    |
 |
|
|
|
Star-Spangled Business: Labor, Patriotism, and Michael Jordan in a Nike Advertisement By Jes Cortes
The whole concept of critical thought surpassing thoughtless commerce might be hopelessly naïve in an era when college sports is big business and professional athletes are royalty. 1
The National Anthem plays. Michael Jordan-as the CEO of his own shoe company-faces the camera close-up as he inspects shoes. He squeezes them, and looks at them from different angles. His expressions are scrutinizing and then approving. An inspection tag inscribed with the number 23 flashes across the screen. This scene is repeated three times and then the camera slowly zooms out, revealing a luxurious and spacious corporate suite piled high with shoe boxes. A television in the periphery of the suite displays in sequence the American Flag, the Statue of Liberty, and Mount Rushmore. Judging from certain statistics, it might seem that Nike is living up to its namesake goddess of victory. Company founder Philip Night has a net worth of $5.3 billion 2 and Nike has a cozy endorsement relationship with the world's wealthiest ($78 million net worth) and most worshipped athlete, Michael Jordan. 3 All, however, is not well at the world's most famous footwear corporation. Nike's business operations, in particular evidence of abusive labor conditions, have drawn criticism from human rights groups such as Amnesty International, politicians and even mainstream newspapers. Two members of Congress recently circulated a letter to Knight-signed by 53 other members of Congress-demanding that Nike begin to treat Asian workers "with respect, dignity and decent wages," and create more Nike jobs in the United States. 4 More bad news emerged after a company-contracted audit was leaked by an employee.
The Ernst & Young report painted a dismal picture of thousands of young women, most under age 25, laboring 10 1/2 hours a day, six days a week, in excessive heat and noise and in foul air, for slightly more than $10 a week. The report also found that workers with skin or breathing problems had not been transferred to departments free of chemicals and that more than half the workers who dealt with dangerous chemicals did not wear protective masks or gloves. 5
Even the American sports pages-seldom a sounding board for progressive politics-have jumped into the ring with Nike. 6 A Detroit Free Press column entitled "Mind or your money; Nike wants both" points to the irony of Nike glorifying women athletes in commercials while victimizing young women workers in its factories. The column is unusually but appropriately blunt. "What's the most important part of your body?," the columnist writes, "Your mind, right? Well, you'd better protect it. Because something is trying to get it. That something is a shoe company called Nike." A close reading of Nike's "CEO Jordan" advertisements reveals a startling connection to Nike's public relations crisis. Is it not striking that at a time when Nike is under fire for abusive labor conditions the company shows an ad with CEO Jordan (a CEO and popular culture icon) engaged in that very same labor as the workers? Is it not striking that at a time when Nike is being criticized by Congress (among others) for not providing jobs in America, the company creates ads juxtaposing patriotic images such as the Statue of Liberty with CEO Jordan engaged in labor? There are at least two CEO Jordan ads at the time of this writing, one noticeably longer than the other. The ads operate as a single narrative, sharing the same protagonist (CEO Jordan), setting, and theme. True to common practice in television advertising, the longer ad seems to function as an introduction to the ad campaign, and seems to have been followed by the shorter ad (the shorter ad, then, is viewed in the context established by the longer ad, is more concentrated, and less costly). Significantly, the short ad includes only the shoe inspection scene, suggesting that it is this scene-of CEO Jordan literally inspecting shoes to the tune of the star-spangled banner and to traditional American symbols-that Nike has chosen to convey its message. The shorter ad skips the footage of Jordan on the court accompanied by swing music and instead includes images of the American flag waving to the tune of the National Anthem. The differences between the two versions begs the question: why did Nike-obviously quite deliberately-insert Patriotic images into these ads? Patriotic images and Michael Jordan are used in this ad to impart a positive association to Nike in general, and its labor practices in particular. Ironically, however, these images to some degree defy the patriotic and glorified spin the ad tries to place upon them. One of the more curious images is the inspection tag (imprinted with "23," which the long ad reminds us is Jordan's jersey number). The tag is presented using a close-up shot, a bold composition (light color of the tag set off by a dark background), and quick repetitions. The way the tag is presented gives it a special