Archive for October, 2008

Trick or Treat?

Posted by

BilericoThe Google advertising machine that feeds paid advertising spots to not only Google but other web servers appears to have hit a snag. On The Bilerico Project‘s web site, ads are showing up on California’s Proposition 8 asking viewers to support the protection of traditional marriage in California. Yes, that’s one of three propositions across the U.S. (in California, Arizona and Florida) focused on preventing marriage between two people of the same sex. Readers of Bil Browning’s fun and quirky web site, the Bilerico Project, wrote in to report this unusual and unexpected ad on his web site whose tagline is “daily experiments in LGBTQ”.

Lesbian_couple_marriedBil investigated and reports that Google’s official position (I found it on ThinkProgress.org) from Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, is that the company opposes Proposition 8 in California. However, the company position is not consistent with their Advertising Policies. In Google’s Advertising Policies it states that any advertising that is focused against the LGBT community (and other minority groups) is not permitted. See the inconsistency?

So what’s Google up to?

It makes me wonder if the Google advertising machine is more focused on profiting from their advertising than upholding their policies. I love the way Bil points out in his blog, what if there was a ballot measure to rescind interracial marriage? What would Google do if an advertiser had an ad in support of segregation? Chilling thought! And how about those LGBT employees at Google? How could they be feeling about their California-based company? Where’s the trust? Where’s the integrity?

What do you think Google is up to?

The Word “Gay”

Posted by

As we near the end of the seemingly longest-ever U.S. election campaign, a minor controversy has erupted over the advertising strategy employed by the opponents of Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 is the anti-gay statewide ballot initiative that would, in the words of Hilary Rosen of The Huffington Post, amend the state constitution to “take gays and lesbians out of the equal protection clause.” The controversy is over the use of the word “gay” in the “No on 8” television advertisements. As it happens, many of the ads don’t use the word “gay.” 

Does an ad promoting equal rights for gay and lesbian people have to use the word “gay?” Is it any more, or less, effective if it doesn’t? It’s a good question, and one that I haven’t thought much about until lately. I’m not privy to the discussions about advertising strategy that the "No on 8" team has had, but I can guess that they’re trying to cast as wide a net as possible to reach the largest possible group of voters with a “no” message. 

Here’s my take.

If an ad is effective and makes its point without using the word gay, that’s fine. Here’s an example of an ad that proves that point:

But I think that at least some of the advertising and outreach about "No on 8" needs to plainly say what Proposition 8 is about: the denial of rights to gays and lesbians. Yes, the issue is about equality, but it’s about equality for all, including (specifically) gays and lesbians. Clear communication requires being up front (out front?) about what you mean and why what you say is important. Here’s an example of an ad from the same campaign that proves that point (featuring the fabulous Margaret Cho and her friend Selene Luna):

If Proposition 8 is defeated, this controversy will probably be forgotten. But if Proposition 8 passes, I’m sure we’ll see lots of commentary about the ineffectiveness of the messaging and the mistakes made by opponents in not using the word “gay” more often and more obviously.

What do you think? Do you have to use the word “gay” to be effective in gay and lesbian communications?

It’s a Process

Posted by

Prsa_international_conference_coverI was in Detroit earlier this week for the International PRSA Conference, specifically to participate in a panel presentation about LGBT inclusiveness in the workplace. It may be surprising to many of you, depending on your perception of PRSA’s pace with industry trends, that this was not the first LGBT-focused presentation at the international conference.

Ben and I presented a session on LGBT marketing and communications two years ago.  While that first-of-its-kind 2006 session was pushed to the last slot of the last conference day ,  it attracted a small but very enthusiastic crowd of communications professionals attending the session and participating in a lively discussion. 

Read more »

Traveling While Lesbian: Q&A with Girlports President Tanya Churchmuch

Posted by

Girlports_photo_3Our friend Tanya Churchmuch founded girlports.com a year ago this month. As you’ll see in our conversation below, the site is the first lesbian travel Web site of its kind and Tanya has accomplished a great deal in a short amount of time. To help her celebrate her first anniversary, we thought we’d conduct another Q&A with her to learn more about communicating with lesbian travelers and the future of travel from her perspective.

Ben Finzel: Why did you start girlports.com? Weren’t there already other resources for lesbian travelers online?

Tanya Churchmuch: Incredibly enough, there weren’t. Girlports is the one and only lesbian travel information website that exists. I’d always been an avid traveler, for both work (as a television journalist for more than a decade) and pleasure, and it had been a real thorn in my side that there were no easily available, up-to-date online travel resources for lesbians. A lot of sites say they’re for gay men and lesbians, but in reality about 90% of that content is aimed at men. Gay men have tons of information available to them online, and I thought it was time that gay women do too. That’s why I decided to create Girlports.

