Cbbe Pyramid Essay

Nike’s employment of the cultural relativism philosophical approach, used to justify ‘sweatshop’ labor practices in developing countries, had a detrimental effect on the reputation of the company. In 1998, Nike had to lay off staff amid lagging sales resulting from the backlash against the company. Today, Nike is recognized as the leader in athletic apparel, and one of the favorite brands among millennials and teens. A significant part of that success is attributed to the company’s dramatic change in social responsibility, initiated by its then CEO, Phil Knight, in 1998 (Lutz,

But, omnisciently speaking, both entities faced severe scrutiny and criticism from United States and international citizens for their capitalistic business practices. Furthermore, a vast number of American citizens, mainly teenagers, had been killed over Nike Air Jordan sneakers because of their high price tag, while the cost to produce the shoes were rapidly declining due to Nike’s unprecedented offshore production. Bill Bigelow’s, The Human Lives behind the Labels: The Global Sweatshop, Nike, and the Race to the Bottom accurately portrays this capitalistic mentality when mentioning, “children as young as 6 are ‘sold and resold like furniture, branded, beaten, blinded as punishment for wanting to go home...’ For pennies an hour, these children work in dank sheds, stitching soccer balls with the familiar Nike swoosh and logos of other transnational athletic equipment companies” (Bigelow, 113). What is most disturbing to fans of Nike and Jordan were their comments and proposed remedies on the matter. Essentially, Jordan did nothing to curtail the number of kids being killed for his shoes and, as far as his affiliation with capitalistic Nike, Jordan did not want to cause any kind of rift between himself and the corporation that made him millions

Since the 1990s, Nike has been embroiled in controversy over its use of sweatshops. Including numerous media reports of workers earning very little an hour (14 cents per hour), and even workers abused by sub-contractor (Allarey, 2015). Incidents such as these are ingrained in Nike’s history and not quickly forgotten. However, as CEO I would like to attempt to correct wrongs.

The highly recognized name brand—Nike— fails to notice the faults that are happening in factories that are violating a few disturbing rules. The company’s reputation has decreased due to demands and claims Nike; implying that they utilize sweatshops to produce more products at a lower pay. The company has been sued numerous times for abusing and exploiting their employees in factories for years. Another problem that Nike has faced throughout the years was making employees work in poor environments that affected the health of many— which contributed to being abused by the manager for not going to work. Nike distributes and sells merchandise of high quality for a high value. The company is giving the satisfaction of quality service to their

Internationally recognized companies such as Nike make use of sweatshops and aid in the exploitation of labor workers in many parts of the world. A sweatshop is an industrialized provision that is known to have poor working conditions, infringement of labor law, and long hours coupled with low wages. In today’s world, sweatshops are prevalent all across the globe; however they raise the most concern in developing nations. Nike is one of the world’s most renowned sportswear companies, but has been involved in several controversies in relation to the possibility of them making profit out of sweatshop labor. In the late 1900’s most Nike products were manufactured in countries like South Korea and Taiwan, however, this changed when the labor

Finally, Shamma (2011) claims that total brand equity consists of product and corporate brand equity which depends on company’s market, social and financial performance. Furthermore, there is a positive relationship between company’s corporate brand and socially responsible marketing and total brand equity (Shamma, 2011). Similarly, Grace and King (2011) talks about employee brand equity, which is the result of positive and productive employee brand-related behaviour and is strongly linked with brand’s strength (Grace and King, 2011). In contrast, Kay (2004) argues that corporate branding differs from product and service branding as it is aimed at different target audiences. For instance, corporate branding usually targets company’s shareholders and employees whereas product and service branding is focused on consumers who are not really interested in corporate brand identity (Kay, 2004). However, it is also claimed that some companies, especially those that started as niche businesses that appealed to small segments of socially conscious customers succeeded in creating strong and distinctive corporate brands. Referring to CC and Jim Beam corporation consumers are not that concerned about company’s overall image, however introduction of corporate social responsibility and socially

To conduct this study on Nike I used a mix of primary sources, books, and websites that are all dedicated to Nike Brand’s past and present history. All of the sources I used have proven to be credible in the sneakerhead world and are sources that Nike will leak information to so they can publish it and make it known to everyone it may interest. Additionally, I used a connection I have with the District Loss Prevention Manager at Nike, Inc for the greater New York City Area to obtain an interview in order to gain insight into why Nike conducts limited releases the way they do. To protect his identity, for this paper I will be referring to him as “Bill Harris” as he provided me with insider information that is classified and

