While other nations have been celebrating Pride for quite some time, it wasn’t until 1999 that President Bill Clinton designated June as Pride month for the LGBTQ+ community in the U.S. Growing up in the 1970s, I have been amazed to witness the remarkable strides this group has been able to make toward well-deserved acceptance. Even conservative global titans such as Chevron and Walmart are now openly celebrating the LGBTQ+ community with festive rainbow banners and merchandise. American support for the LGBTQ+ community is higher than ever, which makes what has been happening in Southern state legislatures this year particularly disturbing.
Progress is not without backlash, and this year’s Pride celebration has been marred with a massive onslaught of hate on the LGBTQ+ community by Republicans—especially on the trans community. As a result, extremist state legislatures have passed a record number of pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation this year. Even worse, American evangelicals have been pushing their hateful agenda outside the U.S., which is why Uganda recently passed the so-called “Kill the Gays” bill. Although more Gen Z Americans have identified as LGBTQ+ than any other generation, a majority say they are more fearful now for their own personal safety than in the past few years, according to GLAAD’s Accelerating Acceptance study.
RELATED STORY: U.S. evangelicals planted the poisonous seed that grew into Uganda's draconian anti-LGBTQ+ law
Yet conservative candidates are kidding themselves if they believe their intolerance will win the day. Recall that gay marriage was the top divisive issue 20 years ago, but now it has the support of 71% of America. I have little doubt that their current culture war over drag queens, bathrooms, and transgender athletes will suffer the same fate. The simple fact is the right-wing has consistently failed at being able to stop progress on civil rights.
As much as I’d like to say this is just about civil rights, it’s really about power (and unfortunately so much of that comes from the wallet). The LGBTQ+ community has harnessed $3.7 trillion in purchasing power, which has gone a long way in their demands for equality. On top of that, allies are 82% more likely to purchase goods and services from a company that openly supports LGBTQ+ equality, according to the Center for Talent Innovation’s newest report. You do the math. Despite some loud protests from the bigoted fringe, the tide has definitely turned. Businesses know who they need to cater to if they don’t want to be left behind. The marketing for this group has evolved rapidly, and it’s been an interesting journey.
Growing up in the 1970s and ‘80s, most of the marketing and propaganda efforts were actually made to attack the LGBTQ+ community. The bigoted hostility ran deep, especially where I grew up in the rural South. There was some support, but to be openly supportive of a gay person meant you risked being shunned for uplifting “deviant” behavior. This was the age of the so-called “Moral Majority.”
While there’s too much LGBTQ+ history to cover in just one article, to understand the rapid evolution of Pride marketing we must at least touch on a major breaking point: Stonewall. This wasn’t the first uprising, but it was the largest. In 1969, discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals wasn’t just encouraged, but required under law. At the time, New York state law revoked liquor licenses if the bar or club sold to suspected LGBTQ+ individuals. It was also illegal to dress in drag. The New York Police Department would routinely assault and arrest anyone suspected of being gay or lesbian, including key activists.
Martha Shelley, who would become the founder of the Gay Liberation Front, spoke to “American Experience” about how horrifying the raids were. “If a cop came and arrested you at a gay bar, you would sometimes be photographed. The police would call your employer, or you couldn’t show up for work the next day because you were in jail. And if they called your family, they would kick you out very often. There was one case I know where the father killed her for being gay. So, you’d lose your family, your livelihood, and the place where you lived.”
Stonewall National Monument, New York City, New York.
A riot broke out on June 28, 1969. It was unclear who started it all, but many notable LGBTQ+ activists were involved, including Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Stormé DeLarverie. The LGBTQ+ community had had enough, and large protests broke out demanding an end to violent policing and discrimination after a police raid on the Stonewall Inn.
The community demanded to have their civil rights recognized and to stop being viewed as deviants instead of human beings. The protests and police clashes lasted six days. This marked a major turning point in their quest for equality.
Soon afterward, many LGBTQ+ advocacy groups sprung up, like the Gay Liberation Front and Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries. The community also organized to elect gay officials like Harvey Milk, who was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He recognized that the movement needed something to rally behind and was the one who asked artist Gilbert Baker to design the first Pride Flag in 1978. Baker refused to trademark the flag, and this decision meant that it became the designated symbol of the Pride movement.
