Big brands are staying quiet this Pride Month
For the last several years, Pride Month was a splashy marketing event for big brands. Stores adorned windows with rainbow flags, displayed LGBTQ-themed t-shirts and coffee mugs at their entrances, changed their logos on social media accounts, and spotlighted donations to LGBTQ rights groups.
But this Pride Month, many retail chains and brands are going quiet.
Companies are treading lightly, avoiding prominent campaigns and visible public support. Thirty-nine percent say they plan to scale back public Pride Month engagements this year, according to a survey of more than 200 corporate executives by Gravity Research, a risk management advisory. That includes sponsoring Pride events, posting supportive messages of LGBTQ rights on social media and selling Pride-themed merchandise.
Consumer brands are wary of provoking right-wing customers and activists, and they fear reprisals from President Donald Trump's administration. Federal agencies have threatened to investigate companies with diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Many businesses are tightening their advertising spending due to economic uncertainty over Trump's tariffs. But businesses cited pressure from the Trump administration as the primary reason for changing their Pride Month approach, according to the survey.
'It's clear that the administration and their supporters are driving the change,' said Luke Hartig, the president of Gravity Research. 'Companies are under increasing pressure not to engage and speak out on issues.'
The subdued approach marks a shift for businesses, which used to turn the annual June celebration of LGBTQ Americans into a branded holiday. It's part of a broader pivot in corporate America, with many businesses scrapping some of their programs to advance diversity in the workplace under pressure from the Trump administration and Republican activists.
Advocates for gay, lesbian and transgender Americans say the Trump administration's opposition makes it harder for businesses to compete, innovate and attract talent. They also warn that companies risk losing business by downplaying support for their growing number of gay, lesbian and transgender customers and workers. The proportion of American adults who identify as LGBTQ has risen to 9.3% of the population.
'By weaponizing federal agencies like the EEOC and the Justice Department to intimidate companies that support LGBTQ+ inclusion, this administration is creating an anti-business, anti-worker atmosphere,' said Eric Bloem, the vice president of corporate citizenship at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation.
Many businesses have stopped participating in the Human Rights Campaign's scorecard on corporate policies and benefits for LGBTQ employees due to backlash.
'Companies that show up only when it's convenient, or backtrack the moment there's political pressure, risk losing trust and credibility,' Bloem said.
Companies are actively preparing for Pride-related backlash this year from conservative activists and consumers.
Sixty-five percent of companies in Gravity Research's survey said they were preparing strategies to respond to blowback. A growing number of chains, including Walmart, Target, Kroger, have also been warning investors about the risks of consumer boycotts over corporate positions on social issues.
Anger from the right over Bud Light and Target's marketing efforts, in particular, has had a chilling effect on corporate strategies for Pride Month.
Bud Light sales tanked in 2023 after the company's partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney sparked anti-trans backlash and boycotts. Bud Light's tepid response also angered LGBTQ rights advocates.
In 2023, activists and customers on the right attacked Target on social media for its LGBTQ-themed merchandise during Pride Month. Target employees faced threats over items such as bathing suits designed for transgender people, and the company removed them from stores. Misinformation spread on social media that the swimsuits were marketed to children, which they were not.
The backlash led to a drop in sales and lawsuits from Republican-aligned legal groups.
Last year, Target sold Pride products in fewer stores and offered the full merchandise collection online.
Target is again taking a muted approach to Pride Month this year.
In 'select stores,' Target is selling a 'multi-category collection including home, pets, books, vinyl and adult apparel and accessories' to celebrate Pride, the company said in an email to employees viewed by CNN. Target is selling the full Pride product selection online.
'We are absolutely dedicated to fostering inclusivity for everyone – our team members, our guests, our supply partners, and the more than 2,000 communities we're proud to serve,' a Target spokesperson said. 'As we have for many years, we will continue to mark Pride Month by offering an assortment of celebratory products, hosting internal programming to support our incredible team and sponsoring local events in neighborhoods across the country.'
