Some Comments on ''Marketing to the Homosexual (Gay) Market

Prévia do material em texto

This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]
On: 18 February 2015, At: 19:50
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Homosexuality
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20
Some Comments on ''Marketing to the Homosexual
(Gay) Market:
Subodh Bhat PhD a
a Associate Professor of Marketing, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 94132,
sbhat@sfsu.edu
Published online: 18 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Subodh Bhat PhD (1996) Some Comments on ''Marketing to the Homosexual (Gay) Market:, Journal of
Homosexuality, 31:1-2, 213-217, DOI: 10.1300/J082v31n01_13
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v31n01_13
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J082v31n01_13
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v31n01_13
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Some Comments on ‘‘Marketing
to the Homosexual (Gay) Market:
A Profile and Strategy Implications’’
Subodh Bhat, PhD
San Francisco State University
SUMMARY. This article addresses some of the issues raised in the
article ‘‘Marketing to the Homosexual (Gay) Market: A Profile and
Strategy Implications.’’ Strategic segmentation theory and practice
suggest that segments should be based on consumers’ responses or
behaviors in relation to the marketer’s product, thus calling into
question the existence of a supposedly homogenous homosexual
segment and the resultant profile of the average person in that seg-
ment. [Article copies available from The Haworth Document Delivery Ser-
vice: 1-800-342-9678.]
In their article, DeLozier and Rodrigue present a profile of the ‘‘homo-
sexual’’ market segment and suggest marketing strategies to reach this
target segment. While there may be a need for what I think is their overall
objective, i.e., to present a perspective on positioning products to the
homosexual community, their article has many assumptions, descriptions,
Subodh Bhat is Associate Professor of Marketing at San Francisco State Uni-
versity. Correspondence should be addressed to: Department of Marketing, San
Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132.
E-mail: sbhat@sfsu.edu
[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: ‘‘Some Comments on ‘Marketing to the Homosexual (Gay)
Market: A Profile and Strategy Implications’.’’ Bhat, Subodh. Co-published simultaneously in Journal
of Homosexuality (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 31, No. 1/2, 1996, pp. 213-217; and: Gays, Lesbians,
and Consumer Behavior: Theory, Practice, and Research Issues in Marketing (ed: Daniel L. Wardlow)
The Haworth Press, Inc., 1996, pp. 213-217; and: Gays, Lesbians, and Consumer Behavior: Theory,
Practice, and Research Issues in Marketing (ed: Daniel L. Wardlow) Harrington Park Press, an imprint
of The Haworth Press, Inc., 1996, pp. 213-217. Single or multiple copies of this article are available from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-342-9678, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (EST)].
E 1996 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 213
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
 H
am
ps
hi
re
] 
at
 1
9:
50
 1
8 
Fe
br
ua
ry
 2
01
5 
GAYS, LESBIANS, AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR214
and prescriptions on market segmentation that deserve clarification and
amplification for the lay reader. The intent of this paper is to clarify the
role of segmentation. This paper will first deal with the general issues in
segmentation and then go on to examine specific points raised in the
DeLozier and Rodrigue paper.
Let me first clarify what a ‘‘market segment’’ is and how and why
segmentation as a strategy works. As understood by theorists and savvy
practitioners, a market segment is a set of consumers who are different
from consumers in other sub-markets, but similar to each other, in terms of
their responses to a firm’s marketing mix. Since a marketing mix com-
prises strategies for the 4 P’s, i.e., product, price, promotion, and place
(distribution), consumers’ responses for segmentation purposes are usu-
ally construed in terms of responses to the 4 P’s. Differences in consum-
ers’ responses across segments suggest that a segment can be profitably
targeted with unique marketing strategies different from strategies
employed in targeting other segments.
The underlying economic rationale comes from the price discrimination
literature in economics (Wind 1978). In a market characterized by hetero-
geneous demand, ‘‘optimal profits can be achieved if the firm uses con-
sumers’ marginal responses to price, i.e., price elasticities, to define mutu-
ally exclusive segments and sets price (or output) so that marginal profits
in each segment are equal’’ (Claycamp and Massy 1968, p. 388). Simi-
larly, in a broader marketing context, a firm can use consumers’ marginal
responses to the 4 P’s to identify segments and decide product, price,
promotion, and distribution strategies for the different segments to equal-
ize marginal profits in each segment and thus maximize total profits (Clay-
camp and Massy 1968, Wind 1978).
