Not unexpectedly, Nike’s signing of Colin Kaepernick to an endorsement deal has led to some backlash, as reported in WaPo, although its magnitude is not yet clear. But the report goes further on the history of Nike and social justice:
[Corporate reputation adviser Anthony Johndrow] said there is a perception that “you’ve got to keep your house in order first,” and that companies “can’t go proactive unless they’re pristine.” But Nike is charting another path, Johndrow said, not because the company lacks issues of its own, but because it has historically engaged with hot-button issues in its advertising.
In 1995, for example, Nike looked to its “Just Do It” slogan to raise awareness of women’s rights in sports. That same year, the company featured Los Angeles marathon runner Ric Munoz, who was HIV positive. …
Joe Holt, an expert on business ethics at the University of Notre Dame, said there is an important moral difference to companies promoting their views “because you have to” versus “because you want to.” He said one true test of a company’s values is if that company is willing to stick to them even at a financial cost. Nike’s use of Kaepernick in the “Just Do It” ad seems to affirm that dedication, Holt said, because it will inevitably alienate some customers.
I remain unpersuaded that this will result in Nike losing money. I believe they’ve analyzed the moral issue in detail and came to the conclusion that Kaepernick is in the right – and, secure in the knowledge that a system with a component of a belief in justice will reward those who behave in a just way most of the time, took their decision to be on what they consider to be the side of justice.
It’s also possible they simply analyzed the demographics leanings and made their decision on which will lead to more profit in the future. However, if that information ever got out, they’d be at hazard of being abandoned by the youth element they’re pursuing, as they are far more idealistic than the older generations and more likely to abandon Nike for a purely profit-driven decision with no moral reasoning going into it.
Nike may not be profitable in the near-future, but in the long-term I suspect they made the right decision.
