NEW DELHI: In today’s hyper-politicised media environment, advertising campaigns featuring women rarely remain confined to brand messaging. What begins as a polished attempt at empowerment or inclusivity can quickly spiral into backlash, boycott calls, and ideological sparring online. Increasingly, it is women—how they look, what they represent, and the values they are seen to embody—who become the focal point of these culture-war flashpoints.
Over the past decade, brands have leaned heavily into women-centric advertising, embracing themes of body positivity, choice, and self-expression. This approach, often labelled “femvertising,” has helped companies signal progressiveness and cultural relevance. But as recent controversies show, the more brands rely on women to communicate social values, the less control they retain over how those messages are received.
A striking example is Bud Light’s 2023 collaboration with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. A single sponsored post triggered a wave of backlash and boycott calls in the US, reframing the campaign as political activism rather than inclusive marketing. Almost overnight, Mulvaney became a symbol in a broader ideological battle, and the brand faced significant commercial fallout.
Nike has also encountered backlash for its attempts to broaden representation. Campaigns featuring plus-size, pregnant, and non-traditional athletes were praised by some for challenging narrow beauty and fitness standards, while others accused the brand of promoting unhealthy or “agenda-driven” imagery. In these debates, women’s bodies became sites of moral judgment, overshadowing Nike’s core messaging around performance and sport.
Beauty and fashion brands have been especially vulnerable. Victoria’s Secret’s shift away from its long-standing “Angels” model toward a more inclusive lineup was initially welcomed as overdue. However, the rebrand soon faced criticism from multiple directions—some argued it lacked sincerity, while others claimed it diluted aspiration. The result was a fractured public response and uncertainty around the brand’s identity.
In India, similar dynamics play out through different cultural lenses. Advertisements depicting women prioritising careers, asserting sexual agency, or challenging traditional norms often attract online outrage and boycott calls. Critics accuse brands of promoting “Western values” or undermining Indian culture, turning female protagonists into symbols of social change or social threat.
A notable case occurred on October 13, 2020, when Tanishq tweeted that it was deeply saddened to withdraw an Ekatvam ad depicting a Muslim family throwing a baby shower for their Hindu daughter-in-law.
Social media amplifies this loss of narrative control. A campaign frame or tagline can be clipped, decontextualised, and repurposed to fuel outrage within minutes. Nuance is lost as algorithms reward polarisation, forcing brands into reactive damage control rather than thoughtful engagement.
These controversies highlight the limits of empowerment-led advertising. When feminist language is used as a branding shortcut—without engaging meaningfully with women’s lived experiences—audiences push back. Accusations of “woke washing” emerge, while conservative backlash hardens, leaving brands squeezed from both sides.
Ultimately, ads lose control of the narrative not because women-centric campaigns are flawed, but because women’s representation itself remains deeply contested. Brands step into debates around gender, autonomy, and visibility that long pre-date them. In a culture where women’s choices are politicised, advertising cannot remain neutral. The paradox is clear: women are central to cultural influence and consumer power, yet their visibility in advertising continues to invite scrutiny and backlash. In the age of viral outrage, once an ad featuring a woman takes off, the brand no longer owns the message—the internet does.
