Have you ever stopped to think about the stories behind the products you buy? Beyond the flashy marketing campaigns and carefully curated images, there's often a darker truth—a pattern of exploitation, manipulation, and complicity that repeats itself across industries. Today, I want to take you on a journey, connecting the dots between industry titans, the power of marketing, and what this all means for us as consumers—particularly in the rapidly growing cannabis beverage space.
Why I Had to Speak Out
When I first published this piece about BRĒZ's sponsorship, I wasn’t prepared for the response it received. My inbox filled with messages—thank-yous for saying what many felt needed to be said, for connecting the dots and addressing something that felt deeply off. And while I’m grateful my words resonated, I’m also troubled.
Troubled because so many of those thank-yous came privately. Troubled because so few felt ready to share their own voice publicly.
Let me be perfectly clear: this was never about personally attacking BRĒZ or holding a grudge against one brand. I don’t operate that way. In fact, I want to believe the best in everyone. I want to support brands where I can. But when I see what should be celebrated as an "industry-moving sponsorship" and look at it through the lens of history—of how systems repeat themselves and how the wheels of those systems are greased—I can’t stay silent.
Because this isn’t just about one sponsorship or one brand. It’s about understanding how the big picture works—how these systems operate, who benefits from them, and, most importantly, who doesn’t.
How the Playbook Works
The pattern is simple but effective:
- Build Emotional Connections: Create a product or brand tied to aspiration, health, or empowerment.
- Blur Reality and Fiction: Use marketing to make the line between the brand and its figurehead hard to distinguish.
- Engage Through Controversy: Keep audiences hooked through polarizing tactics.
- Monetize the Persona: Sell the product as part of a broader lifestyle narrative.
- Exit Big: Position the brand for acquisition by a global conglomerate, sacrificing the original mission for mass profitability.
We’ve seen this strategy play out time and again across industries. Let’s connect the dots with a few well-known examples.
Case Study: WWE and Vince McMahon
Vince McMahon transformed WWE from a regional wrestling promotion into a global entertainment empire. Along the way, WWE didn’t just sell tickets—it sold characters, storylines, and an entire universe that blurred the lines between reality and fiction. But behind the theatrics, McMahon faced allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse, including paying millions in hush money to silence accusers.
Despite these allegations, WWE remained a cultural juggernaut, capitalizing on its loyal fan base and a well-oiled marketing machine. The lesson? Controversy, when managed effectively, doesn’t just fail to hurt profits—it often fuels them.
Case Study: Jake Paul and Prime Hydration
Jake Paul, the YouTuber-turned-boxer, exemplifies the power of leveraging controversy and influence to build brands that connect deeply with young, impressionable audiences. Through his partnership with Prime Hydration, Paul has co-branded the product as an aspirational choice for youth and athletes, using his polarizing image to drive sales.
But here’s the troubling part: Paul has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, which he has denied, yet his brand remains profitable and culturally relevant. Instead of controversy damaging his marketability, it seems to fuel it. And Prime Hydration, which positions itself as the “healthier alternative” to sugary sports drinks, uses Paul’s image to appeal to young consumers, many of whom idolize him.
The implications here are significant. When brands tie themselves to polarizing figures with questionable histories, they send a message that the bottom line matters more than values. And consumers—especially younger ones—absorb that message, often without realizing the larger systems they’re supporting.
Case Study: Ben & Jerry’s and Corporate Ownership
Ben & Jerry's, long celebrated for its progressive values and outspoken advocacy, provides a stark example of what happens when a brand with a mission is absorbed into a corporate structure. In 2000, Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s, with promises to preserve its social mission. But over time, the tension between Ben & Jerry's independence and Unilever's profit-driven goals has become glaring.
In 2021, Ben & Jerry's announced it would cease sales in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, aligning with its commitment to human rights. This decision sparked a very public conflict with Unilever, which overrode the decision and continued sales in the region. Ben & Jerry's sued its parent company, accusing Unilever of undermining its mission and threatening board members who supported the move .
