Facebook or other social media channels contribute a lot of benefits to our lives – some of them I discussed in my previous posts. Nevertheless, we have to keep in mind that we are responsible for things we do or say on these channels. This seems quite plausible because social media are public conversations. Whereas, the fact that Facebook tracks many things we do not intend sharing with others, is questionable. The controversy about the manner in which companies like Facebook or Google are handling with sensitive data is as old as these channels themselves. Data protectionists criticize that Facebook monitors every step we do and draws its conclusions by combining the data we are providing. In this post I want to refer to that criticism but change the focus from a general perspective to the influences it can have on the LGBT community. Do we have to fear that information concerning our LGBT identity getting public without us knowing?

The first case I want to present concerns the possible threats of private communication via social networks. Over the time a lot of applications and tools on Facebook were created (not only by Facebook itself) which connect social data from different users. Most of them were fun to use and had some kind of benefit. However I want to give you one example how data were used in an equivocal way: The so called “Gaydar”-project was released some time ago. This tool can be used to scan profiles with the aim to identify the users’ sexual orientation by the number of his openly gay friends linked to him. It works by recognizing and evaluating statistical relationships. In many cases the program reveals the sexual orientation correctly but of course it has a lot of methodological problems because it only refers to statistical data and there is only a probability for the results. Nonetheless, it can have negative consequences for people which are gay especially for those who are not living openly gay. In fact rumors about homosexuality has been used often used as well online as offline but a circulating rumor can have consequences for the individual whether it is right or not.

Second example is coming from a marketing perspective: Communication strategists try to benefit from the information Google and Facebook provides them with. You might be aware of a special ad displayed on your browser that referred exactly to your actual search behavior. But have you ever been aware that you could have been targeted by special gay ads? A few years ago Microsoft and Germany’s Max Planck Institute (German research institutes) found out in a study that Facebook targets gay people with special ads based on their sexual orientation. They found it out by creating some fake accounts, some of them were gay and others were straight. As a result it turned out that the ads which were displayed on gay men’s profiles significantly differed from those ads that appeared on others profiles. Some of the ads were obviously targeting gay people such as an ad of a gay bar. On the other hand there were ads displayed on gay men’s profiles which were not apparently addressing gay people such as one for a nursing degree at a medical college in Florida. They seemed to be regular ads which thematically could have been shown to every Facebook member, but they were exclusively displayed on gay profiles (66 of them didn’t even contain the word “gay”). This is controversial, because by clicking on these ads the user reveals his sexual orientation as well as his Facebook-ID (plus cookie, IP address, or e-mail address if the users signs up on the advertiser’s site) to the advertiser without knowing it. Additionally, there is no clear explanation for what aim they are collecting this data. Did the advertisers want to build up a gay database or why is Facebook providing this information to them? This question comes up regarding the fact that ads which were displayed on lesbians’ profiles did not substantially differ from straight women’s.

These two examples show how easily information about your LGBT identity can leak to third parties over Facebook or other platforms. Applications, such as “Gaydar”, are in my opinion just the childish implementation of the old playground game “Who might be gay” to the internet. Nevertheless, they could be used for online mobbing or could have other negative consequences for the users that are “outed” by this app. What concerns me even more is that advertisers are getting information about sexual orientation in secret. It would be no big deal if Facebook or its advertisers informed the users openly that they are tracking their data to build up customers profiles. Actually it is a fact both sides can benefit from: Those customers who accept this conditions could get fitting niche advertisement which refers to their interests which they normally would not got. Marketing strategists on the other hand would get better feedback on who is belonging to their target group and what their target group is interested in. Of course companies do have an interest to minimize their advertising wastage and get better information about the target group but they should do it transparently. Transparency could also be a convenience for companies if they would explain the advantages to their target group as well as the aim why they are collecting this data they’ll get a better reputation if someone revealed that they did it in secret. This just raises suspicions of data abuse.

Facebook as the platform that contributes this service should offer the users the possibility to disagree on transmitting their private information by informing them what happens if they proceed (and not just put it in a paragraph of their general terms and conditions). It should be clear for every click which information I am sending to a third party, maybe this would generate more awareness of how casual big companies such as Google or Facebook are treating user’s information.

What do you think about this way of collecting data? Do you think the users are themselves responsible for information they have indicated in their profiles or should they be protected by authorities? I guess that In Germany there is a really big awareness and controversy for this privacy issues compared to countries e.g. the U.S. Maybe this is a German thing and you rather see the benefits from this new ways of targeting. I am looking forward to your thoughts and I would appreciate to read something from that perspective.

