Brands Need More Than Pride and ‘Love Is Love’ to be Allies

Both marketing and journalism talk about the importance of storytelling and exploring the full scope of an issue, topic or community—just before leaving much of that story on the editing room floor.

Rana Reeves, the founder and CEO of the RanaVerse creative agency, was kind enough to talk to Adweek earlier this month about how brands could be better allies to their LGBTQ+ followers. Since founding his agency in 2018, he’s worked with brands including Coach, Airbnb, Citi and Smirnoff to address cultural issues and support societal change.

His contribution to that story was just part of a more wide-ranging conversation about brand commitment in the face of performative (but nonetheless dangerous) rage, resilience in the face of adversity and responsibility toward marginalized and vulnerable supporters and spokespeople. While Reeves has been no stranger to Adweek, his insights on both Pride and brand perseverance were too valuable to strand in a reporter’s recorder.

Adweek: You’re very good at getting brands to commit to Pride. In your estimation, what makes a good brand ally?
Reeves: The first thing is having clients that have honesty, openness and willingness. We have a direct, authentic conversation. I talk about having to speak in my Sunday-best voice, and having clients where I don’t have to—where we can take the masks off and talk honestly.

There is no perceived middle ground, and I think that that’s what you have to find with clients. I want people to feel like we have a space where you can say the wrong thing. Because otherwise, how would you ever create a teachable moment? A big mentor of mine is Edward Enninful, the editor of British Vogue, and he had to teach me the difference between anger and a teachable moment.

When we’re talking about the intersection of race, sexuality or immigration, I have skin in the game, we’re not just talking about a handbag or an SUV. There is a personal visceral reaction from me to this stuff, and I can choose to either use the stick or use the carrot. What I’ve had to learn through people that are far more nuanced and diplomatic than me is how to use the carrot because you get a better result. 

In a polarized environment, have you found that a more aggressive approach—the stick—just yields more aggression?
It’s kind of a mixture of the two that go hand in hand. You think about the words “lead with love,” “go with care,” “unity,” all of these sorts of things—if I come at you angry, I’m not gonna get the result that I need. And the result that I need is for brands to show up for societal change in appropriate ways for different communities, while still in the business of commerce, which I don’t believe has to be separate.

What does showing up for societal change entail? What is the most basic action a brand or company needs to take if it wants to make that claim?
The way I talk to brands about it is—and I tend to lead with the heart more than the head— if you look at data, [most] of the top 20 cities in America are non-white majority. [Nearly] 50% of Gen Z is non-white. [More than] 60% of the Hispanic community is Mexican-American. You have to look at what the data is telling you society actually is—what the numbers are and understand the intersections of that. 

Brands have a place to reflect that in the same way as popular culture. For me, it’s undeniable that featuring LGBTQ+ characters, different people of color, different people of varying abilities and people who are HIV positive in popular entertainment and culture can change hearts and minds. If brands are in the business of creating branded entertainment, which advertising is to a degree, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be in that conversation.

How do brands work toward that change while avoiding or weathering backlash?
I think there is a difference in philosophy: What is politics and what is human rights? Human rights and the idea of equality, equity or the pursuit of happiness. Undeniable things. It comes from your perspective. Do you see these things being debated as human rights or as politics? That is a gray area that we are all having to traverse, and the traversing of that often depends on the consumer, the target consumer, the style of the product, the geography of the product, right, the history and heritage of the product. So you have to take all of these factors into place. 

One of the things that I’ve been thinking about [the backlash surrounding Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney], if I had been casting for that, my understanding is that the core thing was March Madness—which is a sport. It’s how gay I am: I don’t even know what sport it is, but neither did Dylan Mulvaney. So why would you cast her for this? You’re setting her up to fail. If I was doing the Super Bowl, which I have to do sometimes for General Motors, one of our clients, I would want an inclusive world, but I wouldn’t pick people that can’t drive. 

I don’t feel like she was set up to succeed, because the casting was naive. It was inclusive, but not understanding the intersection of the environment.

As public displays against drag performers and the transgender community increase, how have your clients dealt with increased hostility toward subjects considered far more benign even two years ago?
Just today, this is my fourth call on this topic, not only with the media, but with brands wanting to talk to me about this to get perspective.

What I’m not feeling is diminishing commitment, because the long-term data shows this makes sense. What I’m seeing is an understanding of how to navigate an environment that we’re currently in. It’s not even things that were benign two years ago, it’s two months ago, This is how quickly this has escalated and changed. 

Brands are trying to work out how we navigate this, because traditionally the left has been activist and the left have been able to make boycotts work. We don’t know if the right will make this stick, but there is a world of difference between Bud Light and Levi’s. There is a world of difference between Bud Light and Maybelline in terms of the consumer demographic.

The guardrails haven’t changed. When you are working with a marginalized community, the first thing for me that you look at is what is the actionable measurable change for good that your work can do for that community? So that it’s not performative. If you look at the Mulvaney post, yes, it was representation, but it’s performative. The average life expectancy of a trans woman of color in this country is 35. With brands, it’s about the systemic and frontline meaningful changes that you can make. That exists on a spectrum: Nearly every single issue in this country, in some sort of way, can all be perceived as a queer issue. Homelessness, job insecurity, environmentalism, it all intersects. Right.

