Ougd501, Context of Practice Essay, Jane Hansesgaard

OUGD501, Context of Practice Studio Brief 1 Critical Analysis – Context and Themes Jane Hansesgaard BA (Hons) Graphic Design Level 5

1

“We like brands that help us say something about ourselves through them. We like the way they compliment and manifest our personality.”

Wally Olins

This essay is looking at some of the principles of branding and how they can help shape our identity and vice versa how brands have been shaped through elements of our cultures with specific focus on the positioning of the Nike brand. The opening statement about our attachment to brands would appear to be true for many people as they busily search for a ready available brand that will suit the image they want. ‘Selecting the means required to achieve an alternative identity of one’s choice is no longer a problem, if you have enough money, that is, to purchase its obligatory paraphernalia. There is some gear waiting for you in the shops that will transform you in no time into the character you want to be, want to be seen being and want to be recognized as being.’ (Bauman, 2004, p84). Through the way we dress, the jewellery we wear, how we have our hair and whether we wear make up all helps to shape the image we seek to display as our personality outwardly.

According to Wally Olins this is how powerful successful branding can be, as he goes on to claim that ‘branding nowadays is about involvement and association, the outward and visible demonstration of private and personal affiliation. Branding enables us to define ourselves in terms of a shorthand that is immediately comprehensible to the world around us.’ (Olins, 2003, p14). We are no longer seeing brands as symbols of consistency and standard quality, quantity and price as it was the case in the early days of branding of household goods such as soap, washing powder and other everyday products. Instead we have come to identify ourselves with certain brands not necessarily for the products they promote but merely for ‘a way of life, an attitude, a set of values, a look.’ (Klein, 2005, p23).

The idea and emergence of the term branding is as described by Olins ‘one of the most significant gifts that commerce have ever made to popular culture’ (Olins, 2003, p15). The power that some global brands have come to possess, once they realised how they were able to influence people, escalated rapidly over a relatively short period of time. As pointed out by Bauman; ‘ Only a few decades ago ‘identity’ was nowhere the centre of our thoughts, remaining but an object philosophical meditation. Today, though, ‘identity’ is the ‘loudest talk in town,’ the burning issue on everybody’s mind and tongue.’ (Bauman, 2004, p16-17). In our everyday life we come face to face with a variety of forms of branding and identity, some of which can have an immediate, short term effect on us and others have a more underlying, emotional effect which we come to realize that we in fact welcome as a tool to shape our identity. Often ‘consumer’ relationship to a brand is as much to do with what it makes him or her feel as to how it performs.’ (Olins, 2003, p37). So, when the question is posed; ‘why do we persist in buying manufacturer’s brands, when there is a wide choice of retailer’s own brands available nowadays?

2

Giles Lury is putting forward a valid point in claiming that ‘we are not only driven by our rational needs. We have emotional needs as well as functional ones. We have hearts as well as minds and it is by addressing our emotional needs, as well as our functional needs, that a brand can create, not only its uniqueness, but also its desirability. (Lury, 2001, p22)

A relevant example of a brand that has grown to become symbolic for many consumers globally is Nike. The magnetic attraction of the ‘Swoosh’ that has revolutionised the idea of sport and fitness since its debut in 1972.

Going back to the beginning where the focus was on technology and function of running shoes as both founders; Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight had profound interests in this field, it would appear that the birth of the brand followed the same principles as other major brands; the product was the focus. However, very quickly we began to see how Nike distinguished themselves from the rest at a time where ‘ brands suddenly burst out from everywhere, became a commercial cultural, phenomenon of unparalleled force and influence.’ (Olins, 2003, p63). It was recognised that the new logo; the ‘swoosh’ and the new name, Nike, which was chosen for its association with victory in sport, needed an athlete to endorse and thereby build the brand personality. One might ask why this was necessary with a technically strong product and a well-considered concept? Lury claims that if a brand was to be described as a person, it might be considered as a strange request, but at the same time be surprisingly easy to do. Judging whether a brand is young or old, female or male, introvert or extrovert suddenly becomes quite clear in strong brands. ‘Research has shown that our views of different brands’ personalities are often highly consistent. We, the consumer will often characterise a brand in very similar ways, and indeed if it is a strong brand, we can do so in great depth.’ (Lury, 2001, p45). Nike chose cross country and track runner Steve Prefontaine, an Oregonian, as the company’s founders themselves, to initially shape the personality of the brand. During Prefontaine’s career from 1969 to 1973 he never lost any races in his hometown. Perhaps choosing to build the Nike brand in the local community was a much more strategic move than coincidental. One can draw parallels with Bauman’s theories of ‘the holding power of neighbourhoods’, where back in the 18th century our sense of belonging represented our community as a united whole and the question of ‘identity’ had not yet been posed (Bauman, 2004, p18). Nike built a sound foundation, starting ‘at home’ gaining support from people around them’. We can draw the assumption that this would naturally tick a lot of boxes in the rules of successful branding as proposed by Olins; ‘Train your people to ‘live’ the brand’ (Olins, 2003, p89).