Ben Finzel: What kind of reception have you had in the year since you’ve been online? Is your traffic growing?

Tanya Churchmuch: I’m so happy to say that I’ve had a fantastic reception since Girlports launched back in October 2007. In the LGBT travel industry, which really is quite small, I’ve already become recognized as somewhat of a specialist in regards to lesbian travel. To that end, I’ve been invited to speak at both the recent IGLTA convention in Las Vegas and the Community Marketing Gay and Lesbian Tourism conference in Vancouver. The public reception has also been quite positive and definitely, the number of unique visitors continues to grow.

Ben Finzel: What kind of reaction do you get from convention and visitors bureaus, airlines, hotels and other tourism service providers when you tell them what you do?

Read more »

STD: Sometimes Tough to Discuss

Posted by

Picture1Last week’s HIV scare in a suburban St. Louis high school brought to the national forefront the continuing stigma associated with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Within hearing the news that up to 50 students might possibly have come in contact with the virus, high school relationships were immediately strained or ended, nearby sports rivals withdrew from events, and an entire community was engulfed in fear. As I read and watched, disheartened by the news, I wondered how much of the scare was the result of the lack of open communication about STDs and HIV in America.

Think about it – when was the last time you had a discussion about STDs? While an uncomfortable topic, the fact that there are 19 million new sexually transmitted disease cases diagnosed each year in the United States means you quite possibly could have to face the issue sooner than later. Communication about STDs can become even tougher when you realize you have contracted one and need to inform your partners. For many in major markets, discussing possible infection has taken a new, less confrontational form – e-cards.

Last week, four-year-old inSPOT, the first online STD partner notification system using electronic postcards, released an evaluation of the service on the Public Library of Science (PLOS) Medicine forum that received strong pick-up from Reuters, CNN and U.S. News & World Report.

inSPOT initially began in San Francisco, a project of the San Francisco Department of Public Health and Internet Sexuality Information Services (ISIS), in response to high demand from gay men and men who sleep with men regarding a local syphilis outbreak. Focus group research found that many of these men were not telling casual sex partners of their STD status because there was no easy, convenient and anonymous way.

inSPOT has since grown into a site with contractual agreements with 10 major cities, such as New York and Chicago, and countries such as Canada and Romania, with more than 750 site visitors daily. Recipients can select from six types of e-cards to send their message either anonymously or with a personal message, many times from the testing centers that originally diagnose the infection. The e-cards also provide disease and testing center information to the recipients.

Since it began, the focus has expanded to include all sexually active individuals and more than 30,000 people have sent more than 49,500 e-cards. In 2006 and 2007, the 23,594 e-cards sent were distributed as follows: 15.4% for gonorrhea; 14.9% for syphilis; 11.6% for Chlamydia; 48.8% for “Other” (cervicitis, crabs, scabies, hepatitis A, B, C, etc.); and 9.3% for HIV. ISIS has reportedly received fewer than 10 reports in total from individuals who received the cards in error.

When my boyfriend shared the article with me, I initially balked – how could someone so carelessly shoot off an e-card to let former sexual partners know that they may be infected with an STD requiring medical attention for quite possibly an infection that is ultimately fatal?

Looking deeper into the articles and exploring on inSPOT’s site, two positions are quite clear, as summarized by the quotes below:

“By notifying them – even if it’s done anonymously, even distantly, even with an e-card – the benefits of getting someone diagnosed and treated outweigh the concerns of insensitivity.” – Jeffrey D. Klausner, director of STD Prevention and Control Services, San Francisco (CNN.com)

“It’s such an impersonal way to discuss a highly intimate experience. It seems to me to reinforce that people can continue to be irresponsible and they don’t have any consequences.” – Gail Wyatt, clinical psychologist and psychiatry professor, University of California—Los Angeles, (U.S. News and World Report)

Those in favor of the site and its services note public health organizations’ inability to notify all infected individuals’ health partners as practiced in previous decades. The site also offers another channel to disclose this crucial information for those who would find it impossible to do so in person. Also, with the rise of popular online hookup sites like ManHunt.com, those recently diagnosed with STDs may only be able to connect with their previous partners via online communications.

Those against the site highlight the insensitivity with which personal and possibly life-changing information is shared, while also noting the site’s effect of trivializing the consequences of unsafe sex practices and multiple partners.

In the end, the goal is to communicate information to ensure the health of the public and those possibly infected. Because anonymous online hookup sites and certain people’s inability to have these difficult conversations are present today and will likely remain in the future, I believe inSPOT is providing a communication channel that enhances public health, despite its noted and valid shortcomings.

What do you think about e-cards disclosing the possibility that you might have an STD or HIV? Is it a form of responsible communication or a cheap way out? What messages on sexual health and practice is the site communicating? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.