Download Marketing the Rainbow (4) – Why? When I was asked by two

Marketing the Rainbow (4) – Why?
When I was asked by two consecutive blue chip clients how they could reach the gay
customer, I said “why do you want to target them”? The answer was “because they
make more money, have a higher education, and are trendsetters”. These three
‘facts’ are part of a set of myths about LGBT.
Within the framework of my PhD Research I set up a consumer survey to get insights
in these assumptions. In total over 3,100 people participated, from a number of predefined subgroups.
First of all, gay men make less money on average than their straight peers, which can
be explained partly by the fact that they (more often) end up in ‘female’ professions,
and as we know women make less money than men. On the other hand, lesbians
have a higher average income than straight women, with the same reasoning: they
more often work in jobs that are usually performed by the opposite sex. So: the
higher income is part one of the myth.
As to education: although many LGBT can be overachievers due to the fact that they
feel they have to prove themselves worthy, a same number of them will be the
victim of bullying, or are afraid to stand out. These two groups balance out, so the
average level of education is about the same as in the general population. Part two
of the myth.
Are they trendsetters? Although it may be true that a few of the leading trendsetters
are obviously (read: visibly) gay, does this hold true for the gay population in
general?
a. Do you consider yourself to be a trendsetter?
In the straight population 11% considered themselves as a trendsetter against 21%
of the gays.
b. Do you consider (some) gays to be trendsetters?
Gays (more so than heteros) consider other gays to be trendsetters (81%, against
67% of straights).
Conclusion: straight people consider themselves less of a trendsetter than gays,
while gays (more so than heteros) consider other gays to be trendsetters.
In the past decades, globally speaking, the mass marketing techniques of the 70s have
grown into one-on-one marketing practices. Companies, step by step, have developed the
approach of their customers from one or two different ways, to a whole range of segments,
methods and media. They have tried to find more customers, more profits – and in doing so
have defined market segments which they think deserve special attention.
This research is going to look at the truths and myths behind this marketing strategy (or
tactics), the profile of “gay consumers”, their needs and spending pattern and the ways
companies use to satisfy these.
The research is set out to find the answer to the question:
“Marketing the Rainbow: is there a pot of gold at the end of it?”
In this set-up, the Rainbow1 stands for the gay consumer, and the question relates to the
intention of companies to define this specific consumer as a separate target group within
their marketing strategy. Is this logical? Is this worthwhile? Will they find that pot of gold, by
targeting this consumer segment?
I will mainly look at “mainstream companies”2, companies offering their products or services
to the general market – as opposed to companies who are “gay owned and operated”, and
more ore less exclusively targeting gay consumers3.
This research could also be titled “The pros and cons of Gay Marketing “ or in short “Gay
Marketing”.
1
The rainbow has been the symbol of the gay “movement” since the second half of the 20th century.
This became more or less official when Gilbert Baker designed the Rainbow Pride Flag in 1978. See
Appendix 3.
2
See also Chapter 2 – Delimitations.
3
Irrespective of the level of social acceptance, which for instance may cause gays to “hide” from
society in a separate neighborhood, every society knows a more or less invisible gay sub-society. This
consists of bars, hotels, restaurants, shops, clubs, holidays, magazines, books, etc. This sub-society is
catered for by an equally (in)visible group of suppliers and companies, which are exclusively aimed at
this group of consumers.