Over the past several years, as Elon Musk has become more outspoken and politically visible, observers have debated whether his activism has damaged or strengthened the Tesla brand. Some argue that Tesla has alienated left-leaning consumers who once saw the company as synonymous with liberal and climate-forward progress. Others contend that Musk’s positioning has attracted right-leaning buyers who had previously viewed electric vehicles (EVs) as culturally misaligned.

With CEOs — from Tim Cook at Apple to Marc Benioff at Salesforce — increasingly engaging in political activism, companies across industries face a similar dilemma: When a leader becomes politically polarizing, how does one gauge the impact on the brand and what is the best course of action moving forward?

To investigate these issues, we conducted a large-scale study of U.S. vehicle shoppers that simulates real purchase decisions, forcing consumers to make trade-offs between brand, price and product features.

MUSK AND THE TESLA BRAND

Tesla’s identity has always been bound to its CEO. Musk was the company’s public face, its chief storyteller, product visionary and cultural symbol. For years, that visibility worked to Tesla’s advantage, helping turn an electric vehicle into an aspirational product.

Beginning in 2022, however, a series of highly visible actions shifted how Musk was perceived — and, by extension, how Tesla was interpreted. His acquisition of Twitter (now X) and partisan commentary on the platform drew him into polarizing discourse. That intensified through political endorsements and campaign donations and culminated in a prominent government role (DOGE). 

Musk’s activism contradicted previous perceptions of him. Consequently, Tesla was no longer read primarily as a technology brand. It became a proxy for the political views Musk espoused.

MUSK AND TESLA AT A CROSSROADS

When a brand becomes politically polarized because of CEO activism, the company faces three primary strategic paths going forward. Our study helps shed light on their advisability.

1. Reverse political course.

The brand may attempt to realign with its historical audience. This requires credible, repeated actions. To accomplish that, Musk may need to publicly distance himself from conservative political figures and visibly realign with liberal constituencies.

2. Bet on the political shift.

If company leaders believe the newly aligned segment can grow and allow premium pricing, a strategy that doubles down on the CEO’s recent political stance is possible.

Musk might consider reverting to neutrality or refraining from activism. Yet this move alone would unlikely alter the status quo, under which Tesla has, on balance, lost ground.

3. Enhance product performance.

The company should contemplate product enhancements, particularly those linked to the heart of an EV’s performance range and charging speed. Product innovation in our opinion provides a less risky path forward for Tesla than political backpedaling.

A BROADER MANAGERIAL LESSON

The pattern we uncovered is not unique to Tesla. Companies finding themselves embroiled in political controversy have often been able to maintain strong performance by competing on product value rather than ideology.

The lesson is not that companies should avoid political engagement altogether. Rather, when polarization causes diverging effects on brand perceptions, firms should rethink continued activism and, importantly, ensure their products and services are delivering strong value.

NAVIGATING CEO-DRIVEN POLARIZATION

For executives and boards confronting politically charged situations, the priority is not to eliminate polarization, but to manage it.

1. Diagnose how demand is shifting.

Companies should invest in understanding which customer groups are becoming more favorable, which are turning away and how large each segment is.

2. Separate brand perception from product value.

Executives should assess how much current performance is driven by brand sentiment versus core product attributes such as quality, functionality and price.

3. Identify recoverable segments.

These segments can be the most responsive to improvements in performance. Simulating the market using current offerings and examining the impact of product changes on various segments can be illuminating.

4. Avoid reactive messaging, push attributes that matter.

The goal is not to ignore politics, but to ensure they don’t take over. Companies that anchor their strategy in product value are better positioned to navigate polarization without becoming defined by it.

Over the past several years, as Elon Musk has become more outspoken and politically visible, observers have debated whether his activism has damaged or strengthened the Tesla brand. Some argue that Tesla has alienated left-leaning consumers who once saw the company as synonymous with liberal and climate-forward progress. Others contend that Musk’s positioning has attracted right-leaning buyers who had previously viewed electric vehicles (EVs) as culturally misaligned.

With CEOs — from Tim Cook at Apple to Marc Benioff at Salesforce — increasingly engaging in political activism, companies across industries face a similar dilemma: When a leader becomes politically polarizing, how does one gauge the impact on the brand and what is the best course of action moving forward?

To investigate these issues, we conducted a large-scale study of U.S. vehicle shoppers that simulates real purchase decisions, forcing consumers to make trade-offs between brand, price and product features.

