English 118: Society of the spectacle

Mary Tran - Paper 2

November 5th, 2021

Individualism in activist marketing campaign

The advent of the Internet comes hand in hand with the rise of online activism. Social media and

news forums are platforms where individuals and companies present their political identities.

Posting a black square with the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter is synonymous with promoting the

cause. Using a rainbow filter on Facebook in Pride month implies one’s support for the LGBTQ

community. Given the increasing trend of advocating for social causes on the Internet,

companies incorporate social justice themes in commercials to attract their customers. Nike’s

partnership with Colin Kaepernick in “Dream Crazy,” an award-winning commercial, generated

billions of dollars of sales. Pepsi also hopped on the bandwagon and featured Kendall Jenner for

its “Live for Now.” In this paper, by examining these case studies, I will argue that individualism

in activist marketing campaigns undermines social movements by ignoring class struggles,

reinforcing racist stereotypes, and quelling dissent. 

Companies feature celebrities as figureheads of their marketing campaigns to draw public

attention. Celebrities act as agents of the spectacle, a term Debord coined in the 20th century.

Debord defines the spectacle as “not a collection of images, but a social relation among people,

mediated by images” (qtd. in Morgan and Perje). Companies brand themselves so that the

catharsis from a purchase comes not only from the quality of the product but also from

affiliations with the brand. Advertisements add more depth to products that would otherwise hold

no more meaning than their physical worth. Celebrities thus act as mediators between companies

1
and consumers, communicating their companies’ brand identities to their fanbase. In fact, Colin

Kaepernick was chosen as the face of Nike’s “Dream Crazy” because of his popularity with

urban youths. Kaepernick angered the NFL in 2017 by kneeling during the national anthem as a

sign to protest rising racism. By associating with Kaepernick, Nike risks losing its long-term

partnership with the NFL. However, Nike believes that the credibility acquired with urban

youths, a market that it is expanding to, outweighs this risk (Creswell et al). Kaepernick is the

perfect choice for Nike who could borrow both his status as a civil rights activist and his growing

follower base. 

Nike’s ad promotes individualism and the American dream. Individualism is the culture that

valorizes self-reliance and individual success. It is one of the most popular narratives that

characterize the American dream. The American dream, or the desire to achieve “the good life”

is the belief that “You work hard, you create your own luck, and anything is possible” (Berlant)

(Crazy/ Genius). In their book The American dream, Berlant posits that the American dream

disillusions people into believing that upward mobility and success can be achieved by sheer

determination (Crazy/Genius). These messages are reflected in Colin’s narration in the “Dream

Crazy” commercial: “Don’t ask if your dreams are crazy. Ask if you are crazy enough.” By

telling success stories in sports like that of the famous tennis player Serena Williams, Nike

endorses the belief that tenacity can realize even the most unrealistic goals such as being world-

class athletes or ending structural racism. Individualism emphasizes individual efforts and fails

to harness collective power. 

2
This emphasis on individual success undermines social activism by alienating individuals from

their class struggles. Debord notes that celebrity is “the enemy of the individual” and that the

spectacle “conceals the relation between men and classes” (qtd. in Morgan and Perje). Racism is

inherently a class struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor. By reducing the collective

fight against racial injustice to an individual effort, Nike dismisses the collective labor and

hardship involved in these fights. Even with the same commitment and talent, black athletes are

not entitled to the same wages and respect given to their white counterparts. Activism is a

decentralized movement that requires collective action such as banning hate speech, increasing

black representation in politics instead of simply excelling in sports. At its essence, individual

success only brings benefits to oneself. Being the world’s best athlete does not automatically

solve racism and guarantee other black athletes equal access to opportunities. Nike’s “Dream

Crazy” is an example of performative activism because its individualistic message distorts the

basic tenets of social movements by reducing collective morality. 

Not only does individualism fail to address class struggles, but it also exacerbates it by

reinforcing the prevalent white savior complex, as seen in Pepsi’s “Live For Now.” Debord

concludes that “in all its specific forms, as information or propaganda, advertisements or direct

consumption of entertainment, the spectacle is the present model of socially dominant life”

(Debord,9). In other words, advertisements reflect popular narratives in American life including

individualism and the white savior complex. In Pepsi’s ad, individualism manifests in the

depiction of Kendall Jenner as the hero who can magically end police brutality and uproot

systemic discrimination with just a Pepsi. Debord also notes that the spectacle serves to amplify

dominant beliefs, saying that “the form and content of the spectacle are identically the total

3
justification of the conditions and the ends of the existing system” (Debord,9). Pepsi’s script

exacerbates anti-racism movements by justifying racist stereotypes and the power gap between

Black and white people. Racism stems from the imbalance of power between two races which

traces back to the colonization of America. Since then, black people have been typecasted as

incompetent and subservient whereas white people are superior and cultured. The advertisement

is ironic because it implies that white heroes can solve any issues, including one that they

perpetuate. Black customers watching this ad are invited to internalize their subordination and

lack of agency over their lives. By not challenging the racist status quo, the minority is

“complicit in their victimization,” creating a vicious cycle that further disempowers them (Still

Processing). On the other hand, “Live for now” also instills delusion of grandeur and superiority

in their white viewers. This message is toxic because it deprives black athletes of a chance to

realize their American dream. White team leaders pass over black athletes for promotions

because blacks are viewed as threats to their authority. Pepsi’s “Live For Now” is an example of

the pernicious consequences of the glorification of individualism, which markets a message

without addressing the power dynamic between two races. 

This obsession with individualism disincentivizes companies from making tangible impacts in

their workplace, hence reinforcing their dominance over the working class. Debord observes that

“fame has acquired infinitely more importance than the value of anything one might be actually

capable of doing”(qtd. in Morgan and Perje). In other words, the hunger for media coverage

shifts the priority of a company from being progressive to appearing progressive. Instead of

adopting inclusive recruitment practices or eradicating microaggressions in their workplace,

Nike and Pepsi engage with activism by creating content that presents themselves as socially

4
oriented. This kind of performative activism quells dissent and disempowers the working class.

Debord argues that the spectacle is the tool for the ruling class to divert public opinion from what

truly matters. Before this ad release, Nike had been accused by multiple media outlets of

discrimination and pay inequality towards women. However, the overwhelmingly positive

reception of its “Dream Crazy” ad seems to disassociate Nike from any negative images and

drown out allegations about its hostile working environment. Debord describes this phenomenon

as “the monopoly of appearance” when “the spectacle presents itself as something enormously

positive, indisputable and inaccessible” (qtd. in Morgan and Perje). The proliferation of

advertisements overshadows scandals that are difficult to surface in the first place. Companies’

marketing and legal departments usually seek secret settlements to prevent negative publicity

from being leaked to the press. Even if such news is released, it will not draw the same attention

as commercials that feature celebrities. By distracting the mass, companies remain

“indisputable” and reinforce their oppression over their workers while still appearing to be

progressive.

Some may argue that activist marketing advertisements will prompt even the most disinterested

and apolitical customers to look up social movements and self-educate themselves. While it is

true that activist commercials do raise awareness of social issues, this awareness does more harm

than good because it misrepresents true activism by highlighting individualism. As seen in the

cases of Pepsi and Nike’s ads, individualism ignores class struggles and reinforces white savior

belief. Recognizing the disparity between real activism and activism in marketing campaigns

prevents customers from internalizing wrong messages and being gaslighted by the companies.

Consumers can identify the red flags of woke-washing companies by analyzing their

5
advertisements. In doing so, consumers can channel their support into genuinely progressive

companies with inclusive business models instead of performative companies.