Every June our social media pages, as well as shop windows, are filled with pride flags. At a first glance, it sends a message of positivity, one that embraces the diversity of society and celebrates the LGBTQ+ community. However, delve deeper and you might find a more problematic narrative – one that exploits the very community it ‘celebrates’.
Rainbow washing – a term that was popularised in recent years, refers to businesses or organisations that simply slap a rainbow on campaigns with the aim to look progressive but put very minimal effort into helping the LGBTQ+ community, or advocating for our rights.
Over the past few years, more and more LGBTQ+ activists have spoken out about the problems of ‘rainbow washing’, arguing that companies should not be profiting from marginalised groups, especially at a time of celebration.
Oliver Jackson, who identifies as a bisexual male, said: “It really annoys me, especially looking back at what started pride. I hate that people protesting the right to just exist is now a marketing ploy. It helps [the companies] seem progressive to consumers without any actual progress being made.”
The anger continues to grow throughout the LGBTQ+ communities when some of these companies who use pride as a marketing tool also then donate to anti-LGBTQ+ campaigns, and are accused of having discriminatory and unsafe working environments for members of the community.
Louie Taylor, who identifies as a non-binary pansexual, describes this as being ‘hypocritical’, using the LGBTQ+ community as pawns in a box-ticking activity. For Louie, if these companies actually donated profits to LGBTQ+ communities, as well as actively campaigning for the rights of LGBTQ+ members, then they would be more inclined to support said companies.
Emily Clayton, who identifies as a demisexual lesbian, further develops on this point. When asked about which companies she found problematic relating to pride month, she said: “Corporations like Disney promote pride and sell rainbow merch in June while funding homophobic and transphobic politicians.”
Disney donated at least $100,000 to Ron DeSantis, a Florida governor who enthusiastically supported what critics call “Don’t Say Gay” legislation, banning teachers from answering questions about sexuality or gender identity from students. The company initially came under fire for refusing to directly condemn the bill, but later shifted its position. For Emily, this is deeply problematic and unethical.
Another complaint amongst the LGBTQ+ community is when companies start selling ‘pride’ themed products, which are normally priced far higher than the non-pride alternatives.
When asked about the rainbow-washing of products, Louie said: “If for example a company actually donated 100% of sales of a rainbow-themed product to LGBT charities, then I’d support it, but companies should never rainbow wash their products during June just to boost sales, especially when those rainbow products are most expensive.”
And yet, when looking at the statistics surrounding the profiting from pride month, only sixty-two percent of companies donate money to LGBTQ+ causes (Reboot Onlinee). And even then, this does not indicate how much of the pride products’ profits are actually donated.
For Emily, she feels that some companies “see a rainbow in June as a marketing ploy to rake in a load of extra cash.” Yet it is much more than that. The pride rainbow is symbolic of the fight that the LGBTQ+ community has had to endure in order to overcome the societal discrimination that has been placed upon them. It is a massive injustice for companies to then use this symbol to exploit these communities and make a profit.
However for Emily, not all companies’ marketing of pride has been problematic. When asked about whether she could name any companies that she thought had a good pride campaign, she said that three, in particular, stood out: H&M – due to their diversity within their adverts and their donations to LGBTQ+ charities, Lego – who although released a pride set, work with organisations to make their workplaces inclusive and safe for LGBTQ+ workers, and Skittles – their bride skittles are all white with the slogan ‘only one rainbow matters’, commissioning LGBTQ+ artists for the packaging, and donating the proceeds to LGBTQ+ charities.
However, despite some companies receiving a positive reaction from the LGBTQ+ communities, some completely missed the memo. For Oliver, the Burger King advert was one that provided great amusement for him during pride month, completely misrepresenting same-sex couples with the use of their ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ buns. Yet, despite this misrepresentation being amusing for some, it is also deeply problematic. The misinformation of certain adverts and campaigns, only adds to the preconceptions and stigmas associated with the LGBTQ+ community.
For people like Louie, hiring workers from the LGBTQ+ community, and creating a positive and inclusive workspace free from discrimination is a much better way to celebrate pride.
Whilst, if you are looking for merchandise to wear at pride events, Emily recommends shopping at smaller LGBTQ+ owned stores, directly supporting the people that pride affects the most.
It appears that companies are neglecting to hear what the people of the LGBTQ+ community truly want. We do not want our apps in rainbow colours, or exclusive pride-themed items that cost more than the non-pride alternative. We want equality. We want companies to not donate profits to anti-LGBTQ+ campaigns. And, we want them to take some responsibility within their marketing.
Until companies truly listen to what we want, pride month marketing will always be exploitative and problematic for the people that they are claiming to celebrate.