This conceptually sound and strategically meaningful perspective
stands in contrast to approaches sometimes used in segmentation. Some
practitioners and academics tend to view segments in terms of differences
in demographic, socioeconomic and generic psychographic variables. For
example, they talk of segments in terms of the ‘‘Generation X’’ segment,
the ‘‘senior citizen’’ segment, or in this context, the ‘‘homosexual’’ seg-
ment. There are several problems that arise with such an approach. Clay-
camp and Massy (1968) and Wind (1978) present a comprehensive review
of the problems that arise from taking such a perspective; some of these
problems are summarized in the following discussion.
One useful way to understand segmentation is to distinguish between
‘‘bases of segmentation’’ and ‘‘descriptors of segments.’’ Bases of seg-
mentation are the underlying characteristics that differentiate segments,
such as consumers’ price elasticity, needs or benefits sought, media usage,
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
 H
am
ps
hi
re
] 
at
 1
9:
50
 1
8 
Fe
br
ua
ry
 2
01
5 
Subodh Bhat 215
deal proneness, and shopping patterns. Once segments are identified on
these bases, they can then be described in terms of their demographic,
socioeconomic, or psychographic profile. These latter characteristics are
called ‘‘descriptors of segments’’ (Wind 1978). Wind (1978) proposes a
general segmentationmodel where the bases are dependent variables and
the descriptors are independent variables.
In a general sense, using a descriptor as a basis for segmentation is
‘‘stereotyping,’’ i.e., assuming that every one who fits the descriptor
would behave in the exact same way. For example, every member of
so-called ‘‘Generation X’’ would be imbued with a set of common prefer-
ences and behaviors. This ‘‘stereotyping’’ may not be meaningful from the
marketing point of view.
More importantly, descriptors do not provide any insight that can be
used directly for guiding marketing strategies. That a person is a member
of Generation X tells marketers little about how to effectively target this
person, since not all Generation X members have exactly similar product,
promotion, distribution, and pricing needs. When one differentiates
between bases and descriptors, markets can be profitably segmented for
different reasons. For example, a person can be classified in one segment
based on the benefits sought from the product, in another segment based
on frequency of purchase, and yet another based on price elasticity. If we
used a stereotypic descriptor to decide segments, such flexibility in mar-
keting strategy would be lost. And in doing so, we would not be using the
very foundation of segmentation: the division of markets into segments at
the margin to reap maximum profits.
The use of descriptors as bases for market segments also does not allow
for differences in how individuals in a ‘‘segment’’ might view different
firms and brands. Not everyone in a demographic or psychographic ‘‘seg-
ment’’ would have exactly similar views about the marketing activities of
different firms and brands.
That the strategic and nonstereotypic perspective of segments and seg-
mentation is now well accepted is seen in both the conceptual and the
‘‘practical’’ models in recent literature (Dickson 1982, Doyle and Saund-
ers 1985, Bucklin and Gupta 1992, Grover and Srinivasan 1992).
In the context of the article by DeLozier and Rodrigue, it seems that the
authors have not incorporated some of these additional perspectives of
segmentation theory and practice. More strategic insights can be gained by
applying these current perspectives to the segmentation strategies reported
by DeLozier and Rodrigue, and to those reported in the popular press. The
overall result is a simplistic view of segmentation that offers little strategic
insight for marketers.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
 H
am
ps
hi
re
] 
at
 1
9:
50
 1
8 
Fe
br
ua
ry
 2
01
5 
GAYS, LESBIANS, AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR216
I now wish to comment on some specific aspects of the article. The
opening sentence, ‘‘Since the homosexual community is comprised
mainly of white males, the composite profile of the homosexual market
segment is that of gay men,’’ is one example of a limitation of that
approach. Even if one accepts the premise that all homosexuals behave
exactly the same way so that marketers can target them as one segment, it
is a tactical stretch to use white gay males to exemplify the entire homo-
sexual community.
