Rainbow Rhetoric
Written by Cameron Barry

Some of the effects of popular culture on the gay subculture are easily recognized. Hollister, Abercrombie & Fitch, Red Bull and Smirnoff have all signed on to the disposal cash-cow that is the gay individual. Camel and Marlboro, Saks 5th Avenue, Nordstrom and more have all marketed, indirectly or otherwise, to gay male culture by assigning a specific masculine archetype to their advertisements. Many gay men who walk into a bar in the summer sport Hollister or A&F clothing with Nordstrom scents dangling in the air. This is perhaps a not-so-subtle attempt to incorporate media-cultivated desires into their lifestyle, to create a mirror instead of a lens, which lures others in while simultaneously protecting them from true exposure.

The result of this indirect marketing seems pretty clear at the surface. Brands and marketing have subtly made their way into what could arguably be called one of the more taboo counter-cultures of America, but the effects cannot be easily pinpointed. Steve Gonzales, the manager of Hobos (a local gay-friendly bar/restaurant in downtown Portland) suggests that marketing and sponsorship may have had a positive effect on gay culture:

"Just thinking of the last decade or so, there’s been a lot more acceptance in a lot of companies. I think things with corporations are becoming a lot more lenient towards supporting gay lifestyle. Corporations have become a lot more lenient towards gays in the workplace. The market has changed a little bit where we are more accepted by bigger companies. In the last several years there’s been more gay sports events and there are bigger names with whoever is gay (say the professional). Sport is involved. Sponsorship. I think we are coming to a broader support system when it comes to money and advertising, and that companies aren’t so abrupt to putting their finger down on someone. Times are changing, and companies aren’t feeling like they are going to be looked down upon for sponsoring an individual be he gay or not. I think we are coming to the fact that sponsoring is sponsoring. No one should be pointed at just because they’re gay. There’s a lot more money going into that side of things" (Steve Gonzales, Personal Interview).

There are some positive aspects to corporate sponsorship. As more and more sponsorship occurs, it becomes less taboo and more and more companies sign on. The more sponsorship occurs, the more money and supplies are available, which equates to more exposure of the gay community. But there are nefarious effects of marketing as well, especially when the messages of marketing run deep within our culture. Marketing sameness as a method of connection is one of the darker results of branding, and very prevalent in Gay culture. One such example can be seen in the drinking habits of gay male individuals. In an article appropriately titled “Driven to Drink” in Just Out Magazine, Mike Binks claims, “some [gay men] will say, ‘I really started to drink pretty heavily in adolescence, because I wanted to be one of the guys, and the way to be one of the guys and to distance myself from this difference that I’m feeling inside was to go and drink a lot of beer.’ Other gay men will say, ‘I initially felt very uncomfortable in gay venues, so my social lubricant was alcohol…” (Williams 16, emphasis mine)

A sense of man-ness is clear in most beer advertising. Camaraderie and male-bonding rituals often revolve around guys drinking beer, perhaps mostly due to the marketing image of beer in general. A gay man who has feelings of difference and is inundated with beer advertisements seeks sameness with his fellows, a connection that is fabricated by the display of unification between groups of males. This unification is something that a gay male seeks not only for a sense of sameness, but because of his own sexuality as well; for most of the men in beer commercials are notably attractive.

We must also bear in mind that one of the primary tools of social connection is finding some kind of commonality crutch and developing a conversation. Not only is alcohol and beer a commonality crutch in a bar (what honest drinker would refuse a free drink), but its inhibitive and euphoric effects are also used as ‘social lubricant’ to free a gay man from years of fear and repression in a homophobic society. The fear of approaching a person of the same sex in order to engage in courtship is dulled by the effects of alcohol.
So we ask ourselves: “What does this have to do with marketing?” While the answer may not be immediately forthcoming, Paul Brown makes an interesting statement which might shed a little light on the subject, “Just to give you an idea, the gay bars in Portland have the single largest beer purchases on a monthly basis versus any straight bar out there… frequently the only place we have to socialize and to be free and unencumbered from judging eyes is the bar scene” (Williams 17).

It is interesting to note that every gay bar in Portland has on tap at least three or four (if not more) different microbrews, but the same could be said of many bars in Portland. Paul makes it clear that gay venues purchase more beer than straight venues, and interestingly enough gay men in order to “be one of the guys,” seem to be gravitating towards advertisement that otherwise is targeted towards stereotypical heterosexual demographics. In this case, the intent of these corporations may not be to target gay male individuals. Perhaps the result is merely a random convergence of chance, but it raises an interesting question: If the alcohol corporations do know about this, what are they doing about it, considering the side effect of addiction is clearly the goal of any money-making monolith? Furthermore, if the gay community knows about this, what are they doing about it?

