Should a brand involve in political issues?
The effect of supporting a movement against discrimination on Nike’s
brand reputation
Lizzy Duivesteijn (12359866) Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Abstract
The current study (N = 161) is conducted to find out what the effect is of a brand’s corporate
political activity on their brand reputation. The study focuses on the case of Nike and their
decision to choose protesting athlete Colin Kaepernick as the face of their ‘Just Do It’ campaign. The research has been conducted with the use of an online experiment with a 2x2 factorial between-subjects design, with four different conditions. Participants read a short text about an athlete, and after that they saw a Nike commercial with the athlete they just read about. After this, their brand commitment towards Nike and their evaluation of the brand reputation of Nike was measured, as well as some additional variables. The results show that using a brand endorser that aligns with the brand has a positive effect on the brand reputation. However, no relationship between corporate political activity and brand reputation was found. Brand commitment, the experience of being discriminated or political orientation were no moderating factors in the relationship between corporate political activity and brand reputation.
Keywords: Corporate political activity, brand reputation, brand endorser, corporate reputation,
Table of content
Introduction ... 4
Theoretical framework ... 7
Method ... 15
Results ... 21
Conclusion and discussion ... 25
References ... 30 Appendices ... 34 Appendix 1. ... 34 Appendix 2. ... 35 Appendix 3. ... 35
Introduction
“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
This quote represents the risk Colin Kaepernick and the sports brand Nike took by making a statement against African-American racism in the United States (Moorman, 2018). Brands involving in political issues, and therefore performing corporate political
activity (CPA) are becoming a trend (Watson, 2018). CPA can be defined as “any deliberate firm action intended to influence governmental policy or process”(Getz, 1997, p. 32). By participating in CPA, brands hope to shape public opinion and eventually make a positive change. At the same time, brands want to connect on a more personal level with their employees and customers, and enhance their corporate reputation (Moorman, 2018). Looking from a Habermas perspective, Schrerer and Palazzo emphasize the impact that organizations can have in the development of human rights (2007).
Brands like Airbnb, Ryanair, Budweiser, Pepsi and Nike have already included CPA in their advertising. Airbnb for example stood up against the banning of refugees and immigrants. Ryanair tried to convince people to vote against Brexit and Nike chose an athlete named Colin Kaepernick, who protested against racism as the new face of their campaign. Jensen & Sandström argued that due to globalization, multinational corporations have the power to use their economic strength to influence other actors’ interest, like political issues (2011). In the current article, the focus will be narrowed down to the case of Nike with Colin Kaepernick.
Colin Kaepernick was a famous American football player who participated in America’s biggest professional football competition, the National Football League (NFL). In 2016, before the football game started, Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem.
activism stunt was a big media topic and caused Kaepernick to no longer being able to participate in the NFL (Bell, 2018). At the moment, Kaepernick is busy running his ‘Know Your Rights’ campaign, where he continues protesting against police violence towards African-Americans (Intravia, Piquero, Leeper Piquero & Byers ,2019).
In September 2018, sports brand Nike chose Colin Kaepernick as the new face of their ‘Just Do It’ campaign, to prove their solidarity towards Kaepernick. Discussions about the commercial featuring Kaepernick rose up in the media. President Trump called the Nike ad a “terrible message” (Bell, 2018). Furthermore, Nike customers started to boycott the brand. Some even by posting pictures on social media showing they were burning their Nike shoes (Taylor, 2018). However, the sales of Nike had gone up with thirty one percent since the launch of the campaign with Kaepernick (Pengelly, 2018).
Because of this contradiction with on one hand a boycott by its customers, and on the other hand a rise in sales, it is interesting to research the effect of this campaign on Nike’s brand reputation. Brand reputation or corporate reputation can be defined as “the result of how consumers perceive the firm” (Grönroos, 1984, p. 39).
As mentioned before, brands performing CPA is becoming a trend in current society, but there is no evidence whether this trend positively enhances the brand reputation. Therefore, the research question of this Master’s thesis is as follows: What was the effect of
choosing Colin Kaepernick as the face of the new media campaign of Nike on their brand reputation, and how is this moderated by knowledge about the protest?
The results of this study will be practically useful for brand managers. When brand managers know what consequences taking a political stance will have on their brand reputation, they can make an informed decision whether they want to practice this or not. In the case of Nike, their brand managers can decide if they want to go on with this type of
only 21.4% of the marketers believed their brands should be involved in political issues, because they are concerned about the negative consequences that it can have for their brand (Moorman, 2018). When the consequences of participating in CPA become clearer, brand managers might be more willing to perform it.
The results of this study will also be relevant in the academic context, since there is only one study about the consequences of this specific case of Nike (Intravia et al., 2019). In addition, there is no research about the effect of participating in CPA on brand reputation yet. There may be a chance that people who know about the NFL protest react differently towards the Nike campaign than people who do not know about the NFL protest. This political aspect is negated when people do not know about the protest. That is why there is a moderator added in the study: ‘knowledge about the protest’, which is the awareness of the CPA of Nike.
The next chapter of this Master’s thesis will be the theoretical framework, where prior research about the topic of brand endorsers, CPA and brand reputation will be discussed. With the academic knowledge that already exists, assumptions will be made for current research outcomes. After the theoretical framework, the method section will follow. In the method section, the methodology of the study will be explained in detail. The results of the experiment will be shown in the results chapter, which comes after the method section. Finally, the results will be interpreted and the research question will be answered in the discussion section. On top of this, the implications will be discussed and recommendations for future research will be provided.
