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.”
BrainTrust
Brad Halverson
Principal, Clearbrand CX
Gary Sankary
Retail Industry Strategy, Esri
Gene
Professor, International Business, Guizhou University of Finance & Economics and University of Sanya, China.
Recent Discussions
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
Loading …
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. The framing of values 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 a bigger reaction. For most brands, the proper course of action is to steer clear of politics.
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)
Indeed, most of those differences are within the statistical margin error!
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.
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.
“how they treat their customers, employees, and communities”
Being on the side of humanity/human rights is evergreen. Not a trend, a “month” or a “day”. It’s a easy as that, and as hard to do as that.
It’s hard, if truly accomplished, as it’s the throughline from company owners, management, workers. Up-down and across. Accountability & acknowledgement of missteps. But content is inherently inclusive… human.
Aiming for ‘better for all’. Vs being on any winning (at the moment) side.
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?
$1.4T in annual consumer spend seems high considering that total consumer spend is around $17T. If the average “consumer unit” spends around $80k per year then that’s a lot of consumer units! (But someone please feel free to validate the data and math!)
Regardless, I agree with the general sentiment that brands should genuinely and sincerely stand for something instead of chasing “every cultural movement” (Jeff Hall). And the more absolute and objective, the better. “Be kind to self, others and the world around you” is a difficult position to counter though I’m sure the “crazies” (Craig Sundstrom) will find a way.
Brands like Ben & Jerry’s or Patagonia were built intentionally around values or issues which not all Americans will agree, but do well with customers who do share their beliefs. Yet many brands intend to serve a wide range of Americans, and sit in a more neutral stance to avoid risking sales and loyalty. It’s usually best ask two basic questions – “Is this central to what we do, will it seem natural and not a shopping distraction for the majority of our customers?”, and “Will it pencil out if in gaining more loyal support among, say, 40% of our customers but losing 20% or more of our customers?” For most brands and companies, it’s usually best to steer clear of politics no matter good intentions.
Target’s zigzag is the case study this question deserves. Conservative shoppers boycotted in 2023 over Pride merchandise. Progressive shoppers pulled back in 2025 after DEI rollbacks. The brand didn’t pay for having values. It paid for not actually holding them.
The 45% who want neutrality aren’t asking for silence. They’re rejecting theater. Costco held its DEI position under shareholder pressure and saw spending grow among committed customers. Patagonia never built a brand that required constant repositioning. Product quality and price remain the top purchase drivers at 79% and 76%, respectively. Sociopolitical positioning rarely earns a first sale. Consumers can tolerate a position, but not the discovery that you never held one.
A key point around such fine lines. You don’t have to embrace complete silence, but higher risk comes with inserting theater in customers faces. If you want to embrace strong stances because you believe it (now, or did but now don’t), go ahead, just don’t be surprised at backlash or swings in customer traffic and sales.
This is a really difficult position for executives.
Everything about politics has intensified in recent years. The biggest risk to consumer sentiment is when companies are perceived to have changed their positions on highly volatile political issues. Costco, REI, Patagonia, Hobby Lobby are companies that have incorporated social positions into their strategy since day one and the market knows what to expect. Whether that’s a risk or not? Probably more dependent on their growth strategies and corporate goals.
When companies are perceived to have changed positions is when they get into trouble, and Target is the current case study. While there is some good news in their latest reports, I believe it has more to do with the fact that boycotting a retailer as ubiquitous in the market as Target can be exhausting, and over time convenience, price and, dare I say, annualizing the impact of the boycotts tend to even out, as we’re seeing at Target.
This is a hard one, maybe.
Let’s start with DEI. Diversity? Equality? Inclusion? Which one can someone be against? Decades of research have shown that companies that embrace these values perform better than companies that don’t. Who makes this an issue outside of the Boardroom?
Pride Month? I don’t even know when it is until I walk into a store. Then I smile at all the colors and what they represent. I don’t need to purchase the merchandise. It is the retailer’s peril or success if they sell it or not. Should we boycott grocery stores because they sell vegan products?
This is all a result of a country’s culture gone rogue. It really isn’t a matter of values; it has become a matter of which team I am on. I’d like to see some data on the history of split-ticket voting. I sense that straight-ticket voting has reached historical highs. It seems to be all about “my team” winning.
