Nike is on a roll. Just hours after USWNT won its fourth Women’s World Cup title, the company released an ad celebrating the team.
By taking a stance in line with its values, Nike has succeeded where others haven’t.
Nike’s recent ad campaign has proven to be far more successful than the competition’s campaign … even with politics involved. When Nike first aired their advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick, many were wary of their choice because of the bold statement they were making. Despite some backlash, the statement they made eventually worked in their favor, both for sales and reputation. Now, many people refer to that Nike ad as a standard to judge or create new advertisements. This idea proposes a question: Why are the Nike ads that take a stand on a social issue so successful when others fail?
To begin with, Nike has had a strong reputation for the majority of its existence*. Undoubtedly, this has benefitted the feedback they have received over time. A brand with a good reputation will generally have an increased chance of positive feedback after a risky advertisement because their consumers have trust and loyalty in said brand.
In addition to this, Nike’s new ad campaign uses the element of persuasion, pathos, to target the audience’s emotions, often by telling the story of an athlete. One other ad they produced that generated lots of positive feedback incorporated the message of being “crazy” with Serena Williams as the narrator. Each athlete in the ad is able to display some sort of image that tells a portion of their story, playing into the power of pathos. Viewers can see the drive and passion each featured athlete portrays.
As for ads that have been unsuccessful when featuring a political stance, take a look at Victoria’s Secret. June is Pride Month; Victoria’s Secret, along with numerous other brands, had created graphics and clothing lines with rainbow prints for Pride Month. However, Victoria’s Secret is facing backlash for doing this because of a statement that the company’s chief marketing officer, Ed Razek, made about how transgender or plus-size models do not fit their branding for their fashion show. While it is great that companies are speaking out for Pride Month, it can be damaging if their campaign does not seem genuine.
Many brands became aware in the recent year that consumers have been more interested in hearing companies speak out about social issues, as long as it was relevant. One successful example of this is Patagonia, the outdoor clothing brand that campaigned to raise awareness on environmental issues such as the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Boundary Waters.
The main theme in this issue is the term “authenticity.” For brands that have a history of sponsoring specific issues or people, it may make more sense for them to campaign for a social issue. However, for those that do not regularly make statements or get involved in certain issues, it may come across as disingenuous for them to generate a campaign with a social stance. An example for brands looking to do this could start by choosing a charity or organizations to promote, to lead up to a campaign, rather than immediately campaigning.
Read here to find more information about Nike’s authenticity in the ad campaign.
From this information, it is necessary for brands thinking of making a statement on a social issue in a campaign to ensure that the subject aligns with their values.
*Disregarding Nike’s scandal with child labor workers.