Katy Perry Hurting Her Brand?

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

I was watching Katy Perry's performance at Hillary's rally last night and it got me thinking, is Katy hurting her brand by being polarizing as of late? I know she supported Obama in the past but this election is different because of Trump and VERY polarizing. Like not only is she not supporting Trump, but she's backing Hillary (sidenote: I back Hillary as well). Many artists are supporting Hillary, but the majority of these artists have already been polarizing (Madonna, Gaga, Beyonce). Katy's brand has really thrived on being family friendly pop for everyone. Just like Taylor Swift's. And guess who hasn't endorsed a candidate yet...hmmm? 

And speaking of Taylor Swift, Katy's rivalry with Swift in the years following the Prism era has also contributed to her polarization. 

 

So what does this mean for Katy Perry and the KP4 era? Perhaps nothing. But we did see "Rise" fall. 

Trump supporters aren't happy:

 

 

 

And even Jill Stein supporters

 

 

Personally, I like Katy Perry more than I did 3 years ago. But I love polarizing figures when they lean my way. 

[GagaIsDope 679]

It makes me respect her a little. Just a little.

[monketsharona 80,710]

On the News Broadcast (on the biggest French channel) they talked about her performance saying she was 'out of vocal habilities' 

[Killa 17,461]

All i know is that Rise plays more on my radio than PI and it's a total flop for Olympics only. I doubt it, it kinda gives her a bit of a mature side, but then when she releases the relatable music is what it counts. It hurts more her making a fool at herself next to Dolly Parton. That and the fact that she sings worse then ever

[AndyDWUW 3,971]

She's voicing her opinion just as any other celebrity can

- Her brand doesn't really relate to conservative-republican views, so she won't lose a lot 

- And as for losing trump supporters, that's a good thing for all fanbases 

[Runway 27,876]

Her fourth album will flop just like all the other pop girls  fourth albums

[RAMROD 109,386]

Well politics are one of those subject besides race and religion that always risky to be discussed, especially by public figures cos the time when they choose side openly and vocally, is the time when they already realize what they will lose.

So, yes she might hurt her brand but if she already accepts thT she will lose some supporter then more power to her.

Personally, I it is not my favorite moment when famous people talk about politics, very off putting, regardless of parties they are siding with.

Talk about social stuffs are great though, like awareness to global warming, domestic violence, poverty, and such, but the time they start to encourage people to side with particular person, I'll steer clear from that subject from them.

[kupo 201]

People are constantly boycotting any time a celeb does literally any little thing they don't like or agree with.

The vast majority of Katy's casual fans probably have no idea she's campaigning for Hillary. For those that do, most probably won't care or will have forgotten about it in a few weeks when the hurt feelings over the election begin to simmer down.

The "impact" this will have on her won't even register.

[Luc 4,775]

No. Katy's mainly supported by young people, females and LGBT. Those are all likely to be Hillary supporters.

Next to that, not supporting Hillary could actually disenthuse her core demographies like with Taylor. It's good to be polarising if it means that your existing fans will like you even more and that you might gain more fans from your core audience.

 

It's like a country act supporting a Republican - not gonna hurt that person, only makes that person more relatable and their fans more passionate for their core audience.

 

 

and of course the only people that see this are Katy's big fans (who either already support Katy or aren't going to stop supporting Katy for something like this) and Hillary fans. She's gonna gain from this.

[AJH219 4,448]

1 hour ago, RAMROD said:

Well politics are one of those subject besides race and religion that always risky to be discussed, especially by public figures cos the time when they choose side openly and vocally, is the time when they already realize what they will lose.

So, yes she might hurt her brand but if she already accepts thT she will lose some supporter then more power to her.

Personally, I it is not my favorite moment when famous people talk about politics, very off putting, regardless of parties they are siding with.

Talk about social stuffs are great though, like awareness to global warming, domestic violence, poverty, and such, but the time they start to encourage people to side with particular person, I'll steer clear from that subject from them.

Its interesting you're okay with celebrities speaking out on social issues but not something as taboo as politics when politics and the other issues you mentioned literally are inseparable.  

[River 116,440]

nah, people forget too quickly...

[President Biden 5,898]

Jill has 10 votes so he supporters are irrelevant 

 

Every pop star and celebrity supports Hillary so I don't think so. For once Hollywood has a mind and doesn't support mysoganistic bigots. TG Katy is helping promote Hillary. Youth listen to pop stars a whole lot and this should help Hillary. Hillary is using people like Katy and Bernie so millennial aren't afraid of supporting ha

[RAMROD 109,386]

12 minutes ago, AJH219 said:

Its interesting you're okay with celebrities speaking out on social issues but not something as taboo as politics when politics and the other issues you mentioned literally are inseparable.  

 

It can be separable, anyway, celebs that very vocal about a candidate are almost always in it for a reason, rather that just mere supports, some are lobbying these politicians for their own agenda, and they of course have to promote these candidate heavily so they actually can be US1 hence ensuring their agenda getting green lighted.

[AJH219 4,448]

Just now, RAMROD said:

 

It can be separable, anyway, celebs that very vocal about a candidate are almost always in it for a reason, rather that just mere supports, some are lobbying these politicians for their own agenda, and they of course have to promote these candidate heavily so they actually can be US1 hence ensuring their agenda getting green lighted.

Things like global warming, human rights, poverty etc etc will never be solved without political figures stepping in...no matter how we'd like to think otherwise. And of course people support specific candidates to push their own agendas, I don't think anyone is doing it out the goodness of their hearts 

[RAMROD 109,386]

1 minute ago, AJH219 said:

 And of course people support specific candidates to push their own agendas, I don't think anyone is doing it out the goodness of their hearts 

 

That is exactly why I dislike it when famous people seems eager promoting someone, makes me feel like a pawn for their bidding. Especially when I don't know or disagree anout their personal agenda.