Target brand rift

June 17, 2026

jetcityimage2/Depositphotos.com

What Should Brand Positioning Look Like as Consumers’ Preferred Sociopolitical Values Show Deep Rifts?

A pair of recent reports issued by Sogolytics and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC) show a potential divergence in consumer demands from various U.S. consumer demographics while also signaling agreement on one major front: Shoppers are increasingly aligning their intentional spend with retailers and brands that best represent their own sociopolitical values — even if some shoppers would prefer if neutrality (or even silence) were more commonplace in this context.

The HRC report, titled “Pride in the Marketplace ’26: The Power of LGBTQ+ Consumer Trust and Corporate Inclusion,” highlighted survey data showing that LGBTQ+ consumers were pulling back from companies that had either pulled back from, or hadn’t at all, backed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and supports. That report indicated that LGBTQ+ consumers represented $1.4 trillion in U.S. annual consumer spend, and that 71.5% of shoppers whom self-identified within that category had purchased fewer products from companies “perceived as reducing DEI commitments.”

“Across every measure tested, LGBTQ+ consumers were approximately twice as likely as non-LGBTQ+ consumers to change their purchasing behavior based on a company’s perceived commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” the authors wrote. The top five brands linked to reduced consumer spending by LGBTQ+ respondents were Target, Walmart, Amazon, Chick-fil-A, and Home Depot, while the top five brands seeing increased consumer support were Costco, Apple, Ben & Jerry’s, Delta, and Kroger.

The following survey results were also brought forth by the HRC report:

  • On the question of whether those polled had a favorable view of DEI, 79.3% LGBTQ+ adults said so, while 53.4% of non-LGBTQ+ adults indicated the same.
  • Nearly three-quarters of LGBTQ+ consumers said they frequently refused to buy from brands slashing DEI efforts (69.4%), versus 29.5% of non-LGBTQ+ consumers who said the same.
  • About two-thirds (65%) of LGBTQ+ shoppers said they intentionally purchased from DEI-committed brands, while one-third (33.3%) of non-LGBTQ+ respondents followed suit.

Target, Costco, and Others Caught Up in Conflicts Around Sociocultural Positioning

But as CNBC’s Brandon Gomez reported, Target is showing signs of recovery even after having endured customer furor from both sides of the issue, as Republicans cut spending in 2023 after controversy swirled surrounding the retailer’s Pride Month merchandising and Democrats pulled back in early 2025 after Target retreated from a number of DEI initiatives.

On the other hand, Costco saw notable spending growth from self-identified Democrats following a recommitment to DEI principles — backed on a shareholder vote earlier this year against a measure aimed at reducing said principles.

Second Study Suggests Consumers May Prefer Political and Cultural Neutrality from Brands or Retailers

Running contrary to one common assumption — that political progressives are more likely to champion, or withdraw, spending based on values espoused by brands — is the Sogolytics report, which largely argues that consumers prefer corporate brands remain neutral on such matters.

Titled “Consumer Brands and the Risk of the Political Stance,” the Sogolytics survey results suggested that men (22%), Republicans (26%), and households earning $200,000 or more annually (46%) were more likely to curtail their spending with retailers or brands misaligned with their values, versus women (19%) or Democrats (22%). Finding common ground with other data points, however, this survey data suggested that 51% of consumers would stop buying from a brand — even if they liked the brand previously — if strong disagreements over “what it stands for” emerged. Nearly the same number (48%) of those polled said they had put this into practice by reducing or halting shopping at establishments over a misalignment in values.

Other data points from this second survey included:

  • About half (50%) of consumers learn about a company’s sociopolitical positioning from social media, and 42% from news sources. Only 23% learn about it from the brand or retailer itself, meaning that there’s a lack of control regarding the narrative.
  • While values certainly matter to consumers, product quality (79%) and pricing (76%) remain the top two considerations as to where shoppers decided to park their spend.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding produced by the Sogolytics survey was that nearly half (45%) of shoppers polled stated that they would prefer “brands to stay neutral or silent when given the choice,” as opposed to less than half of that number (22%) who “want brands to speak up on major issues or actively advocate.”

Discussion Questions

Do you believe it is wise for brands or retailers to embrace sociopolitical positioning, or better to stay neutral? What exceptions might you point to?

Do you believe that scrutiny over brand positioning on these issues has intensified in recent years, or has brand and retail positioning on sociopolitical matters always been a major factor for consumers?

Poll

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Neil Saunders

Given that Walmart, Amazon, Chick-fil-A, and Home Depot have enormous and diverse customer bases – and the first three have been growing very strongly – color me a little skeptical of the findings. As usual, there is a huge gap between what people say in surveys and what people actually do. That’s not to say that ‘political’ values are unimportant to consumers, it’s just that, for a large number, they are not sufficiently important to completely override other, more commercial considerations around brand selection. Framing is also important. General inclusion is not particularly controversial for most people. Policies like positive discrimination are seen as being more overtly political and provoke more of a reaction. For most brands, the proper course of action is to steer clear of politics.

