Jersey Mike’s introduces Mike’s Hot Italian sub—via this commercial from White advertising agency Highdive—with a stereotypical Italian American voiceover hollering, “Fuggedaboudit!”
Not sure what the Order of Sons and Daughters of Italy in America would think of the spot—but the concept is lazy, potentially offensive, and thoroughly fuggedable.
DIKO—a White advertising agency in Austin, Texas—is responsible for the Liquid Death and Rumpl promotion featuring M.O.B. Shopping Network, a campaign rife with stereotypes historically deemed offensive to Italian Americans.
Somebody should’ve whacked it at the concept stage.
DIKO LAUNCHES “M.O.B. SHOPPING NETWORK” FOR LIQUID DEATH & RUMPL COLLABORATION
Two mobsters turn outdoor product benefits into suspicious selling points for the Body Bag sleeping bag and Dirt Nap puffy blanket.
Independent creative agency DIKO has created “M.O.B. Shopping Network,” a campaign introducing Rumpl’s collaboration with Liquid Death through a home-shopping operation run by two men with unusual qualifications.
The 75-second hero film stars two mobsters in a wood-paneled studio pitching the Body Bag sleeping bag and Dirt Nap puffy blanket from the Liquid Death edition by Rumpl collection. Their sales presentation highlights the products’ outdoor performance features through suspiciously specific examples. The sales pitch deteriorates quickly as the thrashing, not-quite-dead occupant of the Body Bag is wrestled back into frame by two associates in plastic cleanup uniforms.
A natural fit with an unexpected twist
The collaboration brings together Liquid Death, the beverage brand known for its irreverent marketing, and Rumpl, the brand known for its technical blankets made with post-consumer recycled materials. Rumpl’s use of recycled plastic also connects with Liquid Death’s “Death to Plastic” mission. Both brands show that making quality products doesn’t mean taking yourself too seriously.
For DIKO, the creative challenge was to turn Liquid Death and Rumpl’s partnership into a product story. The product names supplied the starting point. Body Bag and Dirt Nap suggested the perfect spokespeople: two mobsters who would regard both products as everyday essentials. The gear’s actual features gave those characters a reason to keep talking.
“Who better to sell products called the Dirt Nap and Body Bag than two highly experienced experts?” said Diko Daghlian, founder and chief creative officer of DIKO, who also directed the film. “We looked at the features through our mobsters’ eyes. As luck would have it, both products were already occupied, making for a couple of convenient live demonstrations.”
Real features. Questionable applications.
The campaign uses the familiar conventions of late-night home shopping to connect product information with the mobsters’ line of work. Water repellency becomes insurance against “spills, stains… whatevah.” A sleeping bag’s warmth comes in handy when someone unexpectedly ends up in the Nevada desert in the middle of the night.
A free gold watch adds another classic infomercial incentive, even if it’s displayed on its former owner’s wrist.
“The creative is unhinged, but it makes strategic sense because the humor comes directly from the products,” said James Atkin, VP of global brand at Rumpl. “The names establish the mafia connection, and the features make it convincing. These characters just have very different reasons for needing them. That lets us show what the gear does in a way that feels right for both brands.”
“When two brands are practically obligated to be irreverent, things go off the rails fast. DIKO kept the rules simple: one-sentence ideas, instantly understood, funny without being mean. Then commit fully to the bit. It’s the only way to sell a body bag on a home shopping network,” said Justin Lucero, design director at Rumpl.
The campaign includes the hero film, two product videos, and four 10-second vignettes. It runs across Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Rumpl’s owned channels, including Rumpl.com, email, and SMS, supported by paid social.
Advertising Age published a thoughtful perspective on cultural cluelessness, unintentionally underscoring how bias can come from the offenders and offended alike.
A complaint about your ad is information—it is not a verdict
By Stephen E. Terrell
In the fall of 1994, I put a naked man on a billboard in Fort Lauderdale. He lasted six days.
