Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Just Divided over Nike's New Ad

9/9/2018

43 Comments

 
Picture

by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence

Nike just aired a new commercial that has quickly become entangled in controversy.  The two-minute “Dream Crazy” ad is a well-produced spot that features footage of inspiring amateur athletes, as well as a couple of the brand’s superstar spokespeople.  Surprisingly, the source of conflict is the ad’s narrator, who people seem either to admire or revile, which makes marketing analysts ask, “What did Nike just do?”
 
Marking the 30th anniversary of the company’s iconic “Just Do It” campaign, Nike’s new ad uses narration from NFL-quarterback-turned-activist Colin Kaepernick, who also appears briefly in the spot to urge viewers to, among other things, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”
 
If you’re not familiar with Kaepernick, he was one of the first professional football players to choose to kneel during the national anthem as a sign of protest against what many believe has been growing racial injustice in America.  The last game he played was in January of 2017, but Kaepernick has since become the face and voice of a movement that extends well beyond professional sports.

Of course, not everyone has appreciated Kaepernick’s activism.  Some resent that his example has encouraged others to kneel during the national anthem, which they believe is either unfounded protest or a misplaced act that disrespects the flag and demonstrates a lack of patriotism.  Anthem protests have since become a point of contention for many NFL fans, causing some to swear off the league entirely.
 
In short, whether right or wrong, Nike’s use of Kaepernick has struck a raw nerve in a nation deeply divided.
 
Before going further, I need to say that I really didn’t want to write about this ad.  Maybe it’s my Swiss heritage that makes me lean toward neutrality and dislike discord, especially political.  It’s not fun for me to tackle an ad that arouses such strong social division.  However, after much debate and several stops and starts, I still felt compelled to address the ad and so decided to “just do it.”
 
The first step in this Mindful Marketing analysis is ethics: Does Nike’s ad uphold societal values?  Given the sometimes-ambiguous nature of “societal values,” that question is inherently hard to answer, but the circumstances surrounding the Nike commercial make this inquiry especially difficult.
 
The ad’s ‘dream big’ theme is positive and hopeful and probably not something with which many people would take issue.  Instead, the debate seems to  fall squarely on the company’s use of Kaepernick and whether what he represents is decent, fair, honest, respectful, and responsible (the five core values Mindful Marketing seeks to uphold).
 
Unfortunately, for those like me trying to make a moral judgment, both sides can make a compelling case based on the same principles.  People who oppose Kaepernick can argue, for instance, that his activism unfairly characterizes police officers who are honest and considerate of others.  His opponents also may contend that the anthem protests dishonor members of the armed forces who risk their lives to protect the freedoms the flag represents.
 
On the other hand, those who support Kaepernick can claim that the social justice movement he signifies is fundamentally about showing everyone respect.  Similarly, this side shares that its aim is to ensure the fair treatment of all people.
 
Admittedly, the issues are more complicated than what I am presenting here; however, the point is that both sides have strong countervailing points that are difficult to adjudicate.  For sake of argument, therefore, let’s give the ad the benefit of the doubt and assume that it does support societal values.
 
The second question, then, considers the ad’s effectiveness, which is also very difficult to discern.  After the ad was released online this past Monday, several of the first news reports were of anger.  Some consumers vowed to boycott Nike products, while others took more immediate and drastic action by burning their Nike shoes and socks.
 
Newer reports, however, have been that after the ad was released, Nike’s sales “grew 31% from the Sunday of Labor Day weekend through Tuesday, as compared with a 17% gain recorded for the same period of 2017, according to San Francisco–based Edison Trends.”
 
On the other hand, Nike’s stock (NKE), which had closed at $82.18 a share on Friday, August 31, closed at $80.30 a share this past Friday, September 7.
 
So, does Nike really know what it’s doing with the Kaepernick ad?  A recent Washington Post article makes a convincing case that Nike does.  Columnist Sally Jenkins maintains that the commercial positions Nike well in national and global contexts that are increasingly multicultural.  She also argues that young shoppers, who are especially important to sneaker makers, want to buy products from companies that support social causes.
 
Public opinion is not so clear.  This past Friday morning, September 7, Apex Marketing Group reported that the ad had produced $220 million in publicity for Nike: $69 million positive, $67 million negative, and $83 million neutral.  Apex also noted that the percentage of positive publicity had fallen by 9 percentage points from Thursday to Friday.
 
Some may argue that any publicity is good publicity.  That assertion, however, seems to be a myth, especially after considering organizational examples like Volkswagen and individual ones like Harvey Weinstein.
 
Public favor for the ad also might wane as people take more time to process the financial context surrounding Nike’s and Kaepernick’s participation in the promotion.  For a few years, Kaepernick was a very good NFL quarterback, who even played in a Super Bowl.  Before he began his anthem protest, he had been demoted to backup status.
 
