The Inclusion Return Series Part Three: The State Of Practice.
Most Marketers Invest in Inclusion, Few Embed It into Core Strategy.
The Paradox of 2025
By 2025, the commercial value of inclusion is proven beyond dispute. Inclusive advertising drives higher sales, loyalty, and pricing power across numerous brands worldwide. Yet, in practice, marketing adoption remains uneven. A clear gap exists between executive knowledge and organizational commitment.
Survey data crystallizes this divide: 63% of marketers say their companies invest in inclusive marketing, but only 42% embed inclusivity as a central principle in marketing and communications. Brands claim inclusion but rarely treat it as infrastructure. The result: campaigns that flash inclusivity but lack integration into long-term brand strategy.
Barriers to Embedding Inclusion
Budget: A Fragile Line Item
Budget remains the primary barrier. Even companies funding inclusive campaigns treat inclusion as discretionary. When margins tighten, these budgets are cut first, viewed like sponsorships or one-off cultural events. This creates fragility. Data proves inclusion strengthens revenue, yet it is cut precisely when it would defend pricing power and loyalty. Such cuts accelerate churn and erode first-choice preference, advantages competitors maintain.Brand Safety: Narrow Filters, Lost Reach
Another obstacle is brand safety. One-third of marketers struggle placing inclusive ads in what executives label “safe” environments. This is not due to inclusivity but restrictive frameworks that exclude entire communities. Platforms serving LGBTQ+ or minority voices are often flagged unsafe by automated systems, silencing target audiences. This reduces campaign reach, dilutes returns, and leads brands to erroneously conclude inclusion fails. Without redesigning placement systems, inclusion remains tokenized and limited in scale.Backlash: Fear Over Facts
Over 25% of marketers cite fear of backlash as a deterrent. Executives fixate on potential social media criticism or boycotts, overestimating these episodic risks. Evidence shows inclusive campaigns grow sales and equity, even amid polarization. Temporary backlash fades; silence causes durable harm. Younger consumers interpret absence as exclusion and shift spending. The real risk is ignoring inclusion, not being criticized for it.
The Operational Gap
These barriers reflect a larger organizational gap: absence of governance treating inclusion as core infrastructure. While 63% invest, only 42% embed inclusion centrally. The rest rely on opportunistic campaigns or reactive responses. Few link inclusion to KPIs, few leadership teams reflect market diversity, board oversight is scarce, and performance reviews often omit cultural competence. Without these systemic measures, inclusion remains discretionary despite proven returns.
Closing the Gap: Strategic Imperatives
Bridging this gap demands explicit leadership choices:
Treat inclusion budgets as protected investments, not optional extras.
Redesign placement frameworks to avoid silencing intended communities.
Recalibrate backlash risk, prioritizing long-term loyalty and pricing power over short-term noise.
Embed inclusion into governance, tying it to commercial KPIs and board accountability.
When these steps happen, evidence and practice align. Brands will integrate inclusion, making it a consistent revenue and equity driver rather than a sporadic effort.
Bottom Line: Funded But Not Embedded
In 2025, inclusion is acknowledged and budgeted but often not foundational. Budget fragility, brand safety filters, and backlash fears restrict progress. Brands who embed inclusion centrally gain margin resilience, loyalty, and relevance. Those who don’t risk competitive decline.
