From Crisis to Advocacy: Tracing the Emergence and Evolution of the LGBTQIA+ Consumer Market

Cluster 1: Consumer Experiences

Cluster 1 brings together literature from retailing (e.g., Rosenbaum, Seger-Guttmann, and Giraldo 2017), tourism (e.g., Andriotis 2010; Ong, Vorobjovas-Pinta, and Lewis 2022), and information systems (e.g., Kitzie 2019) that investigates how LGBTQIA+ consumers experience different service settings. These consumers are often presented as vulnerable individuals (e.g., Pechmann et al. 2011) who hide their identities during service encounters to avoid discriminatory experiences (e.g., McKenna 2020).

Retailing studies focus on gay and lesbian consumers’ perceptions of interpersonal discrimination (Ro and Olson 2020); distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in service settings (Ro and Olson 2014); and the friendliness of specific spaces for LGBTQIA+ communities (Olson and Park 2019; Rosenbaum and Montoya 2007). Tourism articles examine the emergence of secluded tourist destinations that enable LGBTQIA+ consumers to express their sexual identity freely (Andriotis 2010). Although many LGBTQIA+ consumers use tourism services as a form of escapism, Cluster 1's early contributions examine the relationship between travel and the global spread of HIV/AIDS during the 1980s and 1990s and highlight important health policy implications (Clift and Forrest 1999).

Reflecting the diffusion of digital and social media, this cluster's literature examines how LGBTQIA+ consumers experience virtual worlds and dating websites (e.g., Gaydar) as safer digital spaces that create conviviality, promote LGBTQIA+ rights, and enable uncensored sexual expression (McKenna 2020). In summary, this cluster's research identifies service encounters as potentially stigmatizing experiences for LGBTQIA+ consumers. Taken together, Cluster 1's contributions call for the creation of more inclusive customer journeys that reflect the diversity of LGBTQIA+ consumers’ lived experiences and for the deployment of policies designed to increase consumer diversity protection.

Cluster 2: Marginalized Consumer Identities

Through the conceptual lens of consumer culture theory, Cluster 2's articles investigate how consumption allows LGBTQIA+ consumers to deal with stigma and discrimination (Kapoor and Belk 2022; Kates 2002). Consumption becomes the vehicle that enables LGBTQIA+ consumers’ identity formation (Hsieh and Wu 2011; Kates 2002, 2004) and the emergence of LGBTQIA+ subcultures (Haslop, Hill, and Schmidt 1998; Kates 2002), tribes (Aung and Sha 2016), and communities (Kates 2004). The conscious consumption of brands that openly support LGBTQIA+ issues (i.e., branded allies; Kates 2002) licenses the gradual evolution of the gay market from a hidden, marginalized space to a more visible and mainstream market (Branchik 2007).

Recent contributions in Cluster 2 acknowledge that stigma should be regarded as an outcome of the consumption context rather than a preexisting attribute (Bettany et al. 2022). As such, stigma should not be ascribed solely to specific individuals or social groups (i.e., being stigmatized for being gay); rather, it is the result of a multiplicity of entangled factors, such as gender identification, sexual orientation, the context of stigmatization, income, and ethnicity (Bettany et al. 2022). Understanding how stigma unfolds becomes essential to identify the barriers that prevent consumers from accessing critical services such as sexual or mental health services (Hildebrand et al. 2013). Overall, Cluster 2's research highlights the importance for marketers and policy makers to consult with “insiders” of the LGBTQIA+ community to develop a deeper understanding of the diverse experiences of consumers who experienced discrimination and stigmatization.

Cluster 3: Imagery Creation in Advertising

The effects of LGBTQIA+ imagery in advertising on homosexual and heterosexual consumers represent the core focus of Cluster 3's literature (e.g., Eisend and Hermann 2019; Pounders and Mabry-Flynn 2016). The target audience response to this imagery can vary substantially depending on moral values (El Hazzouri, Main, and Sinclair 2019), political ideology (Northey et al. 2020; Tsai 2012), and attitudes toward homosexuality (Um 2014). To heterosexual audiences, advertisements with homosexual protagonists can stimulate empathy, social connectedness, and understanding of diversity (Åkestam, Rosengren, and Dahlen 2017; Eisend and Hermann 2019). To LGBTQIA+ audiences, LGBTQIA+ advertising imagery and endorsers can increase identification (Flores-Zamora 2023; McDonald, Laverie, and Manis 2021), thus leading to a positive perception of representation and inclusion (Tsai 2012).

