We are five months from a presidential election and the brand strategy conversations happening behind closed doors right now are fascinating. I know because I have been in several of them, and the dominant theme is: how do we say nothing loudly enough that people think we said something?
This is going to be a hard post to write without sounding preachy, so let me start with a caveat: I do not think every brand needs to take a political position. I do not think it is always strategically sound. I do not think silence is inherently cowardly. Sometimes it is the smartest choice for the business.
This is going to be a hard post to write without sounding preachy, so let me start with a caveat: I do not think every brand needs to take a political position.
But I do think brands need to be honest with themselves about what their silence communicates.
The myth of neutrality:
In a polarized environment, not taking a position is itself a position. Your employees perceive it. Your customers perceive it. Your competitors perceive it. The absence of a statement communicates something, whether you intend it to or not.
What it communicates varies by context. For some brands, silence reads as prudent stewardship. For others, it reads as cowardice. For others still, it reads as tacit endorsement of the status quo. You do not get to control which interpretation lands. You only get to decide whether you are making a conscious strategic choice or just hoping the whole thing blows over.
The strategic framework I use with clients:
There are exactly three questions to answer:
1. Does this issue directly affect our customers, our employees, or our business operations? If yes, silence is harder to justify internally and externally.
2. Do we have standing to speak? A brand that has never engaged with civic issues does not earn credibility by suddenly posting about an election. Earned standing comes from sustained action, not campaign-timed statements.
3. Are we prepared for the consequences of speaking? Not just the social media backlash, but the internal cultural implications, the advertiser partner responses, the potential regulatory scrutiny. Are we prepared to be consistent, or are we making a one-time statement we will later have to walk back?
If you cannot answer all three clearly, silence is probably your most honest option. But own it as a choice, not a default.
What I am watching for this cycle:
The brands that spoke out in 2020 are facing a reckoning. Some meant it and have sustained their commitments. They will speak again and it will feel earned. Others clearly panicked into statements during a cultural pressure moment and have quietly walked everything back. If they speak again, it will feel hollow. The market can tell the difference.
I am also watching for the brands that find genuinely useful ways to engage with civic life without partisan signaling. Voter registration partnerships. Employee time-off policies for civic participation. Informational content. These are positions that most brands can take without alienating half their customer base, and they demonstrate civic commitment without requiring partisan alignment.
The bottom line:
Whatever you choose, choose it consciously. Run it through your values framework. Pressure-test it against your stakeholder map. Socialize it internally before anything goes external. And be prepared to be consistent for longer than one news cycle.
The worst possible outcome is not backlash from speaking. It is the slow erosion of trust that comes from your team watching you equivocate in real time and concluding that the brand stands for nothing at all.