Theoretical framework Brand endorser literature
First of all, it is important to narrow the focus to the main effect: the effect of choosing Colin Kaepernick as the face of the Nike campaign on Nike’s brand reputation. Colin Kaepernick as the face of the media campaign of Nike means that Colin Kaepernick is the
brand endorser of Nike’s new campaign. Since Kaepernick is a well-known athlete, he can
also be seen as a celebrity endorser.
A lot of research about the effect of celebrity endorsers has already been conducted. For an endorser campaign to be successful, congruence between the brand and the brand endorser seems to be a crucial factor (Blasche & Ketelaar, 2015). Beatty (1990, p. 161) defined the concept of congruence as following: “that the highly relevant characteristics of the spokesperson are consistent with the highly relevant attributes of the brand.” Since Nike is a sports brand, and Colin Kaepernick is an athlete, it can be assumed that there is congruence between the brand endorser and the brand. Additionally, Kaepernick’s protest aligns with Nike’s slogan ‘Just Do It’ (Bell, 2018). Blasche and Ketelaar (2015) found out that brand endorser congruence in green advertising conveys more positive attitudes towards the brand, the advertisement, and purchase intentions compared to non-green brand endorsers, because there is less fit between the brand and the endorser. In this case, it can be concluded that for green advertising, congruence of the brand and the brand endorser creates positive attitudes towards the brand. Other studies that do not specifically focus on green advertising, also conclude that congruence between the brand and the brand endorser lead to positive attitudes towards the brand and a higher purchase intention (Fleck, Korchia & Le Roy, 2012; Šeimienė & Jankovič, 2014).
purchase intention, but they are not synonyms of each other (Jurg & Seock, 2016). The concept of brand reputation, also known as corporate reputation, can in this case be interpreted as “attitudes and feelings consumers have about the nature and underlying reality of the company” (Pharoah 1982, p. 243). Another useful definition is: “the result of how consumers perceive the firm” (Grönroos, 1984, p. 39). Chun (2005), who uses these definitions in his article, states that corporate reputation exists out of three key elements: Identity (what the company is), Desired identity (what the company says it is) and Image (what the customer thinks it is). In the current study, the focus will be on the element Image, since the research is about how people perceive the brand reputation of Nike after being exposed to their campaign. Because the effect of brand endorsers on brand reputation has not been studied as well as the effect of brand endorsers on purchase intention, it is important to provide additional research to find out in what way the brand reputation is affected as well. The previous mentioned studies of Blasche & Ketelaar (2015), Fleck et al. (2012) and Šeimienė & Jankovič (2014) show that positive attitudes, brand beliefs and brand loyalty are positively impacted by congruence of the endorser and the brand. These factors relate to a positive brand reputation (Jung & Seock, 2016). In accordance with the previous literature, we argue that using a brand endorser who fits the brand will have a positive effect on the brand reputation. So whether Colin Kaepernick is the brand endorser of Nike, or another athlete, a positive effect is likely to appear towards the brand. This is because there is a fit between athletes and sports brands. Hence our hypothesis is:
H1. Exposure to the commercial of Nike with Colin Kaepernick will not lead to a more positive brand reputation of Nike than exposure to a commercial of Nike with a different athlete.
Corporate political activity
The second part of the research is focused on the second main effect: knowledge about the NFL protests and its effect on Nike’s brand reputation. This concept can be seen as the awareness of the corporate political activity (CPA) of Nike. By choosing a brand endorser that is highly involved in a political issue, Nike indirectly supports the statement that Colin Kaepernick tries to make (Intravia, Piquero, Leeper Piquero & Byers ,2019). Therefore, Nike is practicing CPA. The definition of CPA is “any deliberate firm action intended to influence governmental policy or process” (Getz, 1997, p. 32). Even though CPA is not a widely-researched field yet, some literature about the concept already exists.
Hillman, Keim and Schuler (2004) provided a scientific review about the topic of CPA and analysed different types of organisations performing CPA. They found an increase in market returns in firms that practice CPA compared to firms that did not practice CPA. Lux, Crook and Leap (2012) wrote a scientific review about the concept of CPA as well, and figured that even though practicing CPA is a risk for a company/brand, in the end it is beneficial to involve a business in politics. When implementing a good CPA strategy, sales will increase and the distinction from competitors is strong. Brand reputation and competitive advantage are related according to Den Hond, Rehbein, De Bakker and Lankveld (2014). It is therefore likely that practicing CPA will have a positive effect on brand reputation.
A study by Fan (2005) looked at ethical branding and corporate reputation. A positive relationship was found between the ethical behaviour of a brand and corporate reputation. Nike is supporting a statement that sticks up for a minority group in the USA. When people perceive this action as ethical behaviour, it is beneficial for the brand reputation of Nike.
Additionally, a recent study of Lin (2019) concluded that corporate reputation moderates the effect of CPA on the financial performance of an organization. In this study,
the direct effect of CPA on corporate reputation has not been analysed. Therefore, it is interesting to find out whether there is a relationship between these two factors as well.