While, for the most part, the literature in Cluster 3 highlights the positive effects of LGBTQIA+ advertising imagery, this marketing strategy carries potential risks. For instance, recent studies show how political ideologies can generate negative emotional responses toward LGBTQIA+ imagery. For example, more conservative consumers can experience aversion toward homosexual imagery that can negatively affect product evaluation (Northey et al. 2020). Thus, Cluster 3's research suggests that marketers need to balance short-term gains from traditional targets with a representation and inclusion strategy that can benefit the brand in the long term (Taylor 2022). Overall, this literature highlights the need for policy makers to take proactive measures in facilitating inclusive representation of LGBTQIA+ consumers.

Cluster 4: Marketplace Policies

Articles in Cluster 4 examine a broad range of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities designed to empower LGBTQIA+ consumers (Ginder, Kwon, and Byun 2021). These include corporate support for same-sex marriages (Zhu and Smieliauskas 2022), work equality policies (Patel and Feng 2021), inclusive product design (Cheng, Zhou, and Yao 2022), and civil rights protests (Zhu and Smieliauskas 2022). Central to this literature is the examination of the differential effect of inclusive strategies on target (i.e., the segment intentionally targeted) and nontarget (i.e., spillover effects on other segments) markets (Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier 2000; Grier and Brumbaugh 1999). For instance, at the beginning of the HIV/AIDS crisis, condom manufacturers took a broad approach and failed to reach the homosexual population directly. This mistargeted policy contributed to undermining global efforts to contain the spread of the virus (Krohn and Milner 1989).

While these CSR strategies can help LGBTQIA+ consumers feel more included and enhance the overall performance and value of the organization (Patel and Feng 2021; Shan, Fu, and Zheng 2017), their deployment can be complex. Organizations’ engagement with LGBTQIA+ advocacy initiatives can be interpreted as temporary tactical support for important LGBTQIA+ issues motivated solely by economic gains (e.g., rainbow-washing; Wulf et al. 2022). Organizations can mitigate this risk by working closely with credible LGBTQIA+ influencers who can attest to the authenticity of the support provided to the community (Li 2022). Overall, research in Cluster 4 provides initial evidence of the growing advocacy role played by commercial organizations that act as allies of LGBTQIA+ consumers and become essential supporters of social change. This advocacy role is becoming more critical due to several recent anti-LGBTQIA+ bills affecting the community (Krishnakumar and Cole 2022).

Cluster 5: Minority Targeting Strategies

Cluster 5's research examines the psychological determinants of LGBTQIA+ consumer behaviors (Ginder and Byun 2015), focusing on when and why homosexual and heterosexual consumers behave according to their sexual identities and orientations (Burnett 2000; Eisend and Hermann 2020). Overall, these studies conclude that although there are differences in consumption preferences between homosexual and heterosexual consumers, actual behavioral differences remain limited (Eisend and Hermann 2020).

Furthermore, several articles in Cluster 5 investigate how a brand's advertising message (Oakenfull 2012), corporate policies for LGBTQIA+ employees (Oakenfull 2013), and sponsorship strategies (Gudelunas 2011) affect gay and lesbian consumers differently. Differences between gay and lesbian consumers are more evident compared with differences between homosexual and heterosexual consumers. For example, lesbian women place more importance on corporate engagement with LGBTQIA+ issues compared with gay men (Oakenfull 2013). Interestingly, although these topics received significant attention between 2012 and 2015, this cluster's research seems to halt in the later years, thus signaling a departure from the more traditional segmentation and targeting strategies based on a stereotypical representation of LGBTQIA+ consumers.

