Here’s Why Brands May Want to Avoid Weighing In on Politics

In the past three weeks, since Vice President Kamala Harris took over as the Democratic party’s frontrunner, big-name entrepreneurs have been vocal about their endorsements. But should brands weigh in on the 2024 U.S. election?

Probably not, says Philip Atkins, co-founder of the New York City-based marketing agency Phidel, which counts Gen-Z-friendly cosmetics brand Milk Makeup and cool-kid candle label Boy Smells among its clients. While Phidel’s client base tends to be purpose-driven and targeted toward younger generations–which tend to support brands that appeal to their values–Atkins says that this year, they’re staying mum on politics: “They’re not meme-ifying it.”

In addition to avoiding direct political statements that may alienate customers, or just come across as inauthentic, brands are also analyzing their influencer partnerships. The New York Times reported today that New York City-based Captiv8 has launched new AI-powered tools that can help brands calculate the risk of whether an influencer may make inflammatory statements or talk about their political views. 

And there are other factors–aside from politics themselves–that brands should consider before weighing in on politics. For one, Atkins says, increased online chatter about the election means more competition for clicks, and therefore higher paid social costs for brands trying to target the same users as, say, the Harris-Walz campaign. It might seem like joining a trending conversation would inherently benefit a smaller brand–but higher costs, paired with the risk of backlash, tend to yield diminished returns.

While brands may be best served by avoiding involvement in electoral discourse, they can still gain valuable insights from staying plugged into the political arena, Atkins says, noting that the digital strategy of the Harris-Walz campaign is a compelling case study.

KamalaHQ–the handle the campaign uses for its accounts on social platforms including X, Instagram, and TikTok–quickly gained traction online for its embrace of pop culture and internet-native trends. The campaign’s TikTok account has received an average of six million views per post, compared with the 500,000 average of BidenHQ, the pre-July 21 handle of the account, CNN recently reported.

A key reason that the Harris-Walz campaign has found digital success, Atkins says, is that it has followed consumer trends–not the other way around. “The Harris campaign marketing strategy is really community-first. They’re not taking a top-down approach,” he says. “It is passe for brands to message the consumer: ‘We know we know what you need,'” he says. “You see big brands still playing by this playbook, and they lag behind smaller, more agile indie brands that are culture-first and people-first reacting through social listening and consumer insights to talk about what the consumer actually cares about.”

He points to Harris-Walz merch as further evidence that the campaign is instead actively reacting to consumer preferences: consider the viral camo hat that sold out in just 30 minutes.

Also of note is the fact that the social media marketing team behind KamalaHQ is predominantly made up of members of Gen-Z, social media consultant Rachel Karten pointed out on X. Not only is the campaign swiftly reacting to social media trends–it’s doing so by trusting young employees who are most organically engaged with those trends.

“This goes against everything that traditional marketing organizations live and die on, which is a long, planned-out calendar of content and messaging,” Atkins says. “Whether Kamala Harris wins or not, there’s still an incredible lesson around marketing, consumer-centricity, voter-centricity, and socially native, reactionary, agile content creation.” Brands: It’s time to take note.