power. The quick shots create a subliminal effect, yet the bold composition and rhythmic repetition make it impressionable. One might say that an inspection tag has a fairy straightforward meaning, essentially saying that a certain product has passed quality standard. An inspection tag could also be said to connote a working class sensibility, evoking images of assembly lines, for example. But in the CEO Jordan ad, the inspection tag has been appropriated. The ad decontextualizes the tag. Rather than a realistic factory situation, the ad creates a scene that depends on various, even contrasting, codes. For instance, the ad couples a working class sign (the generic inspection tag) with an elite presence (MJ's number). But these contrasting codes are not limited to the tag. Piles of shoe boxes make the room look like a warehouse, and the giant gears to a background clock create a very industrial tone, yet mixed in with these industrial images are things like CEO Jordan's dapper suit and the corporate suite. To comprehend better how our own understanding depends on codes, we can imagine CEO Jordan wearing, for example, work clothes rather than his brown suit. Work clothes would immediately take their place in the system of signs that speak about industrial labor. But work clothes would contrast sharply with the character CEO Jordan and MJ himself. A Jordan in work clothes would signify all the more directly, "working class." Or, a more authentic representation of an inspection scene with a more realistic worker would send a stronger and clearer message about blue collar work. Nike does not want to draw more attention to its actual labor practices. Thus, Nike puts a "spin" on its association to labor by muting and muddying the "labor" signs. We could also imagine a list of possible signs that could logically replace "23," such as a sign with a similar meaning, like "Michael Jordan." But certain signs are more logical than others. To see Jordan's #23 on an inspection tag is quite odd. But what would we normally expect to see on an inspection tag in a box of Nike shoes? An anonymous number, like 56 or 117. An anonymous number could signify an Indonesian worker's name. With a shift in perspective away from the fictional representation in the ad and toward actual labor conditions-a shift which the commercials rapid presentation of images discourages-we can look at that inspection tag and see Jordan's #23 as a removable sticker, hiding the name of an authentic factory worker. The irony of Jordan's image helping to conceal the reality of Nike's business practices runs deeper when we consider the difference in pay between Jordan and a shoe worker: "[Nike] was said to pay more in one year's promotional fees to one American basketball star, Michael Jordan, than the entire workforce earned in the Indonesian shoe industry-the 25,000 workers who made Nike, Reebok, L.A. Gear, Adidas and other famous brands." 7 There are other notable references in this ad. As CEO Jordan inspects shoes, an instrumental version of the National Anthem plays. As an instrumental, the anthem is as far from an explicit message as possible; it has an unobtrusiveness that belies its strong political connotations. An incident that occurred on the basketball court suggests the Anthem's centrality in American culture. One National Basketball Association (NBA) player, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, was suspended without pay for refusing to stand during the playing of the National Anthem. A league spokesman said "Abdul-Rauf violated a league rule that requires players, coaches and trainers to 'stand and line up in a dignified posture' during the U.S. and Canadian anthems." 8 Particularly because it lacks lyrics, the song takes on a purely connotative meaning, evoking notions of patriotism and national identity while viewers "watch" Nike shoes being manufactured. The anthem also functions as a narrative device, casting sentiments of importance to Jordan's task, just as an anthem dignifies and draws attention to an actual event. At a sporting event-likely the place where most Americans experience the National Anthem-the anthem serves as both a prelude and a framing device for the spectacle. If the anthem is part of a code that encourages watching-a ritual playing that says, in effect, "get ready to watch"-then its function in the commercial is also to increase our level of spectatorship; we hear the anthem played and focus more intently on Jordan. But this time "His Airness" (one of Jordan's many nicknames relating to his super-human ability to sail through the air) is not gliding and dunking; he is inspecting and selling shoes. As CEO Jordan scrutinizes shoe after shoe, the National Anthem gives his activity a noble and American aura. In this ad, then, the anthem does double duty: the anthem functions like other patriotic messages to "Americanize" perceptions of Nike's labor, and the anthem encourages passive consumption of these shoes. The ads' 70 mm, wide-screen format also helps to construct the visual spectacle. Bignell writes: "Wide-screen 70 mm is used in the opening of Star Wars, for instance, to connote immense scale and spectacle." 