Is ‘Bipartisan Appeal’ Possible (or Even Desirable) for Retailers or Brands To Achieve?

On the heels of a recent RetailWire discussion surrounding the nature of cultural controversies pertaining to brands (Gymshark’s positioning following the recent Shane Gillis blowup in the aftermath of his hosting appearance on “Saturday Night Live”) and the more recent U.S. midterm election, the question of whether – or at least to what degree – political polarization impacts brand and retailer revenue comes to the fore.

To begin: A recent SmartCustomer/Goods Unite Us survey of U.S. shoppers found that more than half (51%) had quit buying products from a company due to its political positioning over the past 12 months, up from just 30% in 2024. Beyond that, more than two-thirds (67%) say a company’s politics influences what they purchase, while those who say it “matters little or not at all” dropped from 62% to just 33% in the same time frame. Roughly 64% indicated they’d pay a premium to buy a product from a company whose political position matched their own, and a majority (53%) indicated that companies should be more transparent about their political stance, with the cohort thinking this should be kept private tumbling from 41% in 2024 to just 22% in 2026.

“A lot has changed in the two years since we last asked this question,” said SmartCustomer CEO Michael Lai. “More people now see their wallet as one of the most direct ways to make an impact, and they’re deciding where to spend based on what a company stands for,” he added.

On the other hand, Gallup data suggests that a minority (47%) of consumers would prefer a company take public political positions, with 53% opposed. Far more Democrats (62%) than independents (45%) and Republicans (28%) indicated a preference for companies to state their political leanings.

Now, consider the opposite side of the equation. Per a Nov. 3 press release from YouGov detailing its own survey findings, only 35% of U.S. brands have what was termed “bipartisan appeal.” Subway, Verizon Wireless, and Bengay were brought up as examples representing the closest consideration balance across party lines. American Eagle, interestingly enough, was the survey’s 2024 winner on this metric, but has since fallen from that spot following its controversial Sydney Sweeney campaign in the summer of last year.

The largest splits on retail-centric brands were evidenced by Ben & Jerry’s (44% of Democrats considering versus 22% of Republicans) and IKEA (39% vs. 25%) on the Democrat-leaning side – set against Hobby Lobby (30% of Republicans considering vs. 14% of Democrats), Bass Pro Shops (29% vs. 12% of Democrats), Chick-fil-a (44% vs. 30%) and even Walmart (59% vs. 49%) and Home Depot (49% vs. 40%) for GOP-favored brands.

YouGov Data Sees Brands, Retailers Favored by Democrats or Republicans

Other categories considered by the YouGov survey included:

• Car brands: Democrats prefer Subaru (23% vs. 13%), Honda (34% vs. 24%), and Hyundai (17% vs. 11%) while Republicans prefer Ford (29% vs. 21%), Chevrolet (26% vs. 20%), and GMC (14% vs. 9%).

• Fashion brands: Republicans favor Wrangler (27% vs. 18%), American Eagle (22% vs. 16%), and HEYDUDE Shoes (11% vs. 6%); Democrats prefer Gap (23% vs. 16%), Old Navy (39% vs. 33%), and Patagonia (13% vs. 7%).

• Grocers: Democrats are more likely to consider Trader Joe’s (23% vs. 13%), Costco (31% vs. 25%), and Whole Foods Market (15% vs. 9%), while Republicans show more consideration for Walmart (as stated above), Sam’s Club (25% vs. 18%), and Publix (13% vs. 11%).

One thing seems clear on the subject, according to professor Oded Netzer of the Columbia Business School and his research colleagues.

"Our research shows that political polarization, which we're all experiencing, is actually reshaping the consumer landscape," he wrote of a 2025 report. "60% of consumers either buycott – buy products because of their political identity – or boycott – do not buy certain products because of their own political identity. Brands that learn how to navigate this and learn how to identify who their customers are, do much better in their political activism,” he conclude.

Questions for further discussion:

• Do you believe it is possible, or even desirable, for today’s brands and retailers to achieve “bipartisan appeal”? Why or why not? Other than those listed, could you name any you think have managed this feat?

• Where is the fine line between playing to a political customer base and potentially having a stance, ad campaign, or staff or executive commentary go viral to precisely the opposite effect? If you were giving advice on this front, what policies or standards would you implement to prevent this potentiality?

• Which brands or retailers, in your opinion, have been the most obvious beneficiaries of adopting a well-known and unflagging political stance? Conversely, which have suffered the most due to the same?