In fairness, he had already lasted 158 years. He was the young man seated by the sea in a Hippolyte Flandrin painting from 1836 that hangs in the Louvre, where to my knowledge nobody has ever called 3M about it.
The board was for Page & Associates, a Cleveland company that bought life insurance policies from people who were dying, so they could have the money while they were still alive to spend it. In 1994, that mostly meant gay men with AIDS. The copy ran five words: “Terminally ill ... there are options.” Then a phone number. No logo the size of a Buick. No starburst.
I chose the painting because my audience already knew it. For years, a print of it on a gay man’s wall was a signal flag hidden in plain sight. Any other gay man who walked into that home knew exactly what it meant. Everyone else saw a nice museum reproduction. I took the flag off the living room wall and ran it up a billboard. A man driving past did not need a headline to tell him who the board was for. The same ad had been running in gay magazines. Companies like mine were buying so much space there that Ad Age covered it that May. The billboard was that magazine ad with the volume turned up. The University of Miami Business Law Review later recorded it as the first billboard for a company in that business.
The location was not an accident, either. I put my boards in the gayest neighborhoods I could find. This one was aimed across four lanes of highway at the Copa, the biggest gay disco in South Florida. You find out where your audience dances, and you face the board that way.
It also happened to stand directly above a sports bar.
The owner complained. He told the local paper that the message was one thing but the naked man was tasteless. 3M, which owned the board, took it down six days into a 60-day contract.
Today, that is where the story ends. The brand posts a statement. The creative disappears. Somebody junior gets blamed, and everyone is at lunch by noon.
Here is what happened in 1994. The board went back up the next day. Nobody apologized. Nobody painted on a fig leaf. The company’s attorney made a call, and then a 3M representative did something radical. He sat down with the bar owner and explained what the ad was for. According to 3M’s spokesperson at the time, the owner had not fully understood it. Once he did, he agreed to have it back.
One conversation, 24 hours, same naked man.
That bar owner taught me three questions I still ask before anybody touches a campaign.
Who is complaining? The man downstairs was not my audience. My audience was across the highway, in line at the Copa.
Do they understand it? He saw a nude. He did not see men in his own city who were out of money and out of time. Somebody told him, and he changed his mind. People do that more often than a crisis plan assumes.
Is the audience you built it for complaining? Because when they are, you pull it, and you say thank you. I have done that, too. Years later I tested a Betty White radio spot on “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” It delivered 20-30 solid leads every time it aired. Then her fans started calling with one question: “Does Betty know?” I pulled it. The numbers said stay. The audience said go. The audience outranks the numbers.
Treat those two complaints the same way and you will kill your best work and keep running your worst.
Brands spend years and millions asking people to trust them. Then one stranger raises his voice and the brand drops its own work like a hot casserole. The audience notices. If you will not stand behind your ad for 24 hours, why would anyone stand behind your brand for 24 years?
The painting, for the record, is still in the Louvre. Still naked. Still up.
Adweek published yet another perspective on the Converse lynching controversy, allowing an author to figuratively hang himself.
The color commentator closed by remarking, “I fully expect this column to incur similar wrath from the sanctimonious corners of the internet where offence is easily taken and blame must then be immediately apportioned.”
Okay. Challenge accepted.
For starters, the author seems oblivious to having assumed a stereotypical role in the matter. That is, he’s the Angry Old White Guy.
It’s a waste of time attempting to school the culturally clueless. Although it’s particularly annoying in this case, as the author boasts having a PhD in Marketing and hypes his MiniMBA programs.
He’s clearly out to educate the masses versus consider the opportunity for a teachable moment. Self-absorption always trumps self-enlightenment, self-improvement, and self-awareness.
The final proclamation underscored his ignorance: “It just requires everyone to calm down.”
Yes, calm down despite once again experiencing the lashing disrespect of an industry historically mired in systemic racism.
Calm down by being told how to respond to offensive material by a bona fide representative of the offenders.
Calm down when even the unintentionally biased avoid accountability as intentionally as card-carrying KKK members.
