Are you prepared for the election aftermath? More insights from Kristen Soltis Anderson and other leading policy experts are on tap at Consumer Brands’ Issues Watch, November 18-19. Get ahead and register now.

How Voters View the Role of CPG Companies in an Election Year

The expectation of American consumers is changing. Not only with regard to trends like plant-based or organic, but also how brands should behave. In the wake of the death of George Floyd, Consumer Brands polling showed that 68% of Americans surveyed said they wanted brands to engage on social issues.

But there is a clear distinction in the minds of consumers about social issues and political interests. In a survey of 1,500 registered voters conducted by Echelon Insights, Consumer Brands discovered that companies have more guardrails and expose themselves to more risk when it comes to political engagement.

“The broader view is that while brands should engage on social causes, speaking out on politics specifically is fraught.”

When buying everyday staples, consumers are much more likely to take into consideration product attributes — all-natural ingredients, environmental impact, etc. — than they are a brand’s stance on social or political issues.

But is the landscape shifting? Consumer Brands spoke with Echelon co-founder Kristen Soltis Anderson to get her thoughts on the survey results and how (and if) brands should engage in today’s political environment. “The broader view is that while brands should engage on social causes, speaking out on politics specifically is fraught,” Anderson shared. “Nearly half of all consumers are not necessarily actively seeking out political engagement from brands but are willing to punish or avoid brands that they feel have taken political action that they don’t like.”

Anderson added, “About a third of all consumers say they don’t necessarily care about political engagement. When they are looking to buy products, they are not at all focused on anything about the politics of the brands they are choosing between.”

2020 is Still in Listening Mode

If brands want to use their voice for political change, the audience is young and left — but the pitfalls should give them pause.

Politics Doesn’t Drive Purchasing — For Now

Most consumers aren’t choosing their cereal or shampoo based on brand politics, but as more tools emerge to heighten political awareness, consumers may change.

Fewer than three-in-ten (27%) voters say they have stopped buying products because they do not support the brand’s political stance. Following a similar theme discussed above, party affiliation and age drives this number up to 37% for democrats under 50. However, regardless of age or party, American voters are more likely to be punitive than supportive — only 15% said they had bought a product because of a brand’s political stance.

“Consumers are making decisions about products on price, quality and value, and few want to go out of their way to purchase products they might not have otherwise just to make a political statement,” Anderson shared. “The good things brands can do, like ensure proper treatment for workers, equal pay and so on are expectations consumers have — it is not behavior to reward so much as to expect.”

Staying in the Business Lane of Politics

Engage where it’s meaningful and logical to the brand, not purely because an issue is societally important.

A majority of consumers felt that they would be somewhat more likely or much more likely to support brands that took action in a few key areas:

• • 61% for brands that donated money to small businesses negatively impacted by COVID-19.
  • 58% for brands that commit to paying men and women equally.
  • 57% for brands that donate to small business negatively affected by protest activity.
  • 52% for brands who change products or manufacture to be more environmentally sustainable.

The options that gained majority support were either timely, in the case of COVID-19 and protests, or issues that could be controlled by the company that are also political in nature. The latter is more telling of how American voters consider brand involvement.

“Regardless of who wins, the effects of COVID-19 will be felt for years to come, and consumers want to see brands are hand-in-hand with all of us trying to overcome the challenges the pandemic has presented.”

“In times of this pandemic and widespread economic hardship, people are especially focused on wanting to know brands are doing right by their employees — fair pay, good working conditions, and honesty in business practices matter a great deal,” shared Anderson. “Regardless of who wins, the effects of COVID-19 will be felt for years to come, and consumers want to see brands are hand-in-hand with all of us trying to overcome the challenges the pandemic has presented.”

On the other side, voters were more likely to punish brands that do not treat their workers well. Seventy-one percent of voters said they were somewhat less likely or much less likely to support companies that mistreat the American workers who make their products; 67% said the same about mistreating overseas workers.

By all accounts, CPG companies have gone above and beyond for their employees, particularly in response to COVID-19. Given the intensity of sentiment around worker mistreatment, the inverse of treating employees well is likely to have a positive impact on consumers. Consumer Brands COVID-19 polling found that increasing trust in the industry was primarily driven by continuing to deliver essentials and treating its workforce fairly.

How Can Brands Look at Consumer Segments?

In order to better measure different types of consumers, Echelon Insights developed audience personas that give insights into groups of similar characteristics and dispositions. These segments can help guide their understanding of how consumers will receive and react to brands’ political engagement.

Most American voters are reactive consumers. Two-thirds say they’re not likely to take a brand’s stance on political issues into consideration when buying, or are unsure if they will, but 44% have taken acted in response to brands’ stances. Reactive consumers are the most likely to pull their support from brands who mistreat workers. Just over half (54%) of reactive consumers also say they would be less likely to support brands that donate to movements or causes they disagree with.

Conscious consumers are the most responsive consumers but make up the smallest segment. A strong majority of this group would be more likely to support brands which actively get involved with political issues, including changing internal policies to increase diversity and inclusion among their employees or donating money to organizations which support racial equality, both of which moved less than half of the total sample.

Casual consumers are the least likely to respond to brand activism. Strong majorities say they are unlikely to take brands’ stances into consideration when buying and have never acted in response to brand activism. Less than one-third would be more likely to support brands that engage in any kind of activism. Fifty-two percent say they would be less likely to support brands that mistreat American workers, but less than half would be less likely to support brands that engaged in any other potentially objectionable behavior.