Nike Inc.: Encyclopedia II - Nike Inc. - Advertisement controversies

Nike Inc. - Advertisement controversies

Nike Inc. - Kasky v. Nike

Consumer activist Marc Kasky filed a lawsuit in California regarding newspaper advertisements and letters Nike distributed in response to criticisms of labor conditions in its factories. Kasky claimed that the company made representations that constituted false advertising. Nike responded the false advertising laws did not cover the company's expression of its views on a public issue, and that these were entitled to First Amendment protection. The local court agreed with Nike, but the California Supreme Court overturned this ruling, claiming that the documents were commercial speech and therefore subject to false advertising laws. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the case but eventually chose not to rule. The parties subsequently settled out of court before any finding on the accuracy of Nike's statements.

Nike Inc. - Beatles song

Nike has been a focus of criticism for their use of the Beatles song "Revolution" in a commercial, against the wishes of Apple Records, the Beatles' recording company. Nike reportedly paid $250,000 to Capitol Records Inc., which held the North American licensing rights to the Beatles' recordings, for the right to use the Beatles' rendition for a year.

According to a July 28, 1987 article written by the Associated Press, Apple sued Nike Inc., Capitol Records Inc., EMI Records Inc. and Wieden+Kennedy advertising agency for $15 million. Capitol-EMI countered by saying the lawsuit was 'groundless' because Capitol had licensed the use of "Revolution" with the "active support and encouragement of Yoko Ono Lennon, a shareholder and director of Apple."

According to a November 9, 1989 article in the Los Angeles Daily News, "a tangle of lawsuits between the Beatles and their American and British record companies has been settled." One condition of the out-of-court settlement was that terms of the agreement would be kept secret. The settlement was reached among the three parties involved: George Harrison, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr; Yoko Ono; and Apple, EMI and Capitol Records. A spokesman for Yoko Ono noted, "It's such a confusing myriad of issues that even people who have been close to the principals have a difficult time grasping it. Attorneys on both sides of the Atlantic have probably put their children through college on this."

Nike discontinued airing ads featuring "Revolution" in March 1988. Yoko Ono later gave permission to Nike to use John Lennon's "Instant Karma" in another memorable ad.

Nike Inc. - Minor Threat ad

In late June 2005, Nike came under fire from independent music fans for their use of an easily identifiable Minor Threat album cover slightly modified into a promotional tool for their line of skateboarding shoes. With Minor Threat being emblematic of underground punk rock culture, and their former frontman Ian MacKaye (of Fugazi and Dischord Records) being an outspoken champion of true independent music and the DIY ethic, Nike's move to use this image struck many as a cynical attempt by a large, money hungry corporation to target an untapped demographic, undermining what Minor Threat stood for, and what Dischord continues to represent.
On June 27th, Nike Skateboarding's website issued an apology to Dischord, Minor Threat, and anyone else who was offended by their act, and announced that all usage of the image would be removed claiming that the people who designed the ad were skateboarders and Minor Threat fans themselves who created the ad out of respect and appreciation for the band.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Advertisement controversies", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki