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

Matteo Montecchi, Maria Rita Micheli, Mario Campana, Hope Jensen Schau

► To cite this version:

Matteo Montecchi, Maria Rita Micheli, Mario Campana, Hope Jensen Schau. From Crisis to Advocacy: Tracing the Emergence and Evolution of the LGBTQIA+ Consumer Market. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 2023, 43 (1), pp.10-30. 10.1177/07439156231183645. hal-04550977

HAL Id: hal-04550977

https://hal.science/hal-04550977v1

Submitted on 21 May 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

AM>
AMERICAN MARKETING
ASSOCIATION

Special Issue Research Article

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
2024, Vol. 43(1) 10-30
© The Author(s) 2023

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/07439156231183645
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppo

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Sage

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

Matteo Montecchi ID, Maria Rita Micheli ID, Mario Campana, and Hope Jensen Schau

## Abstract

Although governments and organizations are increasingly addressing the importance of diversity and inclusion policies, LGBTQIA+ consumers still experience instances of discrimination and stigmatization in the market. Research identifying the barriers and struggles that these consumers face is therefore imperative in order to inspire more inclusive marketplace practices. By combining bibliometric and automated text mining methods, this article systematically reviews the existing scholarship on LGBTQIA+ issues at the intersection of marketing and public policy and identifies five thematic clusters: consumer experiences, marginalized consumer identities, imagery creation in advertising, marketplace policies, and minority targeting strategies. Further, this article plots the temporal evolution of this literature domain and identifies three substantive phases: crisis, marketization, and advocacy. The outcome is a phasic framework that unpacks how the LGBTQIA+ consumer market emerged and evolved. This conceptual framework can be used to understand and strategically invigorate research that leads to more inclusive marketing and public policy efforts.

## Keywords

LGBTQIA+ consumers, diversity, inclusion, discrimination, bibliometric review, text mining

Online supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156231183645

Despite governmental and organizational efforts to address and redress societal inequity in access and representation, the marketplace still systematically marginalizes LGBTQIA+ consumers (Eichert and Luedicke 2022; Mahowald, Gruberg, and Halpin 2020; Oakenfull 2021).<fnref n="1" /> These consumers often find themselves targeted with “cliché” products (Cheng, Zhou, and Yao 2022), ignored (Oakenfull 2013), or discriminated against during service encounters (Kates 2002, 2004; Ro and Olson 2020). While many organizations adopt policies to ensure fair treatment of internal stakeholders (e.g., employees) who identify as LGBTQIA+ individuals (Patel and Feng 2021), these policies seldom target external LGBTQIA+ stakeholders, such as consumers. This exclusion can be detrimental to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (Arsel, Crockett, and Scott 2022) and can leave organizations exposed to reputational damages from mistargeting or

inappropriate messaging (GLAAD and P&G 2021). Against this background, we examine scholarship contributions that focus on a specific set of marginalized market participants, LGBTQIA+ consumers, with the aim of informing impactful research and inspiring more inclusive marketing and policy practices. We specifically leverage bibliometric and automated text mining methods to review academic conversations on LGBTQIA+ issues at the intersection of marketing and public policy. In doing so, we identify areas in which public policy actions are necessary to incentivize LGBTQIA+ inclusive marketing strategies.

Matteo Montecchi is Assistant Professor of Marketing, King's Business School, King's College London, UK (email: matteo.montecchi@kcl.ac.uk). Maria Rita Micheli is Assistant Professor of Strategy, IESEG School of Management, CNRS, Univ. Lille, UMR 9221 - LEM - Lille Economie Management, F-59000, Lille, France (email: m.micheli@ieseg.fr). Mario Campana is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Business School, University of Bristol, UK (email: mario.campana@bristol.ac.uk). Hope Jensen Schau is Professor and Gilly Family Endowed Chair in Marketing, Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, USA (email: scshauh@uci.edu).

<footnote n="1">¹ In this article we use the acronym LGBTQIA+ to refer to a broad spectrum of sexuality and gender identities, including but not limited to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic/agender, and other identities (+) not explicitly mentioned in the acronym (e.g., two-spirit).</footnote>
Organizations' attempts to develop marketing strategies aimed at LGBTQIA+ consumers are driven by the substantial growth of this community. Globally, the population that identifies openly as LGBTQIA+ is estimated at 371 million, with a purchasing power of $3.9 trillion (LGBT Capital 2020). While impressive, these numbers are likely to underrepresent the actual size of this community, as generations of LGBTQIA+ individuals across the globe have had limited opportunities to be officially identified due to restrictive census categories (Guyan 2021), stigmatization (Kates 2002, 2004), and legal systems prohibiting homosexuality (Knauer 2012).

While some organizations succeed in connecting with LGBTQIA+ consumers in meaningful ways, many still struggle to effectively embrace diversity and inclusivity in their marketing strategies (Eisend and Hermann 2019; Oakenfull 2021). More than half of advertisers and advertising agencies recognize the importance of representing gender and sexual orientation diversity, yet 78% of advertisers assert that adequate LGBTQIA+ representation is complex and challenging (GLAAD and P&G 2021). Further, 81% fear that featuring inauthentic representations of the LGBTQIA+ community would lead to more backlash than not featuring them at all (GLAAD and P&G 2021). To successfully represent LGBTQIA+ consumers, marketers should aim for normalization, avoiding stereotyping (Campana, Duffy, and Micheli 2022). Examples of well-received normalizing marketing strategies include Campbell Soup's 2015 campaign, featuring a family with two dads cooking in the kitchen without commentary, and Gillette's 2019 advertisement, showing a father teaching his transgender son to shave (Wolny 2019). These strategies increase the visibility of LGBTQIA+ families as consumers of mundane goods, beyond the more hedonic and sensationalized gay cruises or the highly stigmatized fetishwear products (Clift and Forrest 1999). By avoiding stereotyping, these representations promote acceptance of differences and denote important steps toward reflecting LGBTQIA+ individuals as consumers with a breadth and depth of consumption needs (Campana, Duffy, and Micheli 2022; Eichert and Luedicke 2022).

The complexities involved in reaching and serving LGBTQIA+ consumers call for marketing strategies that meaningfully connect with individuals, while addressing wider societal issues that arise when expanding access and representation. This article reflects these challenges and offers three principal contributions: (1) a systematization of the LGBTQIA+ literature in marketing and public policy, (2) a conceptual framework that charts the emergence and evolution of the LGBTQIA+ consumer market, and (3) a comprehensive research agenda to inspire future research.

First, we use bibliometric methods to take stock of the literature on substantive LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy and identify the most impactful contributions. Whereas previous review articles examine LGBTQIA+ related scholarship in adjacent disciplines and domains, such as human resource management (Byington, Tamm, and Trau 2021), travel and tourism (Kalargyrou and Costen 2017), and advertising (Eisend and Hermann 2019, 2020), our review article

systematizes and synthesizes multidisciplinary literature streams that examine both marketing and public policy implications of targeting and serving LGBTQIA+ consumers. In doing so, we delineate the conceptual structure of this literature domain and identify five thematic clusters representing substantive literature subdomains: consumer experiences, identities of marginalized consumers, imagery creation in advertising, marketplace policies, and minority targeting strategies.

Second, we examine the temporal evolution of this literature domain and identify three periods of scientific production, which we name crisis (1988–2003), marketization (2004–2019), and advocacy (2020–2022). Inspired by queer theoretics that view the evolution of gender and sexuality issues as dependent on historical and sociocultural discourses (Kates 1999; Pirani and Daskalopoulou 2022), we delineate these phases in relation to corporate and public policy advancements that affect LGBTQIA+ individuals globally. We consolidate these insights into a conceptual framework that unpacks how the LGBTQIA+ consumer market emerges and evolves.

Third, our framework inspires a research agenda to further academic inquiries on inclusive market access and representation of LGBTQIA+ consumers. We leverage insights from the analysis of the literature combined with queer theory discourses to identify priorities for future research on critical issues that impact LGBTQIA+ consumers during each stage of market emergence and evolution.

