I think it's surprising because it's an ad validating the existence of gay men, from 1978. Nevermind how stupid the idea that gay men need their own scent is.

Duh. Because they hope the gay men identify with the produkt and buy it if it is advertised as a product for them

I agree with Sadie - on one level, it's surprising just to see gay men as a targeted marketing group (although I don't know where the ad came from - it'd be more surprising in a mainstream magazine than a specifically gay-oriented one). Even today you just don't see that very much.

It may or may not be significant that the product is cologne...in my head, even though cologne is masculine (as opposed to feminine 'perfume'), the idea of making yourself smell better has a feminine touch to it. So I have to wonder if the advertisers thought gay men were more likely to buy cologne than straight men, and that made them a viable target group.

It strikes me as odd because you almost never seeing anything marketed to exclude straight people. According to my observations, things marketed to the LGBT population tend to be modified versions of straight commercials that are segregated away into places were straights are less likely to see them.

I think it's cool, though. It could be a really subtle way of broadcasting that you're gay to other gay people without straight people necessarily noticing. Once people in the subculture got to recognizing the scent it would work like a pheromone.

I agree with Sadie: I think what's surprisng to someone in 2010 (apart from the weirdness of a cologne "exclusively" for gay men) is the idea that such an ad, and indeed product, was around in 1978. I think a lot of us mistakenly hold the idea that culture in general always moves forward, especially in regard to questions of tolerance and social equality.

Which is not particularly true. I'm always surprised when I hear younger people talking about the 70s and 80s, times they often weren't even around to remember, and assuming that attitudes towards women and GLBTQ people were necessarily more backward. Maybe in some domains, like public sector institutions, that may be true, but as far as attitudes of the person on the street, I don't think it was. I think we tend to equate awareness with positive change. You may need the first to get the last, but having it doesn't automatically guarantee that change.

I was in my late teens through mid 20s in the 80s, and I remember that, if anything, people's attitudes were more relaxed--especially in regard to gender conformity. I mean, only 4 or 5 years after this ad came out, genderbending artists like Boy George, the Eurhythmics with Annie Lennox and Prince were having mainstream success. Even teenybop idols like Adam Ant and Duran Duran wore flamboyant costumes and make-up.

Anyway, in 1978, the Unisex fashion was only a few years in the past, and most young people, whatever their gender identity, wore pretty much the same type of clothing and had similar hairstyles. It was the year that Saturday Night Fever brought disco culture to the mainstream, and disco had a strong gay affiliation. The Village People and Queen were amongst the biggest musical artists. Okay, so a lot of the parents and grandparents who liked them may have been unaware they were gay, as were those of us who were still in junior high, but most everybody else got it. Also, Bowie was moving from being a cult idol to a respected member of the rock aristocracy. The whole glam rock thing, though it never got as big in the US as it did in the UK, was relatively recent. And before that, it had been the 60s generation, with all the boys in long hair and wearing ruffles, velvet and satin.

I'm sure that if this ad appeared in a magazine not specifically aimed at a gay audience it caused quite a stir--but let's face it, it would do that now. And I kind of doubt it was all that successful as none of us has heard of it before. But I don't think its existence should surprise us that much.

I found a local gay publication the other day, and was leafing through it and showing the ads to my partner. He was pretty startled by the obvious homoeroticism in a lot of the ads (and he had an interesting observation about one ad for a legal firm that seemed specifically aimed at gay Asian-Americans.) But we both noticed that a lot of the ads ran towards luxury items or services -- expensive clothes, housing, cars, spas, etc.

I guess when you consider the average gay man (at least the stereotype -- I'd be curious if statistics support this) you think of someone very invested in their own appearance, often single, with no children and therefore a lot more disposable income than the average heterosexual man of comparable age and salary. I can't see why more advertisers -don't- market products to gay men (though given that a "gay" cologne like the one pictured above is very unlikely to be bought by straight men, I can imagine that advertisers usually make their ads a little less "focused", in order to gain interest from people of either orientation.)

It absolutely makes sense to me. Advertisers have considered gay men marketing gold since the mid-1970s - they are often (and seemingly always ASSUMED to be) DINCs (dual-income, no children), which are goldmines for consumption.

I'm certain this must have appeared in a gay publication and, very likely, it was effective.

I also agree with Crys - there is a pattern of assuming the progression of historical attitudes toward queerness, something that history doesn't actually SHOW.

Weirdly, it kind of makes sense to me; the overwhelming majority of cologne adverts are so very explicit in their rigidly heterosexual message "this product makes heterosexual men attractive to heterosexual women, smell like this and attract/date/score with heterosexual women" that it's unsurprising many gay men didn't identify with the aggressively heterosexual males avatars used to promote the products, nor did they feel attractive to other men wearing these colognes.

I actually find it compelling for a different reason -- cologne/perfume is divided into two gender categories: cologne for men, and perfume for women. This is shocking because the company seems to be creating a new gender space for gay men, or perhaps breaking the tradition of dividing cologne/perfumes by gender. Next, will they release a companion cologne for straight people?