The idea of having athletes using the Nike shoes and winning race after race is arguably one of the most effective methods of promoting the brand. The brand becomes synonymous with winning and to a certain extent with the attitude and image of the person endorsing the brand.

3

It is evident that Prefontaine’s toughness and competitiveness together with his charisma has helped shape the initial image of the brand and we see its powerful statement living on today, 39 years after the tragic, sudden death of Prefontaine as we are confronted with ‘Pre Lives’ poster as shown in image 1. As Phil Knight has often said; ‘Pre is the soul of Nike’ (nikeinc.com). For us as consumers this reveals another layer to the brand or a face and human being who we might identify ourselves with. It becomes more real and proposes to us a possibility; it could be us one day. If we train hard enough using the same shoes and clothing we must be giving ourselves the best chance possible to succeed. We can also get the idea from this model that our association with the brand represents a lifestyle, it tells us something about the relationship with sport and the brand takes on an emotional approach. Phil Knight’s announcement in the late eighties verifies this as he says; Nike is a sports company; its mission is not to sell shoes but to ‘enhance people’s lives through sport and fitness’ and to keep ‘the magic of sports alive.’ (Klein, 2005, p23).

Considering some of the aspects that contributed highly to the escalating success of Nike, especially in the context of challenging the effects of branding on our human identities, it should not go without mentioning how they pioneered the involvement of emerging subcultures and minority groups into their branding. ‘The key to success of Nike and Tommy Hilfiger, both of which were catapulted to brand super-stardom in no small part by poor kids who incorporated Nike and Hilfiger into hip hop style at the very moment when rap was being trust into the expanding youth culture limelight by MTV and Vibe.’ (Olins, 2003, p73). Nike ignored the borders and went out into the streets, connected with these people and tapped into their culture and self-created fashion. Looking at the timing of the sign up of NBA Michael Jordan in 1985 by Nike to promote the debut of a new signature shoe, it becomes apparent that this coincided with the time of the rise and falls of youth subcultures and ‘ while rap music was topping the charts by the mid to late eighties, arriving complete with a fully articulated style and code, white America was not about to declare the arrival of a new youth culture. That day would have to wait a few years until the styles and sounds of urban black youth were fully co-opted by white suburbia.’ (Klein, 2005, p67). Landing a contract with Michael Jordan was, from a branding perspective, a call to address the fact that Nike at the time ‘had slipped from its position as industry leader’ and an attempt to differentiate Nike from its competitors (nikeinc.com). From a consumer point of view it could be seen to invite a new sector of people into the ‘Nike community’ ignoring any prejudices of background or colour of skin.

Although basketball was a competitive, professional sport it was also a sport played in every American back street and Nike became incorporated in the fashion of this environment. One could take the view that the effect of this in certain ways could act as a catalyst to break down barriers between cultures and invite more acceptances of our various backgrounds in the form of the brand being a tool that ‘connects’ us.

4

Did it do what Bedbury, head of marketing at Nike, proclaimed? ‘Nike is leveraging the deep emotional connection that people have with sport and fitness.’ (Klein, 2005, p21). At the same time did it in effect create a connection between us as people across the world? In the fluid world in which we are now living Bauman’s identification of communities could come in as a valid point in this context; ‘It is common to say that communities (to which identities refer to as entities that define them) are of two kinds. There are communities of life and fate whose members live together in a indissoluble attachment and communities that are ‘welded together solely by ideas or various principles.’ (Bauman, 2004, p11). From this we can begin to see the Nike brand in the light of a ‘culture’ or a ‘lifestyle’ going global. Klein offers a different angle to Nike’s embrace of African-American style and heroes as she goes on to claim; ‘Nike also realised people who saw themselves as belonging to oppressed groups were ready made market niches: throw a few liberal platitudes their way and, presto, you are not just a product but an ally in the struggle.’ (Klein, 2005, p112). This takes a view which can be perceived as having negative connotations for the benefit of Nike although one could diffuse that slightly by weighing up what is more preferable; to ignore ‘oppressed groups’ as if they did not exist or to break barriers and incorporate them in the rest of society?