It is a clear fact that in Mexico City the LGBTI community has achieved significant rights. By the end of 2009, same sex marriages were approved in the nation’s capital and later the right to adoption was also attained. So what’s next?
Recently, several organizations from the LGBTI community, among them the Circuito de Diversidad Sexual México organization, extended an invitation to meet with the PRD’s political candidate for Mexico City’s Head of Government, Dr. Miguel Angel Mancera, to discuss some of the most pressing issues for our community. It is worth noting that Dr. Mancera and the PRD political party have very high chances of winning the upcoming elections, as the city has been an overwhelming PRD bastion ever since it started having its own electoral process. Another issue worth noting is that this political party – along with Mexico’s thriving LGBTI community— has been a pillar for all the achievements the community has recently obtained.
A number of issues were set forth, from the need for a health system targeted to LGBTI community members, to support for the creation of homes for the elderly. Other issues were also discussed, including bullying in schools, particularly for children of homoparental families, and the need to continue the fight against discrimination and homophobia through education and denunciation.
In my opinion, the strongest proposal set forth was that of the creation of a National Institute for Sexual Diversity, to institutionalize LGBTI community affairs, and one that would enable addressing the community’s very particular needs, from health related issues to civil and criminal issues, in addition to other topics such as employment and bioethics.
The candidate spoke to the LGBTI community stating that all of these achievements need to permeate every government action to confer the agenda a more macro viewpoint that will help consolidate and expand what has been obtained until now. 
Dr. Mancera said, “there is no going back for Mexico City, from now on, we can only move ahead, but with order. We live in a city with liberties that go beyond ideas, we see the facts.” He also spoke of the recent creation of a specialized agency within the city police department to serve LGBTI community needs, with agents who belong to the community, to help with justice, support and education.
As always, there is much to be done, but the future holds plenty of promise. We will be paying close attention to Dr. Mancera’s specific proposals to further the LGBTI agenda in my beloved Mexico City.

Last time I wrote about the positive impacts of the internet in general for the LGBT community. With this post I want to go one step further and discuss what social media as one part of the internet specifically mean for communication. Social media actually enable everybody to participate directly in the public discourse. Therefore, we have to consider them separately.  

I came up with this argument as I read about this internet protest against “gay meat”. In March 2012 a commercial of the German steakhouse chain Maredo appeared on the internet that shows the slogan “Tofu is gay meat”. Immediately, when the ad became public it provoked a big online controversy. With the hash tag #tofuschwuchtel (“tofu fag”) lots of people complained that this ad would offend (besides vegan or the vegetarian community) especially gays by reinforcing the prejudice that gays are no “real” men.  Popular supporter of this protest was the gay politician Volker Beck from the Green Party, who demanded that the responsible should apologize and donate to “MAGNUS-HIRSCHFELD-STIFTUNG” a scientific sumanitarian committee, which advocates LGBT rights.

As a result of the internet protest, Maredo publicly distanced itself from this ad on its homepage. In their statement they shifted the responsibility to the ad agency Scholz & Friends which created this ad as a proposal during an agency pitch. Maredo insists that they already rejected this proposal in 2008 and forbid to publish it. On the German Facebook page of Scholz & Friends lots of users expressed their disgust concerning this ad. The ad agency apologized for insulting gay people with a statement on its communication channels. Nevertheless, even classic online media quoted out of the users’ comments especially from Twitter and discussed this issue and the consequences for the agency’s or steakhouse’s image. This example demonstrates the impact of social sedia on the media agenda.

To underline my argument I want to point out another example that demonstrate how social media can initiate public debates.  A few months ago when German rap singer “Bushido” was announced to win the special “Bambi”-award (annual German media award of the Burda publishing house) for integration (especially for his positive impact on migrants in Germany), a big wave of protest rose on Facebook with the foundation of the Facebook group “Kein Bambi für Bushido” (engl.: “No Bambi for Bushido) which still has more than 15,000 supporters. This online protest swapped from online channels to classic media and had a big impact on press coverage about the Bambi awards. A lot of people, mostly belonging to the LGBT community, revolted against this announcement because Bushido published lots of offensive lyrics, in which he insulted gay people and condescended women. The debate took its climax when the singer of the German pop band Rosenstolz, who is openly gay, condemned the decision of the jury on stage at the award show. The controversy around Bushido became the most important news around the awards and consequently the “Bambi” suffered a big damage to its public image because the jury just ignored the online and offline campaigns against it.

