In recent years, brands taking social stands—often called “going woke”—have had mixed results. While some companies won over consumers by aligning with current social movements, others saw a decline in their customer base. Here, we look at the brands that lost appeal after adopting politically charged positions.
Gillette
Gillette faced backlash after its 2019 ad campaign tackled toxic masculinity, which many customers perceived as an attack on traditional male values. Sales dipped as a significant portion of its core demographic, men, felt alienated by the message.
Starbucks
Starbucks’ 2015 “Race Together” initiative, intended to foster conversations on race relations by having baristas write the phrase on cups, was met with widespread criticism. Customers questioned the appropriateness of addressing such a complex issue in a coffee shop setting. The campaign was quickly discontinued.
Nike
Nike’s endorsement of Colin Kaepernick, known for kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice, was polarizing. While the campaign initially caused a dip in stock prices and sparked a boycott, it ultimately increased their sales and brand visibility among younger demographics. However, many long-time customers felt the brand was too politically involved.
Pepsi
Pepsi’s 2017 commercial featuring Kendall Jenner, which depicted Jenner handing a police officer a Pepsi during a protest, was accused of trivializing the Black Lives Matter movement. The ad was perceived as tone-deaf and was pulled after just one day.
Ben & Jerry’s
Known for its progressive values, Ben & Jerry’s has embraced numerous social causes over the years. However, its vocal stance on various political issues has led to boycotts by consumers who prefer businesses to stay apolitical. While the brand maintains a loyal following, its overt politicization has alienated some customers.
NFL
The NFL saw viewership decline after the league became a battleground for national anthem protests initiated by Kaepernick. The controversy highlighted the risk of alienating fans who perceived the protests as unpatriotic. The NFL’s challenge has been to respect players’ rights to express themselves while maintaining its broad appeal as America’s favorite sport.
Dick’s Sporting Goods
In 2018, Dick’s Sporting Goods took a strong stance on gun control by announcing it would stop selling assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines. This decision led to a significant backlash from Second Amendment supporters, impacting store traffic and sales. The brand’s choice underscored the difficulty of navigating social issues that deeply divide consumers.
Target
Target’s 2016 decision to allow transgender customers and employees to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity sparked a nationwide debate. The policy led to a boycott by conservative groups, negatively affecting sales and creating a public relations challenge. Target’s experience highlighted the complexities of addressing human rights issues in a retail context.
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A’s longstanding controversies regarding its donations to organizations opposed to same-sex marriage have repeatedly put the brand in the spotlight. While its charitable branch announced a shift away from such donations to focus on education, homelessness, and hunger, the brand’s past stance continues to impact its public image.
Hobby Lobby
Hobby Lobby’s 2014 Supreme Court case, where it sought exemption from providing contraception coverage due to religious beliefs, polarized consumers. While it won the case, the public debate framed the company as either a defender of religious freedom or an opponent of women’s rights, depending on one’s viewpoint.
Lush Cosmetics
Lush Cosmetics’ aggressive stance on environmental and human rights issues has occasionally backfired, with some campaigns seen as overreaching or preachy. While many consumers applaud the company’s activism, others feel that Lush’s approach can be judgmental, turning what was once merely a transaction into a political statement.
Grubhub
Following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Grubhub’s CEO sent an email to all employees expressing disdain for the divisive rhetoric of the newly elected president and suggested that those who disagreed should resign. This led to public outcry and calls for a boycott on the grounds that the company was intolerant of personal political beliefs.
Patagonia
Patagonia’s active involvement in environmental conservation and its criticism of political figures and policies have strengthened its brand among like-minded consumers but have also alienated those who view its activism as excessive or unrelated to its business.
Goya Foods
In 2020, Goya Foods’ CEO praised President Donald Trump, leading to calls for a boycott of the brand, particularly from the Latino community, which felt betrayed by the endorsement. While Goya stood by its statement, claiming it was apolitical and merely appreciative of the president’s economic policies, the controversy highlighted how quickly consumer sentiment can turn.
Under Armour
Under Armour faced both backlash and support after its CEO made comments supporting Trump’s business policies in 2017. The subsequent boycotts and buycotts demonstrated how polarized consumers can respond to perceived political alignment. Under Armour’s experience illustrates the double-edged sword of corporate political involvement.
Keurig
Keurig was caught in a cultural crossfire when it pulled advertising from a politically charged TV show, leading to boycotts by viewers who supported the host. The backlash included public destruction of Keurig machines, shared widely on social media. This episode underscored the risks associated with brands taking sides in cultural and political debates.
MyPillow
MyPillow’s CEO’s vocal support for Trump and promotion of political conspiracy theories have led to significant consumer backlash and the loss of retail partnerships. The brand has become synonymous with political controversy, overshadowing its products.
MLB
Major League Baseball’s decision to move the 2021 All-Star Game out of Georgia in response to state voting laws drew sharp criticism and applause, illustrating the risks of sports organizations engaging in political activism. The move resulted in financial implications for businesses in Georgia and a heated national debate about the role of sports in political and social issues.
Disney
Disney has faced both praise and criticism for its inclusive policies and support of LGBTQ+ rights, which have led some to boycott its parks and movies. The brand’s challenge lies in balancing its progressive values with the expectations of consumers.
Dr. Seuss Enterprises
Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ decision to cease publication of several books containing outdated and racially insensitive imagery sparked a heated debate over censorship and the preservation of literature. While some applauded the decision as a positive step towards sensitivity, others viewed it as an overreaction, resulting in a surge in book sales and intense public discussion.
Trader Joe’s
Trader Joe’s faced calls to rebrand some of its international food labels, which critics claimed perpetuated racial stereotypes. While it initially seemed the company would rebrand, Trader Joe’s later decided against widespread changes, citing customer feedback. The incident highlighted the challenges brands face when cultural sensitivity and customer preferences collide.
Airbnb
Airbnb has engaged in various social initiatives, including housing for refugees and disaster victims, which have sometimes led to backlash from hosts and local communities who feel the company is overstepping its bounds as a business.
J.K. Rowling
J.K. Rowling’s comments on gender identity sparked widespread controversy and calls for boycotting her books and the Harry Potter franchise. The incident shows how personal beliefs of a brand’s figurehead can impact consumer perceptions and sales, particularly in industries tied closely to individual creators.
Lego
Lego’s efforts to promote inclusivity and remove gender stereotypes from its toys have been both praised and criticized. Some consumers feel that the brand is pushing a political agenda, which has influenced their purchasing decisions. Lego’s challenge is to innovate in ways that respect diverse consumer values while staying true to its core mission of play and creativity.
Reebok
Reebok’s outspoken support on social issues, including women’s rights and anti-racism, has positioned it as a progressive brand but has also led to alienation of consumers who prefer apolitical brands. This polarization reflects the broader cultural divide and poses a strategic challenge for Reebok as it seeks to maintain its market share in a competitive industry.
