Public Oppinion

The public image of a company plays a heavy role in the perception and interpretation of that company’s actions. Nike Inc. has endured heavy criticism since the 1990s for the human rights violations and child labor usage in their overseas factories. Public response to this has been one of condemnation, including boycotts on college campuses, undercover footage taken within Nike production facilities, and even the competitive withdrawal of Chinese Olympian, Liu Xiang, who protested Nike sponsorship and apparel at the 2008 Summer Games.
Compared to this, the critical action taken against Coca-Cola for the alleged kidnapping, torture, and murder of SINALTRAINAL employees in Columbia has been relatively weak: an overturned lawsuit, several college boycotts that are struggling to take hold, and a committed critical website. Why are people hesitating to attack Coca-Cola at the same level that Nike has experienced? Watch the below videos and consider their messages as you do:





Nike’s commercial is intimidating, aggressive, powerful, and serious. Every mask that appears on a player’s head symbolizes the dedication and sacrifice that they have put into their sport to become a competitive force. It establishes Nike’s image as an uncompromising, hard-hitting apparel source for athletes that aren’t afraid to do what they must to rise to the top. It is not too far of a stretch to imagine that a company which provides such hard-hitting apparel to their customers would be similarly efficient and uncompromising in their business practice.
The Coca-Cola commercial sends a completely different message. They suggest that their product should be associated with whimsical ideals, colorful imagery, fanfare, comedy, and general good nature. With an image like this, it would be difficult to imagine successfully charging the Coca-Cola Company with hiring a paramilitary force to commit acts of terrorism in the name of lower production cost.
This advertising driven image campaign is not limited only to commercials. Take a minute to visit the home pages of each company’s website, which are linked below.

http://store.nike.com/index.jsp?country=US&cp=USNS_KW_0611081619&lang_locale=en_US

http://www.coca-cola.com/index.jsp

The first thing you see on Nike’s page is a sepia colored image of an exhausted boxer leaning on the ropes after his sparring match. Next to him is the phrase “determined to dominate,” which is referring to the new Manny Pacquiao clothing line. Browsing through the other title pages show similarly success oriented promotion for their clothing line. This campaign reinforces the same themes that were mentioned before and helps to establish Nike as a ruthless, assertive company in the public eye.
The Coca-Cola website has a more direct message: “open happiness.” The subtext of this phrase is so clear that it hardly needs to be restated: drinking Coca-Cola will make you happy. With an advertising campaign that directly associates the product with good feelings, it is easy to see what sort of public opinion would form.
It is hard to believe that something like public perception can influence whether or not a company is held accountable for their actions. The effects are visible, however, and we should all try to keep an unbiased and objective view when regarding a company’s actions outside of the shopping aisle.

Click HERE to open the feedback tool.