As you can see from these examples, there are main differences between classic online communication that sticks to a linear communication model on the one hand and social media communication on the other hand. These new platforms are dialogue-orientated and offer the chance to send direct feedback from the users to the entities or a diffuse audience so that these channels blur the boundaries between broadcaster and receiver. In principle, every member of the society has the opportunity to participate actively in public discussions, though it is a convenience if an important multiplier like Volker Beck supports this campaign (because he already has a good online reputation). These cases are good examples to reinforce my argument, because the public debate didn’t focus on the fact that a protests arose on the internet as they often do, but the media discourse turned around the content of the accusations, especially regarding the Bushido case (Is it adequate to honor this man with an award for immigration when he stays for a condescending attitude towards gay men and women?).

Another point that comes up regarding these examples is that communication strategists should consider the interests of certain well-organized groups on the social web. Otherwise they might be targeted by online protests and criticism which could affect negatively on the entity’s reputation. Before web 2.0 when people didn’t have the chance to express their opinion that easily in public, these protests would not have reached this big awareness, but nowadays people who are sharing the same interests can easily form online communities to express their point of view so that public gets aware of it.  

Therefore, I want to discuss with you, whether social media impacted positively on the chances of participation or not. Did these channels facilitate promoting LGBT interest in public discussion or are these channels overrated? Or do you think that the main public awareness referred to the online protest itself and not focus to the issue? Regarding these examples: What do you think about? I am looking forward to your point of views.

I guess the most important question to answer before writing my first blog post was: Why is it important to write about “communications issues that affect the LGBT community”? By looking through all the posts which had already been contributed to this blog, I became quickly aware that this is indeed an interesting topic to consider.

Nowadays, it is not anymore the question if you may or can technically target LGBT community. Communication strategists think all about how to target them best and for what purposes. This is a very interesting point, because we should not take this situation for granted; 20 years ago there has not been a lot of LGBT content in media (often in a negative way) neither were gays or lesbians targeted by marketing strategies. That did not change by the liberalization of laws as you might think. This already started in the end 60s in Germany (with the revision of Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code in 1969). But the change on media started with the revolution of the internet that enabled a liberalization and diversification of the media landscape. For me this is a very essential point. Therefore, I want to start my first post discussing this question: What did the internet change for LGBT communication and what are we heading?

I cannot really say if the liberalization of the society had a bigger impact on media communication or the other way around. This would be talking about whether the hen or the egg came first, but I guess it is a kind of interdependency. But anyway you even see in countries which are not as liberal as Western societies that you always find an interacting LGBT community online, of course in a lower scale. But it is almost impossible to stop people expressing their opinions on the internet. For that reason I came to the conclusion that online communication affects LGBT community building positively and again I want to underline my argument: The evolution of the internet with all its different channels is one of the main reasons that communication to and by the LGBT community is actually possible.

This is not very surprising in my point of view because internet communication is not comparable to classical media channels. First of all you don’t have material restrictions (like limited amount of papers) or you don’t have to plan a program that targets a broad part of the population to generate big audience rates. But what is even more important almost everybody can access to the internet without restrictions of an editorial gatekeeper or guideline. Usually you cannot print your own newspaper and deliver it to a specific target group or you go on broadcasting your radio or TV program. Online you can do just that. We find niches for almost every sort of topic with an own community around, since everybody who has an internet access can afford it. Internet means diversification of communication processes and this is the main advantage. The internet gave a voice to LGBT community as a part of society to express their needs and demands. It made it possible to build up an active online community which is also visible in mainstream news.

Consequently to this evolution, a lot of LGBT platforms literally “came out” in the last years and the big traffic on these platforms shows that there has been a big demand for them. For example, the biggest news portal in Germany (queer.de) indicates 900.000 visits a month and over 11 million page impressions. Online dating community “GayRomeo” currently has 379.613 registered profiles in Germany. Media channels made the community more visible to society and helped to create sensitivity for all the topics referring to LGBT. Because of this new visibility on the internet these topics do not stay in those niches. I sometimes become aware of topics that swap from LGBT channels to mainstream news and are discussed openly for a broad audience e.g. demands for more civil rights. I doubt that this would have been possible without this diversification.

Another point from a public relations perspective is that online communication does not only effect greater adoption of LGBT platforms but make it also possible to target them directly. You can argue if this is a convenience or if you should rather stick to mass media like television that have big rates because you might cover them anyway. But to put it in a nutshell internet meant a lot to smaller parts of the society especially to the LGBT community. It is now possible for the community to send its messages and get targeted organizations directly.

