{"id":966,"date":"2018-02-05T09:45:07","date_gmt":"2018-02-05T09:45:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/everpress.com\/blog\/?p=966"},"modified":"2021-11-01T15:27:44","modified_gmt":"2021-11-01T15:27:44","slug":"how-nike-became-untouchable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/everpress.com\/blog\/how-nike-became-untouchable\/","title":{"rendered":"How Nike Became Untouchable"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 1991, Jeffrey D. Ballinger, an anti-sweatshop campaigner and the director of Press for Change, published a report<\/a> into Nike\u2019s Indonesian factories which focused on a series of strikes prompted by low pay and poor working conditions. Although many brands relied on sweatshop labour, and many of the factories Nike was involved with were used by multiple big brands, it was Nike in particular which became shorthand for unethical manufacturing.<\/p>\n

What followed was a series of demonstrations that made up one of the most targeted global boycotts of any corporation. United Students Against Sweatshops came out against Nike; store openings were picketed, and campaigners moved from targeting the brand itself to targeting its high profile celebrity endorsers. Consumer activist Marc Kasky even filed a lawsuit against Nike, claiming its portrayal of its own working practices amounted to false advertising (the case ended up being settled for $1.5 million in 2003).<\/p>\n

\"How
Source: USAS.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Nike committed, in 1998, to end child labour across its manufacturing chain and apply United States health and safety standards abroad (though this didn\u2019t extend to paying the living wage, then $3 a day). It took further subsequent steps to improve its environmental impact and labour conditions: in 1998 it appointed a director of government and community affairs EMEA, who is now the company\u2019s chief sustainability officer; it co-founded the Fair Labor Association in 1999, and by 2005 it was publishing lists of the factories it uses. Recently, Nike has pledged to being toxics-free by 2020, and it\u2019s aiming to reduce its carbon emissions by 50% by 2025.<\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s the brand’s long-entrenched position in pop culture\u2019s psyche which makes it so infallible.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Recent criticism<\/a> may yet prove damaging to the brand\u2019s image, but a decade of controversy and protests has meant that the brand understands how to confront such questions about its ethics, and is generally quick to adapt and take action. It\u2019s not just its savvy with damage control which carried it through the \u201890s to its present-day high, though. Nike\u2019s early business model of outsourcing manufacturing to developing countries and then spending the money saved on huge marketing campaigns is still paying off. It\u2019s the brand’s long-entrenched position in pop culture\u2019s psyche which makes it so infallible.<\/p>\n

\"the_opening_of_Nike_in_Washington_everpress\"
Nike, Washington. Source: Wikipedia.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The history of Nike is a masterclass in marketing, one of the earliest examples being its sponsorship of Michael Jordan in 1984. Legend has it that Jordan\u2019s black-and-red Air Jordan 1s were deemed to be in breach of the NBA\u2019s \u2018uniformity of uniform\u2019 rule, which stated<\/a> \u201ca player must wear shoes that not only matched their uniforms, but matched the shoes worn by their teammates,\u201d, and also that shoes had to have a certain amount of white material. Jordan was apparently issued with a $5000 fine per game, which Nike covered, and he continued to wear the shoes for the rest of the season, with Nike footing the final bill.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s been so much doubt cast on this in the far reaches of the sneaker obsessives\u2019 corner of the internet that it\u2019s difficult to say whether any of it is true. It was recently revealed<\/a> that it’s more likely Jordan was wearing Nike Air Ships than Air Jordans; some suggest that the violation only occurred once, with proof being a letter that lists only one instance of this happening; plus there\u2019s doubt as to whether Nike did in fact cover any of the fines, if there were fines at all.<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t really the point though. The fact that the story exists demonstrates just how shrewd Nike is at positioning itself within pop culture. It has the kind of cool capital that only comes from not playing by the rules; Nike might be mainstream enough to be on the court, but it\u2019ll do it Nike\u2019s way, whatever the cost.<\/p>\n