Kaepernick made a total of $43 million as an NFL quarterback, of which he has donated over $1 million to a variety of social justice causes.  It’s difficult to know how much, if any, money he has made as an activist, but sports agents estimate that his new Nike endorsement could be worth “millions of dollars per year.”
 
For these reasons, some have taken issue with the ad’s suggestion that Kaepernick ‘sacrificed everything,’ especially when compared to individuals who have given their lives in service to their country.
 
Kaepernick may not be serving as a Nike spokesman for the money, but it’s hard to imagine that Nike’s choice of Kaepernick was without consideration of its bottom-line, given that it’s a for-profit company that must answer to shareholders in an increasingly competitive marketplace.  Not surprising, some have accused the company of “commercializing activism,” i.e., profiting from a social cause.
 
Another concern for Nike should be its relationship with the NFL.  This past March, the NFL announced that Nike would continue to be its official supplier of uniforms and sideline gear through 2028.  It’s not known how much these rights cost Nike, but it’s likely the company paid more than the $1.1 billion it reportedly invested for similar exclusivity in 2012.
 
The anthem protests that Kaepernick initiated continue to be a thorn in the side of the NFL.  What’s more, Kaepernick has sued the NFL, claiming that the league has colluded to keep him off the field since he last played.  All this to say, there are probably few people the NFL would rather not see exalted in a commercial than Kaepernick.  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
 
Nevertheless, the league has tried to put on a good face about the ad.  NFL executive vice president of communications and public affairs Jocelyn Moore offered the following:
 
“The National Football League believes in dialogue, understanding and unity. We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities.”  “The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.”
 
Despite Moore’s conciliatory tone, one has to imagine that the ad places a significant strain on the relationship between the league and Nike that will only be exacerbated if there are further defections of NFL fans.  Although her response makes it seem unlikely that the NFL is considering the commercial to be any kind of contractual breach, the ad will at a minimum cause the league to think more carefully about Nike and future sponsorships.   
 
Like the ethical analysis, assessment of the commercial’s likely effectiveness has also been complicated.  In the short-term,  people may continue to applaud Nike for its social conscience.  The ad and Kaepernick’s lawsuit, however, must be straining its relationship with the NFL.
 
Moreover, the ad’s theme of “sacrificing everything,” coming from a multimillionaire and a Fortune 100 company, will increasingly ring hollow with people, especially those working two jobs to make ends meet, or mourning loved ones who truly sacrificed everything in service to their country or community. 
 
Credible cases can be made for placing Nike’s Kaepernick commercial in any one of the four Mindful Marketing quadrants, particularly given the ad’s multifaceted social implications.  The ad’s effectiveness is also debatable.  However, given the strained relationship with the NFL and a likely increase in public disaffect, there’s good reason for calling the commercial “Simple-Minded Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
43 Comments
Sara Mammano
9/13/2018 12:55:55 pm

This case is very interesting and brings up a lot of important questions that consumers and corporations must deeply consider. As a for-profit company, Nike definitely had to evaluate how this campaign would affect the bottom line. To me, this brings up a lot of questions such as, is it worth it to make a big splash and rack up a lot of publicity in the short-term, when your company might be stuck between two opposing forces in the long run? Since Kaepernick is suing the NFL for colluding him off the field and Nike has a 1.1 billion dollar contract with the NFL for uniforms, it seems that Nike might be stuck in the middle of two fighting giants. So while this campaign may make a lot of noise for the next couple of weeks with the average consumer, I wonder if it was worth it to make such a bold statement that will surely be much more long-lived between these major entities.

I also wonder if enough new consumers will now purchase from Nike because of this ad, to make up for the losses in demand from loyal consumers who are now boycotting the company. I think it would be very interesting to see Nike’s cost-benefit analysis, and understand how it plans to make amends with the consumers that are now publically burning its products. There has been a big uproar from people who were Nike consumers and now refuse to ever purchase from it again. Personally however, I have not seen/heard anything from consumers that were loyal Adidas consumers, who are now choosing Nike products because of this ad campaign. Even though sales grew 31% shortly after this aired, those numbers may not be sustainable in the long run.

It will be really interesting to see if and how Nike continues this campaign given the very drastic feedback that is circulating the internet now. If Nike can make a stand and continue to increase sales, it will be very beneficial for the company to expand the storyline and give consumers some perspective on why taking a stand is so important.

