Top: TOMS | Jeans: Reformation | Boots: TOMS
This year more than ever, brands are getting political. And people are talking about it. The event that stands out in my mind as the beginning of this movement is Teen Vogue publishing their “Donald Trump Is Gaslighting America” article in 2016. I was shocked to see this article coming from Teen Vogue, a magazine that I grew up reading for its fashion, beauty & celebrity content. At the same time I was pleasantly surprised. Following the release of this article Teen Vogue began sharing much more meaningful content, which even educated me (someone who thinks I know almost everything because I read the skimm & the morning brew every day) on important topics like the unique experiences of women of color, cultural appropriation, and inspiring people in politics. I’m not sure if Teen Vogue sparked a shift, or if I became much more aware of brands who made ‘political’ statements, but I remember the day this article was published incredibly clearly.
This Fall — another election season — some other big name companies got in on the action. Nike’s Colin Kaepernick “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” ad celebrating the 30th anniversary of “just do it” is likely the most notable. Though some people took to social media burning their Nike gear, and their stock dropped a sizable amount in the few days after the campaign went live, Nike ended up earning $6 billion. Kneeling during the national anthem was one of the most talked about and polarizing topics at the time the ad was released, and Nike definitely capitalized on the opportunity to join that conversation. Another company who started a political conversation was Ben & Jerry’s. Not a company at all related to fashion but we all love ice cream so… Ben & Jerry’s has long advocated for the environment, political participation, and human rights. Their twitter is definitely representative of their corporate social activism. I don’t go on twitter often, but when I do it’s to see what fun articles Ben & Jerry’s shares. On October 30th, only a week before election day, Ben & Jerry’s released a new ice cream flavor called “pecan resist”. Not only do proceeds form Pecan Resist go to organizations like Women’s March, Neta, Honor the Earth, and Color of Change, but the company also directly called out their disagreement with Donald Trump’s actions in the ice cream’s description:
“Alongside all those nutty chunks, this pint packs a powerful message under its lid: together, we can build a more just and equitable tomorrow. We can peacefully resist the Trump https://www.acteevism.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/pexels-jess-loiterton-9269202-scaled-1.webpistration’s regressive and discriminatory policies and build a future that values inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, refugees, and immigrants. Pecan Resist supports four organizations that are working on the front lines of the peaceful resistance, building a world that supports their values”
Though Ben & Jerry’s had made explicitly political statements before, this is definitely the most direct they have ever been.
Just a few weeks ago a brand very close to my heart made a big statement about possibly the most polarizing issues in the United States. 10 days after the mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, TOMS announced they would be expanding their giving model to support the most important causes of today, starting with ending gun violence. TOMS has donated $5 million to organizations fighting for change including the Everytown for Gun Safety, Faith in Action, March for Our Lives, and Moms Demand Action. On the homepage of the TOMS website you can fill out your information and TOMS will send a physical postcard to your representative in D.C. asking for universal background checks. A banner at the bottom of their homepage reads: “In such divided times, it can be hard to remember that we agree on the most basic human issues. All of us deserve access to education, safe water, a place to call home, and a pair of shoes. And none of us want to live in fear of gun violence. Today we take our first stand on an issue that unites us all. Because the only way forward on the issues that matter is together”. I was so moved by this campaign in general, and by the fact that a company that will forever hold a special place in my heart took a leap of faith by joining the conversation about gun violence, that I legitimately started crying when I showed my mom TOMS’ updated website the day after the launch. I quickly bought these boots (which I’d had my eye on since I saw the samples this summer) and bought this tee (which features one of my intern-turned-full-time-employee friends as a model) to show my support. So in case you couldn’t tell from the photos accompanying this blog post (or the fact that I worked for TOMS this summer and take every opportunity to mention that (or this incredibly long paragraph)) I am in full support of TOMS’s #EndGunViolenceTogether campaign. That being said, I don’t support every single brand that does something like this.
Though getting political can be harmful for business (like Nike’s initial stock tank), it can also be a huge draw for business (Nike’s $6 billion). Decisions like these get the company in the news and on the minds of consumers. With all of that considered, I take these decisions very seriously. It is incredibly important to me for a brand’s political statement to be a natural expansion of what the brand already does/engages with. Ben & Jerry’s has long discussed human rights, equality, environmental justice etc. so their “pecan resist” flavor was something natural for them to release. TOMS’ founder Blake Mycoskie put how this was a natural extension for the company perfectly; “this is a human issue. It’s become political, but ending gun violence is about making a better world, which is what we’ve always been about”. TOMS has always had a give associated with their business, so to expand their giving model seems only natural for a growing business. Though featuring famous athletes in Nike ads is no surprise, making a political statement came as a bit more of a shock to consumers than these other examples have been. The celebration of “Just Do It” definitely fits in well with quote chosen to accompany Colin Kaepernick in the advertisement, it seemed a bit of a shift away from what the company normally uses in their advertising. That leads me to my next point.
It is important for companies to practice what they preach. Or walk the walk. Or put their money where their mouth is. Or all of the above. When a company makes a statement like this, the young businesswoman in me immediately thinks about the board members and senior leadership team of the company. It is important for me to know that brands aren’t just doing something like this as a publicity stunt. As I worked alongside the SLT at TOMS this summer, I was not surprised by the #EndGunViolenceTogether campaign at all. For the rest of you, one of Bain capital’s partners on TOMS’ board is one of the top contributors to Everytown for Gun Safety. TOMS customer base has consistently been 50% Democrats and 50% Republicans. As a result, TOMS put a lot on the line to make a statement like they did. Although they have been very smart in discussing gun violence as a human issue, for many people this issue on the surface is a partisan issue.
On the other hand, the story was not the same for Nike. Disclaimer: not to play into partisan politics, but the “kneeling during the national anthem” debate has largely taken sides along party lines, which is why I thought it was important to include this information. In the last election cycle, “Nike’s employees and the company’s own Political Action Committee gave $424,000 to Republicans and only $122,000 to Democrats”. Additionally, “Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has spoken out against gay marriage and urged President Trump to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, received $12,300 from Nike this year“. This article reported that “Nike’s core customer wants them to take a stand on social issues”, so this was a good business move for Nike that appealed to their customers. But for me, to know that a company that has taken a quite progressive stance in a national conversation, but has people in charge that support the people on the opposite side of the debate, I was left with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.
Now that being said, I still admire Nike for taking a stand in the first place. This article put it best: “There aren’t many entities in our lives that have voices as loud as those of corporations.” As a conscious consumer, I want to know that my purchases are part of a larger conversation or movement, and I do admire brands that take the chance of making a big statement. Something I found myself thinking a lot about in my ethics class is whether companies have an ethical responsibility to do more than just make money. Again, as a conscious consumer, I do absolutely believe corporations have a responsibility to do good with their money. Wednesday’s morning brew had an article that conveniently supports my exact sentiment. Though the article was about climate change, the idea can be applied to a multitude of different issues: “70% of world economic activity is in the private sector. Humanity’s ability to correct course depends on how quickly companies adapt”. Now there’s some food for thought.
For the sake of this blog post not turning into an entire novel, I’d like to open up the conversation. Clearly I have thoughts on brands getting political, and brands having a responsibility to use their profits for good, but what do you think? My post about privilege sparked a really important conversation, and your comments and DM’s definitely got me thinking much deeper about the topic, so let’s do the same with this. Do you absolutely hate it when brands get political? Do you stop shopping brands once they take a stand on a national issue? Do you live for it and have a bunch of other brands who’ve taken similar positions as the companies I mentioned in this post? I’m all ears.