I
n 2017, Under Armour CEO
Kevin Plank said President
Donald
Trump’s
“pro-
business” policies are
“a real asset” to the
country,
and
Under
Armour stock fell 40
percent. Sam Poser, an
analyst for Susquehanna
International
Group,
told Business Insider
Plank’s
praise
for
Trump made it “nearly
impossible to effectively
build
a
cool
urban
lifestyle brand in the
foreseeable future.”
In 2018, Nike released a new
marketing campaign, the face
of which is Colin Kaepernick,
the former San Francisco 49ers
quarterback who Trump once
called a “son of a bitch.” Kaepernick
is best known for protesting police
brutality by kneeling for the national
anthem during professional football
games, a move that has been highly
criticized
primarily
by
those
who identify with a conservative
political ideology. Kaepernick no
longer plays professional football,
allegedly because his protests
are so controversial that no team
wants to deal with the backlash
that will come with signing him.
The New York Times described
Kaepernick as “the most polarizing
figure in American sports,” saying
“outside of politics, there may be
nobody in popular culture at this
complex moment so divisive and
so galvanizing, so scorned and so
appreciated.”
When he became the face of
Nike’s new marketing campaign,
Nike’s online sales increased 31
percent and its stock closed at $85 a
share, a company record.
This is the young, urban
consumer base. You can love
them, you can hate them. You can
disagree with them. But if you’re
in marketing, none of that matters.
Your goal is to make money. If
you’re marketing for an athletic
wear company, you make money
by appealing to the young, urban
consumer base.
Kaepernick kicked off Nike’s
marketing campaign on Sept. 3
by tweeting a picture of his face
and a message that read, “Believe
in something. Even if it means
sacrificing everything.”
This post, and Nike’s campaign
video (which now has more than
26 million views), sparked a fire.
A
Quinnipiac
poll
showed the majority
of those 18 to 34 years
old approve of Nike’s
Kaepernick ads, while
the majority of those
65 years and older
disapprove of the ads.
Customers
(and
former
customers)
on both sides made
their
views
known.
Kaepernick supporters
applauded Nike for “doing the
right thing” as if it was a purely
altruistic decision in which Nike
sacrificed profits to show its
support for racial justice. Critics of
Kaepernick had equally loud voices,
as #BoycottNike and #JustBurnIt
trended on Twitter the whole day
Nike released the ad campaign.
The
reactions
of
both
sides show Nike executed this
marketing campaign effectively:
Nike convinced its consumer base
that it used Kaepernick as the
face of its campaign because it
wanted to make a statement about
his protests, not because they
used statistics and data to make a
risky but well-calculated business
decision.
Matt Powell, a vice president
and senior advisor at The NPD
Group, confirmed this analysis;
“I think Nike went into this
absolutely knowing what they
were doing, with the intention that
some people would be offended,”
he told the The New York Times.
“But the people buying their
products, whether they are a
millennial or a Gen Z consumer,
those consumers want their brands
to take visible, social positions, and
this is an opportunity for Nike to
do just that.”
In fact, Nike had initially been
planning on dropping Kaepernick
completely. It made logical sense:
Kaepernick is no longer signed
with any NFL team, so they can’t
put his name on any jersey. But
as an undisclosed former Nike
employee told the New York
Times, Nigel Powell, Nike’s head of
communications, “went ballistic”
when he heard this decision.
Analysts say “the largely white,
older N.F.L. fans angry at the league
over (Kaepernick’s) protests” aren’t
a priority for Nike.
Instead, their target customer
base is a younger, more urban
demographic who is passionate
about racial justice and tends to
support Kaepernick’s protest. As
Fast Company noted, “The bulk
of Nike-sponsored athletes are
young and black, so the company
is already aligned with Kaep’s
issue and why it matters.” This
group would have undoubtedly
been furious if Nike dropped
Kaepernick, and this is the group
whose support Nike needs. As Josh
Brown, CEO of Ritholtz Wealth
Management, tweeted, “Nike is
marketing to their customer of the
next thirty years, not the last thirty
years.”
Granted, it was a risky decision.
But in this day and age, companies
don’t have much of a choice when
it comes to taking a risk. If a
company chooses not to speak
out about a controversial social
issue, it risks losing its customers
to a company that will speak out.
According to a recent survey from
Morning Consult, urban and young
consumers “were more likely to say
they would react favorably to a
company that advocated the right
of protesters to kneel during the
national anthem.”