From Converse to Ed Sheeran, Let’s End These Tedious Apology Tours
Converse, Oxford United, and Ed Sheeran all got dragged through the same ritual for mistakes that were accidental or not even theirs
By Mark Ritson
It was a rotten week for Converse.
On Sept. 3, the Nike-owned brand posted a new campaign on social media for the Chuck 70 X built around Karina, the very famous singer from K-pop group aespa.
In the key image she stands in a long white skirt, wearing the shoes and holding a second pair in one hand, framed by a spotlight cut in the shape of the Converse star.
Two weeks passed.
Then, someone noticed that the edge of the star projected onto her skirt made a shape a bit like a Klan hood. And that the shoes hanging from her hand could be read as a body. Then a second image surfaced, from Converse Malaysia, of models on a ladder reaching for sneakers strung from a tree branch.
The two pictures welded together online into a single verdict.
Converse was now running “the most racist ad of the season.” The work was “shocking,” “abhorrent,” “repugnant.” Even if it was unintentional, the fact that it had gotten past legal, marketing, and leadership was itself an unforgivable offence.
Converse apologized within a day, pulled everything and promised to do better, but not enough for Louisiana Congressman Troy Carter.
“Lynching is not a creative concept. The Ku Klux Klan is not an aesthetic,” he raged. “This campaign should never have been created, approved or released.” Nike and Converse, he said, should explain publicly how the images had passed through their approval process.
Step back from the heat for a second. Nobody seriously thought, for even a moment, that a Korean photographer shooting a Korean pop star for the Korean market was evoking the Klan. It was an accident. And the instant the claims were made, Converse said sorry, and pulled the work.
Which prompts a question nobody in the pile-on bothered to ask.
What else was Converse meant to do here?
It didn’t matter, though, as a wrong had been done, and offence taken. It didn’t matter whether it accidental or not, or whether an apology had already been offered.
Penalties must apply.
The same script ran in England last week around the same time at Oxford United, a third tier football club. The team was founded in 1893, and a new range of American college-style clothing celebrated the fact with UNITED across the shoulders and a big 93 beneath it.
The collection went live on Sept. 11.
Almost immediately, someone inside the club worked out what a United 93 shirt looks like on the 25th anniversary of 9/11. The range and the posts promoting it were gone within two hours. That should have been the end of it.
It wasn’t. A week later, the club was being roasted on CNN, ESPN, and the Washington Post and had issued a full confession. The shirts “should not have reached the point of sale and we take full responsibility for not undertaking proper due diligence.” Again, nobody suggested any of this was deliberate. And again, the mistake was fixed within hours. But still an apology was required.
Then there is Ed Sheeran
On Saturday night, Sheeran delivered the most extreme entry in this new genre: an apology for something he demonstrably did not do.
In Philadelphia, before playing a note, he stood in front of 60,000 people and said, “I am making mistakes and I’m so, so sorry.”
He was apologizing for a rapper’s politics, a stadium owner’s ban, and a promoter’s decision, none of which were his, to an audience that just wanted to hear Shape of You.
A man who has spent his career steering clear of every political issue going found himself in the middle of the most intractable one on earth. Through no fault of his own he found himself apologizing.
We have reached a very low point. The combination of crisis management, the fragmentation of culture and the insidious effects of social media have turned this decade into an unpleasant, sanctimonious place. Where the only option for innocent people is to eat humble pie with a double serving of reputational rescue slathered on top.
Converse set out to offend no one, and when it did, it made amends the same day. Oxford United made an awful accidental mistake and fixed it immediately, then apologised anyway. Ed Sheeran just wants to play music but must first apologize for things he did not do and does not understand.
I fully expect this column to incur similar wrath from the sanctimonious corners of the internet where offence is easily taken and blame must then be immediately apportioned.
Real harm, deliberately done, deserves an apology and consequences, and brands that drag their feet deserve everything they get. A mistake with no intent behind it deserves a correction. That’s all.