In July 1980, the Democratic Rules Committee for the Democratic Party stated in their new platform that they would no longer tolerate discrimination against homosexuals. In fact, the Democrats became the first major political party to endorse a homosexual rights platform at their National Convention the following month. (Yet to this very day, several GOP state platforms are still openly hostile to the queer community.)
The 1980s was an extremely impactful time for the LGBTQ+ community, both positive and negative. Although the movement for equality was picking up momentum, the AIDS crisis set off an explosion of homophobia. Ronald Reagan laughed at HIV victims, while Christian churches condemned them. Ironically, the lesbian and gay community were brought into the mainstream as a result of the backlash to the AIDS crisis. The AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power was founded in 1987. ACT UP’s goal was to push government leaders to confront the epidemic by demanding affordable medications and to help those suffering from HIV and AIDS, as opposed to turning a blind eye because the LGBTQ+ community was so greatly impacted.
The result was some of the first branding campaigns for the LGBTQ+ community. Condoms as protection against AIDS became a major theme for poster campaigns. This was not a campaign tactic supported by Reagan’s government. In fact, conservative senators in Congress banned the use of federal funds for AIDS prevention and education campaigns that "[promoted] or [encouraged], directly or indirectly, homosexual activities.” Even worse, conservative governments used the crisis as an opportunity to shame people to change their sexual habits, featuring fearmongering campaigns of tombstones and death.
Organizations like ACT UP used alternative methods. They created a marketing arm called “Gran Fury” that not only promoted safe sex in the gay community but also combatted homophobia by creating positive images of gay couples.
Many poster campaigns focused more on health and safety as opposed to being “pro-LGBTQ+.” However, as a result, many people were exposed to ads in magazines and on TV that showcased gay couples, which helped bring their existence into the mainstream. This positively impacted the community to feel safer and more welcomed.
Unfortunately, because of the ongoing stigma of the disease and the potential devastating boycotts from homophobic audiences, very few companies advertised directly to the gay market in the 1980s. The ones that were the first were alcohol and tobacco companies—the so-called “sin” market. These companies had little to lose from a boycott since the religious right made up little of their customer base. In fact, the very first product to market directly to the LGBTQ+ community was Absolut Vodka, which took out a full-page ad in a gay magazine back in 1981. This is something they rightfully brag about today.
In the ‘90s, there was a transitional shift in pop culture, with barriers starting to break on television: MTV featuring a young gay man who was HIV-positive, Ellen DeGeneres had her sitcom character come out as gay, and “Will & Grace” featured two major gay characters from the beginning of the series. However, outside of alcohol and tobacco, most advertisers were still leery of directly advertising to this community.
A few marketing surveys, namely the 1988 Simmons Market Research survey and the 1990 Overlooked Opinions survey, tried to determine both the size and habits of the gay market. They discovered that gays and lesbians were much more likely to travel and had incomes three times the national average. In other words, this was a very affluent, untapped market. Yet still, the marketing was largely subversive so as not to attract the negative press. Subaru was probably the most bold and open when it came to their marketing campaign.
Subaru’s account planning team tried and failed to market their all-wheel drive vehicles to traditional markets. However, they discovered that their brand was extremely popular with lesbian couples, especially those who lived near Northampton, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon. Without being too subtle, they built an entire advertising campaign with the taglines “It’s not a choice, it’s just how we’re built,” or “Get out and stay out.”
Tim Bennett, who was Subaru's director of advertising at the time, admitted to The Atlantic to being frightened. “I can’t emphasize enough that this was before there was any positive discussion [of LGBTQ+ issues]. It was certainly a learning process for everybody.” Bennett would later come out as gay, but he didn’t reveal his sexual orientation because he strongly felt that this campaign was good for the brand and didn’t want people to accuse him of pushing an agenda.
Subaru’s stake in the LGBTQ+ community is incredible not only because of the fearless advocacy, but also because they did this with geo-targeting at a time where this type of marketing strategy was in its infancy. Their marketing team’s strategy of directly advertising to gay and lesbian couples helped push the concept from the fringe to the mainstream.