The authors cite several studies that claim that between 1-16% of the
U.S. population is homosexual, and say that the size indicates the presence
of a segment. Size doesn’t necessarily indicate a segment. The size of a
segment is the result of segmentation, not a basis.
The authors’ breakdown of sub-segments by gender, race, and psycho-
graphics in the homosexual community could be problematic in imple-
mentation. A person’s gender, race, and sexual orientation cannot guide
marketing strategy; it is only the manner in which an individual reacts to a
specific component of a specific firm’s marketing mix that can be used to
group individuals based on their common reactions. Thus, marketers may
not benefit from the profile of the average ‘‘homosexual,’’ i.e., someone
who is white, male, dedicated to the arts, less masculine, travels extensively,
and so on. A composite profile is an example of stereotyping and the use of
such a composite profile as a guiding post of a marketing strategy geared
toward homosexuals may result in a less than optimum strategy.
The authors refer to marketing to homosexuals as an example of ‘‘niche
marketing.’’ A niche, as generally used in marketing, is a group of con-
sumers who have a special product, promotion, distribution, or pricing
need. Since all homosexuals likely do not have the same needs, the homo-
sexual community cannot be regarded as a ‘‘niche.’’ It would be a very
rare product, promotion, distribution, or pricing need where all homosexu-
als have exactly similar needs and these needs are different from the needs
of other segments; only in that event would there be a ‘‘homosexual
niche.’’ One may be able to envisage such a niche in estate and retirement
planning, and benefits package design; of course, the niche would also
include unmarried heterosexual couples. No such niches would probably
exist in such commonly used products and services as beer or hairstyling.
One of the article’s strategic prescriptions, the idea of separate brand
names for the same product (one targeted to homosexuals and another to
heterosexuals to avoid ‘‘crossover’’ associations) bears some questioning.
First, the idea of branding is to differentiate a firm’s product from that of
competitors, not to differentiate it from one segment to another. Secondly,
as an accompanying article (Bhat, Leigh and Wardlow 1995) finds, there
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
 H
am
ps
hi
re
] 
at
 1
9:
50
 1
8 
Fe
br
ua
ry
 2
01
5 
Subodh Bhat 217
are a considerable number of heterosexual consumers who do not respond
negatively to a brand’s associations with homosexuality. Additionally,
because most heterosexuals do not read or view media specifically tar-
geted to homosexuals, it would not be a bad idea to promote the same
brand but position it differently in different media. That, rather than the
establishment of separate brands, seems to be a logical and cost-effective
answer. DeLozier and Rodrigue approve of and several marketers already
use such an approach (e.g., Levi Strauss, Calvin Klein, Banana Republic).
While understanding the needs of the homosexual community, includ-
ing any special needs, is and should be of great importance to marketers,
DeLozier and Rodrigue’s view of the homosexual community or niche
gives marketers a starting point for strategic targeting. Additional strategic
insights can be had through a rigorous review of current segmentation
theory and its application in the context of the homosexual community.
REFERENCES
Bhat, S., Leigh T. W., & Wardlow, D. L., (1995). The Effect of Homosexual
Imagery in Advertising on Attitude Toward the Ad. Journal of Homosexuality,
31(1/2).
Bucklin, R. E. & Gupta, S. (1992). Brand Choice, Purchase Incidence, and Seg-
mentation: An Integrated Approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 29
(May), 201-215.
Claycamp, H. J. & Massy, W. F. (1968). A Theory of Market Segmentation.
Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (November), 388-394.
Dickson, P. R. (1982). Person-Situation: Segmentation’s Missing Link. Journal of
Marketing, 46 (Fall), 56-64.
Doyle, P. & Sanders, J. (1985). Market Segmentation and Positioning in Special-
ized Industrial Markets. Journal of Marketing, 49 (Spring), 24-32.
Grover, R. & Srinivasan, V. (1992). Evaluating the Multiple Effects of Retail
Promotions on Brand Loyal and Brand Switching Segments. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 29 (February), 76-89.
Wind, Y. (1978). Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research. Journal of
Marketing Research, 15 (August), 317-337.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 [
U
ni
ve
rs
ity
 o
f 
N
ew
 H
am
ps
hi
re
] 
at
 1
9:
50
 1
8 
Fe
br
ua
ry
 2
01
5