Posts Tagged ‘Entertainment’

Welcome to the mainstream

Posted by Guido Schmitz

German TV can be quite frustrating for an LGBT audience. More or less all you get to see are straight characters with very few exceptions once in a while. Sure, there are the dailies with the LGBT characters but for reasons of quality I would rather neglect them at this point.

So it was quite a step forward when in November 2008 the first German dedicated LGBT TV station started airing its program. The station, called TIMM – Television, Internet, Media for Men –claimed “We love Men.” Too bad that, apparently, German men didn’t like TIMM as much as the TV station liked us. In April, the station entered bankruptcy and ever since stopped airing its program over satellite and cable.

So how could this happen after decades of gay German men complaining that mainstream TV did not, or at least not on a regular basis, dedicate to their interests? The station was run as non-pay TV depending more or less solely on commercials. The managers of TIMM did not really have a choice because pay TV is a miserable business in Germany where several investors have gone bankrupt over it. That is quite a difference to the situation of the U.S. TV station here! or Logo. In Germany, a niche audience is not willing to pay for a program which is aimed at their specific needs. But why is that the case?

The debate after the announced bankruptcy offers two views: a gay and a straight one. The gay perception is that the TV station itself is a good idea yet the way it was run was not appealing enough. Hardly any of the shows were actually produced for a German audience. The vast majority of the program was bought from abroad. You may want to argue that LGBT-related issues are somewhat universal. And yes, I totally agree that LGBT stories are universal but as I previously wrote in another post, it is about how you tell the story, about how you reach your audience and respect regional differences. For example, Noah’s Arc surely was an entertaining show, but the plot was simply not close enough to the German audience for anybody to identify with the show and actually keep watching it. I guess Frankfurt and L.A. are separated by more than just 6,000 miles. In contrast, the few shows that were actually produced in and for Germany enjoyed quite positive reception both by critics and the audience.

The straight argument is that the LGBT community does indeed feel comfortable with the program they are offered by the general TV stations. It was written that “we” had finally arrived in the mainstream media with LGBT characters addressing us as an audience. A special niche has become obsolete, and so on. The whole discussion culminated in the finding that LGBT emancipation had come to an end altogether.

In my view, the discussion about the bankruptcy of TIMM shows one point very clearly. While the LGBT community still sees a need for specialized media offerings due to the fact that the mainstream does not offer certain content, the general public considers our struggle of acceptance as over. This is similar to the annual return of the Pride discussion. Do we still really need Pride? While you will find very few members of our community say that Pride has become an anachronism, a large proportion of the general population will tell you that LGBT has made it in the middle of our society and we don’t need to raise awareness for us anymore.

This is a bit of a worrying development to me because it nicely demonstrates that according to the wider public opinion the LGBT community has enough rights already. The general tenor seems to be: “We gave you enough already, so shut up and welcome to the mainstream.” Quite displaced is this point of view, since hate crimes still happen on a weekly basis. Last week, in Berlin a gay man was stabbed in the back for holding hands with his boyfriend. This incident has only been reported by LGBT media. The mainstream media remained silent. Once again: Welcome.

What do you think about specialized media? Do we still need them or are you satisfied with the attention mainstream media pay to our interests?

| June 23rd, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · · · · · ·

Tony Pride

Posted by Michael Murphy

Happy Monday, all! Apologies for being MIA on the blog of late– it's been one of those months where vacation took me away from my responsibilities on here. Rest assured, I am back!

The Tony Awards were last night. You know the Tony Awards– the annual theater award show where random presenters with no connection to Broadway (read: this year, some New York Jets player and Raquel Welch) give "Best of" awards to high-profile shows and actors and often overlook some lesser-known, but well-deserving productions. This year's festivities were hosted by Sean Hayes. You know Sean Hayes, of "Will & Grace" and Newsweek fame. He and "Promises, Promises" co-star Kristin Chenoweth had some fun at Newsweek's expense at the beginning of the show– as the photo shows here.