We begin with a description of the approach followed to sample the scholarship on LGBTQIA+ issues at the intersection of marketing and public policy. Then, we discuss the results of bibliometric coupling and automated text mining analyses that map key concepts and themes discussed in the five literature clusters identified. Next, we examine the thematic evolution of these clusters and integrate literature insights into a conceptual framework that delineates areas in which public policy actions are recommended.

## Review Approach and Article Sample Selection

We adopt a bibliometric approach combined with article full-text mining to map and synthesize the existing scholarship on LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy. Bibliometric methods allow researchers to examine a body of knowledge quantitatively; identify the most influential journals, articles, and authors; and delineate the conceptual structure of a specific literature domain (Homrich et al. 2018; Merigó et al. 2015). This approach reduces the potential selection and interpretation biases associated with narrative, qualitative reviews (Zupic and Čater 2015). By combining bibliometric methods with text mining, researchers enhance quantitative science mapping by examining key themes discussed in the literature and identifying relationships between the core concepts that form these themes (Kumar et al. 2020).

We used the scholarly database Scopus to extract articles relevant to LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy. The initial
search query included a combination of focal keywords (e.g., “lgbtqia +,” “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “transgender,” “queer,” “intersex,” “non-binary,” “sexual orientation,” “sexual identity”) and contextual keywords (e.g., “consumer,” “consumption,” “marketing,” “advertising,” “branding,” “market,” “product” “services,” “policy,” “public policy”). To ensure comprehensiveness and validity, the focal keyword selection was based on a preliminary review of recent contributions on LGBTQIA+ issues in the marketing and public policy domains (e.g., Eisend and Hermann 2019; Patel and Feng 2021) and a review of the research presented at the 2021 LGBTQ+ & Organizations virtual conference. Contextual keywords ensured the articles’ relevance to LGBTQIA+ issues within the specific fields of marketing and public policy (see Web Appendix A for a complete list of the keywords used).

At the conceptual level, this keyword selection is informed by queer theory (Kates 1999; Kirsch 2000; Rumens 2018) that deconstructs gender and sexuality beyond the traditional homosexual and heterosexual dichotomy. Consistent with queer discourses that highlight identity representation and validation (Kirsch 2000, p. 6), this research treats LGBTQIA+ identification as marked attributes or characteristics defined as “socially specialized” and often stigmatized, as opposed to unmarked identity attributes that are “socially generic,” neutral, or default characteristics (Brekhus 2003, p. 14). A marked identity conceptual lens enables this analysis to focus on the onset and evolution of research on LGBTQIA+ consumers as socially specialized, or distinct, consumer identities set apart from operating heteronormative assumptions in marketing and public policy literature (Pirani and Daskalopoulou 2022). As we aim to capture this constant becoming of LGBTQIA+ experiences beyond the homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy, our keywords reflect the evolution, complexity, and diversity embedded into the LGBTQIA+ spectrum.

We restricted our search to articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals to apply an initial quality check and extract a manageable sample. We included journals from a wide range of business and management domains to reflect the interdisciplinary nature of LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy, and to ensure an appropriate representation of the issues under investigation (see Web Appendix A for a complete list of journals). This initial query resulted in a sample of 381 articles. Three authors independently examined the articles' titles, abstracts, and keywords for relevancy. Empirical, conceptual, and review articles were retained if LGBTQIA+ issues represented the article's focus within the broader marketing and public policy contexts. This process resulted in a final sample of 156 articles published between 1988 and September 2022 (see Web Appendix B for a descriptive profiling of this literature sample).

In what follows, we combine insights from the analysis of the articles' bibliographic data and automated text mining of the articles' full text to map the literature on LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy. Through this multistage analysis, we identify and profile five article clusters that represent substantive literature subdomains. Next, we examine how the five article clusters contribute to the evolution of the academic conversation on LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy over the period analyzed (1988–2022).

# Mapping the Field: Topical Overview of the Literature on LGBTQIA+ Issues in Marketing and Public Policy

We adopt a two-stage sequential analysis involving (1) coupling analysis of articles' bibliographic data and (2) automated text mining of articles' full text. First, we conduct a bibliographic coupling analysis with the science mapping software VOSviewer to examine how articles are conceptually related and delineate article clusters representing literature subdomains (Van Eck et al. 2010). By accounting for the number of references that two articles have in common, bibliographic coupling generates a network map, in which the circles (nodes) represent articles in the sample, and the lines (edges) represent the links between the articles. This method assumes that articles that share references build on similar underpinnings, and, therefore, are conceptually connected (Zupic and Čater 2015). We combine bibliographic coupling with cluster analysis and identify five article clusters that form the conceptual structure of the literature domain analyzed (Figure 1), namely consumer experiences (Cluster 1), marginalized consumer identities (Cluster 2), imagery creation in advertising (Cluster 3), marketplace policies (Cluster 4), and minority targeting strategies (Cluster 5).

In the second stage, we use automated text mining to examine the articles' full text and identify substantive themes in each cluster. We operationalize this stage of our literature analysis with Leximancer, a coding software that employs a Bayesian algorithm to detect key concepts in a document and quantify their importance (Campbell et al. 2011). The software does this by detecting words that tend to co-occur and interpreting these words as the building blocks of ideas present in the text. Then, the software maps relationships between these concepts and clusters them to form higher-order themes (see Web Appendix C for more details on the automated text mining analysis).

For each literature cluster, we report the top six concept terms identified through text mining in Table 1 and list the three most influential contributions ranked by normalized citation number.<fnref n="2" /> We examine each cluster's contribution to LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy in subsequent sections.

## 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

<footnote n="2">² The normalized number of citations allows us to identify the more recent and promising contributions by taking into consideration that newer articles have less time to accumulate citations compared with older publications. VOSviewer computes the normalized number of citations as follows:</footnote>

<footnote>Normalized citations for an article = $\frac{\text{Total citations of an article}}{\text{Average citations for all articles published in the same year included in the sample}}$</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Literature Clusters Based on Bibliographic Coupling Analysis.</figcaption></figure>

Notes: Of the 156 articles included in the original sample, 11 articles are not connected to each other and are not represented in this bibliographic map (n = 145). To increase clusters' interpretability, we set a minimum cluster size of 15 articles. The size of each node (circle representing an article) is proportional to the normalized citation figure.

