In the lightning-speed online world of today, social media is brand engagement’s oxygen. It’s where businesses bare themselves, espouse their values, and gain customers’ trust. But it is also a minefield in which a wrong step can set off a firestorm of outrage. The recent Maybelline backlash on account of its collaboration with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney is a perfect demonstration of how quickly things can spiral out of control once brands venture into risky cultural currents.
These influencers are like middlemen that have become necessary for brands and subcultures. They’re authentic, they’re reliable, and they’ve got passionate followings that brands are desperate to engage with. But where collaborations overlap with prickly subjects such as identity or representation, they reliably incite heated discussion. The Maybelline boycott was not really a boycott of makeup it was a clash of values, enabled by the influence of social media.
This deep dive unpacks the Maybelline controversy, exploring what happened, why it sparked such a strong reaction, and what it means for brands in 2025. We’ll look at the fallout, compare it to past incidents, and highlight the voices both critical and supportive that shaped the narrative. By the end, you’ll see the tightrope brands walk in a world where every marketing move is under a microscope.
1. Maybelline’s Bold Step and the Subsequent Aftermath
Cosmetic giant Maybelline entered the fray when it partnered with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney on a promotional video. Bare face to full glam, Dylan did her makeup in the video, flaunting Maybelline’s eyeshadow, lipstick, and more in between in her now-famous “getting glam” process. What was intended to be a low-key, earthy advertisement, however, became a line in the sand for others, with calls to boycott served up straight away through social media.
It was an outraged reaction, with sites like Twitter and TikTok abuzz with outrage. Supporters threatened to boycott buying Maybelline products, one of the tweets encapsulating the sentiment: “The latest fools to hire Dylan Mulvaney is make up company. Get woke, go broke.” The hashtag #BoycottMaybelline trended on social media, showing how fast web outrage spreads. For some, the collaboration was not simply about makeup it was a reflection of broader cultural divergence.
This was not some temporary internet meltdown. The boycott demands were the tip of a growing iceberg of consumer power applied to protest brands as unacceptable to their values. For Maybelline, using Dylan meant they were being progressive, but it put the brand in the crosshairs of a polarized consumer base eager to mobilize. It is a gargantuan question: how do brands remain true to their values without ostracizing devoted patrons?
Key Takeaways of the Backlash:
- Dylan’s video was a mere makeup tutorial but turned into a cultural lightning rod.
- The boycott got amplified on social media, with hashtags such as #BoycottMaybelline trending.
- The response was symptomatic of broader tensions around transgender representation and inclusion.
2. Learning from Bud Light’s Costly Error
Maybelline wasn’t alone in falling victim to such a backlash, and it won’t be the last, either. A few months ago, Bud Light was in the same storm as it collaborated with Dylan Mulvaney for a social media campaign. When the beer brand chose to include Dylan in an advertisement, it sparked a huge boycott with sales declining and the company having to face the repercussions. The similarities of the two incidents are impossible to ignore.
Bud Light’s experience was a wake-up call for brands across the board. The boycott not only hurt sales it changed business perception about influencer partnerships. For Maybelline, the Bud Light incident was a wake-up call, and apprehension existed that their partnership with Dylan would prove as costly for the company. The term “Get woke, go broke” emerged into use as a warning against the trap of taking part in topics that are progressive in nature in a polarized nation.
What makes these instances so interesting is the way they illustrate the unbridled potential of social media to engage consumers. Bud Light’s sales decline was more than a blip unfortunately, it was a wake-up call that online outrage could be turned into on-the-ground consequences. For Maybelline, the challenge was obvious: how do you cut through in a cultural environment where every move has the potential to create a firestorm?
Takeaways from Bud Light:
- Bud Light sales declined 17% in dollars and 21% in volume during a single week.
- The boycott chopped $6 billion from the market value of Anheuser-Busch.
- It demonstrated how rapidly the mood on the web can turn against the bottom line of a brand.
3. Dylan Mulvaney: The Influencer at the Center of the Storm
Dylan Mulvaney is a social media force to be reckoned with, boasting 1.8 million followers on Instagram and close to 11 million on TikTok. She has established her own platform by. documenting trans woman. life, blending authenticity with bright, lively visuals. For companies such as Maybelline, teaming up with Dylan is an opportunity to connect with young, multicultural audiences and show support for inclusivity.
