It appears that Ford has taken an about face on advertising with gay press.
After meeting with representatives of the community, Ford has issued a statement correcting the “misperception about [their] intent”. Specifically, they state that although the reason Jaguar and Land Rover dropped ads was because of “business decisions”, Ford will now advertise all eight of their brands in gay specific publications.
It had been reported that Ford would no longer use imagery that reflects our community it their advertising. Ford disavows that report and requests that we judge their commitment by the content of their advertising.
They stated that (contrary to reports from insiders) they would not be stopping sponsorship of gay events.
In a reference to the meeting with the AFA, Ford stated “We meet every day with people and organizations on many issues, and…expect to be measured not by the meetings we conduct but by our conduct itself”.
This is a very welcome response. I, for one, will be watching Ford’s commitment to including gay people in their marketing strategy and judging them on their conduct. I hope they live up to the positions outlined in their statement once the fury has blown over.
I will also be watching to see how AFA responds. This might tell us more than Ford’s press release.
This is very good news indeed.
Excellent news. It shows what can happen when our community bands together and uses our collective voice against the injustices of fundamentalist christian groups. Great work and kudos to John Aravosis at AmericaBlog who kept on this and didn’t let up, as well as the many gay rights groups who demanded answers from Ford. AFA’s relevance just went down a notch today.
I could be wrong, but I bet AFA never mentions another word about this.
AFA claimed victory, even though that was not the case. AFA never admits they lost, even when they did.
Great news should they follow through. I did check the AFA site and there is no mention of anything new with Ford and you have to search quite a bit to find even the comments from earlier this month.
David
David, AFA updates their website mid-afternoon (eastern time). I’ve seen them update it as early as noon and as late as 6 – 7 pm (ET).
An earlier indicator will be Concerned Women of America (https://www.cwfa.org). They seem to update in the morning.
Honestly, I don’t think any right wing group’s going to lament this, because it made no sense to begin with. Boycotts seem to be a questionable tactic, especially when it comes to a company that doesn’t deserve it. Examples: Disney – who makes more family friendly films?; Kraft – wanna try to avoid their products and not go hungry?; Proctor & Gamble – wanna ditch their products and stay clean/fragrant?; Walgreen’s – where else are you going to buy medications?
Finally, Ford. Who are the typical AFA followers going to buy their pick-up trucks from? Subaru? I doubt it.
AFA threatens boycotts all over the place. When was the last time you actually heard of any of these boycotts actually working?
Timothy Kincaid at December 14, 2005 06:57 PM
It will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next few months. Given our (bad) experience with Ford products, it is unlikely that we would be buying a Ford anytime soon, but that’s a different issue.
Phil at December 15, 2005 01:22 AM
Boycotts seem to be a questionable tactic, especially when it comes to a company that doesn’t deserve it. Examples: Disney – who makes more family friendly films?; Kraft – wanna try to avoid their products and not go hungry?; Proctor & Gamble – wanna ditch their products and stay clean/fragrant?; Walgreen’s – where else are you going to buy medications?
Good points. I’ll point out that Disney’s stock price went up after the Southern Baptists announced their boycott of Disney. As to Kraft and P&G, most people don’t know whether the labels they buy are Kraft or P&G. Pringles have always been P&G and soon Gillette (and, via Gillette, Braun and Oral-B) will be, too.
Regarding medications, one can always try CVS, but I doubt that they will be any less gay-friendly than Walgreen’s.
Finally, Ford. Who are the typical AFA followers going to buy their pick-up trucks from? Subaru? I doubt it
I doubt it,, too, but there is always GMC. GMC doesn’t have the cachet that Ford has, though.
Phil said:
Finally, Ford. Who are the typical AFA followers going to buy their pick-up trucks from? Subaru? I doubt it.
Or more generally, if someone typically buys Ford, are they really going to change because of this nonsense? People are often quite attached to their brand of vehicle.
AFA threatens boycotts all over the place. When was the last time you actually heard of any of these boycotts actually working?
I think they were effective in the early days when they were a fairly new concept. Now that companies have some examples of how it works (or doesn’t), I think they fear them less. On the practical side, as you alluded to, it’s just too darn difficult to figure out who not to patronize!
