Woke culture is a trap, at least sometimes

As a person working every day on data deep dives, this decision-making process, common to many corporations, makes me very frustrated:

I jump back to 2018 just for the sake of this example:

The research company X and Brand Y Marketing director meet –

Research company X tells global brand Y: 68% of Americans support same-sex marriage
The Brand Y Marketing Director says, “We must take action! 62% of consumers want companies to take a stand on the issues.”
The team(s) implement

You may expect this article to be like: “go woke, go broke!”. However, I will demonstrate how some brands manage to go woke and achieve success, while others face backlash. The woke culture is a trap… Only if you don’t know how to use your data!

When go woke leads to go broke – when woke culture is a trap

Table of Contents

When go woke leads to go broke – when woke culture is a trap
The disappointing results of The Rings of Power
Disney’s Snow White Disaster
Why these, and many others, “woke” shows went broke
When woke culture is a trap for brands:
Target tries to be in two boats at the same time, and revenues decline
Pride 2025, many brands are bringing down their expenses
Go woke without going broke – Barbie Movie
Nike’s woke gamble pays off with a 31% online sales increase
Care about what your most important customers think:
Woke culture is a trap?
About the author:

“Going woke” is publicly aligning a brand, franchise, or product with progressive social values: supporting LGBTQ+ rights, racial equity, gender inclusion, climate awareness, etc.

For some audiences, this is a welcome sign of progress.
For others, it feels like moral posturing or political propaganda. And here lies the trap: some brands embrace woke themes and thrive. Others try the same and walk into a backlash they didn’t see coming.

In cultural contexts, critics of woke culture use the motto “go woke, go broke,” which is widely used when an entertaining product or a marketing campaign by a brand is categorized as woke and fails.

Let’s start understing why many of the “woke” products fail or perform poorly. Yes, in this case, woke culture is a trap!

The disappointing results of The Rings of Power

The first time I encountered the phrase “go woke, go broke” was in the summer of 2022, and to me, it marked one of the clearest examples of how not to handle social issues in entertainment.

At the time, I was eagerly awaiting the release of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power on Amazon Prime. As a lifelong fan of Tolkien’s books and Peter Jackson’s film trilogy, I couldn’t wait to return to Middle-earth. While diving into online discussions and behind-the-scenes videos, I came across a wave of critical content, including several videos by the YouTube creator Nerdrotic (over 1.2 million subscribers), a relevant voice within fantasy and comic book fans.

The American commentator (and many others) criticized The Rings of Power for several “woke” choices that, in his view, clashed with Tolkien’s legacy:

Race-swapped characters, like the Black dwarf princess Disa, are seen as forced inclusion, not rooted in the original lore.
A reimagined Galadriel, portrayed as an aggressive warrior rather than the wise, regal figure fans expected.
Modern, anachronistic dialogue, which broke the mythic tone of Middle-earth and felt out of place.
Amazon’s dismissal of criticism, framing fans as racist or sexist instead of engaging with their concerns, is a move that alienated the core audience.

The last is probably one case that would deserve its own article, on how you shouldn’t handle critics and crisis: using your marketing and PR power to blame the audience.

source: Eoghan Cannon – entertainment.it

I disliked the show very much, as a Tolkien fan. Moreover, I disliked the general handling of the situation as a marketing professional.

Despite Amazon’s unprecedented investment, estimated between 800 million and 1 billion dollars, The Rings of Power failed to deliver the expected results. While the show debuted with strong promotion and a global rollout, internal data revealed that only 37% of U.S. viewers who started the series actually finished it, a number significantly below the 50% threshold typically considered acceptable for streaming success.

On Rotten Tomatoes, critics scored the show at 84%, yet the audience score lingered around 36–38%, indicating a strong disconnect. Meanwhile, the series’ trailers on YouTube were met with massive dislike counts: the Season 1 trailer recorded approximately 159,000 dislikes against 56,000 likes, and the Season 2 trailer amassed over 500,000 dislikes, signaling sustained audience animosity.

The results speak for themselves despite Amazon’s work to turn the show into its greatest success. I still remember the PR around the show being mostly positive, while the comments and the reviews from the fans or from the influencers within the community were mostly negative.

Disney’s Snow White Disaster

The recent Snow White (2025) remake has seen headlines before its release… for all the wrong reasons.

Lead actress Rachel Zegler publicly criticized the original tale, calling the prince “a stalker” and celebrating the removal of romance from the remake. Critics on the right and even centrist commentators mocked the production as a joyless, re-educated retelling of a classic. Moreover, she doesn’t match the traditional appearance of Snow White, described in the original tale as having “skin as white as snow.”

Despite Disney’s massive investment, Snow White became one of the biggest live-action box‑office flops of the past decade:

Budget: $240–270 million production + $80 million additional/post and marketing — total $320–350 million
Global gross: Only around $205 million, significantly below breakeven
Estimated loss: At least $115 million in total, even including home entertainment

Why these, and many others, “woke” shows went broke

Both The Rings of Power and Snow White failed because they misread their core audience.

Snow White is a romantic fairytale, created for children and families, rooted in innocence, love, and timeless moral clarity. The remake removed its romantic core, reframed the story as a tale of female empowerment, and openly mocked the original values
The Rings of Power is based on the work of J.R.R. Tolkien, who explicitly asked for his mythology to be respected and preserved. Instead, the series introduced new characters, altered the meaning of existing ones, and inserted modern ideological themes that clash with the spirit and intent of Tolkien’s world.

