Rainbow and Mean It: Why Brands are Struggling with Inclusive Marketing in an Era of Hate

It’s that rainbow time of year again!?The day when corporates near and far show how deep their LGBTQ+ allyship pink blood runs.?At every turn it once again looks like a kindergartener’s classroom exploded (except classrooms in Florida that probably look a little more like this ).?Rainbow flags wave from every restaurant patio.?Every surface from digital to physical rainbow-pomorphicised. Questionable queer merch, typically so cringe that like a John Waters film or new Real Housewives franchise it actually becomes an alt-culture necessity , now lines retail shelves (until it doesn’t ).?Most visibly, every company who is any company is building an immaculate float to glide down a city avenue in PRIDE parades across the world (oof, this isn’t holding up well ).?Hell, even Fido has the opportunity to demonstrate his personal growth on the path to acceptance and inclusivity.?

Truly, there’s a lot to love about the rainbow world that, like Christmas, starts earlier and earlier every year.?Proof point: 20 May, King’s Cross Station – yes, even train stations love the Alphabet-family.?PRIDE is the first week in July in London.?

If nothing else, at its best this prismatic display demonstrates a general awareness of the 55-year plight for equality across the spectrum of sexual orientation.?At its most profit-centric, it is corporate recognition of the $1 Trillion+ purchasing power of the LGBTQ+ community, a number that will only rise as 1 in 6 Gen Z identify as queer. (US stats only).?At its most benign the rainbow explosion is the bi-product of a young corporate marketeer who is handed the “PRIDE project” by their boss, likely receiving little opposition, if even acknowledged, by the big bosses upstairs outside a skimmed and deleted corporate email from a senior HR leader.?While these may not create similarly warm fuzzy feelings, they also don’t do active harm. [Recognition that last sentence is a debatable statement, but let’s just hold it as true-ish for the purposes of this discussion.]

The same cannot be said for the wave of waffling that’s coming as brands face into the used-to-be- potential now-realised backlash that comes from a rainbow-washed approach to advocacy.?See: Bud Light.

Feigned rage from a typically small but increasingly bold and vocal minority against brands that take an inclusive stance on social issues, even those that should be seemingly uncontroversial — equality, all people just generally being recognised as human — is nothing new.?Most of the time it is short lived and the impacted entity comes out wiser, if not stronger on the other side.?See: The [formerly known as Dixie] Chicks.

In fact, one need only look at Disney’s success with embracing diversity, like its long-running Gay Days at Disney, to see why the company really isn’t sweating a head-to-head with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his draconian social policies dressing up hate as conservatism.?When Disney take a stance, they adhere to it, believe in it and take actions that continuously align with and reenforce it. They play the long-game, even in the face of short-term tumult.?They let their values and stances drive their business strategy, largely producing top line increases year-over-year.

This happens on both sides of social issues.?Consider Chick-fil-A on the opposite side of the LGBTQ+ issues, for instance.?While they as a company have stepped back from their long-standing funding of charities that support anti-LGBTQ+ policies and initiatives, they have unapologetically continued to be led by the Christian, conservative values they were founded on.?While sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression are all part of their equal opportunity employment status, their CEO’s public statements coupled with their charitable focus have caused the company no end of similar backlash from liberal advocates including boycotts that in places like the UK, shut down the franchise before it even took hold. ?

What’s important in both instances is that when brands like Disney and Chick-fil-A, who are values-led companies, take a public stance on social issues, they hold true.?Even in the face of adversity — adversity that may hit the bottom line — they don’t back down. ?

What’s happening today with Bud Light , The Dodgers and Target is different.?Most corporate/social unrest is caused by a group fervently advocating for or against something: PETA vs Canada Goose’s use of fur, United Methodist Church not investing with banks they believe fund “settlement activity” in conflict with the 1949 Armistice lines, companies dropping ties with the National Rifle Association (USA) due to public pressure, etc.?But when it comes to the current LGBTQ+ turmoil, companies are facing into a force they likely don’t have a playbook at the ready to understand, much less successful manage against. That force? Hate.?

It would be naive to not look backwards and see how inextricably linked hate and politics can be or become.?But the notion of capitalism’s response to hate — to a modern corporation, still relatively a new concept in the grand scheme of humanity having a tried and true response to balancing people, profit and social pressure, especially when that pressure is an objectively negative force — is nascent at best. ?

So it’s no wonder you have a company like The Dodgers, thinking they’re doing the right, progressive thing hosting an inclusive evening and game where charities across the LGBTQ+ spectrum are to be recognised (including activist meets performance art org, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence).?Then a politician (Rubio) creating a fuss, stirring up the embers in a crowd bristling for tinder to reignite their rage.?Factions (Catholics, gays, allys, anti-woke-eneers) take their side and throw fuel on the fire (via social). ?The Dodgers pivoting quickly trying to keep everyone happy and excluding the “controversial” group of people (Sisters).?In doing so demonstrating that social harmony (read: profit potential) trump cause. Backlash from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups near and far (LA Pride, et al.). A final pivot, apology and re-inclusion.?All actions occurring within 3-4 days time with no shortage of thought pieces (like this) that further cement one another’s perspectives.

The same is true for Target, acting on behalf of the safety and security of its employees (bravo!) by removing controversial Pride products (of an unfounded controversy that was manufactured by rage-makers) and moving them to the back of the store. This act, however, looking less like ramping up security and more like catering to profits over people. All this, less than a week after the CEO of the company talked openly about diversity being good for business .??

