Beyond Bud Light: The Risks of Identity Politics

In recent years, an increasing number of corporations have openly expressed support for transgender rights and embraced left-leaning policies on various social, environmental, and political issues. When the political climate seemed more left-leaning, companies like the NFL amassed support for publicly declaring in 2021 that “football is gay,” and Macy’s celebrated LGBTQ Pride Month by introducing new pride merchandise.

However, in a constantly shifting political landscape, and with recent Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action and abortion, companies involved in politics are facing a backlash for embracing identity politics. Most notably, Bud Light and Target have been boycotted by conservatives and even by moderate and left-leaning consumers for their in-your-face promotion of LGBTQ merchandise.

A survey conducted by Sprout Social in 2019, found that 70 percent of consumers believe it is important for brands to take a stance on social and political matters. But, while certain companies have garnered significant support for their endorsement of LGBTQ rights and policies, others are now facing criticism for expressing their support for the LGBTQ community. Bud Light is the most notable example, but it is not an isolated case as other companies are beginning to encounter similar negative reactions.

Controversial Partnerships

During the weekend of the NCAA Basketball men’s and women’s National Championship in early April, Dylan Mulvaney announced her partnership with Bud Light on her TikTok account by showcasing Bud Light cans with her face on them. Since the TikTok ad was released, Bud Light has faced strong public criticism and a boycott, especially from conservatives.

According to the Beer Business Daily, Bud Light sales volumes dropped by 28.4 percent in the week ending May 13. And some Costco stores have started marking their remaining Bud Light products with an asterisk, indicating that those products are being phased out. Although some retailers have reduced their Bud Light prices from at least $20 to $3.49 for a 24-pack 12 oz. can, the New York Post reports a continuous decline in Bud Light sales since the TikTok ad’s release, suggesting the boycott has spread beyond just conservatives.

Joining Bud Light in the spotlight is Target, which has faced a backlash for promoting LGBTQ Pride merchandise, including a “tuck-friendly” bathing suit for children, as part of its pride collection during LGBTQ Pride Month. After the public criticism, the company decided to move its pride merchandise to the back of stores and even removed some items altogether.

As the backlash against both Target and Bud Light grew, both companies chose to stop promoting LGBTQ products instead of standing up for the LGBTQ community, a decision that has earned both companies’ massive disapproval from left-leaning consumers and the LGBTQ community.

Navigating such a backlash can be challenging for companies because apologizing risks upsetting the LGBTQ community while standing by their decisions could further alienate the companies’ other customers. In light of these complexities, Target issued a statement explaining that it was removing its pride merchandise due to threats impacting their “team members’ safety and well-being at work.” The statement tries to carefully avoid taking a side in the political debate by pushing the narrative that sympathy for their employees was driving their decision rather than just worry about declining sales.

Yet such public relations tactics also expose companies’ hypocrisy. When companies choose to engage in identity politics, they ought to be prepared to stand by their decisions. Otherwise, they appear to be engaging in virtue signaling.

Back in April, Budweiser’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch used the same employee-centered approach in their statement. Anheuser-Busch talked about having “more than 18,000 employees and 47,000 valued colleagues through independent distributors.” They emphasized that their main goal is “to bring people together over a beer.” To address the issue, they even made new commercials highlighting some of their 65,000 workers and partners, like farmers, delivery drivers, and servers, who they said brought their “beer to life.” However, this corporate response still leaves their (former) customers and the LGBTQ community frustrated.

Even companies that have previously worked with transgender influencers have not been able to escape this growing backlash. Some individuals have started promoting #boycottmaybelline, urging people to boycott the makeup brand because they sponsored Dylan Mulvaney. This is surprising because Maybelline has been using members of the transgender community to promote their products since 2017 when they launched their first campaign featuring Manny Gutierrez, a man. Just recently, on July 7, Maybelline’s Instagram account featured Zak Taylor, a member of the LGBTQ community, promoting their “instant perfector 4 in 1 makeup.” Despite this, the boycott movement against Maybelline continues to grow. The recently premiered Barbie movie, starring transgender star Hari Nef, has already been gaining attention, with some Christian websites expressing concerns that the film deviates from its intended theme and target audience by emphasizing identity politics.

Conclusion

Companies need to understand that there are inherent risks to engaging in politics or affiliating with a specific political philosophy. While taking a stance on social and political issues can attract support from some customers, it can also alienate others. Therefore, companies should carefully assess the potential consequences and consider how aligning with a particular political view or group may affect their brand image and overall business performance.