9 Wide-screen takes on an added meaning when viewed on television. As wide-screen is used more frequently for the home video market-indeed, more and more commercials use it as well-it lends credibility, or cinematic authenticity, to a televised story. Thus, the Jordan Inc. ads become more of a spectacle, contributing to the viewer's passive consumption of the ad's messages. And as the wide-screen format and the Anthem help to increase the level of spectacle, they inversely decrease the level of awareness for the ideological forces emanating from the ad. The ad is loaded with other ideological devices. Toward the end of the commercial, the camera zooms away from the close-up of CEO Jordan, revealing, among other things, a television set in his office. What airs on the television set? The American flag! As the anthem plays, the corresponding lyrics may very well run through viewers' heads: "Gave proof to the night that our flag was "still" there./ Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave/ O'er the land of the free and home of the brave?" 10 The flag is indeed still there, verified by the image on the television screen. Undulating in all its glory, the Stars and Stripes is presented in a subtle, yet seductive, manner: it sits to the side of the primary viewing frame, but is itself framed by a television in CEO Jordan's office. Like the National Anthem, an image of a television set can be seen as part of a code that signals us to watch. A television set-as a four-sided frame with a screen, and with its conventional use-can be read as a sign that says "watch me." Does the passive experience of watching television becoming doubly passive in meta-TV? It was not until I watched this ad on tape, and was able to rewind and stop certain scenes, that the litany of traditional symbols of American identity became apparent. The image of the American flag gives way to a barely noticeable image of Mount Rushmore. The image of Mount Rushmore gives way to the Statue of Liberty. The "Star-spangled Banner" still plays. Meanwhile, at the center of the screen, the god of late capitalism inspects shoes. Suddenly the camera shifts to its parting shot, looking up at the Jordan Inc. headquarters and making them appear awesome. The quick transition to the shot of the building conveys a message, like wrapping up a package without fully disclosing its contents: "all that you just watched occurs inside these headquarters." The parting shot is yet another device that discourages critical scrutiny of what has been viewed, instead spreading a layer that gives the illusion of clear and totalized meaning-"This is Nike." The letter that I mentioned earlier of two Congressmen demanding that Nike create more American jobs brings to mind an issue that has been central to American politics for years: the shifting of jobs from America to foreign countries. The large number of supporters garnered by Patrick Buchanan's recent presidential bid is one testimony to the importance of this issue. With corporations functioning more as global rather than national entities, and with legislation such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, "American" corporations like Nike risk losing their American identity, appearing unpatriotic and alienating the American consumer. Nike seems to be slipping down a slippery slope: how to keep an American identity while shedding expensive American salaries, and, more particularly, how to shape perception without drawing too much attention the very issues the company would prefer concealed. Shots of the American flag or Statue of Liberty, associated with scenes of dramatized physical labor might Americanize and purify consumers' perception of Nike. But at the same time, by simply mentioning labor, Nike risks drawing attention to realities it would prefer to cover up (issues about abusive foreign labor practices and issues regarding the loss of American jobs another). It is interesting to return to the image of the flag and the other symbols of American nationalism and ask, to whom do these symbols appeal? On the one hand, the meaning of the flag is as open to individual variations in interpretation. Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, the basketball player who refused to stand for the National Anthem, reflects one interpretation, calling the flag "a symbol of oppression, of tyranny" (see, "Abdul-Rauf firm in refusal to stand"). On the other hand, the flag would seem to move many of those most upset by the decline of American jobs (the real workers, those effaced by CEO Jordan). The ad seems insidious, then, since those who are most threatened by contemporary corporate practices of using and abusing cheap foreign labor may also be those for whom patriotic symbols resonate most deeply. The politics of Nike are definitely at work here. Roland Barthes' notion of myth suggests a way to look at Nike's politics of Jordan-advertising.