Because CPA seems to be beneficial for an organization, according to the literature provided, there can be assumed that when people are aware of the protest and therefore aware of the CPA of Nike, that they perceive Nike’s brand reputation as more positive. This leads to the second hypothesis:
H2. After being informed about the NFL protest, exposure to the commercial of Nike with Colin Kaepernick will lead to a more positive brand reputation of Nike than exposure to a commercial of Nike with Colin Kaepernick, when not being informed about the protest.
Moderator 1. Brand commitment
Previous research by Till, Stanley and Priluck (2008) indicates that based on the actions of the endorser, favourable attitudes can increase or decrease towards an endorsed brand. According to this result, it is likely that people who know about the NFL protests react differently towards the campaign than people who do not know about the NFL protests.
Doyle, Pentecost & Funk (2013) conducted a study that has a specific focus on the sports market place. Because Nike is a sports brand, results of this study are important for the current one. The empirical study of Doyle et al. (2013) concluded that attitudes towards a brand endorser and the brand reduced after negative publicity about the brand endorser. However, this effect was tempered when people were familiar with the brand. So within the sports marketplace, brand familiarity has a moderating effect on brand attitudes. Since Nike is a multinational brand, familiarity is likely to occur. Hence it is difficult to distinguish people that are familiar and unfamiliar with Nike.
Additionally, a study of Um and Kim (2016) shows that congruence between a brand endorser's negative publicity and the brand is a moderating factor between a consumer’s evaluation of the brand and their purchase intentions. When a brand endorser is representing a brand for a longer period of time, the association between the endorser and the brand becomes strong. In this case, negative publicity about the brand endorser will lead to lower brand evaluation and lower purchase intention. However, brand commitment moderates this effect. Consumers with a higher level of brand commitment are less likely to react negatively to an endorser’s negative publicity, than consumers with a lower level of brand commitment.
Building further on the concept of brand commitment. Matos, Vinuales & Sheinin (2017) link brand commitment with Self-brand connection (SBC). SBC is “the perceived identification and personal connection with a brand, and the extent to which a brand reflects the self” (Matos et al., 2017, p.125). Matos and colleagues look at the effect of brands in political positions on consumers with different political orientations. They state that consumers’ brand commitment/SBC, weakens when there is no alignment between the political views of the brand and the consumer. Nevertheless, brand commitment/SBC mediates the relationship between both political orientations and brand attitude and political attitudes and purchase intention.
Referring back to the study of Doyle et al. (2013), the behaviour of a brand endorser (and the publicity that comes from that behaviour) seems to have an effect on the evaluation of the brand, depending on the opinion about that behaviour. Lots of research has been conducted about bad publicity about brand endorser their behaviour. Brand commitment seems to be a moderator in the majority of these studies. Nevertheless, the current study does not contain clear bad publicity. Whether people support or oppose the protest of Colin
Kaepernick, is subjective. Therefore, it is important to find out if brand commitment is a moderating effect in this case as well, with the use of the following hypothesis:
H3. Exposure to the commercial of Nike with Colin Kaepernick will lead to a more positive brand reputation of Nike after reading about the NFL protest than exposure to a commercial of Nike without Colin Kaepernick, this effect is stronger for people who have a higher brand commitment towards Nike.
Moderator 2. Discrimination
The study conducted by Intravia et al. (2019), also investigates the Nike commercial with Colin Kaepernick. In contrast to the current study, the study of Intravia and colleagues (2019) focuses on attitudes people have about the commercial of Nike with Colin Kaepernick in specific.
Intravia et al. (2019) found out that there is a difference in attitudes towards the commercial between black people and non-black people. Black people were more likely to agree with the choice of Nike for Kaepernick, and they agreed that Nike should address political issues like these in their advertising. Just like endorser and brand congruence plays a significant role in the effect on brand reputation, the relevance of protest to personal life plays a significant role as well. In this case especially the factor discrimination. People who experienced discrimination were more likely to support the campaign than people who did not experience discrimination. Taking this into account, the following outcome can be expected:
H4: Exposure to the commercial of Nike with Colin Kaepernick will lead to a more positive brand reputation of Nike after reading about the NFL protest than exposure to a commercial
of Nike without Colin Kaepernick, this effect is stronger for people who have experienced racial discrimination.
Moderator 3. Political orientation
Because political orientations differ, it is possible that people disagree with the political issues that brands involve with. It is important to know if this has any impact on the brand reputation of the brand that practices CPA. Hoewe & Hatemi (2017) conducted a study about the multinational brands Coca-Cola and Pepsi. They wanted to know whether the political orientation of a customer interacts with an advertisement’s content and the purchase intention of the product. According to the results, the alignment between someone’s political orientation and the political statement in an advertisement can either change or reinforce brand loyalty. In the case of Hoewe and Hatemi (2017), more conservative people chose the brand Pepsi, because of the Muslim and Arab representatives in the Coca-Cola ad. Also, even though their preferences went out to Coca-Cola, they still chose Pepsi, after seeing the advertisement. However, more progressive people maintained their preference for Coca-Cola. In this case, you can see that indirectly taking a political stance can have an effect, depending on one’s political preference.
Referring back to the study of Matos et al. (2017), which is already discussed in the brand commitment section. This study is focused on brands involving in politics and consumers with different political orientations as well. Matos et al. (2017) found out that when a brand’s political statement aligns with a consumer’s political view, the attitude towards the brand becomes more positive and the purchase intention rises.
