Brands in a Perma-crisis: Navigating the 2024 Presidential Election and Beyond 

In today’s volatile world, brands are no longer merely observers of societal shifts—they are active participants, often unwillingly thrust into the spotlight. We live in what can best be described as a state of permacrisis, where companies face a rolling thunder of challenges that threaten to disrupt their operations, agitate their employees, fracture their customer base and ultimately, tarnish their reputations. The crisis du jour? The 2024 presidential election. 

As we approach the Presidential election, the political rhetoric is intensifying, deepening the already stark divides in our society. The major political parties are seeking ammunition to validate their claims that the other is out of touch with American values and aspirations. In this charged environment, brands are no longer judged solely on right versus wrong, but also on right versus left. This political polarization adds unprecedented complexity to an environment where a crisis can come from everywhere.   Things that were once considered safe, and even table stakes for being a good corporate citizen are now controversial.  For years, I used Levi’s and their voter advocacy as an example of a brand getting it right – a brand doing something good for society without being political.  Today, these previously “purple” activities have been weaponized and could create controversy.  (And Levi‘s, to their credit, is sticking with it.   But that’s a topic for another day.)   

Among the most pressing threats today is the risk of political brandjacking—when a company’s image or stance is co-opted and manipulated for political gain. For many companies, this moment happens without warning, thrusting them into a political maelstrom they neither anticipated nor desired.  Whether it’s a decade-old pro-LGBTQ policy, a stance on healthcare reform, or simply being an employer of a diverse workforce, any aspect of a company’s identity can be weaponized to fuel politically charged narratives. Brandjacking may be purposeful or by design, like Donald Trump’s use of  Tic Tac as a symbol of inflation.  Or it may be inadvertent, like your logo in the backdrop.  Either way, when any social media user can become an influencer, the danger is both real and imminent. 

This phenomenon has put companies like John Deere, Bud Light, Disney, and Target squarely in the crosshairs. These cases are not outliers, but cautionary tales of how political brandjacking can escalate from online controversy to substantial reputational damage and financial loss.  And as the political rhetoric rises, the so-called “War on Corporate Greed” will create negative narratives about companies simply because of their financial success.   

Just a few short years ago, the idea of brands taking a stand was an imperative….an expectation. Today, less so. And while I am not ready to say we’ve reached the end of the era where companies lead the charge of societal change and positive impact, doing so for its own sake may be a thing of the past. Companies are putting a lot more rigor around the time, place and reasons to “take a stand.”  Intentionally inserting a brand into politics?  We aren’t seeing much of that.  

In fact, many brands have chosen to stay silent, hoping to remain above the fray. However, silence is not a shield. In today’s environment, staying quiet is not synonymous with staying safe. Without a clear understanding of your brand’s risk profile, opting for silence alone is risky.  Hoping to remain unnoticed in the political swirl is not a strategy; it’s a dangerous form of avoidance. 

The risks of political brandjacking are compounded by the rise of misinformation and disinformation. Simply dismissing damaging narratives as untrue no longer suffices to protect a brand. The impact on employees, investors, business partners, and consumers can be significant, and in a media landscape that is both complex and confusing, speed and preparedness are your best defenses. 

The political landscape is complex and particularly intense in 2024, but a good risk and preparedness protocol will serve as your best defense.  If you don’t have the prophylactic approach of regular risk reviews, this would be an ideal time to start. And if you have not enhanced your current protocol to consider the dynamics of this election, it’s not too late to do so. Taking a proactive approach to evaluating your risk landscape, mapping critical stakeholders, and planning for eventualities is a good form of reputation governance.  It is relatively easy to do, and in today’s rapidly changing environment, doing so quarterly is a best practice. If you haven’t run a simulation exercise to test your protocols and response “muscle memory” there is no better time than the present.      

As we approach the 2024 election, brands must adopt a vigilant and proactive stance. This means constantly monitoring potential triggers, developing clear and adaptable communication strategies, and preparing to respond swiftly to crises. The goal is not just to survive the election cycle but to emerge from it with your brand’s integrity intact, ready to face whatever the next administration may bring. 

One thing is certain: we are living in a state of “perma-crisis” that will persist.  After the election, there will be a new “crisis du jour” (or several!)   Crisis and issues planning is no longer an annual activity, it is always on requirement.   

The question is: are you prepared?