Making the Right Inclusion Decision: Navigating the Tensions Between Inclusion and Efficiency,Harm Prevention,and Profitability

Inclusion is generally considered to be a positive thing, with most research focusing on the benefits of inclusion or the harms of exclusion. Extant literature conceptualizes inclusion as “ensuring that all individuals are welcome and able to participate fully in the decision making and have access to all opportunities in a system” (Shultz et al. 2022, p. 39). While targeting everyone flies in the face of strategic segmentation and targeting, the implicit assumption underlying this push is that firms have responsibilities toward fairness and welfare, and that brands should consider underrepresented or vulnerable populations as viable segments and include them in their targeting considerations. From this perspective, inclusion decisions necessitate firms navigating the tensions between inclusion and efficiency, harm prevention, and profitability.

The most strategic question that many marketers ask may be “Who are our customers?” In a textbook perfect market economy, who gets selected into or excluded from the target segment is shaped by a stylized version of supply and demand. Customers with different needs, tastes, and economic power are targeted by different firms with an array of products and services, resulting in millions of transactions taking place in the marketplace every day. And market segmentation is a foundational consideration for brands seeking to maximize returns on investment. This is accomplished by going after some segments of customers and forgoing others.

The deliberate decision to limit market size is made so that the firm can increase the probability of conversion within that smaller target audience. Herein lies the first tension—between inclusion and efficiency. Narrowing the size of the segment increases conversion rates and reduces costs but necessarily excludes potential consumers who may benefit from participating. Does efficiency alone justify limiting access, especially when excluded groups are already underserved? The answer is reflected in the settlement reached between Meta and the Department of Justice in 2022, with Meta agreeing to stop using the “Special Ad Audience” tool to ensure fairer access to housing opportunities (U.S. Department of Justice 2022).

How firms segment and whom they choose to target have profound implications for society. Marketers must consider the ethical implications of inclusion (i.e., targeting specific groups) and exclusion (i.e., leaving others out) in the marketplace. A case in point was the practice of targeting minority communities with “vice products” such as alcohol and tobacco in the 1960s through the early 2000s (e.g., Jernigan, Ostroff, and Ross 2005; Lee et al. 2015). For example, G. Heileman Brewing Company's PowerMaster malt liquor, which contained 5.9% alcohol (significantly higher than the 4.5% in Colt 45, Heileman's more established malt liquor brand), was specifically marketed to an inner-city, Black audience. The brand and its attendant campaign were discontinued after protests by the Black community and public outcry (Brenkert 1998).

From a strictly short-term financial perspective, such practice might have been considered profitable. Economic vulnerability and chronic stress from racism rendered addictive products such as tobacco and alcohol more attractive among Black communities. These communities were also less educated about the health risks of these products. Further, the high concentration of the target audience residing in identifiable neighborhoods made billboards, storefront advertising, and transit ads highly cost-effective. As part of their strategy, tobacco firms bought legitimacy by funding Black civil rights groups while simultaneously lobbying against regulation, framing it as racist, elitist, and government overreach. In a 2024 report, the Surgeon General concluded: “Tobacco marketing in general and marketing for menthol cigarettes in particular are more prevalent in neighborhoods with reader percentages of African American residents or of residents with lower incomes” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2024, p. 440). Not only are racial minority groups more likely to be targeted with vice products, but alcohol- and tobacco-related diseases also disproportionately affect these vulnerable communities, creating a double whammy for these targeted consumers from a societal welfare perspective. However, such practice was deemed strategic by the firms.

These cases illustrate the tension between inclusion and harm prevention. Instead of including vulnerable populations for the sake of equitable access, firms exposed these consumers to disproportionate harm, transforming inclusion into exploitation. Worse still, members of these vulnerable populations may be among those least able to resist addictive products. A contemporary parallel can be found in social media consumption among minors. Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram actively target children and adolescents. These platforms have had ample time to respond to documented concerns regarding the negative and sometimes fatal impact of social media usage on minors. However, rather than changing their segmentation and targeting strategy when evidence of potential harm emerged, they opted to downplay or even suppress internal documents that revealed the negative impacts of social media on children and teenagers (CNBC 2025). Inclusion in these situations threatens welfare and causes harm.

As firms sidestep their responsibilities, governments are responding. In December 2025, under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, Australia implemented a ban prohibiting children under age 16 from holding an account on social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick, and Reddit, with the possibility that more platforms may be added (BBC 2024). Other countries quickly followed. As of early 2026, France, Denmark, and Indonesia had passed similar legislation, with Germany and Italy requiring parental consent and China utilizing a “minor mode” with device-specific restrictions and time limits, while Malaysia, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom are considering similar bans (Reuters 2026). By choosing to “include” children in their marketing strategy, these social platforms are facing the first in what seems to be a tide of regulatory actions and societal backlash around the globe.

The third tension that firms must navigate is between inclusion and profitability, especially across time horizons. For brands that engage in inclusion strategies targeting vulnerable consumer segments or exclusion strategies limiting access to certain groups, despite the short-term financial gain, they may in reality be paying a heftier price. More specifically, even as conversion rates go up and acquisition costs come down, leading to higher returns on investments in the short term as the result of strategic inclusion or exclusion of vulnerable consumer segments, these strategies often carry hidden or long-term costs to the firm in the form of regulatory intervention, reputational damage, and societal backlash. Even if the strategy were a win for the firm, it is a loss for society at large. As such, what appears to be an optimal inclusion/exclusion decision under a short-run profit maximization model may yield a net negative return on investment in the longer term.

In inclusion research, a common complaint is that vulnerable populations such as racial minorities and people with disabilities are often excluded by brands. We argue that inclusion should not be treated as an unconditional good. Instead, inclusion is a strategic and ethical choice that must be evaluated based on who is included, under what conditions, and with what consequences. In practicing inclusion, vulnerable segments must be afforded special considerations, which some firms have started doing. For example, Fenty Beauty and Pattern address Black consumers’ needs typically ignored by mainstream brands by offering skin-tone and hair-texture inclusivity. Financial institutions such as the Greenwood mobile platform and OneUnited Bank explicitly provide increased access to historically underserved populations by offering credit-building products and small-business lending to Black communities to help reduce their reliance on payday lenders and predatory credit. And Google's 2019 Black Girl Magic: A Moment in Search campaign pays tribute to the achievements of Black women.

Inclusion is a choice. Exclusion is also a choice. The tensions between inclusion and efficiency, harm prevention, and profitability mean that firms bear responsibility not only for how efficiently they allocate marketing resources for profit maximization, but also for how their inclusion and exclusion decisions shape market outcomes and societal welfare. Sustainable brand growth is the result of long-term thinking that considers the responsibilities of the brand toward consumers and society. Responsible strategic marketing involves intentional inclusion to expand access and correct historical inequities, as well as deliberate exclusion of vulnerable populations from harmful products.

When all aspects are taken into consideration, the right thing to do is often the profitable thing to do. By recognizing and actively managing the tensions between efficiency, profitability, and harm, firms can make inclusion decisions that not only are strategically sound, but also socially responsible.