It starts with the original premise of the Brand Promise. I’d say that most brand promises naturally steer clear of any kind of controversial positioning. But some embrace and incorporate sociopolitical positioning from day one. And then a neutral brand selling a neutral product can immediately take a controversial position based on the behavior of its executives. I’m thinking of the pillow that I chose not to buy or the brand of beans that I stopped buying. It wasn’t the brand or the product per se. But if I thought that even mere nickels or dimes of my purchase would ultimately make their way into a political arena I was very much opposed to, then the decision was immediate and forever. And easy. Happily I have lots of choices for buying pillows and beans.
Neutral seems like a comfortable place to start and stay. But founders and CEO’s will naturally take social positions. Founders have every right to take on any market point of view that their vision embraces. CEO’s of neutral companies/products will want to think twice about their sociopolitical positioning, but if they take a fork in the road, fine. Theoratically it’s been done with eyes open to all potential outcomes. The lesson from Target and Costco would suggest that staying the course is appropriate. It’s staying the course with the updated Brand Promise, not just the sociopolitical position,
If a brand stands for something that’s important enough to “wear on their sleeve,” and they are willing to lose customers over those beliefs, then they should be applauded for their decision to truly stand for something, even if it costs them sales. It’s their choice. The smart brands know and accept there could be consequences when customers who aren’t in alignment with their beliefs.
Aligning with sociopolitical positioning can be divisive and differentiating.
Many large brands and retail chains stay neutral because they serve everyone; taking a stance could alienate half their customers.
Yet taking a stand can be a shortcut to resonating with your desired customers. Chick fil-A stands out among fast food rivals for keeping Sundays as a day of rest. M.A.C Cosmetics has been a leader in representing LGBT communities for decades, not just every June.
When sociopolitical issues overlap core brand values, brave brands will risk breaking the silence of neutrality.
More Discussions
How Long Will the Mysterious Trump-Promoted Freedom Fuel Gas Stations Last?
Are the Freedom Fuel stations here to stay, or are they a public relations stunt?Is ‘Adult’ Play-Doh a Potential Retail Winner for Hasbro?
Does Hasbro have a good chance of success with Blooms by Play-Doh?Are ‘Same Price as Last Year’ Pitches for BTS Season Good Enough for Staples and Dollar General Shoppers?
Will the price freezes offered by Staples and DG attract shopper interest this back-to-school season?
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. The framing of values 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 a bigger reaction. For most brands, the proper course of action is to steer clear of politics.
Yes: a big fuss over small differences (even without ignoring the obvious point that the overwhelming majority seem to be agnostic)
Indeed, most of those differences are within the statistical margin error!
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.
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.
“how they treat their customers, employees, and communities”
Being on the side of humanity/human rights is evergreen. Not a trend, a “month” or a “day”. It’s a easy as that, and as hard to do as that.
It’s hard, if truly accomplished, as it’s the throughline from company owners, management, workers. Up-down and across. Accountability & acknowledgement of missteps. But content is inherently inclusive… human.
Aiming for ‘better for all’. Vs being on any winning (at the moment) side.
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?
$1.4T in annual consumer spend seems high considering that total consumer spend is around $17T. If the average “consumer unit” spends around $80k per year then that’s a lot of consumer units! (But someone please feel free to validate the data and math!)
Regardless, I agree with the general sentiment that brands should genuinely and sincerely stand for something instead of chasing “every cultural movement” (Jeff Hall). And the more absolute and objective, the better. “Be kind to self, others and the world around you” is a difficult position to counter though I’m sure the “crazies” (Craig Sundstrom) will find a way.
Brands like Ben & Jerry’s or Patagonia were built intentionally around values or issues which not all Americans will agree, but do well with customers who do share their beliefs. Yet many brands intend to serve a wide range of Americans, and sit in a more neutral stance to avoid risking sales and loyalty. It’s usually best ask two basic questions – “Is this central to what we do, will it seem natural and not a shopping distraction for the majority of our customers?”, and “Will it pencil out if in gaining more loyal support among, say, 40% of our customers but losing 20% or more of our customers?” For most brands and companies, it’s usually best to steer clear of politics no matter good intentions.