Reply
Travis Mack
9/13/2018 03:49:43 pm

This ad has drawn a lot of attention for the use of Colin Kaepernick as the narrator. This raises a lot of questions for the marketing team at Nike on whether this was a good choice for an ad. Nike had to look at this from a profit stand point and ask themselves if jumping into such a controversial debate head first benefit them. Is Kaepernick a face that they want people to associate with their brand. Nike had to evaluate the risks and benefits of producing this ad and factor in their view on this big debate. A big question to ask is will they be able to gain enough new customers to replace the loyal customers they will lose from this ad.
Seeing that Nike's sales went up after releasing such a controversial ad must have been a sigh of relief for the marketing team at Nike. The big question is whether this was just a temporary rise or if Nike sales will continue to go up and have a long-term effect on the company. With the drop in the stock price I can imagine investors squirmed at such a bold statement coming from a powerhouse of a company like Nike.
I think that it was a bold move by Nike to air such a controversial ad. I believe that the story line behind the ad was a great idea and that the line "Dream Crazy" fits Nike and in its self was a great ad. I do think Nike could have played it safe and chosen a less controversial spokesman for the ad. I think if Nike had just stuck with using Lebron or any of the other athletes mentioned in the ad it would have been a great success. This was a bold move by Nike and hopefully it works out to be a great one for them.

Reply
Emily
9/13/2018 05:24:55 pm

When I first heard about this advertisement from various news outlets on Facebook, I immediately searched the comments to see the reactions from different people. Nike hiring Colin Kaepernick to narrate their latest commercial definitely created a controversial advertisement. The controversy is not only stemming from the choice of narrator, but also from the message (“Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”) that Nike tied to Colin. Based on the comments I saw on Facebook, from the many people who were upset with the advertisement, there was an agreement between them that there are other people more deserving of Colin's position. For example, Pat Tillman was named by several commenters.
Yes, the 31% increase in sales is good for Nike. This increase is sales may only be temporary. Once the outrage and discussion about the advertisement dies down and is forgotten, the sales will most likely go back to normal. Something that is a little more permanent is Nike's relationship and current sponsorship with the NFL. I feel that Nike may have put a strain on that relationship by partnering with Colin Kaepernick, who is currently suing the NFL. Nike's message also sends a negative message towards the NFL, in a way, stating that the NFL does not back Colin's fight against social injustice.
Putting Colin and the controversy aside, the advertisement and it's message was very empowering. For future purposes, maybe to create some unity among all of this division, Nike can create an advertisement that shows people, other than Colin, who have sacrificed in different ways.

Reply
Seth Weber
9/13/2018 08:33:22 pm

This advertisement was indeed a surprise and caused everyone to pick a side. As we line the article up with the mindful marketing matrix there are two big questions that were mentioned that need to be addressed. That is both ethics and effectiveness.

The blog post mentions that there is a divide that has been created among people that view the ad. They either agree for the reasons mentioned or disagree for a different set of reasons. Or they could also be indifferent. And these three states are how we see Nike engaging consumers, either ethically or unethically. But I would suggest this being the wrong ethical lens to view the effect of this ad campaign. We have to begin by asking ourselves, what is Nike? Nike is a billion dollar company that has in the past been accused of unethical practices in the way that products are manufactured such as sweatshops and child labor. And so this company is "choosing a side" because why? Because they think it’s the right thing to do? No, of course not. Nike has taken a gamble that it will be more profitable to pick Collin Kaepernick's side of this issue and frame it in a way that they support him and what he stands for to help attract like-minded people to then purchase their product. These people are then purchasing the product because they believe Nike has good ethical practices but the clothing they are purchasing is actually being made in lots of unethical ways. Because of this I believe that the ad does not uphold societal values even though it claims to, at least through the use of Kaepernick as their spokesperson. Regarding effectiveness, I believe that it is extremely effective. I heard this on a sports talk show and completely agree. Nike believes that Collin Kaepernick will end up on the right side of history when we look back at this moment in history and they are willing to take a gamble on that in the form of this ad. I personally agree that we will look back at Kaepernick much differently than we do now as a country and Nike will be looked at more positively for supporting him. Overall I believe that this ad is Single-Minded.

Reply
Thao Truong
9/13/2018 09:19:37 pm

I appreciate how your article offers different perspectives and analysis on the effect of the new ad and new spokeperson on Nike and its relationship with NFL. It's debatable whether this is a good move because of different aspects involved - target market, national politics, as well as societal values, and stakeholder values.
The Washington Post that you cited from offers a very interesting insight on how Nike wants to raise social justice awareness and target post-millenials (Gen Z).
I recently read on another news page that two Christian colleges have banned Nike on their campuses because they oppose to Kaepernick’s viewpoints and his kneeling action. Not only that, a Louisiana mayor tried to ban all Nike products from city recreation centers. I think it's not only about sales and stock prices but also about the public image of the brand. It takes a long time and a lot of work to gain trust and a positive image for a brand, but one wrong move in advertising or PR can really damage it. I want to keep an eye on this topic and see how Nike will react to the public.

