We are deep in midterm election season and my LinkedIn feed is full of think pieces about "how brands should navigate political polarization." I have been asked to speak on three panels about this topic in the last month. I said no to all of them, which is itself my answer to the question.
Here is my position, and it has only gotten firmer since 2020: most brands should shut up about politics. Not because it is cowardly. Because it is strategically correct.
When Yvon Chouinard gave Patagonia away to fight climate change, he didn't just make a donation. He made every other CEO's 'sustainability commitment' look like what it was: a press release.
I know this is an unpopular take in certain marketing circles. There is an entire industry of consultants who will sell you a "brand activism strategy" and help you craft the perfect statement for every political moment. And look, for some brands, genuine activism is authentic and commercially smart. Patagonia should talk about environmental policy. Ben and Jerry's should talk about social justice. This is genuinely who they are and their customers expect it.
There is an entire industry of consultants who will sell you a "brand activism strategy" and help you craft the perfect statement for every political moment.
But for the vast majority of brands? The CPG companies, the SaaS platforms, the retail chains, the financial services firms? Political statements are all risk and no reward. And the data in 2026 is very clear about this.
Consumer research consistently shows that the number of people who will buy from you because of a political stance is dramatically smaller than the number who will stop buying from you because of one. The asymmetry is brutal. You might gain two percent and lose twelve.
More importantly, I think the entire frame of "brands should take a stand" misunderstands what consumers actually want from brands during politically stressful periods. They do not want your statement. They want normalcy. They want the comfort of interacting with a product or service that is not asking them to have feelings about democracy. They want to buy shampoo without being reminded that the country is fighting about everything.
The brands I respect most right now are the ones who have made clear internal decisions about their values, treat their employees accordingly, donate quietly to causes they believe in, and then market their products without dragging their customers into a political performance.
There is one exception to this rule and I want to name it clearly: if legislation directly threatens your customers' ability to exist or access your product, silence is complicity. Healthcare brands during reproductive rights debates. Tech brands during internet freedom fights. Those are moments where your customers need to know you see them. That is not activism as marketing. That is basic respect for the people who keep you in business.
But a snack brand tweeting about gerrymandering? A shoe company issuing a statement about judicial nominations? That is not bravery. That is a brand team justifying their existence during a news cycle. And consumers, in 2026, are exhausted enough to punish it.
My advice: vote with your dollars, not your social calendar. And let people buy crackers in peace.