Maybelline, a prominent cosmetics brand, has recently encountered widespread calls for a boycott following its partnership with transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney. The collaboration, quickly ignited a wave of criticism, particularly from conservative consumers and commentators. This development marks Maybelline as the latest major company to face public backlash for engaging with Mulvaney.
The swift and intense reaction highlights a broader cultural and political divide, where brand decisions perceived as aligning with progressive social causes can trigger strong negative responses from certain segments of the consumer base. The phrase ‘Get woke, go broke’ has become a rallying cry for these boycotts, suggesting that companies embracing inclusivity risk financial repercussions. Such partnerships, often intended to signal support for LGBTQ+ people or to reach younger demographics, are increasingly navigating a complex landscape of public opinion and activism.
This article delves into the specifics of the Maybelline incident, exploring its genesis, the immediate public reactions, and the various factors contributing to the controversy. It will examine how this event mirrors previous challenges faced by other brands and shed light on the dynamics of influencer marketing in a polarized social environment. The situation underscores the delicate balance brands must maintain when engaging with social issues and diverse public figures.
1. **Maybelline’s Partnership with Dylan Mulvaney**
Maybelline’s partnership with Dylan Mulvaney centered on a short video Mulvaney posted across her social media channels, specifically TikTok, which quickly became a focal point for controversy. The video featured Mulvaney applying Maybelline cosmetics, showcasing a transformation as she ‘gets glam’ with eyeshadow, lipstick, and other products. This promotional content was created as Mulvaney prepared for her ‘Day 365 show,’ a real-life stage performance inspired by her popular TikTok series documenting her transition.
The video initially showed Mulvaney without makeup, wearing a bathrobe, before she used a popular TikTok technique of obscuring herself with a makeup brush to transition to the next shot. When the brush was pulled back, she appeared in a dress, with her hair and makeup done, demonstrating the effectiveness of the Maybelline products. The caption for the video included tags such as ‘@maybelline #maybellinepartner #dylanmulvaney #shorts,’ clearly indicating a sponsored collaboration.
This specific piece of content, celebrating Mulvaney’s journey and her 365th day of publicly identifying as a woman, was intended to connect with her substantial following and project an image of inclusivity for the Maybelline brand. The visual narrative of transformation and celebration was central to the campaign. However, the exact timing of its viral resurfacing among conservative circles, weeks after its initial posting, contributed significantly to the ensuing backlash.
2. **The “Get Woke, Go Broke” Slogan**
The phrase “Get woke, go broke” rapidly emerged as a prominent slogan among critics of the Maybelline-Mulvaney partnership, encapsulating a sentiment that businesses face financial penalties for aligning with progressive social causes. This idiom suggests that embracing ‘woke’ ideologies, often associated with social justice and inclusivity, inevitably leads to a decline in profits or even bankruptcy due to consumer boycotts. It has become a concise, powerful message used by those who disagree with a brand’s social stance.
Multiple social media users directly employed this phrase in their reactions to the Maybelline collaboration. For instance, one Twitter user wrote, “The latest fools to employ Dylan Mulvaney is make up company. Get woke, go broke.” This comment, widely circulated, underscored the belief among some consumers that companies choosing to partner with Mulvaney are making a financially detrimental decision based on their perceived social agenda. The slogan thus serves as both a warning to other brands and a statement of intent for boycotting consumers.
The repetition of “Get woke, go broke” across various platforms amplified its impact and cemented it as a key narrative surrounding the controversy. It provided a simple, memorable framework for expressing disapproval and mobilizing collective action against brands like Maybelline. The slogan reflects a broader cultural critique that views corporate engagement with social issues as an overreach or a misguided attempt to cater to a specific, often ideologically opposed, demographic.
3. **Initial Calls for #BoycottMaybelline**
The Maybelline partnership with Dylan Mulvaney immediately triggered widespread calls for a boycott, with social media serving as the primary platform for organizing and amplifying these demands. The hashtag #BoycottMaybelline quickly gained traction on Twitter, indicating a concerted effort by disgruntled consumers to influence the brand’s sales and reputation. These initial reactions were a direct response to Mulvaney’s promotional video, with many users expressing their intent to cease purchasing Maybelline products.
Specific examples of these calls highlight the sentiment among critics. One Twitter user explicitly stated, “Time for #BoycottMaybelline to trend, since Maybelline used Dylan Mulvaney as their sponsor.” Another user on TikTok commented, “Thank you. I won’t be buying this product,” directly linking their purchasing decision to the partnership. These statements illustrate the immediate and personal impact the collaboration had on a segment of Maybelline’s customer base, who felt alienated or offended by the brand’s choice of influencer.
