The Marketing Journal
  • About
  • Interviews
  • Articles
  • Videos
  • Book Reviews
  • Views
  • Subscribe
“Stand for Something: Brand Activism at Nike” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler

“Stand for Something: Brand Activism at Nike” – Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler

September 8, 2018

Marketing today means brands must stand for something– even if it means sacrificing a segment of their customers in order to be cool with the segment they are consciously targeting. Sadly, but predictably, the political polarization of the market by politicians and their followers is forcing companies to examine their values and take a visible stand. This past week has seen Nike step up and make what analysts are calling a “risky” values-based branding bet. As we mentioned earlier, stakeholders around the world, especially millennials, now expect businesses to engage in progressive brand activism.

When Nike decided to make Colin Kaepernick the face of the 30th anniversary commemoration of their Just Do It campaign, they became a leader in brand activism overnight.

By taking a public stand against President Trump and, to some extent, the NFL, Nike has rekindled the national debate over rights, patriotism, and the politicization of sports. The initial reaction was shrill and predictable.  President Trump engaged his followers in bashing Nike, and once again created a moment of polarization and divisiveness:

Just like the NFL, whose ratings have gone WAY DOWN, Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts. I wonder if they had any idea that it would be this way? As far as the NFL is concerned, I just find it hard to watch, and always will, until they stand for the FLAG!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018

A few “patriots” burned their Nike shoes or cut the Nike logo off their merchandise. Analysts like Professor Scott Galloway, for example, had a different take:

Is Brand Activism Good for Business?

Within less than 24 hours since Kaepernick first revealed the spot on Twitter, Bloomberg reports that Nike received more than $43 million worth of media exposure.

Most tellingly, Nike’s online sales jumped 31% in the four-day period following Kaepernick’s announcement. Nike’s stock price dipped but then came back, despite some threatening to boycott the company. And Nike ran this ad during the NFL game in prime-time:

Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. #JustDoIt pic.twitter.com/x5TnU7Z51i

— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) September 5, 2018

Why is brand activism the next logical step for purpose-driven or values-based companies?  

Because actions speak louder than words (or ads).  Also, it can be profitable. In some cases, taking a stand is a strategic move that improves profits. The first step is to examine where your brand-values place your company and your target customers on this chart: In Nike’s case, the chart would look something like this: The progressive customers (Generation Z and millennials) buy more Nike products (Just Do It), while regressive customers protest (Just Burn It).

Here are the numbers, via Scott Galloway, who says:

Nike registers $35B in revenues — $15B domestically and $20B abroad. Two-thirds of Nike consumers are under the age of 35. A younger consumer who can afford $150 Flyknit racers likely has substantial disposable income and lives in a city. The term for this cohort? Progressive. Of the $20B international customer base, how many believe the US is currently a “beacon on a hill” and is handling race issues well? I’ll speculate, none. Nike has risked $1-3B in business to strengthen their relationship with consumers who account for $32-34B of their franchise. The math? Nike just did it.

What this means is that companies must understand the trajectory of the customer’s social beliefs, and race to meet them.  The leaders will, in all probability, profit over the laggards.

What Do Consumers Want?

What does the data say?  A survey by Sprout Social reveals these key findings:

  • People want brands to take stands on important issues, and social media is the place for it. Two-thirds of consumers (66%) say it’s important for brands to take public stands on social and political issues, and more than half (58%) are open to this happening on social media – the top channel for consumer receptivity.
  • Brands can’t change minds, but they can effect change. Sixty-six percent of respondents say posts from brands rarely or never influence their opinions on social issues. Rather, respondents believe brands are more effective on social media when they announce donations to specific causes (39%) and encourage followers to take specific steps to support causes (37%), such as participating in events or making their own donations.
  • Liberals are galvanized by brands that take stands, while conservatives are indifferent. Seventy-eight percent of respondents who self-identify as liberal want brands to take a stand, while just about half (52%) of respondents who self-identify as conservative feel the same. Likewise, 82% of liberals feel brands are credible when taking stands, compared to just 46% of conservatives.
  • Relevance is key to reception. Consumers say brands are most credible when an issue directly impacts their customers (47%), employees (40%) and business operations (31%).
  • Brands face more reward than risk. Consumers’ most common emotional reactions to brands taking a stand on social were positive, with intrigued, impressed and engaged emerging as the top three consumer reactions. Likewise, when consumers’ personal beliefs align with what brands are saying, 28% will publicly praise a company. When individuals disagree with the brand’s stance, 20% will publicly criticize a company.

