• Gay BlogAds

  • Gay News Watch

  • Chris Tweets

  • « GNW 5: Gay travel pro's and con's | Main | Spelling 'sex scandal' with no 'H' »

    December 03, 2007

    How not to woo gay tourists

    Posted by: Chris

    Bloomygaysthumb Someone needs a sensitivity lesson over at New York city hall, as a new campaign to woo gay tourists -- remarkably the city's first-ever direct effort to lure the lucrative market -- is hitting a sour note. The New York Post, which isn't known for being particularly gay-friendly, reported on the city's new gay travel ad campaign, which includes a three-page pullout in Out magazine and ads on Logo.

    But when asked to sum up the city's tourism push, an unnamed official in Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration says this:

    [Gays] are "highly desirable and considered a dream market due to high incidence of travel and discretionary income," said one Bloomberg administration official.

    "What we're saying is, 'This is New York, and it's for everyone, whether you are a family or you're just here with your lover.'"

    Ahh yes, there's the family on one hand, and the gays and their "lovers" on the other. Memo to Bloomberg: gay couples are families, too.

    Gnw_lighthouse_logosmall For a complete news summary, click or bookmark: www.gaynewswatch.com/travel



    TrackBack URL for this entry:


    1. Tim C on Dec 4, 2007 8:35:20 AM:

      I disagree. I think you are reading too much into the comment. You're looking to be offended. The commentator does not define "family". He just says "Whether you are a family..." He doesn't say "Whether you are a traditional family", or "Whether you are a mom and dad with a bunch of kids...". He's just making the distinction of being family (adults plus children) or being a couple (adults sans children). It is not in our normal social parlance to think of a couple without children as "family". In our social parlance, whether gay or straight, "family' implies children accompanying their parents/legal guardians. Perhaps partner or boyfriend/girlfriend might have been better than lover to indicate a couple without children, but that is fraught with pitfalls too, as partner implies a marriage-like state that may or may not exist with that particular couple and boyfriend/girlfriend may be deemed by some to be too casual or sexist. The statement by the mayor's office is actually very neutral.

    1. Double T on Dec 4, 2007 11:47:06 AM:

      Someone in South America is becoming too sensitive.

      The statement was/is FINE.

    1. J on Dec 4, 2007 12:53:21 PM:

      They have a point---you ARE looking to get offended. I'm not sure why you are choosing to get your nose out of joint. You don't really live in this country anymore, and to be brutally honest, you are an American in passport terms only. What goes on here now really should not rate that high on your radar, yet you are deciding a stray comment by some anonymous staffer for the Mayor of New York City is going to frost your weenie. Good Lord--take a valium and call it a day.

    1. Citizen Crain on Dec 4, 2007 2:09:38 PM:

      I don't think of myself as particularly sensitive to rhetorical slights, but perhaps no one does. What got me was the juxtaposition of families and "lovers" -- such an archaic term -- in the context of a campaign to lure gay tourists from the world's most sophisticated city. These people are asking for your money. I think we should expect better.

      J: Thanks for the xenophobic-induced eyeroll; I'd gone at least three days without one.

    1. Lucrece on Dec 4, 2007 3:04:53 PM:

      I agree with the posts saying you're overreacting, Chris. However, I also see Chris's point.

      "Lover" is often a word filled with connotations of being clandestine. Perhaps a more appropriate phrasing could have been "Whether you are here as a family or as a couple." I take couple to mean just two people, where family has kids involved. Furthermore, telling Gays that New York is even for them because they're a dream market seems rather frivolous and confusing to me. Does that mean that if we were not a dream market, we would not be considered at all?

      Also, while I know that when they run these ads on LOGO and !here is efficient targeting, I feel it is cowardly of them not to run the ads on local channels. Not everyone has LOGO or !here, as only costly cable TV and Direct TV packages contain them. It seems as if they consider us to be separate audiences, which I find insulting; broadcast channels are as much of a gay domain as a straight one. Separating us will only serve to alienate the gay community more from the straight community than it already is.

    1. Coach Handbags on Sep 5, 2011 9:13:33 PM:

      Let me great inspiration, thanks

    1. Monster Beats Sale on Nov 26, 2011 2:08:35 AM:

      channels are as much of a gay domain as a straight one. Separating us will only serve to alienate the gay community more from the straight community than it already is.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad