Jaewon Jang
With controversy surrounding public figures and their brands, consumers must separate a product from its creator. Did purchasing a product translate to support of its source?
It is a strange feeling, owning a product in your possession that is undeniably well-made — solid in all the right ways, constructed from materials that speak of endurance and craftsmanship — while knowing it comes from a company led by someone whose reputation casts a long, unpleasant shadow.
When the owner is known for controversial behavior, careless statements and a polarizing public image, many find it difficult to separate the products from the brand itself. However, one must find a way to do so when the product itself is undeniably well-made.
The product remains untouched by that influence; it functions as promised — reliable and efficient — serving the buyer’s needs without fail. In moments like this, it becomes clear that purchasing a product is often a personal choice rooted in practicality rather than an endorsement of the individual behind it. You buy it for its value in your life — not to support, promote or align with the beliefs or image of its maker.
Take Tesla and Elon Musk. Musk, one of the world’s richest individuals, owns Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), Neuralink, xAI and The Boring Company.
Musk was appointed temporary head of the Department of Government Efficiency and currently serves under President Donald Trump. In this role, he can access government data systems, organize mass layoffs, cut climate change initiatives, scientific research and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to reduce federal spending.
Through these actions, Musk has begun to diminish his public image, tarnishing both his reputation and the companies he represents.
Teslas across America have been targets of vandalism, from broken windows to slashed tires. Musk’s actions have shaped public perception to the point where many people associate Tesla drivers with Musk supporters — an assumption that has no real basis.
Another prime example is Chick-fil-A. Their popularity continues to grow each year as new pre-teens, teenagers and even adults get hooked on their delicious food. From their relatively well-made chicken sandwiches, salads and macaroni and cheese, everyone loves Chick-fil-A. However, to put it firmly, every customer passes through the drive-through without questioning the company’s ethical track record.
Over the past few years, Chick-fil-A has donated millions of dollars to anti-LGBTQ and hate groups, according to The Task Force. Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, also made hostile remarks against marriage equality.
Employees working at Chick-fil-A have been fired because of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.
Different stories from different states all point back to the fact that the brand itself is accused of discriminatory practices. Despite this undeniable controversy and unethical behavior, customers still regularly go in and dine, not letting the brand’s image affect their opinion on the physical quality of their meal.
Despite the controversies surrounding Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, Yeezy products continue to stand out for their innovative design, comfort, and quality. The brand has consistently pushed the boundaries of fashion and footwear, with styles that appeal to a wide audience.
Ye, in past years, has posted various antisemitic comments across his social media platforms, which led to the loss of his deal with Adidas. These comments sparked widespread backlash. In late 2024, according to The New York Times, the sale of Adidas’s remaining Yeezy inventory generated about €50 million. Despite controversy, it boosted the company’s overall revenue to €5.97 billion, up 24% from a year earlier.
While Ye’s actions and statements may be polarizing, the craftsmanship and aesthetic appeal of Yeezy items remain highly regarded. It is important to separate the art from the artist and appreciate the products for their merit rather than dismissing them based on the figurehead behind the brand.
A product should be judged by its quality, not by the flaws of the person who created it. While companies may be owned by individuals with highly controversial beliefs and actions, a consumer’s purchase for personal benefit is not support for a company’s beliefs — it is a practical decision.
In the end, the value of a product should stand separate from its creator’s controversies. Consumers should not bear the moral weight of a company leader’s actions when their purchase is based on quality, reliability and, most of all, necessity. Condemning or vandalizing a product does little to challenge a powerful figure; it only harms everyday consumers who made a practical choice. While it’s important to hold public figures accountable, punishing consumers for their purchases blurs the line between protest and misplaced outrage. A Tesla, or any product, should be seen for what it is: a tool, not a political statement. Let quality speak louder than controversy.