Nike’s Houston Rockets ‘purpose washing’ reveals its true stance: Believe in something, unless it means sacrificing something
Recently, Nike pulled an NBA team’s merchandise from its China stores after its general manager tweeted in support of Hong Kong protestors. In doing so, it proved that its purpose is hollow, not really a purpose at all, argues Richard Ralphsmith.
“Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” That was the headline of Nike’s biggest campaign last year, featuring Colin Kaepernick, the NFL player who, in a protest against police brutality, refused to stand for the U.S. national anthem. Nike’s campaign was supposedly in support of those who suffer in the struggle for human rights. But in recent weeks, the brand has shown the hollowness of its so called purpose.
Last month, Nike removed NBA team Houston Rockets’ merchandise from its stores in China. The background: Two weeks earlier, the Rockets’ general manager, Daryl Morey, tweeted his support for Hong Kong protesters with the words, “fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong”. The Rockets are a hugely popular NBA team in China.
The Houston Rockets, led by NBA heavyweight James Harden, are a popular team in China
Well, why not? Isn’t this now the American way? Is this not what Trump did with the Saudis over Kashoggi? And didn’t he dump the Kurds and give Erdogan a free hand? And don’t worry, it won’t be too long before the so-called ‘outraged’ start sneaking back with Alan Jones. It’s all about the money, honey. Expect no better.
Please make peace! Yao played for my city. Rockets for life!!!
Please make peace! Yao played for my city!! Rockets for life!!!
Or perhaps it was a business decision taken in light of the comments of an unrelated 3rd party – Nike sponsor the NBA not the members of the Houston Rockets management team! They were thrown into a situation, not something they entered voluntarily. Having lived and worked in China I can assure you things work differently there. I don’t think Nike had a choice and your opinion seems ‘conveniently’ written from an Australian perspective rather than one that genuinely understands the reality of doing business in China.
Of course they had a choice. It wasn’t an easy choice. They would have had to “sacrifice everything”. They chose not to. It has nothing at all to do with the specifics of doing business in China. It is to do with doing business full stop.
I think that is Richard’s point Simon. It’s the “reality of doing business” in any market and China happens to be a super large market.