Should companies wade into politics? It's a pointed question given the influence of social media, where issues pushed to the top of people's media feeds move right alongside their paths to purchase. It's all one on the screen. PATAGONIA made headlines by issuing a response to the TRUMP administration's historic rollback of protections for two national monuments: BEAR EARS and GRAND STAIRCASE ESCALANTE. On an all-black background, the Patagonia site reads: "The President Stole Your Land." It's important to note, as CAM WOLF does in GQ, that the move (genuinely motivated and well-executed as it may be) is a branding exercise. This piece in THE ATLANTIC argues that for some companies, it seems at odds not to address issues directly related to their stated mission. Not all brands have a strong enough audience or culture to address political issues in a way that feels authentic. For those that do, it can be highly beneficial—when it suits them. It's less likely that a company will enter a political dialogue that poses significant risks to its business. Executives from CHLOÉ, DELVAUX, and VERSACE recently discussed corporate political engagement at the NYT INTERNATIONAL LUXURY conference, and it's fascinating to see which issues companies will embrace (sustainability, women's rights) vs. those that are more controversial (BREXIT, siding with political candidates)... Do customers want true transparency, or just the right story? Does a modicum of transparency suffice? STEVE DOOL's piece in FASHIONISTA looks at the blurred ethical lines for editors who accept sponsorship or paid partnerships, influencer-style. What are the implications given FTC attention on sponsored posts?.... Briefs: SOTHEBY'S auction of SHAUN LEANE's jewelry archive saw several lots going for 2 to 3 times the auction estimates... WHOOPI GOLDBERG's holiday sweaters... A trend for men's wrists: turquoise.