August 6, 2024
©Douglas Rissing via Canva.com
Should Brands Stay Apolitical in a Presidential Election Year?
A new survey of 1,000 U.S. consumers found that 62% care very little to not at all about a brand’s political affiliation, 41% prefer companies keep their political positions private, and only 30% have boycotted a brand over political reasons in the past 12 months.
“Given our current state of politics, businesses have become less outspoken on hot-button issues in an effort to avoid consumer backlash,” said Michael Lai, CEO and co-founder of Sitejabber, the consumer reviews site that commissioned the survey, in a statement. “However, it seems as if the political temperature is starting to drop, at least when it comes to deciding which brands and products consumers want to do business with.”
A Wall Street Journal article from June 2023 found that mentions of environmental, diversity, and other social initiatives during earnings calls had declined significantly in recent quarters, reversing a trend toward promoting corporate governance for several years.
The shift was said to be due to pressure from some investors wanting firms to focus on operations and conservative activists mobilizing support of “anti-woke” causes. The risks have been highlighted by boycotts faced by Bud Light, Disney, and Target over their support of the LGBTQ community.
“The easiest thing to do is just to stay out of the conversation and emphasize other facets of business that are going to be perceived as less controversial and more core to the traditional metrics of the business,” Jason Jay, senior lecturer of sustainability at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the WSJ.
A Public Affairs Council survey of 2,219 U.S. adults taken last September likewise found that support for corporate engagement in social issues declined in intensity in 2023. Approval for major companies being involved in ending racial discrimination, for instance, fell from 66% in 2022 to 57% in 2023.
However, differences were found based on party affiliation. Democrats overwhelmingly supported business engagement in social and political matters, while Republicans still supported some causes.
Favorability rates on key issues by parties included:
- Support environment and sustainability: Democrats, 75%; Republicans, 57%.
- Ending discrimination by gender: Democrats, 74%; Republicans, 53%.
- Ending discrimination by sexual orientation: Democrats, 71%; Democrats, 50%.
- Ending discrimination by race: Democrats, 72%; Democrats, 51%.
- Ending hunger/supporting food security: Democrats, 69%; Republicans, 56%.
- Improving voting access: Democrats, 61%; Republicans, 34%.
- Supporting DACA: Democrats, 58%; Republicans, 32%.
- Supporting legal access to abortions: Democrats, 54%; Republicans, 27%.
A survey of 600 U.S adults commissioned by Certus Insights last August found respondents almost evenly divided over whether corporations should get involved in partisan politics, with 54% agreeing that “a company’s social responsibility goes too far when (it) gets involved in partisan politics.” Forty percent indicated that when they hear that a company is socially responsible, they guess that the company leans to the Democratic side of the political spectrum, compared to 13% who assume it leans to the Republican side.
BrainTrust
Rachelle King
Retail Industry Thought Leader
Mark Ryski
Founder, CEO & Author, HeadCount Corporation
Brett Wickard
CEO, FieldStack
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Has it become riskier for corporations to take political stands?
Are there certain causes all brands or retailers should support and others that make sense for some?
Would some brands or retailers benefit from taking political stands this election year?
Poll
Loading …
As a general rule of thumb, brands should stay out of partisan politics. However, some brands may wish to back certain issues or causes which are of interest to their customers. And that’s the point here, as in everything else, brands need to approach politics in a customer centric way that aligns with their brand ethos. So, REI or Patagonia focusing on environmental issues makes sense. Bud Light focusing on transgender issues, does not. What all brands need to be aware of, however, is that many issues are divisive and taking sides can alienate people and cause negative sentiment.
If 62% don’t care about a brand’s politics, that means 38% might care. And if 30% have boycotted the brand, I ask a simple question: Is expressing your political belief with losing 3 out of 10 customers? (Rhetorical question!)
Brands should be focusing more on what value they’re bringing to their customers rather than dipping into partisan politics. Keep on their brand message.
A presidential year? Every year.
Brands should stay out of politics and businesses should not be able to make political contributions. How’s that for a political view?
Isn’t it ironic that there are objections to companies taking political stands, but the same people don’t seem to make political contributions (bribery)?