David
ReasonAble at December 15, 2005 01:43 AM
The AFA threats of boycotts were effective in getting the gay subtheme cancelled from the mid 1980s TV program 30 Something. Anti-gay boycotts haven’t been particularly effective since then.
On the other hand, the anti-Dr Laura boycotts appear to have been effective, but primarily because of her own hypocrisy. I’m referring to her pornographic photos, of course, which were posted all over the Internet.
ReasonAble at December 15, 2005 01:43 AM
People are often quite attached to their brand of vehicle
Apparently the advertisers do not agree with you. Otherwise, why would they be spending so much money to advertise their products on television and cable? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
“Or more generally, if someone typically buys Ford, are they really going to change because of this nonsense? People are often quite attached to their brand of vehicle.”
I think there are two different types of boycotts:
1. I’m angry because of third party actions.
For example, AFA’s boycotts because some other company treat gay people nicely. Or boycotts about some company’s environmental policy in some other country. Or boycotts because France isn’t supportive on Iraq.
2. I’m angry because of how YOU treated ME
For example, gay boycotts on Coors and orange juice. Or (granddaddy of all effective boycotts) the black boycott on the bus system.
The first category have real difficulty succeeding because it’s hard to invest much emotion into a cause that has little immediate impact on you. That’s why AFA can get hundred’s of thousands to sign a pledge but there’s no discernable actual change in purchasing. Bessie McChurchlady just can’t bother to read who makes what and Joe McChurchlady will buy the truck that has the best rebate. They did their part by signing the form.
However, if you feel that you are under attack and this will effect your personal life or freedom, you care. If you feel that some company is catering to a group that proudy campaigns to establish discrimination against YOU, it matters.
My boss, who owns both a jag and a Land Rover had already emailed them that he was going to turn them in and get another brand.
I think Ford realized that a gay boycott was on the horizon. And unlike an AFA boycott, we would actually follow through. The vision of a “Boycott Ford” float in the pride parade in Los Angeles (the world’s largest auto market) couldn’t have been pleasant. And having an announcement at the GLAAD Media Awards going to all of the heads of every major Hollywood studio certainly wouldn’t make them happy; they care greatly about product placement.
I guess I was wrong. Here’s AFA’s statement on the Ford affair:
“AFA considering boycott of Ford Motor Company
(Tupelo, MS) – The American Family Association says that Ford Motor Company reneged on some agreements reached in discussions with the automobile giant, and the organization is considering its next move.
“We had an agreement with Ford, worked out in good faith. Unfortunately, some Ford Motor Company officials made the decision to violate the good faith agreement. We are now considering our response to the violation and expect to reach a decision very soon,” said Donald E. Wildmon, chairman of AFA.
AFA had called for a boycott of Ford last spring because of Ford’s support for the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage but suspended the boycott for six months at the request of a group of Ford dealers. Wildmon said AFA and Ford officials hammered out an agreement in the interim that was accepted by both parties.
“All we wanted was for Ford to refrain from choosing sides in the cultural war, and supporting groups which promote same-sex marriage is not remaining neutral,” Wildmon stated.
He stated that because Ford broke the agreement, the option of a boycott is now very much alive.
No additional comments regarding Ford will be made at this time.
American Family Association is a pro-family advocacy organization with over two million online supporters.
— 30 — ”
I bet this is the last we hear of it, though.
I too read the AFA release after being intrigued by Ford’s about face, but all it told me was that Ford really did have a ‘deal’ of sorts with the AFA to pull their advertising from gay themed publications. Yes, let’s all congratulate Ford for ‘getting with it’ and reversing their decision, but I won’t be buying a ‘Ford Truck’ anytime soon, and not only because it’s a fairly cruddy manufacturer, but because they negotiated with such a sleazy and bigoted group like the AFA. Would people support Ford if they had EVER made a deal with the Neo-Nazi party to pull advertisements from Jewish and African American themed publications? No, not in the slightest. The hate that comes out of the AFA is just as harmful and vile, and the fact that a corporation as established as Ford capitulated to their demands is sickening.
Speaking of completely sleazy, Andrea Lafferty – Tradional Values Coalition’s spokesbigot – was on QVC pushing a Bible Trivia game today (thanks for the tip-off goodasyou.com). I called QVC and they were entirely unaware of the political nature of her and the group.
