Should brands take a stand on social and political issues?

In the immediate aftermath of last month’s shocking assassination attempt on U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, search engine giant Google has found itself in trouble. The reason? A technical issue with its autocomplete feature.

Search terms related to the attempted bombing were apparently omitted from Google’s automatic search bar suggestions. Conservative social media users were quick to jump on board, accusing a tech giant of political bias and busy censorship.

Those claims turned out to be unfounded—the content moderation feature was to blame—but they were nothing novel. Many tech companies, including Google, have long perceived as a leftist.

But certainly not all. Elon Musk, CEO of X (formerly Twitter) and electric car maker Tesla, recently announced his full support for Trump, who in turn declared his own support for electric vehicles.

Political involvement is nothing novel for brands, and it extends far beyond tech companies. It can include taking a stance on key social issues or supporting particular parties or candidates.

However, it is not clear whether engaging in “brand activism” actually helps companies overall, leaving many marketers and CEOs undecided to do it.

Taking a stand on issues that consumers care about can certainly aid build stronger brand bonds – but what happens when a brand’s political views don’t align with those of its customers?

---

Read more: Trump is just ‘weird’: How Kamala Harris’ meme-driven campaign is exploiting social media and Gen Z culture

---

The risks of getting involved in politics

Our previous tests found that consumers’ political views—whether they identify as liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between—can influence their attitudes toward brands that engage in activism.

Much of this is in line with what you might expect. Liberal consumers like brands that promote progressive causes, such as supporting immigration. On the other hand, conservative consumers tend to like it when brands stay still on progressive issues or oppose them.

But both liberal and conservative consumers dislike brands that seem inauthentic about the positions they support. This is a cautionary tale for brands that might want to “jump on the bandwagon” and performatively support a particular social issue.

Always mean what you say

Brands that try to play both sides on a social or political issue can end up alienating everyone.

Last year, the American beer brand Bud Airy faced conservatives’ reaction after hiring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney to promote the brand. Conservative consumers quickly targeted Mulvaney on social media and boycotted the brand in response to the campaign.

But in this case Bud Airy was criticized for not siding with Mulvaney, who he said the company did not support her after the reaction. This cost her part of her liberal customer base also.

Build a purposeful connection

Our research shows that while it can aid brands if their public stance on an issue aligns with the political views of their target consumers, they also need to demonstrate that this is more than empty words.

Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, for example, enjoys a committed customer base among liberal-leaning millennials and Generation Z consumers. The company has also been an outspoken supporter of several progressive issues, such as climate action, refugee rights and racial justice.

The company has gained a reputation for such activism and has been largely praised by consumers for it, despite recent tensions with its parent company Unilever.

Ben and Jerry working on racial justicefor example, it involved issuing detailed statements and action plans about what it believed would be necessary for real social change.

If done well, consistent alignment of views on the overall brand image can instill a deep sense of pride among consumers and a stronger identification with the brand values.

Stand with conviction

A brand’s public stance should be an true reflection of its core values, not something that adapts to the zeitgeist. Brands that demonstrate this belief are often rewarded.

In 2018, Nike maintained civil rights activist and former football player Colin Kaepernick and his stance on Black Lives Matter by launching the “Believe in Something” campaign. The move came despite significant backlash from conservative consumers as well as then-US President Donald Trump.

Initial reaction and fears of a boycott caused Nike’s stock price to fall. However, the company persevered with the campaign, and the stock price soon rebounded, and Sales have skyrocketed.

If you can’t be true, don’t be anything

Our research suggests that brands that don’t have an true position on a social issue may be better off not taking sides. When a brand is perceived as turning over in the matter, it threatens to alienate everyone.

Brands should feel empowered to take social and political positions that align with their core vision and mission. But if issue-based advocacy doesn’t align with the brand’s image – and isn’t reflected in meaningful action – the danger of being perceived as insincere means it’s better to keep silent.