Will Johnson is managing director of BAV Consulting, part of the Young & Rubicam Group. Michael D’Antonio is author of Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success.

If Donald Trump is nothing else, he’s an American brand. The Trump name adorns luxury condominiums, hotels and golf courses around the world; it has sold a TV show, millions of books, a line of cologne and even, briefly, an airline.

And that brand, according to new data published here in Politico Magazine for the first time, is taking a major hit in the wake of his presidential campaign.


Trump has built his distinctive trademark over the course of decades in public life, turning his own wealth, glamorous lifestyle and personality into emblems of his multi-billion dollar company through endless self-promotion. Trump considers this reputation alone a hugely significant part of his business: Financial documents the candidate released earlier this year set the value of his company’s “deals, brand and branded developments” at $3 billion, which makes his name the single most significant item in his portfolio. Trump’s brand was also his first great advantage as a presidential candidate, giving him name recognition and the gloss of success that even a Bush might envy.

But as Trump the candidate has ascended, hitting the top of the polls and staying there thanks to a series of controversial statements and a groundswell of Republican populist support, the opposite has happened to Trump the brand: Among the people Trump’s business depends on—the consumer making over $100,000 a year—the value of the Trump name is collapsing.

A December survey of American consumer opinion, fielded by the BAV Consulting division of advertising and marketing giant Young & Rubicam (and the largest and longest running study of brands in the world), found that since Donald Trump’s run for president, the Trump brand has lost the confidence of the people who can afford to stay at one of his hotels, play at one of his country clubs or purchase a home in one of his developments. It is also rapidly losing its association with the gilded traits Trump has long promoted as the essence of his business.

In categories such as “prestigious,” “upper class” and “glamorous” the Trump name has plummeted among high-income consumers. Within the same group, it is also losing its connection with the terms “leader,” “dynamic” and “innovative”—quite a blow for a man who criticizes others for being “low energy” and considers himself an industry trailblazer. The brand has been a survey subject for BAV Consulting’s regular surveys for over a decade and has never before experienced such a precipitous drop in reputation. It’s the kind of change that usually follows a big corporate scandal, like a product recall or financial misconduct. But in Trump’s case it’s a man’s personality that is in play.

The billionaire Trump might brush off complaints about his politics; he might even shrug off short-term commercial losses. But this plunge in brand status would be seen as a crisis in the offices of any major consumer-oriented company. Public companies often claim losses in net worth when customers turn against them because of a public relations disaster; they call it a decline in “goodwill.” As a private corporation, the Trump Organization is not obligated to report any such a decline—or to report it accurately—but any CEO will tell you that a brand deterioration like this is likely to have a significant financial impact, affecting sales, borrowing and even efforts to attract high quality employees.

The first visible signs of the commercial cost associated with Trump’s extreme politics came after his inflammatory comments about undocumented Mexican immigrants, which he made as he announced his candidacy last June. NBC quickly dumped him as host of Celebrity Apprentice, a gig that netted him millions of dollars per year. Univision, Macy’s, Serta and others began unwinding marketing relationships with him. More recently, real estate partners have talked of taking his name off developments, and a home furnishings retailer in the Middle East took Trump products off display. In Vancouver, 50,000 people have petitioned to prevent the brand name from decorating a skyscraper under construction.

Less visible, but no less important, are hits Trump has taken among his target consumer base: the luxury, or “aspirational” market of those making over $100,000 a year. The wealthiest respondents in the BAV survey—those with incomes over $150,000—judge Trump the harshest of any income bracket. In this group, as measured by BAV’s consumer opinion index, Trump’s reputation for being “obliging” and “upper class” has declined by more than 50 percent since the outset of the campaign, followed by “leader” (with a 41 percent decline) and “prestigious” (down by 39 percent). The next lower income level—households making between $100,000 and $150,000—wasn’t much kinder, with a 56 percent decline for “obliging,” a 45 percent decline in “prestigious” and a 38 percent drop for “upper class.”

Even the one notable upward spike in Trump traits—the wealthiest view the Trump brand as 65 percent more “traditional” than they did when the trait was measured before the campaign—points to commercial trouble. Although Trump’s political loyalists might cheer his standing as a traditional figure, this quality is not a good thing for a business seeking to sell glamour and luxury. In commercial terms, other products that are deemed “traditional” are the canned meat product Spam and Idaho potatoes.

In interviews we conducted before the campaign, Trump’s children, who work in his companies, acknowledged that their father is the brand and that he will dominate its marketing for the rest of his days. “He became synonymous with success and aspiration,” noted daughter Ivanka. “That is still at the core of what the brand is today.”

But the challenge of a brand future clouded by his father’s polarizing views was on Donald Trump. Jr.’s mind in 2014, long before his father declared his run for president. “If you’re asking, ‘Do I think that he knows he’s a polarizing guy?’ Yes. The answer is 100-percent,” Donald Jr. said. “He will be out there, and he will question these things in a way that you don’t see anyone doing today—or certainly not anyone that has a brand. … There could be potentially ramifications to his business for taking these stances.”

How serious will these ramifications be? We might never know: As head of a privately held company, free of financial obligations to shareholders, Donald Trump has no reason to disclose the financial hit he takes due to his controversial campaign. Still, it’s worth noting that these kinds of blows can be massive: During the dot-com crash, firms that fell from grace took multi-billion dollar “goodwill” write-offs. AOL noted a $99 billion loss in goodwill. Worldcom’s was $45 billion.

Donald Trump, as a 69-year-old whose fortune is counted in the billions, will very likely remain wealthy and comfortable—a success as he defines it—for the rest of his days. But those like his children who may have counted on the brand to sustain them further into the future cannot be so certain.

Then again, they could move into the part of the consumer market where no real damage has been done. Perhaps a Trump brand of smokes, or maybe canned meat?