Adweek magazine ran a great feature story today that serves as a state of “gay ads.” Our client Mike Wilke, Executive Director of Commercial Closet Association, was interviewed for the piece and explains that the idea that “homophobia sells” is on its way out the advertising industry’s door.
In addition to Wilke, reporter Ellie Parpis quotes several winners of the Images in Advertising Awards including the VP of Marketing at Levi’s and a creator of the Garden State Equality ad that we wrote about previously.
An interesting comment was posted in response to the online version of the story from a reader in the UK. He said that the two ads that were recently pulled in the UK were found offensive due to “differences in humour” – one for Heinz mayo which was attacked by anti-gay groups and the other was the ad for Snickers that received complaints from gay groups including the HRC that Laura wrote about last week.
He argues that America should “let the UK determine the suitability of ads” shown on UK television, however especially in today’s internet age – I would have to disagree. As Laura mentioned, the Snickers ad was defamatory to a segment of our community and promoted negative gay stereotypes. These stereotypes are international in nature, and any action that can be seen as an example of violence to the gay community is never “humourous.”
International homophobic ads have already made their way onto YouTube and are seen by users all over the world. If anything, the “buzz” around the ad only being released in the UK can result in the ad becoming a viral hit. American audiences read the media reports and actively look to see why the ad is controversial. And while it was US based groups like HRC that issued responses to the ad, it was the UK viewers who took action.
More importantly, these are international brands who should not risk alienating part of their audience – regardless of location. If a brand releases a homophobic ad overseas but is friendly to the domestic gay community, it calls into question their true intentions.
Perhaps what the reader is getting at is the need for an international agreed upon best practices that advocates against global homophobia by some of the leading gay rights groups.
The bottom line for brands is that education is still needed – and is rewarded. I’ve seen a large amount of the coverage that Nike received for its homophobic ads, but I’ve also seen the positive mentions that Levi’s has received for winning this year’s Images in Advertising Award for “Outstanding Commercial” – not only is Levi’s portrayed as gay-friendly, but is heralded as a smart and ethical marketer.
SUBSCRIBE