“We’ve withdrawn it” is a complete sentence. It does not need “we understand.” It does not need “we’ll do better.” It just requires everyone to calm down.
Adweek spotlighted a new Sydney Sweeney controversy, noting the actress has gone from inciting ire with her wardrobe to doing likewise with no clothing.
The latest outcry is for a campaign hyping Novig, a sports prediction market and trading app, which protestors complain is insulting female athletes.
Okay, except research indicates most people interested in services like Novig—over 70%—are young males. So, a naked Sweeney is probably perfectly appealing to the target audience.
The American Eagle advertising offended people of color, while the Novig promotion pisses off White women—a group that has historically wielded greater power and influence than minorities.
In short, this scenario might pose more damage to Novig than Sweeney delivered to American Eagle.
Bet on it.
One Year Post-American Eagle Scandal, Sydney Sweeney Sparks Ire by Going Naked for Novig
The ad has received backlash for reversing years of gains for female athletes
By Robert Klara
Last August, Sydney Sweeney broke the internet with American Eagle spots showing her in a too-tight top and struggling with the zipper of her jeans.
In her new campaign for Novig, Sweeney has solved those wardrobe problems: She’s not wearing anything at all.
“Today, we at Novig unveiled out first national brand campaign featuring Sweeney,” the sports prediction app announced on its website, “bringing to life our belief that the best sports trading experience comes from a platform singularly focused on sports.”
The campaign’s title is “Just Sports.” But judging from the heated response from the public, “Just Sex” might have been a better title.
Though some men have expressed appreciation for the work (one calling it “better than any sports playing right now,”) women have largely responded with disappointment and anger.
The problem isn’t showing skin, per se (advertising is already full of that). But at a time when female athletes have just begun inching toward parity in pay and fame, people feel Sweeney has turned back the clock to the Playboy era.
“I can’t describe how infuriated I feel when I watch this,” Australian gold-medalist swimmer Ariane Titmus wrote on Instagram, referring to Sweeney’s ads as “a kick in the face to every woman who has dedicated her life to perfecting her craft.”
Women outside the sports realm have expressed their dismay, too.
“Every great female athlete has used her platform to create movement, challenge norms, inspire change and make an impact,” AI executive Indigo Haddington responded on Sweeney’s Instagram page. “All she’s done is get paid for what she’s known for: her body.”
It’s unlikely that Novig or Sweeney were under any illusions that this campaign was about “just sports” in a literal sense. What’s beyond dispute is that the campaign takes a page from a playbook written long ago—a legacy that Sweeney herself seems to have nodded to in her response to the backlash: a post with a series of photos showing athletes, including MMA star Ronda Rousey and football beefcake Rob Gronkowski, showing plenty of skin.
Even so, even in advertising, a revealing image is one thing; a lasciviousness message is another. In 1971, National Airlines ran ads starring their leggy flight attendants who invited businessmen to “fly me.” In the early 2000s, Axe’s notorious “Billions” ad depicted a tribe of libidinous women chasing down a man who’d just used Axe body spray.
And while evidence is mixed that sex really increases sales, a 2013 study published in the Journal of Advertising found that “males evaluate ads with sexual appeals significantly more positively than females.” And when it comes to sports betting, one recent estimate suggested that 70% of the bettors are men.
Not that there’s no upside for the 29-year-old Sweeney, who’s not just the femme fatale here; she’s a partner and equity stakeholder, too.
Adweek reported the revamped Cracker Barrel logo experienced backlash from Internet mobs—including President Donald J. Trump and Donald Trump Jr.—who could all be called Cracker Critics.
Particularly dumb commentary came from the Chief Design Officer at TBWA\Worldwide, whose mutterings Adweek presented as follows:
[While] “the effort to modernize the brand by simplifying its identity and making it more legible and adaptable to a digital ecosystem” works, it risks “alienating loyal audiences. … Heritage brands must remember their identity is not just aesthetic, it’s cultural. … When updating visual codes, they’re not simply adjusting pixels or type curves, but symbols embedded in people’s everyday lives.”