Target’s zigzag is the case study this question deserves. Conservative shoppers boycotted in 2023 over Pride merchandise. Progressive shoppers pulled back in 2025 after DEI rollbacks. The brand didn’t pay for having values. It paid for not actually holding them.
The 45% who want neutrality aren’t asking for silence. They’re rejecting theater. Costco held its DEI position under shareholder pressure and saw spending grow among committed customers. Patagonia never built a brand that required constant repositioning. Product quality and price remain the top purchase drivers at 79% and 76%, respectively. Sociopolitical positioning rarely earns a first sale. Consumers can tolerate a position, but not the discovery that you never held one.
A key point around such fine lines. You don’t have to embrace complete silence, but higher risk comes with inserting theater in customers faces. If you want to embrace strong stances because you believe it (now, or did but now don’t), go ahead, just don’t be surprised at backlash or swings in customer traffic and sales.
This is a really difficult position for executives.
Everything about politics has intensified in recent years. The biggest risk to consumer sentiment is when companies are perceived to have changed their positions on highly volatile political issues. Costco, REI, Patagonia, Hobby Lobby are companies that have incorporated social positions into their strategy since day one and the market knows what to expect. Whether that’s a risk or not? Probably more dependent on their growth strategies and corporate goals.
When companies are perceived to have changed positions is when they get into trouble, and Target is the current case study. While there is some good news in their latest reports, I believe it has more to do with the fact that boycotting a retailer as ubiquitous in the market as Target can be exhausting, and over time convenience, price and, dare I say, annualizing the impact of the boycotts tend to even out, as we’re seeing at Target.
This is a hard one, maybe.
Let’s start with DEI. Diversity? Equality? Inclusion? Which one can someone be against? Decades of research have shown that companies that embrace these values perform better than companies that don’t. Who makes this an issue outside of the Boardroom?
Pride Month? I don’t even know when it is until I walk into a store. Then I smile at all the colors and what they represent. I don’t need to purchase the merchandise. It is the retailer’s peril or success if they sell it or not. Should we boycott grocery stores because they sell vegan products?
This is all a result of a country’s culture gone rogue. It really isn’t a matter of values; it has become a matter of which team I am on. I’d like to see some data on the history of split-ticket voting. I sense that straight-ticket voting has reached historical highs. It seems to be all about “my team” winning.
It starts with the original premise of the Brand Promise. I’d say that most brand promises naturally steer clear of any kind of controversial positioning. But some embrace and incorporate sociopolitical positioning from day one. And then a neutral brand selling a neutral product can immediately take a controversial position based on the behavior of its executives. I’m thinking of the pillow that I chose not to buy or the brand of beans that I stopped buying. It wasn’t the brand or the product per se. But if I thought that even mere nickels or dimes of my purchase would ultimately make their way into a political arena I was very much opposed to, then the decision was immediate and forever. And easy. Happily I have lots of choices for buying pillows and beans.
Neutral seems like a comfortable place to start and stay. But founders and CEO’s will naturally take social positions. Founders have every right to take on any market point of view that their vision embraces. CEO’s of neutral companies/products will want to think twice about their sociopolitical positioning, but if they take a fork in the road, fine. Theoratically it’s been done with eyes open to all potential outcomes. The lesson from Target and Costco would suggest that staying the course is appropriate. It’s staying the course with the updated Brand Promise, not just the sociopolitical position,
If a brand stands for something that’s important enough to “wear on their sleeve,” and they are willing to lose customers over those beliefs, then they should be applauded for their decision to truly stand for something, even if it costs them sales. It’s their choice. The smart brands know and accept there could be consequences when customers who aren’t in alignment with their beliefs.
Aligning with sociopolitical positioning can be divisive and differentiating.
Many large brands and retail chains stay neutral because they serve everyone; taking a stance could alienate half their customers.
Yet taking a stand can be a shortcut to resonating with your desired customers. Chick fil-A stands out among fast food rivals for keeping Sundays as a day of rest. M.A.C Cosmetics has been a leader in representing LGBT communities for decades, not just every June.
When sociopolitical issues overlap core brand values, brave brands will risk breaking the silence of neutrality.