In recent years, brands have increasingly embraced diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as central pillars of their marketing. From rainbow logos during Pride Month to messaging for International Women’s Day, many organisations now see it as essential to reflect the full spectrum of human identity in their campaigns.

However, this is not without its backlash. The 2024 US presidential election has only intensified the conversation, with Donald Trump framing inclusion efforts as threats to traditional values. Brands now find themselves caught between two forces: the push to reflect a more inclusive society, and the pull of customer segments who feel alienated or excluded by those same efforts.

This backlash is something I’ve recently researched, alongside my colleagues Dr Louise Hassan at Birmingham Business School and Professor Edward Shiu at Bangor University. Together, we set out to understand a growing tension: why do some diversity campaigns resonate, while others provoke frustration, scepticism, or even brand boycotts?

Our findings were striking. Across ten experimental studies, we discovered that when diversity initiatives feel irrelevant or misaligned with a brand’s identity, they can actively drive loyal customers away.

Not because customers oppose diversity itself, but because they sense the brand is using it as a marketing ploy, or worse, betraying a shared identity in pursuit of social currency.

When inclusion feels like exclusion

We looked at various types of campaigns, some short-term, some long-term; some supporting widely accepted groups, others focused on more marginalised or controversial identities.

What we found was that long-term campaigns targeting groups with whom existing customers do not identify can trigger especially strong backlash. Customers interpret these moves not just as out of step, but as a signal that the brand no longer sees them as insiders.

The result is often brand avoidance, loss of trust and, in some cases, public outcry.

For example, imagine a lifestyle brand with a core customer base that sees itself as traditional or conservative. If that brand suddenly launches a sweeping campaign around a progressive social issue, it risks alienating those customers, particularly if the campaign feels like a bolt-on rather than an extension of long-standing values.

This reaction, we found, stems from a perceived threat to personal identity. Customers often view their favourite brands as extensions of themselves. When that brand seems to take a sharp turn, especially one that feels out of sync, it can feel like a betrayal.

It’s not that customers don’t support diversity in theory; rather, they bristle at what they perceive as tokenism, virtue signalling or a fundamental shift in the brand’s purpose.

How brands can get it right

What can companies do differently? One effective approach is to use sub-brands to support specific causes. Sub-brands give companies the flexibility to engage with diverse communities without risking the coherence of the parent brand.

For example, a cosmetics company could launch a gender-inclusive beauty line under a separate label, allowing it to serve new audiences without unsettling existing ones.

Another strategy is to offer product customisation. When customers are given choice, such as selecting a skin tone or design that reflects their identity, the result is often increased engagement and a sense of inclusion without alienation.

This can be particularly effective when the brand avoids overt political positioning, but still creates space for different identities.

A third option is to clearly communicate long-term commitments. Authenticity matters. If a brand wants to support a cause meaningfully, it must show that the commitment isn’t fleeting. That means explaining goals, sharing partnerships, and demonstrating consistent action, rather than switching up packaging for one month of the year.

It’s also important to tailor diversity strategies to the type of customer relationship. If your brand has a primarily transactional relationship with customers, as often seen in utilities, financial services, or fast fashion, then bold social positioning may be less expected and more likely to jar. We find that long-term commitments are particularly damaging to customers’ relationships with such brands.

But in sectors like beauty, fashion, or lifestyle, where emotional connection and identity expression are central, brands should aim to support social causes more long-term, as this feels more sincere.

Real inclusion requires real alignment

Our findings do not mean companies should shy away from supporting underrepresented groups. On the contrary, brands have incredible power to shape culture and signal inclusion. But doing this well is something that requires nuance.

Not every awareness day fits every brand. The most effective campaigns are those that align with a brand’s values, make sense for the target audience, and reflect a genuine internal commitment.

What we found, ultimately, is that meaningful diversity work is less about appearances and more about alignment.

Brands that show up meaningfully, with actions that support their words and with a clear understanding of who their customers are, tend to earn respect.

Those that simply jump on trends risk not only being ignored, but actively rejected.

At a time when brand loyalty is harder to maintain and easier than ever to lose, the stakes could not be higher. Our research can help businesses think more carefully and more strategically about how they approach diversity in their marketing.

Done right, it can build stronger connections with customers across the spectrum. Done wrong, it can drive them away.

Miriam McGowan is assistant professor of marketing at Durham University Business School.