Believe in Something: Corporate wokeness is now big business

[House_Of_Lightning]

A good, and timely, article. Especially considering ad campaigns like Gillette, who after decades of pushing women to believe that body hair is taboo so they can sell women razors, very successfully and quickly got the masses to pardon them with a bit of sappy TV. Similarly, Nike's continued use of oppressive sweatshop labor is forgiven with a bit of sentimental disposable drama.

Years ago the idea of corporate person-hood was a laughable concept by anyone remotely left of center. Now it is fully embraced. In modern, bourgeois, image obsessed consumer culture your actual behavior is inconsequential, what matters is how you identify and market yourself. The message is true even if the behavior contradicts it.


https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/believe-in-something-nair

CONSIDER THE VERY LAST SCENE OF MAD MEN, and that scheming smile that slowly stretches across the otherwise inscrutable face of adman extraordinaire Don Draper as, trying hard to fit into a sect of yoga-performing hippies, he closes his eyes and mutters a sonorous "Om." We are made to believe that perhaps this is the transcendent moment that enables him to dream up the now-famous 1971 "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" jingle and the accompanying visuals of a multinational, multiethnic, and harmonious crowd of people atop a hill. Did Draper smile because he had found enlightenment? Or was he feeling inwardly beatific because he had, yet again, found a way to dupe people into believing that a commercial product held meaning beyond the slight buzz provided by a combination of sugar and carbonated water?

Click to shrink...

Capital has always projected itself as being on our side, as caring about the world. Even if we swallowed the message and the jingles, the great enabling fiction came wrapped in commercials for consumer products—providing some sense that there was a nod-and-a-wink hidden in these signature cultural transactions.

Click to shrink...

On its face, this campaign seemed like a huge gamble on Nike's part—and it further looked to be a gamble that paid off when share prices soared. But, as a searching New York Times investigative report makes clear, the corporation in fact went through a series of behind-the-scenes discussions and even considered dropping Kaepernick altogether, nervous—terrified, more likely—that it would face mass boycotts from consumers. When it became clear that the NFL supporters—largely white, male, and older—were outnumbered by the corporation's brand loyalists—more diverse and younger—Nike went ahead and now even claims that it inaugurated the campaign because it believes that Kaepernick "is one of the most inspirational athletes of his generation."

Click to shrink...

Woke left critiques can, at times, point out structural and historical inequalities, but too often they ignore the lived reality of vast swaths of people who don't live in, say, New York or Chicago. We might broadly critique patriarchal ideas about marriage and women, sure, or the xenophobia and racism generated by anti-immigrant rhetoric, but we forget, in the space of an ad, that the anxieties around marriage and immiration are both structural and social—with consequences both global and local.

In the ad campaigns of corporations like Nike and Apple, the brands' wokeness purports to function as a mode of resistance. Of course, many on the left can see that for the cynical move it is. We're expected to ignore the fact that all of this is actually proving to be enormously successful for the corporations. Woke campaigns aren't focused on repairing structural inequities, but on amassing profit for corporate players who continue to do harm. For but one deeply revealing example, look at what the tech industry has done to San Francisco over the past two decades, via massive gentrification campaigns and anti-poor initiatives that include removing services for the homeless in an effort to stamp them out of the city. In lieu of combating the underlying efforts to engineer inequality as a permanent condition of public life, wokeness overwhelmingly dotes on matters of image

Click to shrink...

 

[Deleted member 198]

 

[fick]

Yeah, it's always rubbed me the wrong way but I've never really been able to articulate why. Usually the response is, "But if it's doing social good, what's the issue if the companies are profiting?" And I can't really give an answer.

At the end of the day I guess we have to accept that corporate America is going to corporate America, and if they help push social progress, that may not be the worst byproduct.

 

[joecanada]

I really gotta watch mad men

 

[House_Of_Lightning]

nd if they help push social progress

Click to shrink...

Lemme know if that ever happens.

 

[House_Of_Lightning]

Click to shrink...

"Coffee Karma"

 

[Wulfric]

I think the thing it boils down to is; if a socially progressive message is calculated to be more profitable than avoiding an issue, is that a bad thing overall?

These Twitter accounts/commercials have wide reach, exposing bigots in their comment sections who often have their real names attached.