What I love about the Tony Awards is that for three hours, television audiences are exposed to different works of art. While this year spent too much time on Green Day and the cast of "Glee," there was still ample opportunity to soak in some fantastic performances and more importantly, truly heartfelt acceptance speeches by winners. And from what I can observe, the Broadway community is all about acceptance. Several of the winners last night acknowledged their partner, and many of the performers participate each year in the "Broadway Cares" project to help fund HIV research and education. It's certainly the gayest of our award shows, but I love that CBS commits each year to bringing the Tonys to the rest of the world, regardless of ratings. Not everyone can afford a pilgrimage to the Great White Way, but sitting down with your family and watching a performance of "La Cage aux Folles" is the next best thing.

From a marketing perspective, I would have loved to see more of corporate America recognize the majority demographic viewing the show last night and tweak the advertisements to appeal to this specific community. Think about the Super Bowl. Many companies create ad campaigns that incorporate both the game and the viewing audience (remember how Betty White reclaimed her fame this Super Bowl?). How great would it have been last night for advertisers to incorporate the show and the LGBT community in the spots that aired. Granted, there may have been some as I forwarded the first half on DVR, but I hope that we see more LGBT campaigns during the Tony broadcasts in the future.

Speaking of marketing, we're taking our "ButtOut Ohio" project to Columbus Pride this weekend to share the campaign with the LGBT community. I plan on taking some photos at the event and will share my thoughts next week about how companies are using Pride as an opportunity to engage with us.

Have a great week.

(Photo courtesy of Sara Krulwich/The New York Times)

| June 14th, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · · · · · ·

More From Nick Vivion and Unicorn Booty on LGBT Communications in the Age of Social Media

Posted by Bryan Blaise

And we're back today with the second half of our conversation with Unicorn Booty's Nick Vivion about his business, the LGBT consumer and social media. And speaking of leveraging digital and social media for the gays, take a look at the video at the end of this post and a recent write-up on how Nick and his partner Kevin are using social media to help uncover the reason behind YouTube's selective removal of their video today.

5. Besides Unicorn Booty, what are your thoughts on how businesses should communicate with and engage with LGBT consumers? Is digital and social media the best channel?

Unicorn Booty is of course the only way to reach LGBT consumers.

Of course that's not true!  I am platform agnostic – just use what works.  What works for us is all digital and social media. Why pay $50,000 for a full-page ad in the Advocate when you can create an interactive experience that really engages your target audience for a fraction of the price? The majority of other media – print and television – are over-priced and not as effective.  People keep doing them because that's the status quo, but you really can't measure the impact of a print ad beyond circulation. The exciting (and very scary!) thing about digital/social media is that you can measure everything! You know how long someone spent on the site, where they want, if they bought anything.  You know what they think of your brand. It's all right there, and you can't hide from it.  That makes advertising much harder, because rather than just doing a "media buy" and crossing your fingers, you actually have to deliver results.

The funny thing about this tension between traditional and new media is that many businesses are still stuck in a sales mentality.  Will it drive sales? Will it boost my revenue? This is a dangerous mentality to have, because social media is about less tangible relationship marketing.  There are 1.37 billion influence impressions online every day (Forrester).  It's not just about sales, it's being a part of a whole new world where priorities have shifted from your desire to sell to your customer's desire to be engaged. You are not always going to be able to measure the sales impact of your social media efforts, but you CAN measure engagement, which lays out the path to increased brand awareness, affinity and authenticity as you meet consumers on their terms.  

6. What challenges have you experienced or seen other businesses face when communicating with the LGBT market?

As I mentioned earlier, the LGBT market is diverse.  You cannot create one campaign "for the gays" and expect it to resonate community-wide.  That's dangerous territory, and if you haven't ever marketed to the LGBT community before get some help!  If you offend the community, it has a very long-term memory.  So go slow, think twice and ask someone who knows what their doing!

For us, our biggest challenge is distilling our message down to its core so that it resonates with the widest swath of the LGBT community as possible.  We really do want to appeal to the community as a whole.  For us to succeed in our mission to strengthen our community through supporting gay-friendly businesses, we need to have as many people as possible on-board.  Once we reach the tipping point, it becomes increasingly impossible for businesses to have an anti-gay agenda.  $825 billion is a lot of money: A bailout-sized chunk of cash ready to be put behind equality-minded businesses.  
Communicating this vision is the most challenging thing facing us right now, because it applies to both our interactions with consumers and the companies that we are contacting about being featured on our site.  We need the consumers to come back every day to check out the day's partner, and we need the companies to see the value in the market.  Both sides have an interest in seeing those gay dollars at work: Consumers want to see them being used positively in the community, and businesses want to see them being spent on their products.  UB is in charge of bringing this vision to both stakeholders.