However, for pure brazenness, IKEA takes the prize. They are credited with the first openly gay television commercial in 1996. Keep in mind that gay causes were still not getting the proper support. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted this same year, which prevented same-sex couples from receiving most benefits available to other married couples under federal law. The discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was also still in effect that banned openly gay and lesbian service members from serving in the armed forces.
The ad aired during daytime TV and is acknowledged as having contributed to significant progress toward LGBTQ+ acceptance and equality for its depiction of a gay couple mundanely shopping for a dining room table. While IKEA received much praise for its inclusivity, religious groups subjected the company to massive boycotts. A store in New York had to be evacuated after a bomb threat following the airing of the commercial.
YouTube Video
IKEA not only survived the boycott and threats—they thrived. Other companies took notice. By the new millennium, it was clear that LGBTQ+ advertising was reaching a tipping point. In a none-too-subtle show of support, Washington Mutual featured an ad with a checkbook that had the names of two men on top. Levi’s took an even more direct approach with a commercial that had two distinct endings: one for a gay audience and one for a straight audience. They both had a similar ending of the main character winning over the love interest, but the gay ad ended with the two men getting together.
Although there was certainly a backlash, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it would have been in past decades. The anger against LGBTQ+ marketing campaigns had virtually disappeared. Fringe right-wing organizations such as the Family Research Council or One Million Moms would still try to start petitions, but all of those fizzled out.
Brands continued to proceed with caution throughout the ‘00s, but this decade also came with more direct and open representations of queer identities. Same-sex couples weren’t yet the norm but were becoming more and more common.
By the 2010s, LGBTQ+ identities were becoming just another mainstream demographic for advertisers. It was suddenly common to see same-sex couples represented in commercials, magazine advertisements, and billboards. At this point, the market for LGBTQ+ consumers had grown to $743 billion, and companies saw an opportunity to openly market to an underutilized community to build a loyal customer base. Major brands like Cheerios, McDonald’s, Nabisco, and Ray Ban directly marketed to the LGBTQ+ community using applicable storylines and imagery.
In 2015, the White House celebrated a landmark SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.
The dam broke after the Supreme Court upheld the passing of the Marriage Equality Act in 2015. In celebration, the nation was awash in rainbows.
Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, put it succinctly when explaining to The Washington Post what this meant for advertisers being inclusive: “It gave a permission slip to those who were just not giving it much thought.”
The number of ads featuring LGBTQ+ images skyrocketed. The opaque vagueness that had once dominated this market was now completely gone. Television shows and films featured openly gay couples and transgender characters (Modern Family, Orange Is the New Black, Moonlight), and LGBTQ+ just became a normal part of the marketing landscape.
In fact, the backlash had reversed. In 2019, when The Hallmark Channel pulled an ad featuring a lesbian couple after conservative complaints, the outcry was so enormous that the CEO was forced to apologize and promised to put it back on the air immediately.
Brands have become so invested in queer-friendly ads today that some in the community are denouncing the “corporatization of Pride.” Many point out several instances of “rainbow-washing,” when a brand projects an image of inclusivity for the dollars it brings in, but don’t back up their rhetoric with actions. AT&T is one of the worst culprits. They loudly celebrate Pride month, but also donate millions to right-wing politicians with anti-LGBTQ+ agendas.
The current conservative assault on the trans community means you are less likely to see ads targeting this group. (Surrendering to the changing landscape of acceptance, conservatives are currently trying to get gays and lesbians to join them in turning against trans people.) Yet there are ads for transgender individuals. Gillette broke the mold with one of the first ads specifically addressing this audience:
YouTube Video
Gillette put out a statement when this ad was released: “As a company that holds respect and inclusivity as an important value, we have a responsibility to make sure we are embracing and promoting inclusive portrayals of gender.”
Nike also put the spotlight on transgender athlete Chris Mosier back in 2016. Two years later, Coke ran an ad including nonbinary pronouns. Just this year, Starbucks featured a very touching ad in India depicting a father reconciling a strained relationship with a trans model. Transphobia has long been an issue in India. The ad ends with the father buying a coffee with the daughter’s chosen name on it.