I made sure that I differentiated between someone who held a religous belief, not in itself actively offensive, and someone who lobbies and regularly uses language that vilifies gay people.
I pointed out that it might be possible for someone to turn from a news program seeing Andrea reviling gays straight over to see her on QVC. And further, that anyone gay would be very offended seeing her associated with QVC.
The guy I spoke with seemed genuine and had me walk him through the TVC website. He seemed kind of shocked at some of the things they have on their site. I could hear the tone of his voice change from “placate the guy on the phone” to “what the hell is this nutty group and how did we get in this mess”
He thanked me for bringing it to their attention and told me that sometimes the “buyers” (which I took to be the person setting things up on a product) will see a good presentation and not realize that there’s another agenda going on. He made no promises other than to look into it further, but seemed to me to be taking my call seriously.
Kenton, I agree wholeheartedly.
“Ford done laid down with dogs and got fleas! And It’s gonna take a whole lotta’ flea sprayin’ ibefore anyone forgets this.” (as the locals here in rural Florida would say.)
The main point here is that people in business now know who the flea-ridden dogs are and to avoid them (hopefully).
After just having shelled out $1,200 to have my mother’s Ford repaired, I don’t plan to buy any of their products either.
Posted by: Timothy at December 15, 2005 01:36 PM
You have a very good point. And I would suppose it’s also a lot easier to reach “boycott burnout” with example #1 in your post.
Phil said:
Ford done laid down with dogs and got fleas! And It’s gonna take a whole lotta’ flea sprayin’ ibefore anyone forgets this.” (as the locals here in rural Florida would say.)
I understand the sentiment, but I think we should keep in mind that being too harsh over a momentary lapse of sorts may give companies the idea that they can’t win for losing. If in the end they make the right decision and stick with it, that’s a big step. Besides, we really don’t know what went on, and I’m not willing to take anything the AFA says at face value.
David
The reason why they reversed course on this was because all of them have seen what a glbt boycott can do, like the florida o.j. boycott back in 1977. They know not only are we capable we will follow through on a boycott, and not only would we be boycotting them but our friends, family and neighbors would too. The AFA knows this that is why all they can really do is bitch and moan.
The reason why they reversed course on this was because all of them have seen what a glbt boycott can do…
Maybe, but we still don’t really know what happened or if they had anything to reverse from. With the AFA involved, it’s bound to be muddy at best. I still have my doubts about the success of most present day boycotts, but I don’t have the data to say for sure.
Wasn’t the 1977 issue about dropping Anita Bryant as a spokesperson for the industry? It seems to me they did so after she became so controversial, which could itself be seen as a win, but it’s not exactly proof of the concept. I thought they did the same with Rush Limbaugh in the 90’s even though the protest action in that case was anemic.
The Dr. Laura thing seemed pretty successful but then again that show was so awful in general (horrible ratings from day one) that I doubt it would have made it long anyway. I don’t know, but it would make an interesting study to see how sales are really affected and how that does or doesn’t lead to changes in policy. I’m sure there are a lot of variables. One can’t glean many facts from either side during the “battle” because everyone wants to look like they are winning.
David
ReasonAble at December 15, 2005 10:07 PM
I understand the sentiment, but I think we should keep in mind that being too harsh over a momentary lapse of sorts may give companies the idea that they can’t win for losing.
I understand the sentiment, too, but it seems to me that Ford’s management should have done a little investigation to determine the nature of the “flea infested dogs” they were laying down with. Political advocacy groups–which is what the AFA is–should always be considered suspect by an advertiser. And, yes, they can’t win for losing.
If the AFA had an agreement with Ford management regarding advertising, they should have known enough to get it in writing. Now, it’s nothing but a he said/she said issue.
Going down a bit
The Dr. Laura thing seemed pretty successful but then again that show was so awful in general (horrible ratings from day one) that I doubt it would have made it long anyway.
If you are referring to the Dr Laura TV show, you are correct. (The same thing happened to the Rusty Lamebrain–er–Limbaugh TV show, too, by the way.) But the Dr Laura thing wasn’t really a direct boycott threat–and it had spillover into her radio show. Avirosis apparently carefully constructed the Dr Laura thing not as an advertiser boycott threat, but as a “do you–as an advertiser–really want to be associated with this person” issue. The possibility that being associated with that person might drive potential customers away was not lost on the advertisers. A boycott threat wasn’t necessary. Advertisers left not only her TV program but also her radio program in droves.
