The artificial corporate “lavender scare” of Pride 2023
Don’t take the bait; keep calm and find joy in Pride
Between calls for boycotts of Budweiser, Target, and now North Face by fringe far-right voices and drag laws, Fox News, the NYPost, and Matt Walsh would have us believe a massive withdrawal of support from corporations is to be expected this Pride season.
Even the omnipresent GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis dramatically announced in the NYTimes, “We probably need to assemble a Pride war room for brands so that we can push back.”
Googling “Boycott” and “Pride” gives a flavor of headlines this June. Similarly, this tweet by Matt Walsh calls on conservative consumers to “make Pride toxic”:
The goal is to make “pride” toxic for brands. If they decide to shove this garbage in our faces, they should know that they’ll pay a price. It won’t be worth whatever they think they’ll gain. First Bud Light and now Target. Our campaign is making progress. Let’s keep it going.
Abroad, Ministry of Home Affairs officials raided Swatch stores in Malaysia over the company’s Pride Collection because it “bore LGBTQ+ connotations.”
And yet, for most corporations, this is, at worse, a tempest in a teapot and, at best, a fantastic purpose-driven marketing opportunity.
For LGBTQ+ people, it is a lesson to take the news cycle with a grain of salt, avoid conservative traps, and remain focused on the big picture.
The house is burning, but it is not around Pride or corporate support; it is on trans rights in local legislatures and courts, a race towards authoritarianism, and the movement losing the plot (see here).
Keeping things into perspective
First, it’s worth remembering that so far, except for Anheuser-Busch - which in the first place has a deep authenticity issue with no real commitment to diversity (see my previous post: “The self-inflicted wounds of Budweiser and Disney”), embattled brands have made it clear that they will not capitulate in the face of these isolated attacks on Pride branding:
Swatch’s responded with: “We strongly contest that our collection of watches using rainbow colors and having a message of peace and love could be harmful to whomever,” said Swatch’s Chief Executive Officer Nick Hayek”
Target stated that the company remains committed to the LGBTQ+. Community “and [is] standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.”
As for Disney and the Dodgers, the LGBTQ+ community came on top of this arm-wrestling match. We flexed our muscles as consumers, employees, and shareholders where it mattered. Disney will even bat for the LGBTQ+ community, challenging DeSantis in every forum, which might nail the coffin of his Presidential campaign.
Understanding brands calculated Pride risk-taking.
Due to the artificial controversy, we will likely see a double-down in corporate support for Pride by many companies. That is the lesson of the 2018 Nike/Kaepernick campaign (now a Harvard Business School Case Study): controversies over social-justice issues can be very lucrative. Brands supporting the LGBTQ+ community are too playing the long game. In 2023, having a "social license to operate" beyond profits is a business imperative. Companies embattled around their Pride branding will keep more customers than they will lose and earn more new ones — particularly among the younger demographic that massively identifies as part of the LGBTQ+ community or an ally.
Boycotts are short-lived (remember when the Gays boycotted Equinox?), while consumers enamored with a brand culture are forever.
As for the companies rethinking their internal events or Pride presence, what I described as “Pinkhushing” last week, they probably had not thought them out well in the first place. As Fast Company wrote about the Nike/Kaepernick’s case:
Too many brands [...] have mistaken taking a stand on something in an ad as a substitute for actually taking a stand on something.
Not every brand should express itself on every social issue in every context. Pride is probably not the best bet if a specific brand targets older conservative consumers in Florida, for example. And before positioning themselves on social justice value, it should be consistent with who they are as a company (e.g., hiring a woman or a person of color for the US Anheuser-Busch’s management team could be a first step). Companies should also acquire expertise and counsel - if they don’t have it in-house through their Employee Resource Group as an example - before trying to wing a half-baked campaign or have their CEOs make public statements on social justice issues only to shut it down when a few loud conservative trolls on social media call them out.
Embracing free speech
But ultimately, brands are free to support Pride or not, and consumers are free not to buy from companies that don’t match their values. Pride is not state-enforced, as “The Federalist” suggested this week in a ridiculous article titled “Pride Month Is A Cynical Exercise In State-Enforced Homosexuality,” which sounds a lot like “St Patrick’s Day is a cynical exercise in state-enforced Irishism,” “Christmas is a cynical exercise in state-enforced Christianity,” or “Memorial Day is a cynical exercise in state-enforced militarism.”
Similarly, companies have explicit human rights responsibilities towards their employees and supply chain as articulated in the UN LGBTQ+ Corporate Standards of Conduct. However, “acting in the public sphere” is an opportunity rather than a responsibility. I respect companies that choose not to embrace Pride; I care little about them. For example, I did not renew my subscription to the magazine “Monocle” because it failed to embrace our community or acknowledge Pride. It is just not for me.
Going back to basics
Pride is not about T-shirts or beer cans featuring Dylan Mulvaney; it is our antidote to the society-imposed shame we experience for the rest of the year and our opportunity to celebrate our freedom (see my previous post: Remember this day you first stood in the sun) against all odds. Pride's message is universal: LGBTQ+ people are not the only ones who must be reminded that they can define who they are, take control of their lives, and flourish in the face of adversity. Pride celebrates the inspirational journey of LGBTQ+ individuals who have chased the dream of equality for their community and succeeded no matter the required sacrifices. And no boycott can take that away from us.
To conclude, I would urge my readers always to ask themselves, "à qui profite le crime?”. Who makes money by amplifying these marginal calls for boycott and their short-term effect? Are alarmist messages around corporate Pride support in the movement accompanied by a call for donations? Is the media benefiting from overplaying the culture war? Were the CEOs calling a crisis meeting around the Pride engagement lukewarm about them anyway? We have enough of a problem with the instrumentalization by politicians of LGBTQ+ rights not to jump on every artificial crisis.