7. Tell us more about your social responsibility component. Is this a crucial element for businesses engaging with LGBT consumers? How should a business communicate that or its advocacy efforts?

We give 10% of our net proceeds to a different community-chosen non-profit every quarter.  This quarter it's Seattle's Lifelong AIDS Alliance. My experience with the Mormons during No on 8 drove this decision, because I saw first-hand what can be accomplished when an entire community gives 10% of their income. People with anti-gay agendas are already giving 10% to organizations that exist to reduce our status in the world, so if we don't also give 10% then they will win, every time.  So we call our 10% commitment our "gay tithe," and are hoping to popularize the concept as we lead by example.  10% of $825 billion is $8.25 billion.  To put that into perspective, that is enough money to put every single LGBT person in the USA through private college.  If you consider what could be done with a simple 10% commitment, it's astounding.

With a community that has experienced long-term discrimination, and who is still not enjoying full equality, a socially responsible component can be a vital component to engaging LGBT consumers.  It gives you another marketing tool, but it also demonstrates that you understand the challenges still facing the community. It sends a clear message that you empathize and are committed to doing something about it.  It also differentiates you from any competition and places you more firmly in the community.
Communicating your commitment to advocacy or a particular non-profit should be secondary to your main value proposition.  You do not want to be seen as giving to a non-profit only for the good-will and self-interest of your company.  You must come at it from the heart, and mention it in a tasteful but obvious way.  You don't want to hide it, but you don't want it to be your primary selling point either.  It should be an added benefit, something that makes the consumer choose you over your competition when faced with a decision.  This doesn't mean that you shouldn't leverage the hell out of it on the back-end: Contact stakeholders, befriend members of the organization you have partnered with, use your commitment to the organization to recruit evangelists, ask the organization if you can participate in any events they have going on.  For example, we will be MCing at a Lifelong AIDS Alliance rooftop benefit next week – a great opportunity for visibility that works even better due to our 10% commitment to that organization.
We want to demonstrate that new entrepreneurs can build a successful and sustainable business while still giving 10%.  It's not necessarily a gay thing, but a human being thing.  We all have to be part of the solution, regardless of what we do for a living.

Washington Boys & California Gurls – a Music Video by Unicorn Booty from Booty the Unicorn on Vimeo.

| June 9th, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · · · · · · · ·

That Newsweek story…

Posted by Michael Murphy

So everyone is talking about the Newsweek story. To describe it in one sentence or less, the writer (gay himself) said that openly gay actors struggle to convincingly play straight characters. He referenced both Sean Hayes performance in the revival of Promises, Promises  and Jonathan Groff from Glee as two examples of not hitting the straight mark. It's fair to say that this article, and the response to it, has been a media explosion.

Let me give my two cents. I saw Promises, Promises last weekend, and I consider myself a Gleek. I was underwhelmed by Promises, Promises,  and my friend who went with me to see it agreed that the major problem was Sean Hayes. It's not about his acting skills, or his credibility, but for my generation, he is iconically known for Jack McFarland. Good or bad, once you put such an indelible stamp on pop culture like Hayes did for almost a decade on mainstream television, it is hard to separate yourself from your character. There were so many moments during the show where Sean slipped into Jack, whether he knew it or not. From head bobbing while dancing to his impeccable delivery of lines, there was so much Jack in him. And I think audiences came to see Jack on stage. So was he convincing as a straight man pining for a woman? No- but it's not because he is gay– it is because he made such an impression playing a gay man and his mannerisms from that character melded into this new performance. Plus the source material, not so great. It's not exactly the most macho role to begin with.

The Jonathan Groff example from Glee is interesting.  I saw Groff's breakout role in Spring Awakening on Broadway, and whether he was out or not at the time, he wasn't on my radar. His performance was so moving as a troubled teen in love that I didn't think twice about his sexuality. Now he is on Glee, and it is only now that I know he is gay. Does that make him less convincing on the show, where he pines for Rachel? No– because the two of them have such established chemistry, and no offense, but the show is about show choirs, where my experience (three years in high school) is that everyone is flamboyantly fabulous, no matter their sexuality.

