MTV Launching GayTV
The lifeblood of every media outlet is advertising. So, what’s driving this?
AP reports: “The prospect of a television channel entirely devoted to gay programs for gay people may strike some as unnecessary and others as a sign of immoral times. Media giant Viacom thinks there’s money in it.”
Really? What’s the percentage of the homosexual population in America?
“Logo General Manager Lisa Sherman cited studies saying there were some 15 million openly gay people in America, an attractive demographic for advertisers, considering that many will have no children, meaning more disposable income.”
With total U.S. population of nearly 300 million people, that would represent 5% market. Even if you cut the population in half, that would only represent 10%. No matter how you slice the numbers, they don’t add up to make a strong business case. It’s political.
“Logo’s advertisers include travel company Orbitz, carmaker Subaru, mobile phone maker Motorola and Miller Lite beer.”
Why should advertisers care? Are gays not buying the same brands as straights today? Clothes, cars, cereal, and appliances, etc? Is Miller Lite going to introduce a special “gay” beer? Or Motorola a “gay” phone? It’s ridiculous.
Why segment the market? Thought the point is to accept gays as being no different, except for sexual preference. At first, it was simply asking the public for tolerance: “no body’s business what happens in the bedroom.” Recently, the “gay rights” fight has been to be broadly accepted: “loud and proud.”
By defining a special market, it’s promoting the opposite of unity: it’s underlining the fact that homosexuals are different, see themselves as a special class, and suggesting they don’t want to assimilate. Ultimately, that’s the message conveyed by having a network dedicated to them.
“Logo, launching on Thursday under the MTV Networks umbrella, is not the first channel to target gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, but it is the most widely available, on cable boxes in 10 million homes.…Logo’s promise [is] to deliver family-friendly entertainment…”
If Viacom hasn’t been able to do it yet, it’s questionable that this effort will deliver.
“Logo has been in the works for more than two years under the guidance of Brian Graden, the man responsible for such MTV hits as ‘The Osbournes.’“
Oh, now there’s a “family-friendly” show. A virtually incoherent rocker from years of drug abuse (the father), an egotistical wife and self-promoter (the mother), rampant vulgarity from both parents and kids (even to each other). It was a show glamourizing a dysfunctional family, packaged as interesting only because they are “celebrities.”
“[Paul Colichman, head of Here!, a video-on-demand gay satellite channel launched in 2003,] said more than 30 percent of his viewers were straight — a figure he says includes feminists and liberals sick of the way women are portrayed in the mainstream media, and straight men who will watch anything about lesbians.”
Guess he knows his audience.
Hopefully, major advertisers will not forget their core demographics: the numbers speak for themselves.
June 30th, 2005 at 6:11 am
[...] raquo; Delivering The Predictable: Democrats Criticize Bush’s Speech on Iraq » MTV Launching GayTV » Election-law Crackdown Should Wait [...]
June 30th, 2005 at 10:26 am
Why do you care?
If there are so few gay and lesbian people as you claim, and if you are not homophobic, why should a gay channel bug you so much?
I cannot understand when there are home decorating channels, cooking channels, travel channels, Christian channels aplenty, this one (or two or three or even more) gay channel upsets you so much!
Do you have issues?
Ian
June 30th, 2005 at 11:17 am
America’s motto is: e pluribus unum.
The “issue” we have is that diversity is good in tastes and preferences, but unity is required for a people to be strong.
Why balkanize groups according to race or sexual preference? It does a disservice to those wanting to integrate into the mainstream.
June 30th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
You can all integrate the way that you want to your somewhat strange heart’s content. But the fact is the website I responded to is homophobic and you, and it, are just not worth it.
Ian.
June 30th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Thanks for checking in again, and we appreciate your insightful feedback.
Just curious: since your email begins with “europeian” (very cheeky, BTW), does that mean you hail from Europe or just dream about it?
Guess we’ll never know…
God bless America!
June 30th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
I live in Brusssels, not that I see how that is relevant at all.
Blessing America is really your best option at the moment as the attitudes and actions of your country in the world at present need all of God’s help. I am 40 years old and cannot remember a time when the USA was more despised.
I wish to try and get you to see that accepting all His creations, including gay and lesbian people, is truly the way Jesus would have lived.
Being so angry because gay people get to watch TV is petty on your part, and somewhat sad. If there is no need to segment markets then I guess you want to see all the Christian channels closed down immediately? Of course not, and neither do I.
Live and let live. Love your neighbour as yourself.
Try fixing America before you bless it - that’s what God would want you to do. Gay TV channels are not the problem. A small matter like all the Rumsfeld-dead people in Iraq would be a much better starting point for you to channel your efforts into. God would surely approve.