I think brands need to not just be like ‘Hey, we’re here. We love the gays.’ Well, how? Love is an action.The work that Unilever has done over the last three or four years, they’re a purpose-driven company and a lot of my approach has been inspired by them. The work that Coach has done in the past on everything from voter suppression to LGBTQ+ youth empowerment … what has to happen in terms of the environment is that these issues are there, and the lens and the framework is changing.

Supporting queer youth was not seen as an issue: It was benign even a year ago. Now the intersection is around gender-affirming care for trans youth. I take a pragmatic approach to this moment: Somewhere in this country, there are queer youth selling their bodies for hormones. They don’t really give a shit about social posts. So I say to brands, “How do you step up?” 

There are minds on this spectrum that you’re not going to change. The energy needs to be in doing good, first, and then maybe thinking about how you’re going to stay good. That’s where [Bud Light] got it wrong: It was a ‘say’ thing, not a ‘do’ thing.

What does great follow-through look like when brands do it right, step up and create change?
Brands will come to me and they’ll say we’ve been doing LGBTQ+. What they really mean is they’ve been activating during Pride. Often, it’ll be through a white cisgender lens—maybe they put some Black drag queens in because they were feeling risky. 

They’ve sponsored a float in New York, LA or San Francisco, where 100 straight members of staff have on rainbow headbands and got drunk. That, for them, has been Pride. 

So we go through an education process. I no longer talk about doing Pride work: It’s LGBTQ+ 365 24/7. That’s what I start with, then it’s about what is the meaningful work that you are doing right within that. And what does change look like, right within the area that you’re looking to do? 

We then look at what organizations you are supporting. There are big, amazing organizations such as the Trevor Project, but they get a lot of money. It’s the lazy way to do it: The white muscle queen, the Black drag queen, $100,000, because 100K sounds like a big round number to Trevor Project and will send a flow of straight people down to Pride. So what I then say is that there’s a whole world of organizations out there. If we’re going to come and support trans people, let’s find trans-led organizations.

Let’s look at grassroots organizations. Marching in Pride in South Carolina, is a transgressive act in 2023. Go there, they need money for banners. We look at what is measurable change.

What does real commitment look like, and what are the risks brands need to acknowledge before accepting it?
I try to get brands to do a minimum of a two-year partnership. Meaningful stuff.

There are three pillars that are the lightning rods for the right. One is LGBTQ+, using the dog whistles of trans and drag. The second is critical race theory or ‘wokeness’—that’s how they’re coming through on the intersectionality of Black people and reproductive health. Those are the three and then three intersect.

 It’s navigating those things, so we work with brands and show them the entire landscape and tell them that the campaign should be talking about what you’re doing right now. ‘Love is love’ means jack shit to me. Also, if you’re gonna work with LGBTQ+ people, name us. 

Depending on the client, it can be an uncomfortable process. But the end result for me is joyous, because we all grow from it.

Does that conversation prepare clients for any outcome once the campaign is released?
I think it depends on the brand. If you’re used to controversy, if you’re Nike, if you’re Adidas, you can deal with it. 

If you’re some FMCG brand that just wanted to bring out, then it can feel deafening. But our experience has been that this too shall pass… with the caveat that we’re in unknown territory right now. 

We just have to flex and move as we go along. I’ve always thought about, when we do LGBTQ or any marginalized [group] campaigns, the psychological and physical safety of the people we’re working with. And I’m not sure the Bud Light team understood that. I think about two separate things with Dylan Mulvaney: Dylan Mulvaney the business and Dylan Mulvaney the person. As a young person, I couldn’t handle that much vitriol. So there is a human being at the heart of this that has not been safeguarded.

When we’ve done campaigns in the past, we’ve not tagged LGBTQ people so that they don’t receive hate. We’re in a new era where, you know, sometimes you’ve just got to turn off the comments. Let it ride.

By pushing to cleave the trans community away from the LGBTQ+ spectrum as a whole, critics have pushed back on brands by targeting one of the most vulnerable segments of an already marginalized group. How do you convey to brands the importance of including everyone in their purportedly inclusive marketing?
I’m cisgender, gay and I center my trans and gender nonconforming siblings—and particularly trans and gender nonconforming siblings of color—in the work that I do because they are the most marginalized.

They are, like you say, the most vulnerable, and also some of the most joyous, abundant, amazing people in our community. They are the vanguard of my community’s movement and some of the bravest, and so I automatically center them in the work and in the benefits of the work—the labor, hiring trans people, gender nonconforming people, bringing them through the process, etc. 

Because this isn’t trans hate, per se: It’s hate. And it will very quickly reach LGB after T. I’m under no illusions: It’ll reach Black, it will reach Brown, it will reach xenophobia, it will reach misogyny. Hate doesn’t discriminate, it’s just focused somewhere at the moment, and you see that.

This stuff is patently ridiculous: Passing legislation around young trans youth athletes where there is not a single trans youth athlete in the state. It makes no sense and we all know, it makes no sense. My point of view is [that] I’m not going to deal with that: I’m going to find a bed for homeless trans people to sleep in, I’m going to find employment for them, I’m going to find ways to empower them. Because that’s what matters.