The study of Intravia et al. (2019), also shows that people who identify themselves as more conservative were less likely to support the choice of Colin Kaepernick for the
commercial of Nike. According to these research outcomes, the following hypothesis can be assumed:
H5. Exposure to the commercial of Nike with Colin Kaepernick will lead to a more positive brand reputation of Nike after reading about the NFL protest than exposure to a commercial of Nike without Colin Kaepernick, this effect is stronger for people who are more liberal.
All hypotheses are visualized in the conceptual framework that is depicted in Figure 1 Figure 1.
Conceptual design of the study
Method Sample and Design
To test all hypotheses, an online experiment had been conducted. The experiment was built out of a 2x2 factorial between-subjects design, with four different conditions. The participants were divided into one of the conditions randomly. The experimental design is shown in Table 1.
The study was fielded between April 30 and May 6, 2019. The experiment had been conducted with a total sample of one hundred eighty one participants (N = 181). Participants that completed the experiment in less than one and a half-minute were excluded from the experiment, because they could not have seen the commercial and read the text in that amount of time. This resulted in a total amount of one hundred and sixty one participants (N = 161). The experiment was provided in Dutch, so only Dutch-speaking people were able to participate.
To check if the conditions were randomly divided by gender and age, a randomization check had been done. To check if the participants were randomly divided between the conditions in gender, A Chi-square test was conducted. There was no significant difference between the conditions in gender, χ2(3) = .53, p = .913. According to this result, the female and male participants were equally divided around the conditions. In order to check if participants’ age was comparable over the four conditions, a One-way ANOVA was conducted. The result was the following: F(33, 160) = .98, p = .508. This result indicated that the randomization for the variable age was successful.
All participants were recruited via the following social media: Facebook, LinkedIn and WhatsApp. 27.3 percent of the sample consisted out of male participants (n = 44), and 72.7 percent of the sample were female participants (n = 117). Their ages varied between 20
level (83.3 % university of applied science and university).
Table 1.
2x2 factorial between-subjects design
Nike commercial with Colin Kaepernick
Nike commercial with Eluid Kipchoge Neutral information about
brand ambassador of commercial
n = 38 n = 42
NFL protest information with Colin Kaepernick
n = 43 n = 38
Stimuli
Two types of stimuli were presented in the four conditions. Every condition contained different stimuli. The two types of stimuli were a text about an athlete and a Nike commercial where the athlete from the provided text is the main character. The text stimuli are depicted in Appendix 1.
The stimulus of the first condition contained a short text with neutral information about the American football athlete Colin Kaepernick. The text contained information about his sports career. In this condition, the NFL protest was not mentioned in the text. The text did not include any opinions and had a neutral tone of voice. Additionally, a clear picture of Colin Kaepernick was shown at the bottom of the page. The second part is a video, which is the original Nike commercial called ‘Dream crazy’, published on the 5th of September in 2018, in which Colin Kaepernick is the main character.
The second condition contained a text about Colin Kaepernick and his protest in the NFL. The reason behind his protest, and the consequences he suffered from protesting, were explained briefly. The text included a picture of Colin Kaepernick during the protest. A neutral tone of voice is used here as well. Same as the first condition, the second part of the experiment, was the original ‘Dream crazy’ commercial of Nike.
The third and the fourth condition featured a different athlete: Eluid Kipchoge. Eluid Kipchoge is also a famous coloured athlete, but without political background. The first stimulus of the third condition was a neutral text about Eluid Kipchoge. In the text his sports career was discussed, with a picture of him at the bottom of the page. The second stimulus of the third condition was the original Nike commercial ‘Fastest ever’, which features Eluid Kipchoge. This video was published on the 15th of September in 2018. Both commercials were published in the same month. Because of this, the factor publishing date could not have any influence in the study.
The fourth, and therefore last condition, contained the following two stimuli: a neutral text about Eluid Kipchoge, but with an additional paragraph which mentioned that Colin Kaepernick is also a brand endorser of Nike, including information about his involvement the NFL protest. Pictures of both athletes were shown underneath the text. Moreover, the next stimulus of this condition was the original Nike commercial ‘Fastest ever’, as well as the third condition.
To test whether the stimuli worked, a pre-test was conducted with a sample of eighteen participants (N = 18). From the results, it could be concluded that the commercials with Colin Kaepernick and the commercial with Eluid Kipchoge were considered comparable. Participants mentioned that the commercials were made in the same style. Moreover, participants found it clear that the athletes they just read about, were the main characters of
that did not mention the protest. However, there was no possibility to make the protest texts more neutral, because the tone of voice was neutral already.
Procedure
After clicking on the link provided through different types of social media, participants entered the online experiment. The participants were asked to fill in a short questionnaire about brand endorsers, without mentioning the exact purpose of the study. They were told that participating in the experiment would take approximately five minutes, and that they were able to leave the experiment any time they want to. To make sure all participants were eighteen years and over, they were only allowed to start the experiment when they fitted into this age category.
After the introduction, the participants read a short text. They were told to read the text carefully before continuing the survey. After reading the text, they got to see a Nike commercial, where the athlete where they just read about is the main character. Also in this part, the participants were asked to finish the entire video before continuing the study.
After exposure to the stimuli, the participants were asked to answer a few questions. First, their brand commitment towards Nike was measured on the basis of three items. After this part, the brand reputation of Nike was measured with the use of nine items. These scales were followed up with one question about political interests and one question if the participant had ever felt discriminated because of their or their parents’ ethnicity. Finally, the following demographics were asked: gender, age and educational level.