MUSK AND THE TESLA BRAND

Tesla’s identity has always been bound to its CEO. Musk was the company’s public face, its chief storyteller, product visionary and cultural symbol. For years, that visibility worked to Tesla’s advantage, helping turn an electric vehicle into an aspirational product.

Beginning in 2022, however, a series of highly visible actions shifted how Musk was perceived — and, by extension, how Tesla was interpreted. His acquisition of Twitter (now X) and partisan commentary on the platform drew him into polarizing discourse. That intensified through political endorsements and campaign donations and culminated in a prominent government role (DOGE). The media was quick to report on consumers’ dissatisfaction with Musk’s overt political stance. Some even tacked stickers on their Tesla vehicles saying things like: “I bought this before Elon went crazy” or “Eco-friendly not Elon-Friendly.”

Musk’s activism contradicted previous perceptions of him. Consequently, Tesla was no longer read primarily as a technology brand. It became a proxy for the political views Musk espoused.

At first glance, the conclusion seems straightforward: Musk’s political stance has damaged the brand. Recent sales trends echo this pattern — Tesla’s growth stalled in 2024, followed by an 8.5% decline in deliveries in 2025.

This bifurcation has strategic implications. If political signaling reallocates demand rather than eliminating it, then further attempts to reposition the brand through ideological shifts are likely to produce offsetting effects — gaining some consumers while losing others. A more consequential question is whether companies can influence purchase decisions across these segments by changing the underlying value proposition.

MUSK AND TESLA AT A CROSSROADS

When a brand becomes politically polarized because of CEO activism, the company faces three primary strategic paths going forward. Our study helps shed light on their advisability.

1. Reverse political course.

The brand may attempt to realign with its historical audience. This requires credible, repeated actions. To accomplish that, Musk may need to publicly distance himself from conservative political figures and visibly realign with liberal constituencies.

2. Bet on the political shift.

If company leaders believe the newly aligned segment can grow and allow premium pricing, a strategy that doubles down on the CEO’s recent political stance is possible.

Musk might consider reverting to neutrality or refraining from activism. Yet this move alone would unlikely alter the status quo, under which Tesla has, on balance, lost ground.

3. Enhance product performance.

A third option is predicated on product rather than politics. Instead of attempting to ideologically win back consumers who have turned away from Tesla, or escalating highly publicized conservative signals, the company should contemplate product enhancements, particularly those linked to the heart of an EV’s performance range and charging speed.

A BROADER MANAGERIAL LESSON

The pattern we uncovered is not unique to Tesla. Companies finding themselves embroiled in political controversy have often been able to maintain strong performance by competing on product value rather than ideology.

Apple, for example, has faced scrutiny over CEO Tim Cook’s public positions on issues ranging from privacy to social equality. Yet the company’s growth has remained anchored in its strong product ecosystem and continuous innovation, rather than in attempts to align with specific political segments.

By contrast, companies that become defined by political signaling without reinforcing their core value proposition can struggle to recover — particularly when attempting to manage backlash through messaging alone.

The lesson is not that companies should avoid political engagement altogether. Rather, when polarization causes diverging effects on brand perceptions, firms should rethink continued activism and, importantly, ensure their products and services are delivering strong value.

NAVIGATING CEO-DRIVEN POLARIZATION

For executives and boards confronting politically charged situations, the priority is not to eliminate polarization, but to manage it.

1. Diagnose how demand is shifting.

Companies should invest in understanding which customer groups are becoming more favorable, which are turning away and how large each segment is.

2. Separate brand perception from product value.

Executives should assess how much current performance is driven by brand sentiment versus core product attributes such as quality, functionality and price.

3. Identify recoverable segments.

These segments can be the most responsive to improvements in performance. Simulating the market using current offerings and examining the impact of product changes on various segments can be illuminating.

4. Avoid reactive messaging, push attributes that matter.

Efforts to recalibrate perceptions through statements, apologies or symbolic gestures often produce offsetting effects. Without changes to the underlying value proposition, they rarely restore balance across segments.

The goal is not to ignore politics, but to ensure they don’t take over. Companies that anchor their strategy in product value are better positioned to navigate polarization without becoming defined by it.

