Saying something nice about Nike (part two)

Okay, so I promised to say something else nice about Nike — and not just about its marketing. Now that I’ve started today by actually picking on Nike (and its marketing) yet again, I’m going to end it by finally making good on that earlier promise. Actually what I have to say is about the Air Jordan 23, and I guess technically the Jordan brand is a joint venture of some kind between Nike and Michael Jordan. Close enough, yes?

A few years ago Nike did a project with a design firm in New York called Staple. (Jeff Ng, the owner, is a former Murketing Q&A subject, and a very smart guy.) The project was called Considered, and it was a special sub-brand of Nike shoes with certain criteria: recyclable materials, no chemical adheviseves, and so on. (See Staple’s post about this here, for more details about Considered.)

So they made these cool-looking shoes, etc. — but it was a small, niche product line. Fast forward to today, and the most recent version of the Air Jordan has been made using pretty much those same principles. The Considered idea has migrated from niche products into a major consumer product.

What I like about this, however, is that the migration wasn’t just about reacting to the marketplace. Considered did well, I’m sure, but Nike’s a big company, with a lot of niche-line experiments, and it was almost certainly a rounding error.

What I like is that Considered migrated in the company, in the business. The Air Jordan is a flagship product. That’s like if Clorox had said okay we’re not introducing a new, niche eco alternative to Liquid Plumr (or whatever) for that part of the marketplace that cares — we’re changing Liquid Plumr itself, period. If Toyota had said, we’re not going to put hybrid engines in this new sub-brand line aimed at one market segment — we’re changing the Lexus to a hybrid, period.

Meanwhile, the company didn’t change its messaging to be all about the Considered angle. They sold the product the way they always sell the Air Jordans — best designed ever, performance, fashionability, cool guys wear them, blah blah blah. The Considered aspect is hardly in there.

Now there are plenty of people, I’m sure, who think, Well, it should be in the messaging! It should be prominent, both because “the consumer” cares, and it would encourage “the consumer” to care even more. Etc.

But there’s no such thing as “the consumer.” Yeah, some consumers care about this stuff. Others don’t. Or just have different priorities.

And personally I think it’s more impressive to say, “Okay, we’re going to do come up with a version of our flagship product that will ideally satisfy that eco-niche — but we’re going to sell it to everybody. We’re not going to divide up the marketplace and have different standards for different niches.”

Of course you could say I’m being sort of cynical — that I’m talking about getting consumers to do the right thing but for the wrong reason, or that I’m implying consumers are dumb.

No.

First, I’m saying consumers are busy and distracted, and they live in the same world that you do, which is filled with messages and images trying to draw them in. Again, there are many kinds of consumers with many kinds of agendas.

Second, I’m saying consumers are smart. The consumers who are interested in ethics and heavily motivated by ethics, don’t need to be smacked in the head. The information is out there. And if it turns out that the company changed the production method and cut corners, or that it backs away from the process in the future, that information is gonna be out there too. Nike will look bad (and so will I, actually … I’ll have learned a lesson about being nice about Nike!)

I’m just not interested in yet still more ethical messaging flooding the marketplace. I’m more interested in seeing changes to products and businesses.

It’s a theme I touch on in the book, and one that I intend to pick up again next week.