Tesla vs SpaceX: Brand Risk Depends on Exposure.
Consumer Volatility vs. Government Contracts
In 2025, both Tesla and SpaceX experienced reputational decline tied to Elon Musk’s political profile. Tesla dropped from near the top of the Axios Harris Poll rankings to 95th place, while SpaceX fell into the mid-80s.
Tesla’s customer loyalty in the U.S. plunged from 73% in mid-2024 to under 50% by March 2025, recovering slightly to ~57% by May. (Reuters) SpaceX, with its B2G/B2B client base, remains less exposed, its contracts and reputation buffered from immediate consumer sentiment swings. (Axios/Harris)
Product Safety Visibility Shapes Perception
Tesla’s reputation is also more vulnerable because every safety issue plays out in public. Recalls, accidents, and even politicized vandalism incidents in 2025 became visible symbols of the brand’s fragility. SpaceX faces technical failures too, launch delays, rocket explosions, but these occur within a context of engineering difficulty, not daily consumer use. Public tolerance is higher when risk is expected.
This difference explains why Tesla’s stumbles cut more deeply into trust, while SpaceX retains admiration for its technical achievements even as its reputation metrics fluctuate.
CEO Spillover Hits Consumers Harder
Elon Musk’s political endorsements and polarizing public presence create direct commercial consequences for Tesla. JPMorgan cut Tesla’s 2025 earnings forecast, calling it “unprecedented brand damage” driven by CEO spillover effects (FT).
For SpaceX, Musk’s leadership style is part of the narrative but not the purchase decision. Governments and corporate partners weigh reliability and capability above personal politics. The asymmetry is structural: Tesla buyers can walk away when sentiment shifts, while SpaceX operates in long-term contract cycles that blunt immediate fallout.
Strategic Consequence for Leaders
The comparison underlines a broader principle: brand risk is uneven across portfolios depending on exposure, visibility, and leadership dependency. Tesla shows how fragile consumer trust can be when leadership controversies intersect with product visibility. SpaceX shows that B2B/B2G models buffer volatility but are not immune to reputational decline.
For leaders managing multi-brand portfolios, the lesson is to design resilience mechanisms matched to exposure: governance and product reliability in consumer markets, and stakeholder alignment in institutional markets.
Bottom Line
Tesla and SpaceX are both admired innovators but face reputational volatility from the same CEO. The difference lies in exposure.
Tesla’s consumer-facing model magnifies every controversy into sales risk, while SpaceX’s government and corporate contracts provide insulation.
The strategic takeaway is clear: leaders must assess not just brand strength but where and how reputational shocks will land across their portfolio.
