Same-Sex Parents, Money, Marketing, and Influence

New studies from the Williams Institute at UCLA have shown that same-sex parents in Illinois, Michigan and Rhode Island have “significantly” lower average and median incomes than opposite-sex married parents in those states. (I’ve omitted exact numbers for ease of reading; you can find them in the original reports, however. Thanks to Gay Wired for the link.) Same-sex parents in those states are also less likely than married parents to own their homes. I’m not sociologist or economist enough to give a full analysis of why this may be. Discrimination may play a part, as may the fact that many of us pass up career opportunities in order to maintain corporate benefits or avoid an environment where we feel less safe.

Same-sex couples without children, however, make significantly more than same-sex couples with children. One would assume the reasons above apply equally to same-sex couples regardless of parental status; I’m guessing the gap here is because couples with children are more likely to have one partner who stays at home with the kids or passes up career opportunities in order to maintain a child-friendly schedule.

The studies also found that incomes of same-sex couples in general (parents and not) did not differ from those of opposite-sex couples with any significance in Illinois or Rhode Island, and were only slightly less in Michigan. Men in same-sex couples, however, have significantly lower incomes than married men. Both of these points further debunk the “myth of gay affluence (PDF link).” As the seminal article of that name reminds us, “inaccurately applied information about the wealthier segments of the community can be used to skew public opinion against gays and lesbians in general,” giving fuel to the belief that LGBT rights are “special” rights for an elite, and thus to be shunned. Interestingly, however, women in same-sex couples (parents and not) earn “significantly more” on average than married women, although women in same-sex couples still earn less than married men (and less than men in same-sex couples, except in Rhode Island, where they were about the same). The studies did not, unfortunately, break out numbers for female couples with children versus male couples with children; I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume we gals make less, but how much less is hard to say.

As a sometime marketer, I can’t help but wonder what effect the Williams Institute findings (especially if they hold true for other states) will have on corporate interest in targeting the LGBT market. Will there be any more attention paid to the general lesbian audience? Will the re-emphasis of the “non-affluent” status of same-sex couples as a whole mean companies lose interest? Will same-sex parents never be a market for them?

The buying power of gay men and lesbians in the U.S. has been estimated to exceed $835 billion by 2011, up from $660 billion in 2006 (PDF link). Even if the Williams findings scale this back, I don’t think the numbers will drop so far as to make the LGBT market something companies can ignore. (Let’s also not forget about the single members of the LGBT community, who were not included in the Williams studies. They may not all be affluent, but they contribute to our overall economic power.) Good marketing is all about finding and targeting niches, then building customer loyalty. The loyalty of the LGBT market (PDF link) to LGBT-friendly firms is well established. If marketers can begin to see the LGBT world as a group of interlocked niches, instead of a group of single, urban, gay men, they’ll make better inroads into a community that is both diverse and fiercely protective of the whole, as the recent ENDA uproar has shown. Sure, same-sex parents may not make as much as married parents or childfree same-sex couples, at least in some states. We may also bear more expenses, as HRC showed in a report (PDF link) a few years back. That means we’re the perfect target for money-saving items like fuel-efficient cars, tools for do-it-yourself projects, and cheap yet sturdy furniture. (IKEA has known this for some time, apparently.)

It will be interesting to see if other states follow the trends of Illinois, Michigan, and Rhode Island. I’m assuming the Williams Institute has more studies in the works. Let’s hope, too, that future research explores the causes as well as the effects.

Two further questions come to mind from all this: 1) What are your favorite money-saving tips or sites? 2) How can same-sex parents, and lesbian moms in particular, be an active and influential force in the LGBT-rights movement and other political and social causes, when we have fewer financial resources in a world where money talks?

While we’re on the subject of marketing: Very happy wishes to the fine folks at the FH Out Front blog, who celebrate one year of blogging about LGBT marketing and communications this week.