YouTube Video
The model in this ad, Siya, stars in the Netflix show “Rana Naidu.” She told the Indian Express how she came to terms with her identity. “My father passed away when I was six, so I grew up with my mother and two sisters. Everybody thought I was confused because I was growing up around women.” She credits the support of her family for helping her find the strength to reach out for psychiatric help, and eventually, hormone therapy. She transitioned with sex reassignment surgery in 2020. When she learned what Starbucks was trying to do, she was determined to get the role. “When I got the brief about this advertisement, I wanted to be the one doing it, so I auditioned in three different styles.”
Starbucks did a different ad for the U.K. as well about a young person forging their identity.
Bigoted conservatives will try to focus on past victories. Over a decade ago, there was the Chick-fil-A “buycott” of 2012, where religious conservatives flooded the fast-food chain with business for its CEO at the time speaking out against same-sex marriage and donating money to anti-LGBTQ+ groups. This year, there was the Bud Light debacle where conservatives boycotted the brand after trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney was paid for a promotional post with the beer on her Instagram. Even Target has made the decision to pull some of their Pride merchandise after vandalism and threats of violence were lobbied against Pride displays.
RELATED STORY: Desperate to win transphobic bigots back, Bud Light bottles are going (Army) green
Yet make no mistake: The right-wing are running out of allies. Despite all the Republican outrage, Chick-fil-A is now being boycotted by the right wing because they employed a vice president of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Bud Light announced they were extending their partnership with the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce.
RELATED STORY: Chick-fil-A went 'woke,' conservatives may starve
Even Cracker Barrel, which 30 years ago became the darling of the right wing for its policy of firing openly LGBTQ+ people, has since instituted a zero-discrimination policy and now publicly celebrates Pride month with rainbow rockers and merchandise. Despite the bigoted attacks, they have refused to back down.
RELATED STORY: No biscuits and gravy for MAGA as Cracker Barrel goes 'woke'
There is so much further to go, but this month, it’s important to take stock of how far this community has come and overcome. Not just in the U.S., but worldwide, acceptance of LGBTQ+ is on the rise. Conservatives are losing the battle, and they may one day run out of people to hate.
RELATED STORIES:
Rude awakening ahead for Republicans leading 'woke' battle
It's Pride Month, so haters gonna hate
Hating on trans youth is a core Republican presidential primary issue
As conservatives target schools, LGBTQ+ kids and students of color feel less safe
Progress is not without backlash, and this year’s Pride celebration has been marred with a massive onslaught of hate on the LGBTQ+ community by Republicans—especially on the trans community. As a result, extremist state legislatures have passed a record number of pieces of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation this year. Even worse, American evangelicals have been pushing their hateful agenda outside the U.S., which is why Uganda recently passed the so-called “Kill the Gays” bill. Although more Gen Z Americans have identified as LGBTQ+ than any other generation, a majority say they are more fearful now for their own personal safety than in the past few years, according to GLAAD’s Accelerating Acceptance study.
RELATED STORY: U.S. evangelicals planted the poisonous seed that grew into Uganda's draconian anti-LGBTQ+ law
Yet conservative candidates are kidding themselves if they believe their intolerance will win the day. Recall that gay marriage was the top divisive issue 20 years ago, but now it has the support of 71% of America. I have little doubt that their current culture war over drag queens, bathrooms, and transgender athletes will suffer the same fate. The simple fact is the right-wing has consistently failed at being able to stop progress on civil rights.
As much as I’d like to say this is just about civil rights, it’s really about power (and unfortunately so much of that comes from the wallet). The LGBTQ+ community has harnessed $3.7 trillion in purchasing power, which has gone a long way in their demands for equality. On top of that, allies are 82% more likely to purchase goods and services from a company that openly supports LGBTQ+ equality, according to the Center for Talent Innovation’s newest report. You do the math. Despite some loud protests from the bigoted fringe, the tide has definitely turned. Businesses know who they need to cater to if they don’t want to be left behind. The marketing for this group has evolved rapidly, and it’s been an interesting journey.
Growing up in the 1970s and ‘80s, most of the marketing and propaganda efforts were actually made to attack the LGBTQ+ community. The bigoted hostility ran deep, especially where I grew up in the rural South. There was some support, but to be openly supportive of a gay person meant you risked being shunned for uplifting “deviant” behavior. This was the age of the so-called “Moral Majority.”