This was the end of the experiment. The participants were thanked for being a part of the study. Contact details of the researcher were provided, in case participants wanted to ask questions about the study.
Measures
Brand commitment towards Nike. The variable towards Nike was measured using the involvement-commitment model of Beatty, Homer and Kahle (1988). The brand commitment factor from this model was used. This factor included three items: “If Nike is not available at the store, it would make little difference to me if I had to choose another brand”, “I consider myself to be highly loyal to Nike” and “When another brand is on sale, I will generally purchase it rather than Nike.” Participants could give their opinion with the use of a 7-point that went from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A factor analysis showed that the scale was unidimensional, explaining 60.47% of the variance in the three items. The results of a reliability analysis indicated that the scale was proved to be reliable because of the Cronbach’s Alpha of .668 (M = 10.03, SD = 4.07). The Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale would be .720 when deleting the third item: “When another brand is on sale, I will generally purchase it rather than Nike.” However, because the scale is already quite short, it was decided to keep the third item in the scale, because the scale is reliable with this item as well. The originally used scale, the Dutch version, can be found in Appendix 2.
Brand reputation of Nike. To measure the dependent variable, the brand reputation of
Nike, three factors of the scale of Chun (2005) had been used. The factors used were the following: emotional appeal, product and services, and social and environmental responsibility. The factor emotional appeal contained the following items: “I have a good feeling about Nike”, “I admire and respect Nike” and “I trust Nike”. The following factor, product and services, contained these four items: “I stand behind Nike’s products and services”, “Nike develops innovative products and services”, “Nike offers high quality products and services” and the last item: “Nike offers products and services that are good value for money”. The last factor measured was social and environmental responsibility:
original scale, the Dutch version, can be found in Appendix 3. All nine items were answered with the use of a 5-point scale that began at “strongly disagree” and ended at “strongly agree”. Three factors were excluded from the experiment, because measuring these factors was not relevant to answer the research question: vision and leadership, workplace environment and financial performance. A factor analysis had been conducted and it indicated that the scale was unidimensional, explaining 53.22% of the variance in the nine items. The scale also proved to be reliable as presented by a Cronbach’s Alpha of .883 (M = 32.8, SD = 5.09). The reliability of the scale could be improved to a Cronbach’s Alpha of .885, but because the difference in reliability was minimal, the choice was made to keep the item in the scale.
Political preference. To measure whether the participants were more conservative or
progressive oriented, one item was used in the experiment. The participants were asked: “What political party did you vote for in the Dutch parliamentary elections in 2017?” The following parties were considered more conservative: CDA, CU, PVV, SGP, 50Plus, FVD and VVD. These parties were considered more progressive: D66, GL, PvdA, PvdD, SP and DENK (Bovens,’t Hart, Van Twist, Van den Berg, Van der Steen & Tummers, 2017). The participants were also able to answer: “I did not vote”.
Discrimination. To measure if participants had ever experienced the feeling of being
discriminated because of their own, or their parents place of birth, the following question was asked: “Have you ever felt discriminated by your of your parents place of birth?” The participants could answer this item by “Yes” or “No”.
Results Descriptive statistics
First the averages and standard deviations of the four conditions were analyzed. These variables are visualized in Table 2.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics of the conditions
Conditions
n
Brand Reputation1
M SD
Colin Kaepernick Neutral 38 3.61 0.73
Protest 43 3.74 0.49
Eluid Kipchoge Neutral 42 3.65 0.58
Protest 38 3.59 0.43
Total 161 3.65 0.57
Note. 1Measured on a 5-point scale.
Hypotheses Hypothesis 1.
To test whether the evaluation of Nike’s brand reputation is equal between the group that saw the commercial with Colin Kaepernick and the group that saw the commercial with Eluid Kipchoge, an Independent samples t-test was conducted. The condition: Colin Kaepernick (neutral and protest) vs. Eluid Kipchoge (neutral and protest) as the independent variable, and the brand reputation of Nike as the dependent variable. The results of the Independent samples t-test indicated that the average evaluation of the brand reputation of
from the average evaluation of brand reputation in the Eluid Kipchoge condition (M = 3.62,
SD = 0.51), t(159) = 0.59, p = .556. According to this result, Hypothesis 1 can be accepted.
Hypothesis 2.
To test if the evaluation of Nike’s brand reputation is more positive in the group that read about the NFL protests than in the group that did not read about the NFL protests, another Independent samples t-test was conducted, with the condition (protest info: Colin Kaepernick and Eluid Kipchoge vs. neutral info: Colin Kaepernick and Eluid Kipchoge) as independent variable, and the brand reputation of Nike was the dependent variable. The results showed that the average evaluation of the brand reputation of Nike from the protest information group (M = 3.67, SD = 0.47) was not significantly different from the average evaluation of brand reputation from the neutral information condition (M = 3.63, SD = 0.65),
t(159) = -0.44, p = .664. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Hypothesis 3.
In order to check if brand commitment moderates the effect of knowledge of the protest, and therefore knowledge about Nike’s CPA on the brand reputation of Nike, a two-way Analysis of Variance was conducted. The twotwo-way ANOVA indicated that the brand commitment towards Nike (low vs. high), had a significant effect on the brand reputation of Nike, F(1, 127) = 14.65, p = .000, ηᴘ² = .10. This indicated that the evaluation of the brand reputation of Nike is different between people with a high brand commitment towards Nike and people with a low brand commitment towards Nike.
