Purpose Embedded in signalling theory, this study aims to evaluate authentic brand inclusivity from a customer-centric perspective. It provides an emic perspective on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in brand management practices by focusing on LGBTQ+ consumers. Design/methodology/approach Deploying a sequential qualitative research design, Study One identifies the organisational and brand practices that LGBTQ+ consumers use to judge authenticity and brand inclusivity. In Study Two, in-depth interviews are used to examine perceptions of how the practices uncovered in Study One are implemented, signalling perceptions of whether brands are authentically LGBTQ+ inclusive. Findings Study One uncovers five areas (marketing communications, products/brands, ownership and management, advocacy initiatives and internal marketing) that inform LGBTQ+ consumers’ evaluations of authentic brand inclusivity. Study Two uncovers four Cs (collaboration, consistency, conviction and congruence) that underpin authentic brand inclusivity evaluations and the notion of synchronicity that underpins it. Research limitations/implications Both studies are qualitative and based on Western samples. The findings and proposed characteristics of authentic brand inclusivity need to be tested quantitatively. The proposed framework can inform the basis for scale development. Practical implications The findings highlight how brands can be managed to be authentically inclusive for LGBTQ+ consumers. The authors identify organisational and brand practices that support inclusivity and can be easily implemented by practitioners. Social implications DEI practices that support minority groups can improve their feelings of inclusivity and wellbeing. The study identifies how LGBTQ+ consumers evaluate brands on their authenticity and inclusivity. Originality/value The study offers a framework for managing authentic brand inclusivity from a customer-centric perspective focused on normalising LGBTQ+ identities. The framework uniquely integrates what brands need to do and how they need to do it, to be perceived as authentically inclusive for LGBTQ+ people.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: