The challenging piece for companies is that\u00a0in many\u00a0cases, a brand\u00a0does not\u00a0choose\u00a0a position. Someone else chose it for them.<\/p>\n
We set out to understand just how much this is affecting consumer behavior.\u00a0Sogolytics\u00a0conducted a national survey of 1,014 U.S. adults, examining how corporate political and values-based signals influence trust, loyalty, and spending. The findings are worth paying attention to, no matter where your brand sits on the engagement spectrum.<\/p>\n
![\"icon\"](\"\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/newCta-eBook-icon-1.svg\"){kind=icon}
<\/div>\n![\"img\"](\"\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/blog-insert-right-ebook-img.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\nProduct Quality Still Leads. But\u00a0it No Longer Locks\u00a0in\u00a0Loyalty<\/h2>\n<\/div>\nWhen we asked what drives them to stay loyal to a brand, consumers unsurprisingly\u00a0ranked\u00a0product quality (79%) and price (76%) at the top.\u00a0Surprisingly,\u00a051% said\u00a0even if a brand offers\u00a0a great product,\u00a0they\u00a0would\u00a0stop buying if they strongly disagree with what it stands for<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n\u201cProduct experience may still open the door. But a brand’s values can close it.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\nSogolytics, Consumer Brands and the Risk of the Political Stance, 2026<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nAlso, values-based factors, including consistency with values (52%), brand reputation (51%), trust in leadership (51%), and alignment with personal values (46%), now influence\u00a0roughly half\u00a0of all purchasing decisions. That is not\u00a0a fringe\u00a0behavior;\u00a0it is\u00a0a mainstream reality.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n![\"Product](\"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Lauren_Gonzalez_Blog_Image-1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe Financial Risk\u00a0is Asymmetric, And\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0not Small<\/h2>\n<\/div>\nReputational risk does not play out equally in both directions. The downside hits harder and more often than the upside.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nNearly half\u00a0of survey respondents (48%) said they reduced or stopped spending with a brand in the past 12\u00a0months,\u00a0specifically because of its values or public behavior. Only 9% said they increased spending for the same reason.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nThat is\u00a0roughly a\u00a05:1 ratio, and it points to something brands cannot afford to ignore: the financial downside of a perceived values misalignment is significantly larger than the upside reward of getting it right.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nThis asymmetry also\u00a0shows up in\u00a0how consumers describe their actual behaviors too. For context, 23% bought less from a brand, while 20% boycotted one outright.\u00a0And,\u00a0only 9% spent more. The pattern is consistent across political affiliations, which brings us to one of the more counterintuitive findings in the data.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Lauren_Gonzalez_Blog_Image-2.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe Values-driven Consumer Defies\u00a0the\u00a0Stereotype<\/h2>\n<\/div>\nThere is an\u00a0assumption in marketing that values-based consumption is driven primarily by women and progressive consumers. The data challenges this.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nRepublicans (50%) and Democrats (49.8%) reported reducing their spending with brands they disagreed with at\u00a0nearly identical\u00a0rates.\u00a0Republicans were slightly more likely to stop buying entirely<\/b>\u00a0(26.4% vs. 23.2% for Democrats).<\/p>\n<\/div>\nAnd by gender: 50% of men reduced or stopped spending compared to 45% of women. Men also boycotted brands at a higher rate (21% vs. 18%) and bought less at a higher rate (25% vs. 21%).<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nHigh earners are also more active. Seventy-four percent of households earning between $150K and $199K reduced or stopped spending with a brand based on its ideological position, versus 41% of households under $25K. Changing your spending based on values is, in part, a reflection of having the financial flexibility to do so.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n\u201cThe\u00a0values-driven consumer is not a demographic segment. It is a behavioral pattern that crosses party lines, gender, and income.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\nSogolytics, Consumer Brands and the Risk of the Political Stance, 2026<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nMost Consumers Still Want Brands\u00a0to\u00a0Stay Out\u00a0of\u00a0Politics<\/h2>\n<\/div>\nMany consumers want brands to stay\u00a0neutral;\u00a0almost half\u00a0(45%) felt that brands should not speak out on social, ethical, or political issues or should stay neutral whenever possible.\u00a0Forty-one\u00a0percent\u00a0felt brands\u00a0had\u00a0some duty to engage, and 15% were unsure.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nThe picture differs by group. Sixty percent of Republicans felt brands should stay neutral, compared to 36% of Democrats. Support for brand neutrality also rises with age, climbing from 22% among 18 to 24-year-olds to 60% among those 65 and older.