Written by Jonathon Scott Feit
For WITH THIS RING Magazine

I'm writing to you from Las Vegas, home of the 2007 American Association of Advertising Agencies Media Conference and Trade Show. The last panel I sat in was called "The Business Case for Diversity in Media." Half the audience walked out. I didn't, but only because I was practically catatonic, imbued alternately with disbelief and dismay.

Granted, the AAAA meant well by having a diversity panel -- as my colleague Jack Myers, editor/publisher of the Jack Myers Media Business Report has said, it's better to shoot for diversity (even if one falls short) than not to discuss the topic at all.

But diversity has been rhetoricized ad nauseam at media and advertising industry events over the past two years, and advances are slowly being made. The problem, therefore, is not the concept: no member of the so-called "liberal media" -- nor anyone with a prayer to stay in mainstream business -- would decry the happy goal of diversity.

However -- and this is a big "however" -- two black men, one black woman, and one Hispanic woman do not a panel on "Diversity" make. Diversity does not, and cannot, simply mean mashing together persons of color, whose experiences, while varied in their own right, far from encompass the broadest range of experiences.

Where were representatives from the GLBT community, the disabled community, the Asian community, the immigrant community, the senior community, the youth community--or hey, here's an interesting one---the white community?

(How exactly did "diverse" become synonymous with "not white"?)



The media, advertising, public relations, and our affiliated industries know we have a diversity crisis (and are coping with the fallout of obsolescence on the horizon), but overall we have adopted a Band-Aid strategy, slapping a quick-fix solution on a long-term problem.

When I asked Eugene Morris, CEO of his eponymous African-American marketing firm and moderator of the AAAA so-called "Diversity" panel, why the panelists selected were so homogenous and a more thorough conception of diversity was left unaddressed, he made an interesting point: Diversity is such a broad and intensive issue that you've got to start somewhere. If that's true, then racial diversity is as fair as any other kind.

But that view is wrong. You don't "start somewhere" by cherry-picking on the issues at hand. You "start somewhere" by building a panel comprised to represent a genuine spectrum of the communities you're trying to incorporate.

Each of the above-mentioned communities was neglected from the AAAA panel's discussion -- and then the panelists were naïve enough to wonder why attendees kept leaving the room! The answer was sadly simple -- they'd heard it all before: Marketers and media need to keep blacks, Hispanics, and other "ethnic" groups (whatever that means, and it's never been defined) in mind. Check. Got it. Thanks.

Finger-wagging, panels like this need to realize, does nothing to push the needle closer to an embrace of TRUE diversity. It just makes people feel bad for a minute, until they justify the neglect: "My boss told me not to hire him." "She's not really our 'type.'" "The campaign is too expensive, and doesn't reach enough people anyway."

Such a profound problem demands more than a flaccid response.

Well, you know what changes things in our modern, capitalistic world? A sharp punch in the purse.

(The boycotts of the 1950s and '60s spring to mind.)

I would never suggest that all companies are going to accept everyone -- nor should they; that's for their marketing departments to decide. I'm certainly not suggesting that every company needs to be all-things-to-all-people -- that would completely negate the question of identity, and homogeneity of blah-ness is as bad as homogeneity of race, gender, religion, or any other single criterion.

Furthermore, as my friend and esteemed colleague Steve Cohn, editor-in-chief of the Media Industry Newsletter, rightly points, many successful, mission-driven, responsible companies and organizations -- both inside the media world, and outside it -- target specific groups. In order to optimally reach their audiences, these institutions tend to staff their ranks with members of the target communities. (Among others, Steve cited Essence, Jet, and Ebony magazines.)

But a key difference is worth acknowledging: These group-specific companies are not trying to be all things to all people. There don't represent -- or, as it were, misrepresent -- themselves as tolerant, embracive, and egalitarian. There are proud of their differences, and wear their ethnicity on their proverbial sleeve. Thus, individuals who gravitate toward these companies and their products should continue to patronize them.

"Patronize" might indeed be the perfect word in this case, filled with double entendre. For here lurks a dark undercurrent of deception, false friendship, scheming smiles, and perhaps even outright fraud. Some companies are so desperate to reach a desirable market -- say, the GLBT market, one of the country's wealthiest and most highly educated demographics -- that they purport to support the community, until the going gets tough and that support becomes meaningful. At that point, they adopt a Washingtonian strategy: deny all involvement.

One case in particular comes to mind:

A leading online travel site is famous throughout the GLBT publishing world for supporting gay titles with advertising -- and even has a "Gay/Lesbian" channel on their home page. This company's advertising agency declined to buy pages in my company's magazine, With This Ring (despite kudos and even a direct referral of their CMO).

Of course, I would have loved this company's business, but I also understand that there isn't enough money to go around; every magazine -- GLBT and otherwise -- craves a piece of its budget, but there's only so much cash, and other titles have been around longer than us, earned more established reputations. So my mentality when they decided not to advertise was, "There's always next year. And there's always the competition."

Then they gave the reason for their declination:

Word of advice: If you're going to refuse to advertise with us, do so because you don't like our content or design. Do so because we aren't big enough, or not distributed in the right places. Do so because our audience doesn't fit your target, or our rates don't fit your budget.

But if put yourself out in the market as a gay-friendly brand, and -- in the words of my esteemed fellow blogger, Richard Rothstein -- you are "a corporation or agency that panders to the gay market for bucks," then don't "behave very differently regarding matters of substance."

Which is to say, don't say the following (which is copied from an email written by a lead strategist for the travel company, at one of the world's largest advertising agencies):

[The travel company] certainly looks to position themselves as a leader in LGBT travel community, [but] they are unfortunately not yet comfortable with all of the political issues surrounding gay marriage. I think this is an issue that goes above & beyond anything happening in the marketing dept at the company.

Let companies that choose their markets do so proudly, and to lasting success. I wish them well; their audiences need them.

But those companies for whom "equality" is nothing but lip service don't deserve our business -- or anyone's. Those that think throwing a rainbow sticker on the package changes the product inside. Those that fantasize about supporting a community when the going is easy, while avoiding the "hot-button" issues during its times of need.

Under the mistaken guise of protecting political correctness, these bigoted companies actually insult the communities to which they "pander." They say, "You're a commodity, a statistic, nothing more than a moneymaking opportunity. Your personal income matters to us, but not your personal needs."

When so many respectable companies support TRUE equality in all its forms -- see NGLCC, GLAAD, PFLAG, and WITH THIS RING's Advisory Board for a partial list -- these "fake friends" should be forced, by a market flexing its collective muscle, to acknowledge that a community is more than the sum of its parts and the dollars it spends.