Comparison

Competition among firms plays a role in maximizing the sales revenue. Many international businesses have realized that it takes proper marketing strategies to win a larger market share. While quality product provision is vital in attracting a consumer base, awareness of product existence completes the equation. However, it should be noted that there are firms who have found a way to navigate around the need for quality products. These firms invest more on innovation in the formulation of advertisement strategies rather than the need for improvement of products’ quality. Studies conclude that such business moves are unethical. In fact, business ethics professionals have recommended the revocation of the operating licenses from firms engaged in unethical practices. However, for most corporations (including Nike), the positive effect to the general population outweighs the negative business marketing practices. Besides, Nike is a remarkable source of revenue to the government and creates multiples of jobs per year. The firms can also argue that their shutdown can trigger economic slump. In this paper, the case of Nike Logo shall be analyzed by comparison of an article that endorse its marketing strategies and a video clip that criticize the firm for practicing unfair and unethical business practices.  

Article

The writer of the article is a marketing professional. He identifies himself with his work of designing corporate logos for startup firms and rebranding of the old business entities. His role is to brainstorm the companies’ management to generate useful ideas that will be integrated in the new Logo. The marketer proposes ways execute the marketing strategy to include measures like cutting the operational costs, product quality management and complete overhaul of the existing business marketing practices through corporate identity re-engineering. The article writer claims that radical redesign of a logo involves creativity and strategizing. As such, successful firms in logo designs like Nike deserve the customer loyalty. Nike’s Graphic al expression, for years, has formed part of the corporate identity. According to the article writer, Nike, Apple and other business brands have been successful because they found a way to associate the firm with the feelings of humans. Nike’s success would not have been possible were it not for the logo’s physical appeal and the ability to evoke human emotions. The sense that everything is possible has been injected to the logo design, making the Nike product customer base to associate the company with success. The undeniable fact that Nike’s claim is fabricated and unrealistic has been challenged by the article writer. The writer believes that the Nike logo sums up what the company is all about, without narrowing it down to the production sector. According to him, what many people do not realize is the magnitude of the firm’s influence in sectors like corporate social responsibility, employment, and the tax revenue.

Video

In the short video clip, Charles Kaufman claims that Nike and other multinationals bully consumers in their advertisements and logos. According to him, Nike has devised an ingenious marketing strategy that ensures their total control of the market. The government silence and non-regulation of such unfairness in market competition implies that they utilize the bullying strategy as well. Kaufman argues that Just Do It logo portrays the lengths that firms go to get the consumer to buy the products unconditionally. This is contrary to his beliefs, in that the firm should be giving hope to the customers instead of forcing ideas. In fact, Nike’s restrictive measures (as evidenced in the Nike logo) deny the customers the ability to make choices freely. As such, the customer loyalty to the products, for decades, is solely based on trickery and mental slavery. Kaufman’s bottom-line Nike rules the people because of the fabricated and unethical logo, and measures should be taken to eliminate such unfair practices in the future. People should be given a chance of personal choice of the products.

 Opinion

It is true that the business world is rapidly changing. Due to the rapid globalization for business entities, the survival of any corporation relies on its competitive nature. Slight twist in a marketing strategy can earn a competitive edge to the firm.  However, it is necessary for the firm to adhere to all the marketing regulations as laid down by the government bodies and other relevant authorities. In the case of Nike, it is true that its success and survival for decades has been possible due to its humanization. The business humanization is a fair competitive strategy that most firms that fail to stand the test of time do not excel in. However, Kaufman is right when he says that the consumers’ ability to make personal choices regarding the products should not be interfered with by the marketers. While Nike is a source of employment and a key player in economic performance of many countries, lack or regulation of its unfair practices can diminish the level of competition in the market as other firms’ pull out. In the long run, the citizens will be jobless. On the other hand, the source of revenue to the government will be narrowed.