Activism in the Marketplace

Introduction
With the increasing public awareness on Corporate Social Responsibility, firms havestarted utilizing their platforms and social influence for good causes such as advocating
political activism through advertisement campaigns or projects. Nevertheless, the advocacy
of some businesses are often criticized as performative or being profit-driven. Such
disapproving sentiments are not ungrounded, however, because the goal of firms and their
public engagements is to attract customers and turn their loyalty into sales.
Some believe that the commodification of social justice by firms, regardless of theirtrue intentions, empowers the movement as there are benefits and power that come withmedia visibility. However, how empowering is commodified activism, really, to the actual
movements themselves? It is to only a small degree, doing more harm than good, for threemain reasons: 1. inconsistency in business activities, 2. alterations of political scenes andmessages, and 3. giving a deceptive idea amongst people that buying self-proclaimed activist
brands’ products is enough activism.

Commodified Racism
In a capitalist, consumerist society, anything lucrative becomes a business item.
Consequently, there is inadequate compartmentalization between materials appropriate forcommodification and those that are not. Nike’s commodification of racism in recent years
epitomizes a multitude of detrimental effects marketplace activism has on the actual antiracism movement.
In September 2018, Nike revealed its new brand ambassador: Colin Kaepernick, aformer quarterback in the National Football League who boldly took a knee before the gameto protest against police brutality. Ostensibly, Nike appears to be supporting the anti-racism
movement and denouncing centuries of systemic oppression that has been disproportionately

affecting Black people. However, although Nike could be supporting the social cause
wholeheartedly, such appropriation of activism inescapably disrupts the course of the actual
movement within the society for several reasons.
Firstly, the extent to which Nike acknowledges its responsibility to tackle social
injustice as an established corporate in a capitalist society is questionable due to its unethicalbusiness practices. Nike’s factory practices are a manifestation of its low social
consciousness: in 1991, the atrocious realities of Nike’s factories— to which an American
labor activist equated a sweatshop — in developing countries were exposed to the public(“Nike sweatshops: inside the scandal”, 2019). Thus, a call for racial equality from businesses
like Nike carries more hypocrisy than sincerity.
Furthermore, Nike’s shallow, self-serving marketing misleads consumers into
believing they are actively tackling systemic anti-Blackness by wearing Nike products. In
other words, the advertisement “trivializes the urgency of the issues and it diminishes theseriousness” (Barenblat, 2018). Taking the recent Black Lives Matter (hereafter, BLM)
marches as an example, the rallies amid the pandemic would have been unnecessary if an act
as simple as wearing a Nike T-shirt could attain racial equality. Such a false notion generated
by Nike’s advertisements, in which “the tangible struggle of Black people” is commodified
and reduced to a “sellable symbolism”, that consumers are being effective allies results inthem forgetting that more practical work could be and should be done (Munoz, 2018).
In fact, with Kaepernick as its new face of the brand, Nike’s revenue and profit roseby 10 percent and 15 percent, respectively (Thomas, 2018). Had the brand supported theBLM movement in a non-profit-making manner, its advertisement would have met withpublic approval. Yet, Nike ultimately enriched itself by capitalizing on an issue that has been
terrorizing the Black community, thus hijacking— and not supporting— the movement.

Pepsi’s “Live for Now” commercial in 2017 starring Kendall Jenner is anotherexample of tone-deaf advertisements mindlessly equating a social movement to a mere
product. Pepsi illustrates its championship of the BLM movement, yet, similar to Nike,
Pepsi’s past controversial commercials undermine the authenticity of the support. For
example, an advertisement by Pepsi in 2013 was heavily criticized as it reinforced racist
stereotypes associated with Black people: high crime rates and violence. Knowing such ahistory of Pepsi, the “Live for Now” commercial must be taken with a grain of salt.
Additionally, the “Live For Now” advertisement provides an extremely simplified
image of protests. In it, Kendall Jenner eases the tension by “handing an officer a can ofPepsi, prompting cheers” (“Pepsi pulls Kendall”, 2017). Such a distorted commercial isproblematic, especially in the current social climate, as it trivializes the issue of— if notdenies the reality of— police brutality at protests. Numerous protesters at the recent BLM
marches have unreasonably gotten tear-gassed and rubber bullets fired at them, which isantithetical to the scene depicted by Pepsi. Thus, it is not hyperbolic to claim that thisadvertisement falsifies the reality of protests by reducing them to mere parades that can beended peacefully with a can of Pepsi. As a BLM activist’s comment on the advertisement
implies, it gives nothing but frustration to the protesters on whom the police are abusing theirpower: “If I had carried Pepsi, I guess I never would have gotten arrested. Who knew?”(“Pepsi pulls Kendall”, 2017).

