Written by Nicklas Staalkjær Engelsk A Hand in on the 15th of October

3.C

"Unpacking 'Woke' Corporate Branding: an analytical essay on

"Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of 'woke' corporate
branding,"

In recent years, the intersection of corporate interests and social activism has become an ever more
prominent battleground in the public discourse. Companies, fueled by their pursuit of profit, have
increasingly sought to align their brands with social causes, often described as 'woke' corporate
branding. This phenomenon raises appropriate questions about the authenticity of these corporate
stances and their true impact on the causes they claim to support. As part of this analysis, I will
examine the article titled "Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of 'woke' corporate branding,"
authored by Simon Chadwick and Sarah Zipp.
This essay will analyze how the authors effectively employ rhetorical and verbal elements to shed
light on the complexities of corporate engagement with social justice movements. The authors'
argumentative approach and language choices reveal the fine line that companies, such as Nike,
walk when they align themselves with social issues, all while questioning the true authenticity of
such actions and their impact on public perception.

Delving into the analytical part of this essay, allow me to apply the text into the Laswell’s model of
communication, this will help getting a broader understanding, on how the message align with the
target group.
The writers of the non-fiction text is a collaboration between two authors, Simon Chadwick and
Sarah Zipp, both of whom are academics with expertise in sports enterprise and sport management.
This provides them with credibility and qualifications to analyze the political part of sports,
corporate branding, and social issues. Their academic backgrounds give them the authority to offer
critical insights into the subject matter.
The primary message expressed in the article touches on Nike's so called 'woke' corporate branding
strategy, with a specific focus on its choice to feature Colin Kaepernick as a spokesperson. The
authors critically examine Nike's approach, raising questions about the authenticity of the brand's
commitment to social justice causes. The message is delivered through a non-fiction article
published on September 14, 2018. The timing of the message is significant, as it coincides with the
Written by Nicklas Staalkjær Engelsk A Hand in on the 15th of October
3.C

controversy surrounding police brutality, and in the rising popularity surrounding the BLM
movement.
The channel utilized for this communication is an online platform known as "The Conversation."
This platform is a highly rated news outlet for academic and expert authored articles. It is essential
to note that this channel specializes in hosting content created by experts and academics, enhancing
the credibility of the article.
This article targets readers with an interest in the political part of sports, corporate branding, social
activism, and ethical considerations. The target audience likely includes individuals with a higher
level of education who can engage in relevant discussions. The age group is likely to be diverse, as
the issues discussed have a broad social relevance.

Moving on to the language used in the article. The language is critical and analytical, reflecting that
the authors are highly educated. The authors employ words and phrases such as "coopting,"1
"appropriating," and "skeletons in the closet" to emphasize their argument. They employ the
rhetorical strategy of ethos by leveraging their academic credibility and expertise to authenticate
their claims. The use of examples, such as “Adidas' efforts with ocean waste”2, and comparisons to
the Women's March and Black Lives Matter rallies, employs logos and pathos to appeal to reason
and emotion.
Furthermore, authors do not present an entirely objective perspective, as they express skepticism
about Nike's motives and question the relationship between social justice and a sportswear brand.
This bias is evident in their critical language and the tone they use to describe Nike's actions. In a
quote such as “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”, sounds like a call to
political action. It’s the kind……”3 Here it’s clearly depicted that the authors, don’t support Nike
using controversial athletes, such as Colin Kaepernick, and that is clear when the use words such as
“It’s certainly a far cry” and “In the #Metoo era, Nike has, once again, found itself on the wrong
side of the debate.”4. These examples almost have a sarcastic tone to them, which is highlighting my
statement even more.

1
“Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of ‘woke’ corporate branding” line 49
2
“Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of ‘woke’ corporate branding” line 12-13
3
“Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of ‘woke’ corporate branding” line 19-24
4
“Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of ‘woke’ corporate branding” line 7-8
Written by Nicklas Staalkjær Engelsk A Hand in on the 15th of October
3.C

While talking about the language used by the authors, it’s also important to look on what arguments
they are using, to convince the readers of their message. Firstly, the authors raise concerns about the
authenticity of corporate involvement in social activism. They question whether global brands like
Nike can genuinely support a cause without consequences. This argument challenges the motives
behind corporate actions and whether they are primarily profit-driven. The authors suggest that
Nike's decision to feature Kaepernick is not solely about social justice but also about appealing to a
specific demographic of consumers. As the authors state, "The ad is clearly targeted at Nike’s most
important customers: young, urban consumers whose views are supposed to resonate with the
advert’s apparent homage to diversity and social justice."5
The authors also argues that many of the so called ‘woke’ companies are trying to divert the
attention away from past controversies, by making themselves look like a ‘woke’ and ethically
correct company. “Nike, and other companies, risk exposing their own skeletons in the closet by
taking these high and mighty stances.”6. The reference to "skeletons in the closet" in the sentence
holds a significant implication in the context of Nike's 'woke' corporate branding strategy. It
suggests that Nike, like many other corporations, may have unresolved issues or controversies from
their past that they prefer to keep hidden. These "skeletons" represent past wrongdoings or ethical
concerns, such as the use of child labor and underpaid factory workers, which have gotten criticism
and a public uproar.

In conclusion, the authors, Simon Chadwick and Sarah Zipp, skillfully present a compelling
analysis of the intricacies surrounding 'woke' corporate branding, particularly as exemplified by
Nike's engagement with social justice causes. Their argument is well-structured and thoughtfully
executed, shedding light on the potential pitfalls and ethical challenges companies face when
aligning themselves with these causes.
Throughout their article, the authors employ a range of persuasive strategies, effectively appealing
to logos and ethos. They challenge the authenticity of corporate involvement in social activism by
questioning whether profit motives often surpass genuine commitment to these causes. Through
their critical language and tone, the authors highlight their skepticism about the intentions behind
corporate actions, making their stance clear.

5
“Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of ‘woke’ corporate branding” line 26-28
6
“Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of ‘woke’ corporate branding” Line 75-77
Written by Nicklas Staalkjær Engelsk A Hand in on the 15th of October
3.C