Our analyses of the five literature clusters allow us to identify substantive LGBTQIA+ themes at the intersection of marketing and public policy. We next turn our attention to how these clusters have evolved over time. In doing so, we attempt to link the evolution of this literature to the evolution of public policies directed toward LGBTQIA+ individuals, aiming to build a framework that inspires future research avenues.

Phase 1: Crisis—Reactive Market Formation

We use the label “crisis” for this first phase (1988–2003) as these years are marked by the onset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and the emergence of market-based solutions to address it. The marketing and public policy literature reveals a persistent market void. Although LGBTQIA+ consumers become visible in the crisis, they are perceived by the mainstream market as stigmatized individuals going through a global health crisis and requiring acceptance (Cluster 1, Cluster 2). Research in this initial phase considers the market as a force that can, in conjunction with policy making, contribute to ending the crisis (Cluster 4). Although the number of studies in this phase is limited, several key themes enter the literature and remain central throughout the phases (e.g., stigmatization, identity formation).

The theme of stigmatization of LGBTQIA+ consumers is prominent. The market fails to address their needs or support a destigmatization process (Krohn and Milner 1989). The core of the theme is the reaction to this market failure. Marketers aim to understand consumer behavior during the crisis and to create a market to stimulate awareness and address their needs. Organizations focus on exploring LGBTQIA+ consumers’ identity (Haslop, Hill, and Schmidt 1998; Kates 2000, 2002) and consumption preference formation (Branchik 2002; Reichert 2001) in different marketspaces. Behaviors are difficult to directly observe in mainstream contexts because consumers are forced to isolate to reduce stigmatization. Instead, marketers observe LGBTQIA+ consumers’ behaviors within secluded offline spaces, where they are not forced to limit their identity expression (Clift and Forrest 1999).

Overall, this literature shows a process of crisis scoping, in which marketers evaluate the nature of the crisis and its potential impact on LGBTQIA+ consumers and propose new offerings in response to the crisis. Crisis scoping is occurring in the market and is reflected in the domain of public policy. Policy makers are facing growing pressure to create specific support policies that address issues affecting the LGBTQIA+ community. In response, many policy makers become more aware of stigmatized groups in the community and begin implementing emergency strategies to address unprecedented situations (Winkle 1991). For instance, to address discrimination in the housing market, several U.S. states have implemented laws to protect LGBTQIA+ individuals from being unfairly evicted or denied housing on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2023).

Phase 2: Marketization—Normalization of LGBTQIA+ Consumer Identities

We name the second phase (2004–2019) marketization, as the literature shows how organizations try to fit the diverse needs of the expanding LGBTQIA+ consumers into the existing mainstream market paradigm. During this phase, representation and inclusion within several marketing domains become more pervasive relative to the previous phase (Cluster 3). Marketing mobilizes to segment the market, with the aim to normalize LGBTQIA+ consumers and develop new policies to address their needs. We observe the coexistence of different themes that evolve with changes in the public sphere. LGBTQIA+ consumers emerge as a well-defined target market (Cluster 1 and Cluster 5), and marketers gradually stop considering them a stigmatized consumer group, normalizing them within the mainstream market. Public policy decreases as a concern within marketing research, especially once the HIV/AIDS crisis finds the support of policy makers. At the same time, different needs emerging from the LGBTQIA+ community are explored and tested (Clusters 2, 3, and 5). Marketers become aware of how sexual identity and orientation influence consumers’ evaluations and purchasing decisions (Cluster 4).

While the mainstream market adapts and attempts to slot LGBTQIA+ consumers into existing structures, it does not create offerings that match the specific and diverse needs of these consumers (Rosenbaum, Russell-Bennett, and Drennan 2015; Walsh 2009). Marketers test different propositions and observe the reactions of target and nontarget markets (Oakenfull, McCarthy, and Greenlee 2008). There are several advances in regulation supporting LGBTQIA+ individuals, such as the termination of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the United States in 2011 (Human Rights Campaign 2022) or the legalization of same-sex marriages in the United Kingdom in 2014 (GOV.UK 2013). As in the previous phase, we observe a contamination of the work of policy makers by the market (Carlson and Harrison 2010). Many policy makers leverage market insights to create specific policies for LGBTQIA+ consumers that address the needs identified by the market and adapt to emerging societal and market changes (Adams et al. 2017; Hull et al. 2013; Pechmann et al. 2011).