Commodified Feminism
Along with anti-racism, gender equality is the most frequently branded political topic
by businesses (Jalakas, 2016). With the rise of women in their 20s and 30s as a dominantconsumer group, many advertisements have begun portraying women as empoweredindividuals rather than objects or commodities, and the term ‘femvertising’— which
SheKnows Media defines as the amalgam of ‘feminism’ and ‘advertising’— was coined.
Femvertisements are facing backlash, however, because the majority of the businesses
employing feminist messages are merely “jumping on the feminist bandwagon” for monetary
purposes, rather than making an effort to implement actual change (Tariq, 2018). Sarah
Banet-Weiser, a Media and Communication professor, expressed her concern on ouroverreliance on femvertisements as a means to achieve gender equality: “It’s difficult to see
how feminist advertising is committed to structural change, since the appeal is to individual
women rather than a collective movement” (Curtis, 2018).
Dove is one of the businesses that joined the trend of femvertising by releasing anadvertising campaign, called “Real Beauty”, to spread the message of self-love. Although thecampaign was met with positive press, criticisms soon followed for negatively affecting theactual endeavors for equality.
One of the criticisms Dove received was that as a cosmetics brand selling female
beauty products and capitalizing on women’s insecurities, Dove is in no position to shine alight on body positivity and self-love. Furthermore, Dove sharing its parent company with
Axe, whose advertisements had been heavily criticized for sexism, makes the message
unclear. It is the performative activism like “Real Beauty” that is toxic to feminist advances;in Banet-Wieser’s words, “femvertising plays no role in the fight for women’s equality if thecompany doesn’t live up to feminist ideals… they’re redefining the meaning of feminism in adangerous way — diminishing it to a tagline and dumbing it down to a hashtag” (Curtis,
2018).
Dove’s “Real Beauty” is an impediment to women’s empowerment for two main
reasons. Firstly, buying its products has no meaningful impact on progress. Regardless of its
principles, as a profit-driven business, Dove unavoidably reinforces and glorifies impracticalbody image and maintains “female body dissatisfaction” so that its products are in demand(Jalakas, 2016). Thus, consuming the products of self-proclaimed feminist brands like Doveis unhelpful for not only feminism itself, but also feminists who strive to liberate womenfrom toxic beauty ideals.
Secondly, such capitalization of women’s empowerment encourages feminist
consumerism, wherein female consumers subconsciously equate empowerment to commodity
purchases, reestablishing “the same societal constructs that feminism is against” (Patrick,2014). Despite these drawbacks, businesses continue to adhere to empowertising or
femvertising because, simply, feminism sells. Dove’s “Real Beauty”, in fact, brought about asales growth from $2.5 billion to $4 billion, and this explains why the vicious cycle, in whichbrands do little to no actual work to implement change but consumers still willingly purchasetheir products, cannot be terminated (Curtis, 2018).
The selling of International Women’s Day (hereafter, IWD) T-shirts by Net-a-Porter
is another example of how commodified activism ruins the nature of the actual movement.
One of the most harmful aspects of activism commercialization is the modification of thepolitical message(s) the movement embodies. Marketplace feminism is constantly “watereddown and defanged” to become marketable and non-threatening (Rottenberg, 2019). As Lisa
Jalakas astutely puts, “a feminism used for the purpose to sell will always be adjusted toexactly that: selling… this results in a weakened and partly depoliticised version of theideology, simply because the feminism in advertising does not have a political purpose— but
a commercial one” (Jalakas, 2016).
Together with softened faux feminism, Net-a-Porter’s IWD apparel deceives
consumers that they are active feminists. The selling of such T-shirts is well-intentioned.
However, it should be realized that simply wearing a T-shirt that says “I am her” or “Divine

