Loading ...
Where the company is green and socially responsible…but that’s not something they like to talk about it.
To illustrate this point, we’re pulling from the mental archives. When we read this Business Week article just about a year ago, it stuck in our minds as an exceptionally savvy example of green marketing and PR.
It’s worth noting that we view media through a slightly cynical lens, especially when it comes to the mainstream media. Come to think of it, blogs need a more critical view these days, thanks to various pay-to-play and advertorial practices. Having worked both sides of the PR game, we often wonder exactly how a piece such as Quality over Green: Nike’s New Air Jordan came to be. What was the angle and phrasing of the pitch? How did the conversation go? How did this find its way into print?
This is our hypothetical reenactment of the conversation:
Nike: Hey, we’re launching this exclusive new Air Jordan shoe. The kids love ‘em. Super stylish and high performance. Limited editions. It’s a modern classic.
BW: Sounds pretty cool. Yeah, we saw it on the cover of Complex magazine this month. We’ll be back in touch if we need more info.
Nike: Ya know, I didn’t want to mention this…but the shoes are actually eco-friendly. We use recycled materials and reduce the toxic adhesives through proprietary stitching. We went to great lengths to make them green. But this isn’t something we’re promoting. It’s not really a big deal.
BW: So the shoes are high-performance and eco-friendly?
Nike: Yeah, but it’s nothing. Really.
BW: So you’re not actually promoting the fact that the shoes are green?
Nike: No, not at all. Not in the least. It’s really not a big deal. I mean, we invented a whole new sewing machine to be more green, and that cost a lot. But it’s nothing. Just quietly doing our part for the environment.
BW: I think that’s a story.
Officially, the XX3 is the latest in the three-year-old line of Nike Considered shoes, the company’s line of green footwear. But, be it from concerns of tampering with a proven branded success or fears of a backlash from consumers tired of “greenwashing,” executives chose to focus on the performance of the shoe. Its green factor is an added bonus.
The fact that this story appeared in Business Week would seem to undermine Nike’s supposed coyness about its green manufacturing practices. It’s doubtful that this journalist went looking for a story about a company that’s quietly going green and doesn’t want anyone to make a big fuss about it. You know, just doing the right thing. Instead, the story was actively pitched as such. “We’re green, and we don’t promote it. Except for this one time, but that doesn’t count.”
This doesn’t mean Nike didn’t beautifully execute on this nugget of PR, nor does it take away from any efforts it’s making to “go green”. Given the challenges of making sustainable practices work for a company i.e. showing some type of return on investments, Nike played its hand as well as it could have in terms of leveraging this CSR asset. But let’s not kid ourselves about why Nike chose not to market the shoes as green.
If the company believed for a moment that Air Jordan customers gave a crap about whether the shoes were green or not, you can be sure that Nike wouldn’t hesitate to promote it. But these customers don’t. Performance, style, and exclusivity are the only qualities they look for (we’re making a broad assumption, of course). And that’s the way it should be.
The quality of “being green” will never appeal to everyone. The ultimate goal of sustainability is not to make green a marketable quality so we can sell more stuff. It’s not to make green fashionable or to get people to buy things because they’re green, which only encourages consumption. The end game is to make green a mandatory quality that all products and companies need in order to be competitive. Much of this has to do with market forces and pricing in the external costs for pollution and waste, such that the green alternatives makes more economic sense than the non-green. Economics is the most powerful force for change because it’s driven by clear, rational decisions. Marketing, on the other hand, relies largely on guilt and vanity. It can be effective, but it’s not…sustainable.
Case in point, Nike’s target market won’t be emotionally swayed by how green the new Air Jordans are. And the company shouldn’t get PR points because it chose not to market a quality that its customers don’t care about. But there are people who do care about the company’s green bona fides, which is what makes this bit of PR so well executed. It’s no coincidence that this story with this angle appeared in Business Week as opposed to Complex, Spin, or some other magazine that appeals to the target demo.
Nike’s communications department was clearly trying to get this message to investor types and other stakeholders who read Business Week. Because while Nike has largely recovered from its PR debacle with child labor, it still needs to build its CSR reputation for the sake of investors and talent recruiting. These days, sustainable manufacturing and risk management go hand in hand. It also doesn’t matter whether the Business Week reader cares about green or not because the story has a broad appeal. If you think green is bad for business, at least Nike isn’t promoting it. If you think it’s good for business, then it’s reassuring that Nike is doing something. Either way, Nike looks good.
The lesson for marketing green is to know your audience and craft your messages accordingly. Green may not sell as a product quality, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be sold.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Adam Shake // Jan 2, 2009 at 2:00 pm
This makes for a good case study Max. I think that this just goes to show that though everyone may not be green, most people wouldn’t mind being a little greener.
Subtlety wins more hearts, minds and dollars than most anything else.
Thanks for another great article
Adam Shake
2 Max Gladwell // Jan 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Adam: Thanks. It’s a fine line companies have to walk these days with promoting green. Requires a certain expertise to execute well.
3 OceanAdvocates // Jan 6, 2009 at 9:58 am
In an oped published in today’s Washington Post, Vikki Spruill put forward the key steps President-elect Barack Obama can make to begin building his blue legacy. Spruill, president and CEO of Ocean Conservancy, makes the case that at 71% of the earth’s surface and creating much of the air we breathe and food we eat, the oceans need and deserve strong protection. The proposed steps include:
Make oceans a priority when discussing climate change. The real impacts of climate change can be seen today in the world’s oceans from bleaching coral to rising seas. When decisions are to be made on fighting climate change, the oceans must be taken into consideration.
Focus on the Arctic. The most severe impacts of climate change can be seen in the Arctic. Melting sea ice and costal communities and villages falling into the sea are just a few examples. Oil and gas leases that have been marked for sale should be put on hold until a thorough scientific assessment of their impacts can be completed.
Bring Order to the Ocean. From major shipping lanes to fishing waters and recreational use, the ocean has any number of uses. A comprehensive plan for sustainable ocean use will ensure that we can use the ocean while preserving it for future generations.
Ocean Conservancy promotes healthy and diverse ocean ecosystems and opposes practices that threaten ocean and human life. Through research, education and science-based advocacy, Ocean Conservancy informs, inspires and empowers people to speak and act on behalf of the ocean. Visit us at http://www.oceanconservancy.org.
The piece appears on page A13 of today’s Washington Post and can be viewed here:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/05/AR2009010502346_pf.html)
Leave a Comment