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n![\"Most](\"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Lauren_Gonzalez_Blog_Image-3.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\nWhen Brands\u00a0are Vocal Authenticity Matters More\u00a0than Agreement<\/h2>\n<\/div>\nAmong consumers who said they are open to brands engaging on issues, the top two things they look for are authenticity (36%) and transparency (34%). Whether they personally agree with the brand’s\u00a0position\u00a0ranked much lower, at just 17%.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nConsumers are not primarily asking whether a brand shares their politics. They are asking whether the brand means what it says.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nWhich is why 56% of all respondents said they care more about whether a brand is authentic than whether they agree with every position it takes. 55% said they are skeptical when brands speak about causes without taking real action to back it up.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n“Authenticity outranks agreement. Consumers notice the gap between words and actions faster than most brands realize.”<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\nSogolytics, Consumer Brands and the Risk of the Political Stance, 2026<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nDemocrats and Republicans weigh authenticity slightly differently. Democrats ranked transparency (42%) and authenticity (41%) highest. Republicans prioritized leadership credibility (23%) and relevance to customers (24%). But both groups share the same underlying expectation: if you are going to speak, your\u00a0track record\u00a0needs to back it up.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nBrands Rarely Control the Narrative About How Their Values are Perceived<\/h2>\n<\/div>\nOne of the most practical findings in this report has nothing to do with whether a brand should take a stance. It has to do with how consumers find out about one.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nHalf of consumers (50%) learn about a brand’s social or political positions from social media. Another 42% hear about them from news media. Only 23% hear about them directly from the brand itself.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nThis means that for most brands, the values narrative is already being written by someone else. Social media users, journalists, and influencers are shaping\u00a0perception\u00a0before the brand has even decided how to respond. And two-thirds of consumers (66%) agree that brands should expect customer backlash when they take controversial positions, a view held by 73% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans alike.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n![\"Brands](\"https:\/\/www.sogolytics.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Lauren_Gonzalez_Blog_Image-4.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe\u00a0implications are\u00a0clear: If\u00a0you are not actively\u00a0monitoring\u00a0how your brand is perceived, you are ceding the narrative to whoever is loudest, not whoever is most\u00a0accurate.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\nWhat\u00a0this Looks Like\u00a0in\u00a0Practice<\/h2>\n<\/div>\nTo see what this looks like beyond the survey data, it helps to look at how these patterns have played out for actual brands.\u00a0Target’s stock<\/a>\u00a0dropped 33% across the first three quarters of 2025, a period marked by consumer boycotts and broader macro pressures. Whether or not any single campaign\u00a0was the primary\u00a0cause,\u00a0the period illustrated how quickly public\u00a0perception\u00a0can translate into measurable\u00a0financial impact.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
When we asked what drives them to stay loyal to a brand, consumers unsurprisingly\u00a0ranked\u00a0product quality (79%) and price (76%) at the top.\u00a0Surprisingly,\u00a051% said\u00a0even if a brand offers\u00a0a great product,\u00a0they\u00a0would\u00a0stop buying if they strongly disagree with what it stands for<\/p>\n
\u201cProduct experience may still open the door. But a brand’s values can close it.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n Sogolytics, Consumer Brands and the Risk of the Political Stance, 2026<\/p>\n Also, values-based factors, including consistency with values (52%), brand reputation (51%), trust in leadership (51%), and alignment with personal values (46%), now influence\u00a0roughly half\u00a0of all purchasing decisions. That is not\u00a0a fringe\u00a0behavior;\u00a0it is\u00a0a mainstream reality.<\/p>\n Reputational risk does not play out equally in both directions. The downside hits harder and more often than the upside.<\/p>\n Nearly half\u00a0of survey respondents (48%) said they reduced or stopped spending with a brand in the past 12\u00a0months,\u00a0specifically because of its values or public behavior. Only 9% said they increased spending for the same reason.<\/p>\n That is\u00a0roughly a\u00a05:1 ratio, and it points to something brands cannot afford to ignore: the financial downside of a perceived values misalignment is significantly larger than the upside reward of getting it right.