However, knowledge about the NFL protest (available vs. unavailable), F(1, 211) = 0.02, p = .893, ηᴘ² = .00, nor the interaction of both these factors, F(1, 211) = 3.28, p = .073, ηᴘ² = .03, had a significant effect on the brand reputation of Nike. According to this result, Hypothesis 3 can be rejected.
Hypothesis 4.
To test whether the feeling of being discriminated in the past moderates the effect of knowledge of the protest, and therefore knowledge about Nike’s CPA on the brand reputation of Nike, another two-way Analysis of Variance was conducted. The Two-Way ANOVA indicated that neither the knowledge about the NFL protest (available vs. unavailable), F(1, 211) = 0.02, p = .893, ηᴘ² = .00, nor the feeling of being discriminated in the past (yes vs. no),
F(1, 211) = 1.16, p = .283, ηᴘ² = .01, nor the interaction of both these factors, F(1, 211) =
0.27, p = .602, ηᴘ² = .00, had a significant effect on the brand reputation of Nike. Thus, Hypothesis 4 can be rejected.
Hypothesis 5.
For the last hypothesis, assumed was that political orientation has a moderating role in the effect of knowledge about the NFL protest on the brand reputation of Nike, again a Two-Way ANOVA was conducted. The Two-Two-Way ANOVA indicated that neither the knowledge about the NFL protest (available vs. unavailable), F(1, 211) = 0.02, p = .893, ηᴘ² = .00, nor the political orientation (progressive vs. conservative), F(1, 211) = 0.04, p = .834, ηᴘ² = .00, nor the interaction of both these factors, F(1, 211) = 0.85, p = .359, ηᴘ² = .01, had a significant effect on the brand reputation of Nike. Hypothesis 5 can be rejected according to these results.
Explorative analyses
To check if there were any further noticeable outcomes, some explorative analyses were conducted. The first remarkable outcome was the data about self-reflection of discrimination. 86.3% of the sample (N = 139) answered the question “Have you ever had the feeling that you have been discriminated because of where you or your parents have been
To see if there were correlating patterns between variables in the study, a correlation analyses was conducted. A significant correlation was found between the variables gender and political orientation, education level and political orientation, discrimination and brand reputation, brand commitment and brand reputation and the variables discrimination and gender. All significant correlations are visualized in Table 3.
Table 3. Correlation Matrix Correlation Gend er Educatio n level Discriminati on Brand Reputatio n of Nike Political Orientation Brand commitme nt Gender 1.000 .113 .1621 .099 -.1761 -.020 Education level .113 1.000 .005 .153 -.1841 -.028 Discriminati on .1621 .005 1.000 .1551 -.006 .150 Brand reputation of Nike .099 .153 .1551 1.000 .008 .3481 Political orientation -.1761 -.1841 -.006 .008 1.000 .099 Brand commitment -.020 -.028 .150 .3481 .099 1.000
Conclusion and discussion
The purpose of the current study was to find out whether brands should use their power to make a statement in political discussions, also known as practicing corporate political activity (CPA). In the study the focus was on a specific case, the one of the sports brand Nike. Nike performed CPA by choosing the protesting athlete Colin Kaepernick as the new face of their ‘Just Do It’ campaign. Colin Kaepernick protested against the killing and police violence against African-American people. To find out the effect of this case, the research question is as follows: What was the effect of choosing Colin Kaepernick as the face
of the new media campaign of Nike on their brand reputation, and how is this moderated by knowledge about the protest?
The results of the study show that the evaluation of the brand reputation of Nike of people who saw the Colin Kaepernick ad was not different from the people who saw another commercial, with a different coloured athlete. This result was expected, looking at previous literature: as long as a brand endorser matches the purpose of the brand, the brand evaluation is likely to be positive. Blasche & Ketelaar (2015) found the same relationship in their research. However, their focus was on green advertising. The current study shows that in sports advertising, the positive congruence effect occurs as well. Colin Kaepernick and the other athlete, Eluid Kipchoge, were both athletes who were successful in sports. Since Nike is a sports brand, there is congruence between the brand and the brand endorser.
Contrary to expectations, people who were informed about the protest, did not evaluate Nike’s brand reputation differently than people who were not informed about the protest. In other words, people who were informed that Nike was performing CPA did not evaluate Nike’s brand reputation more positively or more negatively than people who did not know about Nike’s CPA. This result was not in line with the results of the study of Lux et al.
because of CPA, a company builds competitive advantage. At the same time, Den Hond et al. (2014) found a relationship between competitive advantage and a rise in positive brand reputation. However, Lux et al. (2012) did not mention that CPA would be beneficial for specifically the brand reputation. Moreover, Fan (2005) found that a brand’s ethical behaviour would have a positive effect on their brand reputation. It is not clear whether people evaluated Nike’s CPA as ethical or unethical. Further research of CPA on brand reputation is needed with a more detailed focus on the evaluation of the CPA of a brand, to know whether it is seen as ethical or unethical behaviour.
