“Go Woke, Go Broke?”: The Real Reason Activism Backfires for Brands (and How to Navigate It)
If you spend time online, you’ve undoubtedly come across the phrase “Go Woke, Go Broke”, often directed at brands who've stepped clumsily into activism and found themselves facing embarrassing backlash and boycotts. As someone who advises public figures and brands regularly, I see firsthand how easily businesses misjudge the public mood. But why does this issue seem increasingly intense, and what exactly has changed?
Has It Always Been This Way?
Until relatively recently, criticism of companies or advertisements was limited to private conversations. Friends mocked adverts at home, families rolled their eyes at awkward attempts by brands to appear relatable, but these reactions rarely travelled beyond immediate social circles. The impact on brands was minimal.
Today, social media gives everyone a public voice. Disapproval no longer stays private; instead, dissatisfaction spreads at the speed of TikTok virality. Criticising companies or public figures publicly also gains attention online, rewarding people with validation and a sense of power. Many people online enjoy bringing down success, wealth, or authority figures because it provides a thrill, allowing them a brief moment of influence they wouldn't otherwise have.
This shift from private annoyance to public outrage has raised the stakes significantly. One mistake can spiral into a costly PR nightmare overnight.
Why Is the Divide So Intense Now?
The intensity we see today, the sharp polarisation between Team “Woke” and Team “Anti-Woke”, is driven by deeper societal shifts. Increasingly, everything feels political.
Over the past decade, social media has accelerated the merging of personal, professional, and political spheres. Young people, in particular, are encouraged to publicly define themselves by political or social identities. Social media rewards extremes because moderation rarely captures attention. Nuance struggles against outrage, and algorithms thrive on conflict, reinforcing existing biases and driving people further apart.
At the same time, trust in traditional institutions such as government, media, and corporations has sharply declined. When trust disappears, suspicion takes its place. Every campaign or message is scrutinised for hidden motives, creating a constant tension that pushes brands towards a difficult choice: speak out and risk backlash, or remain silent and risk accusations of cowardice or complicity.
Understanding the Big Divide: “Woke” vs “Anti-Woke”
To handle this intelligently, it’s important to fully understand both perspectives:
The “Woke” Perspective
Generally younger, progressive, and socially conscious, this group demands brands reflect clear moral stances. They believe companies have a responsibility to engage actively with social issues such as racial equality, LGBTQ+ rights, environmentalism, and gender identity. Silence is viewed as complicity, and they expect genuine commitment, transparency, and meaningful action from businesses.
The “Anti-Woke” Perspective
On the other hand, the anti-woke camp views corporate activism with suspicion and frustration. They perceive corporate statements on social issues as shallow, performative, and hypocritical. Generally more conservative or traditional, this group dislikes being told how to behave or feel by corporations or public figures. They resist being educated or lectured when they simply want to buy a product. To them, activism feels patronising and intrusive, forcing upon them viewpoints they may not personally share.
Brands find themselves caught between these passionate yet opposed perspectives, making even simple decisions incredibly complicated.
Why Do Brands Keep Getting This Wrong?
Brands frequently misstep due to three main factors:
Misjudging Audience Values
Bud Light’s controversial campaign featuring Dylan Mulvaney is an example. It wasn’t necessarily the campaign’s intention that was problematic but rather a profound misunderstanding of their core customers. The swift backlash showed how crucial it is to accurately gauge audience expectations and sensitivities.
Insincerity and Performative Activism
Consumers quickly identify hollow gestures. A brand flying a rainbow flag during Pride Month without genuine internal support invites criticism from all sides. Authenticity isn’t just preferable; it's essential.
The Exhaustion Factor
Consumers increasingly resent being politically mobilised by products they simply want to enjoy. Politics infiltrates so many daily interactions that people often seek refuge in brands remaining deliberately apolitical.
Navigating the Minefield: A Nuanced Approach
How can brands approach activism without self-destructing?
Understand Your Core Audience
Activism must genuinely resonate with your consumers. Before engaging, brands must carefully analyse how their existing customers might react.
Commit Beyond TikToks
Quick videos, trendy hashtags, and superficial statements fool nobody. Meaningful action, long-term investment in causes, and transparency build genuine trust.
Choose Your Moments Carefully
Not every issue requires corporate commentary. Thoughtfully selecting when and how to engage demonstrates genuine concern. Constant commentary irritates rather than inspires.
My Personal Take (From Behind the Scenes)
Navigating these tensions professionally shows me how exaggerated, even performative, online outrage often feels. Personally, I frequently align with the ethical arguments championed by the “woke” side. Issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, environmental concerns, or aligning with humanitarian crises like the war in Palestine, are undeniably urgent and worthy of attention.
Yet the selective nature of online activism makes me pause. For instance, recent events in Palestine rightly sparked enormous support online, highlighting genuine suffering. But similar humanitarian crises elsewhere, like in Sudan, rarely provoke the same level of attention or outrage. This selective activism feels at times driven more by what’s trending than by purely humanitarian urgency. It unintentionally reveals an uncomfortable truth: activism can sometimes be about image or personal branding as much as genuine care.
In my work, I regularly witness the insincerity behind corporate activism. I've sat in meetings with senior executives who casually remark, “We need to do something for Pride Month,” simply because it seems obligatory. Such box-ticking attitudes diminish genuine advocacy and exemplify precisely why corporate activism often feels empty.
Keir Starmer’s recent stance regarding the definition of a woman illustrates clearly how performative activism can unravel. In 2022, Starmer publicly stated, “trans women are women,” aligning himself with progressive voices that were particularly vocal online. Yet, following the recent Supreme Court clarification on UK equalities law (now legally defining a woman strictly by biological sex) Starmer quickly revised his position. His spokesman confirmed he no longer considered trans women legally women, aligning instead with the new legal definition.
This reversal is significant not just because he changed his stance, but because it exposed his earlier position as potentially inauthentic. Starmer’s original statement seemed intended to placate the vocal progressive side of the debate, possibly driven more by online pressure and the desire for political approval rather than genuine conviction. Now that the law supports a different view, he has reversed course entirely.
This exposes the underlying risk of performative activism: attempting to appease loud online voices with insincere or superficial gestures ultimately leads to a loss of credibility and trust. Starmer’s situation is a cautionary example of how quickly and publicly authenticity can collapse when activism is dictated by online pressure rather than genuine belief.
Despite how loudly online anger echoes, in reality, most people sit quietly in the middle. Online outrage represents a vocal minority, exaggerated by algorithms and echo chambers. Most individuals don’t intensely scrutinise every stance a brand takes unless genuinely harmful. The uncomfortable truth is many people enjoy the drama. Online outrage provides entertainment, amplifying extreme voices rather than accurately representing mainstream opinion.
Ultimately, attempting to fully satisfy all sides of contentious issues is almost always impossible. Move too far one way, you ignite fury from the other. Linger too long in the middle, you’re accused of cowardice or complicity. This challenging climate affects brands, celebrities, and PR professionals like myself who navigate these issues daily. Authenticity, moderation, and humility remain essential, yet even moderation feels increasingly risky.
The Bottom Line
Brands rarely satisfy both sides of the “woke” divide. But thoughtful authenticity, sincere actions, and humility still resonate deeply. Instead of trying to please everyone, brands should emphasise consistency and integrity. Most people, regardless of political views, value authenticity far more than performative activism.
The era of easy neutrality may be over, but there remains an important distinction between genuine advocacy and opportunistic marketing. Understanding this difference is essential, challenging, and perhaps more necessary than ever.