When it comes to this modern world, no one can deny the fact that there are load so of brands competing with each other neck to neck to get the consumer. And one of such top brand is NIKE. It is a very reputed and famous brand and it utilises it for different marketing strategies, including using celebs in their ads. However it will not be wrong to say that the brand has created a kind of social stratification where individuals think they are better than others if they wear such brands. Certain people think that they are superior because they wear Nike which is expensive and prestigious..
History and background information
Nike was initially launched by the name of ‘Blue Ribbon Sports’by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight in 1964. Initially they shook hands to produce 300 pairs of sports shoes (History and Heritage). Bill Bowerman was a national level track and field coach at Oregon University. He was always looking forward to innovations especially in running shoes to provide his athletes with a competitive edge over others.
A Portland, middle distance runner, Phil Knight joined Oregon University in 1955 and participated in the track program of Bowerman. He wanted to promote the quality running shoes for runners. So he collaborated with Tiger shoes and became their distributor in U.S. He also sent those pairs to Bowerman with an intention of selling them but Bowerman offered him to become a partner and to give his footwear design ideas to Tiger. Together they formed a company by name of ‘Blue Ribbon Sport’ in January, 1964.
The first official brochures, print ads and marketing material of their company was created by Johnson. He also shoots photographs for the catalogue of the company and gave a name Nike in 1971 (History and Heritage).
Analysing Logo of Nike and also the idea of showing celebs in their ads
Using expensive and famous sports person for their product will give them a big advantage and cover. As there will be people who will surely buy the product thinking that famous sports person have used it so it has to be good.Most importantly their Logo that says “ Just do it” gives a very controversial meaning to the public. It teaches the ideology that one should just do whatever they want to ignoring the effect on others if it is going to be good or bad.
Some authors have said that the brand serve some particular advantage like high quality product. But also some buyers may end up believing that brands that do not get advertised are not good (Mehta, 2000, cited in Sheehan, 2005 p. 23).
Also, Shavitt and Lowrey (1998, cited in Sheehan, 2005 p. 23) squabble that branded goods are much more expensive that items that are not, because certain people, when buying, need to mull over the value, quality, and ‘long time customer service’, which leads to the route of ‘decision making’.
Nike, which is acknowledged for its quality, is sure to have the capabilities to accomplish the customers demand and meet the consumers’ fulfilment and belief.
Plus points Nike can make use of.
They can make use of Innovative designs as they are pretty good at creativity and unique thinking. They are the market leader so they should try to retain it. Their products are of high quality but old designs so they should upgrade their designs. They have a very long history which people trust so they should make use of it. If Ambush Marketing is negative then there are chances that it can be turned into positive too.
There are times when the brand image is destructed and those situation leads to bad marketing. Political consumerist activists are concerned about what Nike has been doing in The Third World countries where they treat their workers with a very low wages (Peretti, 2004, p.127). As their Logoi says they only focus on doing the activity and increasing the sales instead of focusing on the workers who are of third world.
Also they are too much towards Ambush Marketing. They mislead the customers and then they face problems. The ads should be realistic.
Also they are losing the knowledge of what their customers want now. They are just putting their product on customers without knowing what they want.
Criticism of “Just Do it”
Much talked campaign Just Do It faced loads of mixed reviews. At one place it was considered cool and on the other hand it was considered insensitive. Being cool is one thing and being insensitive is other.
One author even went on to say their ads are “an impatient bordering-on-contemptuous exhortation to the masses”.
But the campaign still went on to become a hit. It was the right time to focus the market of people who were getting into a fitness regime. It was so easy to connect the product to the customers that they didn’t even mention the brand name NIKE in their ads and only the “swoosh” was enough.
Criticism of ad campaign Nike 6.0
Nike has faced major issues with their new t shirts having slogans like dope and etc. this has raised the issue of their social responsibility towards the people. By showing such slogans, they are creating a good impression of these bad things which are not socially healthy and acceptable. But again Nike focuses on having the major market share.
Works cited
“History & Heritage.” Nike,Inc. 2013. Web. 1 June.2013.
Peretti, J. ‘The Nike Sweatshop Email: Political consumerism, Internet, and Culture Jamming, in Michele Micheletti, Andreas Follesdal, and Dietlind Stolle (eds), Politics, Products, and Markets: Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present, pp. 127-142, London: Transaction Publishers.2004.
Sheehan, K. ‘Are Goods Bad? Living in Consumer culture’, in Controversies in Contemporary Culture, Thousand Oaks London, New Delhi: Sage, pp.17-33.2005.