Expected was that the brand commitment towards Nike would moderate the effect of knowing about the NFL protest on the evaluation of the brand reputation of Nike. The results of the study show that a moderation effect of brand commitment has not been found. This result does not align with the results of the study of Doyle et al. (2013). They researched the sports market place, which is the same field as the current study, and they found that people with a higher brand commitment are more positive about the brand after negative publicity about the brand endorser, than people with a lower brand commitment. The reason behind these incoherent results can be that different people interpret the NFL protest information in different ways. Their opinion about the protest was not asked during the experiment. There is no clear negative publicity in this case, and therefore it is possible that the results of the current study differ from the results of the study of Doyle et al. (2013). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is useful for future research to question the participant about his or her evaluation of the CPA. Brand commitment does correlate significantly with brand reputation. People with a higher brand commitment towards Nike perceive the brand reputation of Nike as more positive.
Colin Kaepernick, the expectation was that people who knew about the NFL protest and who experienced discrimination, would evaluate the brand reputation of Nike more positive than people who did not experience racism. Even though expected, there was no difference in this effect between people who did, and who did not experience racism. This result does not match the results of the study of Intravia et al. (2019), which is also about this specific Nike case. Intravia et al. (2019) found a significant difference between people who experienced racism and people who did not experience racism in the evaluation of the campaign. A possible reason why the results of these two studies do not align can be because Intravia et al. (2019) investigated an American sample. It would be interesting if future studies about this topic would use an international sample, to control for ethnical effects. Moreover, the methodology to measure racism in the current study is limited. Only one question was asked whether people have ever felt discriminated against because of where the participant or the participant’s parents were born. This question does not only cover discrimination based on race or ethnicity. People from the same country can have different types of cultures, and can be discriminated because of that as well. A remarkable result is the result of the correlation analysis, which showed that discrimination and gender correlated. A good point of improvement for future research is to measure discrimination in more detail, to find out for what reason people feel discriminated. What is also different from this study and the study of Intravia et al. (2019), is that they measured race. When measuring discrimination, it is interesting to measure race as well, as there might be a relationship.
The last expectation, the moderation of political orientation, was also not confirmed in the current study. Expected was that there would be a difference in the effect of knowledge about the protest on brand reputation between people that were more conservative and people that were more progressive. The results show that there is no significant moderation effect of
towards the Nike campaign between conservative and progressive people. However, as noted before, the results of their study are based on an American sample. The American political system is different than the Dutch political system. The assumption was also based on the research of Hoewe & Hatemi (2017), who found an effect of political orientation on brand loyalty. Since brand loyalty in their study, and brand reputation in this study are measured in a different way, this might explain the difference in results.
The conclusions that have been made in the current study, need to be seen in light of the limitations of the research. First of all, 73.3% of the sample consists of people in the age category 20 to 30 years old. Additionally, 83.3% of the sample size is in possession of a university degree or is completing one. Thus, the majority of the sample is highly educated and between 20 and 30 years old. This sample is not representing the whole Dutch-speaking population. Upcoming studies should focus on a broader target group when conducting research on this topic.
Another limitation of the study is that it has not been taken into account that people might already have known about the NFL protest before starting the experiment. When they were put in the neutral condition, and they already knew about the topic, the results could be biased. A solution for this problem can be to choose a case that does not exist yet, so knowledge bias of participants can be excluded.
The scale that measured the brand reputation of Nike was the scale of Chun (2005). This scale also measured factors like vision and leadership, workplace environment and financial performance. These factors were not needed in the current study when looking at brand reputation. Even though the scale was still reliable after excluding these factors, measuring brand reputation using an existing scale that does not need to be shortened would make the results more consistent with previous studies.
The question whether people experienced discrimination, was answered with “Yes” by 86.3% of the sample. Because no question about race or ethnicity was asked, there was no possibility to look at which groups experienced discrimination more. It would be interesting if future research looks at the factor race or ethnicity as well, to see if there is any difference between different racial/ethnical groups. Also, as explained in previous paragraphs, the question asked does not only cover discrimination based on race and ethnicity. A more extensive measure has to be conducted to find out whether people feel discriminated about where they or their parents are born, or whether they feel discriminated because of something else.
The last limitation of the study is the measurement of the variable political orientation. To measure whether people were more progressive or conservative, participants answered what political party they voted for in the Dutch parliamentary elections in 2017. Because political orientations might have changed in two years, it is not the most accurate way of measuring political orientation. Also, some parties have progressive and conservative viewpoints, which make it difficult to categorize people in one of the two groups. Future research should look for a scale that measures political orientation, to make the outcomes more reliable.
In conclusion, there can be stated that choosing a brand endorser that matches the brand works positively for the brand reputation. However, in the case of Nike, involving in politics has no positive or negative effect on the brand reputation. Brand commitment, political orientation or the personal experience of racism is no moderator in the effect between CPA and brand reputation.
References
Beatty, S. E., Homer, P., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). The involvement—commitment model: Theory and implications. Journal of business research, 16(2), 149-167.
Bell, J. (2018, September 4). With Nike ad campaign, Colin Kaepernick can take activism to all-world level. USA Today. Retrieved from
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/columnist/bell/2018/09/04/colin-kaepernick-nike-ad-protest-activism-kneeling/1196837002/
Blasche, J., & Ketelaar, P.E. (2015). The synergy in green persuasion: Green celebrity endorsers in green advertising: A study of brand-endorser congruence effects in green advertising. Journal of Euromarketing, 24, 86-106.