To promote Maybelline, Dylan followed her routine: she began with no makeup and then was made up using the brand’s products to appear glamorous. It’s a routine she has done before for brands such as Nike, Kate Spade, and Versace, where she promotes products without compromising her own brand. But celebrity as a transgender activist has polarized her into a venerated and excoriated personality.
Dylan’s influence extends beyond merchandise sales she’s a touchstone in larger debates around identity and acceptance. Her public regards her as an icon; her critics view her as a lightning rod. That tension makes her collaborations a gamble for brands, weighing the potential value of access to her audience against the potential of galvanizing hate from those who despise her.
Why Dylan Matters:
- Her large following makes her one of the leading influencers for brands selling to younger and LGBTQ+ consumers.
- Her openness is louder than words but comes with criticism.
- Her collaborations range from large beauty brands to fashion houses to technology companies.
4. The Power of “Get Woke, Go Broke”
The “Get woke, go broke” cry has been the rallying cry of those resisting brands that are considered too liberal. It is a threat that businesses are losing money by venturing into social causes not directed towards their large clients. For Maybelline, the slogan swept the internet, one of the posters reading, “The latest fools to hire Dylan Mulvaney is make up company. Get woke, go broke.”
For its detractors, the term captures their indignation over brands they feel are engaging in social justice at the cost of allegiance to their roots. It’s not a marketing slogan in and of itself it’s an incitement, a call to consumers to strike brands where it smarts most: in the pocketbook. The ubiquity of the term attests to how deeply this emotion cuts, transforming a marketing choice into a cultural war zone.
But there is more to that. While boycotters do exist, there are equally those that support brands that speak out. The “Get woke, go broke” chant is an oversimplification of the complex realities of modern marketing, in which brands need to appeal to different constituencies and manage risk. For Maybelline, it was a wake-up call about the tightrope they walk in a polarized society.
Impact of the Slogan:
- It’s a demand for action, requesting boycotts to make brands suffer financially.
- It’s a venting of rage at brands perceived to be prioritizing social messaging.
- It’s a double-edged sword, since inclusive brands have some level of support among consumers.
5. Social Media’s Role in Spreading the Outrage
Social media is a double-edged sword for business. It is such an effective tool for relationship building, but it has the potential to get out of control very easily and turn a little spark into a huge blaze. In the Maybelline scandal, social media platforms like Twitter and TikTok became war zones where people howled in outrage and demanded a boycott. Hashtags such as #BoycottMaybelline were trending, with one post stating, “Time for #BoycottMaybelline to trend, since Maybelline used Dylan Mulvaney as their sponsor.”
The responses weren’t simply about cosmetics but were reaching into more profound emotions about rights and identity. One wrote, “Hey [Maybelline] Women have battled for years to be where we are, women’s rights are being rolled back by these men, and you’re contributing. Please us all born women let’s [boycottmaybelline].
On TikTok, one of the answers to Dylan’s posting was merely, “Thank you.”. I won’t be purchasing this item.” Such direct, emotional reactions capture how emotional accord in online space is translated into offline behavior.
What is staggering is the way social media speaks on everyone’s behalf. One tweet or comment can have thousands mobilizing over a cause, be it a boycott or an expression of solidarity. For Maybelline, the deluge of response showed the challenge of employing a brand in an age where everything can be debated on the internet.
How Social Media Fueled the Fire
- Social media sites like Twitter and TikTok allowed boycott appeals to go viral.
- Replies were on individual interests, not just business decisions.
- The speed of social media made a single video viral and an international debate.
6. Silence of Maybelline and L’Oreal Speaks Volumes
When the calls for boycott erupted, Maybelline and L’Oreal remained quiet. Without news outlets’ calls for comment, both companies sat in silence initially. It was an important silence, particularly given the manner in which other brands have moved into defending or altering campaigns when confronted with such controversy. For Maybelline, the silence allowed controversy to boil unchecked.
Silence is a calculated move. Brands like to keep quiet, observe the situation carefully, and refrain from making a statement which can further kindle the controversy. But in the haste of social media, silence may also be misconstrued as indifference or indecision and may even fuel the fire. In the Maybelline scenario, keeping mum made it part of the story.