BTW, the last time I heard her radio program here in Boston, which was several years ago, I found it ironic that most of her advertisers were establishments pitching to conservative christians. Why ironic? Because she’s a Jew. I found it funny listening to an advertisement for a conservative christian hair salon. I was driving at the time and almost ran off the road laughing.
I know that her radio program still exists, but, if it is broadcast here in Boston, it is on a very low-power 3d tier radio station. Pre-Avirosis, it was on a top tier 50K watt radio station.
Actually I believe she has abandoned her conversion to Judaism and embraced Christianity (again?). She is long gone from the airwaves around here (Florida). I’m not sure if Rush Limbaugh was quite the same situation; he just didn’t convert to TV well. I don’t think he is hurting for listeners or sponsors for his radio program (unlike Laura).
David
ReasonAble at December 16, 2005 08:27 AM
Um, she was born into a Roman Catholic family. She converted to Judaisim. She is not converting back to some Christian sect? She had not done so when I had heard her “christian hair salon” ads.
Regarding Rusty Limbaugh, recognize that AM talk radio is increadibly cheap to produce. Three people: a former (failed) top 40s radio host, a screener, and a producer. Listen to the ads and determine who the program is directed to.
The AFA site (www.afa.org) now has information on their site re: a possible Ford boycott since Ford ‘reneged’ on the agreement they had worked out re: support of the Homosexual Agenda.
Raj said:
She is not converting back to some Christian sect?
It appears so. I’ve read a couple of articles to that effect. She stopped observing Judaism in 2003. You can google for the rest if you really want to know more.
Regarding Rusty Limbaugh, recognize that AM talk radio is increadibly cheap to produce
I’m not privy to the details of his operation, except that I know he is obviously very successful. I presume Dr. Laura was just as cheap to produce (the radio show) and it went down the tubes. That contrast was my point.
David
ReasonAble at December 16, 2005 10:26 AM
The success of Rusty Limbaugh’s program (he is a failed AM radio disc jockey under that name) was not due to Limbaugh, it was because of marketing ability by his backers. The hours of his program (12 noon-3PM) were not selected in happenstace. In his early years, the backers would pay restaurateurs to set up “Rush Rooms” where they would pipe in Limbaugh’s program during the lunch rush–hence 12-3.
BTW, from what I have read, Ed Schultz’s show, which is syndicated on “lefty radio” backed by the same people who back Rusty Lamebrain’s show.
raj,
I removed a sentence from your above posting because it made unsubstantiated claims of illegal activity. Please be careful not to claim that people have made illegal acts without substantiation.
Further, you are making quite a few claims in your posting that are not supported. If, indeed, you know of paid Rush Rooms or financial backing, please support it with a link.
Timothy, if I wanted to take the effort, I could find “substantiation” over the Internet for virtually anything. I’m sure I could find “substantiation” for the proposition that the earth is flat–indeed, over the last decade, I have done so. I’m sure I could find “substantiation” for the proposition that the universe revolves around the earth (which, given relativity, isn’t far from the mark).
The sentence that you apparently deleted apparently remarked on Limbaugh’s alleged illegal drug use. I’m sure that, if I really wanted to take the time and effort, I could find articles over the Internet regarding that, too.
On the other hand, it’s your blog, not mine. But I would suggest that you do a google search (since you want links) using keywords “limbaugh” and “oxycontin” You might be surprised at what you would find.
BTW, Timothy, Oxycontin is a prescription drug. Purchase of such drugs without a prescription is a felony. Purchase of such drugs via prescriptions of several physicians (which Limbaugh apparently did) is also a felony.
Whether or not Oxycontin should be a prescription drug is a different issue.
raj,
In the sentence I deleted you did not use “alleged” and suggested a further illegal activity.
If you disagree with my decision, take it up with Mike.
Raj,
We get it, you don’t like Rush Limbaugh. But despite his failure at one thing, he has been wildly successful for 15+ years with his radio show. People that like him find him extemely entertaining. The fact that he remained successful, while Dr. Laura did not was my point (countering your mention of him in the same vein as her). All this other passive-aggessive stuff is extraneous. Suffice to say that you have contempt for him and would rather believe that anything aside from his talent is responsible for his success.
