I think the question is why did they take what seems the more difficult position in the past. Was it standing by the values of the brand or did they make the right decision that it was good for the bottom line in that moment? I think it is the latter and now they are paralyzed by what to do because they are unsure what is best for the bottom line. We need these brands that told us they stood for more than selling us stuff, to stand on those values. They won’t because they were selling something and nothing else was there.
Great point. I am sure the higher up you go with that question, the more varied the answers become, too. There is no doubt that a lot of companies make performative decisions. When it comes down to it, I just want my choice to spend money to go to a company that stands on the values they sell us.
Totally agree. When a company says they are on thing, but do another thing, I am disappointed. Apple is moving that direction. Hypocrisy is the number one thing I am bothered by today. Have principles and stick to them no matter what.
Yup. I totally agree. There was an easy cost-benefit analysis that could be done for many of the other actions, campaigns etc. They weren't done on principle. First and foremost, Nike has been one of the greatest marketing companies over the past 50 years.
Great article, Nick. I still believe Nike can find its way back to values-led leadership but scale has clearly changed the risk calculus. The brand I grew up with (and later worked for) was more willing to take cultural stands, not just market share. There’s a leadership opportunity sitting in plain sight right now. I hope they take it.
And I feel like PHK being a Republican donor isn’t new, that’s been consistent for years.
Thanks! I believe they can, too. I hope they do. Agreed, the donations are not new but it feels like the significance of making that choice has. Lots of nuance to all of that, but it’s never not disappointing to me.
Great piece, Nick. I’m not sure I agree with the idea Nike was ever about doing the right things for the right reasons though. Example 1: Nike lost A LOT of credibility with female Track athletes during the me-too movement. You likely recall the stories of Nike turning a blind eye to several vile situations. Nike also lost credibility with its lack of policies that should have protected its most lucrative female Track & Field athletes (especially through pregnancies). Example 2: Nike didn’t stand by Kaep as much as Kaep’s attorney convinced Nike the brand had a golden opportunity after he (the cofounder of MTN) successfully sued the NFL. Example 3: I’m pretty sure Nike still offers the Cortez. You know, the shoe named after “the guy who kicked the s**t out of the Aztecs”. A shoe that celebrates the annihilation of Indigenous people isn’t exactly ‘Woke’. Example 4: I’m of the mind the ONLY reason Phil Knight is no longer at the helm is the backlash the brand began to feel as his personal views came out during a time Nike was expanding its global reach (I don’t think voting Republican in the ‘90s-early ‘00s is that big a deal so long as the person is compassionate and principled). We know Knight’s ideals are aligned with the current Admin. I detect a pattern. It’s likely more nuanced than what I laid out, but I think Nike is exactly where Nike wants to be. Great work!
Great points. I agree, they’ve failed a lot and plenty more ways than you or I have mentioned. But to me it feels like they are one of the only brands that tries. I wish I could expect more from all brands, but I know that’s unrealistic. They exist to make money. I just wish it was different.
adidas backing Calle 13 and Bad Bunny is the biggest cultural and political flex I’ve seen. But one may need to be Latino or PR to get it. Stories will be written about all the messaging during the SB HT show. Check them out.
I think the question is why did they take what seems the more difficult position in the past. Was it standing by the values of the brand or did they make the right decision that it was good for the bottom line in that moment? I think it is the latter and now they are paralyzed by what to do because they are unsure what is best for the bottom line. We need these brands that told us they stood for more than selling us stuff, to stand on those values. They won’t because they were selling something and nothing else was there.
Great point. I am sure the higher up you go with that question, the more varied the answers become, too. There is no doubt that a lot of companies make performative decisions. When it comes down to it, I just want my choice to spend money to go to a company that stands on the values they sell us.
Totally agree. When a company says they are on thing, but do another thing, I am disappointed. Apple is moving that direction. Hypocrisy is the number one thing I am bothered by today. Have principles and stick to them no matter what.
Yup. I totally agree. There was an easy cost-benefit analysis that could be done for many of the other actions, campaigns etc. They weren't done on principle. First and foremost, Nike has been one of the greatest marketing companies over the past 50 years.
Great article, Nick. I still believe Nike can find its way back to values-led leadership but scale has clearly changed the risk calculus. The brand I grew up with (and later worked for) was more willing to take cultural stands, not just market share. There’s a leadership opportunity sitting in plain sight right now. I hope they take it.
And I feel like PHK being a Republican donor isn’t new, that’s been consistent for years.
Thanks! I believe they can, too. I hope they do. Agreed, the donations are not new but it feels like the significance of making that choice has. Lots of nuance to all of that, but it’s never not disappointing to me.
Great piece, Nick. I’m not sure I agree with the idea Nike was ever about doing the right things for the right reasons though. Example 1: Nike lost A LOT of credibility with female Track athletes during the me-too movement. You likely recall the stories of Nike turning a blind eye to several vile situations. Nike also lost credibility with its lack of policies that should have protected its most lucrative female Track & Field athletes (especially through pregnancies). Example 2: Nike didn’t stand by Kaep as much as Kaep’s attorney convinced Nike the brand had a golden opportunity after he (the cofounder of MTN) successfully sued the NFL. Example 3: I’m pretty sure Nike still offers the Cortez. You know, the shoe named after “the guy who kicked the s**t out of the Aztecs”. A shoe that celebrates the annihilation of Indigenous people isn’t exactly ‘Woke’. Example 4: I’m of the mind the ONLY reason Phil Knight is no longer at the helm is the backlash the brand began to feel as his personal views came out during a time Nike was expanding its global reach (I don’t think voting Republican in the ‘90s-early ‘00s is that big a deal so long as the person is compassionate and principled). We know Knight’s ideals are aligned with the current Admin. I detect a pattern. It’s likely more nuanced than what I laid out, but I think Nike is exactly where Nike wants to be. Great work!
Great points. I agree, they’ve failed a lot and plenty more ways than you or I have mentioned. But to me it feels like they are one of the only brands that tries. I wish I could expect more from all brands, but I know that’s unrealistic. They exist to make money. I just wish it was different.
adidas backing Calle 13 and Bad Bunny is the biggest cultural and political flex I’ve seen. But one may need to be Latino or PR to get it. Stories will be written about all the messaging during the SB HT show. Check them out.