Lest you think the enticing market for wedding-related marketing to gays and lesbians had suddenly made it “safe” for gay and lesbian communications, the saga of McDonald’s should remind you that there are still folks out there willing to attack companies for their involvement with our community. McDonald’s last week became the latest victim of a certain anti-gay fringe group. McDonald’s “crime?” They agreed to allow a senior executive to join the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.
McDonald’s isn’t being attacked for marketing to gays and lesbians or for supporting gay and lesbian organizations directly. No, their only “sin” is apparently their acceptance of a gay and lesbian-focused business group as an appropriate organization for the involvement of one of their executives. Talk about grasping at straws.
But the most interesting part of this saga (for me, anyway) is how McDonald’s reacted. We’ve talked a lot on this blog about what companies should do when they are attacked in this way. Our advice generally focuses on some variation of “don’t back down.” We tell companies to restate their position in their terms, stick to their guns on why they are engaged and then remain consistent with their position. So far, McDonald’s is doing everything right. The company released a statement reaffirming their position in their own words and has so far shown no sign of backing down in the face of what has to be acknowledged is fairly ridiculous criticism. The challenge now for McDonald’s is to remain consistent. They can’t cave in the face of what will surely be portrayed as “immense pressure,” but what will likely be more smoke and mirrors than actual force.
In 2004 and 2006, we conducted national surveys of consumers to gauge opinions about companies that market to gays and lesbians. In both years, our survey results demonstrated that consumers don’t really care if companies whose products they buy on a regular basis also market to gays and lesbians. And when asked what they’d do if such companies were the subject of a boycott for their support of our community, the majority of consumers said they didn’t care. While 7% said they would support such a boycott, twice that number (14%) said they would oppose the boycott. Our conclusion was (and is) that anti-gay boycotts may generate media coverage (this one was covered on the front page of the Washington Post’s business section last week), but they do little to negatively impact a brand.
In the wake of Heinz’s utter collapse in the face of similarly-focused external pressure to stop airing a gay-positive television advertisement, McDonald’s smart, steadfast response is all more newsworthy. And as a result, the McDonald’s “boycott” has so far been a one-day story while Heinz was attacked from all sides for several days for its seeming inability to present a cogent corporate response in the face of a simple online pressure campaign.
So, if you’re in the mood for a Big Mac, go ahead. You might just be sending a signal that anti-gay challenges have no place in the American business community and no meaning in your life.
SUBSCRIBE
The problem for me is that I’ve never really cared for McD’s food. We prefer Burger King, if we have fast-food hamburgers, which we don’t do but once a month or so.
For now, though, we’ll be making an effort to eat McGrease at least twice a month. Just to help keep sales up and, you know, make AFA unhappy. ‘Cause when they’re unhappy, America’s doing something right.
See you at the arches!
But does McD’s use Heinz ketchup, mayo, etc.? I seem to recall they do, but haven’t been to one in a while.
I’ve read a lot of fundie claptrap about this big gay conspiracy over the past few days and I feared that maybe all US-based bloggers were of the bacca chewin’, y’all come back now ya hear variety, so it was a breath of fresh air to read this post!
If you wanna read what I’m thinking of the situation from way over here on the shores of Perth, Western Australia, please feel free to drop by and post a comment at http://www.theperthfiles.blogspot.com
The (supposed – probably intentional) ignorance of the AFA is what frustrates me. Their biggest argument in favor of the boycott is that the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) supposedly lobbies Congress in support of gay marriage.
The NGLCC does not lobby Congress on gay marriage. Yet the AFA maintains that the decision to boycott McDonalds is based on their decision to become involved in ‘culture wars’ and support gay marriage. Not true, but the blind legion of AFA followers would believe anything they are told, apparently.
The NGLCC is a business organization advocating LGBT business growth and facilitating a network that supports supplier diversity and equal workplace opportunities and rights. Gay marriage and the support thereof is not on the ‘agenda’.
If the AFA wants to expand their boycott beyond issues relating to gay marriage, then they have a reason to call the boycott. But they haven’t.
Simon, thanks for providing this helpful background about what NGLCC does and doesn’t do – it’s always helpful to have context.
Ben Finzel