While there’s too much LGBTQ+ history to cover in just one article, to understand the rapid evolution of Pride marketing we must at least touch on a major breaking point: Stonewall. This wasn’t the first uprising, but it was the largest. In 1969, discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals wasn’t just encouraged, but required under law. At the time, New York state law revoked liquor licenses if the bar or club sold to suspected LGBTQ+ individuals. It was also illegal to dress in drag. The New York Police Department would routinely assault and arrest anyone suspected of being gay or lesbian, including key activists.
Martha Shelley, who would become the founder of the Gay Liberation Front, spoke to “American Experience” about how horrifying the raids were. “If a cop came and arrested you at a gay bar, you would sometimes be photographed. The police would call your employer, or you couldn’t show up for work the next day because you were in jail. And if they called your family, they would kick you out very often. There was one case I know where the father killed her for being gay. So, you’d lose your family, your livelihood, and the place where you lived.”
Stonewall National Monument, New York City, New York.
A riot broke out on June 28, 1969. It was unclear who started it all, but many notable LGBTQ+ activists were involved, including Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Stormé DeLarverie. The LGBTQ+ community had had enough, and large protests broke out demanding an end to violent policing and discrimination after a police raid on the Stonewall Inn.
The community demanded to have their civil rights recognized and to stop being viewed as deviants instead of human beings. The protests and police clashes lasted six days. This marked a major turning point in their quest for equality.
Soon afterward, many LGBTQ+ advocacy groups sprung up, like the Gay Liberation Front and Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries. The community also organized to elect gay officials like Harvey Milk, who was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He recognized that the movement needed something to rally behind and was the one who asked artist Gilbert Baker to design the first Pride Flag in 1978. Baker refused to trademark the flag, and this decision meant that it became the designated symbol of the Pride movement.
In July 1980, the Democratic Rules Committee for the Democratic Party stated in their new platform that they would no longer tolerate discrimination against homosexuals. In fact, the Democrats became the first major political party to endorse a homosexual rights platform at their National Convention the following month. (Yet to this very day, several GOP state platforms are still openly hostile to the queer community.)
The 1980s was an extremely impactful time for the LGBTQ+ community, both positive and negative. Although the movement for equality was picking up momentum, the AIDS crisis set off an explosion of homophobia. Ronald Reagan laughed at HIV victims, while Christian churches condemned them. Ironically, the lesbian and gay community were brought into the mainstream as a result of the backlash to the AIDS crisis. The AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power was founded in 1987. ACT UP’s goal was to push government leaders to confront the epidemic by demanding affordable medications and to help those suffering from HIV and AIDS, as opposed to turning a blind eye because the LGBTQ+ community was so greatly impacted.
The result was some of the first branding campaigns for the LGBTQ+ community. Condoms as protection against AIDS became a major theme for poster campaigns. This was not a campaign tactic supported by Reagan’s government. In fact, conservative senators in Congress banned the use of federal funds for AIDS prevention and education campaigns that "[promoted] or [encouraged], directly or indirectly, homosexual activities.” Even worse, conservative governments used the crisis as an opportunity to shame people to change their sexual habits, featuring fearmongering campaigns of tombstones and death.
Organizations like ACT UP used alternative methods. They created a marketing arm called “Gran Fury” that not only promoted safe sex in the gay community but also combatted homophobia by creating positive images of gay couples.
Many poster campaigns focused more on health and safety as opposed to being “pro-LGBTQ+.” However, as a result, many people were exposed to ads in magazines and on TV that showcased gay couples, which helped bring their existence into the mainstream. This positively impacted the community to feel safer and more welcomed.
Unfortunately, because of the ongoing stigma of the disease and the potential devastating boycotts from homophobic audiences, very few companies advertised directly to the gay market in the 1980s. The ones that were the first were alcohol and tobacco companies—the so-called “sin” market. These companies had little to lose from a boycott since the religious right made up little of their customer base. In fact, the very first product to market directly to the LGBTQ+ community was Absolut Vodka, which took out a full-page ad in a gay magazine back in 1981. This is something they rightfully brag about today.