Gay, straight or otherwise - we are all God’s creations, and respecting each other is one of the most important things we have to do.
Your anger about this new gay channel is misplaced energy.
Ian.
June 30th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
By the way - you need to ask God for some help with your math.
15 million out of approx 300 million people is 5%, so the market is already 100 times bigger than the “0.05%” you calculated when you dissed this whole project.
Does that mean you will now re-appraise the “worthiness” of this new TV network?
I hope so, but somehow, I doubt it.
There are 100 times more Americans than you thought that are homosexual now remember: “e pluribus unum” - how about them as well?
And since when did small or large population size justify discrimination?
Quite strange views you hold in my opinion.
Ian.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
“From many, one” - the relevance of that motto has not changed, regardless of race, gender or sexual preference. And, yes, regardless of population size. The principle applies.
The point to our article is that it is better to unify a people than to divide them. If homosexuals simply want to be “accepted” as everyone else, why should they self-segregate? We’re arguing on behalf of the proverbial melting pot.
You throw words around like “homophobia” and “discrimination” as if they are supposed to give extra weight to what you’re saying. They don’t. They’re cliche. (That’s french, but you know that in Brussels)
By the way, the only one being “angry” seems to be you. We’re quite content with our position. What you do in the bedroom, Ian, is your business.
Have a Miller Extra Light and chill out.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Aha!
Now you have updated your previous post to correct your math errors.
NOW it reads “With total U.S. population of nearly 300 million people, that would represent 5% market. Even if you cut the population in half, that would only represent 10%. No matter how you slice the numbers, they don’t add up to make a strong business case.”
BEFORE it read “With total U.S. population of nearly 300 million people, that would represent 0.05% market. Even if you cut the population in half, that would only represent 0.1%. No matter how you slice the numbers, they don’t add up to make a strong business case.
EITHER way, how many people deserve to be ignored by the media, in your Christian opinion,
AND now that the total market is up to as much as 10% according to your estimates, don’t you think a marketer would be crazy to ignore that many consumers?
Again, you host a strange site indeed.
Looking forward to your response - and so are all the other people I pointed this odd site out to.
Go ahead now.
Ian.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
I am quite relaxed actually, not really angry - just sadly unsurprised by your attitudes.
But the usual “we accept you, but now please just shut up” arguments propogated by many do tend to annoy the people being told to be quiet.
Gay people can decide for themselves how and when they wish to speak. They do not need you to do it for them.
Why are you so threatened by gay people speaking for themselves?
And if you really believe that America is “one” - you need to get out more often. Certainly you need to see how the rest of the world perceives you.
You are right - what I do in the bedroom is certainly my business, but what I want to say about my life - either here, or in print, or on TV on Logo or anywhere - is also my business, not yours.
I am grateful to enjoy the ‘freedom of speech’ that Americans espouse. So I don’t really think you should want to prevent other Americans from doing precisely that, so if they want to view the new gay TV channel Logo, let them.
God did not appoint you to judge others. And you know it.
Ian.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Regarding your “what you do in the bedroom” remark…
Would it make any difference to your opinions if I was: straight, female, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, Arizonian, atheist, Jewish, Christian, Arabic, Australian, Belgian, French, Californian, German, British, an iPod owner, Israeli, agnostic or American?
It shouldn’t at all of course.
You actually do not know which, if any, of the above may apply to me. I am three of the above. Go figure.
How then does “what you do in the bedroom” as per your previous post, relate to my opinions in the slightest?
A tried old tactic seeking to reduce the import of another person’s opposing opinion which is really just about devaluing the other person based upon existing prejudice - ie assuming you thought I was a gay man.
Not really very admirable. Certainly not very Christian.
But, sadly, very, very typical of the American Conservative modus operandi. (Not French of course, but Latin. Go Google it - you’ll probably work it out.)
Ian.
July 1st, 2005 at 9:40 am
Thanks for your unbiased opinion.
And thanks for the publicity.
Please come again.
July 2nd, 2005 at 8:40 am
I think that accepting all people, with our views, or differing views, is critical. The update is at http://gaymarketing101.blogspot.com/2005/07/california-conservative-different.html
Cheers, and respect, Ian.
September 7th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
[...] Judicial Activism San Francisco: What Family Values? Boycott San Francisco MTV Launching GayTV AFL-CIO: “Proud Union Queers” S.F. 49ers: Tackling Political Correct [...]
February 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
I have only two things to say about this ad. One, that they should have chosen a hotter fireman and Two, that they should have chosen it for a “more filling” beer. Now that would be worth the price of admission! You people need to get out more.