As CEOs become more visible public actors, firms increasingly face market reactions to their words and actions. The strategic question is no longer whether polarization exists, but how companies should respond to it. Management teams and boards must ground their decisions in segmentation and preference data, not media headlines, and answer key questions: Which customers are being gained, and which are being lost? Are the shifts economically favorable? Can improvements in product performance rebalance preferences across segments?

Our research indicates that Musk’s activism did not simply reduce demand, it reshuffled it. Some consumers have become less willing to buy while others have become more attracted to the brand. Competing on ideology will likely produce gains with one segment that are offset by losses in another. Improvements in core product attributes, by contrast, have the potential to regain lost ground. These findings take on added significance considering the Tesla board’s November 2025 decision to approve an unprecedented, ten-year $1 trillion compensation package for Musk.

To cash in on the package, aggressive performance targets must be met, including the sale of 20 million vehicles. The board is placing the onus on Musk to determine which strategic path will steer the Tesla ship toward sustained growth. Our two cents: Musk’s “road to the trillion dollars” likely runs through better vehicles, not louder politics.

Employer branding is becoming more important in C-suite conversations, but it’s still a relatively new concept. Several years ago business leaders might have pointed to pinball machines in the office game room or catered lunches as examples of employer branding. In 2022 most are aware that such perks hardly constitute a employee retention strategy or play any meaningful role in the battle to attract top talent.

The COVID-19 pandemic put immense pressure on leaders to not just communicate their values but demonstrate them. Employers gained a heightened awareness of the importance of organizational purpose, team cohesion and employee experience. These attributes are critical drivers for candidates contemplating career moves amid the Great Resignation. They’re top of mind for executives looking for ways to differentiate themselves from competitors. Not coincidentally, they’re also elements of employer branding.

To establish the primary components of an employer brand, try these strategies.

1. REPUTATION: Modern job seekers weigh a prospective employer’s reputation heavily in their decision to apply for a job or accept an offer. Reputation can be evaluated according to “the three Cs.” The first C, career catalyst, is one of the first questions job seekers ask themselves when learning about a company: Will working here move my career forward? The second C, culture, is a work environment that appeals to a specific type of person. Finally, there’s citizenship, which encompasses the impact on the community and society at large.

As you consider your company’s reputation, assess each of these areas independently. Identify the types of employees you need to execute your business strategy and study their motivations and incentives as you would a customer’s. Then start building your reputation in the talent marketplace by investing in initiatives that align with the preferences of your ideal candidates.

2. PROPOSITION: Your employer value proposition, or EVP, establishes your expectations for performance and behavior and the rewards for meeting them, which might include financial compensation, professional development opportunities, work/life balance or a sense of belonging or purpose.

This give-and-get validates your reputation in the marketplace. When assessing a role or an organization, job seekers and employees inevitably ask themselves, “Is this work worth the effort?” When the answer is yes, that probably means you’ve got an EVP that lends itself to a strong employer brand. Employers can demand hard work, innovation and top performance. But they must adequately reward employees who meet those demands.

3. EXPERIENCE: The employee experience plays a huge role in building and solidifying your reputation as an employer. If that reputation is strong enough, top talent might be willing to overlook a tedious experience. But if your employer brand is poor, even the best employee experience won’t get you onto the radar of most in-demand job seekers.

The nature of the employee experience depends on your ability to deliver on your EVP. When employees meet employer expectations and are rewarded accordingly, they’re likely to view the experience of working for your organization as positive. That translates to better performance for the employee and the organization as a whole.

Color plays a powerful role in branding, marketing and communication — and a logo is often where that power shows up first. Logo colors are more than design details. They’re strategic tools used to influence how customers feel about, respond to and even remember a brand. The right palette can reinforce a brand’s identity, signal its values and create instant emotional connections. Think red to spark excitement, purple to convey sophistication, or green to suggest eco-friendliness.

These popular associations are often reinforced by color symbolism charts and guides designed to help businesses, brands and marketing teams choose the best color for their logos.

Over time, these tools have become popular resources for brands looking to create or perfect their logo design. But our recent research offers a cautionary tale: Relying on these tools too heavily can actually distort a brand’s message, primarily because they overlook two factors that shape how customers perceive colors.

COLORS EVOKE BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE MEANINGS. For example, blue can evoke trust and calm, but also sadness and fear. Green is often associated with growth and health, yet it can also suggest toxicity and monstrosity.

