This is one of the biggest Empathy Gaps in all of marketing.

As a marketer, I concern myself not just with compelling the consumer to make a purchase. I also try to consider the ways in which HOW I compel that sale might influence perceptions and -- ultimately -- affect people's lives.

The pursuit of ever-larger traffic acquisition ROI has led us down the path of ever-finer targeting.

This is as true in the gay realm as in the straight.

But, as our keyword lists (especially for highly-focused content types) begin to resemble the inscrutable jargon of a secret society, and as more and more of our traffic acquisition spending follows the small-but-high-converting traffic "trickles", I'm becoming concerned that we're neglecting a more important responsibility, in favor of short-term "smash and grab" monetization.

I’m all in favor of giving the customer what he wants – certainly, as we all know, he’ll pay you more for that than for anything else.

But, as pornographers, as smut-peddlers, as sole stewards (TRULY) of the tone, direction and quality of Human Erotica, we must ask ourselves: is “finer-and-finer” a sound long-term strategy?

I’m worried it may not be.

Now, I DO understand that what I’m saying goes against a number of accepted online marketing truisms.

But, there is, perhaps, a consequence of entering into ONLY highly-specialized dialogues with our customers, that we may not be considering…

We are communicating absolutely NOTHING about the soundness, beauty and general “okayness” of sex (ALL SEX) to the undifferentiated (un-targeted) masses.

And if we aren’t doing it, you have to wonder who is.

Who IS speaking to the “Smalltown Boy”?

From whom, and with what agenda, does he receive his first message of self-reflection?

Certainly, there are information resources (both on and offline) to steer a young initiate towards his or her special herd – but that is mainly rhetoric. Essential rhetoric, to be sure (insofar as we would immediately want to dispel the notion in any young person that they might be ALONE in their impulses), but, still, just rhetoric.

It is only when we finally see the Acts (the naked bodies, arranged in their needful ways) that we can say to ourselves: “Yes, yes… THAT is for me.”

And then we make our sale.

But what does it do for that person’s sense of who they are against the backdrop of Collective Human Sexuality? Do they feel included? Do they FEEL their (rightful) place in the spectrum of Human Sexuality?

I dunno.

I don’t want to advocate for anything (contrary) in particular yet, because I want to hear what you all think.

But, what if we made sites for people who WEREN’T so much sure what they liked yet?

What if these sites were part information value (1st Amendment defensible!), and part titillation?

Wouldn’t we, then have an opportunity to BOTH inform, orient, reassure, accept AND monetize?

Some of you may have seen these graphics I made last year, already – I posted them here and there, but never here.

The first chart shows the 4 sexual orientation “camps” that modernly endeavor to encompass all of us.


At some point, you have to make a choice and – pretty much – accept whatever society attaches to that choice.

I realize the first step in gathering support for an idea is to recruit as many like (or similarly-minded) people as we can under the banner of that group.

But, are we really all that satisfied with the range of choices, and with the rights afforded to the members of certain camps?

Where do you see things going, if we proceed with the current 4-camp arrangement?

And, I’m talking LOOONG-term – as in the effects to the Species.

Are we drawing closer in empathy, or farther apart?

Here's a different way to slice things...



As I said, I’m going to stop short of advocating anything in particular – because (as I said) my mind is not made up.

But, let me leave you with one more thought.

A lot of smart people whose job it is to sell things don’t believe in the power of ideology in the service of marketing.

They say you can’t BOTH compel a purchase AND do something positive for a person’s mind.

I disagree.

I think we may have arrived at a moment in our (human) history (for the very pervasiveness of the IDEA of universal connectedness, if not the reality) when it is ONLY via the infusion of progressive ideology into Sex Marketing that we can divert from a path of greater and greater separateness.

Apple may only own 5% of the global PC market.

But consider how Apple’s persistent presence, and the persistent presence of their messages, have influenced the ways in which computers are used, by WHOM they are used and to what ENDS they are used.

What if we BLURRED some lines, rather than darkened them?

Just a thought.

:vanish:




j-