I think you also have to account for the leadership of a company genuinely giving a damn about some of these things. If Chik-Fil-A can openly donate to organizations that push anti-LGBT messaging, is a company doing the opposite not considered equally earnest?

 

[RatskyWatsky]

I really gotta watch mad men

Click to shrink...

Best TV drama of all time.

 

[Mr. X]

Vote with your wallet leads to this.

 

[House_Of_Lightning]

exposing bigots in their comment sections who often have their real names attached.

Click to shrink...

These people are vocally shit towards minorities for simply existing. We don't need Nike commercials and their YouTube comments to tell us about that.

 

[Ferrio]

Money is what the system is built on, just cause the rules are stupid doesn't mean you shouldn't play to win.

Honestly what's the difference between this and a boycott? Both are using money to push a social cause.

 

[Finaj]

 

[KtotheRoc]

Click to shrink...

I've never seen her before, but that video was absolutely correct.

 

[Hoa]

In modern, bourgeois, image obsessed consumer culture your actual behavior is inconsequential, what matters is how you identify and market yourself. The message is true even if the behavior contradicts it.

Click to shrink...

This isn't some new modern problem, it is an issue that has existed throughout time.

 

[Shy]

There a very excellent podcast about this very subject. Please, please listen to it, era.

 

[House_Of_Lightning]

This isn't some new modern problem, it is an issue that has existed throughout time.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, Marcuse's best work from the 70s centers on it.

 

[Deleted member 6582]

Modern people express themselves through consumerism. It makes sense, you aren't going to assemble your own CPUs and such at home, the time/cost trade off is too high for most things. So corporations become like political parties, you take whatever goes nearest to the direction you are traveling in, even if it's not particularly close.

But all ideology is corruptible and all "solutions" to problems can be used against you. In fact, the harder you believe in something the blinder you will be to the side-effects.

 

[A Syrian Communist]

Came to see if the excellent Sarah Z and Hbomb vids had been posted. Nice. 👍

 

[hateradio]

Best TV drama of all time.

Click to shrink...

For a few seasons.

Six Feet Under > you

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Yeah, don't ever be fooled into thinking corporations are woke. They will always only ever be opportunistic.

 

[TheLucasLite]

I'm on the side of believing it's bad because it reinforces a dependency on capitalism to push your social cause by "voting with your wallet". The problem here is that it purports that money and spending is intrinsically value neutral, and you can push something forward if the money is spent in the right way. It's a false premise though, as capitalism feeds off exploitation, even if that exploitation is not happening domestically, and these corporations know that you won't care as much about this exploitation if it's being done where you can't see it. Sweatshops and the resource extraction that American Imperialism uses to create these products is racist in nature, and it comes back to bite us eventually in the form of refugee crises coming out of the places we racially exploit.

Edit: This is also to say nothing about the possibility that these brands push their messages cynically. Which is also probably happening. Ask yourself, if it stopped being profitable, would the brands keep doing it?

 

[Brinbe]

 

[RatskyWatsky]

For a few seasons.

Six Feet Under > you

Click to shrink...

Six Feet Under is really good too!

 

[Trey]

Click to shrink...

Well, yeah. Gotta keep the pitchforks and torches from your homes by giving couch change to the masses to keep them pacified.

 

[fick]

Lemme know if that ever happens.

Click to shrink...

oh I forgot that media doesn't influence the subconscious

 

[Regulus Tera]

Movement co-opting by big business is as old as... the sixties maybe?

 

[Deleted member 6230]

This so called "Ethical Consumerism" is a mistake.

 

[TheLucasLite]

oh I forgot that media doesn't influence the subconscious

Click to shrink...

You're almost onto something! Maybe if we can turn our awareness of this influence back against the media, then the change we want to see can come from the bottom up rather than the top down, and we will no longer be at the mercy of people who want to manufacture our reality so they can make money off it!

 

[Deleted member 19066]

oh I forgot that media doesn't influence the subconscious

Click to shrink...

Capital may have, in a small abstract way, made open minded people more open to, say, LGBTQ legal rights. Positive representation is important, and media companies have started to realize there's more money in inclusivity. But it's not gonna help LGBTQ* poverty, or homelessness, in any systemic way.