In image 2 we see Michael Jordan on a Nike poster playing basketball with a group of young people wearing Nike trainers. The scene is set in the inner city and very much resembles a ‘normal’ scene of youngsters playing basketball in front a brick wall full of graffiti. An attempt from Nike to position themselves right there in people’s everyday life, merging seamlessly into the culture they are targeting. For consumers this represents a scene or probability they can relate to and identify with, taking place in ‘their world’ therefore not too unrealistic. We can at this stage draw relevance to Melissa Davis’ point about ‘brand experience’ indicating that it ‘brings together both the tangible and intangible elements of the brand through various ‘touch points’. A brand experience endeavours to engage people with a brand at a level that captures the audience’s senses and helps competing brands stand out from each other.’ (Davis, 2009, p20).

As we draw advice from Olins theories on how to create and sustain a brand, where he proposes that ‘When you get close up branding is not quite so simple after all. In fact it is very complex’ (Olins, 2003, p172), it would appear that for Nike it was in fact built on a set of simple ideas. Their most successful campaign launched in 1988; ‘Just Do It’ created by Dan Wieden went onto create an enormous cultural impact and mass appeal. ‘Just Do It’ was one of the biggest ad ideas ever, destined to cut across all conceivable psycho/socio/demographic lines in ways author Dan Wieden could not have envisioned when he tossed off the phrase in 20 minutes, concerned that the initial half-dozen ads in the campaign, spotlighting various subjects and different sports, had no unifying message.’ (Gianatasio, 2013, Internet).

5

A catch phrase that we as consumers can interpret and adapt to our own goals in whichever sport we enjoy as our own private mantra. It acts as a ‘tool’ for reaching a personal goal, sports related or not and suggests that there is no limit to what we can achieve. Wearing clothing with this strap line not only puts us in the category of sharing the image of a hip brand but also transfers confidence, self belief and a sense of belonging. ‘We like the ‘Just Do It’ attitude of Nike. We like to feel that everyone else is wearing Nike trainers, too. We want to be part of that ‘brand tribe’ - we want to belong to that club’. (Lury, 2001, p23)

The effect this campaign had on Nike’s brand image mirrors Olins statement; ‘the power of a brand derives from a cautious mixture of how it performs and what it stands for. When a brand gets the mix right it makes us, the people who buy, feel that it adds something to our idea of ourselves.’ (Olins, 2003, p16). The campaign made people all over the world believe in themselves at a time where the fitness craze had hit America.

Controversially to the effect a lot of advertisements are designed to have on us, as stated by Berger ‘The purpose of publicity is to make the spectator marginally dissatisfied with his present way of life’. (Berger, 1972, p142).

Although one could argue there is an element of this feeling being brought on by this campaign, given it was designed to push people to perform better and reach goals, however, its approach, as stated above, is positive and due to it being open to interpretation, it is achievable as we set our own goals. We saw the campaign stretching wide across varieties of sport and athletes and ‘seemed to capture the corporate philosophy of grit, determination and passion, but also infused it with something hitherto unknown in Nike ads - humour. Nike had always been known for its ‘detached, determined, unsentimental’ attitude. In a word [Nike is] cool.’ (Udoc, Internet).

The campaign was and is still so easily identifiable ‘to the point that Nike eventually did not even bother to display the word ‘Nike’ in commercials - the ‘swoosh’ was enough and stayed true to its message’ (Udoc, Internet). Image 3 displays the ‘Just Do It’ symbol in its simplicity as we often see it displayed in sports shops.

Nike CEO Phil Knight explains, ‘for years we thought of ourselves as a production oriented company, meaning we put all our emphasis on designing and manufacturing the product. But now we understand that the most important thing we do is market the product. We have come round to say that Nike is a marketing oriented company, and the products is our most important marketing tool.’ (Klein, 2005, p22). The clear and coherent message of Nike has succeeded in also reaching consumers who are in fact not exercising, but still wants the image conveyed by the fitness culture. Klein sums up the story of Nike when she claims; ‘Nike is the definite story of the transcendent nineties super brand, and more than any other single company, its actions demonstrate how branding seeks to erase all boundaries between the sponsor and the sponsored. This is a shoe company that is determined to unseat pro sport, The Olympics and even star athletes, to become the very definition of sports itself.’ (Klein, 2005, p51).