While taking a political stand may make perfect sense for some brands, like having a strong environmental position if you are a outdoor products retailer, I just don’t see why any retailer or company would want to take the risk of alienating customers – especially in an election year. Ultimately the business leaders’ get to make the call on whether or not to communicate their political stand, but I just don’t see what the upside is and the risk of alienating customers and employees is real and has consequences.
There’s little to win for a Retailer to take a political stance, other than upsetting part of it’s customer base. However, if part of the company Brand, or culture favors a particular topic (ie environment like REI-Patagonia) it’s fine even admirable to focus on an issue – just not a party.
This is a case of damned if you do/damned if you don’t. Look at Tractor Supply. One could infer that it has Republican leanings, given its largely rural, Christian base, but we can’t know either way. At the end of June, the retailer announced that it was eliminating all DEI roles. Tractor Supply also withdrew its carbon emissions goals and ended support for Pride events and voting initiatives–traditionally more Democratic-esque platforms—after a conservative investor cried foul.
Tractor Supply implied that they were going to stick to their knitting…funding rodeos, agriculture education, and other issues more near and dear to their rural constituents’ hearts. The biggest insult, apparently, is being called “woke” these days. America is a diverse place, and there’s no way to please everyone—but a lot of ways to anger people. Corporations should stay out of politics, whether real or implied. God bless America.
Isn’t the past tense of becoming “awake, “woke”?
This entire episode at Tractor Supply was orchestrated an activist named Robby Starbuck. He specifically targeted Tractor Supply, then moved on to Deere, and now is threatening Harley-Davidson. Sad that one person with a strong political agenda can bring enough pressure to bear on a company that they would back down from commitments they’ve made to their customers and team members.
I think Starbuck’s aim was to heighten his own profile in the media, consequences be damned.
Should brands stay apolitical in a presidential election year? Like Craig said, “A presidential year? Every year.”
As I consumer, I do not want to hear about a brand’s political stance, whether I agree with it or not. Tell me about your product and commitment to quality, or how you honor and care for your associates and I’m good.
Most brands, probably 99%, should keep a safe distance from politics. In general, consumers are only concerned about a brand’s politics when they feel negatively about it.
There was recent publicity surrounding Netflix, as their CEO donated $7 million to a presidential candidate. Despite the fact that the contribution was submitted individually, and not necessarily by the company itself, a significant number of subscribers expressed their intent to unsubscribe on social media.
It is all too well known what happened when Bud Light attempted to position itself with a social issue. It was a mistake that rivaled the fallout from “New Coke”.
Unless your category or brand is directly or obviously associated with a political or sociological cause, it is best to stay away from such issues. -Db
This is a question on every brand team’s mind, especially this time of year. It can be a slippery slope to join in – or stay out- even with the best of intentions.
As the social justice climate cools down from the raw environment we saw a couple of years ago surrounding the murder of George Floyd, brands that have been burned in the past or, are on unstable footing now, should consider using this time to observe instead of reacting.
While consumers still like supporting brands that support their values, it can be a tight rope walk when supporting one group and unintentionally alienating another. Only a few brands, Nike being one, have the foundational ethos to withstand this kind of principled action. And, even Nike has seemed to have cooled a bit lately.
While I personally prefer to know where brands stand on political issues, brands don’t necessarily need to take out an ad in the NY Times to clarify their position.
Consumers can also tell where brands stand based on how they show up according to its own values, beliefs and mission such as employee benefits, charitable and sustainable causes and even community support.
It’s actually when brands act from this point of authenticity, being aligned with its mission and values instead of political pressure, that is most endearing to consumers and brand equity.
Rachelle, you mention Nike. It is one of the very few brands I have reacted to because they support values. To me, their support of Colin Kaepernick when nobody else would was risky and significant. Their support of the Women’s National Soccer team when people were annoyed when they actively demonstrated unequal pay versus the men also ruffled a few feathers.
Stay out of politics, but stand by your values.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the oil companies made a real environmental commitment?
Sage advice for successful companies is to stay focused on product quality, innovation and brand value prop. Let’s remember, the number one objective for a public company is to increase shareholder value. Shareholders, customers and partners want to make money and be part of something that can grow steadily over time. But, hey, if a leadership team wants to veer into politics, and alienate half of their customer base, good luck. Recent history may not be so kind to you.