In both cases, the adaptations ignored the essence of the source material and the expectations of those who cherished it.

The same thing can happen to your brand!

When woke culture is a trap for brands:

Target tries to be in two boats at the same time, and revenues decline

Target’s core audience is made up largely of suburban families, especially millennial mothers, who look for convenience, affordability, and a friendly, everyday shopping experience. While generally open to inclusive values, this demographic isn’t seeking bold political statements during a routine family store run. In this context, LGBTQ-themed communication requires careful framing: when it feels too prominent or confrontational, it can appear out of sync with the expectations of a mainstream family audience.

In June 2023, Target faced intense backlash after launching its annual Pride Month collection, which included LGBTQ-themed clothing and accessories. While the initiative had been part of the brand’s calendar for years without controversy, this time it became a lightning rod. Conservative influencers falsely claimed the store was selling “tuck-friendly” swimwear for children (in fact, it was for adults), and social media amplified the outrage.

The response escalated quickly: videos showed customers knocking down Pride displays, some stores received bomb threats, and employees were harassed. Target reacted by pulling some items and moving Pride sections to the back in certain stores, particularly in the South. But this decision only fueled further backlash, as LGBTQ advocates accused the brand of capitulating to extremists. The result was a 5.4% drop in quarterly sales, Target’s first revenue decline in years, and a 10% fall in e-commerce sales. Leadership later admitted that the controversy had directly affected performance.

Pride 2025, many brands are bringing down their expenses

Recent data suggests a swing towards consumers preferring brands to remain neutral on social and political issues. Ipsos (May 2025): 57% of Americans now say that companies should remain neutral on social and political issues, a rise of 5 points since 2023.

Naturally, Brand Y’s marketing director will bring down its marketing activities, probably without thinking if this is what its audience wants – yes, your audience is not the total market!

However, social issues still have a big and relevant audience, and if your brand is really aligned with their values and objectives, you should double down on the investment. Woke culture is not always a trap.

Go woke without going broke – Barbie Movie

Barbie (2023) stands out as a rare case where progressive themes resonated widely, thanks to a sharp, self-aware execution. Directed by Greta Gerwig, the film explored feminism, gender roles, and existential identity through a glossy, hyper-stylized lens. While some conservative voices dismissed it as “woke propaganda,” its core audience, especially millennial women and Gen Z viewers, the same generations who grew up playing with Barbie, embraced its irony, emotional depth, and playful critique. The result was staggering: over $1.4 billion in global box office and the title of Warner Bros’ highest-grossing film ever. Unlike many projects burdened by moral messaging, Barbie didn’t preach and, most importantly, gave a message that its audience was willing to believe in.

Nike’s woke gamble pays off with a 31% online sales increase

Nike’s 2018 “Dream Crazy” campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick became a defining moment in values-based branding. The ad spotlighted the former NFL quarterback, known for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality, with the bold tagline: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” The backlash was immediate: some conservative voices called for boycotts, viral videos showed people burning Nike products, and political pundits labeled it a PR disaster.

But Nike wasn’t speaking to them. The campaign was aimed squarely at its core audience: young, urban, progressive consumers, many of them from Black, Latino, and multicultural backgrounds, deeply engaged with social justice issues and personal identity. And they loved it!

The result? Nike’s online sales jumped 31% in the days after the ad, and the brand’s market value rose by an estimated $6 billion within weeks. The campaign went on to win an Emmy and became a textbook case of successful brand activism. By aligning message, audience, and timing with precision, Nike showed that “going woke” isn’t a risk when it speaks directly and authentically to the people who already believe in it.

Care about what your most important customers think:

Sometimes you can be liked by everyone, but let’s be honest, sometimes to attract someone, you need to alienate somebody else. Ads like “2018 – Dream Crazy” or “2012 – Find Your Greatness” could be liked by both the highest consumer of Nike and by the general public.

Today, society is getting more and more polarized as political results demonstrate across the Western world. Nike decided to aim not at appeasing everyone; instead, they tried to be loved by the sport enthusiasts, renouncing a positive perception coming from the general public. 2024 ad “Winning isn’t for everyone” turned upside down past Nike’s storytelling.

“Winning Isn’t for Everyone” marked a sharp turn in tone and positioning. Narrated by Willem Dafoe, the ad opens with a provocative question, “Am I a bad person?”, and describes elite athletes as obsessive, egotistical, even ruthless. It celebrates the hunger for victory, showing high-intensity training, raw emotional wins.

Source: Advertising Week

At first, the ad sparked negative sentiment among the general population, and Nike’s stock dipped. Sentiment-tracking data from System1 (via Advertising Week) revealed that the general audience gave the campaign a mere 1.5‑star rating, one of Nike’s lowest ever, while sports fans rated it a much stronger 3.8 stars. This blow to public perception contributed to a short-term decline in Nike’s market performance, as investors reacted to the polarizing ad.

Nike made a clear choice: speak to its core audience of competitive, younger athletes, even at the risk of alienating others. The ad sparked strong engagement among Gen Z and sport enthusiasts, contributing to a modest stock rebound during the Olympic period. More than a short-term sales boost, it marked a long-term repositioning strategy focused on loyalty and cultural relevance.