Pride and profits: What is pinkwashing and why is it a problem?

Once again, the month of June has rolled around, but this time without our beloved Pride parades lighting up the streets with colour, glitter, and lots of love. While the postponement was not a surprise, it still came as disappointing news to many of us. Whether you were excited for your first Pride after coming out or were looking forward to a yearly tradition, chances are that you have been eying rainbow merch as a consolation prize for COVID-19 swooping in and getting in the way of your plans. Your favourite white sneakers now adorned with tiny rainbow hearts? Yes, please. A dozen “Love is love” pins for all your canvas bags and denim jacket wet dreams? Hell yeah! Underwear with rainbow bands? I’m sold. It is hard to resist the urge to fill your shopping cart to the brim with Pride merch when it looks this cute and communicates such an important message at the same time, right? I am sorry to break it to you, but there are a few things to consider before you hit purchase or tap your credit card. And you might have guessed it: Capitalism has a hand at play.

51 years after Stonewall, the rebellion that would inspire today’s Pride, broke out in New York City, it is no longer a rare sight to see big brands affiliate themselves with the LGBTQ+ community. The admittingly cliché yet touching quote “I am my ancestors’ wildest dreams” quickly comes to mind as you walk past mainstream shops, each with their own twist on the familiar rainbow flag on display in the windows. It is safe to say that what we perceive as normal today would be considered outrageous when our parents were growing up. And while the days of Tamagotchis and the Spice Girls might not seem too far away, discrimination was still very much alive in the 90s as well. In fact, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation within a company was actually a new concept in the mid-90s. In other words, getting to a point where LGBTQ+ rights are an issue that big brands feel comfortable enough to take a “political” stance on should be considered a win, especially seeing how most brands will refuse to take a stance on anything too “controversial” as to not lose customers. This is not to say that brands are becoming more politically engaged, but rather telling us something about our society, and how it has become more open to the LGBTQ+ movement.

At first glance, it seems like these influential brands that are clearly stating their allyship is an asset to the community, as they provide visibility and promote acceptance. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The truth is that there is a thin line between solidarity and company agenda when it comes to the corporate world. This is where “pinkwashing” comes in. The term was first coined by the Breast Cancer Action and used to critique companies that market products with a pink ribbon, while manufacturing or selling carcinogenic products, thus profiting from their illness. Since then, the term has also taken on a similar meaning in relation to the appropriation of the LGBTQ+ movement. It is used when entities market themselves as queer-friendly “to promote a particular corporate or political agenda.” In other words, it is often an attempt to market themselves as progressive, modern, and tolerant, while downplaying aspects of their business that are considered to be negative.

A good example of a situation where a company will try to mask their flaws with the help of pinkwashing is the case of unethical production. A Pride collection has become the perfect decoy for problematic brands that are exploiting cheap labour in developing nations and uphold poor working conditions in the pursuit of low prices and big profits. This is because it helps them gain favour with progressives, who tend to be particularly sceptical towards such unethical practices. Adding to the problem, a number of brands have been called out for manufacturing Pride apparel in countries where queer people are commonly persecuted and even imprisoned because of their sexuality. These retailers include H&M, Primark, and Target, which have all been criticised for contributing to the fast fashion industry. This leaves us with the question: Is their support of the LGBTQ+ community just a marketing strategy used to distract consumers from the fundamental flaws of their production? Logically speaking, it is not likely that retailers that do not take the rights of their own workers into account, would truly care about the rights of the people of the LGBTQ+ community if it was not for potential profits. The fact that they do not see the hypocrisy of producing Pride apparel in countries where queer people do not have rights proves that understanding the struggles of the community is not the motivation behind their Pride campaigns.

A simple way to expose pinkwashing is to see how the brand commits to supporting the LGBTQ+ community aside from their rainbow-coloured merch and if their support still stands when June has come to an end. While it is great to see big brands include queer people in their campaigns and put up Pride flags, that is far from enough. Where are these brands when Poland declares LGBTQ-free zones and where were they when Boris Johnson scrapped the gender act? Instead of using their platform to speak out against this kind of injustice, the majority stay silent. Adding a few rainbows to their collection and using vague language about love instead of using queer terminology, will not solve these problems and neither will their silence. So why should we allow them to make money off our movement?

For the same reason, big brands should also not be praised for donating a low percentage of sales from Pride collections to LGBTQ+ charities. That should be a given. They benefit from these efforts just as much, if not more, as the community itself. It should be expected that when you directly target a community like this in the name of profits, the least they can do is giving back to that community. It should also be said that making a donation in itself can be seen as a form of a marketing strategy because it keeps away protesters who would otherwise call them out for exploiting the movement, while it requires a minimum amount of effort and resources.

This brings us to the term “rainbow capitalism” which refers to targeting and generating a market specifically focused on the LGBTQ+ community for their purchasing power. In light of the Black Lives Matter protests, activists are urging people to only support artists of colour when it comes to BLM merch. The point is that people who have not experienced racism themselves, and who have even benefited from white privilege, should not make money off this movement. The same logic can be applied to the LGBTQ+ movement and pinkwashing: People who are not a part of the community should not make profits from Pride merch and other LGBTQ+ targeted products.

This kind of appropriation of the LGBTQ+ movement is why you should take a moment to think before you hit purchase. Consider doing a bit more research and find an independent queer artist instead, whose work can be purchased at any time of the year and who continues to genuinely support the movement even when June is over. Last year, the New York Times compiled a list showcasing five artists that you can support instead of your typical corporate Pride merch – and there are many more out there, just a few more clicks away. With that being said, you do not need a flag nor any rainbow themed objects whatsoever to show that you are proud of your sexuality. Pride was never meant to be a materialistically focused event, and this movement is much more than its colours and glitter. It is about the right to love.

Pride and profits: What is pinkwashing and why is it a problem?

Related content