The internet provided should be used properly and this is one point I am really interested in. In my next posts I want to think about this question and start looking for answers how the internet could be used to improve communication to and by the LGBT community. But first I want to discuss with you: What do you think about the impact of the internet on the LGBT community? Maybe you think about some different benefits or you completely disagree with my point. Then it would be interesting to read your arguments.

The recent article featured a list of well-known organisations boasting innovative gay-friendly corporate policies (e.g., American Express, Cisco, Dow Chemical. etc.) and highlighted the financial and social impact of an equality-friendly workplace.

Also explored were obstacles faced by employees and employers including the potential loss of talent and business.

According to the Economist, ‘Failing to treat gays equally is very likely to drive them to seek employment elsewhere. Since they are perhaps 5-10% of the global talent pool, bigotry makes a firm less competitive.’

Whether you’re a CEO or small business owner, part of the LGBT community or not, this statistic begs several questions:

• Does your organisation promote an equality-friendly workplace? 
• Is it synchronous with the corporate culture you sell to clients and shareholders?

If not, chances are you’ve lost talent and new business.

Solution: Take a page from innovators in the space.

The Human Rights Campaign CEI report, released each fall, provides an in-depth analysis and rating of large U.S. employers and their policies and practices pertinent to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. The 2012 report awarded 190 businesses a 100% score – a massive improvement to the 13 organisations in 2000. These are the organisations worth studying – many of which are Fortune 500 companies. Some on the list may surprise you.

More organisations are exploring ways to promote their corporate culture. Studies show that a happier workplace is a more productive one. An equality-friendly corporate policy can be an invaluable recruitment tool for new hires and new business not to mention boosts morale.

If your clients, distributors or partners are on this list, congratulate them as they are part of a growing group of equality-innovators (it’s shocking to think equality is innovative).

Get familiar with your own corporate policy and that of your clients. Explore ways to augment and promote them both internally and externally. This could lead to incremental or new business opportunities. Plus, chances are you’ll be helping impact the hundreds — event thousands of staff send a powerful message to competitors and legislators – and rise above the din.

JC Penny addressed the issue head-on by publicly affirming their decision to hire Ellen as a spokesperson who according to JC Penny CEO Ron Jonson, ‘shares the same values that we do…treating people fare and squarely.’ In an interview with CBS This Morning, Jonson went on to say, ‘It’s not that common that companies use spokespeople, but if you can find that exact right person, we thought it would be great. We thought Ellen would be the perfect person because we all sort of trust her.’

Organisations don’t often hire openly gay spokespeople perhaps because it’s still seen as ‘too risky’. This is an argument One Million Moms hopes to strengthen. However, the millions who have shown their support through tweets, video views and letters – and more importantly offline action show otherwise.

Support for Ellen and JC Penny came quickly from LGBT and straight communities who leveraged social media to gather and drive offline action. This included a group of bloggers who organised local ‘shop-in’ events, a Gay Day and LGBT flashmob in New York City and Facebook groups where many posted their recent JC Penny purchases in support of the brand.

JC Penny may have lost a few moms, but they gained an army of enthusiastic and loyal new customers who now trust and believe in the brand. In a recession, brand trust is gold dust and in the case of JC Penny can give them buoyancy as customers renew their patronage or choose to visit for the first time. Benefits of which will be felt long after the next firesale.

Almost immediately, videos of the speech went viral. To date, a re-post of the transcript and video on the Huffington Post has garnered 10,000 likes on Facebook alone – shared eagerly among straight and LGBT audiences overnight. The speech has now been picked up by virtually every major news publication around the globe. Clinton’s speech was also trending yesterday on Twitter and the speech (and reposts) continue to garner views on YouTube.

Excerpt (source: Huffington Post):

‘When we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message.’ – US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton

US pundits speculate whether or not this was a PR stunt – or if it will have any bearing at all – when considering the upcoming presidential election. Still, others criticise the foreign call-to-arms when it is well-known debate about gay marriage rights ‘back home’ continues.

Abroad, the dialogue is quite different. True, some countries will join the call to arms immediately while it will be a long slog for others. Still, if the lengthy standing ovation Clinton received on Tuesday is any indication, it is that countries outside of the western –sphere are listening. A very important first step for those wishing for their voices to be heard.

A full transcript of the speech and video can be found here.

For almost six weeks now, every Tuesday morning follows the same ritual after arriving in the office: I have finally peeled myself out of the way too tight winter coat when I look at the faces of my colleagues filled with anticipation. This anticipation is all about the TV program of last night: Bauer sucht Frau.

So every Tuesday I tell my colleagues what I think of the latest episode and how the two performed. Each and every time I have to say: They are kind of cute together but every single straight couple on the show is sooo much more exciting and funny. Gay has turned out to be the new boring…at least as far as this show is concerned. But actually this boring has the most positive connotation possible!

