Pride and the pink pound: is corporate sponsorship of pride a bad thing?

by Devil’s Food Cake

Logging onto my facebook after two weeks of stalking-less bliss, I was eager to see what my friends had been up to. Since the weekend past was the gay pilgrimage that is Brighton Pride, I rolled through the obligatory photo ops, the (let’s be honest) prurient patrons and the myriad rainbow umbrellas that are Pride staples, and then came to a rather interesting post about the commercialization of pride, which questioned whether commercial sponsors are desirable or, to be more frank, necessary at such events.

To put this into context: Pride was, and is still to many, a protest. It is a message from the LGBTQ community of any city that our sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of; a day on which, once a year, we come out in droves, take over and generally display the strength of our (convictions) with courage and – let’s face it – a good deal of colour. We are loud, we are proud – you know the deal.

But what happens when the people taking part in the parade are not just us fearless queers, but also the corporate entities funding the event? The post I read questioned the legitimacy of the presence of a Nando’s contingent, a throng of well-endowed men in skimpy costumes, parading around with t-shirts screaming to all within eye-shot that their chicken was ‘worth coming out for’.

Several points were brought up in this regard: firstly, of course, coming out is an arduous experience, not one to make light about in order to convince a few hungry passers-by to stop in for some flame-grilled chicken. Secondly, what the hell does peri-peri chicken (or any flogged product) have to do with Pride? And thirdly, is a Pride float legitimate if its presence serves only to advertise a clothing store or some product of calorific intake?

The first point, the clever slogans name-dropping seminal experiences in LGBTQ life, is pretty self-explanatory. The negative issues that affect people coming out in the UK vary, from those who lose family and friends and even homes over the experience, to those who are physically, violently assaulted for the act. Such experiences, and those who suffer them, should not be reduced to four words designed to entice people into buying spicy chicken treats.

Secondly, Pride is, after all, not a mere show to remind the rest of the population that gay people exist. Many parades have floats that drive home realities about domestic violence, sexual health and international LGBT issues, and the very roots of the event are steeped in the necessity that existed in decades previously to make clear that members of the LGBTQ community were not going to take harassment and criminalization lying down – that LGBTQ rights are human rights, and that to behave in any other way is a violation of these rights. The commercialization of Pride can be seen to dilute this message, pushing a money-making agenda over one that seeks to better conditions for, and consolidate the rights of, people in the LGBTQ community. Considering how deadly the effects of homophobia can be, it is important to make sure that this message isn’t diluted – and by flogging chicken products, this dilution is a very real possibility.

Finally, while I am all for different companies or corporations extending their support to Pride parades, it is a worrying possibility that this presence is all words and no action. It is one thing to send people who may or may not actually work for you to represent your contingent at Pride (Selfridges, I’m looking at you). It is another thing entirely to send a group along to Pride every year with banners advertising your company and banana-hammocks to match, and to think that being at Pride fulfills your social responsibility quota for the year. Take, for example, Target in the US. Although they sponsored Pride in Minnesota this year, they have also recently donated $150,000 in support of a ‘rabidly’ homophobic Republican political candidate. Which do you think makes more of an impact? While corporate presence at Pride – or any LGBTQ-supporting – event may not be a bad thing, the idea that a company can pledge support in name to LGBTQ efforts then turn around and hand over significant amounts of money to homophobic efforts is laughable.

On the flip side of those arguments, however, is the advantage of corporate sponsorship. I ran an LGBT society for almost two years, and it is exhausting trying to get funding for various events. On one hand you want to provide a fun, extensive, inclusive event, and on the other, you don’t always have the facilities or funds to provide that. In these cases, corporate sponsorship is like a Godsend – and all you need to do is stick some logos on your posters. Pride is an expensive event to run – what with stages, security, barriers, council permissions and so much more – so this money isn’t something that can be easily disregarded.

Furthermore, there are certain advantages that probably wouldn’t be available if we refused any corporate sponsorship of the march. In London, the march moves from Baker Street to Trafalgar Square, passing through a heavy portion of Oxford Street and Regent Street. To enable this route, through the heart of the city, the permission of the council is obviously necessary, and the council is swayed in no small part by the corporate bodies that line the very streets we walk. While I am not suggesting that Pride should be held hostage to the demands of the shops and shop-owners of central London, it’s important to note that their demands are no small consideration.

Allowing or accepting corporate sponsorship at Pride events might not be the most desirable of things, especially for those of us who desire a strong and undiluted political Pride message, but it looks almost inevitable that corporate sponsorship would be needed in one way or another. Consider the now defunct Soho Pride, canceled for two years running because of funding difficulties (and that damned Crossrail).

That said, there are groups, such as Reclaim The Scene, that work to re-politicize Pride and bring LGBTQ issues back to the top of the Pride agenda (RTS made particularly spectacular progress at Manchester Pride, which apparently charges patrons who want to take part – atrocious!). But in London, where Pride parades are, of course, free for those who want to march with any registered float, how would a commercial cleansing work? Unfortunately, whilst it is easy to say that Pride should be returned to its roots – political, community-led and free from the constant commercial assault we tend to see at Pride marches today – that seems to be much easier said than done.