Homosexuality in Fashion Advertising Campaigns
- Thread starter Drowned
- Start date
fashionlover2001
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,716
- Reaction score
- 4
^Love the quote! 
Oliver Xie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2023
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 4
Could you please post the Gucci ad of Adriana Lima again?The Gucci Envy ad I posted features Frankie Rayder on the left and Adriana Lima (pretty sure) on the right.
yslforever
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2021
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 2,140
Gucci IG ads are getting a lot of homophobia right now
KoV
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,249
- Reaction score
- 6,956
KoV
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,249
- Reaction score
- 6,956
It’s not so much being concerned for Gucci’s revenue, it’s just disheartening, if not surprising, to see people with large followings (one of the commenters I screenshot has 1.7m followers, another has 355k, both are Muslim influencers, I think?) openly expressing homophobia with clearly no fear of any kind of repercussions. And they’re absolutely correct, there won’t be any. Sort of ridiculous in the first place to engage with most fashion brands of Gucci’s ilk if you’re so put-off by gays, the industry is just flooded with them.
Last edited:
mepps
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2014
- Messages
- 1,519
- Reaction score
- 1,485
Fashion as we know it, would not exist, without gay people. Period.
These single digit IQ weirdos, who troll fashion brand accounts, and spew their homophobic nonsense, are laughable.
Everything they covet springs from the creative minds of LGB people, who they would throw off a roof if they could get away with it.
These single digit IQ weirdos, who troll fashion brand accounts, and spew their homophobic nonsense, are laughable.
Everything they covet springs from the creative minds of LGB people, who they would throw off a roof if they could get away with it.
avonlea002
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
- Messages
- 1,999
- Reaction score
- 6,466
I feel like the attitude towards lgbt people in Europe is going to change for worse in coming years and we all know why...
Drusilla_
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,443
- Reaction score
- 1,303
depends on location I think, there are still plenty of countries in the world (and I don't even mean Muslim-majority ones) where this kind of homophobia wouldn't cause anyone to blink, and the people expressing these views wouldn't be Muslim either.
MulletProof
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 28,067
- Reaction score
- 5,260
I fail to see what's too wild about these comments. These conglomerates chase after everyone's money, you could live under a rock in Tonga and guess what, you'll probably still spot some Gucci ad when you venture into the nearby town, exactly what these companies wish for. People will have opinions when they're invited into a conversation and it becomes a s*it show when you want to congregate eeeeeveryone with no filter or restriction or exclusivity factor, just look at the dumb s*it you see on tfs after the invite system was removed, especially in Kering/LVMH-related threads (which is basically what someone on the most basic level of 'pAsSiOn 4 fAsHiOn' will lust after and get obsessive about). So if you want the money of every person in every country and homosexuality is illegal in most countries of this planet, you'll get comments like this if you choose to advertise your product with homosexuality, just like you'll get sexist comments about 'non-modest' (lmao) clothes on a woman if you advertise in regions where women are worth less than a man's shadow, or, by the way, just like people not very far from you feel 'unsettled' by all-Asian, or all-black castings, or some transwoman drinking beer because they don't see that in their godforsaken midwest town or European village. The problem is not so much origin or socioeconomic disadvantages, but the way the conglomerates want to comprehend as many regions as possible and what will be sacrificed to even us all out so they don't enter murky waters with some markets. The only way is to stick with the Coca Cola or Pepsi format and be as vanilla, unsophisticated and 'UN'-friendly as possible so goodbye to provocative fashion advertising. That is what they will eventually have to fully relinquish, it's already happening and it's pretty sad because you want advertisements that target a more educated demographic to spark a conversation, raise questions, play mirror to society or have the guts to exhibit what is irrationally stigmatised and secretive, as opposed to just serenade you with some pop star's hit single into buying their s*it.