The long-term effects of this strategy are uncertain. Would a rapid response have subdued the tempest, or fanned the flames? Either situation, Maybelline’s silence underscored the balancing act brands face when faced with cultural flashpoints in a more divided world.
Why Silence Matters:
- It permitted calls for boycotts to go viral without there being an official counter-narrative.
- It represented a reserved response to a delicate subject.
- It was up to consumers and media to make sense of it all themselves.
7. The Broader Context: A Polarized Cultural Landscape
The Maybelline and Bud Light faux pas did not occur in a vacuum but are symptomatic of a broader national transgender rights debacle. Throughout the country, right-wing politicians have introduced transgender-narrowing healthcare bills, such as newly signed bills in North Dakota. These policy initiatives have politicized issues related to transgender people and turned brand partnerships into a war zone for wider cultural battle.
In this charged atmosphere, individuals such as Dylan Mulvaney are positioned at the center of both praise and ridicule. Individuals such as Oli London, who misgendered Dylan and taunted her Maybelline collaboration, and Jordan Peterson, who instigated a boycott, fueled the outrage. Their behavior ignited a reservoir of grievance among particular consumers, making an ordinary advertisement a representation of deeper societal fault lines.
For businesses, this climate turns each marketing move into a gamble. A campaign intended to honor diversity can turn into an inflammatory tool when it spills onto politicized ground. The Maybelline controversy shows how businesses have to maneuver not only around consumer taste but also the larger forces determining public opinion.
The Bigger Picture:
- Public policy decisions, such as North Dakota’s bans, fuel public discourse.
- Influencers such as Dylan become talismans during a polarized cultural war.
- Brands stand to lose ground when their campaigns go into controversial topics.
8. The Financial Fallout: Bud Light’s Cautionary Tale
The backlash against businesses that have partnered with Dylan Mulvaney isn’t all angry tweets it’s hitting businesses where it hurts the most: the bottom line. Bud Light’s situation is a clear case. Following their Dylan campaign, sales fell 17% in dollars and 21% in volume within a week. Parent company Anheuser-Busch lost a $6 billion market hit, a crushing blow.
These figures aren’t statistics, they’re a wake-up call to brands looking at making similar deals. The sales indicate the strength of consumer activism as a reality-check force, one that is forcing businesses to re-figure and change their plan. For Maybelline, the Bud Light example was a grim reminder of what might be accomplished if the boycott had taken off.
What is so remarkable is how quickly online outrage can hit a brand’s bottom line. In 2025, the ability of social media to amplify consumer opinion means businesses have to be ready for fast and hurtful consequences when their efforts ignite controversy. The potential has never been greater.
Financial Consequences:
- Bud Light sales collapsed, demonstrating the boycott’s immediate impact.
- Anheuser-Busch saw $6 billion in market value eroded in a matter of weeks.
- The backlash serves as a lesson to brands rooted in cultural controversies.
9. Corporate Shake-Ups in the Wake of Controversy
The Bud Light boycott stung not just sales it caused a top-level shake-up. Two senior marketing executives, Alissa Heinerscheid and Daniel Blake, were put on leave following the Dylan Mulvaney campaign controversy. Heinerscheid had defended the ad as a step toward inclusivity that would take Bud Light out of the “fratty” mode. But the blowback was too strong, and the company fast changed direction.
These leadership changes indicate how much brands fear consumer backlash. When a campaign jeopardizes the reputation and bottom line of a firm, executives come in to take one for the team. In the case of Anheuser-Busch, keeping two of its top leaders suspended was a gesture of conceding that they were listening to their consumers and attempting to restore credibility.
To Bud Light, the Maybelline case provided added stakes. Would their silence be tantamount to equal internal backlash? The case is indicative of the pressure that brands face to balance aggressive marketing campaigns with not alienating their consumers.
Leadership Changes:
- Two Bud Light executives were removed from their roles following the backlash.
- The actions were taken as a response to consumer backlash and financial loss.
- It is a reflection of how controversies are capable of influencing corporate leadership.
10. Dylan’s Far-Reaching Brand Partnerships
Dylan Mulvaney’s reach goes far beyond Bud Light and Maybelline. With millions of fans, she’s partnered with a lengthy roster of prominent brands, such as Nike and Amazon Prime, KitchenAid and OkCupid. Her reach to connect young and LGBTQ+ consumers makes her a desirable partner for businesses seeking to tap into new customers.
