There are ample examples of commodity activism. Nike has a history of using political movements in its ads Individual consumers act politically by purchasing particular brands over others in a competitive marketplace, where specific brands are attached to political aims and goals. The use of brands to “sell” dissent is not a new business strategy. Whether challenging police brutality or questioning unattainable beauty norms, branding in our era has extended beyond a business model: It is now both reliant on and reflective of our most basic social and cultural relations. This practice merges consumer behavior with political or social goals. Rather than wade through this debate, I’d like to offer a more broadly contextual analysis of Nike’s latest campaign, situating it within a long history of what Roopali Mukherjee - a professor at CUNY Queens College with whom I co-wrote a book on this subject - and I have called “commodity activism.” And some were just happy that Kaepernick, who has yet to be signed to an NFL team since his contract expired in 2016, has any kind of job at all. Others on the left were indignant about the ways protest and resistance were being commodified and used to build a behemoth company’s brand. Some on the right were livid that the brand endorsed someone who, to them, represents a lack of loyalty to American values. Many applauded Nike’s embrace of such an openly political figure. The ad garnered significant response on social media. On Labor Day, Nike tweeted a photo of NFL player Colin Kaepernic k, (in)famous for sparking controversy when he took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality, to celebrate the corporation’s 30th anniversary of the slogan “Just Do It.” The image - Nike’s usual stark, intense black-and-white style - features Kaepernick staring directly at the camera overlaid by the text, “Believe in something. It didn’t take long for the internet to explode when Nike announced who would be the new face of its brand.

Authentic™ by Sarah Banet-Weiser