It would be cool if, in an effort to resist and not respond exactly the way these companies will eventually benefit from to continue decimating fashion, people could do some internal work and maybe not fight prejudice with prejudice, homophobia with racism and classism, and for the love of god stop being such beta, luxury brand sheep and making it sound like 'oMg yOu PrObABlY cAn'T eVeN aFfOrD iT'.. are you 19 and live with parents and can't afford it? k that's normal, but adults with a decent salary in large cities CAN afford luxury brands, you're not talking about blue chip artworks or real estate, you're talking about fashion, which is 90% dumb and disposable design that is widely available for everyone in a good number of income brackets. So maybe quit hyping the hell out of these two conglomerates, and help reducing the way the want all of us to talk about them (as the most aspirational, luxurious, dreamlike exclusive club when there is literally NO membership to possess their stuff- endless [legal and illegal] activities that last less than 15 minutes can automatically get you one of their products lol).. the more people turn away from them, the more ridiculous, pathetic and passé their desperate and aggressive 'gotta reach EVERYONE' world campaign will look, and the more this will give rise to independent-minded designers and marketing strategies that by default, weed out most.
It would be cool if, in an effort to resist and not respond exactly the way these companies will eventually benefit from to continue decimating fashion, people could do some internal work and maybe not fight prejudice with prejudice, homophobia with racism and classism, and for the love of god stop being such beta, luxury brand sheep and making it sound like 'oMg yOu PrObABlY cAn'T eVeN aFfOrD iT'.. are you 19 and live with parents and can't afford it? k that's normal, but adults with a decent salary in large cities CAN afford luxury brands, you're not talking about blue chip artworks or real estate, you're talking about fashion, which is 90% dumb and disposable design that is widely available for everyone in a good number of income brackets. So maybe quit hyping the hell out of these two conglomerates, and help reducing the way the want all of us to talk about them (as the most aspirational, luxurious, dreamlike exclusive club when there is literally NO membership to possess their stuff- endless [legal and illegal] activities that last less than 15 minutes can automatically get you one of their products lol).. the more people turn away from them, the more ridiculous, pathetic and passé their desperate and aggressive 'gotta reach EVERYONE' world campaign will look, and the more this will give rise to independent-minded designers and marketing strategies that by default, weed out most.
KoV
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 5,249
- Reaction score
- 6,956
Conglomerates want their cake and they want to eat it, too. Ostensibly progressive values and creative teams, but in most cases there's little conviction behind that. Everyone is potentially their target customer if the suits have their way. Whether you save for months for a Chanel bag or if you pop by weekly to treat yourself, you're both a needed customer. So I agree these "only the best for the best" takes are silly and I think on some level, they are just trolling for engagement?
Muslims are certainly not the only people with these Karenesque "unfollowed! I'll take my business elsewhere!" takes. Every three seconds some Christian group in the States or just someone with less liberal values is getting up in arms about some new display at their local Target or something. My point is not that the comments themselves were wild (in fact, I called them unsurprising) but to me, it seems so obvious that Gucci's image is very LGBTQ+ friendly, that a fashion influencer with 1.7 million followers who find homosexuality so offensive it warrants an unfollow and public condemnation following or seeing Gucci as desirable in the first place seems odd to me. Just like it would seem odd to see someone write "unfollowing! You lost my business!" as a reaction to Victoria's Secret featuring an "immodest" photo of a woman in underwear. Who did you think they were?
I don't think the marketing is just happening to these commenters, I think they're seeking it out. Many in very socially conservative countries are enamored of Western "luxury" brands. So much so that some brands that aren't hugely successful in the US or Europe or even thought of as high-end, can bank on their Western associations to do very well in the Middle East. Sarah Jessica Parker's shoe store is an example. This is a brand entirely banking off Sex and the City, and its biggest markets are.... Dubai and Qatar. So my assumption seeing those comments on Gucci's post wasn't that the commenters are poor unfortunate souls having their religious convictions attacked via a gay kiss foisted upon them by Kering, they're people who actively follow and engage with brands like Gucci because they view it as highly desirable but, to save face or because of their conflicting values, felt the need to speak out to express their disdain. I didn't look at their pages beyond follower count and descriptions, but I assume they get sponsorships from brands or in some way earn money off their pages. I wonder if expressing distaste for homosexuality will only help them. Like the conglomerates, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.