Her brands range from fashion (Kate Spade, ASOS) to beauty (MAC, CeraVe) to technology (Motorola). Each affiliation is true to her sense, which is frequently centered around transformation and realness. But it is this diversity-driven portfolio that exposes her to risk, critics zeroing in on her trans influencer profile.
The number of brands that have joined forces with Dylan indicates how businesses view her as a window to their diverse clientele. But it also alerts us to the danger if one collaboration leads to outcry, it is over her entire client list castigatingly. Businesses are risking involvement between leveraging her influence and risking potential scandal.
Dylan’s Brand Reach:
- Nike, MAC, Kate Spade, and numerous others have joined her.
- Her alliances extend to young and LGBTQ+ consumers.
- Her reputation positions her as a asset as well as a lightning rod opportunity.
11. The Counter-Narrative: For Dylan
Though the calls to boycott were vocal, they had no company. Supporters and fans of Dylan Mulvaney countered the negative reaction. One Twitter user sarcastically observed, “It’s going to be good fun when the transphobes realize they have to boycott every makeup and clothing brand there is, and have to go around wearing only paper bags.” The tweet observed the hypocrisy of boycotting all the brands Dylan is involved with.
Others commented on the plainness of the Maybelline advertisement, with one commenter providing a link to the video and stating, “This is the whole reason that they’re losing it. Because Maybelline had the nerve to sponsor a trans woman for this 13-second ad.” The argument of these supporters was that the backlash was excessive, targeting Dylan’s identity rather than content in and of itself.
This reverse-narrative is the other side of the cultural divide. With each critic demanding a boycott, there’s always a supporter who’s applauding brands for being inclusive. It’s a reminder of social media’s power in amplifying both sides, thereby making it challenging for brands to traverse.
Support for Dylan:
- Supporters ridiculed the notion of boycotting all of Dylan’s sponsored brands.
- They claimed that outrage was due to identity, not the ad itself.
- The counter-narrative emphasized the worth of inclusive marketing.
12. When Backlash Becomes Deadly
The Bud Light scandal darkened when backlash spilled over from being merely calls for boycott. Alissa Heinerscheid and Daniel Blake, marketing executives, received death threats following the Dylan Mulvaney campaign where commemorative cans with her face were released under this campaign. The situation escalated to the extent that bomb threats were issued to Budweiser factories, indicating how internet outrage may be translated into actual danger.
Glamour brands such as Kid Rock fueled the fire, with the artist spattering bottles of Bud Light with an assault rifle in a showy demonstration of protest against the campaign. A “conservative dad” even released a “woke-free” beer to challenge Bud Light. Those over-the-top responses triggered White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to decry the violence, stating, “When a transgender American shares a video about a type of beer that they enjoy and it results in bomb threats, it’s clear that the level of violence and hatred directed at transgender Americans must stop.”
This escalation reveals the risks of 2025 brands. What begins as a marketing choice can degenerate into a war of culture and even actual violence. For brands such as Maybelline, the message could not be more direct: reading social media trends takes more than strategy and entails an intimate knowledge of the social tides at play.
The Escalation:
- Death and bomb threats were made against the employees and facilities of Bud Light.
- Public personalities such as Kid Rock escalated the protests with melodramatic protests.
- The White House denounced the violence and pointed out the larger issue of intolerance.
Closing Thoughts
The “Get woke, go broke” mantra is catchy but hides a reality of multi-dimensionality for brands in 2025. The moments involving Maybelline and Bud Light precisely illustrate how quickly an advertising campaign will turn into a cultural war zone. Social media’s ability both to amplify and destroy voices means that brands have to walk a tightrope, being real without inviting outrage.
For companies, the assignment is to understand their people, forecast social patterns, and be prepared to be criticized. The development of modern branding is not just about selling products it’s about existing in a world where every action is a statement. Since companies like Maybelline find out, flexibility and foresight are the keys to survival in this fluid, often polarizing, world.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/091423-tested-makeup-products-social-a5816076b4b34d82b420dede62e5f5b1.jpg?resize=1500,750&ssl=1 "Could These 6 Makeup Products Revolutionize Your Skincare Routine?")
