Welcome to our 2012 Olympics Special Report! See the news about the Ralph Lauren Olympic Uniform Made in USA mess? Just another one of those stories where promotional products should have been Made in the USA.
Being a strong supporter and retailer of made in USA promotions, I admit I am biased in favor of manufacturing here in the States. But that’s not why I have a problem with this story. I have a problem with it because it is a total marketing faux pas.
These uniforms are being worn by our most talented athletes on the world stage. Sure, the USOC (U.S. Olympic Committee) could argue that they are operating on an international scale, so what’s the problem with fostering international commerce with uniforms made in China? Valid point. But that isn’t the point.
Like all other similar arguments, you’re promoting an American product (our athletes) that demonstrates our country’s values and strength with a non-American product. Values alert! That IS the problem. Unlike many countries, the United States has the resources to make these items, if not 100 percent, then substantially enough to legally meet made in the USA requirements. As noted in the WSJ article, making them here would have doubled the cost. That’s why we have a higher standard of living in this country that trumps so many nations on earth. We are a fair trade country that has laws to protect workers and their wages. With a higher than usual unemployment here due to the recession, going with USA made uniforms would have demonstrated our commitment to band together for all those on OUR team, both those competing and those who support them with their skills, products and labor. What marketing message are you sending by crying poor? As I always preach, Promo With Purpose, people!
Want more insight on supply chain and Made in the USA issues? See Related Posts below.
In the video accompanying the WSJ story, the reporter said that the Ralph Lauren company probably didn’t anticipate the backlash from the Made in China labels. Really? Ralph Lauren is a marketing and media savvy firm. Has been for decades. With supply chain issues becoming more and more of an issue on environmental and social levels, this is just laughable. Even many of my own itty-bitty clients are specifying USA made and wanting proof.
And Congress, please stay out of this. While I admire Harry Reid’s willingness to publicly take a stand, I can’t believe this would warrant Congressional attention. We do not have state-sponsored athletics. This is a marketing problem.
I am glad to see that Ralph Lauren has made a statement that all future Team USA uniforms would be made in the USA. As they always say about the Olympics, the world will be watching. And the world will be watching these labels for sure.
Bottom line, the marketing message you make with your promotional products must align with the message you want to convey. If it’s “Go USA!,” you better go USA when you buy.
Got an opinion on the situation? I’m sure you do. Share with us in comments. Please, only thoughtful comments relating to the marketing aspect of this. Keep politics out of it! It’s not a political issue. Thanks for letting me vent.
Want more news and views on promotional product issues? Join our email updates list (and the conversation) by entering your email below.
Product Info
- Full Ralph Lauren Olympic Story on WSJ.com
- What Does Made in the USA Really Mean?
- Why I Feel Sorry for the Kardashians
- Promotional Product Role Model: Starbucks
- Symbolic Swag: How Promotional Products Can Foster Social Movements
- Union Made Promotional Products: What is a Union Bug?
- NATO Chicago Summit Gift Bags – Gag or Swag?
Heidi, You make a ton of great points here. It’s possible to argue the economic side of this issue all day, but from a marketing and PR perspective, Lauren’s decision is inarguably awful. How could they not expect a backlash on something that would so obviously inflame the very people who are most supportive of the U.S. Olympic team?
I couldn’t agree more with you guys, Heidi and Brad. It’s such a joke, to me, that they aren’t doing everything they can to spend money in the country they are representing.
I’m so glad you brought up the values issue. We must practice with greater conscientiousness every act of participation in our marketplace with that value held high. Who are we? That is yesterday’s question! Today we have to ask “Who are we being?”
It’s not so much a question of price anymore. It’s all about how we walk our talk, and how we demonstrate our values in spite of price. This is being demonstrated even in politics! In California’s gubernatorial election, Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown 14 times! The show of money, the price of things do not create automatic equivalency in the value. The athletes’ uniforms are integral to the “Go USA!” social benefit, but not their price. The public is more sensitive than ever to the difference and marketers must take note. I have spoken with many iPad owners who say they would pay extra for the little miracle in their hands if they knew that workers were being treated fairly. Mothers who feed their children from their efforts in the garden and also pay more for Organic will attest to the value of feeding them with value, not price.