. . .myth is depoliticized speech. One must naturally understand political in its deeper meaning, as describing the whole of human relations in their real, social structure, in their power of making the world; one must above all give an active value to the prefix de-: here it represents an operational movement, it permanently embodies a defaulting. 11
Consider here the previously mentioned notion of MJ's number on the inspection tag, covering up the real worker's identity and situation. Rife with signs that indeed have loaded political meanings, the CEO Jordan ad tries to de-politicize them. The potential for an inspection tag to signify the class dimensions of menial labor or the current reality of foreign labor is concealed by the powerful mark, number 23. "Myth does not deny things, on the contrary, its function is to talk about them; simply, it purifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, it gives them a clarity which is not that of an explanation but that of a statement of fact," continues Barthes. 12 The CEO Jordan ad "talks" about Nike's labor, business practices and, of course, products (in this sense it is remarkably different from past ads that use more realistic representations of athletes-that is, having athletes doing athletic things). One explanation for this unusually fictionalized form is that it creates opportunities for Nike to talk about things like labor. The narrative form-an uneventful story about a "star" CEO who goes about his day-allows myths like the flag and the anthem to seem "natural." The "naturalness" and "purity" of the waving flag, for example, are created by placing the flag within a television which is itself a natural part of the setting. The naturalness and purity of the anthem is created by playing it in conjunction with a star athlete who we deem worthy of such respect. The critical study of advertisements certainly presents some problems. In contrast to the canonical literary text or popular film, which occupies a central space in a culture, most advertisements have an ephemeral existence. By the time a critique is written an ad will likely have been replaced by another, like an army of infinite soldiers where, as each is killed, another takes his place. Additionally, in what can itself be seen as an ideological force, ads are often not deemed worthy of critical inspection. "They are just ads," many say with a wave of the hand. Even advertisements themselves occasionally mock their own marginal status. In a recent soft-drink ad, a teenage boy chugs a bottle of soda, and then dribbles the basketball toward the basket, all indications being that by virtue of the elixir he will unleash a professional caliber slam-dunk; he falls on his face. This self-mocking-an intertextual reference to other ads' false promises-seems to be a way for the ad to claim "I'm just a simple ad, don't worry about me." This particular Sprite ad exposes one level of discourse but conceals another, declaring at the ad's end: "Obey your thirst." Thus, while the ad mocks promises of product/performance causality, it conceals another promise: that Sprite quenches thirst, and that it quenches thirst better than other drinks. 13 There is a sense in which the Jordan ads operate similarly, composed in a way that might make viewers avoid taking them seriously. The strange, at first incoherent, mixing of codes and the playfulness of Michael Jordan inspecting shoes could be seen as giving a light-hearted flavor to the ads. But this "flavor" can only amount to a terrible irony, as TV sets across the nation air the world's richest and most revered athlete playfully inspecting factory-made shoes, and in the real world daily reports rush in revealing deplorable working conditions. ENDNOTES 1 Keown, Tim. "Hypocrisy is Nike's Sole Purpose." San Francisco Chronicle 14 Nov. 1997. 2 Http://www.Forbes.com/Richlist/richquer.htm. 3 Associated Press, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, Dec. 1, 1997, p. C11. 4 "Chronology." Global Exchange. 5 Greenhouse, Stephen. "Nike Shoe Plant in Vietnam Is Called Unsafe for Workers." New York Times, 8 Nov. 1997. "In plain, unemotional language, the report detailed problem after problem. 'Dust in mixing room exceeded the standard 11 times,' the report said. And, it added, 'There's a high rate of labor accidents caused by carelessness of employees.' Later, the report pointed to two other problems: 'workers' inadequate understanding of the harmful effect of chemicals' and 'increasing number of employees' with health problems continue to work with chemicals. The report also stated that 'more than half of employees' in several departments who use chemicals 'do not wear protective equipment (mask and gloves) - even in highly hazardous places where the concentration of chemical dust, fumes exceeded the standard frequently'." 6 Albom, Mitch. "Mind or your money; Nike wants both." Detroit Free Press. 3 Apr. 1997 7 Greider, William. One World Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997, page 390. Greider includes the following note for this statistic: the source of the information is Pharis Harvey, executive director of the International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund in Washington. "In 1992 Jordan reportedly earned $20 million from Nike, according to Forbes, Nov. 23, 1992. The 25,000 workers each earned $400 to $500 a year at most, or about $12.5 million in total" (496). 8 "Abdul-Rauf Firm in Refusal to Stand." Detroit News. 14 Mar. 1996. 9 Bignell, Jonathan. Media Semiotics: An Introduction. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1997, page 188 10 Hirsch, E.D., Jr., Ed. The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988, page 184. 11 Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. New York: The Noonday Press, 1972, page 143. 12 Ibid. 13 I don't know about other people, but most sugary soft-drinks seem to make me thirstier.
|