COMM 390: Stereotypes, values and gay marriage

In "Integrated Advertising, Promotion, and Marketing Communications," Kenneth Clow and Donald Baack say advertisers appeal to their customers' rational ("cognitive") and emotional ("affective") attitudes shaped by the consumer's value system. They cite a comfortable life, equality, excitement, freedom, a fun and exciting life, happiness, inner peace, mature love, personal accomplishment, pleasure, salvation, security, self-fulfillment, self-respect, a sense of belonging, social acceptance and wisdom.

Media critics like Arthur Berger and Jean Kilbourne take it a step further by saying ads typically feature attractive spokesmen whom consumers can identify with. We're more likely to buy stuff from people like ourselves, in other words, or people who are a little cooler than we are. And we tend to give our political support to people who share our values.

An especially stark appeal to values comes in the debate over gay marriage. Like any other political debate, it's marked by extreme rhetoric. Let's try to ignore it.

We'll watch several ads. As we watch them, let's be analytical. In other words, let's try to keep our own opinions out of it and comment on how the ads get thier message across instead of our own opinions on the subject.

The first ad is called "Gathering Storm," and it's put up on the Internet by the Organization for Marriage (NOM), a nonprofit a self-described mission "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." In other words, it's against gay marriage. It's different from product ads in that its appeal is to values that are seen to be threatened. As you watch, ask yourself: (1) Who is the target audience here? (2) What are their values? (3) Are the characters in the ads like the people in the target audience? Or people the audience can admire?



Next we'll watch parts of a rebuttal of the NOM ad by a filmmaker named Sean Chapin who does media for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) movement. It's called "Gathering Storm? What Storm?" Which gives you a good idea of its tone? Same questions: (1) His target audience? (2) what values are affirmed or threatened? (3) Does Chapin come across as being "normal," i.e. like the target audience? Note at the end he says he's not a paid actor, unlike those in the NOM ad. Why? What's the purpose of the bird calls and barking dogs in the background?



In the November 2008 election, Proposition 8 enacted a law that defined marriage as being "between a man and a woman." Here's an ad, modeled after the Microsoft "I'm a PC" ads. What's the target audience? Which character would they be expected to identify with? What values are being appealed to here?



Here's another. What are the values here? Who are we expected to identify with? How does the straight couple with kids change it? How about the silly Roman helmet on the culture warrior? Is humor being used here to disarm viewers in a way that's similar to the use of humor in beer and cigaret ads?



An ad from the other side, the anti-gay marriage advocates, also uses people we can identify with. Which ethnic groups -- black, latino, Asian, etc. -- are shown? What values are cited?



Here's another. It shows San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom at a LGBT rally. What's the likely target audience? (I think it's going to be rural and small-town voters. People in the rest of California feel about San Francisco and LA about the way downstate Illinoisans feel about Chicago.) What values are being threatened "whether [they] like it or not?"



And, finally, another film of another rally. Remember Sean Chapin, the film maker who did the low-tech "I'm not a paid actor" rebuttal to "Gathering Storm?" Well, Prop 8 won, and he filmed a LGBT rally in San Francisco last month featuring speakers and marchers who pledged to fight the gay marriage ban. Production values are very professional, by the way. Who's the target audience? How many diverse people are reflected among the speakers? In the march? By race? Ethnic heritage? Males? Females? Different generations? This is a well-done propoganda piece. But it seems to be targeted -- where would you show it? What effect would it have on an LGBT audience? Uncommitted voters? Opponents of gay marriage?