The Black Lives Matter movement reignited by the deaths of George Floyd and other Black Americans at the hands of police hasn’t just changed streets and statehouses. It has rewired how brands talk — and what their customers expect them to say.
The public is way ahead of the marketing department. A Piplsay survey of more than 30,000 Americans found that 65% believe brands should take a stand against racism. Nearly half — 46% — believe brand action will drive credible change. For marketers still sitting it out, the number that matters is this: 56% said they would be more likely to buy from brands that speak out. Among Gen Z and Millennials, that number jumps to 62%.
The public wants more than statements. 61% weren’t convinced that scrapping racist labels and mascots, on its own, would move the needle. 31% said brands should clean up bias inside their own organizations before broadcasting outside.
That’s the trap — and most brands walked straight into it.
The ads that worked. And the ones that didn’t.
Ace Metrix, a California advertising analytics firm, ran the tape on the wave of BLM-era ads. The verdict was brutal for some of the biggest spenders. Spots from P&G and YouTube landed in what Ace Metrix called the “danger zone” — viewers read them as exploitative.
Nike went the other direction. The brand inverted its own slogan from “Just Do It” to “For Once, Don’t Do It,” asking consumers not to look away from racism. 60% of viewers found it empowering.
The NBA, Sprite, and Papa John’s also landed. The common thread: they showed corporate responsibility instead of lecturing their audience. Piplsay’s data backs the pattern — 31% of respondents said they wanted to see brands act before speaking.
McDonald’s tested the opposite hypothesis. Its ad named seven Black people killed by police and others. Powerful for some viewers — exploitative for others. The NAACP called it out for jumping on a national moment while McDonald’s own Black employees were raising complaints about COVID-19 workplace safety. The internal contradiction killed the external message.
Lessons learned
Brands that believe in fairness need to act internally before they go public. Get the house in order. Then earn the right to speak.
Do it the other way and employees become the first and loudest critics. The discrimination suits this century alone — GE, Walmart, Southern California Edison, Abercrombie & Fitch — are a reminder that no ad budget erases a settlement. Only action does.
Three rules from this cycle:
Audit before announcing. If a journalist or an employee can find a contradiction in five minutes, the campaign is dead before it ships.
Show, don’t lecture. Audiences punish brands that moralize. They reward brands that do something visible and specific.
Bring employees with you. The people who work for the brand are the campaign’s first focus group and its most credible ambassadors. Lose them and the rest doesn’t matter.
Brand activism isn’t a marketing decision. It’s an operating decision the marketing team gets to talk about — once the operating part is real.
Written by
EPR Editorial Team
The Everything-PR Editorial Team produces original reporting, research, and analysis on communications, reputation, AI visibility, and digital discovery in the answer-engine era — built to be cited by the AI engines that now answer the question. Publishing since 2009.
