#commodityactivism

[cacarlesi]

Celebrity Branding: One of the Illusions of the 21st Century

Alison Hearn explores the concept of individual empowerment in contemporary activism in the chapter “Brand Me Activist” of the book Commodity Activism: Cultural Resistance in Neoliberal Times . Hearn asserts that collective problems are increasingly reduced to issues of individual responsibility and political beliefs are manifested through the choice of certain products which you buy. Corporations exploit this idea of individual empowerment and build on celebrities’ popularity to increase profit. Since brands and consumers - emulating celebrities - take part in political actions, consumption becomes part of the political sphere. What kind of political revolution is supported when a cause is encouraged by consumption? 

According to the author, self-branding and consumerism do not really help political change. In order to achieve real change, selfhood needs to be redefined and disconnected from capitalistic logic. Companies need to put collective interest before their interest and individuals need to rely on collectivity, rather than products, in order to make a change. 

The movement of the yellow vests, sparked in 2018 in Paris, is endorsed by famous people like Pamela Anderson. Forms of activism performed by yellow vests celebrity supporters can be understood in line with Hearn’s argument. The Canadian-American actress has shown her support for the movement in the article “Yellow Vests and I”, published in the website of her foundation. Anderson’s approach to the situation may be analyzed in line with Hearn’s point about celebrity branding, because the actress denounces consumerism, and takes part in it at the same time. Her article serves to make her voice heard, but it also increases the visibility of her website, where she invites users to purchase her hoodies and shirts to contribute to her foundation (image of the advertisement below).

Yes, her foundation supports organizations and individuals that stand on the front lines in the protection of human, animal, and environmental rights. However, it still does so through consumerism.

The profits that Anderson makes from her online activism are not only based on monetary contribution, since she benefits by promoting a positive image of herself. Indeed, Anderson’s tweets and public statements have been used in news outlets. For instance, by RTL and planet.fr. In a way, through yellow vests activism, Anderson has been able to increase her visibility and spread what are - arguably - positive news about herself. Therefore, it is problematic to define whether Anderson’s activism is fully aimed at changing society or partially done to help her foundation’s clothing business and her public profile. What kind of political revolution is supported when a cause like Anderson’s endorses consumption and celebrity branding? Is Pamela Anderson really disconnecting her cause from the capitalistic logic?

[cacarlesi]

Does support = material consumption?

Mukherjee and Banet-Weiser in Commodity activism: Cultural resistance in neoliberal times focus on the concept of commodity activism, defined as activism which becomes merchandised when shaped by capitalism. Commodity activism changes traditional activism because it deprives it of its true scope by pricing it. Through commodity activism, social action becomes commodified and people’s values become branded to make profit. Using propaganda, companies take advantage of people’s morals, persuading them to believe that buying their product will do good in the world. In the end, the buyer does not realize that he is only consuming more goods instead of helping change society. 

The yellow vests movement, started in October 2018 in France, calls for better taxation reforms and social justice. Forms of activism performed by the movement can be understood along the lines of what the authors define "commodity activism", which has redefined the way in which the yellow vests protest. At the beginning of their demonstrations, yellow vests protested only in the streets. With the increase of the protest’s popularity, companies started to sell branded yellow vests products. 

Today, protesters tend to believe that they are supporting the demonstration by just wearing a yellow vests t-shirt or by drinking from a yellow vests mug. Therefore, the yellow vests activism is now commodified. People are fooled into believing that buying yellow vests merchandise upholds yellow vests’ ethical principles. In reality, they are only contributing to the capitalistic system rooted in society.

(A) T-shirt with Lenin wearing a yellow vest 

A relevant case study is the Lenin with yellow vest T-shirt (picture A) sold by society6.com. This product embraces all the values highlighted by the yellow vests protesters, while portraying a relevant Russian revolutionary figure (Lenin) wearing a yellow vest, with the communist symbol in the background. The company, society6.com uses these iconic words, colors and symbols in order to fool the buyer into purchasing their product. Buyers do so to show their support of the yellow vests cause fighting for freedom, fraternity and equality or even to show their support for communism. They are persuaded into consuming goods related to good causes because they think it equals fighting for these causes. However, the company is only taking advantage of their activism to make profit. It is through this process of exploitation of the consumer that the capitalistic system incorporates social movements into its consumerism. 

[dorgakim-blog]

Branding & Advertisement

Apparently, we see as many as 5,000 ads a day. That’s a crazy amount of opportunities for companies to tell us their products. And what is the message that these ads normally give us? How do they get us to buy things and participate in consumerist culture? According to Sut Jhally’s piece on advertising and popular culture, “Fundamentally, advertising talks to us as individuals and addresses us about how we can become happy. The answers it provides are all oriented to the marketplace, through the purchase of goods or services” (79). Advertisement’s don’t usually literally tell us to “be happy” but they do use ideas and markers of happiness such as self-esteem, family, and love to sneakily imply that such things can be obtainablE, work together with, or enhance those experiences with material products or services. 

 For some reason, the first company that came to mind while writing this was Old Navy. Throughout the years, the messages in their ads have been, in my opinion, pretty consistent. Old navy is family-oriented and I guess inclusive too (note: the interracial couple). “It’s warmer together” is a pretty cute little message that reaffirms our values for family togetherness while simultaneously promoting their winter clothing line (at a steal of a price too, because we all know families are expensive).

 Our values and interests are always reflected in the advertisements we see. Clothing, for instance has become a perfect platform for the commodification of politics. In our current political state, it’s no coincidence that we are currently seeing such a large influx of politics in ads and brand marketing. Shirts that read “feminist” can be found in huge stores like Forever 21 and H&M. Even luxury brands such as Chanel and Dior (pictured above) are trying to weigh in and profit off of this opportunity. As our values shift, brands and companies react accordingly. “Commodity activism”, as Sarah Banet-Weiser calls it, is “…one of the new ways that advertisers and marketers have used brands as a platform for social activism” (40). 

 Companies like Dove Soap have transformed their brand into one that fully integrates consumers into their marketing strategies. Their Self-Esteem Project, for instance, specifically targets young women who might be experiencing issues of self-esteem. By publicly claiming their support for such an issue, consumers gain an awareness of whether the company’s value aligns with theirs. Therefore, those who purchase Dove’s products might do so with very purposefully. Customers are not only participating in consumer culture but also in a sort of social activist culture as well. But the commodification of culture also makes us question the true motive behind every brand’s movement. Can we really trust that companies share the same values as everyday people if they are making such a large profit from it? Wouldn’t they do anything to make more money? The integration of consumer and branding might make people actively have to think about what it means when they purchase products. What we buy is now linked and reflective of our values and the values of the brands and companies we buy products from.