Reason #1: We've Diluted The Main Point

Before we even get into Reason #1, let me be really clear about what this is—and what it isn’t. I don’t have a problem with ERGs supporting recruiting. I don’t mind when they host events that help members feel connected to the product or more aligned with the company. That’s all fine. In fact, when done right, that kind of programming can reinforce the ERG’s purpose.

What I am pushing back on is the growing idea that “Commerce” should mean revenue generation. That’s where a lot of folks default. And that’s a hard no from me. Even worse? The idea that commerce deserves equal weight to community building—as if they sit side by side as co-pilots. That’s where the model completely loses me.

If your ERG is doing something business-aligned and it’s working for your members, I’m not necessarily shaming you. This isn’t about dragging people who are experimenting with impact. But if you’re actively pushing ERGs toward direct revenue generation and treating that as the north star? I’m here to de-influence you.

Also, this series isn’t directed at any specific person. In fact, I believe most people using these models were genuinely trying to help. Consultants wanted to offer structure. Program Managers needed a way to clarify scope. I get it. I’ve been there. But movements require momentum. And momentum sometimes means changing direction. The ERG Movement is about building internal communities—better. So if I critique something, it’s not personal. It’s just time for a stronger path forward. And I’m saying it with love.

Reason #1: We’ve diluted the entire point…

There’s a reason this one is first. It’s a boiling point for me. Whatever your employee community program is called… community should still be at the center. When you shift that into a community built to drive revenue, you’ve completely missed the point—for everyone.

Because I’ve heard so many interpretations of the 4Cs, I have to literally define the basic concepts that I’m talking about. When I say “community” should be at the center, I’m talking about internal communities of employees. Not community outreach. Not community giveback. Internal brand building. Internal culture shaping. That’s the point of ERGs.

But when you make 4 pillars and only ONE of them is about Culture—the kind of community I just defined aka internal company culture—you’ve just turned the whole point into an afterthought. Now it has to compete with the other pillars. What’s the logic in watering down the entire purpose of their programming? (Spoiler: it’s the go-to answer when you struggle to quantify or “justify” culture building.)

Even worse? One of those pillars is Commerce. (Sometimes called “Marketplace” or “Company.”) This is the one that I have a real problem with. At least members get something from the other three:

• Culture = connection + identity

• Community = giveback + purpose

• Career = development

But Commerce? That pillar centers the business. Not the members. You’ve now deprioritized the very people the program is supposed to be built for. And the wildest part is when people call this an evolution—as if turning ERGs into business units is some natural next step (hence one of my issues with the BRG concept).

Again, when thinking about ERGs, why would anyone think it’s a good idea to limit (or minimize) internal community building? Do you not want strong, self-sustaining employee communities? Or is it once again that you just don’t know how to quantify it?

Because if that’s the issue, cool. That’s solvable. You can learn the language. You can build the metrics. Community has clear business advantages. Engagement has clear business advantages (not to get ahead of myself but why do you think both Employee Engagement and Learning and Development probably have WAY more funding than the ERG Program…)

With revenue generation as a focus, you’ve now commercialized the program.And trust me—we’re gonna talk about how badly the commercialization has been handled. But for now? This reminds me of those corporate rebrands we all love to hate. The ones that throw out the whole identity, confuse everyone, and then slowly walk it back after public backlash.

You know why they walk it back? Because they realize they’re on a path to irrelevance. If you’ve made commerce a focus of your ERG program—you’re walking that same path.

Let’s break down what’s really happening here…

AKA how it often plays out in practice:

An executive asks, “What’s the ROI of this program?”

The person over the program—often well-meaning but under-resourced—struggles to articulate the value of community. Or maybe they give a decent answer but feel unsure about it.

The exec says, “We need it clearer.”

Now the scramble begins.

Clear starts to mean “revenue-generating.” They look around, see other companies using BRG language, and decide to follow suit. The program gets rebranded. Suddenly, ERGs are required to “benefit the business”—but with no real direction on what that means. And that burden? It’s dumped on the leads.

Leads who signed up to build community are now being conned into acting like mini-consultants. (More on that—and the potential legal issues—later.)

Even worse, some leads might believe business first means advocacy (eek). We’ve talked about that before…and we’ll talk about it again in one of the future reasons.

The Reality

If you really want business impact? Cool. Let me show you how ERGs already deliver it—without selling a thing.

ERGs are internal marketing powerhouses. They are niche, opt-in, high-trust, and community-run. These models already exist in external marketing: micro-influencer segmentation, community management, cultural insight teams, brand ambassadorship. And yet when applied internally, companies ask: “But are they making us money though?” That’s not just short-sighted. It’s inconsistent. You trust these models to shape your public brand. Why not your internal one?

Let me spell it out: ERG members are brand ambassadors. They’re employee influencers. They’re internal trust agents. They are affinity in action. And if you must frame it as a “sale”? Then fine—our version of a sale is increased internal engagement. Retention. Referrals. Loyalty. That is a business strategy.

Let me tell you something real: I’m often in rooms with CEOs, CPOs, and execs from major companies—explaining what ERGs even are. And when I say, “This is an engagement initiative,” it lands. Every time. They get it. Sometimes they push back: “But couldn’t they contribute to business initiatives too?” Sure. Some touchpoints might naturally emerge. But we have to be careful not to introduce scope creep. There are legal and operational risks. Because the real win isn’t in monetizing community. It’s in cultivating it. When we water that down with extra expectations, we lose the thread.

I’m not here to hate. But I am here to move. I’m choosing a path where community isn’t just a pillar. It’s the the whole point. And if you’re heading that direction too, I’ve got you.

The ERG Homegirl ✌🏿