Feminine” does not make them the vanguards of feminist advances; rather, they become selfsatisfied and complacent, believing the clothes they bought promise gender equality.
Furthermore, Net-a-Porter has failed to notice that by pushing its agenda for feminist
advocacy, it is risking the exacerbation of other issues such as “consumerism, sweatshop
labor, and a worsening environmental footprint” (Vo, 2018). Simultaneously, encouraging
purchases of quasi-feminist apparel without calling attention to the exploited female workers
who made them not only is hypocritical and opportunistic of the brand but also does not help
dismantle sexist systems, consequently making feminism “only last as long as a fashionseason” (Jalakas, 2016).

A Model Approach to Brand Activism
While brand activism seems unsuitable for a capitalist market, Ben & Jerry’s provides
an excellent example of how brands should approach and achieve social advocacy. The ice
cream brand has an undeniably long history of political activism. Since 1985, the founders of
Ben & Jerry’s have donated 7.5% of annual profits to various community organizations in the
United States— which equates to annual donations of 1.8 million dollars, excluding thethousands of dollars Ben & Jerry’s Foundation has funded for progressive causes (“How Ben& Jerry’s Incorporates”, n.d.).
Ben & Jerry's does more than simply donating. In fact, one of the founders of thebrand participated in protests against “money in politics” and went so far as to getting
arrested (Ziady, 2020). Furthermore, Ben & Jerry's stays vocal on social media as well,giving perennial attention to social issues. These consistent efforts are what makes Ben &Jerry’s brand activism feel genuine; although its advertisements generate profit, it promotes
products to raise awareness for social issues rather than the brand itself.

Positive Effects of Activism Commodification

While the commodification of activism is harmful to the progression of the actual
movement, its merits must be acknowledged. For example, increased media exposure
accentuates the ongoing state of social injustice. Also, such commercials are an effective
introduction to activism for youths, as “popular culture can lower the threshold to politicalengagement” (Jalakas, 2016). Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz, a feminist activist, acknowledges
the power of advertisements by commenting, “when activism infiltrates advertising… it has
the chance of awakening an interest in someone, somewhere” (Jalakas, 2016).
Additionally, with the initiative taken by Nike, an environment in which otherbusinesses can follow suit is promoted; they are encouraged to get involved in raisingawareness and advocating social causes. Increased media visibility achieved by Dove andNet-a-Porter’s commercials have certainly shone a positive light on feminism, which often istaboo in many Asian countries.

Conclusion
In a capitalist context, “to consume is also to act politically” (Sturken, 2012).
Consequently, consumers show “more loyalty to brands that go beyond providing them withjust a product and advocate for the same values they hold” (Hodge, 2020). There areadvantages to commodifying activism, yet they do not outweigh the harm it simultaneously
inflicts, for “visibility filtered through capitalism does not necessarily further the cause”(Bianco, 2016).
As the examples of Nike, Pepsi, Dove and Net-a-Porter show, activism has been
“incorporated and reshaped by the power of capitalism”— many businesses commodify
political movements or activism under the cloak of solidarity and advocacy (Jalakas, 2016).
The dire consequences of performative activism are not limited to encouraging people to“express their solidarity not through struggle or protest, but by shopping” (Rottenberg, 2019).

Beyond that, such tokenism desensitizes people to rampant social issues and makes
exploitative systems unidentifiable.
For these reasons, the commodification of activism is empowering to the actual
movement to only a small extent. Knowing that “the best way to constrain the power of asocial movement is to commodify it”, we do not need racial or gender-inclusive
advertisements anymore; what we truly need is an increased racial and gender diversity inbusiness offices andboard meetings (Bianco, 2016). Statistics show that female creative directors in advertisingaccount for only 11 percent of the entire profession, and reveal the wage discrepancies
between races and genders— meaning on the other end of every empowertising campaign,
there exist exploitations of minorities (Cohen, 2017). We need to be aware of what goes onbehind the scene of the commercials by self-proclaimed activist brands that outwardly
demand equality.