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
<table><caption>**Table 1.** LGBTQIA+ Issues in Marketing and Public Policy Literature Clusters.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Cluster</th><th rowspan="2">Cluster Focus</th><th rowspan="2">Emergent Concept Terms</th><th colspan="2">Most Influential Contributions<sup>a</sup></th></tr><tr><th>Authors and Year</th><th>Title</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cluster 1: consumer experiences<br>61 articles</td><td>How LGBTQIA+ consumers experience different service settings</td><td>Service<br>Experience<br>Sexual<br>Service and employees<br>Gender and trans<br>Service and discrimination</td><td>Ong,<br>Vorobjovas-Pinta,<br>and Lewis (2022)<br>Rosenbaum,<br>Seger-Guttmann,<br>and Giraldo (2017)<br>Anderson et al. (2018)</td><td>"LGBTIQ+ Identities in Tourism and Leisure Research: A Systematic Qualitative Literature Review"<br>"Commentary: Vulnerable Consumers in Service Settings"<br>"iObjectify: Self- and Other-Objectification on Grindr, a Geosocial Networking Application Designed for Men Who Have Sex with Men"</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 2: marginalized consumer identities<br>24 articles</td><td>How consumption allows LGBTQIA+ consumers to deal with stigma and discrimination</td><td>Consumption<br>Cultural<br>Community<br>Consumption and meanings<br>Cultural and meanings<br>Consumption and practices</td><td>Gurrieri and Cherrier (2013)<br>Kapoor and Belk (2022)<br>Kates (2004)</td><td>"Queering Beauty: Fatfashionistas in the Fatosphere"<br>"Coping and Career Choices: Irish Gay Men's Passage from Hopelessness to Redemption"<br>"The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An Interpretive Study in the Gay Men's Community"</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 3: imagery creation in advertising<br>22 articles</td><td>The effects of LGBTQIA+ advertising imagery on homosexual and heterosexual consumers</td><td>Advertising<br>Imagery<br>Heterosexual<br>Advertising and mainstream<br>Heterosexual and mainstream<br>Lesbian and mainstream</td><td>Grau and Zotos (2016)<br>Northey et al. (2020)</td><td>"Gender Stereotypes in Advertising: A Review of Current Research"<br>"LGBTQ Imagery in Advertising: How Viewers' Political Ideology Shapes Their Emotional Response to Gender and Sexuality in Advertisements"</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 4: marketplace policies<br>21 articles</td><td>Corporate social responsibility activities designed to empower LGBTQIA+ consumers</td><td>Companies<br>LGBTQ<br>Brand<br>Brand and positive<br>Companies and practices<br>Companies and public</td><td>Eisend and Hermann (2019)<br>Ginder, Kwon, and Byun (2021)<br>Aaker, Brumbaugh, and Grier (2000)</td><td>"Consumer Responses to Homosexual Imagery in Advertising: A Meta-Analysis"<br>"Influence for Social Good: Exploring the Roles of Influencer Identity and Comment Section in Instagram-Based LGBTQ-Centric Corporate Social Responsibility Advertising"<br>"Effects of Internal-External Congruence-Based CSR Positioning: An Attribution Theory Approach"<br>"Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes"</td></tr><tr><td>Cluster 5: minority targeting strategies<br>17 articles</td><td>The psychological determinants of LGBTQIA+ consumer behaviors</td><td>Lesbian<br>Homosexual<br>Mainstream<br>Mainstream and media<br>Homosexual and heterosexual<br>Lesbian and mainstream</td><td>Oakenfull, McCarthy, and Greenlee (2008)<br>Ginder and Byun (2015)<br>Oakenfull and Greenlee (2005)</td><td>"Targeting a Minority Without Alienating the Majority: Advertising to Gays and Lesbians in Mainstream Media"<br>"Past, Present, and Future of Gay and Lesbian Consumer Research: Critical Review of the Quest for the Queer Dollar"<br>"Queer Eye for a Gay Guy: Using Market-Specific Symbols in Advertising to Attract Gay Consumers Without Alienating the Mainstream"</td></tr></tbody></table>

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

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Articles are ranked according to total normalized number of citations.</footnote>
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.

## The Evolution of the Field: A Temporal Analysis of the LGBTQIA+ Scholarship in Marketing and Public Policy

We examine the temporal evolution of this literature domain by mapping peaks in publication trends that represent substantial shifts in the discourse on LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy (Humphreys 2010). To this end, we conduct a visual analysis of publication trends and inspect changes in average yearly scientific production (i.e., the average number of articles published each year).

Over the time period examined in this review (1988–September 2022), scientific production increases considerably, with a combined annual growth of 10.06% (Figure 2). A closer examination of publication trends reveals that this growth can be deconstructed into three main phases of academic
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Evolution of Scientific Production (Number of Articles Published Each Year).</figcaption></figure>

Notes: n = 156 articles.

production that can be detected through the visual inspection of yearly publication data. Phase 1 begins in 1988 (the year of the first publication included in our sample) and ends in 2003. We select 2003 as the cutoff year as scientific production becomes more stable from 2004, when Phase 2 begins. Phase 2 ends in 2019 before a noticeable peak in scientific production in 2020, which marks the beginning of Phase 3.

Phase 1 (1988 to 2003) encompasses 16 years during which academic contributions on LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy remain sporadic (average number of articles published per year = 1.2; total articles published = 19). Phase 2 (2004 to 2019) includes the subsequent 16 years that are characterized by a more regular and stable publication trend (average number of articles published per year = 5; total articles published = 80). Phase 3 (2020 to September 2022) witnesses a significant peak in academic production in a short time frame (average number of articles published per year = 19; total articles published = 57).

These three phases differ not only in terms of the quantity of academic production but also in the relative influence of the five thematic clusters identified previously (Figure 3). In the first phase, the academic conversation is shaped primarily by issues related to LGBTQIA+ consumers’ access, or the lack of it, to services (Cluster 1), marginalization experiences (Cluster 2), and initial attempts to curtail discrimination (Cluster 4). This crisis phase reflects the pervasive effect of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on LGBTQIA+ consumers and the emergence of marketplace practices designed to support these consumers. Although Cluster 1 remains dominant throughout, the second phase witnesses an increase in the number of articles focusing on LGBTQIA+ identity formation (Cluster 2), advertising representation (Cluster 3), and targeted marketing strategies (Cluster 5). This shift toward marketization reflects the growing importance of LGBTQIA+ consumers as a viable

target market. The third phase is characterized by a growing interest in marketplace policies designed to tackle equality, diversity, and inclusion issues affecting LGBTQIA+ consumers (Cluster 4). This literature highlights the crucial advocacy function that different organizations can play when establishing closer relationships with this consumer community and championing their specific needs. In the following sections, we examine the three temporal phases with reference to the core themes that characterize them.

## 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
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Literature Clusters’ Contribution to Each Phase Based on the Number of Articles.</figcaption></figure>

Notes: n = 145. Of the 156 articles included in the original sample, 11 articles are not connected to each other and are, therefore, not included in any cluster.

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
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Representation of Different Sexualities and Gender Identities in the Literature Sample.</figcaption></figure>

Notes: The figure shows the percentage of articles that examine specific sexualities and gender identities included in the LGBTQIA+ spectrum: L = lesbian, G = gay, B = bisexual, T = transgender, Q = queer, I = intersex, A = asexual, + (plus) = other identities. The analysis is based on manual coding of the 156 articles included in the sample.

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).

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.

## Moving Forward: A Framework and Research Agenda for the LGBTQIA+ Consumer Market Emergence and Evolution

Informed by queer theory discourses that view issues around gender and sexual identities as fundamentally fluid and capable of producing disruptive social changes (Kirsch 2000; Pirani and Daskalopoulou 2022), we integrate insights from our cluster and temporal analyses to propose a conceptual framework (Figure 5) that charts the progression of the LGBTQIA+ consumer market from crisis to marketization to advocacy. We further support our theorizing by mapping substantive changes in marketing practice (Table 2) and public
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** LGBTQIA+ Consumer Market Emergence and Evolution Framework.</figcaption></figure>

policy (Table 3) stances affecting the LGBTQIA+ communities over the three phases analyzed.

In the crisis phase, there is a reactive stance in the market. There is also a focus on crisis scoping, in which marketing practice attempts to understand how emerging crises can be addressed within the existing market. Policy makers respond by articulating ad hoc emergency strategies.

In the marketization phase, there is a normalization of marginalized consumer identities, whereby LGBTQIA+ consumers are considered new segments within the existing market structure. The stance of marketing practice consists of conducting an accurate segmentation to target them more effectively. Policy makers try to fit LGBTQIA+ consumers into existing structures, creating policies to address inequalities.

In the advocacy phase, there is proactive reformation, in which organizations rearrange the market to respond promptly to the needs of LGBTQIA+ consumers. The marketing practice stance is to adopt a purpose-driven change, whereby marketing activities are permeated with a social purpose beyond profitability. Public policies champion the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ consumers within mainstream society, advocating for change.

Our framework helps us understand how the LGBTQIA+ consumer market might evolve and identify critical inflection points of this evolution: (1) when the crisis emerges, (2) when the crisis turns toward normalizing through marketization, and (3) when the marketization tips into advocacy and market reformation occurs. By reflecting on how these inflection points might unfold in the three phases identified, we unpack the components of our phasic framework with reference to the evolution of corporate and public policies. For each phase, we propose a research agenda for marketing and public policy scholars interested in furthering academic inquiry into LGBTQIA+ consumers and, potentially, other marginalized consumer groups (Table 4).

