Rationale Objectives, Dissertation – Literature Example

In order to confirm the initial statement that conspicuous consumption is present in same sex marriages, it is important to review related literature regarding spending habits, consumer choices, images and motivations for conspicuous consumption. The below section will analyze data related to conspicuous consumption patterns of same-sex couples.

Heterocentric Approach of the Wedding Industry

One of the main motivations of same sex couples to get married is to legalize their social standing and get acknowledged. However, there are several examples of assuming that marriages are concluded between men and women. (George and Elshtain 2006)  According to the Community Marketing Inc’s report,  (2013: 3) “76% of same-sex couples feel it is important to work with LGBT-friendly businesses when planning their wedding.” This also indicates that uniqueness and personalization of the experience is extremely important for SSM. It is fair to say that it is the main motivation to spend more, according to the theory of conspicuous consumption (not superiority, as Veblen puts it).  The majority of couples did not follow wedding traditions, however, they used other distinctive features and symbols.  According to Lee Badgett (2003), conspicuous consumption in gay and lesbian communities is a way of “overshadowing attention to economic inequality faced by gay people”. However, the author also notes that gays do not form identity through consumption: their pattern is more like consumption-consciousness, using boycott strategies to force mainstream society to accept their sub-culture.

Is Same Sex Consumer Market Less Affluent?

Comparing the average spending on wedding ceremonies, it is evident that same sex couples are likely to spend less than half of the average heterosexual expenditure. Joshi (2012) states that the lesbian market is less affluent than the gay (male same sex marriage) one. Compared to opposite sex couples, who, on the average spend around 21.000 on the wedding, same sex couples only spend around 9.000. (New York and Co. Study 2012) Still, the wedding list of a same sex couple is likely to be smaller and most couples would pay for their own wedding without parental financial help. (Community Marketing Inc 2013: 6) The “per guest” expenditure of same-sex couples is not significantly lower than opposite-sex couples, according to the New York City research report. (2013)This confirms the presence of conspicuous consumption in the gay community.

The Motivations of Same Sex Couples

According to the Community Marketing Insights report (2013), most of the couples found vendors for their wedding through word-of-mouth and referral. This might indicate that the gay community is a specific market and the companies are not able to create trust through advertising yet. They use their conspicuous consumption to communicate distinctive features. The second most prevalent resource for planning was LBGT-specific online resources. The main motivations of married and engaged same sex couples was the legalization of marriage equality. Further, couples expressed their expectations of LBGT-friendly language, vendors and legal documents. Further, as Joshi (2011: 421) confirms, the main motivation of same sex couples is to gain recognition legally and to be accepted as “normal” by the society. (Ogilvie 2011) They spend money on wedding and use conspicuous consumption, make consumer choices to send out messages to the society that they are “normal”, sophisticated and can express their consumer vision through experiences. (Heffetz 2004: 2) Couples want to show their friends and family their gay lifestyle and culture in the most positive light. (Joshi 2012) Lee Badgett (2003), does not agree with the above motivations and states that novelty effect influences conspicuous consumption patterns more in the gay community.

The Competition for Status

There is definitely a competition for status between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.  (Shove and Warde 1998: 4) SSM couples do not compete with traditional marriages when it comes to budget and size, but they try to create a memorable event that includes gay elements, symbols, lavish food and entertainment. Social comparison is also important when it comes to planning a wedding, and copying the celebrations of famous gay couples is very common. (The Williams Institute 2009) Holding the celebration in a restaurant instead of a traditional venue does indicate uniqueness, sophistication and status. (Griskevicius et al. 2007)

Works Cited

Community Marketing Inc (2013) Same-Sex Couples: Weddings and Engagements. <http://communitymarketinginc.com/documents/temp/SameSex_Couples_Weddings2013.pdf>

Community Marketing Inc (2013) 18^th Annual LGBT Travel Survey November 2013. <http://www.communitymarketinginc.com/documents/CMI_Research2013/CMI_18th_LGBT_TravelSurvey2013.pdf>

George, R.,  Elshtain, J. (2006) The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, And Morals. Spence Publication

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J., Sundie, J., Cialidni, R., Miller, G., Kenrick, D. (2007) Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption: When Romantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007, Vol. 93, No. 1, 85–102

Heffetz, O. (2004) Conspicuous Consumption and the Visibility of Consumer Expenditures. Department of Economics,  Princeton University publication. 2004.

Joshi, Y. (2012) Respectable Queerness. Columbia Human Rights Review. 43:2 416-467

NYC & Company  (2012) Research Report: Economic Impact of Same-Sex Marriage. New York City 2011-2012 <http://igltafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/

2013/02/Report_Economic-Impact-of-Same-Sex-Marriage_NYC-2012_Final.pdf>

Lee Badgett, M. (2003) Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. University of Chicago Press.

Ogilvie, F. (2011) Same-sex marriage vote succeeds. ABC News. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-21/20110921–same-sex-vote-succeeds/2910102>

Shove, E., Warde, A. (1998)  Inconspicuous consumption: the sociology of consumption and the environment. <http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/research/publications/papers/shove-warde-inconspicuous-consumption.pdf>

The Williams Institute. (2009) The Business Boost from Marriage Equality: Evidence from the Health and Marriage Equality in Massachusetts Survey. <http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Badgett-Goldberg-Steinberger-Business-Boost-MA-Survey-May-2009.pdf>