Love comes in all flavorsWe've celebrated this proudly since 1981, and always will. pic.twitter.com/2yPc7jlsZ5
— ABSOLUT VODKA (@AbsolutUS) October 25, 2022
In the ‘90s, there was a transitional shift in pop culture, with barriers starting to break on television: MTV featuring a young gay man who was HIV-positive, Ellen DeGeneres had her sitcom character come out as gay, and “Will & Grace” featured two major gay characters from the beginning of the series. However, outside of alcohol and tobacco, most advertisers were still leery of directly advertising to this community.
A few marketing surveys, namely the 1988 Simmons Market Research survey and the 1990 Overlooked Opinions survey, tried to determine both the size and habits of the gay market. They discovered that gays and lesbians were much more likely to travel and had incomes three times the national average. In other words, this was a very affluent, untapped market. Yet still, the marketing was largely subversive so as not to attract the negative press. Subaru was probably the most bold and open when it came to their marketing campaign.
Subaru’s account planning team tried and failed to market their all-wheel drive vehicles to traditional markets. However, they discovered that their brand was extremely popular with lesbian couples, especially those who lived near Northampton, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon. Without being too subtle, they built an entire advertising campaign with the taglines “It’s not a choice, it’s just how we’re built,” or “Get out and stay out.”
Tim Bennett, who was Subaru's director of advertising at the time, admitted to The Atlantic to being frightened. “I can’t emphasize enough that this was before there was any positive discussion [of LGBTQ+ issues]. It was certainly a learning process for everybody.” Bennett would later come out as gay, but he didn’t reveal his sexual orientation because he strongly felt that this campaign was good for the brand and didn’t want people to accuse him of pushing an agenda.
Subaru’s stake in the LGBTQ+ community is incredible not only because of the fearless advocacy, but also because they did this with geo-targeting at a time where this type of marketing strategy was in its infancy. Their marketing team’s strategy of directly advertising to gay and lesbian couples helped push the concept from the fringe to the mainstream.
However, for pure brazenness, IKEA takes the prize. They are credited with the first openly gay television commercial in 1996. Keep in mind that gay causes were still not getting the proper support. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted this same year, which prevented same-sex couples from receiving most benefits available to other married couples under federal law. The discriminatory “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was also still in effect that banned openly gay and lesbian service members from serving in the armed forces.
The ad aired during daytime TV and is acknowledged as having contributed to significant progress toward LGBTQ+ acceptance and equality for its depiction of a gay couple mundanely shopping for a dining room table. While IKEA received much praise for its inclusivity, religious groups subjected the company to massive boycotts. A store in New York had to be evacuated after a bomb threat following the airing of the commercial.
YouTube Video
IKEA not only survived the boycott and threats—they thrived. Other companies took notice. By the new millennium, it was clear that LGBTQ+ advertising was reaching a tipping point. In a none-too-subtle show of support, Washington Mutual featured an ad with a checkbook that had the names of two men on top. Levi’s took an even more direct approach with a commercial that had two distinct endings: one for a gay audience and one for a straight audience. They both had a similar ending of the main character winning over the love interest, but the gay ad ended with the two men getting together.
Although there was certainly a backlash, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it would have been in past decades. The anger against LGBTQ+ marketing campaigns had virtually disappeared. Fringe right-wing organizations such as the Family Research Council or One Million Moms would still try to start petitions, but all of those fizzled out.
Brands continued to proceed with caution throughout the ‘00s, but this decade also came with more direct and open representations of queer identities. Same-sex couples weren’t yet the norm but were becoming more and more common.
By the 2010s, LGBTQ+ identities were becoming just another mainstream demographic for advertisers. It was suddenly common to see same-sex couples represented in commercials, magazine advertisements, and billboards. At this point, the market for LGBTQ+ consumers had grown to $743 billion, and companies saw an opportunity to openly market to an underutilized community to build a loyal customer base. Major brands like Cheerios, McDonald’s, Nabisco, and Ray Ban directly marketed to the LGBTQ+ community using applicable storylines and imagery.
In 2015, the White House celebrated a landmark SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.
The dam broke after the Supreme Court upheld the passing of the Marriage Equality Act in 2015. In celebration, the nation was awash in rainbows.
Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, put it succinctly when explaining to The Washington Post what this meant for advertisers being inclusive: “It gave a permission slip to those who were just not giving it much thought.”
