Historical Analysis of Apparel Marketer’s Strategies: Evidence from a Nike Case

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국마케팅과학회
· 수록지 정보 : Journal of Global Fashion Marketing / 1권 / 3호 / 182 ~ 193페이지
· 저자명 : Hyejune Park, Doris H. Kincade

초록

In the decades previous to 2010, many firms in consumerproduct industries, including the apparel industry, haveexperienced changes both in the structure of the industries(e.g., ownership, control and location of production) and thefunctions of the firms (e.g., production- or product oriented vs.
marketing-oriented) within the industries (Su et al., 2009). Oneforce in this change was the economic globalization thatbrought about shifts of production and trade from domesticproduction to off-shore sourcing of production and then offabrication and design (Ha-Brookshire and Dyer, 2009). Gereffi(1994) argued that the continued interest in this dynamic ofglobalization in the apparel industry may remain becauseglobal restructuring of the economy is historical in shifts ofpower across commodity chains. As a major industry in theglobal market, this argument emphasizes the importance ofhistorical analysis for the apparel industry. However, a reviewof literature revealed that only a few academic studies (e.g.,Kincade, 1995; Locker, 2002) have explored issues such asspecific details about the growth and change in the apparelindustry, and even fewer studies placed these issues in ahistorical context.
The current study is designed to fill this gap in theliterature and provide insights into the historical perspective ofthe U.S. apparel firms’ response changes in its businessenvironment over the last four decades and the importance ofthe marketing function within this context. The objectives ofthis study were: (1) to analyze a U.S. apparel company’s shiftin organization and strategies in a historical perspective, and(2) to provide relevance of these findings within economicglobalization.
To achieve the research objectives, a sample company’s casewith general industry trends from 1970s to 2009, wereinvestigated. This time frame was determined based on theearly 1970s as a beginning point of much of the apparelindustry restructure in response to the economic globalization(Taplin, 1994) and with the consideration of data availabilityfor a sample company and its year of establishment. The sampling frame of this study consisted of the companiesranked in The Top Company lists (e.g., The Top 50, The Top40) in Apparel magazine. Among the seven companiescontinuously listed during the period of study, Nike, Inc. wasselected as the sample for this case study because of theextensive availability of historical data (e.g., data beginning inthe 1970s) about Nike and its continued growth andleadership.
The case study covered four decades from the 1968, theyear that Nike was incorporated, to 2009. In the first periodfrom 1968 to 1975, Nike emphasized production anddistribution related to imports and trade. By emphasizingprincipal business activities (i.e., designing, selling theproducts) and outsourcing all manufacturing in Japan and othercountries, Nike initiated global sourcing in the late 1960s. Thisstrategy became a trend that most other companies wouldeventually follow throughout the next several decades. In thesecond period between 1976 and 1983, Nike focused onproduct innovation with technology to exceed over othercompetitors (e.g., Adidas, Puma). Through this strategy a newproduct model, the Air shoe, was developed, whichsignificantly contributed to a reversal in declining sales. In thethird period, 1984 to 1996, Nike’s innovative advertisingstarted with the endorsement contract by Michael Jordan. Theendorsement strategy built a strong foundation for Nike as amarketing company. Marketing strategies, developed forreinforcing the brand image with its Swoosh logo, the slogan“Just do it,” and endorsements with famous athletes,strengthened Nike’s strategic reorientation as it changed from atraditionally focused production-oriented company to a moreflexible and reactive marketing-oriented company. Finally, from1997 to 2009, Nike has diversified its marketing efforts andtaken leadership in the industry. Nike’s advanced marketingstrategies include market diversification through branding andniche segmentation (e.g., casual apparel for women, golfshoes), further product innovation with technology (e.g., NikePlus, Flywire, Swift Apparel), inventive advertising campaigns,and restructuring management operations.
Nike’s business strategies exemplified efforts to becomemore consumer-reactive over the last four decades. Workingwith dedicated overseas contractors, Nike developed a flexiblebusiness structure and maintained a profitably reactive apparelfirm. To function as the ultimate marketer and consumercentriccompany, Nike readjusted its business strategy from aproduction-orientation to a marketing-orientation to the goal ofbeing a consumer-oriented company during the decades fromthe late 1960s to 2009. The case study of Nike well supports the organizational learning theory literature for the apparelindustry (e.g., Dyer and Ha-Brookshire, 2008; Kincade, 2002)in that Nike continuously redefined its business strategies as itachieved the key goals for each business period in response tothe changing global environment. Following a basicorganizational learning approach to strategic planning, Nikefocused on what it could do best with available resources,what would be innovative, creative and market-leading, andwhat would sell to the consumer.
In conclusion, Nike’s strategic business responses to achanging and global environment were varied and related tothe company’s structure and the business at the time. Historicalanalysis confirmed that although various strategies werestressed for each period of time, all strategies wereimplemented as a part of Nike’s overall business planning andwere market reactive. The examination of the Nike case studyprovides support for the general organizational learning theory(e.g., Jemison 1981; Ward and Duray, 2000) and the apparelspecific theory proposed by Park and Kincade (in press).
Staying reactive with marketing-oriented strategy has become akey strategy for Nike and maybe useful for other firms toachieve competitiveness in a changing market.

참고자료

· 없음