So maybe the Newsweek writer was't eloquent in the point he was trying to make. But I think the point he is making is valid. Once you come out in Hollywood, it becomes part of who you are moving forward. It is the"talking point" about you. Every interviewer will ask about it, every studio casting director will think twice about it before casting you. The fact is, in my opinion, that there are probably hundreds of actors currently in the medium playing straight while being gay, and they are doing it convincingly. The sad part is that the culture is just not quite there yet to allow someone to come out without suffering professionally. Yes there are positive cases here and there, but there are certainly also cases where the impact is deafening.

Where I struggle the most with the Newsweek story is the tone of the backlash. We come from a community where we are labeled, good or bad. It's one thing for us to disagree with someone, but it's a whole different story for us to be vicious in attacking because of a difference of opinion and to put labels like "homophobic" on someone who is a member of our own community. It saddens me that sometimes, LGBT or straight, we feel that the best way to get our opposing viewpoint across is to scream it. This might come from the 24-hour cable news cycle, full of pundits who challenge each other every night to see who can speak the loudest. And believe me, I understand that our voice has been silenced for so long, and that we are still oppressed in many circumstances. But civility is so fleeting in an age where we can instantly share our opinions to the world.

So what's the lesson in all of this? I do love freedom of speech, for both the opportunity to share your opinion and to react to others. But when the dialogue becomes so weighted in viciousness, it becomes a battle with no winners.

Most people who reacted to the original story did not read the entire piece, instead focusing on the backlash. Read it first, and tell me what you think. Do you agree?

Have a peaceful weekend.

| May 14th, 2010 1 Comment »
Tags: · · · ·

GLAAD-itude for Amplifying Our Community’s Voice

Posted by Bryan Blaise

Live from New York…it's the opening keynote of the Gay & Lesbian Marketing Conference. Sitting in the front row (yes, I'm still that nerd), I met and listened to GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios' address on the organization's current efforts and the role of storytelling in bringing about equality — whether between a mother and son or between a celebrity and the public. He opened with a story about a young man in Chicago (actually a good friend of mine — small world) he had mentored before whose family for more than 10 years had been uninterested in his life, his relationships, his hopes and dreams.

And two weeks ago, it changed. The young man's mom asked about his being gay. And why? Two words. Ricky Martin. 

GLAAD understands the power of media to create bridges at the personal and national level. Barrios noted that while the U.S. media (and as we covered here) noted the event as "obvious" or "coming from some time," the story continues in Spanish-language media today. It continues to open that community to greater awareness of a leading celebrity's  life and sexuality, very similar to Ellen's coming out in the United States many years earlier. He also highlighted the results from GLAAD's recent study with Harris Interactive in which they found that 20 percent of those surveyed view gays more positively than they did 5 years ago.

So what led this change? No surprise, this change was largely led by individuals coming out to friends, family, and others in their community. I life lived out front and transparent is help moving the minds and hearts of America. And following personal storytelling, is the media. Barrios painted a quick and clear picture. Think back 30 years ago — you know, Three's Company on TV, Anita Bryant and the movie Cruisin were some of the only images or quasi-images of LGBT people. The LGBT community, as many of you know, was doing so well at that time. 

Fast forward to today. News stories are growing more fair, accurate and inclusive. We've got Ellen, LOGO-TV, and major brands such as Levi's, Bertolli, Progressive and long-standing LGBT supporter Absolut with inclusive corporate advertisements that present our community in both LGBT and mainstream media. 

Barrios covered in his address and in the following Q&A many of the organization's leading work (many of which we've covered on the Out Front Blog) in recent months with CNN's story on the young boy in Arkansas who won't pledge allegiance until there's LGBT equality, CNN's error on their ex-gay story, their stance on the recent Tribeca film Ticked Off Trannies With Knives. Read more on GLAAD's work at those links — also check out their new brand, which we totally dig!

Barrios summed it up well. We, the LGBT community,  are part of the phrases "We the people" and "United, we stand" and others that are the foundation of the United States. He place the work ahead for greater equality change on us — as individuals and marketers within Corporate America. Equality is achieved through media and Corporate America, not legislation first.  That's what follows. 

So we'll keep being out front and hope you will too. We're changing hearts and mind. We'll lead, and (I hope, soon) the government will follow.

More too come…

| April 30th, 2010 No Comments »
Tags: · · ·

« Older Entries