When Pantone announced “Cloud Dancer”—a shade of white—as its Color of the Year in December 2025, the response was swift and brutal. At a time when white nationalism is on the rise globally, the choice was offensive, however unintentional. Critics also noted that “Cloud Dancer” holds significance in Indigenous cultures, making Pantone’s adoption of the name disrespectful cultural appropriation (again, however unintentional). What should have been a fun, unifying distraction for designers and consumers became a cautionary tale: even one of the design world’s most respected institutions can stumble without the right expertise in ethical branding.
According to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer, 59% of consumers will stop buying from brands they don’t trust. In today’s market, trust erosion directly impacts your bottom line—and inclusive branding is how you protect it.
A Pattern of Brand Missteps
Despite growing interest in cultural awareness and a desire to appeal to consumers across the globe, brands continue to make costly, offensive mistakes:
Burger King (2021) tweeted “Women belong in the kitchen” on International Women’s Day—supposedly to promote a culinary scholarship program. The backlash was immediate, the apology insufficient, and the brand damage lasting. (Source: BBC)
Balenciaga (2022) released a holiday campaign featuring children holding teddy bears in bondage gear. The campaign generated over 300 million TikTok views—almost all negative—and contributed to a 4% sales decline in Q4 2022. (Source: Business of Fashion)
American Eagle (2025) launched a campaign with actress Sydney Sweeney featuring the tagline “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans”—with videos showing her discussing how “genes” determine traits like hair color and personality. With white nationalism on the rise, it’s offensive (and dangerous) for brands to be touting eugenics ideology. (Source: NBC News)
For communications and marketing directors, these stories reveal an uncomfortable truth: brand reputation vulnerabilities around inclusion aren’t edge cases. They’re mainstream business risks.
The Market Reality: Inclusion Still Matters
Despite political rhetoric suggesting otherwise, the business case for inclusive branding remains strong. A 2024 study found that Americans dramatically underestimate public support for DEI initiatives—actual support is significantly higher than most business leaders believe. (Source: Inc.com)
Here’s what this means for your brand strategy: An inclusive brand is an unoffensive brand. An unoffensive brand is a unifying brand. And a unifying brand appeals to the largest possible market segment.
When you avoid brand controversy through thoughtful, inclusive design, you’re not making a political statement—you’re making a strategic business decision. You’re choosing to create marketing materials, visual identities, and messaging that welcomes your entire audience rather than inadvertently alienating segments of your customer base.
The Real Cost of Getting It Wrong
When your branding excludes or offends, you don’t just lose sales—you lose:
- Trust: Once broken, consumer trust takes years to rebuild
- Positive media attention: Negative coverage amplifies the damage exponentially
- Employee morale: Your team bears the brunt of public backlash
- Competitive advantage: While you’re managing crises, competitors are gaining market share
Why “Being Careful” Isn’t Enough
You might think having diverse perspectives in the room solves the problem. It often doesn’t.
Generic solutions fail because:
- Team members may not feel safe speaking up about potential issues
- Team diversity does not guarantee cultural competency
- Cultural context shifts faster than most teams can track
- What’s acceptable in one community may be harmful in another
What works is having an expert design partner who knows what to look for—someone whose job is to examine implications from all angles and tap specialized expertise when needed. Think of it like accessibility compliance: you don’t expect your marketing team to be ADA experts. You bring in specialists who know the standards.
The same principle applies to inclusive branding.
Why You Need an Expert Partner
The Pantone situation, like those before it, didn’t require a crystal ball to prevent. It required someone with the expertise to recognize potential issues before they became public problems.
At Brevity & Wit, we have experienced designers who know how to examine design implications from all angles. When we encounter questions outside our expertise, we know how to tap other professionals who can provide informed feedback. This isn’t about having a checklist or running designs past a focus group. It’s about having a design partner with both the technical skills and the cultural competency to create brands that unify rather than divide.
Most in-house teams don’t have this specialized expertise—and that’s okay. That’s precisely why working with an external design partner who understands ethical branding practices makes sense. We’ve seen what happens when talented creative teams produce beautiful work that nonetheless contains unintentional offense. We know what to look for, what questions to ask, and how to avoid brand controversy before it starts.
The Bottom Line
Your brand reputation took years to build. One poorly conceived campaign can damage it in hours.
The solution isn’t to avoid bold creative work. It’s to partner with designers who bring both creative excellence and cultural competency to every project—who can help you create compelling campaigns that build trust instead of breaking it.
Ready to create a brand that unifies rather than divides? Brevity & Wit embeds ethical, inclusive principles throughout our branding and design work—not as an add-on, but as core expertise. Contact us to discuss how we can help you avoid brand controversy and build a brand that appeals to your entire market.
This was written by Minal Bopaiah with the help of claude.ai. As a small business, we thoughtfully engage artificial intelligence to improve our efficiency, while also using human experts and reviewers to ensure quality and mitigate bias.