Phase 3: Advocacy—Proactive Reformation

We term this last phase (2020–2022) advocacy to reflect organizational efforts to take a stance to champion the needs of consumers who are still marginalized (Hoefer 2019). Literature shows that organizations acknowledge that discrimination still exists for specific members of the LGBTQIA+ community and recognize that these minorities are not yet targeted by the policies developed in previous years (Cluster 2). For this reason, many organizations engage in the development of CSR policies that allow them to advocate for LGBTQIA+ consumers (Cluster 4). Although these policies increase consumer satisfaction, some consumers consider these policies mere rainbow-washing. When this happens, the advocacy role of organizations is not recognized, and they are accused of being solely interested in LGBTQIA+ consumers as lucrative consumer segments (Cluster 4).

In this phase, the literature unpacks the diversity of sexualities and gender identities that form the LGBTQIA+ spectrum. Our analysis (Figure 4) reveals that, in Phase 3, the literature attempts to address the conflation of LGBTQIA+ identities into the two main categories of gay and lesbian by investigating the needs of a wider set of LGBTQIA+ individuals (e.g., transgender, Duncan-Shepherd and Hamilton 2022; queer, Pirani and Daskalopoulou 2022). This important shift reflects strategic efforts to better understand and meet LGBTQIA+ consumers’ needs and contribute to their well-being (Cheded and Liu 2022; Hadjisolomou 2021). The advocacy role of organizations is quite evident, as is their contribution to providing LGBTQIA+ consumers with a better life, stimulating the engagement of policy makers and other institutional actors (Parshakov et al. 2022). The proximity to the LGBTQIA+ community allows organizations to collect several insights into LGBTQIA+ consumers’ needs. These insights are leveraged by policy makers to provide solutions in the public sphere and develop shared policy efforts (Batista et al. 2022; Zhu and Smieliauskas 2022). For instance, the 2021 European Union Guidelines for Strategies and Action Plans to Enhance LGBTIQ Equality represent a major step toward safeguarding equality and nondiscrimination of LGBTQIA+ individuals (European Commission 2022).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Representation of Different Sexualities and Gender Identities in the Literature Sample.

Based on these phases, in the next section, we offer a framework for how the LGBTQIA+ consumer market emerges and evolves in moments of crisis, is subjected to normalizing practices that fold formerly invisible consumers into existing market structures, and eventually, through advocacy, becomes established.

Marketing and Public Policies in Times of Crisis

In this review article, we map literature that examines the wider consumer effects of the HIV/AIDS crisis, subsequent ways to address the crisis, and the emergence of the LGBTQIA+ consumer market. Conceptually, our phasic framework allows us to observe when marketing stops focusing on LGBTQIA+ individuals as a marginalized niche consumer segment and switches to consider them a profitable market. Specifically, our framework shows an inflection where the market moves away from looking at LGBTQIA+ consumers as an emergent segment to attempting to find enduring space for them in existing market structures (i.e., moving from crisis to marketization).

These movements are caused by different exogenous factors. For instance, policies that improve the health situation of LGBTQIA+ consumers affected by HIV/AIDS also help destigmatize a community portrayed as a group of individuals affected by a “plague” (Parket and Aggleton 2007). We argue that the presence of policies to help the community allows the market to see LGBTQIA+ individuals as a potential market segment. However, we do not have empirical studies on how public policies designed in this period influenced the perception of marginalized LGBTQIA+ consumers. It is unclear how and when these policies and events influenced marketing research conducted in this period. Future research could articulate the relationships between public policies for LGBTQIA+ consumers and the market in the crisis phase. Further, we observe that studies in this period contribute to changing, bit by bit, the conversation around LGBTQIA+ consumers until the inflection point (or trigger event) is reached: marketing researchers stop associating them with HIV/AIDS stigma, pivoting to consider them a profitable target market, moving from crisis to marketization. Thus, it is useful to map inflection points and triggers that characterize the movement from one phase to another. Future research could examine a broader range of trigger events and policies that could instigate the inflection points in other contexts, beyond the LGBTQIA+ consumer market.