Last edited 59 minutes ago by Neil Saunders
Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom
Reply to  Neil Saunders

the Sogolytics survey results suggested that men (22%), Republicans (26%)… were more likely to curtail their spending with retailers or brands misaligned with their values, versus women (19%) or Democrats (22%). 

Yes: a big fuss over small differences (even without ignoring the obvious point that the overwhelming majority seem to be agnostic)

Doug Garnett

I have never believed the explicit inclusion of socio-political ideas within communication about brand are a good idea. They are, after all, guaranteed to offend some who disagree with them and feel pandering or manipulative even to those who agree most.

And, this is fine. The truth about shopping is customers are looking for products and services which deliver significant meaningful value to them. In other words, they have functional value and useful forms which are NOT socio-political.

Communication from a brand advertiser — whether a retailer or a manufacturer — should stay focused on the specific and primary meaningful value. Those are NOT socio-political. Having worked with a wide range of such values in consumer advertising and research, they are secondary or tertiary — incapable of driving primary considerations.

Advertisers will be fine if they just focus on what their products and services do best.

Jeff Hall
Jeff Hall

The strongest brands have always stood for something. The key is ensuring that their values are authentic, deeply rooted in who they are, and demonstrated consistently every single day through their products, experiences, employee behaviors, and leadership decisions.

In today’s highly polarized environment, however, brands should thoughtfully distinguish between living their values and becoming overtly political. Consumers can often recognize the difference between a company acting with integrity and one appearing to take a position outside of its core purpose.

Great brands do not chase every cultural moment. They remain clear on who they are, what they promise, and how they treat their customers, employees, and communities. When values are lived from the boardroom to the frontline, trust follows.

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

The answer would seem obvious: it’s people – customers – that should be embracing “sociopolitical views,” not brands. The QOD brought up context, and it’s certainly tempting to argue that a product that would seem to draw its very existence to people holding a certain POV should embrace that as well, but I would urge avoiding that if at all possible: right now I think the biggest danger is a brand being labeled because of a false – often idiotic – interpretation of a neutral business decision…why give the crazies more targets?

5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Neil Saunders

Given that Walmart, Amazon, Chick-fil-A, and Home Depot have enormous and diverse customer bases – and the first three have been growing very strongly – color me a little skeptical of the findings. As usual, there is a huge gap between what people say in surveys and what people actually do. That’s not to say that ‘political’ values are unimportant to consumers, it’s just that, for a large number, they are not sufficiently important to completely override other, more commercial considerations around brand selection. Framing is also important. General inclusion is not particularly controversial for most people. Policies like positive discrimination are seen as being more overtly political and provoke more of a reaction. For most brands, the proper course of action is to steer clear of politics.

Last edited 59 minutes ago by Neil Saunders
Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom
Reply to  Neil Saunders

the Sogolytics survey results suggested that men (22%), Republicans (26%)… were more likely to curtail their spending with retailers or brands misaligned with their values, versus women (19%) or Democrats (22%). 

Yes: a big fuss over small differences (even without ignoring the obvious point that the overwhelming majority seem to be agnostic)

Doug Garnett

I have never believed the explicit inclusion of socio-political ideas within communication about brand are a good idea. They are, after all, guaranteed to offend some who disagree with them and feel pandering or manipulative even to those who agree most.

And, this is fine. The truth about shopping is customers are looking for products and services which deliver significant meaningful value to them. In other words, they have functional value and useful forms which are NOT socio-political.

Communication from a brand advertiser — whether a retailer or a manufacturer — should stay focused on the specific and primary meaningful value. Those are NOT socio-political. Having worked with a wide range of such values in consumer advertising and research, they are secondary or tertiary — incapable of driving primary considerations.

Advertisers will be fine if they just focus on what their products and services do best.

Jeff Hall
Jeff Hall

The strongest brands have always stood for something. The key is ensuring that their values are authentic, deeply rooted in who they are, and demonstrated consistently every single day through their products, experiences, employee behaviors, and leadership decisions.

In today’s highly polarized environment, however, brands should thoughtfully distinguish between living their values and becoming overtly political. Consumers can often recognize the difference between a company acting with integrity and one appearing to take a position outside of its core purpose.

Great brands do not chase every cultural moment. They remain clear on who they are, what they promise, and how they treat their customers, employees, and communities. When values are lived from the boardroom to the frontline, trust follows.

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom

The answer would seem obvious: it’s people – customers – that should be embracing “sociopolitical views,” not brands. The QOD brought up context, and it’s certainly tempting to argue that a product that would seem to draw its very existence to people holding a certain POV should embrace that as well, but I would urge avoiding that if at all possible: right now I think the biggest danger is a brand being labeled because of a false – often idiotic – interpretation of a neutral business decision…why give the crazies more targets?

More Discussions