Despite Increased Support for Pride, Companies are Getting Slammed

As we move into Pride Month 2023, what has been widely-accepted and celebrated in recently years has quickly moved to the center of the culture wars. Bud Light’s sales remain way down as a result of the Dylan Mulvaney controversy.?Target’s stock price went on its longest losing streak in 23 years, at least in part due to negative reactions to the company selling (then pulling) Pride merchandise. And Kohl’s share price is the lowest it’s been since 2020, also in the wake of increased criticism for carrying Pride-related products.??

This is not how these situations usually play out. And certainly not what I expected to happen. Conservative boycotts in the past few years have rarely impacted sales or reputation. So what makes this moment different? And what can other brands learn from it?

The backlash against Bud Light had all the hallmarks of previous conservative boycotts over social issues that ended up being “more sizzle than steak.” Past calls for boycotts against Nike, Keurig, Kellogg’s, and others resulted in high-profile social media posts and outrage in conservative media, but had limited negative impact on brands. Some caused initial stock price declines or short-term sales hits, but stocks, sales, and brand reputations recovered quickly and brands often realized some benefit from the controversy.?

Bud Light, Target, and Kohl’s do not appear to be so lucky. There are three big differences.

The issue has been reframed. The biggest difference is children. In the current wave of “anti-woke” backlash, the right has made a direct connection between LGBT and Trans issues and the potential or supposed impact on kids. And when children are involved, the stakes go up. For years, conservatives tried to turn Critical Race Theory on college campuses into a salient issue. But it wasn’t until they focused on the elementary school curriculum and children that CRT became a motivating issue for conservatives. Ditto the anti-trans movement.?When conservatives called for a boycott of Target in 2016 over transgender bathrooms, it had little impact. But now, the most aggressive criticism of Bud Light (despite the fact that it’s a product for adults) has been that Anheuser Busch is forcing the trans movement on families and children.?And the new backlash against Target and their line of trans-friendly products started with a tweet that said, essentially, “Guys, Target is after your kids -- and not in a good way.” Conservatives have found a wedge that works.

Certain brands make easier targets. Bud Light expanded its influencer campaign because the brand was already losing salience with its core customers. Fewer people were already loyal to the brand. And quite frankly, it’s light beer – not a craft beer. It’s very easy to substitute Bud Light with another brand.?It’s an oversaturated category where purchase decisions are made frequently, so you have an environment where it’s easier for a boycott to take hold.?

In the case of Target and Kohl’s, the issue might be more a case of wrong place, wrong time, wrong symbol. Both chains created highly visible product showcases that made themselves easier to attack. As a company with the stated mission “to help all families discover the joy of everyday life,” Target chose to showcase LGBT-related merchandise in the front of their stores. In some markets, with some customers, this was anything but family-friendly.?The problem wasn’t that Target offered these products – they’ve offered Pride merchandise for years. But in the minds of many core customers, putting products like a "gender fluid" mug and children’s books titled "Bye Bye, Binary" and "I'm Not a Girl" in the front of store contradicted the experience Target promises. And for conservatives now on the hunt for “woke brands” the image was perfect for social media outrage. When you step in the political arena, or choose to visibly support a controversial issue, it is critical that you are keenly aware of your base, your mission, and what your customers expect from you.

Poor preparation makes a bad situation worse. ?In many ways it wasn’t the initial can that was the problem for Bud Light, it was the company’s response. The head of marketing publicly bashed the core customer in an interview. The influencer campaign was apparently launched with no preparation for a negative response. The organization issued a plain vanilla response that only inflamed both sides. And then they failed to defend their decision to work with Dylan Mulvaney, eliminating any of the goodwill they were trying to gain to appeal to this audience to begin with.

Imagine if instead of going after their “fratboy” customer base, Anheuser-Busch InBev responded with a message like this: “Of course we sent her (Dylan) a can of Bud Light.?We are the beer for all Americans.?We also sent cans to the top 150 influencers, including everyone from MAGA supporters to trans advocates.”?The response might have been different.?At least it would have helped to reframe the conversation. The same applies to Target and Kohl's. The more we hear from them, the more it feels like they simply had not prepared for any reaction at all.

The takeaway from these issues should not be that companies can’t address social issues and shouldn’t take politically charged stances. Instead, it should be that the world has changed a lot in the past year and strategies need to adapt. The right wants to make every social issue a political one.?When they look to expand to new markets, brands should never forget about their core customers.?They also need to be better prepared.?They need to anticipate the negative. Smart brands are attuned to the political environment in which we are living. They plan for the best -- and prepare for the worst.??