Nike and Kaepernick: should they have done it?

Nike’s celebration of the 30th anniversary of its “Just Do It” slogan hasn’t gone according to plan… or has it?

The release of its two-minute commercial was preceded by a post from former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, the first athlete to kneel during the National Anthem. The gesture was to protest police brutality and racial injustice. The post on Twitter and Instagram showed his face with the caption, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything”. It also carried the Just Do It slogan.

Kaepernick is one of the many athletes in the campaign, which also features Serena Williams, German champion boxer Zeina Nassar, New York Giants’ Odell Beckham Jr. and Shaquem Griffin, an American football player whose left hand was amputated when he was four. There are other inspiring stories of triumph against adversity in the commercial. In fact, there are so many, all illustrating the premise that you will achieve something if people call your dreams crazy, that the Kaepernick inclusion feels almost redundant, even if he also narrated the commercial.

The decision to use the 49ers player is without a doubt a controversial one, as his kneeling sparked a virulent debate in political and sporting circles, as well as in social media. It has divided supporters and opponents of his statement. The latter’s reaction to the commercial, publicly burning Nike’s products and cutting out logos from garments, may have reached unexpected proportions, but if you consider the big picture, it’s job done for Nike.

• The business isn’t suffering: even though it’s taking a stance that contradicts the NFL’s, itself locked in a court battle with Kaepernick, Nike’s contract as a supplier to the Football League until 2028 doesn’t appear threatened. What’s more, the commercial is positively impacting Nike’s target audience. A survey of US consumers showed that 74% of them intended to buy as much or more of Nike products as a result. Those who now think more positively about the brand tend to be younger, more left leaning and from ethnic backgrounds, a group that is over-represented among Nike shoppers. Calls for a boycott appear unheeded, as data shows that Nike’s online sales jumped 31% between the Sunday before and the Tuesday after the ad broadcast. Its stock price also rose to its highest level.
• They’ve pitched it right: Nike is clearly in tune with its audience, as the cause of social justice resonates with its consumers, and its support only serves to durably raise the brand’s profile among them. Ultimately, courting controversy buys you more airtime than you can afford and working with celebrities and causes opens the door to this. The buzz created by Kaepernick generated more than $43 million worth of media exposure for Nike, mostly neutral to positive. This was a well-calculated risk. Kaepernick’s enduring popularity made him a wise move and you could argue that Nike’s endorsement of Serena Williams, currently embroiled in a storm over her reaction at the US Open final, could also be risky. There will always been cynics to poke holes in the strategies brands follow when they support a societal cause. As long as they’re consistent, coherent and genuine, marketers have little to worry.
• They have reignited the conversation around social injustice: yes, they may have distracted the audience’s attention from the anniversary itself with the controversy, but the brand and the cause have been propelled back into the nation’s consciousness. The media coverage, the comments online, the buzz around the ad, Nike and the reasons behind Kaepernick’s protest mean the conversations happen without anyone having been injured or worse. The NFL’s statement after the airing of the ad struck a conciliatory tone, saying it believes in dialogue, understanding and unity, adding that issues of social justice deserve attention and action.

When everyone, from media owners to marketers and even your kids, produces content and consumers’ attention is more solicited than ever before, brands need to take some risk to cut through the clutter.

While entertaining and informative content works well, more polemical or surprising material will be noticed, shared and discussed much more widely, amplifying the brand presence. These risks need to be well calculated though, like Apple’s 1984 Macintosh commercial which only ran once in that year’s Super Bowl broadcast.

It is precisely by thinking differently, creatively, breaking from the norm of their category or market, that brands build their place in consumers’ minds.

While the original 'Just Do It' commercial was not polarizing at all, celebrating the joy of sports for all instead, it featured an unexpected athlete. In doing so, it set the brand up on a 30 year-journey of pushing boundaries. This latest effort will go much further in elevating Nike with its impact on society. Powerful content is inescapable, transcends time and place, and gives the brand behind it weight and presence, for good reasons if it’s well thought-through.

Promoting social change can be touchy and some got their fingers burnt doing so. Nike has grown very sensitive to causes, having been caught on the wrong side of social justice with its reliance on Asian sweatshops. It subsequently realized that there is more to be gained from embracing good causes than from trampling them.

The sports apparel brand is not the first, nor the only one, to associate itself with social issues. Courting controversy to achieve social change can be seen as a risky strategy but some risks are worth taking. If it aims higher than sales and short-term gain, Nike needs to go the distance and stay true to its words.

It seems that by adopting “Just Do It’, Nike was destined to be a daring brand. According to its creator Dan Wieden, the slogan was borrowed from an utterance by a Utah murderer as he faced the firing squad. 

Featured art: Barkley L. Hendricks, Icon for My Man Superman (Superman Never Saved Any Black People - Bobby Seale) and Jack Pierson, Embrace Uncertainty.

#AgencyVoices