## 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
<table><caption>Table 2. Examples of Corporate Policies Directed Toward LGBTQIA+ Consumers.</caption><thead><tr><th>Marketing Practice Stance</th><th>Organization</th><th>Industry</th><th>Policy</th><th>Launch Year</th><th>Target of the Policy</th><th>Focus of Protection</th><th>Key Features</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="8">Phase 1: Crisis</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Crisis scoping</td><td>New York Times</td><td>Media</td><td>Condom ads</td><td>1986</td><td>General audiences inside and outside LGBTQIA+ community (B2C)</td><td rowspan="2">This newspaper announced it would reexamine the existing ban on prophylactic and contraceptive ads, with the aim to fight the threat posed by the AIDS epidemic. The original Viva Glam campaign launched in collaboration with LGBTQIA+ spokespeople to create awareness around the HIV/AIDS crisis. Ongoing campaign aimed to create awareness around several issues for marginalized communities.</td><td rowspan="2">Aim to counterbalance the governmental policies forbidding the airing of condom ads</td></tr><tr><td>MAC Cosmetics</td><td>Cosmetics</td><td>Viva Glam</td><td>1994</td><td>Marginalized communities (B2C)</td><td>Engagement of personalities to spread awareness messages</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Phase 2: Marketization</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Segmentation</td><td>Anastasia Beverly Hills</td><td>Cosmetics</td><td>Partnership with the Trevor Project</td><td>2019</td><td>Young LGBTQIA+ individuals (B2C)</td><td rowspan="2">Partnership with the Trevor Project aimed to end suicide among young LGBTQIA+ individuals. Specific makeup products were launched to collect funds for donations to the project.</td><td rowspan="2">Support for the well-being of consumers</td></tr><tr><td>Stoli Vodka</td><td>Alcoholic beverages</td><td>Stoli Key West Cocktail Classic</td><td>2013</td><td>LGBTQIA+ bartenders (B2C and B2B)</td><td>Collaboration with institutional actors (e.g., nongovernmental organizations)</td></tr><tr><td>Airbnb</td><td>Hospitality</td><td>Gay Chorus Deep South</td><td>2019</td><td>General audiences inside and outside the LGBTQIA+ community (B2C and B2B)</td><td>Events focused on specific needs of the LGBTQIA+ community (e.g., festivals for bartenders).</td><td>Involvement of LGBTQIA+ community members</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>The organization financed and produced the documentary film Gay Chorus Deep South, which focused on the challenges a group of gay singers faced as they brought their music into people's homes, churches, and concert halls.</td><td>Long-term collaboration with the community Reiteration of challenges experienced by LGBTQIA+ individuals</td></tr><tr><td colspan="8">Phase 3: Advocacy</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Purpose-driven change</td><td>Orbitz</td><td>Travel</td><td>Travel as you are</td><td>2021</td><td>LGBTQIA+ travelers (B2C)</td><td rowspan="2">The campaign encouraged people to travel on their own terms, overcoming the standards imposed by society.</td><td rowspan="2">Authentic representation of customer target</td></tr><tr><td>Edelweiss General Insurance</td><td>Insurance</td><td>Group health policy</td><td>2022</td><td>LGBTQIA+ individuals in India (B2C)</td><td>Departure from mainstream advertising</td></tr><tr><td>Lush</td><td>Cosmetics</td><td>Gay is OK</td><td>2022</td><td>Florida's LGBTQIA+ individuals (B2C)</td><td>Group health insurance policy was extended to include members of the LGBTQIA+ community.</td><td>Increased access</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Limited-edition "Gay is OK" soap bar was produced in response to the Florida's</td><td>Discrimination avoidance</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>Table 2. (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Marketing Practice Stance</th><th>Organization</th><th>Industry</th><th>Policy</th><th>Launch Year</th><th>Target of the Policy</th><th>Focus of Protection</th><th>Key Features</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Virgin Atlantic</td><td>Travel</td><td>Pronoun badges and gender-neutral markers for ticket booking</td><td>2022</td><td>Customers who do not identify with a specific gender (B2C)</td><td>Parental Rights in Education Act (“Don’t Say Gay bill”). The proceedings supported civil rights organization Equality Florida.<br>Gender pronoun badges are allowed for staff, and gendered uniform requirement was eliminated. Pronoun badges will also be available to customers at check-in desks. Customers with gender-neutral markers on their passports will be able to select gender-neutral markers for their ticket bookings.</td><td>Integration of institutional actors (e.g., nongovernmental organizations)<br>Increase of customers’ well-being<br>Introduction of policies facilitating access to services</td></tr></tbody></table>

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
<table><caption>Table 3. Examples of Public Policies Targeting LGBTQIA+ Communities.</caption><thead><tr><th>Public Policy Stance</th><th>Location</th><th>Policy</th><th>Launch Year</th><th>Target<sup>a</sup></th><th>Focus of Protection</th><th>Key Features</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Phase 1: Crisis</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Emergency strategies</td><td>United States (Iowa)</td><td>Iowa Civil Rights Commission: Housing nondiscrimination act</td><td>1964 (with subsequent amendments)</td><td>C</td><td>Housing nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people from being unfairly evicted, denied housing, or refused the ability to rent or buy housing based on their sexual orientation or gender identity</td><td>Amendments to extend the focus of protection<br>Collaboration between state, local, and federal levels</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>United States (Minnesota)</td><td>Executive Order 91-4</td><td>1991</td><td>E</td><td>Avoiding discrimination of government employees</td><td>Ensuring equal treatment of employment</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>EU</td><td>Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000</td><td>2000</td><td>E</td><td>Equal treatment in employment and occupation, preventing discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation</td><td>Ensuring equal treatment of employment<br>Ensuring fundamental rights</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Phase 2: Marketization</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Fitting</td><td>EU</td><td>EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 21</td><td>2007</td><td>S</td><td>Prohibiting discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership in a national minority, property, birth, disability, age, or sexual orientation</td><td>Nondiscrimination<br>Inclusion</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>UK</td><td>Equality Act 2010</td><td>2010</td><td>C</td><td>Ensuring that providers of goods, facilities, and services cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity</td><td>Protection in the workplace and the wider society<br>Replacing previous antidiscrimination laws with a single act</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>United States</td><td>Repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule</td><td>2011</td><td>S</td><td>Allowing members of the LGBTQIA+ community to join the military</td><td>Nondiscrimination<br>Inclusion</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>United States</td><td>Protections for employees of federal contractors and subcontractors (Executive Order 11246)</td><td>2014</td><td>E</td><td>Modification of Executive Order 13672 to prohibit contractors and subcontractors from discriminating based on "sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin"</td><td>Developing guidelines for the establishment of contracts<br>Investigation of employment practices</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>UK</td><td>Legalization of same-sex marriage</td><td>2014</td><td>S</td><td>Allowing same-sex couples to marry in civil and religious ceremonies, where the religious organization has opted to conduct such ceremonies and the minister of religion agree, while protecting religious organizations and their representatives that do not wish to</td><td>Permitting same-sex couple marriages with civil and religious ceremonies<br>Providing protection</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>Table 3. (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Public Policy Stance</th><th>Location</th><th>Policy</th><th>Launch Year</th><th>Target<sup>a</sup></th><th>Focus of Protection</th><th>Key Features</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>UK</td><td>LGBT Action Plan</td><td>2018</td><td>S</td><td>conduct marriages of same-sex couples from legal challenges<br>Improving the well-being of LGBT people (e.g., introduction of an LGBT national adviser to reduce inequalities, extension of antibullying programs in schools, development of proposals to end conversion therapy, improvement of recording and reporting of LGBT hate crimes)<br>Bill proposal prohibiting discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity with respect to public accommodations and facilities (i.e., facilities that provide recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; goods, services, or programs)</td><td>Advancing equality<br>Removing barriers for LGBT people</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Phase 3: Advocacy</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Championing</td><td>United States</td><td>Bostock v. Clayton County</td><td>2020</td><td>E</td><td>Supreme Court ruling that Title VII makes it unlawful for a covered employer to take an employee's sexual orientation or transgender status into account in making employment-related decisions</td><td>Protection of employees regardless of citizenship or immigration status, including instances of hiring, demotions, training, work assignments, and all general conditions of employment</td></tr><tr><td>EU</td><td>Guidelines for Strategies and Action Plans to Enhance LGBTIQ Equality</td><td>2021</td><td>S</td><td>Supporting concrete action to protect the rights of LGBTIQ+ people and identifying useful policies, strategies, and action plans to be implemented by EU member states</td><td>Ensuring assessment of equality situation<br>Setting measurable priorities for measuring equality</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>United States (Hawaii)</td><td>Gender Affirming Treatment Act (HB2405)</td><td>2022</td><td>C</td><td>Prohibiting health insurers and similar organizations from applying exclusions to gender-affirming treatments or procedures, requiring them to specify a process for appealing a claim denied on the basis of medical necessity, and requiring organizations to provide applicants and insured persons with clear information about the coverage of gender transition services</td><td>Ensuring legal protection<br>Focus on health<br>Forbidding exclusions by insurers</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>aC = consumers, E = employees, S = wider society.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 4.** Future Research Agenda for Marketing and Public Policy Research into LGBTQIA+ Issues.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Phase</th><th rowspan="2">Potential Important Questions for Future Research</th><th colspan="5">Cluster</th></tr><tr><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Crisis</td><td>How can researchers, policy makers, and marketers spot a crisis in the LGBTQIA+ consumer market?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>What is the relationship between marketing and public policy to address a crisis affecting the LGBTQIA+ consumer market?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>What are the characteristics of the LGBTQIA+ consumer market in the crisis phase?</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>What are the ongoing crises affecting the LGBTQIA+ consumer market that need to be addressed (e.g., violence and discrimination against transgender people)?</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>How can policy makers and marketers work together to develop long-lasting responses to crises for markets that incorporate marginalized consumers (including LGBTQIA+ consumers)?</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>How do researchers, policy makers, and marketers spot the emergence of a consumer market after the crisis?</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Marketization</td><td>How does a crisis affecting LGBTQIA+ consumers evolve into marketization?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>What triggers marketers to switch their focus from the purchasing power of LGBTQIA+ consumers to an interest in consumer well-being, inclusion, and authentic representation?</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>What are the roots of specific LGBTQIA+ identities exclusion in the marketization phase?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>How can marketers and policy makers adopt an intersectional perspective to inclusion, paying attention to the most vulnerable identities in the LGBTQIA+ community?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>What are the strategies that policy makers and marketers can adopt to spot marginalized LGBTQIA+ identities and effectively target them?</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>How can marketers leverage the practices implemented for LGBTQIA+ consumer markets to be generally more inclusive with other marginalized consumers?</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>How do marginalized consumers (including LGBTQIA+ consumers) respond to stereotypical targeting strategies?</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">Advocacy</td><td>When and how do marketers begin to act as advocates against discriminatory public policy decisions affecting LGBTQIA+ consumers?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>How can marketers influence policy makers to develop focused policies that safeguard the LGBTQIA+ consumer market?</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>What does socially unfettered consumer market access look like?</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>What types of discrimination exist for LGBTQIA+ consumers and families accessing services (e.g., healthcare, housing)?</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>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?</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>How can we distinguish instances of brand activism from marketing strategies that only aim to profitably target LGBTQIA+ consumers?</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>How can marketers counteract accusations of rainbow-washing?</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>How do different LGBTQIA+ consumers perceive inclusive representations?</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>How is advocacy perceived by different identities within the LGBTQIA+ consumer market?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>How can being more inclusive in services make LGBTQIA+ consumers visible? How can this enhance their market power?</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>What characterizes authentic and broadly inclusive consumer markets for other marginalized consumers?</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>How does culturally sensitive market representation emerge and how does it manifest?</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