Or Bud Light who, in a rapid about face from what should have been a benign social moment for a single influencer’s audience but became a Kid-Rock-murdering-a-family-of-six-packs-with-a-weapon-of-war social media boycott causing a 1% MOM loss in sales, did what you might say is the most unthinkable thing.?They worked with an individual, Dylan Mulvaney, who represents a deeply vulnerable group. When the social winds pushed against them, they severed their relationship with her, leaving her to fend for herself.?In a world of perceived avatar anonymity, this was probably the greatest act of capital cruelty: asking Mulvaney to take the social media heat and become the public face of hate’s response… alone.

For decades, as company’s recognised the value of diversity as a competitive advantage they have been out front, leading where governments failed to provide safety, security, inclusion, equity and benefit for marginalised groups.?Governments have largely played catch-up.?But the notion of diversity as a profit driver is still relatively new — and not just with LGBTQ+ issues (see the diversity push for Black-owned, women-owned, minority-owned business inclusion in retailers, for instance of the last 3 years). The problem is that once a corporate aligns with the social justice plight of a group not just so as to include them in their workforce, but to account for them in their top-line, it requires that they stick behind them — especially when the going gets tough.?Else, the result is simply performative allyship, a form of inauthenticity.?Brand study after brand study find that inauthenticity in the era of social proliferation has far more long-term detriment to a brand than any fight over a rainbow. ?

While this might look like a US problem, when that country sows seeds, it tends to pollenate the social well on a global scale. Sadly, it is the dawn of the era of politicised branding and a response to hate-based marketing being added to corporate playbooks.?

So what are the rules? Here's a starter for 10:

1) As Dolly Parton says, “Find out who you are and do it on purpose.” Lippincott colleagues wrote an article on rethinking your company’s soul .?Written with a sustainability lens, it holds in this context (soul being the moral intent to do go and act as a compass and driving intent to do the right thing by its workers, the communities it serves, and for society in general). If a company knows its soul it knows when to take a stance and builds structures that allow it to withstand fluctuations to balance sheet and reputation as it holds true to its belief system.?

2) Know your audience.?If profit and shareholder value is the primary driver of your specific business, then know your base.?Is a diversity play likely to disrupt them??It’s a new question but it now must be asked by marketers and more importantly C-suites and their boards.?For a lot of brands this means they’ll be faced with a few options: a) keep your current base happy at all costs so do what they will most value, b) take a stand and risk potential blow-back but from a group you don’t intend to cultivate as customers so it becomes PR or c) take a stand for what you want your brand to stand for in the hearts and minds of people even if that means you might lose some of your current base (see: Nike).?In a lot of ways, option C is quite like a rebranding exercise — those are not always seamless and take great fortitude to succeed.?

3) Most importantly, if you don’t get it, don’t do it.? That goes for twerking, beatboxing, home renovations, home schooling, commeting on social media posts, making duet TikToks (RIP in Montana), passing legislation on a population where that population has unequal or no representation, sharing a perspective on the experience of any other race, gender, socio-economic experience other than your own, and most DEFINITELY using diversity as a marketing tactic. ?

***

While it’s been a fun decade of rainbows during the month of June, perhaps it’s time for corporates to roll back the rainbow paintbrush and figure out what they truly believe.?It’s perfectly fine for a company to value diversity and inclusion in its hiring processes and amongst its talent pool, but not actively seek that same audience as part of its target market.?For instance, this author had a client recently kill a campaign idea that centred on an LGBTQ+ storyline in one ad, saying specifically they were not “the gay [industry].”?This was not a slam against LGBTQ+ audiences, but a recognition they preferred to market in a way that held a more nuclear view of society, potentially showing elements of diverse audiences but never showcasing their stories as part of their marketing program.?In an age where representation is more paramount than ever, one could argue that such a strategy might prove quite limiting.?Perhaps, however, showing instead of showcasing inclusivity isn’t really harmful, per se. ?In fact, for a mass market product, one might argue that marketing without taking a stance one way or the other on any social issue is a more inclusive act.?It’s a passive way of saying/showing “we’re for everyone” and allowing the consumer to paint the brand into their story versus being shown a story they must relate to. Advocates on either side of an issue might disagree, taking a “you’re either with us or against us mentality,” rightly suggesting that the heart of inclusivity is representation and the heart of representation is showing stories of the represented.?The question is: can both mass market appeal and representational inclusivity both be true at the same time without a brand having to take a side?

The minute you, corporate, decide to put a rainbow on merch or make it part of a focused, profit-seeking activity, then your allyship must run beyond the wallet.?Why??Because the rainbow isn’t about the cute side of LGBTQ+ issues.?It’s a red badge of courage, borne of revolution and emblematic of an ongoing struggle for the right to exist.?That’s a hard truth a lot of marketers and corporate leadership have yet to fully understand and weigh in their strategies.?But to use the rainbow without having the discussion — rainbow-washing.?And nobody has time for that.?

This author stopped into a “mom and pop shop” in an unassuming Texas town of a few thousand during a recent trip home.?The owners were what can only be described as a good, ole Texan couple. Next to the Visa/Mastercard and CCTV decals on the door was a rainbow sticker.?

This simple act actually created a greater sense of pride than any float in a parade or window dressing at Piccadilly Circus.?Why??Because it was clear that this couple thought about it and made the concerted effort to place that sticker in their window.?They realised they wanted their shop to make those who see and identify with that flag feel welcome.?They wanted their patronage.?They wanted to ensure their safety. They checked their soul, made a decision on the type of customer they value, and did it on purpose.?

With a simple act, they joined the revolution. And what could be more authentically inclusive than that? To take a true stand and join the ranks of the LGBTQ+ revolutionaries. After all, Pride is the celebration born from a revolution, and the revolution is far from over.