I’m going to be hypocritical here. I don’t believe brands should ever engage in politics. especially in today’s overheated and divisive political environment. At the same time, there was a time in this country when segregation was a political question and as a consumer, I want to know if a brand has values that are contrary to mine or supports radical politicians (By my definition) so I can take my business elsewhere.
Business should focus on delivering value to their customers and stay far away from making any kind of political statement. Or social statement for that matter. There is simply no upside because with the country so divided you are going to make someone happy and someone else unhappy.
Possible exceptions would be causes that directly impact retail, like in store crime.
So be quiet. And stay that way,
It’s not appropriate for brands to take sides (although Tesla, for one, is caught up in its owner’s partisanship). That’s different from a brand honoring its values, whether about DEI, the environment, veterans’ causes or something else. The trick in this fraught political climate is to stand for your corporate values (and those of your customers and employees) without fear of backlash…not easy.
First of all, that survey had a political agenda since I did not see issues that Republicans win on which are immigration, the economy, and world peace. Secondly, brands should absolutely stay out of politics for the sake of commercial value. You will create dissonance with half of the population and that will not be offset by slightly warmer feelings among those who agreed with the politics of the brand. For example, it is well-known that Jimmy Kimmel lost viewership when he became highly one-sided in his political humor.
For retail, food, and grocery, unless your targeted customer base and business focus somehow operates successfully in a more narrow left-leaning or right-leaning state of mind, it’s best to stay out of partisan politics all together. Otherwise why risk revenue and growth upside by alienating the larger customer base who just wants to go about things without the drum beating?
The great products and services that differentiate you should remain your priority, focus, and in your brand messaging with customers.
All well and good until the Overton Window changes and politics becomes business. Mercedes and BMW were literally defining the automotive industry, Bayer was state of the art in medicines, Farben made great tires, Miele making kitchens modern. I’m sure none of them wanted to alienate their customer base who just wanted to go about things without the drum beating, risking their revenue and growth. At some point you have to draw a line, and it’s better we all know ahead of time where that line is. Politics is already becoming business again – shouldn’t our question be “how do we get politics out of business?”
If the country is nearly equally divided over political issues, a brand would risk alienating half the country with a political statement or affiliation.
While it is tempting to connect your brand with a social or political issue, caution is urged. Focus on what problems your brand uniquely solves for your customers. However, should a brand wish to endorse another cause, I recommend avoiding political issues. Support political issues via the ballot box (PAC contributions) or via congress (lobbying), not via the brands on the shelf.
I’m all for brands supporting causes, even if they may be considered political by some, I struggle with the ethics of donating to campaigns and endorsing candidates.
I think there is a difference between getting directly involved in partisan politics and aligning with a cause, a belief system, or advocating for positive changes. I know that line can be thin sometimes.
There is also the fact that many companies and industry groups are heavily involved in Lobbying at the local, State, and National levels. That kind of ‘politics’ flies under the radar in most cases, but can have more far-reaching consequences for consumers of a brand and consumers in general.
The last year has seen a multitude of companies backing off, shrinking or canceling sustainability, equity, diversity, and other social and environmental efforts. This is concerning because real change can be driven by corporations if done with sensitivity, intelligence and low key incremental efforts
Neutrality protects against controversy. Why risk offending half the population (or a fraction of your staff)?
More Discussions
As Sears Faces Demise, What Can Be Learned From its Legacy?
Sears may be finally seeing its retirement from the retail space after more than a century…Where Did Edward Lampert Go Wrong with Sears?
Edward Lampert is often blamed for Sears’ recent woes. Is this accurate?Should More Grocers Follow Kroger’s Lead?
Kroger is launching a program aimed at offering discounts on fresh produce to shoppers on government…
As a general rule of thumb, brands should stay out of partisan politics. However, some brands may wish to back certain issues or causes which are of interest to their customers. And that’s the point here, as in everything else, brands need to approach politics in a customer centric way that aligns with their brand ethos. So, REI or Patagonia focusing on environmental issues makes sense. Bud Light focusing on transgender issues, does not. What all brands need to be aware of, however, is that many issues are divisive and taking sides can alienate people and cause negative sentiment.
