Nike’s 30th anniversary media campaign is all the rage right now. But what about Nike’s history? Or is Nike an example of transformation?
Nike’s 30th anniversary media campaign is all the rage right now. Whether you think Colin Kaepernick kneeling is showing disrespect (is this the first time in history kneeling is disrespectful?) or showing respect while also protesting social injustices, you’ve probably seen it.
Simple, strong, and striking.
But what about Nike’s history? Joshua Hunt questions Nike’s authenticity in his opinion piece in The Atlantic.
On the other hand, what if Nike is an example of transformation?
Nike made some significant changes nearly 20 years ago. Back in 2013, Sustainable Brands highlighted how Nike changed their supply chain and how they’ve helped the innovation of materials and fabrics, reportedly even collaborating with NASA. Nike’s marketing focused on helping inactive people get active.
But was it authentic then, and is it authentic now?
And how much should purpose-led companies sacrifice? Mr. Hunt’s article questions the level of support Nike has for Kaepernick in light of their continued work with the NFL. Have any contracts been under renegotiation? Does it matter? Is corporate social responsibility an all-or-nothing game?
Nike claims a clear purpose. And they have made significant changes over the years. They’re making a difference in their industry, with suppliers and their customers.
How much is because they see a marketing opportunity?
How much is because the leadership and company truly believes in their position?
Is there any way to tell? Is it ever definitive for a company, or is it always a moving target?