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 iden-
tities 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 discrimina-
tion. 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 cus-
tomers. 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 mar-
ginalized 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 tra-
ditionally 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 jour-
neys, 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 con-
sumers' reactions to more nuanced representations of
LGBTQIA+ sexualities and gender identities (Taylor 2022).
This could lead to questions such as these: What types of dis-
crimination 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.

Research Contributions and Limitations

This article systematically reviews the existing scholarship on LGBTQIA+ issues at the intersection of marketing and public policy and delineates a framework for how the LGBTQIA+ consumer market has emerged and evolved. In doing so, this article offers three contributions that aim to inspire future research on more inclusive marketplace practices.

First, by examining a sample of 156 academic articles, we
identify five distinct literature clusters, which represent substan-
tive literature subdomains. We show that the literature on
LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and public policy focuses
extensively on consumer experiences (Cluster 1), marginalized
consumer identities (Cluster 2), imagery creation in advertising
(Cluster 3), marketplace policies (Cluster 4), and minority tar-
geting strategies (Cluster 5). Although these are important
aspects that relate to the consumption practices of
LGBTQIA+ consumers, our review highlights that organiza-
tions need to consider a broader range of aspects, specifically
looking at the evolution of the LGBTQIA+ consumer market
and the role played by corporate policies in supporting
LGBTQIA+ consumers. Second, we examine the thematic evo-
lution of the five clusters over a period of 35 years (1988 to
2022) and identify three phases that reflect the development
of the LGBTQIA+ consumer market, namely crisis, marketiza-
tion, and advocacy. The phasic framework that emerges from
our analyses identifies inflection points corresponding to (1)
initial crisis emergence, (2) evolution of the crisis toward nor-
malizing through marketization, and (3) transition from market-
ization into corporate advocacy, leading to market reformation.
Third, we leverage insights from this framework to propose a
research agenda that aims to inspire scholars to further knowl-
edge of important issues surrounding LGBTQIA+ consumers.

Although this article offers a comprehensive organization of
the existing scholarship on LGBTQIA+ issues in marketing and
public policy, our work is not immune from limitations. First,
the scope of bibliometric methods is limited to the initial
keyword selection. To reduce any significant biases that could
occur in the selection stage, we examined impactful contribu-
tions in this literature domain to identify the keywords com-
monly used by authors and indexed in scholarly databases.
Furthermore, we reviewed the presentations at a recent confer-
ence on LGBTQIA+ issues in management and organizations
to ensure both the relevancy and currency of our final
keyword selection. Our keyword selection is also guided by a
critical examination of queer theory discourses (Kates 2002;
Pirani and Daskalopoulou 2022; Rumens 2018), which call
for a more inclusive awareness and representation of gender
and sexual identities that emerge in LGBTQIA+ spectrum.
Second, our sample is based on articles indexed in scholarly
databases up to September 2022. Some articles might appear
in a database sooner than others, and different journals index
articles by using different publication codes at different stages
(i.e., print and electronic International Standard Serial
Numbers), leading to possible omissions. Third, most of the
articles we cite and the policies we review focus on the
United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom. We acknowl-
edge that a larger sample of countries, policies, and languages
could offer invaluable insights to further understand the experi-
ences of marginalized LGBTQIA+ consumers.

Concluding Thoughts

Overall, although this analysis begins with a marked identity
attribute lens (Brekhus 2003, p. 14), it highlights how the liter-
ature evolves to recognize LGBTQIA+ identification as less
marked and less stigmatized. Initially aligned with the sociolog-
ical construct of master status, where a social characteristic or
position dominates an individual’s identity (Hunt 2007), the lit-
erature moves from considering LGBTQIA+ consumers as

defined by their gender or sexuality toward a more holistic
understanding of these consumers and their intersectional iden-
tity characteristics, such as professional, parent, and suburbanite
(Valdez and Golash-Boza 2020). This analysis suggests that this
shift is consistent with moving beyond crisis toward marketiza-
tion and later advocacy.

With this article, we aim to inspire new research avenues that consider the full spectrum of LGBTQIA+ and, possibly, other marginalized consumers’ experiences. At the same time, we hope that policy makers and organizations can leverage our insights and conceptual framework to identify new ways of collaborating to develop more inclusive marketplace policies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express gratitude to the JPP&M review team for their support and guidance during the review process and for their valuable suggestions and comments, which greatly improved the overall contribution of the article. The authors also extend thanks to Kirk Plangger of King's College London for his helpful comments.