Bibliography
Barenblat, Ayesha. 2018. “Let’s Push Back On Brands Commodifying Social Justice
Movements.” Remake, September 28, 2018. https://remake.world/stories/news/%ef%bb%bflets-push-back-on-brands-commodifying-social-justice-movements/ (accessed June 30, 2020)
Bianco, Marcie. 2016. “We sold feminism to the masses, and now it means nothing.” Quartz,
May 27, 2016. https://qz.com/692535/we-sold-feminism-to-the-masses-and-now-itmeans-nothing/ (accessed June 1, 2020)
Cohen, David. 2017. “Only 11 Percent of Creative Directors Are Women and Pinterest
Wants Right the Ratio.” adweek, August 24, 2017. https://www.adweek.com/digit
al/pinterest-right-the-ratio/ (accessed June 3, 2020)

Curtis, Cara. 2018. “‘Femvertising’ does nothing for feminism.” The Next Web, December
19, 2018. https://thenextweb.com/opinion/2018/12/19/femvertising-does-nothing-forfeminism/ (accessed June 3, 2020)
Hodge, Ann. 2020. “The Advantages & Perils of Brand Activism.” Instapage, January 3,
2020. https://instapage.com/blog/what-is-brand-activism (accessed June 3, 2020)“How Ben & Jerry’s Incorporates Social Responsibility Through Conscious Capitalism.”
ChuckJoe, n.d. https://www.chuckjoe.co/how-ben-and-jerrys-incorporates-socialresponsibility-through- conscious-capitalism/ (accessed June 3, 2020)
Jalakas, Lisa. (2016). The ambivalence of #femvertising (213). Retrieved from http://lup.l
ub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8872529&fileOId=8881266. (accessed June 30, 2020)
Munoz, Jazmine. 2018. “The Commodification of Activism.” Berkeley Political Review,
November 1, 2018. https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2018/11/01/the-commodification-ofactivism/ (accessed June 3,2020)“Nike sweatshops: inside the scandal.” New Idea, November 15, 2019. https://www.newidea.com.au/nike-sweatshops-the-truth-about-the-nike-factory-scandal (accessed Jun
e 3, 2020)
Patrick, Sylvian. 2014. “The ugly face of Feminist Consumerism.” medium, October 27,
2014. https://medium.com/sylvianism/the-ugly-face-of-feminist-consumerism307469f09252 (accessed June 3, 2020)“Pepsi pulls Kendall Jenner advert amid outcry.” BBC, April 5, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39509419 (accessed June 5, 2020)
Rottenberg, Catherine. 2019. “Commodifying women’s rights.” Al Jazeera, March 8, 2019.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/3/8/commodifying-womens-rights(accessed June 5,2020)

Sturken, M. (2012). 'Foreword'. In Mukjerjee, R, & Banet-Weiser, S. (2012) Commodity
Activism: Cultural resistance in neoliberal times. New York: New York University Press, pp ix-xi
Tariq, Reia. 2018. “More Than Just a Slogan: The Commercialization of Protest.” Pro Tem,
March 29, 2018. https://www.protemgl.com/articles/more-than-just-a-slogan-thecommercialization-of-protests (accessed June 5, 2020)
Thomas, Lauren. 2018. “Nike shares fall despite earnings beat and 15 percent profit growth.”
CNBC, September 25, 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/nike-q1-2019earnings.html (accessed June 5, 2020)
Vo, Anna. 2018. “When capitalism meets activism.” Adolescent, July 20, 2018. https://www.adolescent.net/a/lets-talk-the-capitalization-of-activism (accessed June 5, 2020)
Ziady, Hanna. 2020. “Ben & Jerry’s statement on white supremacy is so extraordinary.” CNN
Business, June 5, 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/03/business/ben--jerrysgeorge-floyd/index.html (accessed June 3, 2020)