Beyond Appearances: Activism vs. Performance

Cover Design by Claire Abbo

Beyond Appearances: Activism vs. Performance

By: Natalie Drago

In 2026, neutrality is no longer safe. From fashion campaigns to award show speeches, celebrities and corporations alike are expected to signal where they stand socially and politically. As a result, many brands have stepped into a new role, not just as sellers of products, but as participants in political and social conversations. Brands release statements after major events, change their logos to reflect social movements, and incorporate advocacy language directly into marketing campaigns. For many consumers, especially younger audiences, this shift reflects evolving expectations about corporate responsibility. Supporting a brand can feel like supporting a broader set of values, whether those values involve sustainability, social justice, or human rights. In this way, companies are no longer simply selling products; they are selling identity and alignment.

From a business perspective, the incentives behind brand activism are significant. Aligning with social causes can strengthen brand loyalty and create emotional connections with consumers that traditional advertising often struggles to achieve. When companies successfully position themselves alongside cultural movements that resonate, they gain attention, media coverage, and online engagement. This type of visibility can translate into increased brand recognition and long-term customer relationships. In a crowded market, taking a public stance can help brands appear relevant, modern, and culturally aware.

However, the rise of corporate advocacy has also led to growing skepticism. Many consumers question whether companies truly understand the causes they promote or whether activism has simply become another marketing strategy. Social media has made audiences far more attentive to inconsistencies between a company’s public messaging and its actual practices. When brands promote progressive messages while maintaining internally contradictory policies, the result can feel less like advocacy and more like performance.

A recent example of this dynamic emerged in 2025 when American Eagle launched its “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” denim campaign featuring actress Sydney Sweeney. The ad’s spin on “jeans” and “genes,” especially given Sweeney's blonde, blue‑eyed portrayal as a spokesperson, sparked widespread debate online, with critics accusing it of evoking exclusionary cultural ideals and even old eugenic rhetoric (D'Innocenzio). Although American Eagle defended the campaign as simply celebrating denim and insisted it was about confidence and personal style, the controversy dominated social media conversations, drawing both critics and defenders into a cultural fight, and significantly boosted the brand’s visibility, exactly the kind of attention that blurs the line between engagement and exploitation of social tensions.

We know that part of the reason brands engage in activism is the intense cultural pressure created by the speed of online discourse. Social media platforms allow public opinion to form and spread almost instantly, and companies are often expected to respond to political or social events within hours. Silence, once considered a safe corporate strategy, is now often interpreted as avoidance or indifference. Because of this shift, many brands feel pressure to speak about social issues. However, companies should not speak simply to follow trends or gain attention. When brands choose to enter these conversations, their involvement should be authentic and backed by concrete action. Genuine advocacy goes beyond a public statement or marketing campaign. It often involves long-term commitments, such as investing in affected communities, changing internal company policies, or building lasting partnerships with advocacy organizations. While these efforts may receive less public attention than advertisements or social media posts, they demonstrate a deeper level of responsibility. When companies focus solely on messaging without meaningful action, audiences are more likely to view their activism as a branding strategy rather than a sincere attempt to create change.

Ultimately, the question of whether brand activism is genuine or performative may not have a single answer. Companies operate within a system where public image, cultural relevance, and consumer expectations all influence decision-making. Some brands genuinely aim to support causes they believe in, while others may adopt activist messaging because cultural pressure leaves little alternative. What matters most is how audiences interpret those actions, and whether they continue to reward companies for symbolic gestures or begin demanding more substantial commitments.

Works Cited

D'Innocenzio, Anne. “Why the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle Ad Sparked a Debate About Racism and Eugenics.” NPR, 1 Aug. 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/08/01/nx-s1-5487286/sydney-sweeney-american-eagle-explained-why-controversy-racist-eugenics-trump-bathwater-ad-klein-statement