<\/p>\n This asymmetry also\u00a0shows up in\u00a0how consumers describe their actual behaviors too. For context, 23% bought less from a brand, while 20% boycotted one outright.\u00a0And,\u00a0only 9% spent more. The pattern is consistent across political affiliations, which brings us to one of the more counterintuitive findings in the data.<\/p>\n There is an\u00a0assumption in marketing that values-based consumption is driven primarily by women and progressive consumers. The data challenges this.<\/p>\n Republicans (50%) and Democrats (49.8%) reported reducing their spending with brands they disagreed with at\u00a0nearly identical\u00a0rates.\u00a0Republicans were slightly more likely to stop buying entirely<\/b>\u00a0(26.4% vs. 23.2% for Democrats).<\/p>\n And by gender: 50% of men reduced or stopped spending compared to 45% of women. Men also boycotted brands at a higher rate (21% vs. 18%) and bought less at a higher rate (25% vs. 21%).<\/p>\n High earners are also more active. Seventy-four percent of households earning between $150K and $199K reduced or stopped spending with a brand based on its ideological position, versus 41% of households under $25K. Changing your spending based on values is, in part, a reflection of having the financial flexibility to do so.<\/p>\n \u201cThe\u00a0values-driven consumer is not a demographic segment. It is a behavioral pattern that crosses party lines, gender, and income.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n Sogolytics, Consumer Brands and the Risk of the Political Stance, 2026<\/p>\n Many consumers want brands to stay\u00a0neutral;\u00a0almost half\u00a0(45%) felt that brands should not speak out on social, ethical, or political issues or should stay neutral whenever possible.\u00a0Forty-one\u00a0percent\u00a0felt brands\u00a0had\u00a0some duty to engage, and 15% were unsure.<\/p>\n The picture differs by group. Sixty percent of Republicans felt brands should stay neutral, compared to 36% of Democrats. Support for brand neutrality also rises with age, climbing from 22% among 18 to 24-year-olds to 60% among those 65 and older.<\/p>\n Among consumers who said they are open to brands engaging on issues, the top two things they look for are authenticity (36%) and transparency (34%). Whether they personally agree with the brand’s\u00a0position\u00a0ranked much lower, at just 17%.<\/p>\n Consumers are not primarily asking whether a brand shares their politics. They are asking whether the brand means what it says.<\/p>\n Which is why 56% of all respondents said they care more about whether a brand is authentic than whether they agree with every position it takes. 55% said they are skeptical when brands speak about causes without taking real action to back it up.<\/p>\n “Authenticity outranks agreement. Consumers notice the gap between words and actions faster than most brands realize.”<\/i><\/p>\n Sogolytics, Consumer Brands and the Risk of the Political Stance, 2026<\/p>\n Democrats and Republicans weigh authenticity slightly differently. Democrats ranked transparency (42%) and authenticity (41%) highest. Republicans prioritized leadership credibility (23%) and relevance to customers (24%). But both groups share the same underlying expectation: if you are going to speak, your\u00a0track record\u00a0needs to back it up.<\/p>\n One of the most practical findings in this report has nothing to do with whether a brand should take a stance. It has to do with how consumers find out about one.<\/p>\n Half of consumers (50%) learn about a brand’s social or political positions from social media. Another 42% hear about them from news media. Only 23% hear about them directly from the brand itself.<\/p>\n This means that for most brands, the values narrative is already being written by someone else. Social media users, journalists, and influencers are shaping\u00a0perception\u00a0before the brand has even decided how to respond. And two-thirds of consumers (66%) agree that brands should expect customer backlash when they take controversial positions, a view held by 73% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans alike.<\/p>\n The\u00a0implications are\u00a0clear: If\u00a0you are not actively\u00a0monitoring\u00a0how your brand is perceived, you are ceding the narrative to whoever is loudest, not whoever is most\u00a0accurate.<\/p>\n To see what this looks like beyond the survey data, it helps to look at how these patterns have played out for actual brands.\u00a0Target’s stock<\/a>\u00a0dropped 33% across the first three quarters of 2025, a period marked by consumer boycotts and broader macro pressures. Whether or not any single campaign\u00a0was the primary\u00a0cause,\u00a0the period illustrated how quickly public\u00a0perception\u00a0can translate into measurable\u00a0financial impact.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nThe Financial Risk\u00a0is Asymmetric, And\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0not Small<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nThe Values-driven Consumer Defies\u00a0the\u00a0Stereotype<\/h2>\n
Most Consumers Still Want Brands\u00a0to\u00a0Stay Out\u00a0of\u00a0Politics<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nWhen Brands\u00a0are Vocal Authenticity Matters More\u00a0than Agreement<\/h2>\n
Brands Rarely Control the Narrative About How Their Values are Perceived<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nWhat\u00a0this Looks Like\u00a0in\u00a0Practice<\/h2>\n