But Target's Pride merchandise is limited and displayed less prominently in stores than in previous years, said one Target senior leader who spoke under the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Target store employee and customer excitement for Pride Month has dissipated as a result of the company's shift, according to the senior leader.
'It feels like we have catered to the direction of the administration,' this person said.
Other companies are also dialing back public pronouncements, donations and merchandise in support of Pride Month.
Last year, Kohl's launched a 'Pride capsule collection' of merchandise and donated $100,000 to The Trevor Project, a suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ youth.
'As we use this month to embrace love in all forms, we simultaneously create more spaces for members of the LGBTQIA+ community to live out loud,' Michelle Banks, Kohl's-then chief diversity, equity & inclusion officer, said in a news release. (Banks is now Kohl's chief inclusion and belonging officer.)
Kohl's has not announced any Pride Month plans this year and did not respond to CNN's requests for comment.
Macy's last year touted that it hosted a donation campaign for The Trevor Project, spotlighted LGBTQ-owned brands, and set up displays in select Macy's windows and at local Pride marches nationwide.
Macy's is supporting Pride events this month in a similar way, including participating in Pride events nationwide and raising money for The Trevor Project. But unlike previous years, the company is not making official announcements about its plans.
Nordstrom, Gap and several other brands that highlighted their Pride Month efforts last year appear not to have repeated them this June. The companies did not respond to CNN about their plans.
But a quieter marketing approach to Pride Month does not necessarily mean companies are abandoning support for LGBTQ employees or customers.
'I do see there's pivoting happening (for Pride Month). What I don't see is corporates walking away from the LGBTQ community,' said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of advocacy group GLAAD. 'They don't want to be caught in the crosshairs of this presidency, and they don't want to become the headline like Target or Bud Light.'
Many companies are instead working behind the scenes to engage their LGBTQ employees and strengthen employee recruitment and retention strategies.
Just 14% of companies reported plans to reduce internal engagement during Pride Month, according to Gravity Research. Corporate employees are providing counter-pressure to keep brands active on LGBTQ issues.
'Companies are going deeper and wider, rather than supporting an event,' Ellis said. 'They're finding better ways to thread their work supporting the LGBTQ community into their organizations.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
11 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes
A federal judge in California finally approved a $2.6 billion settlement for college athletes that upends a century-old tenet of college sports—the notion that schools cannot pay the athletes that play for them. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Friday ushered in a new era—a professional era—for college sports by signing off on a plan for the NCAA and the five most prominent sports conferences to settle a class-action lawsuit with current and former college players. The deal will give backpay to some, as well as creating a system in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes. Schools are poised to begin implementing the new model this fall. The decision has been months in the making, drawn out in its final weeks by the judge's insistence that the NCAA find a way to stop current athletes from losing their roster spots. The settlement would 'enable NCAA schools to share their athletic revenues with Division I college student-athletes for the first time in the history of the NCAA,' Wilken wrote in her 76-page opinion. She added that it was 'expected to open the door for Division I student- athletes to receive, in the aggregate, approximately $1.6 billion dollars in new compensation and benefits per year, with that amount increasing over the next ten years.' Each school that elects to share revenue with athletes will start by distributing more than $20 million in the coming academic year. That amount will reach about $32.9 million per school by 2034-35, the end of the injunctive-relief settlement, Wilken wrote. The settlement brings the biggest changes yet to college sports, which until recently had banned athletes from earning much more than a scholarship, room and board. It comes on the heels of years of upheaval that have included loosened restrictions on off-the-field compensation for players, liberalized transfer rules and blockbuster television deals for schools and the chaotic conference realignment that followed. Yet during all of that time, many college sports leaders had still resisted paying athletes directly from the billions of dollars in revenue they helped generate. Now, that restraint is off. Schools have been readying for months for the settlement effects to land on their athletic departments, most immediately by transforming how they recruit and manage rosters in football and basketball. 'People have been doing a lot of work on a contingent basis to try to create the infrastructure that's envisioned by the settlement,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said ahead of the final approval. 