COMMENTARY : PUSH Rights Group Blisters Nike Shoes on Minority Stance
These are times that try men’s soles.
Callers to one of the better-known civil rights organizations in the country are being greeted these days by: “Hello, Operation PUSH, Say No to Nike.”
Say it again?
“Say No to Nike. We’ve called a boycott of Nike shoes and Nike apparel. How can I direct your call?”
A minute later, the Rev. Tyrone Crider, executive director of PUSH, picked up the receiver and said by way of explanation: “We are very serious about this. It’s war now. A war for dignity, a war for integrity, a war for respect. . . . “
A war over sneakers. PUSH, the acronym for People United to Save Humanity and the group that Jesse Jackson founded and used to launch his political career, has come to shove again.
Make no mistake: This is potentially a very ugly and very expensive brawl. The athletic shoe industry has grown from $1.4 billion in sales to an expected $5.5 billion this year, and Nike is at the head of a very competitive pack that includes Reebok, Converse and a host of others.
After one face-to-face meeting in late July and correspondence over the phone and fax, PUSH decided it didn’t like Nike’s employment, investment and advertising practices as they relate to African-Americans. Apparently just as important (more on that later), PUSH decided it doesn’t like Nike’s attitude.
And so the group is telling anyone who will listen not to buy Nike shoes--the ones with the distinctive “swoosh” stripe, the ones hawked in those eclectic commercials by athletes Michael Jordan and Bo Jackson and movie director Spike Lee--and put black tape over the emblems on those already purchased.
Jordan said through a spokesman that “while all of corporate America needs to provide opportunities for qualified blacks to go up the corporate ladder,” he would not back the PUSH boycott.
“It’s unfair to single out Nike just because it’s one of the top companies in the industry,” Jordan said through the spokesman.
Indeed, one of the biggest salvos of the war could be fired today when Jordan, whose “Air Jordan” line of shoes and clothing alone produces revenues estimated at $200 million, is expected to choose a side. His agent at Washington-based ProServ could not be reached for comment, but a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Jordan would back Nike.
“Let’s be honest, a boycott worries any reasonable company,” spokeswoman Liz Dolan said in a telephone conversation from Nike’s Beaverton, Ore., headquarters. “Nobody likes to think their customers will be hassled in the process of buying a product, or leave the impression they are not a good corporate citizen. In that way, of course it worries us.
“This is not a disagreement between Nike and PUSH, not Nike and African-Americans. We’re pretty confident that community knows we’ve been supportive of them, and hopefully,” she continued, “they’ll be supportive of us.”
If this “Black Out Nike” campaign sounds familiar, that’s probably because it is. For the last decade, with Jackson usually serving as point man, PUSH has forced concessions from such corporate giants as Coca Cola (“Don’t Choke on Coke” was the memorable slogan from that campaign), Anheuser-Busch (“Bud Is A Dud”), Ford and Burger King.
“Each and every year, we look where African-Americans spend their money and then see whether that money is reinvested in the community,” Crider said. “In the 1980s, it was fast food, beverages and car companies. This is the health decade and Nike is only the first company to come to bat.”
“Thirty percent of their basketball shoes are purchased by African-Americans,” Crider said. “That will stop.”
PUSH demanded that Nike hire more black employees, black executives, place deposits in black-owned banks, increase the hiring of black lawyers and ad agencies, provide a seat on the board of directors and according to Nike, some financial information which even stockholders wouldn’t be privy to seeing.
What Nike asked for, among other things, was information about PUSH’s finances; its membership (Crider said between 50,000 to 60,000 nationwide); whether it has been the subject of a federal investigation and, after finding a $5,900 advertisement from Reebok in a recent copy of PUSH’s magazine, how cozy the group was with its chief rival.
“Both Reebok and us made clear there was no relationship,” Crider said. “Almost all the information they asked for from us was a smoke screen. Everyone knows PUSH’s history and its campaigns for economic and social justice.”
Which is one reason why use of the bully pulpit and this rush to judgment seems so curious. Without much provocation, PUSH--as Nike itself might be tempted to say--just did it.