Beyond simple pledges to boycott, some users expressed deeper dissatisfaction, viewing the partnership as a broader attack on women’s rights or traditional gender roles. A tweet from one user read, “Hey [Maybelline] Women have fought for years to get to where we are, women’s rights are being taking back by these men, and you support it. Please all of us born women let’s [boycottmaybelline].” These reactions underscored the complex and often emotionally charged nature of the discourse surrounding transgender identity and brand representation, extending beyond mere product disapproval to broader social and political grievances.
4. **Dylan Mulvaney’s Digital Presence and Influence**
Dylan Mulvaney holds a significant digital presence, making her a highly influential figure across major social media platforms, particularly Instagram and TikTok. Her substantial following underscores her reach and appeal, especially among younger audiences. At the time of the controversy, Mulvaney had amassed approximately 1.8 million followers on Instagram and an even larger audience of nearly 11 million followers on TikTok, platforms where she regularly shares content related to her life and transition.
Her content on TikTok, in particular, has been central to her rise as an influencer. Mulvaney used the platform to document her experience transitioning from male to female, gaining a dedicated following through her ‘Days of Girlhood’ series. This series detailed various aspects of her journey, from daily routines to significant milestones, fostering a sense of connection and community with her viewers. Her ability to engage millions of users has made her an attractive partner for brands seeking to tap into diverse audiences and express messages of inclusivity.
Mulvaney’s role extends beyond merely promoting products; she has become an outspoken activist for transgender people. Her use of social media to discuss gender identity and her personal experiences, particularly while living with her parents during the Coronavirus pandemic, has cemented her status as a prominent voice in the transgender community. This combination of large-scale audience engagement and advocacy makes her a potent, albeit sometimes controversial, figure in the realm of influencer marketing.
5. **Parallels to the Bud Light Controversy**
The backlash against Maybelline immediately drew strong parallels to a similar and highly publicized controversy involving Anheuser-Busch’s Bud Light, which unfolded shortly before the Maybelline incident escalated. Both brands faced calls for boycotts due to partnerships with Dylan Mulvaney, suggesting a pattern of conservative consumer response to brands engaging with transgender influencers. This prior event set a precedent and provided a framework for how the Maybelline situation would be perceived and reacted to by many.
Bud Light’s partnership with Mulvaney, which involved her promoting the beer brand in a series of social media videos coinciding with the NCAA March Madness tournament, also triggered a torrent of negative publicity and calls for a boycott. The intensity of this reaction, including high-profile conservative figures like Kid Rock publicly destroying Bud Light cans, signaled the potential for significant consumer disengagement. This immediate and visible impact on Bud Light informed the expectations and tactics of those initiating the #BoycottMaybelline campaign.
The striking similarities in the nature of the partnership (a social media promotion by Mulvaney), the demographic of the protesting consumers (largely conservative), and the specific ‘Get woke, go broke’ rhetoric used, firmly linked the two controversies in the public mind. This connection meant that Maybelline’s situation was not viewed in isolation but as part of a larger trend, intensifying the scrutiny and potential consequences for the cosmetics brand. The question of whether the Maybelline boycott would gain as much traction as the one against Bud Light, which had a measurable impact on sales, became a central point of discussion.
6. **The Nature of Brand Partnerships with Influencers**
Brand partnerships with social media influencers, such as the collaboration between Maybelline and Dylan Mulvaney, are a common and evolving strategy in contemporary marketing. These alliances are often forged with specific objectives in mind, including expanding brand reach, connecting with particular demographics, and communicating corporate values. For many companies, partnering with influencers like Mulvaney is a deliberate effort to express support for inclusivity and to engage with diverse communities, such as LGBTQ+ people or young women.
In the case of Maybelline, the partnership could be seen as an attempt to align with modern perceptions of beauty and self-expression, resonating with Mulvaney’s substantial and engaged following. Such collaborations leverage the influencer’s authenticity and perceived relatability to their audience, allowing brands to convey messages that might be less impactful through traditional advertising channels. The goal is often to create content that feels organic and genuinely connected to the influencer’s personal brand, thereby enhancing the product’s appeal among their followers.