What’s more the survey also discovers that respondents want brands to take stands depending on the issue: And, in terms of leadership, another survey by BRANDfog and McPherson Strategies tells us that 93% of respondents agree: “When CEOs issue statements about the key social issues of our time and I agree with the sentiment, I am more likely to make a purchase from that company.” 86% of people think that CEOs who publicly defend the rights of others on social media are seen as great leaders.

So where does this leave Nike? As Nike starts down this road of brand activism, they are going to have to be more progressive in order to combat the image of exploitative sweatshop labor and gender inequality in the workplace.  Nike’s progressive customers would not have it any other way.  


Learn more
about  Brand Activism at www.activistbrands.com >>

READ: Brand Activism: From Purpose to Action by Christian Sarkar and Philip Kotler 

Christian Sarkar is the editor of this site, an entrepreneur, consultant, artist, and activist. See the $300 House project and FixCapitalism.com.

Philip Kotler is the “father of modern marketing.”  He is the S.C. Johnson & Son Distinguished Professor of International Marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He was voted the first Leader in Marketing Thought by the American Marketing Association and named The Founder of Modern Marketing Management in the Handbook of Management Thinking. Professor Kotler holds major awards including the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) Distinguished Marketing Educator Award and Distinguished Educator Award from The Academy of Marketing Science. The Sales and Marketing Executives International (SMEI) named him Marketer of the Year and the American Marketing Association described him as “the most influential marketer of all time.” He is in the Thinkers50 Hall of Fame, and is featured as a “guru” in the Economist. Sign up for his newsletter >>

Related Posts

“How the US military used magazines to target ‘vulnerable’ groups with recruiting ads” – Jeremiah Favara

Advertising /

“How the US military used magazines to target ‘vulnerable’ groups with recruiting ads” – Jeremiah Favara

“Next Practices in Museum Experience Design” – Barbara Dal Corso

B2C Marketing /

“Next Practices in Museum Experience Design” – Barbara Dal Corso

“100 Years of Community Engagement: The Regenerative Roots of Morettino Coffee” – Christian Sarkar, Enrico Foglia, and Philip Kotler

Brand Activism /

“100 Years of Community Engagement: The Regenerative Roots of Morettino Coffee” – Christian Sarkar, Enrico Foglia, and Philip Kotler

‹ “Marketing Needs to Learn to Speak Finance” – Katherine N. Lemon and Jon Biro › “Open to Think” – An Interview with Dan Pontefract
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Recent Posts

  • “How the US military used magazines to target ‘vulnerable’ groups with recruiting ads” – Jeremiah Favara
  • “Product Feature Prioritization —How to Align on the Right List” – Bob Pennisi
  • “The Community Value Pyramid” – Christian Sarkar, Philip Kotler, Enrico Foglia
  • “Next Practices in Museum Experience Design” – Barbara Dal Corso
  • “What does ESG mean?” – Luciana Echazú and Diego C. Nocetti
  • “ChatGPT could be a game-changer for marketers, but it won’t replace humans any time soon” – Omar H. Fares
  • “If Your Brand Comes Before Your Category, You’re Doing It Wrong” – Eddie Yoon, Nicolas Cole, Christopher Lochhead

Categories

  • Advertising
  • Analytics
  • B2B Marketing
  • B2C Marketing
  • Big Data
  • Book Reviews
  • Brand Activism
  • Branding
  • Category Design
  • Community
  • Content Marketing
  • COVID-19
  • Creativity
  • Customer Culture
  • Customer Engagement
  • Customer Experience
  • Dark Marketing
  • Decision Making
  • Design
  • Digital Marketing
  • Ecosystems & Platforms
  • Innovation
  • Internet of Things
  • Jobs-to-be-Done
  • Leadership
  • Manipulation
  • Marketing Technology
  • Markets & Segmentation
  • Meaning
  • Metrics & Outcomes
  • Millennials
  • Mobile Marketing
  • Non Profit Marketing
  • Organizational Alignment
  • Peace Marketing
  • Privacy
  • Product Marketing
  • Regeneration
  • Regenerative Marketing
  • Research
  • Retail
  • Risk & Reputation
  • Sales
  • Services Marketing
  • Social Media
  • Strategy & Business Models
  • Sustainability
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos

Archives

  • April 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • October 2022
  • August 2022
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016

Back to Top

© 2016-19 The Marketing Journal and the individual author(s). All Rights Reserved
Produced by: Double Loop Marketing LLC
By using this site, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies, our privacy policy, and our terms of use.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy