So Nike re-introduced Colin Kaepernick as a spokesperson last night, and the Internet’s reaction was something executives in Beaverton almost certainly predicted with pinpoint accuracy before they went ahead and published a suitably tasteful one-sheet with Kaep’s face on it. You could sort the takes as neatly as you could sort your own laundry. There was YASSSSSSSSSSSSSS Twitter hailing Nike for taking a risk by putting Kaepernick front and center. There was Trump Mafia Twitter cutting swooshes off their own socks and burning their swag because Kaepernick, through one very quiet act of protest, has become an eternal vessel into which they can pour their rage. There was DSA Twitter reminding you that Nike is still an evil corporation with a horrible labor record and horny men stalking its boardrooms, and that they wouldn’t showcase Kaepernick if it weren't a financially sound move (in fact, other shoe companies were lined up to pay Kap if Nike didn't). And there was Civility Twitter chiming in to acknowledge all these factions before concluding that Nike’s ad may have been an ad, but it definitely Meant Something.

Again, Nike almost certainly anticipated all of these responses (this article included), and so this new campaign has already paid handsome dividends to them because it has, in adboy terms, driven the conversation. Brands like driving the conversation. They like being the sun around which your takes evolve. And that’s because it’s the job of a brand not only to sell sneakers, but also to perpetuate itself. There will always be years when Nike doesn’t sell quite as many sneakers as it would like, and that’s when being an eternally lasting, global brand name comes in handy. That foothold in the culture assures that you CAN make money, even if you may not be making enough money right this second.

Marketers have a word for this foothold, and it’s called “mindshare,” which is self-explanatory in its chillingness. Nike is betting that it can increase its mindshare using Kaepernick, and it’s clear by now that they’ve already succeeded. What’s also clear is that, even if Nike’s tacit endorsement of Kaepernick (and I hate to call it that because, as ever, this is a case of an athlete endorsing THEM, and it's very weird and gross when people like Darren Rovell treat Nike like saints for paying Kaepernick even when they weren't taking full advantage of that endorsement) has a real sociological impact and encourages other brands to embrace activist athletes, it’s not exactly the optimal way of achieving those athletes’ end goals, yeah?

"Corporations already control so much in America that people are compelled—happy, even—to depend on them as beacons of social change... I shouldn’t need Nike to get police departments to stop being violent and corrupt."

You can be genuinely encouraged that Nike took a stand. You can even be encouraged despite KNOWING it was a calculated move. You can be similarly encouraged when a legacy publisher drops Steve Bannon from its big-ideas festival, or when a bunch of Fortune 500 CEOs resign from President Trump’s Business Advisory Council. Those are “positive” developments, but that’s only because we live in a country where we’ve become increasingly reliant on brands to take a stand for things. If we need these companies to be arbiters of morality at ANY level, then something is hopelessly broken.

Corporations already control so much in America that people are compelled—happy, even—to depend on them as beacons of social change, because they are now the ONLY possible drivers of it. I shouldn’t need Nike to get police departments to stop being violent and corrupt. Making decent shoes is hard enough for them, you know what I mean? But I’m forced to applaud their efforts here only because I live in a world where people cannot effect anywhere near the level of change that a billion-dollar corporation can. The social compact of this nation was meant to be between its citizens, but brands have essentially hijacked that compact, driving all meaningful conversation within. A great many brands have performed a great many acts of evil thanks to this. Others have talked up a big game while still being evil (that’s you, Silicon Valley). Only rarely do brands use their ownership of the social compact for good and genuine ends, and even then it accomplishes far less than what actual PEOPLE could accomplish if they had that compact to themselves once more. Politically speaking, one Colin Kaepernick ought to be worth a million Nikes.