Companies are dialing back their Pride Month celebrations — and angering both the left and the right
Companies that show half-hearted LGBTQ+ support risk backlash from all sides.
Advertising pros tell BI there aren't a lot of great options, but the worst move is to flip-flop.
Corporate Pride is looking a little less proud this year.
Companies seem to have followed a common Pride Month playbook for the past several years. The checklist included changing social media avatars to rainbow logos, sponsoring parade floats, making donations, or casting ads a little differently from the rest of the year.
This June, corporate Pride seems quieter amid a combination of cultural and political pressure against DEI in general, and the LGBTQ+ community in particular.
Brands have been dropping out of sponsoring Pride parades across the country, Pride merchandise collections are getting smaller, and Fortune 500 social-media avatars appear largely unchanged.
More broadly, companies have pulled back on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, or at least calling them DEI. The shift has stirred up criticism from both liberals and conservatives.
"We're sort of facing a tidal wave of backlash against something that many companies have said they support," Ike Silver, a marketing professor at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, told Business Insider.
This has made Pride Month a bigger balancing act for companies this year, particularly those that have openly embraced it in the past.
"There's a little bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of element to this," said Graham Nolan, a PR professional who cofounded Do the Werq, a platform for queer representation in the marketing industry.
Pride Month had evolved over the past decade into something that companies perhaps felt obligated to participate in at the risk of appearing out of step with societal norms, Silver said.
"It's really more about jumping on the bandwagon," he said, "if you're not getting a boost from it, you might as well not court the backlash."
But as reactions to Target — and more recently BarkBox — have shown, brands that have openly embraced Pride Month in prior years face considerable risk stepping back (or even appearing to pull back) from it.
Target was one of the most prominent major consumer brands supporting LGBTQ+ Pride. Two years ago, it included Pride merchandise across its stores, but this year and last, it offered a smaller, gentler selection in about half of its locations. A company spokesperson said Target also sponsors local events.
"We are absolutely dedicated to fostering inclusivity for everyone," the spokesperson said in a statement to BI.
BarkBox found itself in hot water this month when an employee's internal communication suggested the company pull promotions for its Pride merch, comparing them to MAGA products. The leaked message sparked outrage and an apology from founder and CEO Matt Meeker, who said the company stands by its Pride products.
Pride Month, Nolan said, became "more a checklist of corporate fears than it was a checklist of consumer desires." People never asked for brands to add rainbows to their logos, for example, Nolan said.
Some companies have faced pressure from more left-wing groups that accused them of "rainbow washing," or capitalizing on LGBTQ+ people without providing a tangible benefit to the community.
Pride Month became more of a minefield in the last two years as conservatives took aim at Bud Light's partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, and followed quickly by Target facing blowback for its 2023 Pride merchandise collection.
While Bud Light and Target walked back their LGBTQ+ campaigns, the retreats didn't exactly earn them goodwill from either side of the political spectrum.
The division between the sides has only grown more pitched under Donald Trump's second presidency.
For brands, it can feel like consumers "who oppose the stance see any whiff of support as negative, and those that support the stance will only give you credit if they think that you're really in it," Silver said. "They won't sort of reward these soft steps."
Nolan said crafting the right message is increasingly difficult, especially since the very act of speaking to one group can de-emphasize another.
"When it's not perfect, what you get is conservatives who are angry about the fact that the work exists, and then you've got liberals who go, 'Yeah, this is a nice ad, but I know this about your hiring practices,'" he said.
Beyond the growing political polarization, the issue is further complicated for companies by the threat of government pressure. Trump has shown a willingness to go after companies because of their diversity policies.
While taking a stand in the face of real risk can make a company's motives seem more sincere (think Costco or Ben & Jerry's founders, which have defended their stances on diversity), Silver said consumers don't typically punish companies that remain truly neutral.
Whether they choose to publicly embrace Pride Month or not, Nolan hopes companies will strategize behind the scenes about strengthening their relationships with the LGBTQ+ community year-round.
With shoppers weighing in on social media and scrutinizing companies' moves over the past months, it's clear that shifting positions in either direction can be risky.
"When you flip-flop, you lose the people who supported you when you are taking a position," Silver said. "And you don't necessarily regain the people who are against your position."
