save the panders
I was in Barnes and Noble yesterday, relishing my newly-liberated-of-school status, skimming the magazine section as any conscientious (or just cheap) shopper would do. Anyway, after paging through Bust and Bitch, I took a peek at Curve, and before even delving into the mag, saw on this ad on the back cover:
It's for Progressive car insurance, and in the ad, above that photo it said: "A rare photo for all the wrong reasons."
Okay. So it's obvious, blatant pandering to The Gays, particularly the girl gays. And, on their website, it even is at times a bit uncomfortable.
"Pet Insurance." Ack. It's a little squicky, right? Does it make you a tad uncomfortable that The Gays are being targeted for this pet insurance, and that Progressive has this pet insurance thing smack in the center of the /glbt link of their website?
Okay, in all disclosure, at first I sort of had that reaction, too. But then, I got to thinking: what's wrong with it? I mean, the copy on that pet insurance is a bit much--"We know that your pet is family" ...because you can't biologically have any!, I feel is the unwritten clause)--but all the same, I mean, that's the truth, isn't it?
And if there are special things that this insurance company is willing to do for LGBT customers, or apparently has a little page in their employee manual that says "Gay people are important source of profit. Behave yourself around them," it doesn't hurt, right?
Moveover, the fact that this company sees The Gay Niche--via pandering--as an important enough constituency to pander to is, I think, saying something. It is, in my opinion, "progressive," just as the company says. Sure, Progressive and all these mainstream companies seeking to buy out the gay niche are, yes (a) corporations and (b) doing it for profit, but they're also acknowledging that gay people are people who need insurance, and they're gonna help The Gays get their insurance, dammit! They want to serve this clientele. Are they pandering to the clientele to get them? Sure. But that's advertising. But they are reaching out, in one of the limited, capitalistic ways a corporation can. From the hands of this magazine reader, that feels nice, particularly when it's helping finance the glossy reads of queer ladies everywhere.
Could it be seen as "offensive"? Maybe in some ad, somewhere, sure-- pandering can be offensive. But, really, wouldn't this contradict the very point of trying to win over a niche market? For now, I say, pander on, Progressive and other companies. And, indeed, thank you for paying the bills of our magazines, or whatever else you're footing the bill for.
Sometimes, in the end, it's nice just being wanted.