Pride Month has come and gone, and so has the over-the-top corporate support for the LGBTQ+ community. Throughout June, companies turn their logos rainbow, hang Pride flags from windows, and make questionable posts declaring “allyship” on social media. And yet, time and time again, companies have shown that their support for LGBTQ+ people is conditional on profitability.  

This marketing is glaringly inauthentic. In 2023, conservative backlash to LGBTQ+ inclusive campaigns set off a wave of boycotts, causing major brands to balk at partnering with LGBTQ+ organizations, which resulted in lower corporate donations for these nonprofits. For corporations, the issues facing LGBTQ+ people come and go in the span of a month, but these concerns remain a constant reality for the members of this community.  

Companies lean into rainbow capitalism to attract pink money, or the purchasing power of members of the LGBTQ+ community. Whether this entails the creation of a special Pride line of clothing or donating a percentage of all sales to an LGBTQ+ organization, rainbow capitalism uses LGBTQ+ representation as a means of increasing sales, not expressing genuine support. While proponents of rainbow capitalism insist that these advertisements contribute to the social acceptance of LGBTQ+ people, there is an important distinction between representation and exploitation. Representation does nothing when it works to simultaneously capitalize off of and oppress LGBTQ+ people. To champion LGBTQ+ rights and gender equity, we must resist the empty representation of rainbow capitalism and insist upon the material improvement of oppressed communities. 

The fight for LGBTQ+ rights is a fight for gender and economic equity. Queer and trans women are doubly affected by the gender wage gap and the LGBTQ+ wage gap, which are shaped by the patriarchy and heteronormativity. The sexism, homophobia, and transphobia of employers and coworkers prevent the career advancement of LGBTQ+ women, who make 87 cents for every dollar earned by their cisgender and straight counterparts. Gender identity also adversely affects earnings: non-binary, genderqueer, gender-fluid, and Two-Spirit people, as well as trans men, make 70 cents per dollar, and trans women make just 60 cents per dollar. Dismantling the structures that perpetuate pay inequity will do far more for LGBTQ+ people than advertising campaigns. 

Overtly rainbow marketing is increasingly seen as inauthentic and inconsistent. Genuine support starts internally: companies should focus their efforts on listening to their LGBTQ+ employees and addressing structural inequities that hinder economic equality. In a 2018 survey, less than half of LGBTQ+ adults surveyed said that their employer’s leave policies treat LGBTQ+ parents and caregivers equally. Paid leave policies often use gendered or heteronormative language that prevents LGBTQ+ people from utilizing benefits in a useful and safe manner. For instance, these policies are not always inclusive of found families, who may not be biologically related to someone but have the same emotional and social significance. This exclusion can harm LGBTQ+ employees who are unable to use paid leave to care for their found family members.  

Paid leave is also not always inclusive to LGBTQ+ parents, who are more likely to adopt and less likely to be married than straight, cisgender parents. Notably, 49 percent of LGBTQ+ parents are married compared to 71 percent of straight, cisgender parents, and 24 percent of married same-sex couples have adopted compared to 3 percent of married different-sex couples. Companies should reevaluate the language and implementation of their leave policies to tangibly improve the lives of their LGBTQ+ employees. 

In addition to internal improvements, corporations can adequately show external support for the LGBTQ+ community without a marketing scheme. Companies must stop contributing to the problem before they can present themselves as the solution: for instance, the hypercapitalism we observe today is largely responsible for the global climate crisis, which disproportionately impacts the LGBTQ+ community. Investment groups should stop driving up the cost of housing and preventing upward economic mobility, especially among queer people and people of color who are more likely to experience poverty. Companies committed to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” for LGBTQ+ people should focus their efforts on pivoting to green energy alternatives and promoting racial and gender equity. And companies should donate to LGBTQ+ nonprofits all year long, not just in June, and not just when they’re advertising a Pride campaign. 

To advance LGBTQ+ and gender equity, consumers should resist rainbow capitalism as an empty marketing strategy and advocate for institutional change. Logos and brand deals aside, rainbow capitalism is superficial, ineffective, and reductive. Companies that want to show support for social causes such as LGBTQ+ rights should do so by championing institutional change within their day-to-day operations and their broader social impact. To be effective and authentic, corporate support for the LGBTQ+ community needs to extend beyond Pride Month.