Bovens, M.A.P.’t Hart, P., Van Twist, M.J.W., Van den Berg, C.F., Van der Steen, M.A., Tummers, L.G. (2017). Openbaar Bestuur: Beleid, organisatie en politiek. (9 ed.) Deventer: Wolters Kluwer.
Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.
Den Hond, F., Rehbein, K. A., de Bakker, F. G., & Lankveld, H. K. V. (2014). Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 790-813.
Doyle, J. P., Pentecost, R. D., & Funk, D. C. (2014). The effect of familiarity on associated sponsor and event brand attitudes following negative celebrity endorser
publicity. Sport Management Review, 17(3), 310-323.
Du, J., Bai, T. & Chen, S. (2019). Integrating Corporate Social and Corporate Political Strategies: Performance Implications and Institutional Contingencies in China.
Fan, Y. (2005). Ethical branding and corporate reputation. Corporate communications: An
international journal, 10(4), 341-350.
Fleck, N., Korchia, M., & Le Roy, I. (2012). Celebrities in Advertising: Looking for Congruence or Likability? Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 651-662.
Getz, K. A. (1997). Research in corporate political action: Integration and assessment. Business & Society, 36(1), 32-72.
Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European
Journal of marketing, 18(4), 36-44.
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837-857.
Hoewe, J., & Hatemi, P. (2017). Brand Loyalty Is Influenced by the Activation of Political Orientations. Media Psychology, 20(3), 428-449.
Intravia, J., Piquero, A. R., Leeper Piquero, N., & Byers, B. (2019). Just Do It? An
Examination of Race on Attitudes Associated with Nike’s Advertisement Featuring Colin Kaepernick. Deviant Behavior, 1-11.
Jensen, T., & Sandström, J. (2011). Stakeholder theory and globalization: The challenges of power and responsibility. Organization studies, 32(4), 473-488.
Jung, N. Y., & Seock, Y. K. (2016). The impact of corporate reputation on brand attitude and purchase intention. Fashion and Textiles, 3(1), 20.
Lin, W. L. (2019). Is Corporate Political Activity an Investment or Agency? An Application of System GMM Approach. Administrative Sciences, 9(1), 5.
Lux, S., Crook, T. R., & Leap, T. (2012). Corporate political activity: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Business Horizons, 55(3), 307-312.
Moorman, C. (2018, September 4). Big Brands And Political Activism: What Do Marketers Think? Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinemoorman/2018/09/04/big-brands-and-political- activism-what-do-marketers-think/
nike-ad-protest-activism-kneeling/1196837002/
Pengelly, M. (2018, September 6). Nike sales surge 31% in days after Colin Kaepernick ad unveiled, analyst says. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/08/colin-kaepernick-nike-ad-sales-up Pharoah, N. (1982). Corporate image research in the brewing industry or from red revolution
to country goodness in 10 years. Journal of the Market Research Society, 24(3), 240-256.
Rorke, T., & Copeland, A. (2017). Athletic disobedience: providing a context for analysis of Colin Kaepernick’s protest. FairPlay, Revista de Filosofia, Ética y Derecho del
Deporte, (10), 83-107.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate
responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy
of management review, 32(4), 1096-1120.
Šeimienė, E., & Jankovič, T. (2014). Impact of congruence between sports celebrity and brand personality on purchase intention: the case of mineral water category in Lithuania. Organizations and markets in emerging economies, 5, 90-104.
Singh, J., Iglesias, O., & Batista-foguet, J. (2012). Does Having an Ethical Brand Matter? The Influence of Consumer Perceived Ethicality on Trust, Affect and Loyalty.
Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 541-549.
Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.nl/nike-colin-kaepernick-ad-sparks-boycott-2018-9/
Till, B. D., Stanley, S. M., & Priluck, R. (2008). Classical conditioning and celebrity
endorsers: An examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction. Psychology
& Marketing, 25(2), 179-196.
Um, N., & Kim, S. (2016). Determinants for Effects of Celebrity Negative Information: When to Terminate a Relationship with a Celebrity Endorser in Trouble? Psychology
& Marketing, 33(10), 864-874.
Watson, I. (2018, September 4). Six times brands got political in their advertising: from Airbnb to Pepsico. The Drum. Retrieved from:
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/09/04/six-times-brands-got-political-their-advertising-airbnb-pepsico
Appendices
Appendix 1.
Experimental stimuli
Condition 1. Condition 2.
Appendix 2.
Brand commitment scale (Dutch)
Wat is jouw mening over het merk Nike? Vul de volgende vragen in.
• Wanneer Nike niet beschikbaar is in de winkel, dan zou het voor mij uitmaken als ik een ander merk moet kiezen.
• Ik beschouw mezelf als heel trouw aan Nike
• Als een ander merk in de uitverkoop is, dan zou ik dat merk boven Nike verkiezen
Appendix 3.
Brand reputation scale (Dutch)
Wat is jouw mening over het merk Nike? Vul de volgende vragen over die gaan over het merk Nike:
Factor 1. Gevoel
• Ik heb een goed gevoel over Nike • Ik bewonder en respecteer Nike • Ik vertrouw Nike
Factor 2. Producten en diensten
• Ik sta achter Nike’s producten
• Nike ontwikkelt innovatieve producten
• Nike biedt kwalitatief hoogwaardige producten aan • Nike biedt producten aan die waard zijn voor je geld
• Nike is milieuvriendelijk