Would that I would be such a failure.
David
Timothy at December 16, 2005 04:59 PM
If I used “allegedly” at the beginning of every assertion, “allegedly” would be the most-used word in the posts. If
you want that, I will do that. On the other hand, you should recognize that some of us recognize that history did not begin in the mid-1990s, when the WWW came into prominence, and that not everything that was published pre-mid-1990s was transferred to the WWW, and so you might lighten up. My information regarding Rusty Limbaugh’s backer’s activity came from reports that I read in the media in the early 1990s. Regarding Rusty’s alleged OxyContin drug activity in the last few years, I suppose you might have a point. Why the prosecutor in Palm Beach (FL) County hasn’t charged him is beyond me (actually, I can surmise–he is probably a major taxpayer there, after all, but that is merely a supposition) but it is highly unlikely that the allegations will get beyond the “alleged” stage any time soon.
It’s your web site so you set the rules. On the other hand, instead of deleting sentences, you might consider editing the sentences, and noting the edits at the bottom of the comment.
Example:
If I were to post:
OJ murdered his ex-wife
You might edit it to
OJ **allegedly** murdered his ex-wive
and then add at the end of the comment something to the effect that “**” was added by web administrator.
ReasonAble at December 16, 2005 05:49 PM
We get it, you don’t like Rush Limbaugh
I don’t know him, so I don’t know whether or not I would like him. He might be a fun guy to have a beer or glass of wine with (I won’t get into OxyContin). I used to listen to his radio program, until he became boring–after a while ranting about the same subjects day after day gets to be boring. And, after his hearing started going, his rants seemed to focus on how great he was–which is even more boring. I recognize that his backers were excellent marketeers, and that’s the only thing that really matters in American media–get peoples’ eyes and ears to watch and listen to advertisements.
One thing I will mention is that I found him rather hypocritical during the 1995 Newt Gingrich-engineered shut-down of the Federal Government, which had been supported by Limbaugh. The shut-down affected national parks. People who ran businesses in and around the national parks would call into the Limbaugh program complaining about the Gingrich tactic. Limbaugh’s response: largely whine that it wasn’t my fault. Rather lame, IMHO.
For Timothy,: my opinion, but largely accurate.
…he has been wildly successful for 15+ years with his radio show…
Do you know how much it costs to produce a talk radio show? Let’s see. A couple of backers if they anticipate syndication. A talk show host (who, more often than not, is a refugee from AM top 40 radio), a producer, who screens the calls. Talk radio is incredibly cheap–they don’t even have to pay very much to ASCAP or BMI for music rights–there is little if any music. If they want to syndicate a book, they allegedly can hire a ghost writer ( allegedly, in Limbaugh’s case, John Fund, columnist in the Wall Street Journal) to write it for him. NB: I don’t have a problem with ghost writers–Ted Sorenson allegedly ghost-wrote JFK’s book. Two of the reasons that AM talk radio has taken off are because (i) it’s cheap, and (ii) FM music fidelity is much better. The second explains the migration of music programming to FM, although talk radio has making some inroads there. It’s probable that, over the next few years, people who want to listen to music will migrate over to subscription radio (XM and Sirius) although the fidelity isn’t optimal.
There actually were some relatively intelligent talk radio programs, before Limbaugh came along and ruined the market. David Brudnoy in Boston ran an intelligent talk radio program in the 1980s. He would have authors on and allow them to expound for hours. Limbaugh ruined the market. In the late 1990s, Brudnoy changed his program to emulate Limbaugh. A waste, but Brudnoy hasn’t been coming down for breakfast for a while.
Raj,
Fine, but nothing you said has anything to do with the point being made, so let me just repeat:
We get it, you don’t like Rush Limbaugh. But despite his failure at one thing, he has been wildly successful for 15+ years with his radio show. People that like him find him extemely entertaining. The fact that he remained successful, while Dr. Laura did not was my point (countering your mention of him in the same vein as her). All this other passive-aggessive stuff is extraneous. Suffice to say that you have contempt for him and would rather believe that anything aside from his talent is responsible for his success.
Would that I would be such a failure.
David
Raj said:
If I used “allegedly” at the beginning of every assertion, “allegedly” would be the most-used word in the posts.
Which should tell you something about your posts 😉
David