[ad_1]
From ‘rainbow washing’ to Twitter’s unbans, Crenshaw Communications’ Chris Harihar takes a look at the fallout from Bud Light’s partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney and the lessons marketers can learn from it.
The Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney controversy continues. Over the weekend, Alissa Heinerscheid and Daniel Blake, the two executives behind the commemorative beer can for transgender influencer Mulvaney, were put on leave. Bud Light’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch, has apparently held them accountable for the campaign and ensuing controversy.
The move followed a letter from Anheuser-Busch’s chief executive that essentially apologized for the activation. Though not explicitly saying ”I’m sorry,” it attempted to distance the brand from Mulvaney by invoking traditional Americana imagery and values – a revealing and distasteful move that othered Mulvaney to realign Bud Light.
Unsurprisingly, Bud Light’s conservative audience remains unforgiving, while the new demographic initially drawn by Bud Light’s support of Mulvaney has all but cut ties. I think it’s fair to call this one of the worst-managed PR and marketing crises of the past decade. As we examine the aftermath and long-term effects, consider the following crucial takeaways for brands, communication professionals and marketers moving forward.
The challenges of performative LGBTQ+ marketing
Last year, Pride campaigns faced Gen Z criticism for being superficial corporate activism. For instance, only 14% of respondents positively rated basic rainbow flag campaigns by brands. Bud Light’s situation exemplifies this kind of ’rainbow washing’ – organizations promoting superficial LGBTQ+ support.
Oddly, the Bud Light incident may make brands hesitant to engage in even shallow LGBTQ+ activism at a time when all forms of corporate support – amid a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and legislation – should be welcomed.
Nevertheless, brands engaging in LGBTQ+ marketing should…
..
[ad_2]