If 62% don’t care about a brand’s politics, that means 38% might care. And if 30% have boycotted the brand, I ask a simple question: Is expressing your political belief with losing 3 out of 10 customers? (Rhetorical question!)
Brands should be focusing more on what value they’re bringing to their customers rather than dipping into partisan politics. Keep on their brand message.
A presidential year? Every year.
Brands should stay out of politics and businesses should not be able to make political contributions. How’s that for a political view?
Isn’t it ironic that there are objections to companies taking political stands, but the same people don’t seem to make political contributions (bribery)?
While taking a political stand may make perfect sense for some brands, like having a strong environmental position if you are a outdoor products retailer, I just don’t see why any retailer or company would want to take the risk of alienating customers – especially in an election year. Ultimately the business leaders’ get to make the call on whether or not to communicate their political stand, but I just don’t see what the upside is and the risk of alienating customers and employees is real and has consequences.
There’s little to win for a Retailer to take a political stance, other than upsetting part of it’s customer base. However, if part of the company Brand, or culture favors a particular topic (ie environment like REI-Patagonia) it’s fine even admirable to focus on an issue – just not a party.
This is a case of damned if you do/damned if you don’t. Look at Tractor Supply. One could infer that it has Republican leanings, given its largely rural, Christian base, but we can’t know either way. At the end of June, the retailer announced that it was eliminating all DEI roles. Tractor Supply also withdrew its carbon emissions goals and ended support for Pride events and voting initiatives–traditionally more Democratic-esque platforms—after a conservative investor cried foul.
Tractor Supply implied that they were going to stick to their knitting…funding rodeos, agriculture education, and other issues more near and dear to their rural constituents’ hearts. The biggest insult, apparently, is being called “woke” these days. America is a diverse place, and there’s no way to please everyone—but a lot of ways to anger people. Corporations should stay out of politics, whether real or implied. God bless America.
Isn’t the past tense of becoming “awake, “woke”?
This entire episode at Tractor Supply was orchestrated an activist named Robby Starbuck. He specifically targeted Tractor Supply, then moved on to Deere, and now is threatening Harley-Davidson. Sad that one person with a strong political agenda can bring enough pressure to bear on a company that they would back down from commitments they’ve made to their customers and team members.
I think Starbuck’s aim was to heighten his own profile in the media, consequences be damned.
Should brands stay apolitical in a presidential election year? Like Craig said, “A presidential year? Every year.”
As I consumer, I do not want to hear about a brand’s political stance, whether I agree with it or not. Tell me about your product and commitment to quality, or how you honor and care for your associates and I’m good.
Most brands, probably 99%, should keep a safe distance from politics. In general, consumers are only concerned about a brand’s politics when they feel negatively about it.
There was recent publicity surrounding Netflix, as their CEO donated $7 million to a presidential candidate. Despite the fact that the contribution was submitted individually, and not necessarily by the company itself, a significant number of subscribers expressed their intent to unsubscribe on social media.
It is all too well known what happened when Bud Light attempted to position itself with a social issue. It was a mistake that rivaled the fallout from “New Coke”.
Unless your category or brand is directly or obviously associated with a political or sociological cause, it is best to stay away from such issues. -Db
This is a question on every brand team’s mind, especially this time of year. It can be a slippery slope to join in – or stay out- even with the best of intentions.
As the social justice climate cools down from the raw environment we saw a couple of years ago surrounding the murder of George Floyd, brands that have been burned in the past or, are on unstable footing now, should consider using this time to observe instead of reacting.
While consumers still like supporting brands that support their values, it can be a tight rope walk when supporting one group and unintentionally alienating another. Only a few brands, Nike being one, have the foundational ethos to withstand this kind of principled action. And, even Nike has seemed to have cooled a bit lately.
While I personally prefer to know where brands stand on political issues, brands don’t necessarily need to take out an ad in the NY Times to clarify their position.
Consumers can also tell where brands stand based on how they show up according to its own values, beliefs and mission such as employee benefits, charitable and sustainable causes and even community support.
