Gay Patriot Header Image

When The Truth Is Right Before Your Eyes

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:45 am - January 5, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Politics

Is Malcolm Lazin a cynic? Or is his headliner just lazy and clichéd?

Check out this op-ed today on GayWired.com titled “Corporate America – The Unlikely Gay Ally”. In spite of the puzzling title, read the piece and you’ll find what I and many other gay conservatives have been saying for years: Gays are a market force.

With higher disposable income, more free time to spend it, and a disposition towards leisure, Gay America (as it were) is a fertile market. Businesses are smart, and they see this. While Lazin reaches some bizarre conclusions (about, for example, how conservatives “find themselves up against core American values”), and throws out the typical red meat to the “community” (“equality” and “fairness” twaddle), the structure of what he’s saying has been sound for a long time. However, it’s a naive ‘mo who is just now realizing this. Witness the thriving of gay-themed businesses and abundance of gay publications. Business has known for a long time how much power we have, and it appears some are taken aback by this.

Why? Why title Lazin’s op-ed “Unlikely”? For conservatives and capitalists, this is a no-brainer, a dog-bites-man scenario, hardly even worth mentioning. Characterizing Corporate America’s hospitality toward homosexuals as “unlikely” bespeaks either a victim mentality prevalent in the gay community or a lack of familiarity with the fundamentals of capitalism. Both of these explanations make sense of course. I’d suggest it’s the “community’s” whorish relationship with the American Left (or vice-versa) that brings such shock to its “leaders” when they realize how much power we actually have.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot)

Share

14 Comments

  1. Are King Kong and Brokeback Mountain the same movie? Daily Lunch Makes the case.

    Comment by V the K — January 5, 2006 @ 8:48 am - January 5, 2006

  2. With higher disposable income, more free time to spend it, and a disposition to wards leisure, Gay America (as it were) is a fertile market

    I’ve been hearing the “disposable income” canard for years, and from what I’ve seen of the data, its not quite that simple. It is a stereotype. It most describes white male singles and couples without children. Ethnic minority male singles and couples tend to earn less and more often have children. Lesbian couples also tend on average to earn less than their gay male counterparts on average and are the most likely to have children.

    The “disposable income” idea may be a positive stereotype, but that still doesn’t mean we should portray it as true when it isn’t. The gay and lesbian community isn’t a market, it is a group of markets. There are some pretty profound differences in spending habits and lifestyles within that community.

    However there is an overall characteristic of the gay and lesbian community that tends to be true and is looked at by marketing; brand loyalty. If a company is considered to be gay friendly or tolerant, it tends to have a greater impact on our decisions to purchase something than most people. If we are buying a car, and we have narrowed our choices down to two manufactures, whether or not the company is thought to be gay-friendly will have a greater impact on which car we buy. It’s not the only factor we consider by a long shot, but it is significant.

    And incidentally, the love affair with the gay community by corporate America was pretty much non-existent prior to the late 80’s. During the height of the AIDS crisis you couldn’t get even condom makers to advertise in a GLBT publication. The environment today is completely different now than when I was coming out. These kids today have it so easy, sheesh! lol

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 5, 2006 @ 11:50 am - January 5, 2006

  3. Patrick, some good points.
    One thing to remember as you criticize “stereotyp[ing]”…that’s what demographics are for. By definition, social scientists are employed by marketing firms to do exactly that…and as much as I, or Bruce, or Dan, or any GP readers may “break the mold”, you yourself use the phrase “we have narrowed our choices down”, suggesting some sort of group identity.
    Poor gays, yes. Lesbians and gay men, yes. But marketing is pointless without some degree of stereotyping. And this one, frankly, fits, and it’s been shown over and over again. You may disagree, but I could offer many articles that buttress my (and Lazin’s) point about our disposable income. For a reference, go google the phrase “gay market demographic disposable income”
    Regardless, for good or bad, Gay America does have certain characteristics that predispose us to targeting by wise marketing, and your example of buying a car is a perfect example, which undercuts your argument to the contrary.

    As for the newer generation, yes, we have it much better. And I’m grateful.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — January 5, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - January 5, 2006

  4. Maybe it’s just that BizAmerica lets its core mission of “sales” drive decision-making rather than allowing political alliances to trump all choices and diminish options –as the GayLeft does for our community to be represented at the tables of the LibLeftOrganizations.

    The work I’ve seen done by Roper and Gallup indicate exactly what Nick’s saying in this post… disposable income, higher expenditures for leisure activities, personal grooming items, clothes, and pets as substitutes for more expensive kids. It might be easy to say that’s a canard but the stats say otherwise… and that’s respecting that not all single men in the 30s and 40s who subscribe to Details are gay. Market survey alaysis is a tad more discriminating than that.

    Even the venerable HRC knows how much political and economic clout our community has –witness their annual “bad” corporations we gays should boycott if we’re conscientious and true to our community. Of course, I now find myself smiling at HomeDepot when paying for purchases because I’m thwarting the HRC in my economic subversion to support “bad” corporations who care more about their employees’ pets than domestic partners. But that’s just me. (Aside: The gay agenda needs to be expanded to secure civil rights for dogs (screw the cats; they’re too feminine anyway)).

