Nike & Brand Name Bullies Try to Coopt Anti-Sweatshop Protests

Nike & Brand Name Bullies Try to Coopt Anti-Sweatshop Protests
Capitalizing on the Anti-Capitalist Movement
Alicia Rebensdorf, AlterNet
August 7, 2001

An angry mob gathered around a train station, passing out photocopied flyers
and shouting protests against an unjust company. Scrappy stickers were
slapped on billboards, directing passers-by to a crudely designed website.
The company they were railing against was a frequent target of grassroots
activism: Nike. And the group running this guerilla-style anti-advertising
campaign? None other than Nike itself.


It's been over a decade since Nike's beloved swoosh first came under attack
by labor activists. Organizations like Adbusters, Global Exchange and
NikeWatch have waged high profile campaigns to make that curving icon
associated with slave labor as firmly as with Michael Jordon. Activists have
manipulated logos, performed street theater and marred billboards in order
to "jam" the Nike brand.


Nike's recent soccer ads in Australia, however, has appropriated both the
techniques and the language used against them. The campaign involved posting
billboards that boasted "The Most Offensive Boots We've Ever Made,"
pseudo-marring them with stickers that read "Not Fair Mr. Technology," and
even creating a fake grassroots protest group called Fans Fighting for
Fairer Football (F.F.F.F). Although this fuzzy people-power group had
"banded together for a single cause that they believed was fair and just,"
they were not activists fighting for fair working conditions; these were
"actorvists" arguing that Nike shoes gave their wearers an unfair advantage.


How clever! How hip! That Nike, they sure can co-opt their critics with
irreverent cool!


"It took hard work to link the words 'Nike' and 'sweatshop' in the public
mind," says Kalle Lasn, director of Adbusters. But now, he says, "without
significantly changing its labor practices, Nike gets a chance to mock its
critics, with the public laughing along."


Though Nike may pass their latest stunt off lightly -- like it is, to qoute
their other advertising campaign, "just play" (tee-hee, you're it!) -- this
is no game of tag. Instead, it's another chapter in the age-old story of
corporate marketers co-opting a cultural movement. But this is
commodification with a twist -- because, essentially, Nike is trying to
capitalize on the anti-capitalism movement.


Anarchy, after all, is sooo in. Black Bloc protesters strut their stuff on
the nightly news, with their drums, explosions, and black hoods framing
attractive, twenty-something faces -- hell, it's better than MTV and reality
television put together! And you couldn't ask for better demographics.
Demonstrations in Seattle, Quebec and most recently Genoa have been a hit
with the 18 to 35 year olds; the audience the police are shooting at is
precisely the one corporate advertisers are shooting for.


While extreme in its co-optation of protesting techniques, Nike is hardly
the only company jumping on the anti-corporate bandwagon. Apple, IBM and the
Gap have all played with protest-chic. Apple has imposed their "Think
Different" slogan onto billboards of Cesar Chavez, Malcolm X, and -- most
recently -- young, red-flag waving militants. The Gap has seized on the
graffiti aesthetic by dressing their windows in fake black spray paint that
reads "Freedom" and "We the People." They've even hung anarchist flags
alongside their sweatshop-produced low-riding jeans.


Meanwhile, IBM has made a more literal move to the streets. Their recent
Linux campaign involved spraying stencils of Peace, Love and the Linux
Penguin logo on city sidewalks. They have gotten flak for their graffiti --
Chicago fined them several thousand dollars and San Francisco officials
decried it as vandalism -- but that can only reinforce their hip,
anti-establishment image. It's only a matter of time before Old Navy begins
peddling gas mask patterned handkerchiefs (you've got to get this look!) and
the Home Shopping Network makes the Black Bloc's monochromatic look
available to you, 24 hours a day, in your choice of ebony, sable or raven.


An exaggeration? Perhaps, but not without precedent. The corporate machine
has proved itself capable of folding the prickliest of cultures into its
embrace. Punk. Afro-centricism. Civil Rights. Virginia Slims straddled the
Cosmo crowd while it spouted the feminist slogan "You've come a long way,
baby." Benetton appropriated anti-racist imagery to hippify its brand and
the Pillsbury Dough Boy rapped, proving even biscuits can benefit from
hip-hop's trendiness. Companies continuinally pan a movement, commodify its
cool, strip its substance and use it to enhance their own logo.


Nike & Co. would like to think the current protest movement's anti-corporate
bent is but a pesky inconvenience. But co-opting this dissent may be bit
more difficult because, in part, it's a reaction to the very commodification
past political movements have fallen victim to. Naomi Klein, author of the
anti-corporate manifesto "No Logo," sees this generation of activists as
different. "Although this is what companies have always done -- they've
sought out the edge, they've marketed it and sold it back, they've done it
with feminism and anti-establishment agendas -- I think there's something
fundamentally different about an anti-corporate movement that's reacting so
strongly against that very impulse to co-opt."


When Nike did run its pseudo-protest, it took no time for the real activists
to fight back. Activists jammed the mock-jammed billboards with phrases like
"$1.25 per day wages: 'Not Fair' Mr. Nike" and "100% Slave Labour." Rallies
were held outside Nike stores and the Melbourne megastore had to be boarded
up. Two days after the F.F.F.F. website was mentioned in the mainstram news,
it was taken down. Nikesweatshop.net claimed victory by saying: "Bad layout
and Impact font belong to the activist community again (for now...)"


Could activists of generations past have claimed such a swift victory? The
added advantage protesters have in today's game is that both parties know
the rules. Activists are more media savvy and will fight just as fiercley to
hold on to their own signature methods as they do to attack their enemies'
tactics. They also know the power of the brand -- the sancitity of the
almighty icon -- and how to hit back where it hurts. While Genoa protestors
might not be effective in overturning the World Bank and the G-8, they are
having a real effect on many youths' perception of corporate conglomerates
as less than cool. For all of Nike attempts to laugh it off, there is rising
mass of people who think of the swoosh like animal rights activists think of
fur: it's garnered at the expense of others.


This, of course, makes the corporate efforts to co-opt them all the more
desperate. Anti-brand chic may be more difficult to appropriate, but that
does not mean Nike and the Gap and Apple and IBM will stop trying. Not
simply because its cool and hip and their models look good in black. They
will try because this movement poses a genuine threat to their omnipotent
brand imaging. They simply can't afford to have their shoes, clothing and
computers associated with the truth of cheap labor, false advertising and
economic unjustice.


So instead, they'll continue to try and belittle the movement, mock it, copy
it, appropriate it and spit it out in a way so people cannot recognize -- or
forget -- the underlying critique. The activists, in turn, will continue to
adapt because the clock keeps running, even if the game changes form.
Adbusters goes glossy, Nike goes grunge. A corporation appropriates, a
subculture morphs and a new critique arises.


The truth is, Nike was well aware that their "Offensive" campaign would
offend. As Lasn points out, "They were counting on it. And now they're back
in the spotlight on their own terms." But the protestors were already set to
grab it back. Because they know this is more than a game of tag; it's a tug
of war. So when it does come down to branding, jamming and name calling, the
activists will try to hit the bullies with slams that stick.

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.