A co-worker and I were discussing the matter of Ford removing ads from gay publications in response to pressure from the American Family Association. My co-worker said he was now going to boycott Ford because of it. He explained his reasons and they all make sense.
But a part of me is wondering if that is the correct tact to take. It seems like the last thing this country needs is for industry to start taking highly visible political stances just to appease consumer bases. I mean, isn’t that what we have politicians for? Isn’t boycotting a business for doing something that you politically disagree with feeding into the same madness that often propels the company to take the disagreeable action in the first place? For example, Ford pulled those ads because they feared some type of boycott would occur if they didn’t. Now because they caved under boycott pressures, another boycott will likely take place among people who were offended by their caving in. Ford at this point is essentially caught between a rock and a hard place.
Well, yeah. It’s a war of numbers. If enough people boycott Ford because they gave in to the AFA, they’ll be forced to change back. That’s the point of a boycott.
I don’t know, when I boycott something it’s not necessarily to make the company change their ways. I’m just one consumer, after all. I boycott some companies because I like to live according to my principles and it makes me feel unclean if I don’t. I don’t really boycott companies for PR-related things like this, though; I only boycott companies that have committed gross human rights violations (e.g. Nestle), and which I believe participate in unfair business practices (e.g. Walmart). I don’t see it as feeding into madness, I see it as not wanting to feed into something I disagree with. It’s that whole voting with your dollars thing, and a car is a pretty big purchase. I would definitely consider the politics of whatever company I bought from before buying a car.
Maybe we need to find out if the AF-fucking-A’s goal is to eventually keep homosexuals from buying Ford products. I mean, what is the motivation of these assholes? Is it to ensure that gay people be forced to ride the bus? I don’t understand what their underlying motive is.
Its about not contributing the coffers of an organization who’s ideals you find suspect. I personally don’t go to Starbucks because I like Mom and Pop coffeeshops and the culture they bring to the table. Of course, I don’t like coffee and I live in New York where there are plenty of alternatives to Starbucks.
Capitalism allows us to excercise a certain amount of will via how we spend our money. I was talking at dinner last night to a guy I met, about spending within one’s community rather than sending money across vast distances to a faceless corporate interest. If I spend money on my friend, and then he has the money, then that money is in closer proximity to me than it would be if I sent it off over some vast distance to a corporate interest. So I am wealthier having spent the same amount of money than if I spent it in an arena where I don’t like how they apportion money.
I don’t understand boycotting a car company, its not like you buy that many cars all the time, I mean if I were to boycott Ford it would be meaningless, cuz I’m not gonna get a car anyway, but if I were it probably wouldn’t be a Ford, because other than the new Mustang their cars completely slip off my radar. I think a boycott is kind of silly, the wind is blowing such that no one is gonna care about gay rights much in about ten years anyway. Ford is making a business decision about who their market is, it’s pretty simple, acting like there is some ideal at stake is a delusion. The reality is that people under thirty could really care less whether or not someone is gay. Its more prevalent amongst the older generations.
That they’re assholes? They don’t need a motivation to suck.
Businesses are out for the bottom line. With rare exceptions, they don’t care about religion or morality or tolerance or anything. They only care about money. By boycotting these AFA people can force a semblance of “decency” (their decency anyway) onto a heartless corporation, and make it seem like it’s on their side, even though it’s really not. The Ford people crunched the numbers and decided that the loss of religious extremists would hurt their business, so they pulled the ads. A counter-boycott would hit Ford in the only place it hurts. It’ll do a lot more good than writing letters or picketing, which won’t even touch this big, heartless company. Boycotts use capitalism’s weakness against itself.
Tell that to men over 70. Some of them buy a new car every YEAR. But even if you don’t buy a lot of cars or even one car, it’s a big purchase, worth thinking about in every criterion including the politics of the corporation. I’m not in the market for a car either, but if I was this would definitely be a mark in the “anti” column for Ford.
The AFA and groups like that think that gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married, be protected from job discrimination, serve in the military, etc. They’re against gay civil rights. Ford was advertising in The Advocate, a gay themed news magazine that supports gay civil rights. If they convince Ford to pull their ads, then The Advocate loses that advertising revenue. If they do that to enough companies who advertise in The Advocate, it won’t get enough revenue, will lose money, and have to shut down. Therefore, it won’t be able to advocate civil rights for gays, and the AFA will have won a victory, by removing from circulation a magazine opposed to its mission.
