Two words: "greed and shoes"

In this article, Nike, Social Responsibility and the Hidden Abode of Production, Carol A. Stabile discusses Nike’s various marketing strategies and alleged “social responsibility”, contrasting them with the realities of the company’s manufacturing practices and outlining the racist implications that are present in the ad campaigns. Stabile begins by discussing Nike’s history as a company, and its alleged commitment to social responsibility and acting like a “global citizen”. The following section, on the “sneaker wars” between Nike and Reebok in the early 1990’s, shows how Nike’s public image as “responsible” was tested by their controversial campaign strategy. The images of “sneaker war” advertisements were juxtaposed in the media with images of inner city violence, “threaten[ing] to become a critique of the very consumerist desires Nike had so successfully manipulated” (198). The desire turned into greed, as both stores and individuals were robbed of their Nike’s by those who desired the shoes so bad that they were willing to resort to violence to get them. Nike later donated to inner city schools, and began a program aimed at bringing safe “play” back to “American” youths, showing the corporation’s veiled racism, as the problem of “unsafe play” for children was really only an issue in the inner city, implying that athletics was the “prioritized” route for these children.
Nike’s ad campaigns were not always aimed at the inner-city- initially, their advertisements were meant to appeal to the baby boomer demographic in the late 1970’s, who were now entering the professional sphere. These advertisements incorporated “watered down ideals from the 1960s” (199) articulated as a part of the consumer lifestyle, showing people wearing their products running through forests, appearing rugged and “individualistic”. These ads focused on appealing to white male consumers, emphasizing the craftsmanship and the social responsibility of the company, qualities that are attractive to this demographic. Nike seized the opportunity to market fitness to the middle-class, as this was an increasingly popular leisure-time activity. This “angle” eventually shifted to place more emphasis on the “urban” image, a word carefully used to leave ambiguity as to the “intended” race of market audiences. The evolution of this campaign makes obvious the underlying racism of Nike’s advertisements; fitness was sold to white, middle-class people as a leisure activity, while it was sold to black or ethnic people as their version of the “American dream”, their route to social mobility and prosperity. Nike’s alleged commitment to “social responsibility” was further weakened by the exposure of unfair and inhumane sweatshop practices in production. The success of this company relies on what is hidden remaining hidden, disguising reality and keeping contradictions hidden that might upset consumers.
After reading this article, I can’t say I was particularly surprised. The kind of greed and sense of necessity that is created by expensive athletic shoes like Nike is excessive, and ridiculous at best. I’ve witnessed this frenzy first hand, as my younger brother is completely obsessed with expanding his shoe collection and looking at shoes on the internet, and he’s only eleven years old! The extreme greed that is associated with the consumption of these “fashionable” objects is obviously connected with their cultural capital, the distinction that one gains in owning these shoes. Reading the first section of the article reminded me of Americans getting mugged while abroad for their blue jeans (something that may or may not be an urban legend, as I am unable to find an article about this at all?). Even if it isn’t “true”-true, the similarity is there- the “identity” that goes along with the product, whether its symbolic of Western ideals, or upward mobility for an inner-city youth, the social value that goes along with coveted objects can be extreme, and even lead to real-life violence.