*or anyone else's, for that matter, but I'm trying to cram a literary device into my rhetoric

 

[Amibguous Cad]

People boycott companies for doing non-progressive stuff and then get pissed when corporations follow the incentives they've laid out for them.

*Shrug*

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

If we can recognize the harm perpetrated by pop consumerist culture trading in images of misogyny or racism in advertising, then we should also recognize that more positive imagery in advertising can have a positive effect, regardless of whether or not the corporation putting the advertising out there "means it" or not.

 

[Deleted member 6230]

People boycott companies for doing non-progressive stuff and then get pissed when corporations follow the incentives they've laid out for them.

*Shrug*

Click to shrink...

Read the OP

 

[Bonafide]

I'm on the side of believing it's bad because it reinforces a dependency on capitalism to push your social cause by "voting with your wallet". The problem here is that it purports that money and spending is intrinsically value neutral, and you can push something forward if the money is spent in the right way. It's a false premise though, as capitalism feeds off exploitation, even if that exploitation is not happening domestically, and these corporations know that you won't care as much about this exploitation if it's being done where you can't see it. Sweatshops and the resource extraction that American Imperialism uses to create these products is racist in nature, and it comes back to bite us eventually in the form of refugee crises coming out of the places we racially exploit.

Edit: This is also to say nothing about the possibility that these brands push their messages cynically. Which is also probably happening. Ask yourself, if it stopped being profitable, would the brands keep doing it?

Click to shrink...

bingo

 

[samoyed]

Movement co-opting by big business is as old as... the sixties maybe?

Click to shrink...

Selling ethics is relatively new though, corporations didn't really "come down" on politics, because it was considered a really risky move. These days a company can pinpoint whether they'll come out ahead by taking a side, or sometimes just leverage backlash. The scales are tipped on our side right now because the expendable income youth trends liberal, but that won't always be true.

There's a very real risk in my mind of tying ethical activism to consumerism that robs activism and ethics of their lifeblood. Being brand conscious is fine, but thinking that this is all you need to do to participate in the great ethical debates of life is a big no no.

For people like me and a few others I spot here who think the problem is capitalism itself, a population that grows dependent on corporate wokeness as their primary way of engaging in politics is a nightmare scenario. Imagine if companies started advertising with political candidates, yikes. This is the real dystopian corporatocractic hell.

 

[KimiNewt]

Just keep ignoring corporate output like ads, other than trailers or things that inform you about a product.

Hasn't that always been the way to go?

There's always been sentimental bullshit in ads, and no one bought it then. Like anyone buys a company like Nike has some greater ethical backbone - or even could have, considering the number of people involved in that product.

 

[samoyed]

Just keep ignoring corporate output like ads, other than trailers or things that inform you about a product.

Hasn't that always been the way to go?

There's always been sentimental bullshit in ads, and no one bought it then. Like anyone buys a company like Nike has some greater ethical backbone - or even could have, considering the number of people involved in that product.

Click to shrink...

Their Kaepernick campaign was considered quite successful and applauded by many progressives.

 

[Glasgow Mega-Snake]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-03-20/how-dow-chemical-got-woke

 

[SugarNoodles]

Yeah, it's always rubbed me the wrong way but I've never really been able to articulate why. Usually the response is, "But if it's doing social good, what's the issue if the companies are profiting?" And I can't really give an answer.

At the end of the day I guess we have to accept that corporate America is going to corporate America, and if they help push social progress, that may not be the worst byproduct.

Click to shrink...

They are pushing the status quo and nothing more. The status quo as simply changed, and it's no thanks to corporations.

 

[TheLucasLite]

My favorite example of this is the "feminist" wokeness of Raytheon, who gives money to the Girl Scouts. Raytheon makes weapons for warfare.

 

[fick]

They are pushing the status quo and nothing more. The status quo as simply changed, and it's no thanks to corporations.

Click to shrink...

Tell me, how many mainstream TV shows/movies feature interracial couples?

Now compare that to commercials the past few years. Like I said it rubbed me wrong in my first post, and you guys have me out here trying to defend them because you're making a bunch of baseless claims.

 

[SugarNoodles]

Tell me, how many mainstream TV shows/movies feature interracial couples?

Now compare that to commercials the past few years. Like I said it rubbed me wrong in my first post, and you guys have me out here trying to defend them because you're making a bunch of baseless claims.

