Burning sneakers and gym shorts is not reasonable, and it’s not activism.
As Nike’s “Just Do It” 30th anniversary ad campaign catches more flak from angry internet morality advocates because of the company’s sponsorship of ex-NFL quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, the corporation will maintain its multi-billion dollar annual revenue while ravaging the well-being of the developing world’s working poor.
Since Kaepernick is at the center of the issue, conservative news outlets suggest Nike is taking the side of the athlete’s political message, or in President Donald Trump’s words, they are making “a terrible decision.”
Viral videos of consumers burning their Nike merchandise have made their way around social media as a form of “boycott” protest.
But public backlash is nothing new for Nike.
Some the most well-known resistance efforts against the company arose from rising concerns of working conditions for the people making the company’s products. Other efforts were directed at the company for child labor allegations and underpaid factory workers.
Despite its controversies, the multinational corporation has pulled through and is still one of the top athletic manufacturers in the world.
Just as Nike survived past resistance measures, so too will it survive the Kaepernick controversy.
In fact, the company is set to thrive from the politicization.
“In the long term, this should work to Nike’s favor,” Brian Nagel, an Oppenheimer senior analyst, said in an interview with Bloomberg on Sept. 4.
While some angry conservative are burning their merchandise, those in support of Kaepernick and his message would gladly spend their money on Nike products.
In fact, sales increased since the ad ran.
The entire situation raises two primary concerns.
The first deals with boycotting as an act of resistance.
Within the current market, boycotting a company as large as Nike with hopes to significantly affect its profit margin is futile.
The second and most important concern is the issue of choosing Kaepernick to be the face of the campaign.
The former football player became controversial for his decision to kneel for the national anthem before several NFL games.
To some conservatives, this was perceived as an affront to their nationalistic values.
When Nike made Kaepernick the face of a huge ad campaign that focused on self-determination, those conservatives thought Nike was supporting Kaepernick’s beliefs, so they took to burning their Nike products in protest.
That Nike’s unshocking publicity stunt is what set people off is disconcerting.
The kind of people burning clothes are generally not the type to be concerned with the human rights violations for which Nike is responsible.
The backlash is telling as to how some people prioritize their values. That Nike is not continuously confronted for its historically atrocious violation of human rights laws, but instead for a stale, corny ad campaign, is indicative of the progress a portion of society has been lacking.
To the shoe-burning pseudo-activists attacking Nike, where was their outrage when it was known that Nike was using child labor in its factories? Where was it when it became known that factory workers worked in poor, unsanitary and dangerous conditions?
It was nowhere. These people were not angry with Nike then, and the direction of their anger is misguided now.
Their efforts should go to fighting for just working conditions in Nike’s factories—a cause more meaningful than an ad campaign.
