Just Do It: Nike’s Take On Activism

My laptop screen flickered as I watched footage of LeBron James announcing his I Promise School. The camera quickly cut away to the familiar afro I had seen plastered across the news.

“Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”
[su_pullquote]Many called the choice a step forward in corporate activism, while others posted videos of themselves burning Nike shoes.[/su_pullquote]
Earlier this month, Nike signed Colin Kaepernick on a new advertising deal, making him the face of the company’s 30th anniversary “Just Do It” advertising campaign. The decision to make the ad featuring Kaepernick drew a visceral reaction as social media users lit up to assault or praise Nike’s decision. Many called the choice a step forward in corporate activism, while others posted videos of themselves burning Nike shoes. Regardless of opinion, it’s clear that during these turbulent times, Nike has made itself the center of attention.

Using sociopolitical topics for branding is not a new phenomenon. According to Sarah Benet-Weisser, Professor of Media and Communications Studies at the London School of Economics, commodity activism is a common practice of associating a company brand with a specific political or social goal. Nike has done this before, running some of the first ads encouraging female empowerment or promoting issues like HIV/AIDS prevention. Most of these aims are generally uncontroversial in mainstream culture. People would almost universally agree that empowering women and preventing the spread of HIV are good causes to stand behind. In contrast, the complexity of racial tension and police brutality, especially in our current political climate, is a hot-button issue that can easily spell disaster with a misstep. When Pepsi released a commercial in 2017 designed to promote unity by having Kendall Jenner cross lines of protesters to hand a police officer a can of soda, the backlash was enormous. Many felt the tone-deaf ad trivialized the struggles of the Black Lives Matter movement and misrepresented protesting as a laid-back, entertaining activity. While the company quickly retracted the campaign, its reputation had already been damaged. According to Brandwatch, sentiment towards Pepsi soured with 60% of people on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook disapproving of the company. Although Pepsi ultimately recovered, it was haunted by the PR disaster for weeks to come. Nike’s decision to use such an advertising strategy means walking a razor-thin line, much like Pepsi did. However, the company’s sensitive approach to the issue sets them apart, giving way to incredible success.

Although the Nike stock initially dipped during the week after the ad release, as of September 18 the stock hit a record high. From the same article, surveys show that consumers “overwhelmingly” support Nike’s decision, with further indication that they would be more likely to buy shoes from the company. Despite the opposition, Nike is poised to benefit from this advertising maneuver, using a divisive issue to further their brand message and increase revenue.

Although the financial success satisfies shareholders, there are moral questions about commodity activism. A company by its nature exists to make a profit, and Nike’s usage of a social issue is definitely a play to increase its profits and brand awareness. Given this information, does it dilute the message that Kaepernick, and others who kneel with him, are trying to send? It also could be construed as hypocritical that Nike is supporting a social aim simply for the benefit of the company, an issue that the firm may not have a serious interest in.

[su_pullquote]Commodity activism may become a means to spread support for ideas and movements using a company’s audience and brand.[/su_pullquote]Alternatively, this could be a stepping-stone for a new breed of activism. With Nike making headway in ads supporting controversial sociopolitical goals, other companies will likely follow suit. Commodity activism may become a means to spread support for ideas and movements using a company’s audience and brand. It’s unclear how effective these strategies will be in the long run, but it’s certain that more companies will attempt to back activist goals more frequently. Only time will tell whether or not they succeed both politically and financially.

[su_pullquote align=”right”]The people may support or condemn the company, Kaepernick, and his reasons for protesting. But they’re talking.[/su_pullquote]It is important to keep in mind is that Nike is first and foremost a company, and as a result its goal is to maximize profit. However, it’s possible that the company supports progressive goals and found a way to achieve both objectives through an electrifying advertising campaign. In addition, Kaepernick hasn’t played football since 2016, so this deal seems to indicate a targeted career move for him in his time away from the NFL. I believe the biggest outcome from this advertising move is the amount of attention it has generated in the news and on social media. The people may support or condemn the company, Kaepernick, and his reasons for protesting. But they’re talking. As long as Kaepernick and his message remain in the limelight, there will be a constant push towards addressing the brutality and inequality that he has rallied against.

Akshay Thontakudi ‘19 studies in School of Engineering & Applied Science. He can be reached at a.m.thontakudi@wustl.edu.