However, these partnerships are not without risks, as evidenced by the boycotts faced by Maybelline and Bud Light. While aiming to project inclusivity and modernity, brands can inadvertently expose themselves to the cultural and political divisions prevalent in society. The selection of an influencer, particularly one who is a prominent figure in a sensitive social discourse, can lead to unforeseen backlash from segments of the population who hold opposing views. This necessitates a careful consideration of brand values, target audiences, and potential controversies when engaging in influencer marketing.
7. **Maybelline and L’Oreal’s Silence**
In the immediate aftermath of the escalating calls for a boycott, neither Maybelline nor its parent company, L’Oreal, issued a public statement or response to the controversy. This silence was notable, especially given the rapid spread of negative sentiment and the comparisons being drawn to the Bud Light situation, where Anheuser-Busch eventually addressed the backlash with executive changes and an apology. The lack of an immediate comment left many questions unanswered regarding the companies’ stance on the partnership and the ensuing public reaction.
News outlets, including The Post and MailOnline, made requests for comment from Maybelline and L’Oreal, but these requests did not yield immediate responses. This strategic silence can be interpreted in several ways. Companies sometimes choose to avoid immediate public statements in hopes that a controversy will dissipate on its own, or to carefully formulate a comprehensive response that considers all potential implications. It also prevents further fanning the flames of public debate with hastily prepared remarks.
The decision not to comment, however, also meant that the narrative of the boycott largely remained shaped by the voices of critics and social media users. Without an official clarification or defense of the partnership, the perception of Maybelline’s decision to collaborate with Dylan Mulvaney was left open to interpretation, primarily within the context of the “Get woke, go broke” framework. This approach differed from Bud Light’s eventual actions, highlighting varying corporate strategies in managing public relations crises related to influencer marketing and social issues.
The ripple effects of such partnerships extend far beyond initial social media outrage, often leading to tangible financial and executive repercussions, influencing public discourse, and intersecting with broader political movements. The ongoing debate surrounding Dylan Mulvaney’s collaborations underscores the complex environment brands navigate when aligning with social causes and diverse public figures.
8. **Significant Financial and Executive Impact on Bud Light**
The controversy surrounding Bud Light’s partnership with Dylan Mulvaney has had measurable and significant financial consequences for the brand. Data from NielsenIQ and Bump Williams Consulting indicated a substantial decline in sales for Bud Light, with sales falling 17% in dollars and volume dropping a notable 21% in the week ending April 15. This immediate downturn suggested a direct correlation between the consumer backlash and purchasing behavior.
Beyond the sales figures, Anheuser-Busch, Bud Light’s parent company, reportedly faced a $6 billion loss in market value. This substantial financial impact highlighted the severity with which the market reacted to the controversy and the sustained nature of the consumer boycott. The financial repercussions served as a stark warning to other brands considering similar influencer marketing strategies.
The controversy also led to executive changes within Anheuser-Busch. Alissa Heinerscheid, who served as the vice president of marketing for Bud Light, and her boss, Daniel Blake, Budweiser’s group vice president for marketing, took leaves of absence. Heinerscheid had previously articulated a strategy to make Bud Light more inclusive and less “fratty,” which informed the decision to partner with Mulvaney.
An Anheuser-Busch spokesperson confirmed these developments in an email to the Wall Street Journal, stating, “Given the circumstances, Alissa has decided to take a leave of absence which we support.” The company also confirmed that Daniel Blake had decided to take a leave of absence, signaling a direct link between the marketing decisions and the subsequent corporate response to the intense public pressure.
9. **Role of Prominent Conservative Figures in Orchestrating Boycotts**
The boycotts against brands partnering with Dylan Mulvaney have been significantly amplified and, at times, orchestrated by prominent conservative figures. These individuals have leveraged their platforms to express strong disapproval, mobilize followers, and encourage widespread consumer disengagement. Their involvement transformed social media sentiment into a more organized and impactful movement.
Country music stars played a notable role in the Bud Light boycott. Kid Rock, a 52-year-old singer, posted a video on Twitter showing him shooting several cases of Bud Light with an assault weapon, accompanied by a strong condemnation of the brand. John Rich, another country music star, publicly questioned what beer his Nashville bar, Redneck Riviera, should replace Bud Light with.
Travis Tritt took a more comprehensive stance, announcing his intention to delete all Anheuser-Busch products from his tour hospitality rider and noting that many other artists were doing the same. These public declarations by influential entertainers provided a visible and emotional rallying point for consumers who felt similarly alienated by the brand’s partnership.