We are in a sea change where marketing becomes increasingly “spiritual” in the sense of the Golden Rule. It’s a role requiring the guts and investment to take a stand for a deeper integrity, a stand for which most marketers are unprepared.
The public is less impressed by price, and more impressed by loyalty to the cause. They want to remove any varnish or tarnish. They don’t believe or trust the carnival paint of most marketing based on the Madison Avenue of the 1960′s. Marketing must address an informed public who seeks to participate in the marketplace by valuing not what we paid for when we buy or sell but by taking a stand.
Marketing must now fully answer the question “Who We Are Being?”
Thank you so much, Claire-France, for your very insightful comments! So agree that we are (and must be) moving into a new age of marketing that is not based on the market mechanics such as price.
I absolutely love your probing question: Who Are We Being? That should be the first question of every marketing plan today.
When a business focuses on non-commercial values, it is admirable when genuine, but not always profitable. Recently Chick-fil-A took a stand based on conscience, spirituality and integrity … and got thoroughly ripped in the media and by some who disagreed. On the other hand, when causes are in fashion, every company wants to jump on the bandwagon and it often pays off. I saw this in the sustainable packaging area a few years back, when every packaging company on earth wanted to spin itself as sustainable. Some of these companies were sincere, but others were only trying to pander to a constituency. This latter situation may be good business, but I’m not sure it’s admirable. I guess what I’m saying is, it’s tricky to mix business with political advocacy. For every supporter of an issue, there is an opponent — especially in the U.S., where people are split quite evenly on pretty much every social issue you can think of, and there are multiple facets to seemingly simple issues. Take “Made in the USA,” for instance. I’m all for workers making a fair wage, and against companies exporting jobs so they can pay workers less than a dollar an hour. On the other hand, I’m not really crazy about paying a union employee $150,000 a year and exorbitant benefits to do a job worth half that amount.
Brad-Do you have the name of the union person who makes $150,000.00 year. I’m in a union and I’m highly skilled. I make little bit more than half of that.My benefits are okay. I would like apply for the job you’re talking about.
It’s pretty easy to say, “I’m not really crazy about paying a union employee $150,000 a year and exorbitant benefits to do a job worth half that amount” since this would be a universally-agreed point, whether a person is in a union or not is far from the point. The values question, if it is about a collective (say for instance, US Olympics Team, who represent our country) we have to show Who We Are Being by aligning to our collective values. In this case the over-arching value is “Go USA!” So, how do we go? We cherish and value our athletes, and in turn they convey to the world what we cherish most, and the whole effort should unite as a singular expression of Who We Are. The athletes tarnish that effort if they take performance-enhancing drugs. They tarnish at the pinnacle. But there are many many who also contribute to that pinnacle experience, and the same “Go USA!” The comment about Spirituality and Conscience however is rather pointedly off the mark. What is spirituality or conscience if it is so prepared to support something that divides Humanity rather than unite it? Since unity is very much the point and the value of money vs. Unity is the issue, why compare thedisgusting remarks of Chick-a-fil-a’s snobbery and backwoods values with Spirituality? If there is a class of people that you do not want in your vision of values, you are committing the same error as the team who purchases uniforms with a cheaper-by-the-dozen mentality instead of seeing that much larger picture. Who are you being? In the 1960′s this same slight was committed against negros at the drinking fountain, and was protested by Rosa Parks. The unity in question was the front seats of the bus. Some riders had more privileges. That is not Unity, nor is it tenable as a Spiritual concept. There are soldiers who have earned various benefits of military service to their country. They fought and some died for our country’s values. Yet, when they return home, they are unable to share these benefits with their life-long partner. This on the basis of their gender! It’s a picture of harsh inequality. “To the back of the bus, faggot.” Which begs the question, Mr. Shorr: Who are you being?
The value you share here lets the world know the team that you are on, and places you on the same team that allowed the Chinese manufacturer to provide the cheaper suits to our Olympics team. Your values enforce the bus driver who enforced the “to back seats, nigger,” on Rosa Parks. You agree with the president of Chick-a-fil-a’s unconscionable statement which for the sake of business has been retracted. You make a values statement that will backfire in this age of protest and struggle against such acts of discrimination. I would be concerned about Who You Are Being, Mr. Shorr.