by Aneke Gade
As humans, we are wired to seek out gossip and controversy. Advertisers know this.
This instinctual behavior goes back to hunter-gatherer times when gossip was beneficial to our survival. This was an age of small societies, where we needed to constantly evaluate people’s thoughts and opinions to better determine those who we cared to have meaningful relationships with and those we should avoid. Of course, gossip can then spark controversy, fueled by highly opinionated conversation where people square off on two very different sides of a topic. I took a class last quarter called “Life and Concepts” which brought these instincts to the forefront of conversation about how current day human behaviors are affected by deeply ingrained behaviors that were better suited for living in small groups. We now live in large societies in which needing to track everyone’s behaviors and opinions is not as important to our survival. Nevertheless, this instinct remains in the human genome, and marketers are able to use this concept to their advantage. I give you, controversial marketing.
Controversial marketing has become incredibly prominent in the past years and has it successes, and certainly its failures, as a strategy. This form of marketing presents a topic which is largely debated in society and uses it to get people to converse about their ideas. In doing so, the product and brand itself gets thrown into the conversation and boom! You have people talking about your product. One of the most recent successes of controversial marketing surrounds the brand Nike. Nike is a master at branding, from celebrity endorsements to the iconic swoosh. But even a well-established brand like Nike faces loss of interest and needs to work to stay competitive in the growing athletic wear industry. In September 2018 Nike released a new advertisement which featured a black and white, close up, and highly detailed photo of former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick with the words “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” The advertisement was met with extreme controversy because of its cultural context. Colin Kaepernick was heavily criticized for kneeling during the National Anthem in response to police brutality and the deaths of unarmed African Africans. At first Nike’s stock fell dramatically and it seemed as though the controversy was only going to drive people away from the brand but then stock began to rise again and Nike ended up increasing sales by $6 billion just one month after the campaign began. So why did Nike’s use of such a controversial figure in their advertising end up being so lucrative?
First and foremost, I think that we have to bring it back to the fact that that the human tendency to spread social information is innate and that getting people talking about your product and spreading information about your brand is arguably one of the best ways to raise brand awareness. For a brand like Nike which has been a powerhouse in the athletic industry since the 1970s it is important to keep people interested and wanting to continue to buy your products. A controversial advertisement with roots in the intersection of contemporary social issues and professional sports is a sure way to get a wide range of demographics talking about what message the advertisement is trying to send, along with how they feel about that message. Likewise, that also gets them talking about Nike.
There are a few factors that make this campaign especially effective, the first is that Nike is engaging in a deeper level of celebrity ethos. Brands have been using celebrities and known faces since the dawn of advertising, but Nike’s ad is deeper than having Jennifer Aniston drink SmartWater. Nike is engaging in a contentious cultural discussion and using a face that some people strongly support and others despise. The use of the celebrity in this case resonates deeper with than viewer than a simple celebrity endorsement does. It is clear the Kaepernick feels strongly about the message of the ad and the brand of Nike because of his participation. Whether or not people buy the product relates to how people feel about Kaepernick and his controversial actions as well as how they see their friends react and respond.
The second reason the advertisement is successful stems from the fact that the United States is becoming more politically polarized. People now want to see companies take action and have an opinion. Specifically those who want to see a brand with a cause are younger consumers. In return, consumers whose ideas align with the ideas of these companies will feel more compelled to purchase from them in comparison to their competitor. When researching for public reaction to this campaign I came across a fellow blogger named Ross Simmonds who stated that this kind of marketing is like corporate social responsibility 2.0 in which consumers feel especially connected to firms that are taking action in the community and follow the triple bottom line or do business with the intention of focusing on society and the environment as much as profits. This resonated with me because I think that now more than ever, people are looking toward big companies with big voices to help create social change.
What can be further discussed when talking about corporate social responsibility is if Nike’s use of controversial marketing is just Nike trying to stir up conversation and increase brand awareness, or if Nike is progressing toward a business model that builds social responsibility and awareness of cultural issues into their brand image. Think about the difference between a brand that gives nods to social issues in a short-lived as campaign and businesses that embed a cause into their daily operations - such as the shoe brand Toms which donates a pair of shoes to someone in need for every pair purchased. There is clearly a difference in the two despite seemingly both contributing back to society. Time and trends will only tell if Nike is adopting a similar approach to Toms but it is certainly interesting to think about what might be going on in the long term for the brand in addition to the short-term effects of this controversial advertisement.
The reasons above highlight why I think Nike’s advertising was powerful, but Nike was also especially successful within the sphere of companies that use controversial advertising for another set of reasons. Again during my research, I came across an article in NY Magazine which said that the ad was, “uplifting rather than accusatory.” This statement allowed me to draw some connections to other pieces of controversial advertising. An article that could be considered more accusatory than uplifting is the January 2019 commercial for Gillette razors which talked about toxic masculinity in response to the #MeToo Movement. The television advertisement plays on the thirty-year-old tagline, “The Best A Man Can Get.” When consumers suddenly feel like the ad is accusing their behaviors and not uplifting an alternative, people may react negatively and thus feel negatively about the associated brand as well. With Nike’s ad, there was nothing directly on the ad which stated anything about police brutality, the National Anthem, or kneeling. Rather the message encouraged taking a stand, which is a more universal sentiment that people of many demographics and psychographics could rally around. An ad which falls between Nike’s and Gillette’s approach is an ad by the brand Always, which specializes in feminine hygiene products. Their campaign titled “Fight like Girl” took a common put-down about the strength of women and turned it into a rallying cry for young girls and how they could use it to positively define their behavior. So, in a way the campaign uses both accusations and uplifting sentiments. These are just a few campaigns which are dipping their toes into this form of marketing and are tinkering with the way it will affect their brand image.
Controversial advertising is tricky, there is certainly no perfectly right way to make it effective but there is definitely a wrong way to do it and it is up to the advertisers to find a balance between promoting conversation to bring brand awareness while also being careful to make sure it is done in a way that has a positive effect on spending behavior and relationships with consumers.
Opmerkingen