From old-timey newspaper promotions to modern streaming service ads, the art of worming inside consumers’ consciousness to make as much money as possible is nothing new. In principle, ads make a lot of sense, allowing companies to reach broader audiences, thus making more profit.
Ads are everywhere. We’ve become so used to their presence that the statement sounds banal, but the fact is advertising is so prominent that its impact has lessened. However, just because we’re used to ads doesn’t mean that the medium of advertising is static — in fact, it is constantly pushing for new ways to establish itself in the public’s mind.
The values that ad agencies want to tap into are both universal and constantly in motion. Certain values, like good health or viable relationships, are still being targeted in ads. But as people become more cynical and aware of the strategies brands have historically used, the bar to convince people has risen. Now, the demand for companies to be ethical and in alignment with the customer’s morals is front and center in marketing.
Instead of basing their judgments directly on brand messaging, young people are increasingly relying on testimonials from influencers they trust and the sense of community those influencers curate. Brands, after identifying this desire, have been scrambling to present themselves as personable and authentic. Wendy’s “savage tweets” gained widespread attention a few years ago, and Duolingo is still posting unhinged videos that get hundreds of thousands of likes. Some of their marketing is even related to languages.
But as consumers begin to see through the facade, hypocritical company actions have turned audiences cynical towards these marketing personalities — incidents such as Netflix tweeting “Love is sharing a password” only to crack down on password sharing prove that corporations have difficulty putting their money where their mouth is.
When 77% of consumers want to buy from companies “committed to making the world a better place,” the next step is obvious — integrate the values that people care about most directly into marketing. However, this approach commodifies activism and distracts from the superficial support that companies provide minority creators.
An infamous example occurred in 2023 when beer company Bud Light received criticism for partnering with influencer Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender woman. Mulvaney’s video promoting the brand faced widespread backlash, primarily from transphobic people who claimed that the company was becoming “woke,” or overly inclusive. The resulting boycott was brought into the spotlight by social media platforms, where people enacted stunts like shooting a case of Bud Light with a gun.
It doesn’t look like our traditional idea of good marketing — indeed, Bud Light’s attempt at appealing to the LGBTQ+ community caused its stock price to decline — but the weight of Bud Light’s action was amplified by the uproar it caused. Internet reactionaries didn’t realize that by responding dramatically to transgender inclusivity, they were highlighting the reason that the strategy might work. Buying a beer that a celebrity likes doesn’t mean much — buying a beer as an act of allyship makes consumption seem more ethical than it otherwise would be.
At least, that’s what Bud Light hoped would happen. While this specific instance has been immortalized as a failed attempt at inclusive marketing, other similar examples have flown under the radar. When Hershey Canada included transgender activist Fae Johnstone in their International Women’s Day promotion, they also received transphobic backlash — but critically, people defended the company as well.
It’s a new winning formula — companies conspicuously feature underrepresented groups, outrage makes the rounds on social media, people come to their defense and everyone leaves feeling morally justified. But this approach monetizes the effort and struggle that committed activists for these causes go through, while companies are begrudgingly acknowledged for doing the bare minimum.
Inclusivity has become a marketing strategy that holds up brand loyalty as the lesser evil to bigotry. In reality, advertising culture capitalizes on the same minority invisibility they appear to be criticizing. When Mulvaney directly spoke out about the controversy, she said that Bud Light hadn’t reached out to her despite the harassment she faced. Meanwhile, Bud Light’s official statements made vague claims about how they “never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people,” and never addressed the transgender community despite their apparent willingness to reach out with a beer in hand.
The strategy also plays off of political polarization — by exploiting people’s investment in topics like race and gender, companies can force their way into relevancy, good or bad. But when issues like gender-affirming care, diverse hiring practices and women’s bodily autonomy are all under fire, stoking these flames for profit — especially without any kind of concrete, supportive action — only dilutes the conversation from the legislation that is validated by it.
We need to hold companies to a higher standard in their marketing. It can be difficult to form a cohesive response to this kind of advertising — while it is undeniably profit-driven and fickle, any form of representation can look like a small sliver of hope that society overall is moving in a more accepting direction. Still, it’s important to separate the messaging from the corporation — we can celebrate inclusion without having to praise the companies that attempt to facilitate it.
It’s impossible to perfectly regulate our consumption, but we can work to make sure we’re not rewarding companies for doing the bare minimum. Instead, supporting local Black-owned or LGBTQ-owned businesses can help minorities find jobs and stability, actually making a small impact in contributing to others’ well-being.
Even so, we need to keep our actions in perspective — at the end of the day, our purchases are purchases, and treating them like significant moral acts would only rebrand the same consumption-based cycle. But staying alert to companies that want to profit off of minority identities — identities that face real, everyday injustices in America — can hopefully ensure that we’re making more informed decisions in the future.