Of course, there's also the idea that gay men, based on their sexuality, want to smell differently than straight men. Smells can be indexed based on their acidity, etc. Best guess is that this product, smell-wise, fits somewhere between the flowery women's perfumes and the woodsy straight men's cologne.

I think its rather interesting that its the first cologne "exclusively" for gay men. I guess this could be some clever advertising, or are they actually saying that cologne itself is for straight men only?

Oh well. Ads featuring gay men always make me annoyed, because they are so normalized- cologne, watches, etc, while gay women get ads treating them as some kind of fetish object. That being said, whatever kind of "cologne is too manly!" shit they are trying to force upon gay men, at least they are being acknowledged as being in some kind of valid existence.

Before I realized that this was a vintage ad, I was immediately offended at the exploitation of the LGBT community. I thought, "do they think we're stupid enough to think we need a separate cologne?"
but then I realized it was from the 70s and perhaps a form of liberation at the time rather than targeted marketing and exploitation.

My guess here is that colognes and perfumes are typically meant to attract people in a gendered way - or at least, that's how they're marketed. In other words, feminine perfume is supposed to smell good to men and have pheromones that appeal to masculine instincts. Flowers, sweet scents, etc. Men's cologne is the opposite - it's supposed to attract women. So, the company probably thought there was a logic to developping an exclusive scent that is masculine - guys don't want to go around smelling like flowers, right? - but also appeals to a masculine instinct.

The logic is flawed, of course (the idea of what smells masculine or feminine is very socially constructed, and I could get into a whole diatribe about how fragrances actually supress our body's better-smelling natural pheromones, but I won't) but I can see what they were going for from a marketing perspective. They probably thought there was some untapped market, of men wanting to smell like men but also wanting to attract men, that they could exploit. I wonder wonder how effective it was? (And I wonder also, was there a comparable perfume for lesbians? I'm gonna guess there wasn't.)

Overall, though, I gotta say, I think this is actually pretty progressive advertising for the 70's or even for 2010; they are identifying gay men as a worthwhile target market, they are openly and even proudly acknowledging that this market is indeed their target, and they aren't succumbing to negative portrayals of gay men to sell their product. This has a certain GQ-type "sophisticated man" tone that isn't really different from the way colognes are sold to heterosexual men.

I stumbled upon this and have read many posts. I am middle-aged, and a gay man that grew up in the mid to late 1970's. I grew up in various regions of the country, and always lived in or suburban major cities.I lived in Manhattan during the 1980's for two decades. I think times have changed for gay people, and society overall in getting more familiar to the fact we exist, and we're not going away due to the hell we've been through. I think companies have gotten the message through various sponsor campaigns that gay people do have disposable income. I must admit that many gay men do make fun of "straights" mired down with children and debt compared to many gay (men) in particular. We do sometimes laugh at how straight people dress and stores many gay men would never even consider going into for their bargain prices and faux jewelry. However, this I've found to be regional. I've noticed a "backwardness" in sophistication, style, both clothes and hair amongst many gay people in various parts of the country. My point is that there are plenty of gay people that are not driving around in fancy cars, and are as financially strapped as heteros. Three decades out from the 1970's, my take is that many straight men today have clearly been influenced by gay men, as evidenced with many young men doing totally their own looks from boys wearing eye makeup and womens' jeans, to the influence on the convict look with boys being saggers,(those wearing their pants at the bottom of their ass cheeks). What's funny to me as a gay man is seeing so many straight boys wear flashy sneekers, or earring studs today. Call me old fashioned, but I have no piercings, tattoos, or earrings. Yet, I hear these wolfpack boys passing by in the local malls occasionally say something "is gay" OR "FAGGOT" thrown about. Yet, these kids didn't go through my time, and many would not have made it down the hall when I was in high school. HS im my high school America was solid green, tan, brown,Levi chord jeans with a black big handle comb in the rear pocket. Blue jeans were cuffed up about two inches, and it was "sneakers" earth shoes, or dress up platform shoes. White painters pants were in vogue in 1978, and by the early 1980's the "parachute" pants craze took off. Girls wore cloggs, or platforms, and by 1977-78, girls skirts got real long like the 1950's. Cowl neck sweaters and the "Farrah Fawsett(sp)? blond blow back hair became the look DuJour. Not to ramble on, but my anger in retrospect was that I could NEVER show affection, or go to a prom with a guy I had crushes on. This DOES take a toll, and as I get older I see all the more teenagers showing affection and holding hands. What heterosexual people should realize (especially those anti-gay), is how much society promotes what many of you don't even realize you take for granted! wHAT I've also noted is the fitness craze, and how many straight men are becomming more attentive to their looks. I mean, I'm gay, and I do alot of people watching in malls, and some of these straight guys are real peacocks! LOL! It's somewhat of a double-edged sword. I can 99% of the time pick up that a guy is gay by how good he looks with taking care of himself, and certain jean brands worn. It's funny how my gaydar entertains me! Yet, there's something soooo sexy about a straight guy with a day or two stubble wearing a sportscoat and nice fitting jeans!