6

Having analysed a focussed area of the contributing factors to the global success of Nike and drawn parallels with some of the theories and principles of branding challenged against how our personal self identity can be shaped or influenced, we can conclude, that as well as the unfortunate connotations we can attach to branding, we also have a responsibility to ourselves. We are bluntly reminded of our reality in Cato’s observation ‘ the vast majority of consumers can’t get enough of the brands they love. Sunday worshipping has been replaced by retail outings, past associations with community leaders, who gave us direction and advice have been replaced by idolizing football heroes, fashion designers, celebrity cooks and home stylists who are all brand in themselves.’

(Cato, 2010, p106). Is this what we want? Olins draws a relevant conclusion in this context; ‘we, the public, we consumers, have to be alert to the way companies and their brands behave and misbehave. We have to reward the good ones with our loyalty and punish the bad ones by avoiding them. If we cannot be bothered to do that, we will get what we deserve.’ (Olins, 2003, p233). With a lot of concentration around ‘consumerism’ and ‘globalization’ it is easy to get absorbed in theories and observations presented to us, however, Olins point brings back what we should never forget, the fact that in each of our families and as individuals, we need to take control ourselves of our identities and values and focus on staying strong and true to ourselves.

Image 1

Nike “Pre Lives” Poster, Pre’s last race and victory May 29, 1975, the night before his sudden death.

7

Image 2

Michael Jordan for Nike, Nike being a part of daily life.

Image 3

The ‘swoosh’ – true to its message.

8

Bibliography:

Bauman, Z (2004) ‘Identity” Cambridge, Polite Press, p11, 16-17, 84.

Berger, J (1972) ‘Ways of Seeing’ London, British Broadcasting Corporation, p142.

Cato, M (2010) ‘Go Logo!’ Massachusetts, Rockport Publishers p106.

Davis, M (2009) ‘The Fundamentals of Branding’ Lausanne, AVA Publishing SA p20.

Gianatasio, D (2013) ‘Happy 25th Birthday to Nike’s ‘Just do It’ the Last Great Advertising Slogan’ Available from http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/happy-25th-birthday-nikes-just-do-it-last-great-advertising-slogan-150947 [Accessed 18.09.2013]

Klein, N (2005) ‘No Logo’, London, Fourth Estate p21-23, 51, 67, 112.

Lobshots (date and authors unknown) ‘Jordan Wheaties Playground’ [Internet] Available from http://www.lobshots.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/JordanWheatiesPlayground.jpg

Lury, G (2001) ‘Brandwatching’ Los Angeles, Blackhall Publishing, 2nd ed. p22-23, p45.

Megadeluxe (Date and author unknown) ‘Nike Pre Montreal Racer VNTG - Pre Order’ [Internet] Available from http://megadeluxe.com/sports/nike-pre-montreal-racer

Nike,Inc (2013) ‘History & Heritage’, [Internet] Available from

9

http://nikeinc.com/pages/history-heritage [Accessed 18.09.2013]

Olins, W (2003) ‘On Brand’, London, Thames & Hudson Ltd. p14-16, 37, 63, 73, 89, 172, 233.

Rovell, D (2013) ‘How Nike landed Michael Jordan’ [Internet] Available from http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2918/how-nike-landed-michael-jordan [Accessed 09.02.2014)

Taube, A (2013) ‘25 Nike Ads That Shaped The Brand’s History’ [Internet] Available from http://www.businessinsider.com/25-nike-ads-that-shaped-the-brands-history-2013-8?op=1 [Accessed 09.02.2014]

Taylor, S (2010) ‘2010 NCAA Championships (Day 2)’ [Internet] Available from http://stevetaylor7.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/ncaa-championships-day-2.html [Accessed 09.02.2014]

Udoc (Date and author unknown) ‘Mini-case study Nike’s ‘Just Do It’ Advertising Campaign’ [Internet] Available from http://udoc.eu/docs/b0c524/mini-case-study-nike-s-%2522just-do-it%2522-advertising-campaign-center-forapplied-research [Accessed 09.02.2014]

10