Pride or Rainbow-Washing? Exploring LGBTQ+ Advertising from the Vested Stakeholder Perspective

Abstract

Brands increasingly address social inequalities by means of advertising. Inclusive advertising can, however, damage brands if consumers suspect insincere and extrinsic motivations. For instance, many companies that have engaged in identity-targeting advertisements face ‘washing’ accusations, particularly by members of the targeted social group. Still, our understanding of how these vested stakeholders determine whether brands are washing remains superficial. Further, little is known about when perceptions of washing lead to a loss of approval by the targeted community. Analyzing interviews with 24 LGBTQ+ individuals, we found that vested stakeholders construct motivational attributions guided by the salience of their minority identities. Specifically, respondents with highly salient minority identities sourced cues from both the advertisements and the advertisement’s organizational context to inform the attributions on which they base their washing perceptions and the corresponding negotiation of social approval. Thus, we highlight how identity salience influences the evaluation of targeted advertisements and outline which cues minority consumers employ to inform their motivational attributions and washing evaluations. We also discuss when perceived washing can lead to a loss of the target communities’ social license to operate (SLO), thereby engaging in theory building by integrating self-categorization theory (SCT) and attribution theory into the SLO framework.