s advertisers became eager to market to gays due to their stereotyped high income, high level of education, frequent traveling, and interest in buying new electronic products. Obtaining objective and agreeable information was very difficult, as was marketing to a “gay” market. For example, a study posted in the New York Times argues that gays don’t make more money than straight people; they just spend it in a way more favorable to advertisers. Other studies say gays make much more money, or less money, than their straight counterparts. Nonetheless, gays became highly valued by advertisers, who portrayed them in a positive manor. Fejes warns that, while this may seem like progress, “being highly valued by markets means nothing politically.” (217) Fejes further argues that advertisements marketing gays and lesbians have, in some ways, adversely impacted homosexuals, as they are almost always depicted in the same way (they make a lot of money, wear designer cloths, go to the gym and ride in an SVU), which promotes conformity through consumption. This reading ends by acknowledging that gays more often live in “an environment quietly antagonistic at best or at worse openly hostile to their existence,” (221) which sharply contrasts with the happy portrayal of the gay lifestyle depicted by advertisers.

The picture I chose is a past cover of Out magazine-one of the leading gay magazines. I chose it for multiple reasons. First of all, the picture appears to be pretty classy. The men are dressed in business attire and wear fairly serious expressions. This demonstrates the movement away from explicitly sexual advertisements to ones more acceptable to the general public. Also, this cover illustrates the way the media depicts the gay community: affluent, business and technology-orientated, happy, good-looking, in shape, and falsely influential. Finally, I would like to draw a parallel between this reading and Schor’s “The New Politics of Consumption,” which I have already posted a blog on. Both Fejes and Schor emphasize how critical consumption is to the consumer. Schor explains that some feel that consumption is related to status, for instance if a woman buys a Prada handbag she feels wealthy, respected and dignified. Fejes conveys a similar argument by stating that homosexuals feel important when advertisers market directly too them, suggesting that this means they have achieved some form of progress. In both readings thorough rebuttals are provided. Schor leaves the reader with various theories, while Fejes more affirmatively establishes his belief that the common portrayal of gays by advertisers are inaccurate and that gays and lesbians have a long way to go to achieve political and social equality.