Yeah, they are idiots though. They clearly don’t know enough gay people to realize that Gay men and women are per capita above average on the income scale, and there are plenty of gay businesses out there with lots of advertising dollars. It doesn’t really matter, the AFA and their ilk have already lost. I see no reason to get all uppity and boycott about it.
But as I see it, the problem with Ford pulling its ads is not so much the pulling of the ads themselves. The problem is that they caved to the pressures of an interest group that only wants to shove an anti-gay agenda down everyone’s throat. Instead of Ford telling AFA to leave them alone, they let themselves be extorted by the threat of boycott.
In this position, Ford is now being used as a pawn. No matter what the company does at this point, it risks hurting itself. Ultimately if it wants to stay viable, though, it will have to appease its primary consumer base, which may mean even more alienation of those outside that base. The war between the anti-gay and pro-gay factions will become more heated since Ford now has a vested interest in making sure its base is aware of its political position. All of this seems to be an unfortunate consequence of “voting with your dollars” on PR issues that have nothing to do with the quality and prices of products.
I am the same way. To me, boycotting a company because they actively harm the enviroment or mistreat their workforce is different than boycotting a company because they seem to have a right-wing conservative image or something like that. That’s why I would (and do) boycott Walmart for its shady practices with their competitors, but wouldn’t boycott it just because it doesn’t sell sexually suggestive magazines at the register.
Are “Gay men and women are per capita above average on the income scale”? Do you have a citation for that, because I thought it was a myth not supported by studies.
Their motivation is likely around maintaining “brand equity” of Ford as an all 'merican guys guy car (Escort, Focus and Probe notwithstanding). Some customers you don’t want (nothing against gays or anything, I’m just explaining the business case). These people feel that Ford has a certain image and that they would lose marketshare of their key demographic if that image was tarnished.
Take Abercrombie & Fitch or Urban Outfitter. Every year or so, there is a big hoopla because they release Ghetto Monopoly or racially charged T-Shirts. Their marketing people aren’t stupid or ignorant. They went to the same high falutin’ business schools that I did. They know that the uproar will give them a huge amount of free publicity. The only people they will lose business from is touchie feelie liberals, minorities, overly-sensitive types. Basically people who are outside of their target demographic - rich, white, suburban, trendy, cool kids with money. They want the asshole frat guy who looks like an OC extra wearing their clothes, not the activist kids who hang out in the student union on the weekends.
Perhaps it is a myth. In my experience, there are a lot of savvy gay businessmen and women out there. A lot of them are capable of going further simply because they don’t have to worry about the family thing. If there are no kids to concern oneself with then it’s easier to climb the corporate ladder without remorse for what time you are missing with whomever.
Surely it’s freedom and the free market in action? People and corporations are free to spend their money wherever they choose. If they choose to be influenced, that’s their choice. Both Ford and your friend have chosen to be influenced. And both Ford and your friend are responsible for their choices. Your friend won’t buy Ford so Ford may lose a sale and your friend may not consider a possibly better vehicle; if sufficient people choose to be similarly influenced, Ford will find itself worse off as a result of its choice. And that’s Ford’s responsibility.
I think it goes beyond Ford, though. What I fear is that businesses in the future will be compelled to become much more political if the kind of tactics used by the AFA become widely practiced ways of getting business to represent a certain viewpoint. And because business welds tremendous influence over just about every aspect of our lives, this politicization is bound to have effects on public policy. It’s the free market in action, yes, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a good thing.
My question would be whether boycotts are effective. If they’re not, businesses soon learn to ignore the threat. For example, the Montgomery bus boycott following Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat was effective because the bus company lost lots of money and the policy was changed, pretty much as a direct result. But frankly a few thousand people who don’t buy Ford products because of their advertising policies probably isn’t going to make a difference overall.
This is my motivation in the rare instances where I decide to not buy from a particular company. For example, I wouldn’t join a “Curves for women” health club because the top of the food chain there donates a lot to a cause I find reprehensible. That’s his right, of course, but I don’t want any tiny portion of my discretionary money going there. Sorry if it impacts the local franchise holder, but that’s how it is.
Similarly, I ceased to buy Nestle products when I found out about some of their marketing methods for infant formula in developing countries.
I know my individual few cents won’t really make much difference.
Businesses are major political forces, but are not subject to the same rules that our elected politicians are. Many of our laws trace back directly to powerful business lobbies. Some of the are really nation-changing…like the more recent copyright acts.