Is Corporate America's Branding a New Culture War Battlefield? The constant outrage over seemingly innocuous company decisions – from American Eagle's ad campaigns to M&M's marketing – reveals a nation increasingly interpreting everything through a political lens. This hyper-politicization of brands, fueled by companies' past forays into explicitly political messaging, leaves businesses struggling to navigate a minefield of consumer interpretations and accusations of "woke" or "white supremacist" agendas. Is this the new normal for corporate branding, or a temporary overreaction in a deeply polarized society?
Corporate America's political tightrope walk: From vocal activism to cautious silence. For years, businesses embraced political stances for profit, but now face backlash. This shift towards bland, apolitical messaging is too late, as hyper-polarization fuels the perception of hidden political agendas in even the simplest brand decisions, creating a climate of consumer conspiracy theories and instant outrage
Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business marketing professor, Kevin Lane Keller, warns of a highly charged political climate impacting corporate branding: "People are putting a political overlay to everything," he notes, "There are a lot of minefields out there." This escalating polarization forces companies to navigate increasingly sensitive brand messaging, facing potential backlash from all sides of the political spectrum, highlighting the risks of corporate political engagement in today's hyper-partisan America
America's consumer culture is consumed by conspiracy theories. From QAnon to corporate branding, political polarization fuels baseless accusations across the spectrum. Consumers now interpret even innocuous marketing decisions—like recent controversies surrounding American Eagle and Cracker Barrel—through a politically charged lens, creating a climate of suspicion and outrage. This "everything is political" mentality, fueled by corporate involvement in political discourse, has created a volatile marketplace where brands struggle to navigate the minefield of consumer interpretations and accusations of hidden agendas
Sydney Sweeney, American Eagle, and the Great Jeans Gene Debate: A Culture War Case Study. The actress's July ad campaign sparked outrage, with some labeling it Nazi propaganda and a dog whistle for white supremacy. Conservatives defended Sweeney, highlighting the simple pun – "great jeans" referencing both her clothing and her attractive genes. This controversy exemplifies the increasing tendency to politicize even innocuous corporate branding, highlighting the current climate of hyper-partisanship and the challenges facing brands navigating today's polarized landscape
Cracker Barrel's Logo Change: A Case Study in Corporate Branding Backlash. The recent Cracker Barrel logo controversy ignited a firestorm, dwarfing even the American Eagle debate. The restaurant chain's decision to modernize its logo sparked outrage, with critics accusing the company of abandoning traditional values and "going woke." This led to a stock drop and even commentary from President Trump. Ultimately, Cracker Barrel reversed course, reinstating the original logo. This incident, along with others like the American Eagle and M&M's branding debates, highlights the increasingly politicized landscape of corporate branding and consumer anxieties in today's hyper-polarized climate
Brand missteps: From logo redesigns (like Tropicana and Gap's infamous 2009 and 2010 fails) to controversial ad campaigns (think Calvin Klein's 90s marketing), companies often face public backlash. While past criticism focused mainly on aesthetics ("that's ugly!"), today's climate sees even minor branding choices interpreted through a highly politicized lens, transforming simple business decisions into culture war flashpoints. This over-politicization of brands reflects a broader societal trend, forcing companies to navigate a minefield of potential controversies and adopt increasingly cautious, bland messaging
Corporate controversies are escalating, fueled by hyper-partisanship. The 2023 Bud Light backlash, while hijacked by politics, exemplifies this trend. A simple marketing decision—sending a transgender influencer beer—became a culture war battleground, highlighting how easily corporate actions are politicized. This isn't limited to Bud Light; recent examples include American Eagle, Cracker Barrel, and even the M&M's mascot. Companies, once eager to engage politically, now retreat, fearing backlash in our increasingly polarized climate. Consumers, interpreting even innocuous branding choices through a political lens, contribute to this volatile environment, creating a "QAnon for capitalism" phenomenon impacting businesses across the political spectrum
Brand messaging now fuels culture wars: Every corporate move, from a simple ad campaign to a subtle logo change, is intensely scrutinized and often misinterpreted as a political statement. Experts explain this hyper-polarized environment, where consumers—across the political spectrum—decode even innocuous branding decisions as coded messages, fueling conspiracy theories and online outrage. This over-analysis forces companies to tread carefully, leading to bland, risk-averse marketing strategies. Is this the new normal for corporate branding in a politically charged climate?