Over time Nike has become a prominent figure in the apparel industry, yet the corporation has found itself in various scandals due to their use of sweatshops. The harsh backlash towards the immorality of using sweatshops has led to Nike’s image being tainted; nevertheless, consumers continue to shop in Nike stores. With this in mind, I will explain why consumers continue to purchase Nike products. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall, define exploitation and demonstrate why corporations exploit workers, provide context into Nike sweatshops, and explain why some continue to support Nike. In addition, I will ascertain to why some have stopped supporting consumerism, examine how Nike regained its prominence, and present an

The athletic apparel industry in which Nike is involved is a major money maker in the United States, but the fact that none of the factories are located in North America has brought some heat to the company. Nike controls more than 40 percent of the U.S. Market for sports related goods, but doesn’t have a single sneaker factory in this country (Miller 1). Nike continues to make millions of dollars yet exploits workers overseas by paying them very little, while requiring long hours without overtime pay in factories that are not up to “American” standard. Nike subcontractors employ nearly 500,000 workers in plants in Indonesia, China and Vietnam (Saporito 1). The exploitation of workers in Third World counties, where the majority of Nike’s

One thing that can make or break a company is its brand equity. Brand equity is the value that comes with the familiarity with a company’s branding and the feelings consumers have towards that brand (Brand Equity, n.d.). A company with strong brand equity usually gives consumers a sense of reliability and value; causing a higher inclination to purchase its products. It usually takes

First of all, a strong brand can be seen as the condition for organisations to expand products, offer more service, and introduce new products (Chernatony and McDonald, 2003). Secondly, a strong brand can lead to growth marketing communication effectiveness (Keller, 2009). ‘To build a strong brand, the right knowledge structures must exist in the minds of actual or prospective customers so that they respond positively to marketing activities and programs in these different ways.’(Keller, 2003, p. 140) Furthermore, Kay (2005) asserted that the strong brand can be seen as a resource of management, which make brand extension easier and useful to build distribution network. Companies are not treated by the intermediaries (Chernatony and McDonald, 2003). Moreover, companies are comparatively easier to change price if they have strong brands. As Henderson, et al (2003) said, a strong brand can allow for premium pricing even still remain loyalty customers, which help companies to survive in the intensive competitive market.

During the late 80s and early 90s Nike was faced with a series of labor strike back at home due to unethical labor practices by its independent countries in third world countries. It is well known for Nike to outsource almost all its production from third world countries at cheap prices and sell them in U.S. market at an abnormal profit. The company began outsourcing its products from Japan where labor was competent and wages were very low. The living standards were raised which prompted Nike to outsource its products from Thailand, Pakistan and Indonesia since wages in these countries were extremely low and labor for these products were competent due to rapid development of the Japanese economy. The outsourcing of footwear products from Asian countries enables Nike to earn high profits and enjoy a competitive advantage over its rivals in the footwear industry. The company invests the high profits realized in marketing its products through celebrities. For instance, Michael Jordan was used to advertise the positive image of Nike Company (Lipschutz and James, pp. 87-96).

Nike is one of the largest, most popular brands in the world. It is a business that is continuing to grow while it is already making billions yearly. By moving to developing countries and emerging countries, Nike gets cheap labor and low facility cost. As a result, they set their product prices lower than the competition to attract more customers. Nike’s allegation of poor working conditions and child labor has become a global issue and it affected the stocks dramatically. Nike’s image has been permanently damaged. Running a company as big as Nike, and other major companies like Reebok, and Nestle is not an easy task.

Brand Equity is the added value endowed by the brand to the Product. Although the idea of using a name or a symbol to enhance a product’s value has been known to marketers for a long time, brand equity has gained renewed interest in recent years. Brand managers realize that after years of look-alike advertising and over copying with me-too brands, they now live in a world of product parity. The ensuing price competition through short term price promotions reduces the profitability of brands leading manufactures to examine ways to enhance loyalty toward their brands. In addition, facing with the increasing power of retailers, manufacturers of consumer products realize that having the

Nike’s CEO’s and management made a decision to begin using sweatshop labor in order to save money and begin aggressive marketing. They used this aggressive marketing to have a one up on their competitors, in fact, Nike spent 280 million dollars alone on advertising in 1994 (Schwartz, 2000). Nike would give great athletes million dollar contracts to endorse and wear their clothing. For an example, Andre Agassi received 70 million dollars to endorse Nike's tennis clothing line. The choice to start aggressive marketing is the reason why Nike entered into this crisis and started making unethical decisions. Once the top management of Nike realized the profitability and popularity of hiring professional athletes to wear and endorse their clothes, regular advertising would not suffice. The company became greedy and were willing to use cheap abusive labor so that they could pay professional athletes millions of dollars (Schwartz, 2000).