Controver$y
When Michael Jordan entered the NBA in 1984 he was a highly touted prospect, and he was taken 3rd overall in the 1984 NBA draft. With that sneaker companies were competing for him. Despite the fact, that Michael Jordan wanted to sign with Adidas the German executives did not want to sign him as they "wanted to sign centers". So Michael Jordan signed with a small company out of Oregon called Nike, which was small at that time. When Michael Jordan started wearing the "air ship" basketball shoe they were "banned" and Jordan was fined $5,000 every game that he wore them. So Nike went on a campaign saying they were "banned", their campaign was ultra successful and the sales of the Air Jordan line skyrocketed. Michael Jordan by 1988 was the best player in the NBA averaging 35+ ppg. From then on to the end of his career the Jordan line became the most successful signature line ever. To this day Nike sells more than a billion dollars of Jordan shoes every year. Nike has a long history of turning controversy into money, just last year. Nike had an adversiting campaign where they had a slogan "Believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything" with Colin Kaepernick amid the tension between Trump and Kaepernick. The next day Nike's stock was at an all time high.
When the recent Nike campaign with Colin Kaepernick was announced, many supporters of Kaepernick praised Nike- essentially for what seemed like its willingness to take a side and take a risk by endorsing Kaepernick's social justice efforts, even if it would create controversy. In reality, though, companies like Nike do what will help them profit the most. Nike did its research and knew its demographic, so despite some people's anger, its sales increased significantly because of its campaign with Kaepernick.
ReplyDeleteIt can certainly be very positive to have a major company endorse a good cause, but it is important to recognize that money always plays a crucial role in that decision. In contrast, companies with the power to make important statements often do not speak out about controversial issues or injustices, even when doing so could make a major difference socially or help people, because it will not benefit them economically. This concept reminds me somewhat of the idea proposed in "Worse than War" that members of the UN should cut off trade with countries when they violate human rights, to pressure them economically to change-- it could be the right approach morally, but it unfortunately is not very plausible because countries that rely on that trade would not consider the lives they would be saving/helping worth the economic loss that the moral choice would entail.