Sometimes there is logic to the backlash, it makes sense, even if I disagree with it. Bud Light is seen as kind of a red state-friendly brand (even if that's not the truth, perception is everything) so Bud Light working with someone who's not only trans but is seen as a trans influencer for America's youth was controversial. Trans women modeling for the brand Haute Hijab would cause uproar as well, but even though I'd disagree on a personal level, it would make sense. Successful brands have identities, that's why they're successful, and a contradiction will always throw consumers off. Maybe a side-effect of targeted marketing is that we're all conditioned to think a brand should cater to us, to our values. Because that's what they pretend to do. And in an increasingly connected world where we have access to the same tech and media and commerce, it's impossible to please everyone in such a wide net.
Muslims are certainly not the only people with these Karenesque "unfollowed! I'll take my business elsewhere!" takes. Every three seconds some Christian group in the States or just someone with less liberal values is getting up in arms about some new display at their local Target or something. My point is not that the comments themselves were wild (in fact, I called them unsurprising) but to me, it seems so obvious that Gucci's image is very LGBTQ+ friendly, that a fashion influencer with 1.7 million followers who find homosexuality so offensive it warrants an unfollow and public condemnation following or seeing Gucci as desirable in the first place seems odd to me. Just like it would seem odd to see someone write "unfollowing! You lost my business!" as a reaction to Victoria's Secret featuring an "immodest" photo of a woman in underwear. Who did you think they were?
I don't think the marketing is just happening to these commenters, I think they're seeking it out. Many in very socially conservative countries are enamored of Western "luxury" brands. So much so that some brands that aren't hugely successful in the US or Europe or even thought of as high-end, can bank on their Western associations to do very well in the Middle East. Sarah Jessica Parker's shoe store is an example. This is a brand entirely banking off Sex and the City, and its biggest markets are.... Dubai and Qatar. So my assumption seeing those comments on Gucci's post wasn't that the commenters are poor unfortunate souls having their religious convictions attacked via a gay kiss foisted upon them by Kering, they're people who actively follow and engage with brands like Gucci because they view it as highly desirable but, to save face or because of their conflicting values, felt the need to speak out to express their disdain. I didn't look at their pages beyond follower count and descriptions, but I assume they get sponsorships from brands or in some way earn money off their pages. I wonder if expressing distaste for homosexuality will only help them. Like the conglomerates, they want their cake and they want to eat it too.
Sometimes there is logic to the backlash, it makes sense, even if I disagree with it. Bud Light is seen as kind of a red state-friendly brand (even if that's not the truth, perception is everything) so Bud Light working with someone who's not only trans but is seen as a trans influencer for America's youth was controversial. Trans women modeling for the brand Haute Hijab would cause uproar as well, but even though I'd disagree on a personal level, it would make sense. Successful brands have identities, that's why they're successful, and a contradiction will always throw consumers off. Maybe a side-effect of targeted marketing is that we're all conditioned to think a brand should cater to us, to our values. Because that's what they pretend to do. And in an increasingly connected world where we have access to the same tech and media and commerce, it's impossible to please everyone in such a wide net.
KaKe
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2023
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 47
These companies are just pandering to the new status quo and speaking as gay myself i find it lame and repulsive and it will only inspire rejection, not homophobia but rejection and rightly so. nobody likes to be forced fed anything and the media and these companies are force feeding homosexuality to the public. They are going so far as to force feed bondage, s&m and many other kinks who are by definition, not for public consumption. Fashion, and companies who often get support from charities or even the government, do not exist so that Tom Ford and Steven Klein can express their kinks. Nobody cares and nobody wants to hear about it and it's not sexy. It's not even exciting anymore because it's normalized. It's only the Ginny come lately cretins, some of them expressing classicism and discrimination on this very thread, that support the tokenizing of homosexuality. They see it as a triumph but when the tide turns as it inevitably will, it's going to be brutal, and they completely deserve what's coming.