While we recognize that each marginalized consumer group has a unique history in terms of stigmatization based on gender, race, religion, or social class (Arsel, Crockett, and Scott 2022), we offer that our framework might support researchers’ efforts to illuminate evolving issues affecting other marginalized consumer segments. Beyond the specific context of the LGBTQIA+ community, a deeper exploration of how markets address crises helps us spot problems for other marginalized consumers who were formerly invisible. For example, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, a crisis arose for unhoused people, as they were the most exposed to the virus. Still, these individuals had no place to quarantine and lacked critical resources to survive (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020). By becoming more aware of how crisis inflection points might unfold, marketers and policy makers can develop more inclusive ways of addressing the needs of diverse and underserved consumer groups.

Overall, the crisis period reveals marginalized LGBTQIA+ consumers that have always been present in the market but have remained, for the most part, invisible or problematically visible. Still, it is difficult for researchers, policy makers, and the market to spot when a crisis emerges. Moreover, it is difficult for them to envisage responses to these crises in both an independent and concerted way. Addressing these issues, future research should answer questions such as these: How can researchers, policy makers, and marketers spot a crisis in the LGBTQIA+ consumer market? How do they spot the emergence of a consumer market after the crisis? What are the characteristics of the LGBTQIA+ consumer market in the crisis phase? How can policy makers and marketers work together to develop long-lasting responses to crises for markets that incorporate marginalized consumers (including LGBTQIA+ consumers)?

Marketization and a Paucity of Policies

The marketization phase raises important questions on how marketers and policy makers can work together to develop policies for the better inclusion of marginalized LGBTQIA+ consumers into existing market structures. During this phase, we witness an increasing alignment between legal frameworks to protect LGBTQIA+ consumers and organizations’ interest in this target market. In the United Kingdom, the 2010 Equality Act states that “providers of goods, facilities, and services cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity” (Stonewall Scotland 2015). The U.K. same-sex marriage act of 2013 and the recognition of same-sex marriages by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 also opened new opportunities that were precluded to LGBTQIA+ individuals before (Mamali and Stevens 2020). In the United States, a 2019 proposal for a Customer Non-Discrimination Act (reintroduced in the U.S. Congress in 2023) sets out to prohibit “discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity with respect to public accommodations and facilities” (Congress.gov 2021). These legislative and judicial efforts lead to increasing normalization of LGBTQIA+ consumers that become more represented in the media and advertising. For instance, TV shows that normalize stigma through the representation of diverse LGBTQIA+ identities (e.g., RuPaul's Drag Race, Modern Family) are becoming increasingly popular among the general public (Campana, Duffy, and Micheli 2022).

Compared with the previous phase, the marketing literature in this phase is less concerned with understanding and influencing policies around LGBTQIA+ consumers. Additionally, we observe an inflection point where marketers go from being interested only in LGBTQIA+ consumers’ purchasing power toward becoming more concerned about these consumers’ well-being. These concerns lead to a phasic shift toward advocating for LGBTQIA+ consumer inclusion and authentic representation, thus attempting to influence policy making. Thus, we could ask: How does a crisis affecting LGBTQIA+ consumers evolve into marketization? What are the strategies that policy makers and marketers can adopt to spot marginalized LGBTQIA+ identities and effectively target them? How can marketers leverage the practices implemented for LGBTQIA+ consumer markets to be generally more inclusive of other marginalized consumers? The answer to these questions might uncover important dynamics also within other marginalized consumer groups and explain the mechanisms behind the relationship of marketing with policy making that have not been revealed before.

