Shoppers Revolt: 51% Boycott Brands Over Politics as Midterms Loom

Politics is now a deal-breaker at the checkout, with 51% of consumers abandoning brands over political positions in the last year.

As the November midterms approach, 39% of shoppers plan to align their spending with their political beliefs, indicating a significant shift in consumer behavior.

Companies are under the microscope regarding their political affiliations and spending. However, experts warn that intentions expressed in surveys often don’t translate into actual purchasing decisions.

A survey conducted by SmartCustomer and Goods Unite Us polled 1,115 American adults who shop regularly. The online survey was conducted on October 7 and adjusted for age and gender demographics.

This marks a dramatic change from a previous SmartCustomer survey, where only 30% reported boycotting brands over politics, and 62% claimed political affiliations had little impact on their buying choices.

Methodologically, the two surveys differ: the latest included adults aged 18 and older, while the earlier poll focused on those 21 and older. SmartCustomer asserts that the questions compared between surveys were consistent in wording and response options.

Michael Lai, CEO of SmartCustomer, stated that the election alone doesn’t account for this behavioral shift.

"The change reflects a broader shift," Lai noted, emphasizing that the earlier poll occurred months before a presidential election. "The midterms seem to act as an accelerant."

Brian Potts, founder of Goods Unite Us, echoed this sentiment, asserting that politically motivated spending extends beyond election cycles. "Consumer activism is a tool that's available year-round," he said.

The findings reveal that political disagreements can lead consumers to not only abandon companies but also actively support others. While 51% stopped buying from a company due to its politics, 47% purchased from a company to back its political stance. Among those who supported a company politically, 83% also reported boycotting another brand.

This behavior spans party lines but is not evenly distributed. Sixty-four percent of Democratic-leaning respondents boycotted brands over politics, compared to 47% of Republican-leaning respondents and 32% of those with no party affiliation. Income disparities also emerged: 60% of households earning over $100,000 reported boycotting brands, while only 35% of those earning less than $50,000 did the same.

Potts attributed this trend to rising political frustration and increased public scrutiny of corporate political involvement.

"There's a deep sense of frustration with the political system, and many people now see their purchasing power as one of the few levers they can still pull," he explained.

Timothy Calkins, clinical professor of marketing at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, cautioned against assuming that political considerations dominate purchasing decisions.

"Most people make purchase decisions based on product quality and pricing," Calkins stated.

This tension is crucial for interpreting the poll results. The findings reflect what respondents claim they do and intend to do but do not prove that politics has eclipsed traditional factors like price and quality in the marketplace.

The survey's most striking revelation concerns price: 64% indicated they would pay more for an equally qualified product if the company shared their political beliefs. Forty-three percent would pay at least 6% more.

Lai expressed surprise at this finding but acknowledged it measured intentions. He pointed to the 47% who reported buying from a company to support its political stance as evidence that political preferences can influence purchasing behavior.

Aleksandra Kovacheva, associate professor at the University at Albany's Massry School of Business, warned that willingness-to-pay findings require careful interpretation due to the "intention-behavior" gap.

"It's hard to tell whether consumers will actually pay a higher price based on a survey question like this," Kovacheva said. "The intention-behavior gap can be especially large for willingness-to-pay measures."

Political alignment can enhance value for consumers when a brand's position resonates with their identity. In such cases, purchases become expressions of personal values rather than mere transactions.

However, this benefit has limits.

"Political alignment can add to the value a brand already offers, but it's unlikely to compensate for a product that doesn't meet consumers' needs," Kovacheva stated.

Consumer psychology explains why disagreement with a corporation might lead to seemingly unrelated decisions at checkout. Brands convey values and group membership beyond their products' functions. When consumers perceive a company's stance as conflicting with their identity, distancing themselves becomes a form of protest.

"Boycotting can also serve as a way to take action against a company, driven by anger and a desire to punish the brand," she added.

Whether consumers actually switch brands remains uncertain. Kovacheva highlighted the importance of substitute availability since existing shopping habits are hard to break. A consumer may oppose a company's politics but continue purchasing its products if alternatives lack comparable price or quality.

This assessment qualifies the headline figures. Polls capture sentiment toward companies and politics but cannot guarantee that every reported intention will result in an actual transaction.

"I may say I won't buy a brand because of its political stance but still pick it up at the store because of its cost or convenience," Kovacheva noted.

Timing also plays a role. Political issues may gain prominence before elections, suggesting that current attitudes may not persist at the same intensity later.

Certain issues are more likely to influence purchasing decisions than others. Forty-one percent identified abortion and reproductive rights as impactful on their purchases, followed by diversity, equity, and inclusion policies at 39%, and immigration at 38%. LGBTQ+ issues and religious freedom each garnered 37%, while workers' rights and unions and free speech were selected by 36%. Climate and environmental concerns ranked at 35%, followed by healthcare (34%), support for specific candidates or parties (33%), economic policy (30%), gun policy (29%), and foreign conflicts (24%).

All tested political issues were selected by at least 20% of respondents; however, 14% stated that political issues did not affect their shopping choices.

Political affiliation influenced priorities. Half of Democratic-leaning respondents identified abortion and reproductive rights as their top issue, while 37% of Republican-leaning respondents chose religious freedom as theirs. Abortion, DEI, LGBTQ+ issues, and immigration appeared among the top five issues for both groups.

Kovacheva emphasized that consumers use brands to communicate beliefs and group identities but cautioned against assuming surveys reveal whether shoppers are drawn to companies sharing their views or repelled by those seen as opposing them.

"Public opinion polls can tell us what consumers are thinking but not necessarily what they'll do or what any particular brand should do," she said.

Consumers expressed a desire for more transparency from companies regarding their political positions. Fifty-three percent believe companies should disclose their political stances, while 22% prefer those positions kept private. In contrast, 41% had previously favored keeping corporate politics private in 2024.

Transparency does not equate to trust. Thirty-five percent indicated their trust in a company disclosing political donations would depend on who received the funds; only 22% said disclosure would increase trust regardless of beneficiaries. Additionally, 49% found it difficult to determine where corporate political donations went, while 28% were unaware such information existed.

Jon Golinger, democracy advocate at Public Citizen, argued that disclosure is vital for consumer accountability.

"Corporate political spending transparency is essential to a fair marketplace; it reduces risks and builds public trust," Golinger asserted. He contended that transparency mitigates reputational risks associated with previously undisclosed political spending and allows consumers to evaluate whether corporate spending aligns with public positions.

Goods Unite Us operates a platform enabling users to research political activities linked to thousands of companies, including party leanings and donation recipients.

Despite findings indicating consumer concern about corporate politics, this should not compel companies to adopt stances on every contentious issue.

Calkins noted that brands typically avoid dividing customer bases unnecessarily.

"Most brands work hard to avoid taking stands on controversial issues," he stated. "Attracting customers is challenging; firms logically want to avoid alienating any segment by taking controversial positions."

Exceptions exist when issues align closely with established brand identities; Calkins cited Patagonia's environmental focus as an example. His overarching advice was restraint: "Companies must be disciplined regarding political issues; expressing opinions can be tempting but often carries more downside than upside."