Nike commits to #BLM
2020 was an unprecedented year; a global pandemic forced all of us to spend more time at home away from others. Suddenly people had more time on their hands to interact virtually. Tragic events continued to occur, but one that dominated the news cycle for many weeks and started a national conversation that we still have today was the death of George Floyd. On May 25, George Floyd was murdered while in police custody, and multiple witnesses recorded the incident allowing the world to see what took place. Following Floyd’s death, the social media hashtag #BlackLivesMatter skyrocketed in usage. Within seven days, the hashtag was used in 3.4 million posts with 69 billion engagements, shattering the previous record for the hashtag, which was 145,631 posts following the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile in July 2016 (Wirtschafter, 2021).
Your everyday citizens weren’t the only ones using the hashtag; politicians, sports leagues, and corporations began to show support for #BLM in waves quickly. The company I’ll be focusing on in this post is Nike because this act of corporate social responsibility was in line with past actions from the company. Corporate social responsibility is a commitment by businesses to contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families and the community and society at large (Moscato, 2016). Nike has taken a stand for African American issues athletes in the past. A recent controversial example was the company including Colin Kaepernick in its thirtieth-anniversary “Just Do It” campaign (Cobb, 2018). Kaepernick was a polarizing figure at the time, and the decision angered many consumers but saw praise and increased support from others.
Four days after Floyd’s death, the company created a somber ad calling and flipping their famous “Just Do It” slogan to “For Once, Don’t Do It,” calling for an end to being a bystander to racism in America. On June 5, 2020, Nike released a statement on its website announcing that it would set aside $40 million over four years to support the Black community in the U.S. The funds invested in organizations “that put social justice, education and addressing racial inequality in America at the center of their work” (NIKE, Inc. Statement on Commitment to Black Community, 2020).
I believe this marketing from Nike was effective for its consumer base and on par with the brand. Nike is a huge partner sports league with predominately African American athletes, and many of their modern sponsors are successful African American athletes in numerous sports. I believe image and a company knowing its audience is critical in effective Corporate social responsibility. For a company to attempt to enter a lane of social activism or political conversation that has nothing to do with its brand or its past actions can lead to a backfire. If consumers don’t believe your brand to be genuine in its stance, it can lead to a rejection or even avoidance from consumers that think the brand is just pandering to them. With Nike, though, this stance likely came as no surprise to its consumers. This stance was a win for the company because people who disliked Nike’s political views would have stopped supporting the company after the Colin Kaepernick era. Those who supported Nike would continue to do so.
Corporate social responsibility isn’t going anywhere. Brands in this age are known not just for their products but also their political stances. The disconnect for me is when these companies can firmly stand for one thing, but those actions aren’t reflected 100% across the company. Yes, Nike has taken several steps externally and internally to support African Americans, but its lack of similar support for the Uyghur people of China raises questions of their sincerity. If the company truly stands for justice for all people, or only when the stance is considered a “safe” position for their bottom line. As an African American, I honestly felt pandered seeing all these corporations supporting social justice and standing against racism. I can’t help but ask, “why now,” where was this same commitment in the past before these stances were socially acceptable?
Peer Questions:
- How does corporate social responsibility make you feel? Does it encourage or discourage you from supporting a company?
- How does a company prove to you that it is genuinely trying to bring about positive change to an issue versus pandering to an audience for profit?
- How would you plan the communication strategy if you were in charge of marketing a social issue your company wanted to get involved with? Would you recommend the company take a polarizing stance if it could result in a detrimental loss in revenue?
References:
Cobb, J. (2018, September 5). Behind Nike’s Decision to Stand by Colin Kaepernick. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/behind-nikes-decision-to-stand-by-colin-kaepernick
Moscato, D. (2016). The brand behind the activism: Patagonia’s DamNation campaign and the evolution of corporate social responsibility. Case Studies in Strategic Communication, 5, 99-116. Available online: http://cssc.uscannenberg.org/wp-content/uploads/20…
NIKE, Inc. Statement on Commitment to Black Community. (2020, June 5). Nike News. https://news.nike.com/news/nike-commitment-to-blac…
Wirtschafter, V. (2021, June 17). How George Floyd changed the online conversation around BLM. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/how-george-fl…
0 comments