The number of ads featuring LGBTQ+ images skyrocketed. The opaque vagueness that had once dominated this market was now completely gone. Television shows and films featured openly gay couples and transgender characters (Modern Family, Orange Is the New Black, Moonlight), and LGBTQ+ just became a normal part of the marketing landscape.
In fact, the backlash had reversed. In 2019, when The Hallmark Channel pulled an ad featuring a lesbian couple after conservative complaints, the outcry was so enormous that the CEO was forced to apologize and promised to put it back on the air immediately.
Brands have become so invested in queer-friendly ads today that some in the community are denouncing the “corporatization of Pride.” Many point out several instances of “rainbow-washing,” when a brand projects an image of inclusivity for the dollars it brings in, but don’t back up their rhetoric with actions. AT&T is one of the worst culprits. They loudly celebrate Pride month, but also donate millions to right-wing politicians with anti-LGBTQ+ agendas.
The current conservative assault on the trans community means you are less likely to see ads targeting this group. (Surrendering to the changing landscape of acceptance, conservatives are currently trying to get gays and lesbians to join them in turning against trans people.) Yet there are ads for transgender individuals. Gillette broke the mold with one of the first ads specifically addressing this audience:
YouTube Video
Gillette put out a statement when this ad was released: “As a company that holds respect and inclusivity as an important value, we have a responsibility to make sure we are embracing and promoting inclusive portrayals of gender.”
Nike also put the spotlight on transgender athlete Chris Mosier back in 2016. Two years later, Coke ran an ad including nonbinary pronouns. Just this year, Starbucks featured a very touching ad in India depicting a father reconciling a strained relationship with a trans model. Transphobia has long been an issue in India. The ad ends with the father buying a coffee with the daughter’s chosen name on it.
YouTube Video
The model in this ad, Siya, stars in the Netflix show “Rana Naidu.” She told the Indian Express how she came to terms with her identity. “My father passed away when I was six, so I grew up with my mother and two sisters. Everybody thought I was confused because I was growing up around women.” She credits the support of her family for helping her find the strength to reach out for psychiatric help, and eventually, hormone therapy. She transitioned with sex reassignment surgery in 2020. When she learned what Starbucks was trying to do, she was determined to get the role. “When I got the brief about this advertisement, I wanted to be the one doing it, so I auditioned in three different styles.”
Starbucks did a different ad for the U.K. as well about a young person forging their identity.
Bigoted conservatives will try to focus on past victories. Over a decade ago, there was the Chick-fil-A “buycott” of 2012, where religious conservatives flooded the fast-food chain with business for its CEO at the time speaking out against same-sex marriage and donating money to anti-LGBTQ+ groups. This year, there was the Bud Light debacle where conservatives boycotted the brand after trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney was paid for a promotional post with the beer on her Instagram. Even Target has made the decision to pull some of their Pride merchandise after vandalism and threats of violence were lobbied against Pride displays.
RELATED STORY: Desperate to win transphobic bigots back, Bud Light bottles are going (Army) green
Yet make no mistake: The right-wing are running out of allies. Despite all the Republican outrage, Chick-fil-A is now being boycotted by the right wing because they employed a vice president of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Bud Light announced they were extending their partnership with the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce.
RELATED STORY: Chick-fil-A went 'woke,' conservatives may starve
Even Cracker Barrel, which 30 years ago became the darling of the right wing for its policy of firing openly LGBTQ+ people, has since instituted a zero-discrimination policy and now publicly celebrates Pride month with rainbow rockers and merchandise. Despite the bigoted attacks, they have refused to back down.
RELATED STORY: No biscuits and gravy for MAGA as Cracker Barrel goes 'woke'
There is so much further to go, but this month, it’s important to take stock of how far this community has come and overcome. Not just in the U.S., but worldwide, acceptance of LGBTQ+ is on the rise. Conservatives are losing the battle, and they may one day run out of people to hate.
Oh sweetie, bless your hateful heart. But there are more of us than you! pic.twitter.com/K4OYLbGY6B
— JennyBiz#Resistance #VoteBlueNoMatterWho (@jennybizh) June 1, 2023
RELATED STORIES:
Rude awakening ahead for Republicans leading 'woke' battle
It's Pride Month, so haters gonna hate
Hating on trans youth is a core Republican presidential primary issue
As conservatives target schools, LGBTQ+ kids and students of color feel less safe