'It'll definitely be rocky and kind of messy coming out of the gate, because big things are that way.' Private equity has already been circling college sports, pledging to inject capital into schools but also to advise them on how to grow their sports business. And athletic departments are openly wrestling over what the ruling means for the future of Olympic sports on campus. Most of these sports do not generate much revenue, but American campuses serve as the primary Olympic training ground for Team USA. The settlement largely immunizes the NCAA against similar claims, a provision the association considered essential as it seeks to move past decades of court battles over payments for players. But it will almost certainly not end litigation over the shape of college sports. It isn't clear whether the money needs to be distributed equitably in accordance with Title IX, the federal statute that requires publicly funded institutions to provide equal opportunities to male and female athletes. Aside from preparing for schools to distribute roughly $20 million a year to athletes, the settlement didn't specify how exactly much should be allocated to each sport. The majority will likely go to football, the financial engine of most athletic departments, as well as men's basketball. Female athletes have raised questions over the payouts they are set to receive and what fair compensation looks like for them going forward. 'This settlement doesn't come close to recognizing the value I lost,' LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne said in an unsuccessful attempt to object to the settlement. There's also the open question of whether athletes getting paid by their institutions are working for them—a distinction that could open up schools to more legal challenges. But even without employee status, the settlement will transform the relationship between players and schools. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Laine Higgins at and Rachel Bachman at
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Numbers to know
The groundbreaking case leading to the transformation of college sports in the United States comes nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed a complaint against the NCAA and the five most powerful conferences alleging they were unfairly being denied of pay for use of their name, image and likeness. The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken resolved three antitrust cases — House vs. NCAA, Carter vs. NCAA and Hubbard vs. NCAA — that became known collectively as the 'House case.' The class-action lawsuits contended the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC violated antitrust law by not providing benefits and compensation to athletes and restraining athletes' ability to make money for endorsements and sponsorships. Incremental gains won by athletes in previous lawsuits against the NCAA set the stage for the House settlement and the all-out professionalization of college sports. A look at key numbers associated with the case: 389,700 Athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016-24 and could be eligible for back payments 101,935 Class members who submitted a claim form or updated their payment information, which represents approximately 26.2% of the 389,700. 357 Athletes who opted out of the settlement and could pursue their own remedies. $2.8 billion Back damages to be paid to current and former college athletes who were denied the opportunity to profit from the use of their NIL rights. The amount will be paid in $280 million installments over 10 years. The NCAA will use reserves and insurance to cover about 40% of the payments. The rest will be covered by the NCAA reducing its annual distributions to Division I schools. 95% Estimated amount of the $2.8 billion that will be paid in back damages to football and men's and women's basketball players in the power conferences. $20.5 million The 2025-26 pool of money each Division I school can distribute in direct payments to athletes beginning July 1. The amount represents 22% of the average revenue generated by each school from the five defendant conferences and Notre Dame. 153 NCAA rules that had to be eliminated to allow schools to provide additional benefits to athletes under the settlement. $600 All Division I athletes will be required to report to their schools and the Deloitte clearinghouse any and all third-party NIL contracts with a total value of $600 or more, if payment occurs after July 1, 2025. The clearinghouse will determine whether the amount is commensurate with the athlete's fair market value. $20 billion The widely accepted estimate by University of San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher of additional direct compensation athletes will receive over the next 10 years. $10 billion The estimated amount of damages faced by the NCAA and the five conferences if they avoided a settlement and lost at trial. $475 million Plaintiffs attorneys' request for legal fees. The figure is based on attorneys receiving 20% of the NIL settlement fund and 10% of the additional compensation settlement fund as well as an injunction relief award of $20 million paid by the defendants. That does not included about $9 million in expenses attorneys are claiming. ___ AP college sports:
