A Brand Without Consistency Always Loses.
The Test of Consistency
Every brand claims to have values. But values mean nothing until they are tested, and today the tests are relentless. Outrage is weaponized, politics are polarized, and what once seemed like ordinary campaigns can ignite boycotts and threats. A Pride display, a DEI hire, or an ad with the “wrong” influencer now carries consequences. The lesson is clear: purpose is no longer a communications strategy, it is an operating choice with real-world costs. The brands still trying to hedge, to balance two opposing sides, are the ones losing hardest.
Target: Conditional Inclusivity
Target built equity on inclusivity, but when faced with threats over Pride merchandise, it retreated. Products were pulled, displays moved, and leadership pointed to employee safety. While the concern was real, the retreat was devastating. Inclusivity, once conditional, stopped being inclusivity at all. Target weakened trust with the very communities it sought to champion and emboldened those who had attacked it.
Chick-fil-A: Values in Conflict
Even brands with conservative roots face contradictions. Chick-fil-A has long tied itself to faith-based identity, but the appointment of a DEI officer triggered outrage from its core supporters. The brand suddenly faced a market it wanted to grow into and a base unwilling to evolve with it. Expanding into a diverse consumer landscape while clinging to exclusionary politics is an equation that cannot hold. At some point, the contradiction fractures.
Disney: Purpose Under Fire
Disney avoided political conflict for decades, cultivating neutrality under the banner of family entertainment. That stance collapsed when Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill targeted its employees and guests. Silence would have betrayed its stated mission of belonging. Taking a stand triggered political retaliation, but retreat would have been worse. Protecting purpose required accepting conflict, proof that neutrality is no longer viable when core values are at stake.
Bud Light: The Textbook Collapse
Bud Light provides the clearest warning. A partnership with Dylan Mulvaney should have been a straightforward act of inclusion to reach younger audiences. Backlash came, and the brand faltered. Leadership released a noncommittal statement about “focusing on brewing great beer,” offering no defense of the campaign, no support for the influencer, and no demonstration of conviction. The result was boycotts from both sides, collapsing sales, and evaporated equity. Marketing to a community without standing with them cost Bud Light everyone’s trust.
The Real Lesson
Performative gestures are liabilities in today’s climate. A rainbow logo in June or a Women’s History Month ad without structural alignment will be exposed as hollow. By contrast, conviction earns returns. Miller proved it when it reframed women in beer advertising, stood firm against criticism, and saw sales climb 18%. Clear values, defended consistently, strengthen equity. Hesitation and retreat destroy it.
Bottom Line
Purpose has shifted from brand language to survival filter. Target, Chick-fil-A, Disney, and Bud Light all demonstrate the same truth: hedging is untenable. You cannot balance inclusion with appeasement. You cannot market to communities you are unwilling to support. In this environment, purpose is binary. Own it fully and accept the cost, or abandon it. The middle ground no longer exists, and brands that try to have it both ways lose everyone.