More recently, figures like Dr. Jordan B. Peterson called for a boycott of Maybelline, urging his followers to “welcome @Maybelline to the boycott club.” British anti-transgenderism activist Oli London also actively participated, sharing Mulvaney’s Maybelline video on Twitter, misgendering her, and mocking the brand’s famous slogan. These actions underscored a coordinated effort to extend the ‘Get woke, go broke’ narrative to new targets.
10. **Comprehensive Overview of Mulvaney’s Extensive Brand Collaborations**
Dylan Mulvaney has cultivated an extensive portfolio of brand partnerships, establishing herself as a highly sought-after social media influencer. Her collaborations span a wide array of industries, demonstrating her broad appeal to companies seeking to connect with diverse audiences. Reports have noted her as “the influencer companies are clamoring to work with,” indicating her significant market value.
Beyond the widely publicized partnerships with Bud Light and Maybelline, Mulvaney has engaged with prominent athletic wear and fashion brands. She has featured herself promoting products from Nike, including athletic wear, and has also collaborated with Kate Spade, showcasing their clothing. Other fashion and beauty partnerships include Ole Henrikson, MAC, ASOS, Eos, Urban Decay, CeraVE, Native, Neutrogena, Mugler, Mylo, Aritzia, and Charlotte Tilbury.
Her collaborations also extend to various consumer goods and lifestyle brands, reflecting her diverse reach. Mulvaney has partnered with Amazon Prime, KitchenAid, OkCupid, Soda Stream, Crest, Svedka Vodka, Olay, Kind, Motorola US, and the Plaza Hotel. This extensive list illustrates how deeply integrated she is within the influencer marketing landscape, far beyond the two brands that initially sparked widespread boycotts.
Many of these promotional posts, including those for makeup brands, were shared months before the recent wave of intense anti-trans backlash. This suggests that the current controversies are not solely about new partnerships, but rather a delayed and amplified reaction to Mulvaney’s existing and long-standing presence in brand marketing, often resurfacing due to renewed conservative social media attention.
11. **Wider Political Context of Anti-Transgender Sentiment and Legislation**
The brand boycotts targeting Dylan Mulvaney’s partnerships are not isolated incidents but are deeply intertwined with a broader political and cultural climate marked by escalating anti-transgender sentiment. This context provides a framework for understanding the intensity and nature of the backlash, demonstrating how corporate decisions can become flashpoints in larger societal debates.
Conservative lawmakers in several U.S. states have been actively passing legislation that restricts the rights of transgender people. An example of this is a new measure in North Dakota that places restrictions on transgender health care within the state. Such legislative actions contribute to an environment where transgender identities are openly debated and often challenged, fueling public discourse that can turn hostile.
Dylan Mulvaney has become a “lightning rod” for this anti-trans sentiment among certain conservative segments. Her visibility and public documentation of her transition have made her a focal point, leading many to target her brand sponsors as a direct means of expressing their anger and opposition to transgender rights. This strategy seeks to impose economic pressure on companies perceived to be aligned with progressive social causes.
The criticism often extends beyond mere disapproval of a product to broader ideological grievances. Comments from social media users, such as one tweet stating, “Hey [Maybelline] Women have fought for years to get to where we are, women’s rights are being taking back by these men, and you support it,” illustrate how the discourse connects brand partnerships to wider concerns about gender roles and women’s rights within this political context.
12. **Mulvaney’s Personal Reflections on Being a Public Target**
Dylan Mulvaney has offered personal reflections on her experience of becoming a prominent target in the ongoing cultural debates, particularly in the context of the backlash against her brand partnerships. During an interview with Rosie O’Donnell, Mulvaney articulated her perspective on why she believes she has become an “easy target” for criticism.
She attributed this vulnerability to her relatively recent journey of publicly identifying as a woman. Mulvaney stated, “The reason I think I’m an easy target is because I’m still new to this.” This candid admission suggests that her visibility as someone openly transitioning may make her seem more approachable or less entrenched than those who have been out as transgender for longer periods.
Mulvaney further elaborated on this point by contrasting her situation with that of more established transgender women. She speculated, “I think going after a trans woman who has been doing this for 20 years is a lot more difficult.” This perspective indicates a belief that critics might perceive a greater chance of influencing or impacting a newer public figure, raising questions about the ultimate goal of such targeted attacks.
Her journey into publicly discussing gender identity began during the Coronavirus pandemic while living with her parents. Mulvaney shared with GirlBoss, “I finally asked myself these questions about gender. I had never asked myself those dark questions because when I was four, I tried coming out to my mom as a girl, but it just wasn’t a thing then. Being trans was very taboo.” This personal history provides context for her current public role and advocacy.