Whereas the other farmers turned out to either suffer from a “slight” sociopathic syndrome driving the potentials wives closer to insanity from episode to episode or suffer from rather odd looks making you ask why plastic surgery is all about silicon and not complete facial re-dos, our two gays have decent manners and are blessed with good looks. They are smart and funny and Philip the stablehand has a better relationship with his parents than any mom could wish for.

I would not necessarily suggest the show to be awarded with an LGBT integration award. But so far I really do have the impression that the show raises awareness for the normality of gay (love) life and that it can be found everywhere in every social context.

The key question everybody working in PR faces everyday is: How do I reach my target audience best. Many LGBT awareness campaigns in past years have clearly suffered from deficits in really reaching those people who need some kind of extra lessons when it comes to acceptance of LGBT individuals. Often they got stuck in media which are normally consumed by people who tend to be already rather LGBT-friendly. However, the TV station which broadcasts “Bauer sucht Frau”, is watched by pretty much everybody in Germany and is actually particularly strong in parts of the society with a below average educational level, a group with is less often exposed to LGBT content.

So to stay in PR terms: the Advertising Value Equivalency for positive LGBT coverage in “Bauer sucht Frau” is astronomical.

What do you think? Is a format like “Bauer sucht Frau” the right channel to spread our message or would you say that the format is not the right way to create a wider acceptance for LGBT individuals? After all, you could still argue that it may be true that among the blind the one-eyed man is king but that he still suffers from a deficit.

During the ceremony, Christian’s most relevant achievements were outlined, namely for promoting the creation of the Mexico City Sexual Diversity Coordination, and for promoting the approval of legislation related to Coexistence Societies and same sex marriages, valid for the country’s capital city. 
Christian Sánchez was a member of the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD) political party, the political organization of leftist ideology currently governing Mexico City. The PRD has been quite supportive of the causes and rights of Mexico’s LGBT community. Through Luis Antonio Torres Osorno, a member of the city’s Sexual Diversity Coordination for the PRD, the party called for the implementation of an awareness campaign at a national, state, and municipal level, particularly on the social media fronts, to help curb discrimination against the LGBT community. He also called on authorities to end hate crimes resulting from homophobia, transphobia, and lesbophobia, in addition to calling for the creation of specialized prosecution offices to fight these crimes.
 
Several weeks ago, the LGBT community and Christian’s brother, Daniel Juárez Venancio, organized a National March Against Hate Crimes caused by homophobia, and further, any other hate and discrimination crimes against minorities.
 
On the Mexican LGBT obituary on Facebook, Christian also received special recognition. This is an open site for Mexico’s LGBT community to offer special remembrance to their friends, family members, and other well-known individuals who have passed away and somehow supported our community during their life.

Despite the significant progress registered in Mexico City, situations as this one cast a shadow over greater openness and coexistence of the citizens in this great metropolitan area; saddening the great majority of those of us who are part of  it. I will continue informing on the developments towards this local government promoted campaign against homophobia.

The study will be led by Arnold Grossman, a professor in the Department of Applied Psychology at NYU’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development and co-investigator Stephen Russell, Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair and Director of the Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, & Families at the University of Arizona’s Norton School of Family and Consumer Studies.

“The knowledge we generate will allow us to more accurately assess LGBT youth at risk for suicidal behaviours, identify those risk factors that can be diminished at various developmental stages, and create preventive messaging and interventions that simultaneously increase protective factors, such as feeling more hopeful about the future, and reduce risk factors,” says Russell.

Full release here.

It’s likely the study will yield disturbing data around the increase of negative social phenomena such as cyber-bullying, but hopeful it will reveal an increase in awareness among youth of anti-hate campaigns like The Trevor Project.  Anti-Hate campaigns continue to thrive, backed by politicians, sports icons and celebrities – people youth look up to as mentors. Just last week, Hollywood showed its support for Suicide Prevention Week by launching a series of anti-hate PSAs featuring Lilly Tomlin, Ricky Martin and Mariska Hargitay.

Since launch, the WeGiveADamn.org project has already become a vibrant community to more than 84,000 members and features the PSAs, blogs, testimonials and merchandise to help raise funds. Its Facebook, YouTube and Twitter channels area already drawing in droves numbering in the hundreds of thousands. This is critical given youth are among the highest in terms of digital adoption and use.

There’s little doubt the study will be groundbreaking and hopefully pave the way for more organizations – and people – to get involved and potentially save lives.