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump, Carney to speak soon, Canadian official says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will likely talk "over the next number of days" after the U.S. imposed a 35% tariff on goods not covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, a Canadian official said on Sunday. Dominic LeBlanc, the federal cabinet minister in charge of U.S.-Canada trade, told CBS News' "Face the Nation" that he believes there is an option of striking a deal that will bring down tariffs. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Women call the shots across the supply chain at tequila brand 1953
Listen and subscribe to The Big Idea on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you find your favorite podcasts. When Shivam Mallick Shah and Lindsey Davis Stover founded the tequila brand 1953, they wanted to make moves in an industry that was becoming increasingly popular among their own demographic while also opening doors for other women. As the brand proudly states on its website, 1953 is "Founded, Farmed, Distilled, and Led by Women." On Yahoo Finance's The Big Idea podcast, the two entrepreneurs shared how they managed to pull off such a feat in a historically male-dominated industry. (Watch the full episode above; listen-only below.) "I just kind of got down this rabbit hole of where the women in tequila are, unfortunately, really hard to find. So that kind of led us to this idea," Davis Stover, a Texas native, said on the podcast. "We were drinking tequila. Every woman we knew is drinking tequila," she continued. "So we wanted to create a company that was founded, farmed, distilled, and led by women at every single level. Even our name, 1953, is the year women earned the right to vote in Mexico. I think that is just the essence of our company and providing opportunities for women." This embedded content is not available in your region. "People didn't think it was necessary to have a female-led supply chain," Shah said. "They didn't think that it would make a difference in the quality of the product, and they didn't think that, frankly, we could do it. They had a lot of strong opinions on what we could do, and it was different than what we wanted to do." Shah and Davis Stover tackled their mission by completing their search in an "organic way," talking with people who worked at distilleries and farms in Mexico. Eventually, they found Carmen and Adriana, who ran the family-owned distillery that 1953 would eventually use. "Their family has owned this distillery for over a hundred years, and they have trained a female master distiller, Rocio Rodriguez, who signs every bottle," Shah explained. "She had this incredible story of having come to this distillery when she was pregnant. She was trained as a chemical engineer, but she was worried about losing her job. Carmen and Adriana's families decided to build a nursery so she could come to work and bring her whole self, which has, of course, changed her life, but it changed so many people's lives." Though their journey to creating a brand with a strong female focus had its roadblocks, the biggest hurdle was finding a woman-owned agave farm. Traditionally, agave farms in Mexico are passed down from father to son, but Carmen and Adriana helped the entrepreneurs find the farm they partner with today. "We could not find an agave farm owned by women," Shah said. "Carmen and Adriana helped us find a gentleman who only had four daughters. We met with them, and we talked about what we were trying to build. We asked him if he would consider passing his farm down to his daughters if we guaranteed purchase of agave from their farms for 1953." After a family meeting in which the four women discussed the proposition with their husbands and father, they ultimately agreed, deciding to take on the responsibility and risk to help complete 1953's women-led supply chain. "They had grown up on this farm, and they knew it like the back of their hand, but they never saw themselves as CEOs. They never saw themselves as the people in charge of running the farm," Shah explained. "What made them think differently was the high school down the street and all the girls who were in that high school, just like they used to be, and wanting to let those girls know that there was nothing they couldn't do. ... It was a motivation we all shared, and we knew we had an alignment of our values, which told us we were in the right place. And that really completed our supply chain." Every Thursday, Elizabeth Gore discusses real-life stories and smart strategies for launching a small business on The Big Idea podcast. You can find more episodes on our video hub or watch on your preferred streaming service. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rail customers urge regulators to block Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal, FT reports
(Reuters) -U.S. railroad customer groups have demanded regulators block or put onerous conditions on the proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. Seven associations of shippers have expressed concern the planned deal would significantly increase the power of the merged railroad to raise prices or reduce service standards, the report said. Last month, Union Pacific said it would buy smaller rival Norfolk Southern in an $85 billion deal to create the first U.S. coast-to-coast freight rail operator and reshape the movement of goods from grains to autos across the country. The two railroads are expected to have a combined enterprise value of $250 billion and would unlock about $2.75 billion in annualized synergies, the companies said. Reuters could not immediately verify the FT report. Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. Previously, the transportation division of SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, said it plans to oppose the merger when it comes before the Surface Transportation Board for review. Major railroad unions have long opposed consolidation, arguing such mergers threaten jobs and risk disrupting rail service. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer also criticized the merger saying the deal would push "us even further down the road of dangerous consolidation and monopoly power ... This is a hostile takeover of America's infrastructure."