Sneakers of contention: Do we make political choices while shopping?
Russia, 2017, people across the country go to rallies against corruption. Following not only becomes aware of the thousands of detainees, but also that Nike is "not involved in political activities and sees the purpose of its activities to promote an active lifestyle." This quote is taken from the official letter of the employees of the Pepeliaev Group law firm, which represents Nike in Russia.
As you remember, a few weeks ago, a sports brand suddenly found itself at the center of a political scandal. Anti-Corruption Foundation - the organization of oppositionist Alexei Navalny - has published an investigation film about Dmitry Medvedev's property “He’s not Dimon to you”. From the movie we learned about the villas, the Tuscan vineyards, the memorable "houses for ducks" - and Nike sneakers, which the Prime Minister is very fond of. That is, sneakers - even if the investigation began formally with them - in fact, they were something like oil roses on the cake - just a decorative element. However, it was they who turned Medvedev from a terrible corrupt official (such an image could be created with the data of the FBK investigation) into an amusing character who is difficult to take seriously and with which to fight.
Navalny chose Nike sneakers as a symbol of the rally held at Pushkin Square, they also became a meme that is instantly read. As a result, the action on Pushkin, the film, and almost the entire corrupt system of the Russian government is associated with these sneakers. The Russian representatives of the brand did not like this connection too much - they demanded that FBK ceased to use the brand marks (logo, slogan "Just Do It", brand name) - they say, the company of sportswear and footwear is completely apolitical.
But it is not. Most recently, Nike was one of the first major brands that openly spoke out against the nationalist policies of Donald Trump in the United States. “Regardless of who you pray to, where you come from or who you love, the individual experience of each is what makes us all stronger. This is a policy that we cannot support,” said Mark Parker, the company's CEO, when Trump severely limited entry to the United States for citizens of Muslim countries. So Nike was in a pleasant company of brands that not only produce and sell, but also uphold the principles of humanism. They joked that it is now easiest to understand which brands really have everything in order with sales - they say that they allowed themselves to speak out against the new president. In fact, this is not entirely true (the same Nike can be seriously affected by Trump's reforms). But on the contrary, the brand of sneakers New Balance is now all bad: Americans across the country massively burned and drowned their NB pairs, sales in stores collapsed - and all because the representative of the brand inadvertently spoke and understood his words as Donald’s support Trump The bottom line is that the apolitical nature of brands is a gradually disappearing characteristic. It is impossible to completely abstract from the social or political agenda in 2017.
Now the question. Is it bad or good for a brand to be associated with this agenda? The tacit laws of good consumer tone are very different everywhere, and any brand, as a commercial structure, takes this into account. In the United States and Europe, it is considered good practice, say, to refuse to use natural fur, advertise without excesses, and not wanting to vote for ruble values. Therefore, the cause of bankruptcy (double bankruptcy) of American Apparel was not only the multi-million dollar debts of the company, but also the endless scandals associated with harassment. Therefore, advertising in which a woman looks like a sex object is prohibited in Paris. Therefore, in the US, sales of the well-built brand Ivanka Trump, which turned out to be not only the business owner, but also the daughter of the president, who is rejected by the liberal part of American society, are collapsing. That is, a person looks at a dress - and sees not just a thing, but also a complex of ethical principles that the brand that has issued the dress embodies, and does not buy it.
The apolitical nature of brands is a gradually disappearing characteristic. It is impossible to completely abstract from the social or political agenda in 2017
Meanwhile, in Russia, the consumer situation is quite different. Unfortunately, here a cigar is still most often just a cigar, no matter how monstrous the context. In this sense, a case in which the founder of Aviasales, Konstantin Kalinov, first admitted racist advertising on the social networks of his company, and then insulted the journalist Olga Strakhovskaya, who worked then as the editor-in-chief of Wonderzine, is indicative. It would seem, frankly a terrible situation that should adversely affect the profit Aviasales, but this did not happen. The online platform MediaDigger has discussed this case with experts, and they all concluded that it is unlikely to affect the business badly.
If such a behavioral model did not fit the company's main client, then its sales would have fallen after the first incidents, the discussion participants explained, and the most commercially successful Aviasales action was a post in which the company joked about the same Navalny beaten by Cossacks. A position that no one would venture to voice in the English-speaking space, in general, can bring substantial dividends in Russia. In 2014, Euroset terminated the contract with Ivan Okhlobystin because of his homophobic statements. The actor was immediately hired by Baon: in the very first week of cooperation with Okhlobystin, as with the face of the brand, sales in the online store increased fourfold. It's funny that at about the same time in the United States, an entire state (Indiana) was subjected to an economic blockade because of a law that was almost passed that would allow businesses not to serve same-sex couples.
"A PR News study (the company analyzes communications) revealed that more than a third of Aviasales’s target audience was aware of a loud story, but the service’s reputation did not suffer. On the contrary, among those who noticed the editor and Kalinov’s squabbles, the number of those who recommend Aviasales is higher” - told Wonderzine Janis Dzenis, PR director of Aviasales.
Position, which would not venture to voice in the English-speaking space, can bring substantial dividends in Russia
This is not the only evidence that the principle of “black PR is also PR” is still working for the Russian consumer. Get at least Burger King, whose advertising department is much more often discussed burgers. Recently, the company used the image of Diana Shurygina, a minor victim of rape in advertising - as a result, no one apologized, and this move seemed funny to most fast food subscribers on social networks. Moreover, Shurygin turned into a meme, which, as you can see, did not cause either a wave of lawsuits or a wave of public apologies. Yes, and Nike, most likely, will only benefit financially from the situation with rallies, because the sneakers “like Medvedev’s” - a case that is completely selling for Russia (all the deputies went in Bosco sports suits “like Putin’s”). Another thing is that Nike very carefully handles its reputation and, apparently, did not want to risk it.
In general, for a commercial organization there are two important points of any sociopolitical infopowder: the first is how directly it will affect its business (laws, lawsuits, etc.), the second is how much it will affect the reputation of the business. And while PR agencies unanimously reiterate the importance of a positive image, its absence does not always have a negative impact on sales - especially in countries where the aforementioned etiquette rules differ from those in the United States and other Western countries.
The same Burger King uses a rather monstrous advertisement everywhere, but in the USA he apologizes for it at least periodically - otherwise the company risks losing millions of dollars. In Russia, all indignation remains the prerogative of single social network users. Of course, in such cases, the more distinct position of other companies, which could put the notorious public pressure and force unscrupulous colleagues to apologize, would be useful. And a more progressive position of the state, to put it mildly, would not hurt. But there is another fundamental point. How many of us have stopped going to Burger King? Or use Tinkoff cards after their sexist beauty pageant? Will you refuse Aviasales tickets if they are significantly cheaper than SkyScanner? Our daily choice is also really important. And sneakers for Medvedev and Navalny can be anything at all.
Cover: Nike