American consumerism reflects a deeply polarized nation. Political affiliations increasingly influence purchasing decisions, turning everyday brands into battlegrounds. From boycotts to viral controversies, companies face a minefield navigating political messaging in today's hyper-sensitive climate. This trend, fueled by corporate engagement and consumer anxieties, transforms even seemingly innocuous marketing into politically charged events, creating a climate of suspicion and conspiracy theories around brands and their messaging
Political Polarization Drives Brand Loyalty: How Partisan Consumption Impacts Corporate America. Columbia University research reveals a post-2016 surge in partisan brand preference. Consumers increasingly choose brands aligning with their political views, a trend amplified by compensatory consumption – purchasing to reinforce identity or address perceived deficits. This phenomenon impacts marketing strategies, forcing companies to navigate a highly polarized consumer landscape and avoid triggering political backlash
Today's heightened political climate infuses even seemingly apolitical aspects of daily life, turning everyday brand decisions into highly charged political battles. A decade ago, controversies like the Cracker Barrel rebranding wouldn't have sparked such intense reactions; our stronger, more salient political identities now amplify even minor corporate actions, transforming them into culture war flashpoints. This hyper-politicization of consumerism reflects a deeply divided nation, where every corporate move is scrutinized for hidden political meaning, regardless of intent
Corporate political engagement: Has increased public discourse shifted consumer perception of corporate America? While companies have historically engaged in political activities like lobbying and donations, their recent, more public stances have arguably created unintended consequences. This heightened visibility, according to Harvard Business School professor Elisabeth Kempf, has normalized corporate political commentary, impacting public opinion. The resulting polarization fuels intense reactions to seemingly innocuous brand decisions, highlighting the challenges businesses face navigating today's politically charged consumer landscape
Increased political polarization has heightened scrutiny of corporate messaging. Consumers now interpret company advertisements and branding decisions through a political lens, often assigning unintended meanings. This heightened sensitivity reflects a broader trend of interpreting even innocuous actions as politically coded, creating a climate of suspicion and fueling online outrage over corporate branding choices
Corporate political stances: performative activism or genuine belief? Many companies' past political endorsements, like supporting Black Lives Matter or emphasizing ESG, felt performative, driven by investor pressure and competitive pressures rather than deep-seated conviction. This strategic messaging, amplified by carefully crafted branding (including subtle logo details and marketing cues), has backfired in today's hyper-polarized climate. Consumers now readily decode even innocuous brand actions as politically coded, leading to controversies like those surrounding American Eagle and Cracker Barrel. This "blandification" of corporate messaging, a retreat from overt political statements, may be too late to quell the culture wars fueled by a nation increasingly interpreting everything through a political lens
“We have been ensuring that every touchpoint and experience that surrounds a brand communicates what that brand stands for and how we want to be perceived in people’s minds,” Dyer says. “We’ve trained the general public to look at every detail, to look at the smile in the Amazon logo and that it goes from A to Z, right?”
I don’t want to place all of the blame on the business world here because it really is facing quite the conundrum. I sincerely doubt anyone on the American Eagle marketing team thought they were sending a subliminal message about Nazism, or anyone at Starbucks was out to take down Christmas when they gave plain red cups the go-ahead for the 2015 holiday season. But that won’t stop easily riled-up people from getting easily riled up.
For older brands such as Cracker Barrel, heritage is always a “double-edged sword,” Keller says. “It helps you in the way of a lot of emotional attachment and feelings, but at the same time, you’re not maybe seen as relevant. You are boring,” he says.
Brands have to move forward and become more modern, especially as their original customer bases age. At the same time, the move can’t be so drastic that it puts existing fans into a tizzy, especially now that that tizzy might catch fire online. Angry letters have always existed, but now some clout-chasing guy can post that letter on TikTok and X and try to get others to cosign.
“These things snowball. That’s the problem,” Keller says.
There’s money to be made in manufacturing outrage. Partisan media ecosystems thrive on ginning up anger over contrived controversies. There’s a financial payoff for influencers who blow whatever whistle of the day. And the social media algorithm is designed to surface and circulate emotion-fueling content — the madder people are, the more ad cash comes in.
Some companies may make the calculation that it’s just best to forge ahead in this environment, but a lot of that depends on understanding who their customers are. If you’re Nike, you’ve got a lot more leeway on the “woke” stuff than if you’re Bud Light. American Eagle has said its Sydney Sweeney campaign — plus a collaboration with Travis Kelce, the NFL star who’s Taylor Swift‘s new fiancé — has been a boon. And if you’re Target, it seems like everybody’s probably going to be mad at you, no matter what you do.
“The first thing is to realize that you do live in a different world where you are going to be interpreted politically,” Netzer says.
Keller says this level of hyperreactiveness among consumers has led him to shift his thinking on ad testing. “I always felt like, do the research before you create the ad,” he says. It used to be that if you knew your customer well enough beforehand, you could be creative in crafting an ad and send it out with confidence. Now, companies and marketers might decide it’s worthwhile to test specific ads before releasing them to the general public to get ahead of any problems. “The money you spend on that is well worth spending versus having your brand dragged through a bunch of negative mud and everything, however long,” Keller says.
Good business leaders are accustomed to undertaking financial calculations ahead of any ad campaign or brand change. Now, they’ve got to make some political calculations, too.
“You have to market and explain what you’re doing, why you’re doing it, and how you’re doing it, and for whom you’re doing it,” says Edward Segal, the author of “The Crisis Casebook: Lessons in Crisis Management from the World’s Leading Brands.”
It’s easy to look back at Pizzagate and laugh. For those who don’t remember, it was a 2016 conspiracy theory that Democrats were running a pedophilia ring out of a pizza restaurant in Washington, DC. As goofy as it sounds, some people took it very seriously and even acted on it. At one point, a guy showed up at the restaurant with a gun to “self-investigate” the obviously false claims. The conspiracy theories about the relatively bland antics from corporate America may not be as outlandish or the consequences as scary, but an increasing number of people are seeing codes and signs where they’re not.
We’re living in a day and age in which it’s getting harder to know what’s real. AI slop runs rampant on the internet. Online provocateurs and influencers grab onto tiny morsels of information, true or false, and run wild with them. People don’t trust institutions or one another. Politics feels inescapable and hopeless at the same time, and so buying something, or getting mad at a company that sells something, is the best approximation some people have to doing something. It’s quite the hellish little situation we’re in. It would be neat if everyone could take a breath and chill on turning everything into a political debate. Like, don’t be the guy at the party everyone low-key avoids because he gets weird and annoying really fast. And right now, a lot of us are being that guy.
By all means, shop your values, but within reason. Ads and redesigns often don’t have deeper meaning; a brand would just like to sell you things and remind you that it’s there. And remember that companies really have only one core value: making money for shareholders.
Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.
Business Insider’s Discourse stories provide perspectives on the day’s most pressing issues, informed by analysis, reporting, and expertise.
Source: Original Article