While the marketization phase helps normalize LGBTQIA+ consumer identities, it simultaneously creates further exclusion. This phase still conflates LGBTQIA+ consumers into a “master status” identity consistent with their expected social role (Hunt 2007), rather than addressing the variety of marginalized identities embedded into the LGBTQIA+ spectrum. In fact, 83% of articles in this phase focus on white gay, lesbian, and bisexual consumers with a reasonable disposable income (see Figure 4). We acknowledge there is more understanding of LGBTQIA+ identities today than in 2004. This lack of representation inspires us to consider communities that marketing excludes when it attempts to normalize other marginalized consumers. Fitting marginalized consumers’ experiences into the existing market structure could further perpetuate stigma and discrimination. Future research could ask: What are the roots of specific LGBTQIA+ identities exclusion in the marketization phase? How can marketers and policy makers adopt an intersectional perspective to inclusion, paying attention to the most vulnerable identities in the LGBTQIA+ community?

Advocating for Marginalized Consumers

We argue that we are currently in this phase, with researchers and organizations advocating for LGBTQIA+ consumers, sometimes substituting for policy makers in supporting this marginalized target market. For instance, some organizations extend the policies developed for their employees to their customers. Virgin Atlantic Airways recently revised its gender identity policies, including the possibility for staff to wear gender pronoun badges and eliminating the requirement for gendered uniforms (Topham 2022). In a similar vein, pronoun badges will be available to customers, who will be able to use gender-neutral markers on their ticket booking documents.

Several other organizations have embraced the same path, recognizing that policy makers take a less progressive stance regarding LGBTQIA+ issues. For instance, Florida's Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, does not allow education on sexual identity and gender orientation in schools, thus institutionalizing discrimination toward LGBTQIA+ kids, teachers, and families (Johnson 2022). In response to this bill, natural cosmetics brand Lush launched the “Gay is OK” campaign by promoting a bar of soap with the “Gay is OK” message carved on it. The proceeds of the campaign were donated to the civil rights organization Equality Florida to support LGBTQIA+ individuals affected by discrimination (Parsons 2022). Contemporary marketing research is mapping these types of campaigns under the umbrella of brand activism (Vredenburg et al. 2020) and brand purpose (Williams, Escalas, and Morningstar 2022). However, the effects of marketers advocating for responses to discriminatory public policies remain largely unexplored. Future research could ask: When and how do marketers begin to act as advocates against discriminatory public policy decisions affecting LGBTQIA+ consumers? How can marketers influence policy makers to develop focused policies that safeguard the LGBTQIA+ consumer market? How can marketers support policy makers in the development of gender-neutral and LGBTQIA+-family-friendly consumption experiences to address a variety of identity projects?

In this phase, specific LGBTQIA+ minorities are still marginalized within society and experience the stigma in their daily lives. For example, although the UK Equality Act states that transgender people can use restrooms that match their selected gender, transgender women often face discrimination in accessing these settings (McGuire, Anderson, and Michaels 2022). In sports (e.g., the Olympics), transgender and nonbinary people are often prevented from participating in disciplines traditionally restricted to specific gender categories (Winkler and Gilleri 2021). LGBTQIA+ families are also subject to prejudice and experience difficulties when dealing with adoption, the physical custody of children, or fertility treatments (Mimoun, Trujillo-Torres, and Sobande 2022). Reflecting the difficulties of LGBTQIA+ families, Netflix began supporting employees and their partners during fertility, surrogacy, and adoption journeys, regardless of marital status, gender, or sexual orientation (Netflix 2022). These inclusive corporate policies arrived after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, highlighting the need for employers to advocate for their consumers and employees (McGovern 2022).

The studies emerging in this phase can help us identify the hidden issues of stigmatization for specific minorities of the LGBTQIA+ community, acknowledging the need to address existing issues and advocating for the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals. This literature calls for research that examines consumers’ reactions to more nuanced representations of LGBTQIA+ sexualities and gender identities (Taylor 2022). This could lead to questions such as these: What types of discrimination exist for LGBTQIA+ consumers and families accessing services (e.g., health care, housing)? What does socially unfettered consumer market access look like? How does culturally sensitive market representation emerge and how does it manifest? How do different LGBTQIA+ consumers perceive inclusive representations? In addition, future research should encourage policy makers to develop focused policies for individuals in need, guided by the idea that stigmatization of individuals can only be spotted and addressed through a close connection between market and policy stances.