Editor

Maura L. Scott

Associate Editor

Benet DeBerry-Spence

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Matteo Montecchi ID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5884-4503

Maria Rita Micheli ID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2678-4486

References

Aaker, Jennifer L., Anne M. Brumbaugh, and Sonya A. Grier (2000), “Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes,” *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 9 (3), 127–40.

Adams, Jeffery, Stephen Neville, Karl Parker, and Taisia Huckle (2017), “Influencing Condom Use by Gay and Bisexual Men for Anal Sex Through Social Marketing: A Program Evaluation of *Get It On!!*,” *Social Marketing Quarterly*, 23 (1), 3–17.

Åkestam, Nina, Sara Rosengren, and Micael Dahlen (2017), “Think About It – Can Portrayals of Homosexuality in Advertising Prime Consumer-Perceived Social Connectedness and Empathy?” *European Journal of Marketing*, 51 (1), 82–98.

Anderson, Joel R., Elise Holland, Yasin Koc, and Nick Haslam (2018), “iObjectify: Self- and Other-Objectification on Grindr, a Geosocial Networking Application Designed for Men Who Have Sex with Men,” *European Journal of Social Psychology*, 48 (5), 600–613.
Andriotis, Konstantinos (2010), “Heterotopic Erotic Oases,” *Annals of Tourism Research*, 37 (4), 1076–96.

Arsel, Zeynep, David Crockett, and Maura L. Scott (2022), “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in the *Journal of Consumer Research: A Curation and Research Agenda*,” *Journal of Consumer Research*, 48 (5), 920–33.

Aung, May and Ou Sha (2016), “Clothing Consumption Culture of a Neo-Tribe: Gay Professionals Within the Subculture of Gay Consumers,” *Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management*, 20 (1), 34–53.

Batista, Juliana Moreira, Lucia S.G. Barros, Fabricia V. Peixoto, and Delane Botelho (2022), “Sarcastic or Assertive: How Should Brands Reply to Consumers’ Uncivil Comments on Social Media in the Context of Brand Activism?” *Journal of Interactive Marketing*, 57 (1), 141–58.

Bettany, Shona, Jack Coffin, Christian Eichert, and David Rowe (2022), “Stigmas That Matter: Diffracting Marketing Stigma Theoretics,” *Marketing Theory*, 22 (4), 501–18.

Branchik, Blaine J. (2002), “Out in the Market: A History of the Gay Market Segment in the United States,” *Journal of Macromarketing*, 22 (1), 86–97.

Branchik, Blaine J. (2007), “Pansies to Parents: Gay Male Images in American Print Advertising,” *Journal of Macromarketing*, 27 (1), 38–50.

Brekhus, Wayne H. (2003), *Peacocks, Chameleons, Centaurs: Gay Suburbia and the Grammar of Social Identity*. University of Chicago Press.

Burnett, John J. (2000), “Gays: Feelings About Advertising and Media Used,” *Journal of Advertising Research*, 40 (1–2), 75–84.

Byington, Eliza K., Georg F.B. Tamm, and Raymond N.C. Trau (2021), “Mapping Sexual Orientation Research in Management: A Review and Research Agenda,” *Human Resource Management*, 60 (1), 31–53.

Campana, Mario, Katherine Duffy, and Maria Rita Micheli (2022), “‘We’re All Born Naked and the Rest Is Drag’: Spectacularization of Core Stigma in RuPaul’s Drag Race,” *Journal of Management Studies*, 59 (8), 1950–86.

Campbell, Colin, Leyland F. Pitt, Michael Parent, and Pierre R. Berthon (2011), “Understanding Consumer Conversations Around Ads in a Web 2.0 World,” *Journal of Advertising*, 40 (1), 87–102.

Carlson, Les and Robert Harrison (2010), “Family Public Policy in the United States,” *Journal of Macromarketing*, 30 (4), 320–30.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), “Guidance on Management of COVID-19 in Homeless Service Sites and in Correctional and Detention Facilities,” (accessed May 29, 2023), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/homeless-correctional-settings.html.

Cheded, Mohammed and Chihling Liu (2022), “‘Which Part of the Day Is (Wo)Man O’Clock?’: Desires, Urges and Possibilities of (Un) Becoming,” *Marketing Theory*, 22 (1), 67–84.

Cheng, Yimin, Xiaoyu Zhou, and Kai Yao (2022), “LGBT-Inclusive Representation in Entertainment Products and Its Market Response: Evidence from Field and Lab,” *Journal of Business Ethics*, 183, 1189–209.

Clift, Stephen and Simon Forrest (1999), “Gay Men and Tourism: Destinations and Holiday Motivations,” *Tourism Management*, 20 (5), 615–25.

Congress.gov (2021), “H.R.5744 – 117th Congress (2021–2022): Customer Non-Discrimination Act,” (accessed December 16, 2022), https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5744.

Duncan-Shepherd, Sophie and Kathy Hamilton (2022), “‘Generally, I Live a Lie’: Transgender Consumer Experiences and Responses to Symbolic Violence,” *Journal of Consumer Affairs*, 56 (4), 1597–616.

Eichert, Christian A. and Marius K. Luedicke (2022), “Almost Equal: Consumption Under Fragmented Stigma,” *Journal of Consumer Research*, 49 (3), 409–29.

Eisend, Martin and Erik Hermann (2019), “Consumer Responses to Homosexual Imagery in Advertising: A Meta-Analysis,” *Journal of Advertising*, 48 (4), 380–400.

Eisend, Martin and Erik Hermann (2020), “Sexual Orientation and Consumption: Why and When Do Homosexuals and Heterosexuals Consume Differently?” *International Journal of Research in Marketing*, 37 (4), 678–96.

El Hazzouri, Mohammed, Kelley J. Main, and Lisa Sinclair (2019), “Out of the Closet: When Moral Identity and Protestant Work Ethic Improve Attitudes Toward Advertising Featuring Same-Sex Couples,” *Journal of Advertising*, 48 (2), 181–96.

European Commission Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (2022), “Guidelines for Strategies and Action Plans to Enhance LGBTIQ Equality,” (accessed May 24, 2023), https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/733032.

Flores-Zamora, Javier (2023), “Effects of Physical Appearance of Ad Endorsers Featured in Gay-Targeted Ads, Explained by Endorser Match-Up and Identification,” *International Journal of Advertising*, 42 (2), 408–29.

Ginder, Whitney and Sang-Eun Byun (2015), “Past, Present, and Future of Gay and Lesbian Consumer Research: Critical Review of the Quest for the *Queer Dollar*,” *Psychology & Marketing*, 32 (8), 821–41.

Ginder, Whitney, Wi-Suk Kwon, and Sang-Eun Byun (2021), “Effects of Internal–External Congruence-Based CSR Positioning: An Attribution Theory Approach,” *Journal of Business Ethics*, 169 (2), 355–69.

GLAAD and P&G (2021), “The Visibility Project,” GLAAD (accessed December 16, 2022), https://www.glaad.org/visibility-project.

GOV.UK (2013), “Same Sex Marriage Becomes Law,” (July 17), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/same-sex-marriage-becomes-law.

Grau, Stacy Landreth and Yorgos C. Zotos (2016), “Gender Stereotypes in Advertising: A Review of Current Research,” *International Journal of Advertising*, 35 (5), 761–70.

Grier, Sonya A. and Anne M. Brumbaugh (1999), “Noticing Cultural Differences: Ad Meanings Created by Target and Non-Target Markets,” *Journal of Advertising*, 28 (1), 79–93.

Gudelunas, David (2011), “Consumer Myths and the Gay Men and Women Who Believe Them: A Qualitative Look at Movements and Markets: A Qualitative Look at Movements and Markets,” *Psychology & Marketing*, 28 (1), 53–68.

Gurrieri, Lauren and Hélène Cherrier (2013), “Queering Beauty: Fatshionistas in the Fatosphere,” *Qualitative Market Research*, 16 (3), 276–95.