The case underscores the struggles of maintaining a values-driven brand under corporate ownership. While Ben & Jerry's has continued to voice its beliefs, the conflict with Unilever highlights the inherent challenges of aligning profit motives with activism—a parallel that cannabis beverage companies would be wise to study closely.
Case Study: Sean “Diddy” Combs and Diageo
Sean “Diddy” Combs offers a unique example of how personal brand and corporate partnerships can collide. Once celebrated for elevating Cîroc vodka and co-owning DeLeón Tequila, Diddy ended his partnership with Diageo under contentious circumstances. In 2023, he sued Diageo, alleging the company discriminated against him by relegating DeLeón to an "urban" product category and failing to support its growth (source).
Diageo denied the claims and severed ties with Combs. Months later, Combs faced separate allegations of sexual misconduct (which are ongoing and have yet to be resolved). This series of events underscores how partnerships with conglomerates often amplify conflicts over brand positioning and values. It raises a pressing question for industries like cannabis beverages: What happens when corporate priorities clash with the promises made to consumers?
The Cannabis Connection
Now let’s bring this back to cannabis beverages. Many brands claim that “hemp is the back door to legalization.” They argue that hemp-derived products can normalize cannabis consumption, opening the door to broader legalization and acceptance. But let me ask: Who is standing at that door? And who will walk through it when it opens?
Right now, it’s companies like Sazerac, Molson Coors, and Diageo positioning themselves to dominate the cannabis beverage space. Their track records speak for themselves: prioritizing profit, reducing transparency, and leaving consumers with little power or choice. Do we really want the same players who dominate alcohol dictating the future of cannabis beverages?
It’s worth noting that many of these corporations have already shown how they operate—consolidating smaller brands, prioritizing market share over authenticity, and leveraging controversy or marketing tactics to shape public perception. As cannabis beverages gain traction, these corporations are waiting to step in, purchase the most promising brands, and replicate the same systems we’ve seen in other industries.
What Happens Next
If cannabis beverage brands continue clamoring for buyouts from companies like Diageo, Molson Coors, or Sazerac, the narrative of hemp as the “back door” starts to feel less like progress and more like a setup. Here’s how this could play out:
- Consolidation: Big corporations will acquire the most successful cannabis beverage brands, squeezing out smaller, community-focused players.
- Erosion of Transparency: Like alcohol, cannabis beverages may face relaxed regulations, with no requirement to disclose ingredients or potential health risks.
- Exploitation of Communities: The communities rallying around hemp legalization today will be left behind as profits funnel into global conglomerates.
The promise of cannabis beverages was to create a healthier, more mindful alternative—not to replicate the harm caused by alcohol and tobacco industries. But that promise is at risk of being lost if the industry falls into the same patterns we’ve seen time and again.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just a business question—it’s personal. As a mother, I want my kids to grow up in a world where they can make informed decisions about what they consume. As an advocate, I’m frustrated by the way an industry born out of resistance to corporate greed is so quick to sell out. And as a consumer, I’m asking the hard questions: Why are we so desperate for companies like Sazerac, Molson Coors, and Diageo to lead the way?
The cannabis industry was supposed to be different. It was supposed to challenge the status quo, create equity, and provide safer, more mindful alternatives. But if this “back door” opens to the same old corporate greed, what was the point?
Call to Action
I don’t share these thoughts to tear down one brand, one sponsorship, or one moment. I share them because the choices we make today—who we celebrate, who we align with, and what narratives we allow to take hold—are shaping the future of an entire industry.
If you care about the kind of industry we’re building, here’s what you can do:
- Get vocal. Whether publicly or privately, share this message with trusted friends and networks.
- Join the movement. Subscribe to my newsletter for updates on the issues social media won’t let us discuss openly.
- Ask the hard questions. What is your organization of choice doing to prevent these patterns? Are they acting in your best interest—or just chasing the next big donor or buyout?
- Hold brands accountable. Ask the companies you support what they’re doing to protect consumers, not just position themselves for acquisition.
The systems we grease today will become the structures of tomorrow. Let’s make sure we’re building something worth believing in.
Where are you starting? Let me know, so I can follow and support you too!
-Monica