On this topic, viewpoints from Adland should be summarily dismissed—and dissed.
After all, the industry never hesitates to quickly abandon heritage brands as White holding companies execute corporate colonization. TBWA routinely disrupts White advertising agencies by tagging its signature logo across iconic nameplates.
When White advertising agencies win accounts, the first order of business involves rejecting, razing, and rebuilding the acquired brand.
And now comes news that Cracker Barrel caved in to the pressure, announcing the Old Timer will be resurrected.
Where was the outrage when erasing Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Rastus, and Mia? Will professionals and political leaders demand the restoration of those icons too?
In the end, the anti-woke wield more power than the anti-racist. White power trumps—clever wordplay intended—all advocacy for progress.
Cracker Barrel CMO Defends Rebrand After Stock Tumbles
The restaurant chain’s shares fell 7.2% on Thursday morning, two days after it unveiled its new logo
By Cydney Lee
On Tuesday (Aug. 19), Cracker Barrel unveiled a new logo, much to the chagrin of the internet.
Since its release, left and right-wing politicians, marketers, and consumers alike have criticized the switch, with some declaring it’s too “woke” and steers away from “American tradition.” Others have knocked the simplicity of the design.
“WTF is wrong with @CrackerBarrel??!,” Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, posted to X. The official X account for the Democratic Party echoed the statement, posting, “We think the Cracker Barrel rebrand sucks too.”
Following the backlash, the brand’s shares fell 7.2% on Thursday morning (Aug. 21), erasing $100 million in market value. Its shares rose slightly on Friday (Aug. 22) in pre-market trading.
However, Cracker Barrel is doubling down on its new look.
In a statement shared with ADWEEK, Sarah Moore, the brand’s chief marketing officer (CMO), said its “values haven’t changed, and the heart and soul of Cracker Barrel haven’t changed.”
“Cracker Barrel has been a destination for comfort and community for more than half a century, and this fifth evolution of the brand’s logo, which works across digital platforms as well as billboards and roadside signs, is a call-back to the original and rooted even more in the iconic barrel shape and word mark that started it all back in 1969,” she said.
‘All the More’
Cracker Barrel released the updated visual identity as part of its new “All the More” campaign, which also includes a 15-second spot starring country singer Jordan Davis, new menu items, and an interior design revamp of its restaurants.
The logo removed its longstanding old man and the barrel motif, replacing the image with a simple wordmark in the brand’s signature gold and brown.
Along with consumers, the ad industry is divided on the rebrand, too.
Bruno Regalo, chief design officer at TBWA\Worldwide, observed that while “the effort to modernize the brand by simplifying its identity and making it more legible and adaptable to a digital ecosystem” works, it risks “alienating loyal audiences.”
“Heritage brands must remember their identity is not just aesthetic, it’s cultural,” he told ADWEEK. “When updating visual codes, they’re not simply adjusting pixels or type curves, but symbols embedded in people’s everyday lives.”
He continued: “More than following design trends, it’s about keeping that soul alive—the distinctive elements that touch consumers emotionally—and reinterpreting them to feel current and relevant without losing what makes them unique.”
Kevin Green, executive creative director (ECD) at Moroch Agency, said the brand was the latest in a run to have stripped its brand of “any unique or ownable personality,” while plumping for a more modern aesthetic.
“There has to be a better balance between modernity and the magic that has built brands like Cracker Barrel for decades,” he said.
Indeed, other advertisers, including fashion label Burberry, have been critiqued for jumping on this so-called “blanding” trend, where a typeface replaces an image.
A Run of Controversial Brand Moments
While the move was intended to celebrate its 55+ year heritage, Cracker Barrel has faced previous boycotts over claims of discrimination due to its American South aesthetic and corporate policies.
It now joins a running list of brands that have stoked controversy and become a flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars over the last month, including American Eagle, Dunkin’, and e.l.f. Cosmetics.