Sports
apparel
companies
learned the hard way last year that
one mild comment in support of
Trump can be detrimental. This
year, they learned that what may
appear to be an extreme and risky
decision in support of an anti-
Trump public figure is a fantastic
business decision. Love it or leave
it, that’s what the market demands.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, October 4, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
MELISSA HALL | WOLVERINES ABROAD
Hard change is good change
“
My parents took me to Paris
when I was 13 and the minute
I saw the Eiffel Tower, I knew
I was going to study abroad here,
eventually.”
“My mom studied abroad in
Spain, so I want to follow in her
footsteps.”
“I’m trying to visit a new
country every weekend. I’ve had
this planned out since freshman
year.”
None of these thoughts were
going through my mind. To be
completely honest, I didn’t submit
my abroad application until the day
it was due. My hesitancy to commit
was a result of mixed emotions, an
internal battle and parental and
peer influences.
Growing
up
in
Michigan,
having
some
of
my
closest
childhood friends follow me to the
University of Michigan and being
a short 45-minute drive from my
parents all made my transition
from
high
school
to
college
smooth. As much independence
as college life provided me, I still
felt like I was in my senior year of
high school; I had the same friends,
the same interests and the same
need to text my mom every day. I
consistently have had the comfort
of entering a new space with at
least one person with which I’m
familiar. I haven’t been challenged
to navigate a new place on my own
or make an entirely new friend
group. Some may think of this as a
privilege, but to me I felt sheltered.
Junior year came around and
the talk of the campus was, as per
usual, the question of whether
people would be studying abroad.
I knew I was behind my other
classmates who had already filled
out their applications. On the
other hand, I was still making pro-
con lists every day, having tense
conversations with my parents,
and spending hours opening and
closing the Center for Global and
Intercultural application page. I
kept thinking: What do I want to
do? What do others want me to
do? My parents were anxious and
uncomfortable with the thought
of me living in another country
for four months. In relation, none
of the friends in my apartment
were going abroad, so they eagerly
started making exciting plans for
next semester. Meanwhile, my
mind was racing with opposite
feelings: This would be an entirely
unique experience. I’ve never left
home before. I’m the type of person
who needs this.
Despite
these
contrasting
opinions, I still decided to research
what programs would fit me best.
The Danish Institute for Study
Abroad seemed like a match made
in heaven. I could get credit on
my transcript, the classes seemed
educationally engaging and I guess
living in Copenhagen, Denmark,
for four months is a perk as well.
Step one was complete once I
was able to convince my parents,
ignore the external pressures and
verify my beliefs about how a study
abroad experience could benefit
me.
Arriving
in
Copenhagen
was an adventure itself. I truly
didn’t know what I was getting
myself into. However, the minute
I stepped into my apartment
and met my roommates, I felt a
sense of belonging. These were
my people and this was my place.
It’s crazy how being in the right
environment made me feel right at
home so quickly.
The first day of class rolled
around and, of course, I was
nervous. Psychology classes with
less than 20 people? Does that
even exist? Where’s the graduate
student instructor? My worries
continued throughout the day
into my developmental disorders
class. The teacher went around
the room and asked each of us to
complete the sentence: “I’m the
type of person who …” As it got
to my turn, I just stated what was
on my mind. I quietly said: “I’m
the type of person who wouldn’t
go
abroad.”
Everyone
turned
their heads with a puzzled look.
I went on to explain I have lived
a life of sameness without any
drastic changes. I explained I’m
not usually someone who would
be confident in moving across the
world for four months, meeting
new friends and navigating a new
city. This seemed to be a sufficient
answer as everyone nodded and
smiled.
However, at the end of the
semester, our teacher asked us
the same question with a twist.
She wanted us to complete the
following sentence: “After this
semester, I’m now the type of
person who …” I didn’t even have
to hesitate. My answer was: “I’m
now the type of person who would
feel comfortable going abroad.”
In other words, after befriending
my amazing roommates, learning
a new language, meeting Danes,
figuring out how to bike and use
the transportation in a new city, I
truly felt like I could do anything. I
gained more knowledge about the
benefits of change and just how
much I am capable of. The friends
I made also pushed me to be my
most confident and best self.
In conclusion, my decision
to go abroad was not something
that had been part of my life-long
plan. It was more of a spontaneous
reaction to my gut feelings. I’ve
never been happier that I was able
to put all other doubts and negative
feelings aside. If there’s one thing I
recommend, it is to push yourself
out of your comfort zone. For those
of you who are not sure whether
you have the “right personality”
or “are capable of such a dramatic
change,” try not to let those
thoughts affect your decision.