COLORS ARE INTERPRETED WITHIN THE BROADER CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY APPEAR. Context, background, and the overall design concept shape how a color is going to be perceived. Whether a color communicates something positive or negative depends on how it interacts with the larger visual, especially the background color against which it is placed.

To help brands make better decisions about their logo designs, we explored these two key areas in our research.

HERE’S WHAT WE FOUND:

1. BACKGROUND COLOR MATTERS.

Across our studies, we found that commonly used logo colors can take on both positive and negative meanings. A consumer’s perception depends not just on the logo color, but on whether the logo is sitting on a white or black background. In general, logos on black backgrounds elicited emotions and associations that are traditionally viewed as more “negative” (e.g., aggressiveness, danger, eeriness, sadness, toxicity). White backgrounds, conversely, triggered emotions and associations seen as more “positive” (e.g., fun, kindness, liveliness, optimism, trust).

2. NOT ALL LOGOS ARE AFFECTED EQUALLY.

Our research found that a logo’s design style — specifically whether it was abstract or representative — played a meaningful role in how strongly those shifts appeared.

We found that when a logo was representative, participants were more focused on the meaningful idea or concepts it depicted, making color less central to their interpretation of the logo. In contrast, when a logo was abstract, participants couldn’t immediately interpret its meaning, making color the most salient, and often only, understandable characteristic.

WHAT SHOULD YOUR BRAND DO?

To decide which direction is right for your business’s brand, start by asking: How do we want consumers to experience our product or service? What personality traits should come through?

If your brand aims to evoke bold or traditionally “negative” emotions, consider using a black background. On the other hand, if your goal is to create “positive” impressions use a white background.

Second, regardless of whether your brand is well-known or not, we recommend creating clear guidelines for how color is used in your visual identity. A brand guide can help you define when and why to use each version of your logo, based on the message you want to convey.

Color symbolism charts and guides are a helpful starting point, but they don’t capture the complexity of how color actually works in branding.

In the summer of 2018, a curious news story began to make the rounds on social media: Domino’s Pizza was filling potholes in towns across America, leaving a branded sticker on the freshly laid asphalt. The initiative, playfully named “Paving for Pizza,” was a practical response to a common nuisance — the potholes that can wreak havoc on cars, buses and yes, pizza deliveries.

Domino’s campaign earned the company more than 1 billion media impressions in its first eight months alone. The runaway success illustrates a new, underutilized approach to brand strategy.

According to surveys by PR giant Edelman, just 63% of consumers trust brands to do what is right, 46% say brands are not doing enough to address issues like climate change, yet 59% of consumers will pay more if the brand does good in the world.

Brands are thus in a bind — they must draw attention to themselves but be seen to be acting selflessly. To understand how to do this successfully, I studied more than 150 award-winning campaigns from the Cannes Lions (the preeminent marketing awards for “viral” marketing campaigns) between 2018 and 2023.

I developed a framework to guide brands in this endeavor, ensuring their campaigns not only exhibit heroism but also resonate effectively with their audience. The framework includes four necessary conditions to ensure the success of a hero campaign.

SEVERITY

Creating a hero campaign begins by identifying a problem in society that is severe enough for people to care about. The litmus test for identifying a sufficiently severe social or environmental issue is that consumers must view it as a genuine threat, either now or in the future.

EFFORT

Picture a superhero attempting to save the occupants of a burning house. They won’t be seen as a hero unless they do their absolute best to save the people inside — you can’t phone in efforts to “save the day.” Hero brands must similarly demonstrate determination and dedication to avoid being seen to be paying only lip service to their noble intentions.

AFFINITY

Affinity is a feeling of warmth, respect, or deep appreciation for an activity, idea, or object. A campaign with high affinity is viewed as relevant by the target audience, while a campaign with low affinity is seen as irrelevant.

The most common way to increase the affinity in a hero campaign is to position the brand as a justice seeker, challenging a powerful adversary in the name of change.

REACH

For a hero campaign to succeed, it needs to reach enough people. Two critical factors determine sufficient reach: public awareness of the social issue and the recognition of its negative impact on society.

Brands, like people, possess distinct personalities and seek admiration and recognition. However, like responsible citizens, brands need to introspect and ask, “How can I contribute meaningfully to society?” This marks the beginning of a journey where a brand transcends traditional marketing and branding paradigms to become a cherished and respected member of the community it serves.