FOX News reported President Donald J. Trump and Vice President JD Vance weighed in on the American Eagle “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes/Jeans” campaign.
Upon learning Sweeney is a registered Republican, Trump gushed, “Oh, now I love her ad. … I think her ad is fantastic.”
For further context, consider Trump’s view on immigrants delivered while campaigning in 2024: “How about allowing people to come to an open border, 13,000 of which were murderers. … Many of them murdered far more than one person, and they’re now happily living in the United States. … You know, now a murderer, I believe this, it’s in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.”
As for Vance, his American Eagle campaign critique included: “My political advice to the Democrats is continue to tell everybody who thinks Sydney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi. That appears to be their actual strategy.”
For further context, Vance’s pre-VP criticism of Trump included calling the president an “idiot” and referring to him as “America’s Hitler.”
In short, Trump and Vance appear to be genetically predisposed to spewing bullshit.
Trump says he now ‘loves’ Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad after learning she’s a registered Republican
President’s comments come after mixed social media reactions to ‘Great Jeans’ campaign
By Sophia Compton
President Trump on Sunday reacted positively upon learning actress Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, adding that he now finds her viral American Eagle ad campaign to be “fantastic.”
“She’s a registered Republican?” Trump said in response to a reporter’s question about his thoughts on her political affiliation. “Oh, now I love her ad.”
The President added, “You’d be surprised at how many people are Republicans. That’s what I wouldn’t have known, but I’m glad you told me that. If Sydney Sweeney is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic.”
The “Euphoria” actress’ voter registration has surfaced as she faces backlash for her controversial American Eagle jeans campaign. Since June 2024, she has been registered with the Republican Party of Florida in Monroe County, the New York Post reported, citing public voter records.
Earlier this week, American Eagle released their latest campaign with the actress, titled “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.” Following the launch, there was a mix of reactions on social media.
Some critics said the billboard’s play on “genes” versus “jeans” echoed eugenics-era slogans, though supporters argued it was a lighthearted marketing gimmick.
Some dubbed the campaign as “tone-deaf” due to the alleged racial undertones, while others have praised the actress for killing “woke” advertising.
In a promo video posted to the brand’s Instagram, the 27-year-old walked toward an AE billboard featuring her and the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes.” Sweeney crossed out “Genes” and replaced it with “Jeans” before walking away.
On Friday, Vice President JD Vance had some fun at the expense of the left over its wild response to the American Eagle ad campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney.
“My political advice to the Democrats is continue to tell everybody who thinks Sydney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi. That appears to be their actual strategy,” Vance joked during Friday’s appearance on the “Ruthless” podcast.
Fox News Digital’s Janelle Ash and Joseph A. Wulfsohn contributed to this report.
Digiday published a diagnosis on the genetic disorders affecting recent American Eagle and Dunkin’ campaigns.
Mythbusted: American Eagle and Dunkin’ and the risk of ignoring cultural context in ads
By Seb Joseph
American Eagle has joined the increasingly long list of brands that somehow didn’t see it coming.
Like Bud Light, Target and Jaguar Land Rover before it, the retailer stepped into the culture wars with the kind of casual confidence that suggests senior marketers are still underestimating how combustible “just another campaign” can be. In this case, it was an ad featuring a white, blue-eyed blond film star Sydney Sweeney praising the culture of “good jeans” — a line that might’ve passed without notice a decade ago, now reads more like a Rorschach test for who brands think they’re speaking to.
It landed awkwardly amid ongoing cultural scrutiny of representation, identity and who gets to be the face of America cool. And it didn’t help that Dunkin’ had just aired an ad with actor Gavin Casalegno boasting that his sun-kissed glow came down to “genetics.”
Together, the two campaigns are more signs of a persistent blind spot: the belief that cultural relevance can be manufactured without risk or that casting choices are neutral. They’re not. And the surprise, at this point, feels less like naivete and more like denial.
The myths marketing tells itself — that it can borrow from culture without participating in it, that nostalgia is safe, that representation is a box to check — are showing their cracks. Again.
