As the visibility and confidence of LGB consumers has grown and continues to grow in the UK, conventional marketing wisdom has been highlighting the potential for brands to engage with these audiences. Trends in the commercial sector show an increasing number of brands attempting to speak directly to LGB audiences and tailoring products or services to them. Have charities kept up? Previous analysis by nfpSynergy of National Statistics data revealed that same-sex-couple only households give less of their income away to charity than mixed-sex-couple only households[fn]nfpSynergy, 2007. Who gives to charity? Briefing.[/fn]. Granted this figure does not include single LGB people. Granted of course LGB couples could just be for some reason less generous than the rest of society. Or it could be that the mythical pink pound, like any other has recently been devalued, or as some even suggest its value was never that high to begin with. Or is it more likely that there is simply more to be done by charities in targeting these audiences more effectively?

Charities wanting to enhance their levels of engagement with LGB audiences will have several strategic and creative challenges to tackle. Knowing where to start is difficult given so much current activity and thinking relies on stereotypes rather than research, even here at nfpSynergy. We would therefore do well to stop and consider whether some of the myths surrounding this audience have any substance to them or are misleading illusions...

Myth 1: One in ten people are gay

Researchers have always struggled to quantify the size of (and even define) the UK LGB market, not least because a respondent may be unwilling to discuss sexuality in a survey. Recently and for the first time National Statistics estimated LGB people to comprise 1.5% of the population[fn]Office for National Statistics, 2010. Measuring sexual identity: an evaluation report.[/fn]– barely three quarters of a million people. Many researchers and LGB pressure groups suspect this figure to be wrong (indeed if this were it would be curious that the UK’s largest same-sex dating website has 2.2million members) and leading consumer research makes a larger estimate ranging from 4-6%[fn]nVision research, 2011.[/fn] of the population, but the true figure is likely to be unknown for some time yet.

Myth 2: Gay men are minted but lesbians are poor

Of course LGB audiences have more to their fundraising potential than just numbers. Marketing stereotypes have long asserted that LGB consumers are rich, especially as they have fewer dependents eating into their disposable income. To some extent the stats would appear to back them up. Quantifying the exact value of the LGB market is even harder than estimating the market size – over the last ten years different studies have used different methodologies (nearly all of which differ from those studying the general population), but nearly all estimate LGB incomes to be higher than average, some by as much as £12k[fn]Stormbreak Research & Consultancy, 2000.[/fn].

Further, the limited stats that are available appear to dispel the myth that lesbians do not enjoy the same high earnings as gay men – while a gap between gays and lesbians does exist it is smaller than that of the general gap between men and women[fn]Channel 4’s Gay Census (2001)[/fn]. More, according to some research, lesbians are also almost three times more likely to be in relationships and could therefore be more likely to constitute a double income household.

As for the fewer dependents, it is true LGB audiences currently have less dependents than average, though how long is this set to continue? A recent survey found 40% of LGB audience would like to have children in the future and that 5% already have them[fn]Out Now, 2011. Global LGBT 2020 Study[/fn].

Myth 3: Rich people give a lot to charity

Being well off does not mean an individual, LGB or otherwise, will just spontaneously give to you (across the whole of the UK, the wealthiest 10% of the population barely give 1% of their income away to charity[fn]nfpSynergy, 2007. Who gives to charity? Briefing.[/fn]) – as with any other supporter, you have to ask.

But the good news is that it would appear LGB audiences should be easy for charities to reach. Not only is there a prevalent gay press, but the vast majority indicate they are regular readers. Yet very few charities (with some notable exceptions in the animal welfare sector) ever advertise in it, and fewer still on emerging radio and TV.

Myth 4: It is not worth competing with LGB charities

There are many reasons why people give to charities, but one of the most common is essentially a personal connection to the cause[fn]nfpSynergy, 2011. Charity Awareness Monitor survey of 1,000 adults 16+ in Great Britain.[/fn], and so it is no surprise that people affected by cancer are more likely to support Cancer Research UK, pet owners and animals lovers are more likely to support the RSPCA, LGB audiences are more likely to support THT. This begs the question, if you are not a brand working in an LGB related field is it worth competing? It is hard to answer but worth bearing in mind most donors, especially the most generous, support many more than one charity. LGB audiences, are also going to be affected by cancer, own pets, have all the other life experiences that could predispose them to supporting one of the many thousands of UK charities.

Myth 5: It’s ok, “some of my best friends are gay”

Humor in advertising is often successful but turning “gay phrases” such as “come out” into an advertising pitch is generally met with cynical response, risks being perceived at best simplistic at worst patronizing. A recent ad run by an animal welfare sector twisting the wizard of oz slogan “are you friends with Toto?” might just have been seen as superficial by some. What’s funny within a group of friends or colleagues will not necessarily work in advertising, so needs to be considered with care.

This is no different to approaching any other marketing segment – for example targeting young people with a cringe worthy attempt to ‘get down with the kids’ is just as unlikely to be well received. Charities therefore could do well to take the lead from commercial brands such as Lloyds TSB bank which showed a same-sex couple taking out a mortgage without any overt reference to their sexuality. Especially if sexuality is irrelevant to a transaction, normalized representation is likely to be effective in speaking to LGB individuals who don’t necessarily want to be shown as inhabiting a world separate from that of their heterosexual counterparts.

Macmillan, at the time of their rebrand provided a good example of an ad, run in the gay press. Following the green and white silhouette format of all their other advertising at the time, it depicted same sex characters. Simultaneously it was highly tailored but inclusively no different to any other Macmillan ad – clever.

LGB charities and ads in LGB media may be able to push the boundaries more than others, but even in these circumstances it is worth approaching clichés with caution. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home’s “Pride Pooch 2011” provides a good example, with a relevant choice of location, time and event, and support with social media, they demonstrate a much more genuine and proactive attempt to engage with an LGB donors than the aforementioned Toto ad.

Myth 6: Communicating with the LGB audience will alienate conservative donors

In the past many commercial brands have felt that being seen to communicate with LGB audiences could alienate or offend their conservative consumer base. Such reluctance is morally suspect but would be financially logical, and particularly pertinent to charities whose databases are often skewed towards the older people. Except the logic is unlikely to have much basis – various attitudinal surveys suggest tolerance of human difference is the default setting for all age groups. In addition, properly targeted ads are just not likely to be seen by other groups. A balding heterosexual Tory in Kent, may or may not be outraged if they saw an LGB specific ad in the Pink Paper, but in any event they are unlikely to be reading it.

Conclusion

Communicating to the LGB market is of course more complicated than conventional marketing stereotypes and wisdom suggests. Nevertheless, just as many corporate brands, celebrities, politicians are all increasingly targeting this audience; charities needn’t be put off from trying.

The overarching challenge for charities is to recognise the sameness and differences of LGB audiences in their communications, just as they would with any other donor group. This is a challenge surely the charity sector more than any other should be worthy of, and those brands who put in the time and thought into their strategy and creative are likely to be rewarded as a result.