Navigating Pride in a polarized world
New research offers PR strategies for brands looking to sustain credible Pride messaging.
Brands are grappling with the complexities of how – or if – to observe Pride Month.
Major retailers and consumer goods makers in particular face scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum – from backlash over inclusive advertising to criticism from LGBTQ+ communities when support feels inconsistent.
Tyler Milfeld, a marketing professor at Villanova University, said the days of simple rainbow-colored campaigns are over. Companies must now navigate evolving consumer expectations and mounting political pressure.
Data from Gravity Research reveals that 39% of executives plan to decrease Pride Month engagement in 2025, up sharply from just 9% last year. Mastercard and PepsiCo are among the global brands already announcing scale-backs, including ending sponsorship of New York City’s Pride event.
Of the companies pulling back, 61% cite pressure from conservative influencers.
But abruptly ending support carries its own risks.
“If I say something and take a position, people expect that I believe it,” Milfeld said. “The moment that I start to walk it back, it leads them to believe that I probably never actually cared in the first place.”
Earning the right to speak out
Brands with a track record of LGBTQ+ advocacy have a clearer path forward, Milfeld said. He used Johnson & Johnson as an example of a company that’s earned the “right” to take part authentically in Pride Month. Its sustained support and third-party recognition for diversity offer a credibility buffer.
“Consumers will be more receptive to a brand with a reputation in this space,” Milfeld explained. “Showcasing ongoing efforts and accolades can go a long way in demonstrating that commitment.”
He added that consistency doesn’t necessarily require an annual campaign or participation in a parade. Past actions can continue to speak for themselves.
Milfeld pointed to The North Face, which faced boycott threats in 2023 over its “Summer of Pride” campaign featuring drag queen Pattie Gonia. The brand promoted inclusivity in the outdoors and stood firm in the face of false claims about rainbow-themed children’s apparel.
“We recognize the opportunity our brand has to shape the future of the outdoors and we want that future to be a more accepting and loving place… we believe the outdoors are for everyone,” the brand wrote in 2023.
Although The North Face didn’t advertise a major campaign in 2024, a Google search reveals a Pride-themed collection on its Australian website.
“If they don’t show up, their ongoing commitment still speaks volumes,” Milfeld said. “These brands can still be perceived as authentic because they’ve built a track record through actions, not just words.”
Approaches for brands that fear criticism
Milfeld’s recent research shows that how brands respond to backlash after taking a social stance, particularly during Pride Month, can have more impact than the stance itself.
For example, when Target removed Pride merchandise ahead of June 2024, it may have appeased critics but angered LGBTQ+ supporters.
“Those supporters viewed it as a retreat,” Milfeld said. “The reversal ended up being more divisive than the original campaign.”
Milfeld found that brands with a history of supporting Pride who abruptly scale back risk looking inconsistent or inauthentic, making it harder to re-engage supporters if public sentiment shifts.
He outlined two strategies for scaling back without losing trust:
- Acknowledge criticism without retracting the stance: Taking responsibility or recognizing the backlash but maintaining the original message. “It shows you’re aware of the criticism while standing firm,” Milfeld said.
- Reaffirm the brand’s values: Clearly signaling continued support, even if efforts are scaled down. “Reaffirmation is the most proactive position,” Milfeld said. “It signals to your customer base that we’re doubling down on this issue.”
The key difference: acknowledging is about listening, while reaffirming is about standing strong. Both, Milfeld stressed, are far more effective than retreating.
“When brands retreat, they lose on all fronts,” he said. “They alienate both supporters and critics.”
That said, doubling down isn’t always the right move. Being too defiant can drag a brand deeper into political crossfire.
“It depends on where the brand wants to be perceived and whether that issue should stay front and center,” Milfeld explained.
There’s one widely accepted reason for scaling back: safety. If a brand cites real risks, particularly a physical threat to employees, and explains the decision clearly, consumers are more likely to accept it.
“Consumers will forgive a misstep,” Milfeld said. “What they won’t forgive is inconsistency or the sense that your values are negotiable.”
Positioning the message for greater impact
When addressing divisive issues, brands can often show support for a cause without addressing it head on by grounding messages in shared values and universal human experiences, Milfeld said. He called this strategy a cultural identity mindset frame.
For example, Vicks’ #TouchOfCare campaign in 2017 launched with a poignant story about a transgender woman’s love for her child. By tapping into universal themes like family and care, the brand created a sense of empathy that transcended audiences.
“The brand was pioneering the topic at that time,” Milfeld added. He said that approach – framing LGBTQ+ support through a culturally relatable lens – continues to resonate on behalf of the brand today.
Similarly, brands supporting Pride-related issues can tell stories that resonate across cultural boundaries, such as belonging and community or self-acceptance.
Ultimately, though, visibility during Pride Month won’t mean much if it isn’t consistent throughout the year.
“It’s about more than a marketing campaign,” Milfeld said. “Consumers want to see real action, not just marketing.”
Casey Weldon is a reporter for PR Daily. Follow him on LinkedIn.
You are saying its fine that The North Face has disappeared because they showed up two years ago? Sorry but this is a truly dumb take.