Myth: “We had diverse people in the room so we’re good.”
Reality: Representation in the room doesn’t mean influence in the decision-making. Junior staffers, freelancers or DEI advisors can’t always challenge risk-averse CMOs. Cultural fluency isn’t just about headcount, it’s about authority.
“The problem is the conflation of diversity and inclusivity,” said Leila Fataar, founder of brand consultancy Platform13. A brand may have the right people in the room, whether inhouse or through their agencies, but if the company (either brand or agency) is not inclusive, where diverse voices feel empowered to challenge and be both heard and listened to, then it doesn’t matter.”
Myth: “This talent isn’t political. They’re safe.”
Reality: In this polarized climate, no one’s safe. Whether it’s Sydney Sweeney’s conservative family ties or queer influencer with activist roots, everything is politicized after launch. The idea that you can pick someone “neutral” is a myth. The reality is that too many marketers still tend to define “safe” by proximity to whiteness or likability, which is its own bias.
“We all see brands through our culture stack, as explained in detail in my book, Culture Led Brands,” said Fataar. “That means brand messages (and therefore brands), whether intentional or not, are and have always been determined and perceived against the backdrop of the politics and policies of that era, the media and technological adoption.”
Myth: “The backlash is just trolls or bots. Ignore it.”
Reality: Sometimes that’s true — but not always. Real people often have real critiques on who gets spotlighted, who’s left out or what a campaign subtly signals — inadvertently or not. Dismissing it as noise can blind brands to underlying patterns that keep resurfacing.
Myth: “We did the DEI work in 2020 — we’ve moved on.”
Reality: Many brands built out DEI during the post-George Floyd reckoning. But few embedded it into creative strategy, casting pipelines or vendor selection. It was often PR insulation, not infrastructure. And that’s how you get blind spots.
Myth: “We can fix it with a statement later.”
Reality: Statements don’t work when people don’t trust the system behind them. If your team lacks cultural context or your agency has no equity in communities you’re trying to reach, then the damage is already done.
Myth: “If it performs well on social media, it must be working.”
Reality: Metrics like engagement, reach and sentiment are often shallow indicators of cultural resonance. A campaign might be getting clicks because its controversial — or because it’s being hate-shared. Not all virality is good ROI, and not all engagement reflects alignment with brand values.
Myth: “Our agency “gets it” — they’ve worked on inclusive campaigns before.”
Reality: Just because an agency can name-drop a few inclusive wins doesn’t mean they’re equipped to navigate the nuances of every campaign. Cultural competency isn’t one size fits all and too many agencies still use the same mostly-white creative teams to execute work aimed at broad, diverse audiences.
Myth: “We can just add a diverse influencer to the mix and call it balanced.”
Reality: Tokenism disguised as inclusivity is not progress. Sticking in one Black or Brown creator next to a celebrity with a complicated track record doesn’t resolve the underlying disconnect — it amplifies it.
“Representation isn’t a casting decision. Placing a diverse face in a campaign is surface-level inclusion,” said Sunny Bonnell, founder and CEO of brand transformation agency Motto. “True representation shows up in the values a brand upholds, the stories it prioritizes, the power it redistributes, and the people who sit at the decision-making table.”
Myth: “If we don’t say anything political, we’ll stay out of trouble.”
Reality: Silence is a political stance now. Whether you want to or not, brands are operating in a landscape where neutrality is interpreted — and often weaponized. You don’t have to be performative, but you can’t pretend cultural context doesn’t exist.
Myth: “The backlash caught us off guard.”
Reality: Not always. Sometimes, the backlash is the point. Certain campaigns are crafted to poke the cultural bear, banking on the idea that a little outrage can boost impressions, trend on social and earn media coverage without spending on marketing. It’s a familiar play: provoke just enough to stir debate, ride the controversy then retreat into vague brand speak. The catch? It’s a short-term hack that chips away at long-term trust — especially with the audiences a marketer claims to champion.
