Nike Cashes in Its Brand Capital…And Is Winning

Social causes are officially in vogue for for-profit companies. I know that sounds crass but branding and activism is assumed these days. It is recognized as a way to control narratives on various media platforms because it is assumed that mainstream media cannot be trusted. As many citizens take up their favorite causes and champion them on Facebook, businesses are under pressure to stand for something. In this era of populism, standing for one’s beliefs can turn into a 24/7 job. If one’s convictions go viral, ‘always on’ media will be on your social media accounts, at your door and wherever you go. This will also attract acolytes, naysayers and outright haters. Unfortunately, unethical behavior begins to show itself. Supporters may aggressively push you to be more public by promoting things in your name without thinking about the personal consequences to you. On the other side, opponents may reveal your physical address, mobile # and family details opening the opportunity for harassment.

The poster children for standing on their convictions no matter what the cost goes to 2 nonprofits who have been doing it for years: PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and GreenPeace. Both groups have done extreme things that have drawn the ire of Democrats and Republicans. They are equal opportunity offenders as PETA continues to shame celebrities for wearing animal furs (Kelly Rowland, Jennifer Lopez, etc.) while GreenPeace uses innovative activism that sometimes involve trespassing and sabotage. Think about it: PETA is willing to offend elites who most likely would support their cause while GreenPeace activists are willing to offend global leaders . 

But now in the age of Trump where everything is politicized, more for-profit companies are following the trail blazed by nonprofit companies. 

For example, several CEOs exited Trump’s not defunct Manufacturing Council after he made controversial statements in support of white supremacists at the Charlottesville protests in 2o17. That would include the CEOs of Merk, Under Armour, Intel, 3M, Corning and the list goes on.

Nike is on a premier list of global for-profit companies that use their brand capital (equity) at pivotal historic moments. Although Nike has a long history of commenting on social issues, Benetton ruled the 1980s with its aggressive marketing focus on world issues regarding race, class, religion and gender. Since then, Nike and other brands have become the focal point of addressing important issues that part of their audience champions. Nike recently released its new ad campaign celebrating 30 years of its ‘Just Do It’ campaign. At the end of the commercial, embattled former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick has the last word. (See image above and see video below.) Their actions have set off a firestorm of responses. Some are vowing to never buy Nike products again and others are burning their sneakers. But as Trevor Noah said: “You realize Nike already has your money, right?”  Nike’s mission is:

“To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world.”

Other companies that have cashed in on their brand capital through cause-related marketing are Dove’s Real Beauty Campaign, Activia’s It Starts Inside Campaign on female empowerment and Patagonia’s environmental campaigns. According to cmo.com, today’s consumers expect companies to take a position on important social and political issues. A survey found 75% of consumers expect brands to make a contribution to their quality of life. 

Kaepernick has been publicly called out by President Trump and his stance has been completely mischaracterized. He kneeled in protest during the national anthem to bring attention to police brutality against African Americans, not to disrespect veterans. Kaep has been officially blackballed by the NFL and no team will hire him even if he is better than their other QB options. He is presently suing the NFL. Meanwhile, the new NFL policy financially penalizes teams if their players kneel during the national anthem.

I applaud Nike for standing on its mission considering that it is one of the NFL’s major partners.

So, here is a devil’s advocate question: Where was Nike when Kaep first started his protest? Is this a fair question?

History is littered with African American athletes that stood against racial injustice, were hated in their day and received no political support outside of their communities. Yet, they are universally loved years later and their images are mined for profit. That would include Muhammad Ali, Willie Mays, Althea Gibson, Lusia Harris, Hank Aaron, Wilma Rudolph, Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, Tommie Smith, John Carlos and Jack Johnson. Essence.com has a great article highlighting this issue. (I also want to give a nod to baseball player Roberto Clemente who was Black and Latino.)

Nike’s stock may have dropped but it will most likely bounce back. As their brand capital has grown globally over the decades, this has given them room to explore the intersection of social causes and athleticism. This also means finding the right balance of respect and dissent. For example, Nike created the first sport hijab which can be viewed as a nod to respecting Muslim culture. However, the ad below highlights Muslim women athletes who are not always viewed favorably in their native country (depending on the sport) and who must often practice without sufficient equipment. Here is where Nike is dissenting away from the culture of some Muslim countries. 

But for the record as I stated above, the African American athlete got here first. They have been combining social causes and athleticism for decades. Occasionally, the NBA and the NFL, two sports with a majority African American roster, have waded in this area. Their stories are often about individual triumph and hardly emphasize systemic and institutional inequality that keeps others from reaching their full potential. They do not want to offend their huge white fan base. I doubt that the NFL will penalize Nike for its decision to feature Kaep. They have a symbiotic relationship: the NFL benefits from Nike’s clever influencer marketing tactics using NFL athletes while Nike benefits every time the camera shows a close-up NFL replay where we can see the Nike logo on jerseys and cleats. Although no one is dying because of Nike’s campaign decision, Black people have died because of police brutality. Conversely, Kaepernick is still without a job and most likely will never work in the NFL again. Of course, he is a multimillionaire BUT he has sacrificed millions more in future salary and endorsements deals by taking this stand. 

I believe Nike has accumulated enough brand capital to challenge its partners and societal attitudes but primarily in western countries. Why? Because western countries elevate individual freedom and expression for its citizens as a core ideal in its founding documents. In other words, just like Nike, any of us in the U.S. can hold an unpopular opinion and receive due process according to the law. However, even if there are no legal consequences, social and cultural consequences are becoming common. For example, African American males can sense that their movements are being watched by society whether as a public figure or simply walking through the store. I feel it ALL the time. Also, social media has emerged as an arbiter of truth. Ask beauty blogger Laura Lee who lost sponsors after old racist tweets were dug up on her Twitter account.

Ultimately, having the brand capital necessary to effect change is not a new concept. Large companies have leveraged it when deciding where to build a headquarters/plant, where to have their conventions, etc. The politics of a locale is sometimes called into question if the issue surrounds race, gender and political affiliation.

But there is a new kind of brand capital being wielded by individuals who are bypassing the Hollywood celebrity and pro sports endorsed machine. Some simply are masters at using digital platforms and many do not come from wealth. They are not accountable to a board of directors or an executive team. They ARE the team and they are only accountable to their own goals. More and more brand influencers are moving in this space. Kaep stands at the intersection of social causes and athleticism with a boost from Nike. Will you be talking about Kaep 30 years from now…or Michael Jordan?

So, here is one of my big questions: Can one person have enough brand capital to change a society in the right direction? What about the wrong direction?