No Wedding Rings for Hyatt?

As same sex marriages continue in California, all eyes are now on the amendment on the November ballot in California that seeks to overturn the state supreme court ruling that legalized the marriages a mere two months ago. Media coverage has turned from images of happy couples celebrating their unions to speculation about the fate of the amendment (the latest polls show a majority opposed to the amendment) and profiles of the leaders on both sides of the debate. Predictably, funding for and against the amendment has also received a fair amount of attention. As the Washington Blade reported yesterday, it’s that last point that has caused the latest round of controversy.

According to the Blade article, the owner of a Hyatt hotel in San Diego has given $125,000 to an organization that supports the amendment. That would not ordinarily be news if not for the fact that the Global Hyatt Corporation (owners of the brand, but not every individual hotel that carries the brand name) is widely known for its engagement with the gay and lesbian community including sponsorship of a Pride program with GLAAD and a national advertising campaign that we (and others) have cited for its gay-positive and appropriate tone and messaging. According to the Blade article, gay rights advocates have labeled the San Diego situation the “Hyatt of Hypocrisy” and are picketing the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego which is owned by Doug Manchester.

A Hyatt corporate spokesperson was quoted in the Blade article as saying that it’s a “personal decision of Mr. Manchester that doesn’t involve Hyatt” and “his name is on the door, but it’s not the views of Hyatt.” Pretty mild commentary given the starkly drawn lines this situation paints.

Although it’s a tough situation – what do you do when a franchisee supports a message contrary to your corporate position? – the answer should not be difficult to determine. Hyatt needs to pick a side and stick with it. As we’ve said many times before, the challenge for corporate communicators in situations like these is to be consistent in your commitment. If Hyatt believes what it says about its commitment to engagement with our community (and I believe it does), it needs to draw a stronger point of differentiation between the corporation and one of the owners of a property that carries its brand. While Hyatt can’t control what an individual hotel owner may choose to do or say, it can (and should) try to control its brand and the ways in which it is perceived. 

My advice? Hyatt should unequivocally restate its commitment to engagement with and support for the gay and lesbian community and clearly and definitively explain that the views of individual owners are not the views of the corporation. By “uncoupling” the views of an owner from those of the company, Hyatt can begin to repair some of the damage that has been done to its reputation. Consumers don’t often make distinctions between the brand and individual hotels, so it will be even more important for Hyatt to make those distinctions clear and consistently communicate what Hyatt’s values are and why they are consistent with its past actions and its future plans.

What do you think?  Any other advice for Hyatt in this situation?

Comments

[Julia Gefford]

What is Omnicom's position in relation to homophobic advertising?

I saw the Snickers ads and your rather limp responses to them.

Omnicom owns you.

To me your entire "gay and lesbian communications Practice Group" stinks of hypocrisy:

http://adage.com/garfield/post?article_id=129767

That letter states:

"How could you be so insensitive, how could you be so shallow, and how could you be so mean?

This letter is to you, but it is equally to your colleagues throughout the industry. Are you so bereft, of ideas and simple humanity, that you must be reduced to stereotyping and bullying? That you must identify an "other" to ridicule, or worse? That you must build a brand on the backs of people who have harmed no one save for challenging a high-school locker-room standard of masculinity?"

FHOutfront is a subsidiary of Omnicom -- a sad homophobic company that you are well and truly trapped under.

Your response?

Julia

[Ben Finzel]

Julia, FH Out Front is part of Fleishman-Hillard, which is one of about 200 companies owned by Omnicom. I can only speak with knowledge about Fleishman-Hillard, where we believe in the importance of gay and lesbian communications and will continue to provide counsel to clients on gay and lesbian communications issues. If you want to know more about Fleishman-Hillard’s point of view and the ways we counsel clients, we encourage you to read any one of the more than 400 posts on this blog.

Ben Finzel

[Tungsten wedding ring]

I enjoyed reading thanks a lot but of course when i getting married i like the wedding ring.

by: P.jew

[EyeShield21]

What is that for? A wedding ring for same sexes? I just disagree with it. Even though I can do nothing about it. Still, I disagree with marrying the same sex.

[Wedding Ring]

This is an interesting posting and I enjoyed reading it. I may not agree marrying in the same sex yet if someone is marrying then why not a wedding ring if they want it.