![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
So, there's the "(product)red" campaign, a project that draws funds from (______)red branded products to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Cool project--it puts consumerism to work for a good cause. Awesome, I like it. Converse (the shoe company) is now part of it. Their website (converse.com) opens up with three shoes from the new line. Follow the link to the (product)red-specific part of the site and you get a description of the campaign and the addresses of sites with more information (joinred.org and globalfund.org). The visual layout of this part of the site includes hands projecting onto the screen from off the borders, generally conveying the feel of youth-oriented pseudocounterculture that converse shoots for in its advertising and brand identity imagery. We've got hands of different races, throwing different symbols--there's a fist, an open hand, a surfer's thumb-and-pinkie sign, and a peace sign. Cool--I like peace.
This aesthetic is maintained in at least one of the campaign's print ads, too (in the current issue of Juxtapoz magazine). We get a two-page spread of a white Converse (product)red hi-top, on which the words "combat boot" have been scrawled in red ink, with an abstracted line drawing of the wearer's leg going off the page. This isn't a model Converse is selling; the idea is that wearers will customize their sneakers. The ad seems to espouse an antiwar ethic--"combat boot" definitely feels like an ironic statement in the context of the ad, and my guess is that Converse is looking to attract young, socially- and politically-conscious customers with the piece, as they do in many aspects of their merchandizing. They have special-edition shoes for different bands, associate themselves heavily with punk style, and generally cultivate a non-corporate image. Joining (product)red, putting a peace sign on their website, making an ironic antiwar statement with the "combat boot" ad, it all seems really good, huh?
But here's the thing: Converse makes combat boots.
I first saw them advertised in a magazine a few years ago (it was either a gun magazine or a military surplus magazine, I've since forgotten which), decided not to give my money to Converse anymore and left it at that. I was angered by the fact that they worked to appeal to an audience that is often antiwar while at the same time profiting from murder. But didn't do much about it, probably because I didn't want to be perceived negatively by the many people who like their Converse shoes. I liked mine when I had them, and learning you're supporting something something you have a problem with by doing something you like (or having someone criticize you for something you don't think is a problem, as the case may be) doesn't feel good. So I just quit buying them without saying much about it. But this new campaign takes the company's two-facedness to a new level. Military products are nowhere to be found on Converse's website--searching for "military" on the site gives you a pair of sneakers based on a model once supplied to G.I.s in training, a jacket with a chevron design on the chest, and a gym bag. Looking under the "hard to find" product heading yields nothing relating to war. But if you look elsewhere--a Google search for "converse military boots" did the trick for me--there's plenty.
A site called LAPoliceGear is the first hit (lapolicegear.com/comefo.html?gclid=CPL-v
Converse's hypocrisy makes me angry. Their most prominent public face supports peace, interracial unity and the fight to end some of humanity's most dangerous diseases (I won't deny for a moment the commendability of Converse's joining (product)red, in fact I find it very admirable). But out of the spotlight, in places their primary customer base rarely looks, they're making money on war.
If it makes you angry too, the next few steps are easy. Refuse to buy any Converse products until they cease manufacture of military equipment, and let them know that so long as they keep supporting murder, they've lost a customer. Tell other people about what Converse is doing--they might feel the same way. If enough of Converse's buyers don't want their dollars going towards war and refuse to collaborate any longer, Converse will have to change its business practices to avoid either going under or the profit loss that accompanies too much negative press. "Too much" lost profit for Converse is just the right amount for peace.
Boycott Converse. Tell them about it. Tell other people about it. Instigate some peace.
This aesthetic is maintained in at least one of the campaign's print ads, too (in the current issue of Juxtapoz magazine). We get a two-page spread of a white Converse (product)red hi-top, on which the words "combat boot" have been scrawled in red ink, with an abstracted line drawing of the wearer's leg going off the page. This isn't a model Converse is selling; the idea is that wearers will customize their sneakers. The ad seems to espouse an antiwar ethic--"combat boot" definitely feels like an ironic statement in the context of the ad, and my guess is that Converse is looking to attract young, socially- and politically-conscious customers with the piece, as they do in many aspects of their merchandizing. They have special-edition shoes for different bands, associate themselves heavily with punk style, and generally cultivate a non-corporate image. Joining (product)red, putting a peace sign on their website, making an ironic antiwar statement with the "combat boot" ad, it all seems really good, huh?
But here's the thing: Converse makes combat boots.
I first saw them advertised in a magazine a few years ago (it was either a gun magazine or a military surplus magazine, I've since forgotten which), decided not to give my money to Converse anymore and left it at that. I was angered by the fact that they worked to appeal to an audience that is often antiwar while at the same time profiting from murder. But didn't do much about it, probably because I didn't want to be perceived negatively by the many people who like their Converse shoes. I liked mine when I had them, and learning you're supporting something something you have a problem with by doing something you like (or having someone criticize you for something you don't think is a problem, as the case may be) doesn't feel good. So I just quit buying them without saying much about it. But this new campaign takes the company's two-facedness to a new level. Military products are nowhere to be found on Converse's website--searching for "military" on the site gives you a pair of sneakers based on a model once supplied to G.I.s in training, a jacket with a chevron design on the chest, and a gym bag. Looking under the "hard to find" product heading yields nothing relating to war. But if you look elsewhere--a Google search for "converse military boots" did the trick for me--there's plenty.
A site called LAPoliceGear is the first hit (lapolicegear.com/comefo.html?gclid=CPL-v
Converse's hypocrisy makes me angry. Their most prominent public face supports peace, interracial unity and the fight to end some of humanity's most dangerous diseases (I won't deny for a moment the commendability of Converse's joining (product)red, in fact I find it very admirable). But out of the spotlight, in places their primary customer base rarely looks, they're making money on war.
If it makes you angry too, the next few steps are easy. Refuse to buy any Converse products until they cease manufacture of military equipment, and let them know that so long as they keep supporting murder, they've lost a customer. Tell other people about what Converse is doing--they might feel the same way. If enough of Converse's buyers don't want their dollars going towards war and refuse to collaborate any longer, Converse will have to change its business practices to avoid either going under or the profit loss that accompanies too much negative press. "Too much" lost profit for Converse is just the right amount for peace.
Boycott Converse. Tell them about it. Tell other people about it. Instigate some peace.
Leave a comment