Enter: Sponsorship. According to Steve Gonzales, sponsorship has had a positive effect in Portland. When asked what kind of gay-targeted sponsorship he’s seen in Portland, Steve replies, “Everything that I’ve seen that’s had to do with sponsorship has been around fund-raising. [Events] have been marketed towards a fund-raising situation. A dance, a show, whatever, funds and donations are going to good causes.” Perhaps in an attempt to offset the darker side of marketing, corporations are spending money in order to uplift their image through gay corporate sponsorship. Lisa Neff writes in her article, Who Pays for Pride, “The parties and parades come at a price, and eager corporate sponsors are more than happy to foot the bill” (Neff 1). Miller, Bud Light, Absolut Vodka, all have been sponsoring multiple pride events (Neff 2). In an attempt to promote a gay-friendly image, these corporations are throwing money at the minority, while simultaneously pumping out advertisements. These advertisements seem to flagrantly promote heterosexual male unification and sameness, while ingeniously attracting males from a diverse lifestyle. A complex and interesting partnership emerges, an irony considering the fact that the gay populous is aware of the negative effects these corporations have on their community.

But the money has to come from somewhere, right? In “Pranking Rhetoric: ‘Culture Jamming’ as Media Activism,” author Christine Harold defines culture jamming as a sort of mixture between jamming, sabotage, and pranking. It is a sort of ontological terrorism, a “clogging” and “channeling” that seeks to subvert the conditioning of the conventional patterns (196-197) by exploiting their medium and hijacking the messages that they portray. She writes that the Truth campaign provided mini-billboards inside teen magazines (204) as a way of training young people “to practice their own brand of Situationism, by confiscating a small space from commercial advertising and using it as a site for rhetorical invention” (206).

Consider the possibility that gay pride sponsorship is a form of culture jamming. Consider that members of the gay community are using corporate funds instead of a confiscated space for their rhetorical invention. In a way, this is just as valid a method as using hi-jacked billboards or ad-spaces to send a message. In this case, culture jamming need not be limited to hijacked billboards, but the concept is expanded on to include the use of corporate funds. The same corporations that promote images of sameness, unification, and heterosexuality are fueling culture jamming. Their corporate dollars are being sent with a powerful message of diversity; a parade of queer individuals with rainbows, drag queens, boas, leather and more, dancing on floats shirtless and celebrating their difference, their own unification, their separation from the sameness.

Some may say that this exact separation highlights the sameness that troubled gay men have gravitated towards; for sometimes these parades of celebrated diversity are seen as a line drawn in the sand. Yet consider that the screams of “We’re here! We’re Queer!” don’t contain a hint of elitism. Elitism, as we know, is so often the catalyst of a doomed movement. Instead, consider these parades as a method of culture jamming, a pranking; for when you come to a deeper analysis, that is what they are.

There is a risk here of course. Naomi Klein in her book, “No Logo” makes a strong point against branding and marketing. Brands try very hard to become culture and to create culture through sponsorship (34). In the same interview with Steve Gonzales, he claims that he likes Absolut vodka. When asked if he felt his like for it had anything to do with sponsorship he replied, “In recesses yeah. I mean, it’s not a company that I’d hear gays boycotting or anything. They’re gay friendly…”

Absolut has made it a point of projecting a gay-friendly image, a point which they haven’t done accidentally but with careful planning and advertisement. Is Klein’s concern valid in this case? Is Absolut using careful branding to merge itself with gay culture? Is it sponsorship, or taste, that causes Steve to like that particular vodka over another? Steve replies, “It’s taste. And, I feel good that it’s not a company that is down on equal rights.”
In a second interview, Darin Colby (a gin lover) asked if he felt sponsorship had anything to do with his product choice. His reply:
“No. It’s the taste.”

It seems that despite corporate sponsorship and sameness marketing, some gay men still believe that their product choices are their own.

Bibliography:

"A Hobo's Manager on Gay Culture." Personal interview. 16 Feb. 2009.

Williams, Glenn S. "Driven to Drink." Just Out [Portland, OR] 20 Feb. 2009, 26th ed., sec. 8: 14-19.

Neff, Lisa. "Who pays for pride?" Advocate (2003): 64-69.

Harold, Christine. "Pranking Rhetoric: "Culture Jamming" as Media Activism." Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (2004): 189-211.

Klein, Naomi. No Logo No Space, No Choice, No Jobs. New York: Picador, 2002.
"Darin Colby on Gay Culture." Personal interview. Feb. 2009.

Avila-Saavedra, Guillermo. "Nothing queer about queer television: televized construction of gay masculinities." Media, Culture & Society 31 (2009): 5-21.

Gilmore, David. "How 'Gay Style' Was Coopted and Corrupted." Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 12 (2005): 4-4.

Ruting, Brad. "Economic Transformations of Gay Urban Spaces: revisiting Collins' evolutionary gay district model." Australian Geographer 39 (2008): 259-69.