Guyan, Kevin (2021), “For Queer Communities, Being Counted Has Downsides,” *Wired* (December 15), https://www.wired.com/story/queer-data-census-equality/.
Hadjisolomou, Anastasios (2021), "Doing and Negotiating Transgender on the Front Line: Customer Abuse, Transphobia and Stigma in the Food Retail Sector," *Work, Employment and Society*, 35 (5), 979-88.

Haslop, Craig, Helene Hill, and Ruth A. Schmidt (1998), "The Gay Lifestyle - Spaces for a Subculture of Consumption," *Marketing Intelligence & Planning*, 16 (5), 318-26.

Hildebrand, Diogo, Yoshiko DeMotta, Sankar Sen, and Kritika Kongsompong (2013), "In-Group and Out-Group Influences on the Consumption Behavior of Minority Groups: The Case of Gay Men," *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, 32 (Special Issue), 70-78.

Hoefer, Richard (2019), *Advocacy Practice for Social Justice*. Oxford University Press.

Homrich, Aline Sacchi, Graziela Galvão, Lorena Gamboa Abadia, and Marly M. Carvalho (2018), “The Circular Economy Umbrella: Trends and Gaps on Integrating Pathways,” *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 175, 525–43.

Hsieh, Ming Huei and Shu Ling Wu (2011), “Gay Men’s Identity Attempt Pathway and Its Implication on Consumption,” *Psychology & Marketing*, 28 (4), 388–416.

Hull, Shawnika J., Mari Gasiorowicz, Gary Hollander, and Kofi Short (2013), “Using Theory to Inform Practice: The Role of Formative Research in the Construction and Implementation of the Acceptance Journeys Social Marketing Campaign to Reduce Homophobia,” *Social Marketing Quarterly*, 19 (3), 139–55.

Human Rights Campaign (2022), “Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” (accessed December 16, 2022), https://www.hrc.org/our-work/stories/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell.

Humphreys, Ashlee (2010), “Semiotic Structure and the Legitimation of Consumption Practices: The Case of Casino Gambling,” *Journal of Consumer Research*, 37 (3), 490–510.

Hunt, Stephen (2007), “Master Status,” in *The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology*. John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson, Meredith (2022), “The Dangerous Consequences of Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill on LGBTQ+ Youth in Florida,” *Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law*, 23 (3), https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/online/volume-xxiii-online/the-dangerous-consequences-of-floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-on-lgbtq-youth-in-florida/.

Kalargyrou, Valentini and Wanda Costen (2017), “Diversity Management Research in Hospitality and Tourism: Past, Present and Future,” *International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management*, 29 (1), 68–114.

Kapoor, Vikram and Russell W. Belk (2022), “Coping and Career Choices: Irish Gay Men’s Passage from Hopelessness to Redemption,” *Consumption Markets & Culture*, 25 (1), 52–78.

Kates, Steven M. (1999), “Making the Ad Perfectly Queer: Marketing ‘Normality’ to the Gay Men’s Community?” *Journal of Advertising*, 28 (1), 25–37.

Kates, Steven M. (2000), “Out of the Closet and Out on the Street! Gay Men and Their Brand Relationships,” *Psychology and Marketing*, 17 (6), 493–513.

Kates, Steven M. (2002), “The Protean Quality of Subcultural Consumption: An Ethnographic Account of Gay Consumers,” *Journal of Consumer Research*, 29 (3), 383–99.

Kates, Steven M. (2004), “The Dynamics of Brand Legitimacy: An Interpretive Study in the Gay Men’s Community,” *Journal of Consumer Research*, 31 (2), 455–64.

Kirsch, Max H. (2000), *Queer Theory and Social Change*. Routledge.

Kitzie, Vanessa (2019), “‘That Looks Like Me or Something I Can Do’: Affordances and Constraints in the Online Identity Work of US LGBTQ+ Millennials,” *Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology*, 70 (12), 1340–51.

Knauer, Nancy J. (2012), “Legal Consciousness and LGBT Research: The Role of the Law in the Everyday Lives of LGBT Individuals,” *Journal of Homosexuality*, 59 (5), 748–56.

Krishnakumar, Priya and Devan Cole (2022), “2022 Is Already a Record Year for State Bills Seeking to Curtail LGBTQ Rights, ACLU Data Shows,” CNN (July 17), https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/17/politics/state-legislation-lgbtq-rights/index.html.

Krohn, Franklin B. and Laura M. Milner (1989), “The Aids Crisis: Unethical Marketing Leads to Negligent Homicide,” *Journal of Business Ethics*, 8 (10), 773–80.

Kumar, Bipul, Arun Sharma, Sanket Vatavwala, and Prashant Kumar (2020), “Digital Mediation in Business-to-Business Marketing: A Bibliometric Analysis,” *Industrial Marketing Management*, 85, 126–40.

LGBT Capital (2020), “Estimated LGBT Purchasing Power: LGBT GDP Data as of Year-End 2019,” (accessed February 14, 2022), http://www.lgbt-capital.com/docs/Estimated_LGBT-GDP_(table)_2020.pdf.

Li, Minjie (2022), “Influence for Social Good: Exploring the Roles of Influencer Identity and Comment Section in Instagram-Based LGBTQ-Centric Corporate Social Responsibility Advertising,” *International Journal of Advertising*, 41 (3), 462–99.

Mahowald, Lindsay, Sharita Gruberg, and John Halpin (2020), “The State of the LGBTQ Community in 2020,” Center for American Progress (October 6), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/state-lgbtq-community-2020/.

Mamali, Elizabeth and Lorna Stevens (2020), “When Same-Sex Couples Say ‘I Do’: Display Work and the (Re)Production of the Wedding Rite,” *Sociology*, 54 (5), 987–1003.

McDonald, Robert E., Debra A. Laverie, and Kerry T. Manis (2021), “The Interplay Between Advertising and Society: An Historical Analysis,” *Journal of Macromarketing*, 41 (4), 585–609.

McGovern, Terry (2022), “Overturning Roe v Wade Has Had an Immediate Chilling Effect on Reproductive Healthcare,” *BMJ*, 377, o1622.

McGuire, Jenifer K., Sloan Okrey Anderson, and Cari Michaels (2022), “‘I Don’t Think You Belong in Here’: The Impact of Gender Segregated Bathrooms on the Safety, Health, and Equality of Transgender People,” *Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services*, 34 (1), 40–62.

McKenna, Brad (2020), “Creating Convivial Affordances: A Study of Virtual World Social Movements,” *Information Systems Journal*, 30 (1), 185–214.

Merigó, José M., Alicia Mas-Tur, Norat Roig-Tierno, and Domingo Ribeiro-Soriano (2015), “A Bibliometric Overview of the *Journal of Business Research* Between 1973 and 2014,” *Journal of Business Research*, 68 (12), 2645–53.
Mimoun, Laetitia, Lez Trujillo-Torres, and Francesca Sobande (2022), "Social Emotions and the Legitimation of the Fertility Technology Market," *Journal of Consumer Research*, 48 (6), 1073-95.

Netflix (2022), "Work Life Philosophy," (accessed December 16, 2022), https://jobs.netflix.com/work-life-philosophy.

Northey, Gavin, Rebecca Dolan, Jane Etheridge, Felix Septianto, and Patrick van Esch (2020), “LGBTQ Imagery in Advertising: How Viewers’ Political Ideology Shapes Their Emotional Response to Gender and Sexuality in Advertisements,” *Journal of Advertising Research*, 60 (2), 222–36.

Oakenfull, Gillian K. (2012), “Gay Consumers and Brand Usage: The Gender-Flexing Role of Gay Identity,” *Psychology & Marketing*, 29 (12), 968–79.

Oakenfull, Gillian K. (2013), “What Matters: Factors Influencing Gay Consumers’ Evaluations of ‘Gay-Friendly’ Corporate Activities,” *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, 32 (Special Issue), 79–89.

Oakenfull, Gillian K. (2021), “Representing Fifty Shades of Gay in the LGBTQ+ Marketplace,” *Forbes* (June 1), https://www.forbes.com/sites/gillianoakenfull/2021/06/01/representing-fifty-shades-of-gay-in-the-lgbtq-marketplace/.

