Friday, August 08, 2008



State Tourism Chief Moves to Approve Gay-Welcoming Ads, Fearing PR Backlash

We read:
"Upon learning last month the state had approved ads promoting South Carolina as a gay destination, the head of the state's tourism agency said this week he wanted the campaign to continue because of public relations concerns. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism director Chad Prosser said the agency had no authority to ask the ads be taken down anyway, since the contract was through a third-party British vendor. "There was nothing that could be done to pull it," Prosser said. "The campaign was going to end before that whole chain of events could take place," he added, reports Columbia, S.C.'s The State.

Gov. Mark Sanford and others objected to the ad content - calling the state "So Gay" - arguing state tourism dollars were being used to make a political statement. After the ad campaign became news in S.C. - a week after Prosser found out about it - Prosser announced the state would not pay the vendor, reports State writer John O'Connor.

Prosser said he did not ask the ads be removed for three reasons: concerns the advertising and tour companies would use it for free publicity; the agency could not remove the ads; and the campaign had nearly run its course, coinciding with gay pride events in London.

Source

Seems fair that an ad stupid enough to call a whole State homosexual should not be paid for.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I retired from the Air Force at a base there. I have alot of friends that are still there. I'm 100% sure each and every one of them will take issue with this. As for me, I don't think I'll be going back to visit anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

And why is a British vendor running add's in SC? You can bet your life that radical gay activists are behind this. One of their primary functions is to constantly push the envelope and force their views on everyone. And to use the taxpayers funds to do it simply insults the good people of SC! But if they tolerate this, then they deserve it.

Anonymous said...

Seems even stupider that the state didn't have editorial control of ads that it paid for. Something doesn't add up here.