Click to shrink...

What on earth are you trying to demonstrate with those statistics?

 

[fick]

What on earth are you trying to demonstrate with those statistics?

Click to shrink...

You said they are pushing the status quo. That's doesn't seem to be the case because anecdotally advertisements seem to really push diversity a lot more. Sorry you couldn't trap me there.

 

[TheLucasLite]

Tell me, how many mainstream TV shows/movies feature interracial couples?

Now compare that to commercials the past few years. Like I said it rubbed me wrong in my first post, and you guys have me out here trying to defend them because you're making a bunch of baseless claims.

Click to shrink...

I would ask you who you would give credit to for making progress in social issues like this. The corporations obviously want to have some recognition for this progress. Don't give it to them, they didn't create the change.

Corporations don't need us to come to their defense for doing what is a bare minimum obvious thing like fair representation. If you do engage in defending them, it gives them power, because it would be handing the reins of responsibility of making social change to corporations. And I wouldn't feel comfortable with them having that kind of influence being seen as normal, cuz they can turn around and wield it in negative ways if the dollars start singing a different tune.

 

[Cipherr]

These people are vocally shit towards minorities for simply existing. We don't need Nike commercials and their YouTube comments to tell us about that.

Click to shrink...

So what exactly is it that you are asking for. That's what this boils down to. Companies are going to advertise in a capitalist society. Is you beef that they do so in """"""progressive""""" ways if their charts and graphs show that it would be popular and make them money? If so then what do you want? For them to instead spend that corporate money to instead advertise in some benign or completely non-political way because you just cannot stand the idea that someone's positive left facing messaging may not meet your personal accepted threshold of sincerity?

Im genuinely asking here, because pointing this out like its some grand hidden secret seems to be getting popular lately and its not really something everyone doesn't already know. The article even hints at it. So at the very least give us some substance with the observation.

Movement co-opting by big business is as old as... the sixties maybe?

Click to shrink...

Probably older. Sure there were people finding ways to do it with print news long before the 1960s and tv.

 

[fick]

I would ask you who you would give credit to for making progress in social issues like this. The corporations obviously want to have some recognition for this progress. Don't give it to them, they didn't create the change.

Click to shrink...

I don't give them any credit. It's clearly pandering.

My entire point, for the last time, is that there can be a positive side effect of their pandering, and it's not purely terrible.

edit: I'm not gonna call Al Capone a champion of the people, but I'm not going to be one of those people who just has to point out he only gave away food during the depression for PR. I'll accept the fact that he was a piece of shit, and some people got fed.

 

[Bonafide]

You said they are pushing the status quo. That's doesn't seem to be the case because anecdotally advertisements seem to really push diversity a lot more. Sorry you couldn't trap me there.

Click to shrink...

one of the big problems imo is that progress for liberals is very superficial. its how we get into weird discussions about advertisements and pushing on how many [x] are shown on screen instead of how people are doing in reality.

the capital class doesnt give a shit about social issues as long as it isnt effecting their bottom line, they'll throw in minorites and lgbt in commercials because now its profitable and "in".

progress and social change always starts from the bottom up, companies just latch on or coopt when they see the winds blowing. "corporate wokeness" lulls people into complacency thinking that the powers that be give any shit outside of money.

 

[fick]

progress and social change always starts from the bottom up.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but I feel as though everyone is willfully ignoring the power media and pop-culture have. We're quickly to (rightly) bemoan the harmful stereotypes presented in the media because of the effects it has on the subconscious, but no one in here wants to accept that perhaps the corporate pandering is changing the media we ingest, regardless of their motives.

Again I'm not saying that these advertising executives deserve praise and awards. I dunno, if people can't understand my stance on this by now then there's no point, so this'll be the last on this.

 

[Akira86]

Lemme know if that ever happens.

Click to shrink...

Meat Waifu just in time for Women's History Month?

 

[Wackamole]

Lemme know if that ever happens.

Click to shrink...

It probably does though. Even if it would be a little it's progress.

 

[Terranigma]

Yeah, don't ever be fooled into thinking corporations are woke. They will always only ever be opportunistic.

Click to shrink...

Yep, an in enough time peopel will become wary and turn against it, see Global warming/ biological products etc. many just pretending its fake and just made up for moneymaking and not a real issue.