Don’t Buy Corporate America’s Cheap Activism

The shaving company Gillette was bombarded with both praise and criticism this year for launching a campaign condemning toxic masculinity and supporting the #MeToo movement. The company released a short film in January, making a connection between the “boys will be boys” attitude, taught at a young age, and sexual harassment towards women. They also increased their representation of non-cisgender people in their advertisements. In May, they posted a video featuring transgender artist Samson Bonkeabantu Brown shaving for the first time with his father. These videos marked a clear shift in the company’s branding that traditionally catered to Western norms of masculinity, with advertisements calling their male consumers “all the world’s rulers” and “strong-limbed supermen.” Although Gillette received positive feedback for challenging gender norms, especially from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, the company lost $8 billion dollars because a large percentage of their male viewers perceived their campaign as a “pathetic global assault on masculinity.” In response to the backlash, Gillette refocused their campaign from social issues to local heroes, showcasing the stories of men like Ben the Aussie Firefighter.

Gillette’s rebranding strategy exemplifies the growing phenomenon, termed “woke capitalism,” of corporations capitalizing on popular social justice movements to attract Millenials and members of Generation Z. Over the past decade, companies that once espoused conservative values are now making controversial attempts to appear socially conscious: Pepsi released a now-removed video of Kendall Jenner ending a protest with a soda, Nike launched a campaign supporting athletes like Colin Kaepernick who advocate for racial equality, and Keurig pulled its ads from Sean Hannity’s television show after he defended the alleged sexual predator Roy Moore. This marketing shift is misleading because it creates the false impression that corporate America is embracing progressive values, when in reality, companies are designing campaigns intended to elicit emotionally charged reactions, both positive and negative, for increased online publicity. 

Marketing executives recognize that the buzz surrounding a polarizing issue can be turned into profit even if it receives backlash. When people create a viral Twitter hashtag calling for a boycott of a company, they inadvertently bring the brand more publicity than any advertisement could draw. After Nike released the video featuring Kaepernick, some people, outraged by the endorsement of this controversial athlete, posted videos of themselves destroying their Nike shoes with the hashtag #burnyournikes. Once this short-lived boycott petered out, the online traction Nike gained from Kaepernick’s feature increased the company’s value by $6 billion. 

Consumers commending companies like Nike for being “woke” are succumbing to corporate America’s strategy of using progressive messaging to draw attention away from their unethical practices and profit-driven motives. Gillette promotes gender equality but charges more for women’s razors; Nike advocates for equality but not for their sweatshop workers; and, Pepsi, pandering to climate change activists, is the top contributor to single-use plastic pollution. If the public excessively concerns itself with the social stances of corporations, focus is drawn away from their discriminatory and immoral business behavior. Our attention should be given to assessing the actions of companies not their words online.

Companies’ social media usage is the most significant and problematic component of “woke capitalism” because they can disguise their intent to sell a product with progressive rhetoric. The Gillette feature of Samson is labeled as a short film, a work of art, rather than a commercial. The title of the advertisement does not even mention Gillette and only focuses on the transgender man’s powerful story—he just happens to be using their razor. The Pepsi commercial, dramatically titled “Live for Now,” resembles a video of a political interest group instead of a soda company. The shot of Kendall Jenner offering a can of Pepsi to a police officer models this photograph of Ieshia Evans, a black woman who stood up to the police during a protest against police brutality. Rather than focus on the drink itself, the distasteful video draws deceptive associations between social justice movements and the Pepsi brand. 

Corporations are also creating distinct social media personas for their brands to appear as real people, not profit-driven companies. The most notable example of this marketing strategy is fast food companies using their Twitter accounts to model people or caricatures that relate and engage with young adults online. The Wendy’s Twitter account, currently followed by 3.41 million people, has roasted its followers, held a Reddit “Ask Us Anything,” and even inspired anime-style fan art of their mascot. The personal connection that Wendy’s fosters with consumers through social media may seem harmless. But their online behavior, modeling that of a real person, can make their account appear indistinguishable from people’s online friends. The dangerous consequence of users viewing companies’ accounts as individuals, rather than as large corporations, is that they will be less critical of their unethical behavior because they develop a personal, idealized connection to the brand. 

The representation of people from minority groups is important; supporting survivors of sexual harassment, sharing stories from the transgender community, and celebrating activists like Kaepernick constitute righteous messages. However, these advertisements reflect positive ideals, not actual corporate social action. As consumers, we should not be disillusioned to thinking that Gillette is committed to promoting gender equality or that Nike is combating police brutality. Young people like me, who have grown up with the internet, often subconsciously conflate companies with campaigns related to social issues. We must be critically aware of this tendency when we scroll through our timelines. If we allow ourselves to buy into corporate America’s cheap activism, we will fail to hold them accountable.