Causes and campaigns can be big business for sportswear companies and may even do some good – just look at Adidas’ training shoes made from ocean waste. It’s no wonder then that some commentators have become uncomfortable with Nike’s foray into politics, arguing that it’s a cynical ploy to hijack social movements in order to sell shoes. In the #Metoo era, Nike has, once again, found itself on the wrong side of the debate.
In August, four female executives filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for gender discrimination. The allegations led to several high profile departures from Nike headquarters in Oregon, but it didn’t end there. Alba Vigaray/EPAīut the company suffered an own-goal this spring, when a New York Times investigation revealed complaints from 50 current and former employees about Nike’s “boys’ club” culture of sexual harassment and gender pay disparities. Nike’s new campaign ad in Times Square, New York. Nike has been trying to reposition itself since then as a socially conscious sportswear brand, to escape its ties with Lance Armstrong, Oscar Pistorius and Michael Vick. The brand made a strategic commitment to equality several years ago, which has seen it become a visible advocate for equality and civil rights. The ad is clearly targeted at Nike’s most important customers: young, urban consumers whose views are supposed to resonate with the advert’s apparent homage to diversity and social justice. Kaepernick’s role as a Nike brand ambassador may seem like political theatre, intended to antagonise Donald Trump and his supporters.
Some observers in the US seemed to think that Nike had gone too far, while the company’s share price and brand approval ratings fell, at least, in the short-term. The latest salvo in the debate was launched by Kaepernick’s narration of the advert, prompting a social media hashtag urging people to “#BurnYourNikes”.