    So Patrick, given your final comment, should we now address you as GrampaGryph instead of Patrick?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 5, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - January 5, 2006

  5. a victim mentality prevalent in the gay community

    GASP! That’s just absurd I tell you. Urban legend. Rural myth. The gay victim is a creature of fantasy….

    Comment by Chad — January 5, 2006 @ 2:33 pm - January 5, 2006

  6. The work I’ve seen done by Roper and Gallup indicate exactly what Nick’s saying in this post… disposable income, higher expenditures for leisure activities, personal grooming items, clothes, and pets as substitutes for more expensive kids.

    Ah, that explains why I’m not livin’ large like some on this blog. I got both. Orthodontics, music equipment, clothes and vet bills. (And I’m almost sure my vet is a lesbian, but I digress) (Sigh) If I were putting disposable income into hockey or football gear, I wouldn’t mind at all.

    Comment by V the K — January 5, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - January 5, 2006

  7. Ethnic minority male singles and couples tend to earn less and more often have children. Lesbian couples also tend on average to earn less than their gay male counterparts on average and are the most likely to have children.

    That’s wholly irrelevant to the point. And if anybody wants to make more money, then they can get more valuable job skills.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 6, 2006 @ 8:20 am - January 6, 2006

  8. VdaK, you aren’t living large because you’re spending too much time putting together witty, irreverant, hillarious, insightful, hip commentaries in your blog and all that labor tranlsates into little lucre.

    Now if netters had to pay you, say, a $1.50/day to access your hip wit… you’d be swimming in disposable cash faster than MichealJackson can seduce a little arab boy.

    Hell, your kids couldn’t spend it fast enough and you’d get the cool things you want/need. You just have to apply your talents to money-making opportunities… rather than feeding your creative cynical soul.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 6, 2006 @ 9:33 am - January 6, 2006

  9. #7 Is this another Antoinette moment?

    “And if anybody wants to make more money, then they can get more valuable job skills.”

    That sounds good, unless you don’t have any money for the training, or the free time to learn the new skills, or a family to feed.
    Maybe one could go back to livin’ the high life in The Astrodome.

    Comment by hank — January 6, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - January 6, 2006

  10. That’s wholly irrelevant to the point. And if anybody wants to make more money, then they can get more valuable job skills

    Look, I don’t have anything against marketing to the gay community, but I just think the idea that all gay and lesbians by and large have more money than their counterparts is overly simplistic. Its an urban legend of sorts and has been around long before any demographic data on gays and lesbians even existed.

    Also we are not like other groups in that there are gays and lesbians of every ethnicity and culture. I think that if you market to the gay community in the same way as you might the Hispanic or black communities, you are going to have mixed results. We are a fractured market.

    I’ve also seen it backfire, when used by opponents to justify denying domestic partnership benefits to gay couples for example. Since we make more money, we can afford to pay for medical coverage separately has been one argument I’ve heard.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 6, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - January 6, 2006

  11. GrandpaGryph, for the last time it’s not a canard that LGs (I’ve decided to ax “BT” from the community since it was the LibLeft marketeers that attached them to our sexual bandwagon in order to gain a broader base) have more disposable income than their hetero monog counterparts.

    They do. The stats don’t lie.

    If you don’t believe the stats, look about you… who spends more on leisure activities? who spends more on clothing? no hetero male (except for SlickWilly) would ever spend $200 on a haircut for crying out loud and yet many of my friends routinely spend $100-150 for a haircut every 2 weeks and don’t bat an eye because “good hair” is priceless to them and the people in their orbit. OK, they do get their eyebrows trimmed too but that’s a different issue.

    Vanity muscles? Gym memberships instead of retirement accts. No need to maintain a mortgage ’cause we don’t generally “nest”. Pets as substitutes for kids… come on, Gramps. You can’t be that FAR out it yet.

    That’s not to say that there aren’t poor gays out there. But really, dude, if you compare the spending habits of a gay bank teller with a hetero one, the gay guy has far more fun at the bars, loads more parties, vacations, an artifical tan line and great teeth to match. Ptown requires disposable income in excess.

    It’s not a canard. It’s a duck and it quacks like it has disposable income… lots of it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 6, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - January 6, 2006

  12. Patrick, your point about gays being a “fractured market” would be insightful if it weren’t pointless. To wit:

    I’m a member of the US Armed Forces. As such, I share that market with other men, with women, with gays and straights, with white people and minorities. Would you suggest nobody waste their time marketing to this group?
    I’m also a subscriber to XM Satellite Radio. As such, I share that market with other men, with women, with gays and straights, with white people and minorities. Would you suggest nobody waste their time marketing to this group either?
    I’m also a skiier. As such, I share that market with other men, with women, with gays and straights, with white people and minorities. Would you suggest nobody waste their time marketing to this group, too?
    I could go on.
    Point is, doubt it all you want, but ask anybody who works in marketing, and if you’re willing to be wrong, you’ll find you are.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — January 6, 2006 @ 9:17 pm - January 6, 2006

  13. #8 — ~400 unique visits a day x $1.50…. oh, man, now I’m really depressed.

    Comment by V the K — January 7, 2006 @ 10:50 am - January 7, 2006

  14. Hi, I think you are totally right. Great! – 🙂 Susan.

    Comment by lenen — February 6, 2006 @ 11:54 am - February 6, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.