Oakenfull, Gillian K. and Timothy B. Greenlee (2005), “Queer Eye for a Gay Guy: Using Market-Specific Symbols in Advertising to Attract Gay Consumers Without Alienating the Mainstream,” *Psychology and Marketing*, 22 (5), 421–39.

Oakenfull, Gillian K., Michael S. McCarthy, and Timothy B. Greenlee (2008), “Targeting a Minority Without Alienating the Majority: Advertising to Gays and Lesbians in Mainstream Media,” *Journal of Advertising Research*, 48 (2), 191–98.

Olson, Eric and Heelye (Jason) Park (2019), “The Impact of Age on Gay Consumers’ Reaction to the Physical and Social Servicescape in Gay Bars,” *International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management*, 31 (9), 3683–701.

Ong, Faith, Oscar Vorobjovas-Pinta, and Clifford Lewis (2022), “LGBTIQ+ Identities in Tourism and Leisure Research: A Systematic Qualitative Literature Review,” *Journal of Sustainable Tourism*, 30 (7), 1476–99.

Parket, Richard and Peter Aggleton (2007), *Culture, Society and Sexuality: A Reader*. Routledge.

Parshakov, Petr, Iuliia Naidenova, Carlos Gomez-Gonzalez, and Cornel Nesseler (2022), “Do LGBTQ-Supportive Corporate Policies Affect Consumer Behavior? Evidence from the Video Game Industry,” *Journal of Business Ethics* (published online May 14), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05137-7.

Parsons, Sarah (2022), “‘Don’t Say Gay’: Lush’s New Launch Fights Controversial Florida Law,” *Cosmetics Business* (May 23), https://cosmeticsbusiness.com/news/article_page/Dont_Say_Gay_Lushs_new_launch_fights_controversial_Florida_law/201018.

Patel, Pankaj C. and Cong Feng (2021), “LGBT Workplace Equality Policy and Customer Satisfaction: The Roles of Marketing Capability and Demand Instability,” *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, 40 (1), 7–26.

Pechmann, Cornelia (Connie), Elizabeth S. Moore, Alan R. Andreasen, Paul M. Connell, Dan Freeman, Meryl P. Gardner, Deborah Heisley, R. Craig Lefebvre, Dante M. Pirouz, and Robin L. Soster (2011), “Navigating the Central Tensions in Research

on At-Risk Consumers: Challenges and Opportunities,” *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, 30 (1), 23–30.

Pirani, Daniela and Athanasia Daskalopoulou (2022), “The Queer Manifesto: Imagining New Possibilities and Futures for Marketing and Consumer Research,” *Marketing Theory*, 22 (2), 293–308.

Pounders, Kathryn and Amanda Mabry-Flynn (2016), “Consumer Response to Gay and Lesbian Imagery: How Product Type and Stereotypes Affect Consumers’ Perceptions,” *Journal of Advertising Research*, 56 (4), 426–40.

Reichert, Tom (2001), “‘Lesbian Chic’ Imagery in Advertising: Interpretations and Insights of Female Same-Sex Eroticism,” *Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising*, 23 (2), 9–22.

Ro, Heejung and Eric D. Olson (2014), “The Effects of Social Justice and Stigma-Consciousness on Gay Customers’ Service Recovery Evaluation,” *Journal of Business Research*, 67 (6), 1162–69.

Ro, Heejung and Eric D. Olson (2020), “Gay and Lesbian Customers’ Perceived Discrimination and Identity Management,” *International Journal of Hospitality Management*, 84, 102319.

Rosenbaum, Mark S. and Detra Y. Montoya (2007), “Am I Welcome Here? Exploring How Ethnic Consumers Assess Their Place Identity,” *Journal of Business Research*, 60 (3), 206–14.

Rosenbaum, Mark S., Rebekah Russell-Bennett, and Judy Drennan (2015), “Commercial Friendships Between Gay Sales Associates and Straight Female Customers in Luxury Settings: A Proposed Theoretical Framework,” *Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services*, 27, 179–86.

Rosenbaum, Mark Scott, Tali Seger-Guttmann, and Mario Giraldo (2017), “Commentary: Vulnerable Consumers in Service Settings,” *Journal of Services Marketing*, 31 (4–5), 309–12.

Rumens, Nick (2018), *Queer Business: Queering Organization Sexualities*. Routledge.

Shan, Liwei, Shihe Fu, and Lu Zheng (2017), “Corporate Sexual Equality and Firm Performance,” *Strategic Management Journal*, 38 (9), 1812–26.

Stonewall Scotland (2015), “Your Rights as a Public Services Consumer,” (accessed December 16, 2022), https://www.stonewallscotland.org.uk/your-rights-public-services-consumer.

Taylor, Charles R. (2022), “Future Needs in Gender and LGBT Advertising Portrayals,” *International Journal of Advertising*, 41 (6), 971–73.

Topham, Gwyn (2022), “Virgin Atlantic Staff Can Choose Which Uniform to Wear ‘No Matter Their Gender,’” *The Guardian* (September 28), https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/28/virgin-atlantic-staff-can-choose-which-uniform-to-wear-no-matter-their-gender.

Tsai, Wan-Hsiu Sunny (2012), “Political Issues in Advertising Polysemy: The Case of Gay Window Advertising,” *Consumption Markets & Culture*, 15 (1), 41–62.

Um, Nam-Hyun (2014), “Does Gay-Themed Advertising Haunt Your Brand? The Impact of Gay-Themed Advertising on Young Heterosexual Consumers,” *International Journal of Advertising*, 33 (4), 811–32.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2023), “History of Fair Housing,” (accessed May 24, 2023), https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/history.
Valdez, Zulema and Tanya Golash-Boza (2020), “Master Status or Intersectional Identity? Undocumented Students’ Sense of Belonging on a College Campus,” *Identities*, 27 (4), 481–99.

Van Eck, Nees Jan, Ludo Waltman, Rommert Dekker, and Jan van den Berg (2010), “A Comparison of Two Techniques for Bibliometric Mapping: Multidimensional Scaling and VOS,” *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology*, 61 (12), 2405–16.

Vredenburg, Jessica, Sommer Kapitan, Amanda Spry, and Joya A. Kemper (2020), “Brands Taking a Stand: Authentic Brand Activism or Woke Washing?” *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing*, 39 (4), 444–60.

Walsh, Gianfranco (2009), “Disadvantaged Consumers’ Experiences of Marketplace Discrimination in Customer Services,” *Journal of Marketing Management*, 25 (1–2), 143–69.

Williams, Patti, Jennifer Edson Escalas, and Andrew Morningstar (2022), “Conceptualizing Brand Purpose and Considering Its Implications for Consumer Eudaimonic Well-Being,” *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 32 (4), 699–723.

Winkle, Curtis R. (1991), “Inequity and Power in the Nonprofit Sector: A Comparative Analysis of AIDS-Related Services

for Gay Men and Intravenous Drug Users in Chicago,” *Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly*, 20 (3), 313–28.

Winkler, Matteo and Giovanna Gilleri (2021), “Of Athletes, Bodies, and Rules: Making Sense of Caster Semenya,” *Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics*, 49 (4), 644–60.

Wolny, Nick (2019), “The LGBTQ+ Community Has $3.7 Trillion in Purchasing Power; Here’s How We Want You to Sell to Us,” *Entrepreneur* (June 10), https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/334983.

Wulf, Tim, Brigitte Naderer, Zoe Olbermann, and Julian Hohner (2022), “Finding Gold at the End of the Rainbowflag? Claim Vagueness and Presence of Emotional Imagery as Factors to Perceive Rainbowwashing,” *International Journal of Advertising*, 41 (8), 1433–53.

Zhu, Jessie Y. and Wally Smieliauskas (2022), “Evidence on the Economic Consequences of Marriage Equality and LGBT Human Rights,” *Journal of Business Ethics*, 178 (1), 57–70.

Zupic, Ivan and Tomaž Čater (2015), “Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization,” *Organizational Research Methods*, 18 (3), 429–72.