Tonight
I want to discuss a case study “The Gym
Shoe Phenomenon: Social Values vs. Marketability” by Gail Barker from The University
of Florida (found here). In this case study, Bo Jackson and Michael Jordan
are both chosen to represent Nike’s shoe campaign for “Air Jordan” and “Bo
knows”. Jordan and Jackson were chosen
because they had no skeletons in their closet, no drugs or alcohol scandals,
and both “family men who are active in their communities”. These two African-America men were role
models for young people, but when violent acts started to take place it was
concluded that the popularity of the shoes had something to do with it. The
media blamed Nike; for the celebrities being used were not only African
American athletes but also they did not promote education.
Source: Here
The
Public Relation Service of America is helpful in evaluating the ethical values
vital to this case study because in being advocates for clients’ public
relations professionals should “…serve the public interest by acting as
responsible advocates for those we represent. We provide a voice in the
marketplace of ideas, facts, and viewpoints to aid informed public debate”.
With this case Melinda Gable, public relations executive for Nike did a good
job at being an advocate for the company. The public wanted some type of proof
or even acknowledgement that both athletes were not just about sport but more
than that, “’…[Jackson] is a person kids can look up to. He’s crazy about his
kids and his wife and family. He’s somebody who has applied himself and came
from a really humble background,’” says Gable.
In this case the Code of Ethics are not helpful in evaluating the ethical values because there is nothing that talks about race “…critics still question the tie-in with African American athletes.” There should be something about what is ethical when it comes to race. Is it right to create all the fuss and have boycotts by associating it with skin color? Its race now, what will it be in the future? Religion, political views, etc.
Two ethical
perspectives that might supplement the industry’s ethical code and provide
alternate points of view for understanding the ethical consideration are
Aristotle’s Golden Mean theory and Bok’s ethical decision-making. Aristotle
believes happiness is the ultimate human good, focused on the after (is the
person trying to do good?). Nike was
trying to do good by making young kids happy to see their favorite
athletes/role models wearing these shoes. Bok is all about thinking of the
situation at hand and how should you respond. How you feel about the actions,
your gut reaction and a professional way to achieve the goal without raising
ethical issues. Nike responded by a
hiring minority vice president, naming a minority as a board director, etc all
that to show that they had heard the public loud and clear due to the boycott.
I think the
company developing “Bo Knows School” was helpful in showing the public that
they were heard. Nike did a good job at proving that they had not just hired anyone
in Jackson, that he really was an educated black man.
No comments:
Post a Comment