Addressing Popular Pushback...

Author

Maceo Owens
October 09, 2025

There’s a growing train of thought in the ERG space, and it sounds like this:

  • “If ERGs want to be taken seriously, they need to bring in revenue.”

  • “We’re calling them BRGs now—it shows that this work is benefitting the business.”

  • “Revenue is how we’ll get investment.”

  • “This is how we make the case for budget.”

These ideas are rooted in real concerns—and valid desires to ensure ERGs are seen as strategic contributors. But when we zoom out, we have to ask: Is revenue the most effective—or even necessary—path to legitimacy?

“They won’t take us seriously unless we bring money to the table.”
➤ Translation: “We don’t trust our own value enough to stand on it.”

“Maybe if we show ROI, we’ll get more support.”
➤ Translation: “We’ve internalized the idea that impact only matters when it’s monetized.”

“We want to highlight business impact—BRG just sounds more strategic.”
➤ Translation: “We think better branding can distract from weak structure.”

And if that’s the foundation for a rebrand, the strategy is already shaky.

That felt harsh to write, but to be honest I’ve been in rooms where I’ve seen this dynamic play out. An executive might give light pushback …aka ask a challenging question…and the person completely folds and changes their tune from talking about ERGs as engagement tools to revenue drivers. It’s embarrassing to watch.

What I’ve learned in my line of work is that C Suite folks will often ask challenging questions to pulse check if you’re really an expert. Being able to stand on what you believe, putting it in simple/clear language, and having some form of proof/analogy helps a lot. So, that’s how I’ll respond to these objections.

Pushback: We need ROI to prove impact.”
How I’d Respond:

I’m all for showing ROI — but for ERGs, that ROI looks different. They’re not revenue generators; they’re part of our employee engagement strategy. So we should measure them the same way we measure engagement: retention, connection, and morale.

When we push ERGs into revenue work, we actually create avoidable risks — things like illegal union proximity, wage and hour violations if hourly employees contribute off the clock, and even IP disputes when volunteers’ ideas get commercialized without protection.

And honestly, when you ‘consult’ people who aren’t professional consultants, some of the ideas can be more emotional than strategic — which makes sense, but it’s risky at scale.

The smarter play is to show business alignment through engagement outcomes, not commerce. That’s how we prove value and stay legally and ethically sound.

Pushback: “But We’re Maturing…”

“The name BRG makes us sound grown up.”
→ Translation: “We think maturity is about appearance, not operations.”

“We’re maturing, so we want a new name to reflect that.”
→ Translation: “We’re using rebranding to shortcut real progress.”

How I’d Respond

I’d actually challenge the push to rename ERGs to BRGs by first asking—what’s the goal? If it’s to signal maturity, let’s be real: most employees don’t even know the ERG-to-BRG pipeline exists. So the only people we’d be trying to impress are a small handful already in this niche space. From experience, I’ve actually seen employee sentiment drop after this kind of rebrand—because it unintentionally sends the message that “community” wasn’t enough and now it has to be justified with business speak. That shift can feel like a loss, not a win. And frankly, if we feel we need a rebrand to explain the value of these groups, it probably means the purpose of the program hasn’t been clearly communicated. ERGs exist to benefit employees—period. The most powerful way to show business value isn’t to rename it; it’s to clarify how the “E” in ERG—employee—is being supported. Rebranding too early can muddy that message and backfire with the very people the program was created to serve.

Honestly, outside of optics, I don’t care much about what the program is called. What matters is whether people understand why the program exists, what’s in scope, what’s not, and whether it’s actually delivering on its purpose. I’ve seen over 60 different ERG program names just in the Fortune 500 alone. So sure—the name can shape perception—but what really matters is what the program does behind the scenes. The signal matters, but the structure matters more.

Pushback: “We’ve had success with the Commerce Pillar / Business Driving”

“We’ve had success with the Commerce Pillar.”
Translation: “We finally got budget approval after tying our work to dollars, so now everything has to sound like revenue.”

“The business-driving pillar is our strongest one.”
Translation: “We over-indexed on what execs wanted to see, and now our members don’t know why we exist.”

How I’d Respond

That’s amazing—and I’m not here to take away from the success of those moments. But those wins should be treated like bonuses, not baselines. Business impact is a great outcome, but when it becomes the objective, we risk burning out volunteers, misaligning the purpose of the group, and measuring success through a lens that ERGs weren’t built for. The truth is, ERGs are an arm of employee engagement. If we want ROI, we should be looking at how we’re supporting belonging, retention, and activation—not turning every ERG into a mini sales team. The biggest risk isn’t that we miss a revenue opportunity. It’s that we force our people to perform instead of belong—and that undermines the very reason ERGs exist.

Pushback: “Our Execs Love the Commerce Pillar”

Translation: We keep feeding them dessert because it gets cheers, even though the kitchen is on fire. OR We’re prioritizing executive optics over operational integrity.

“But the 4Cs are easy to remember.”
Translation: “We’re mistaking mnemonic for strategy.”

Yes, execs understand the 4Cs. That’s what frameworks are designed to do—make things easy to grasp. But that doesn’t make them right. If simplicity was the only goal, we’d still be using Venn diagrams and calling it a day. The real question is: Does this framework actually reflect the goals, tensions, and opportunities of your ERG program?

“Our executives are already used to this model.”
Translation: “We’re afraid to challenge what they’ve come to expect.”

Familiarity does not mean correctness. Executives aren’t loyal to the 4Cs—they’re loyal to clarity. If you hand them a better framework—one that actually maps to your ecosystem—they’ll respect the precision. You’re not there to mirror what they already know. You’re there to elevate the quality of insight they receive.

“It’s what our leadership expects.”
Translation: “We’re responding instead of leading.”

Executives will understand whatever you teach them. That’s the point of you being the expert. If all you’re giving them is a recycled acronym with a new font, of course they’ll nod along—they have nothing else to go on. But if you offer them a model that actually sharpens their understanding of risk, opportunity, and success in this space? You win more than buy-in. You earn trust.

We’ll wrap the deinfluencing campaign tomorrow by dropping our recommended alternative. Full recap hits your inbox Monday.

Reply

or to participate.