The Summer of BLM: Why Most Brand Statements Were Corporate Theater

On June 2, 2020, an astonishing thing happened on Instagram. One by one, then in waves, then all at once, the corporate accounts of virtually every major brand in America went dark. Black squares. Hundreds of thousands of them. #BlackoutTuesday.

The stated intent was solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and the protests sweeping the country following the murder of George Floyd. I watched it unfold in real time, and my professional reaction was one of deep ambivalence — not about the cause, which I support unequivocally, but about what I was witnessing.

Because what I saw wasn’t solidarity. It was the marketing industry’s version of a group text. Nobody wanted to be left out.

The Problem with the Black Square

A statement is only as credible as the behavior that surrounds it. When a brand that has never publicly addressed racial equity, never audited its hiring practices, never examined its supply chain for disparate impact, and never given a dollar to racial justice organizations posts a black square, what are they actually saying?

They’re saying: we’ve noticed this is happening and we’re afraid of being on the wrong side of it.

That’s not courage. That’s calculated risk management. And increasingly, consumers can tell the difference.

The Brands That Got It Right

Ben & Jerry’s didn’t post a black square. They published a 700-word statement specifically calling out white supremacy by name, linking to specific policy reforms they supported, and committing to concrete actions. This is a brand that has been publishing politically engaged statements for decades. Their voice on racial justice was earned. It was consistent with everything else they do. Nobody was surprised. Nobody accused them of opportunism.

Nike moved fast with concrete commitments: $40 million over four years to organizations working for racial equality in America. No black square. Just a check and a commitment to action. They’d earned the credibility to make a statement — now they backed it with money and changed their ad spending to support Black-owned media.

Patagonia closed their stores entirely and paid employees so they could participate in protests if they chose to. Action, not just communication.

What Real Accountability Looks Like

The brands that handled this moment well had something in common: they had receipts. Their statements were supported by policies, dollars, and structural decisions that predated the moment. They weren’t reacting to a crisis — they were extending a position they already held.

The brands that handled it poorly also had something in common: the gap between their statements and their demonstrated behavior was visible to anyone who looked. Some of those brands had active discrimination lawsuits. Some had leadership teams with zero Black executives. Some operated in supply chains built on exploitative labor in majority-Black and Brown countries. A black square doesn’t fix any of that. It just announces that your marketing team was paying attention to Twitter.

The lesson for every brand: if you haven’t built the foundation of equitable practices, diverse leadership, and community investment before a crisis hits, you don’t get to co-opt the crisis for brand positioning. You focus on actually doing the work — quietly, consistently, over time — and let that work speak when the moment demands it.

A black square posted by a company that has never written a check for racial justice isn’t solidarity. It’s risk management with a graphic design layer on top.

Steve Wolf

Steve Wolf is a C-suite marketing executive and brand strategist. He serves as CMO of Pinnacle Global Network and CEO of Aquaphant.