As much as jumping out of a
plane or summiting a mountain
can feel like being out of your
comfort
zone,
nothing
beats
living in a new place, with new
people, in a new culture and only
letting yourself make the decision
of whether to take advantage of
these opportunities. By allowing
myself to do what I wanted to do,
in this case, something different,
I eventually became the person I
wanted to be.
Why Nike really made Kaepernick the face of its campaign
The Michigan Daily Editorial
Board
calls
upon
the
Ann
Arbor City Council and the
state of Michigan to take more
affirmative steps to inform the
Ann Arbor community of the
dangers of PFAS, mitigate the
damage that has been done and
implement strategies to protect
citizens from further harm.
Perhaps the most concerning
aspect of the growing threat
posed by PFAS is the fact that it
is a relatively unknown danger.
PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, encompass a wide
family of chemicals that are
used in industrial, agricultural
and manufacturing processes.
PFAS can be found in many
everyday objects and goods,
including commercial household
products, drinking water near
contaminating
facilities
and
organisms like fish that live in
contaminated
water
sources.
Because the PFAS family of
chemicals does not naturally
occur,
they
take
years
to
decompose. Consequently, the
buildup of PFAS in the body can
cause devastating health effects.
While PFAS is a growing
danger for all who work, live
and play around Michigan’s
waters, the efforts to alert the
public to the potential hazards
of PFAS exposure have been
minimal. Though signs do warn
residents against drinking the
foam buildup in the Huron River,
little has been done to make
citizens aware of the existence of
PFAS in the water supply and the
potential harm of overexposure.
The state of Michigan’s website
does have a “Frequently Asked
Questions” page about PFAS,
but the answers downplay the
severity of the issue. This lack of
information stands in contrast
to the way a public health crisis
should be handled.
As a result, many affected
residents are unaware of the
danger they are in. Not only does
the city of Ann Arbor need more
information, less affluent cities
in northern Michigan require
assistance and attention. So far,
the state — and country — have
put profitable companies before
residents’ health and passed
lax regulations regarding water
safety. This is especially true in
areas that do not have the money
in their city budgets to challenge
the companies responsible for
pollution or decontaminate the
water supply themselves.
The
lack
of
information
circulating
about
PFAS
is
exacerbated by weak federal
standards
regulating
the
chemicals.
The
absence
of
national
benchmarks
(aside
from
unenforceable
recommendations) means Ann
Arbor
is
completely
reliant
on its City Council and state
government
for
spreading
information,
enforcing
protection
mechanisms
and
conducting
damage
control
where necessary.
Adept Plastic Finishing, Inc.,
an industrial plant in Wixom,
plans to install a filter to reduce
PFAS
contamination
in
the
Huron River. To compensate
for Environmental Protection
Agency standards, Adept Plastic
Finishing developed its own
filter and will enforce its own
regulations. In a perfect world,
all
PFAS-emitting
companies
would follow the example set by
Adept Plastic Finishing.
However,
until
business
interests stop being prioritized
over clean drinking water and
the health of Michigan residents,
regulatory
legislation
is
necessary to protect Michigan’s
water supply.
The Michigan Daily Editorial
Board urges the Ann Arbor City
Council to inform and protect
its citizens from the dangers
of
PFAS
and
contaminated
drinking water. At the same time,
we urge the state of Michigan
and the federal government to be
more proactive and to prioritize
environmental
health
over
corporate bottom lines. Without
action, this pattern will become
debilitating – much like the PFAS
in our water.
HANNAH HARSHE | COLUMN
Hannah Harshe can be reached at
hharshe@umich.edu.
EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT EMILY AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU
Melissa Hall is a LSA junior.
To search for education abroad
opportunities and register your travel
visit global.umich.edu.
This is the young,
urban consumer
base. You can love
them, you can
hate them.
FROM THE DAILY
Protect us from PFAS
T
he drinking water of the Great Lakes State is, once again, in danger.
While the citizens of Flint are still combating the presence of lead
in their water, another lesser known chemical, PFAS also threatens
the purity of Michigan’s most abundant natural resource.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our Editorial Board meets Mondays and Wednesdays 7:15-8:45 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard Street. All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
Do you love to debate today’s
important issues? Do you want your
voice heard? We hold twice-weekly
Editorial Board meetings at our
newsroom at 420 Maynard St. in Ann
Arbor, where we discuss local, state
and national issues relevant to campus.
We meet Mondays and Wednesdays
from 7:15 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
HANNAH
HARSHE