13. **Counter-Narratives and Support Offered by Her Allies**
Amidst the widespread criticism and boycott calls, Dylan Mulvaney has also received significant support and has been the subject of counter-narratives from her allies. These supporters, often active on social media platforms, have challenged the anti-trans sentiment and defended Mulvaney’s partnerships, sometimes employing humor or highlighting broader societal issues.
On Twitter, Mulvaney’s supporters actively spoke out in her defense. One user humorously suggested, “It’s going to be good fun when the transphobes realise they need to boycott every single makeup and fashion brand, and are forced to walk around in just paper bags.” This comment underscored the pervasiveness of transgender inclusivity in various industries and mocked the impracticality of boycotting all such brands.
Another supporter linked directly to the Maybelline video, stating, “This is the entire reason they’re having a meltdown. Because Maybelline dared to sponsor a trans woman for this 13-second video.” The comment continued, adding, “Meanwhile women, trans and cis, with actual problems are left to drown in hatred,” aiming to reframe the narrative by suggesting the backlash was disproportionate and misdirected, ignoring more pressing issues.
The supportive responses often characterized the backlash as “transphobic hate” and “bigoted.” These counter-narratives not only offered solidarity to Mulvaney but also sought to educate and galvanize others who believe in transgender rights and inclusivity. They highlighted the emotional toll of such vitriol and emphasized the importance of supporting diverse voices in media and advertising.
14. **Historical Precedents of Transgender Inclusivity in the Beauty Industry**
The recent controversies surrounding Maybelline and Dylan Mulvaney are not the first instances of transgender women being featured in the beauty industry. In fact, Maybelline’s parent company, L’Oreal, has a history of engaging with transgender women in its marketing campaigns, demonstrating a longer-standing commitment to inclusivity within the beauty space. This context suggests that the current backlash is not entirely unprecedented, but perhaps amplified by present cultural dynamics.
Notably, L’Oreal worked with transgender model Hari Nef in a 2017 advertising campaign. This collaboration was described as being in a “much more in-depth capacity” than the recent, brief social media video involving Mulvaney. Nef’s participation in a prominent campaign several years prior indicates a consistent effort by L’Oreal to represent a broader spectrum of beauty and identity in its advertisements.
These earlier partnerships suggest that the beauty industry, particularly major players like L’Oreal, has explored and often embraced transgender inclusivity for some time. The prior engagements, seemingly without the same level of widespread vitriol and boycott calls, highlight how the contemporary social and political environment has intensified reactions to similar forms of representation.
The existence of such historical precedents challenges the narrative that these partnerships are entirely new or a radical shift for the industry. Instead, it places the current controversies within a continuum of efforts to diversify representation, while also underscoring how specific personalities and the broader political climate can significantly alter public reception and trigger intense backlashes.
15. **Official Responses to the Escalating Vitriol**
The escalating vitriol and, in some instances, threats associated with the boycotts against brands partnering with Dylan Mulvaney have drawn responses from official government channels, signaling a concern for the safety and well-being of transgender individuals. These responses underscore the serious nature of the rhetoric extending beyond consumer preferences to issues of public safety and human rights.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre addressed the violent backlash during a press briefing on Thursday, April 20. She explicitly condemned the actions and rhetoric, stating, “When a transgender American posts a video about a brand of beer they enjoy and it leads to bomb threats, it’s clear that the level of violence and vitriol against transgender Americans has to stop.”
Jean-Pierre’s statement directly linked the online outrage to real-world threats, emphasizing the dangerous trajectory of the anti-trans sentiment. Her remarks served as an official condemnation of the extreme reactions, including instances where Anheuser-Busch facilities reportedly faced bomb threats following the Mulvaney partnership.
This official response from the White House highlighted the administration’s concern over the targeting of transgender Americans and the need to curb violence and harassment. It positioned the issue not merely as a corporate public relations challenge, but as a matter of civil rights and safety, advocating for an end to the intense and often dangerous animosity directed at transgender individuals like Dylan Mulvaney.
The controversies surrounding Dylan Mulvaney’s brand partnerships reveal a landscape where corporate marketing strategies are increasingly entangled with profound cultural and political divisions. these events reflect a volatile interplay between brand values, consumer activism, and identity politics. The impassioned debates underscore the ongoing challenges for brands striving for inclusivity in a polarized world, where every partnership can spark a multifaceted discussion, extending from individual consumer choices to national political discourse and the fundamental question of civil rights and safety for transgender individuals.
