A Pessimistic Public Is Holding Companies Responsible for Genuine Cost Increases

Our Q3 2026 research finds the Informed General Public (IGP) holds companies responsible for rising prices, even when they're passing on genuine cost increases. This finding comes as the IGP's economic outlook remains pessimistic, with 43% expecting their national economy to get worse.

For companies facing their own cost pressures, that raises a hard corporate communications question: if explaining a cost increase shows why a price went up, how does a company show it handled the increase fairly?

Our data suggests the answer lies beyond explaining the cost. 

People hold a company passing on a genuine cost increase slightly less responsible than one raising prices for profit, but most still hold it responsible. Competitors can point to the same costs, so the explanation sets no one apart. What a company can show on its own terms is fairness in how it raised the price and value in what the customer still gets. 

Below, we look at what the research shows on each, and how to test which argument works with your customers.

Nine in ten hold companies at least partly responsible, even for genuine cost increases

Our Q3 2026 Current Events research, fielded with the IGP between June and August 2026, asked how responsible six possible causes are for rising consumer prices. One of them grants that the costs are real: companies passing on genuine increases in their own costs. Even so, 43% call those companies completely responsible and another 46% somewhat responsible. Just 5% say they bear no responsibility at all.

There's a fair counter-reading: Genuine cost pass-through ranks last of the six causes, eight points below companies raising prices to grow their profits (51%). So passing on a genuine cost increase does lower how many hold a company completely responsible. Four in ten still do.

Responsibility for rising prices is spread across every cause we tested. Between 89% and 92% rated each of the six at least somewhat responsible. Global conflicts drew 51% completely responsible, higher energy, raw material and labor costs 50%, and government policy 48%.

That spread matters for anyone planning a price rise. Pointing to an underlying cost adds a second party to blame, and the company stays on the list. Respondents rate the cost itself completely responsible at 50% and the company passing it on at 43%.

It also means the cost explanation gives no company an edge. Every company facing higher energy, material or labor costs can point to them, and the public already holds those costs responsible. What separates one company from another is how it handles the increase.

Fairness and value are the arguments a cost explanation can't make

A cost explanation shows why the price went up, but it also leaves two judgments open: whether the company was fair in how it raised the price, and whether the product is still worth paying for.

Two RepTrak factors provide a useful lens on those judgments. "Is fair in the way it does business" is one of three factors under Conduct. "Good value products and services" is one of four under Products & Services. Our model measures how people see a company on each.

Value carries particular weight. When our Q2 2026 research asked what contributes to value outside of price, the most common answer was a product meeting needs well, chosen by 54%. The same research found good value products and services among the top three factors shaping reputation in most markets.

Each factor suggests a different message. A fairness-led notice shows how the decision was made: what changed, by how much, and, where it's true, what the company absorbed before passing anything on. A value-led notice leads with what the product still delivers for the price. Both can include the cost reason, and neither leads with it.

Which to lead with depends on the audience. RepTrak's importance weights estimate how much each factor shapes reputation for a given stakeholder group and market. They point to the perception that matters more to a company's customers. A test shows which message moves it.

Test the argument before you commit to it

Passing on a genuine cost increase makes people hold a company slightly less responsible, and most still hold it responsible. The public already holds the cost itself responsible, and it still judges how the company handled the increase. Whether a fairness-led or value-led message does better than a cost-led one is a hypothesis our data raises and doesn't settle.

Lead price-change communication with the argument your customers weight most, fairness or value, and treat that choice as a hypothesis until you've tested it.

Before the next price change, split existing customers into three randomly assigned groups and send each a different email notice. One leads with the cost, one with fairness and one with value, with everything else held constant. Measure how each group rates the company on fairness and value before the notice and after it.

Read the result for that audience and that market. A message that works with one customer base may carry differently to another.

How RepTrak helps

RepTrak's importance weights show which perceptions matter most to your customers, market by market. Our tracking measures how those customers see your fairness and value before and after a price change. That shows whether different communications are associated with different outcomes, alongside what they do to sales.

If a price change is on your roadmap, talk to us about measuring how it lands.