It’s actually when brands act from this point of authenticity, being aligned with its mission and values instead of political pressure, that is most endearing to consumers and brand equity.
Rachelle, you mention Nike. It is one of the very few brands I have reacted to because they support values. To me, their support of Colin Kaepernick when nobody else would was risky and significant. Their support of the Women’s National Soccer team when people were annoyed when they actively demonstrated unequal pay versus the men also ruffled a few feathers.
Stay out of politics, but stand by your values.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the oil companies made a real environmental commitment?
Sage advice for successful companies is to stay focused on product quality, innovation and brand value prop. Let’s remember, the number one objective for a public company is to increase shareholder value. Shareholders, customers and partners want to make money and be part of something that can grow steadily over time. But, hey, if a leadership team wants to veer into politics, and alienate half of their customer base, good luck. Recent history may not be so kind to you.
I’m going to be hypocritical here. I don’t believe brands should ever engage in politics. especially in today’s overheated and divisive political environment. At the same time, there was a time in this country when segregation was a political question and as a consumer, I want to know if a brand has values that are contrary to mine or supports radical politicians (By my definition) so I can take my business elsewhere.
Business should focus on delivering value to their customers and stay far away from making any kind of political statement. Or social statement for that matter. There is simply no upside because with the country so divided you are going to make someone happy and someone else unhappy.
Possible exceptions would be causes that directly impact retail, like in store crime.
So be quiet. And stay that way,
It’s not appropriate for brands to take sides (although Tesla, for one, is caught up in its owner’s partisanship). That’s different from a brand honoring its values, whether about DEI, the environment, veterans’ causes or something else. The trick in this fraught political climate is to stand for your corporate values (and those of your customers and employees) without fear of backlash…not easy.
First of all, that survey had a political agenda since I did not see issues that Republicans win on which are immigration, the economy, and world peace. Secondly, brands should absolutely stay out of politics for the sake of commercial value. You will create dissonance with half of the population and that will not be offset by slightly warmer feelings among those who agreed with the politics of the brand. For example, it is well-known that Jimmy Kimmel lost viewership when he became highly one-sided in his political humor.
For retail, food, and grocery, unless your targeted customer base and business focus somehow operates successfully in a more narrow left-leaning or right-leaning state of mind, it’s best to stay out of partisan politics all together. Otherwise why risk revenue and growth upside by alienating the larger customer base who just wants to go about things without the drum beating?
The great products and services that differentiate you should remain your priority, focus, and in your brand messaging with customers.
All well and good until the Overton Window changes and politics becomes business. Mercedes and BMW were literally defining the automotive industry, Bayer was state of the art in medicines, Farben made great tires, Miele making kitchens modern. I’m sure none of them wanted to alienate their customer base who just wanted to go about things without the drum beating, risking their revenue and growth. At some point you have to draw a line, and it’s better we all know ahead of time where that line is. Politics is already becoming business again – shouldn’t our question be “how do we get politics out of business?”
If the country is nearly equally divided over political issues, a brand would risk alienating half the country with a political statement or affiliation.
While it is tempting to connect your brand with a social or political issue, caution is urged. Focus on what problems your brand uniquely solves for your customers. However, should a brand wish to endorse another cause, I recommend avoiding political issues. Support political issues via the ballot box (PAC contributions) or via congress (lobbying), not via the brands on the shelf.
I’m all for brands supporting causes, even if they may be considered political by some, I struggle with the ethics of donating to campaigns and endorsing candidates.
I think there is a difference between getting directly involved in partisan politics and aligning with a cause, a belief system, or advocating for positive changes. I know that line can be thin sometimes.
There is also the fact that many companies and industry groups are heavily involved in Lobbying at the local, State, and National levels. That kind of ‘politics’ flies under the radar in most cases, but can have more far-reaching consequences for consumers of a brand and consumers in general.
The last year has seen a multitude of companies backing off, shrinking or canceling sustainability, equity, diversity, and other social and environmental efforts. This is concerning because real change can be driven by corporations if done with sensitivity, intelligence and low key incremental efforts
Neutrality protects against controversy. Why risk offending half the population (or a fraction of your staff)?