Reply
Jacob Huffman
9/13/2018 10:17:29 pm

This advertisement campaign has received a lot of attention that positions people to take sides. Many questions have been asked by everyone on the decision of Nike hiring Colin Kaepernick. How is Nike using Kaepernick? Are they using him to promote more profit for their company? Are they willing to ruin their relationships with those they are have partnered with? Additional, releasing the ad has caused a lot of people to be angry. On Facebook I see people vowing to never buy Nike products again awhile others are gathering together to burn their shoes and socks. Another concern that the company should have is if their shareholders are happy with hiring Kaepernick for an advertisement. I know some people state that this is a social justice movement about showing respect to everyone, but has he gone too far with it that it has dishonored those who served in the United States.

I’m interested to see how Nike will do in the foreseeable future. Once the advertisement aired, sales grew 31% but will that stay consist or will it fluctuate. I know that Nike lost one of their clients due to Kaepernick being the face of Nike. I’m interested to see if they are going to attempt to regain those clients that they lost. I feel like Nike at the moment right now may be hinder their relationship with their clients which is a risk that they decided to take. Nike can benefit from this advertisement by convincing consumers to take a stand for what they believe in even if everyone else is against them. Nike is also sacrificing to lose consumers, their reputation, sponsors, and even profits.

Reply
Trey Pritchard
9/14/2018 08:41:23 am

When I first saw this ad, I was overwhelmed with a mixture of different feelings. Just as the blog explains, there are arguments that both sides can make strong cases for, and yet, I'm not really sure that anybody is willing to budge on their opinion of the ad. Unfortunately, I believe that the perception of the ad is taken more from peoples' feelings towards Colin Kaepernick, and not necessarily on the message of the ad. With that being said, I also think that Nike knew what they were getting themselves into when they brought Colin on to be the spokesperson for the commercial.

This commercial has a great message to it, not only for athletes, but for every single person, which is a unique direction for an athletic based company, such as Nike. They broadened their market for who they wanted this ad to reach, and in doing so made a lot of people upset and angry, while simultaneously making others feel proud to be a customer. The problem is, as stated in the blog, that not all publicity is good publicity. That being said, I believe that this ad will stay in the minds of those who are for it for a long time, while those who are against it will eventually go back to their habitual being habits and get back on the Nike bandwagon, which will then boost Nike's profits in the future.

Though I do like the overall message of the ad for athletes and non-athletes alike, I do think that Nike may have overlooked the slogan of, "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything." Like the blog says, they are a fortune 100 company, represented by a multi-millionaire. It seems to me like this ad is geared towards those chasing their dream, those who have no yet made it, yet the company is going to talk about sacrifice as they sit atop millions of dollars; that hardly seems like sacrifice to me. In fact, it seems quite hypocritical.

So, I believe that this ad, regardless of the current state, will eventually end up creating value for Nike. However, I do not necessarily agree with the use of someone like Colin, who is a very wealthy athlete and public figure, to represent such a message.

Reply
Jake Graybill
9/14/2018 08:47:23 am

The Nike advertisement that they produced has created many questions. The main questions surround Nike's choice of using Collin Kaepernick, a black lives matter activist, as the narrator of the advertisement. Some people have gone as far as boycotting Nike for this choice. Others have burned all their Nike apparel to show their dislike of the advertisement. Some men and women support the use of Collin Kaepernick as the narrator of the advertisement and some are neutral to it all. Should Nike continue to air this advertisement with the backlash it has received? Does the ad uphold societal value? Is it still allowing Nike to be profitable?

Personally, I believe that the choice of Collin Kaepernick was a good one. He stands for a cause and is a real life example of what Nike wants their campaign to show. Kaepernick fights for equality for all americans which is a principle of which our country was formed off of. In my opinion that is something we should all be willing to get behind. I know some might not feel the same and I understand that not everyone shares the same opinion as me so let us see whether or not this is a good decision for Nike. First, we can see that since the advertisement released Nike's sales grew 31%. That should show right there that it is worth it to keep running the advertisement. Also it shows that it is creating stakeholder value. The stock did fall,but I believe it will bounce back soon. So the real question is, does the ad hold up societal values? I would have to say yes to this as well. The advertisement has a good message and is a quality, professional advertisement. The advertisement and the people in it all hold up societal values in my opinion and for that reason I conclude that this advertisement is mindful.

Reply
Keith Steele
9/14/2018 09:28:49 am

This new Nike video advertisement seems to be Kaepernick saving-face from his NFL career. He left the NFL over a year ago and was known for kneeling during the national anthem, which was his form of activism. While this ad seems to be consistent with previous ads that have the theme of social justice and encouragement, it does strike a wrong cord with a large group for his ideas. It seems that this ad is more of a publicity stunt than social activism for Kaepernick. He narrates the theme of “sacrificing everything,” yet many people watching this ad may feel it in a deeper way; perhaps from losing loved ones that served in the Armed Forces. Nike’s positive publicity has decreased slightly since the introduction of the ad, but sales have increased in roughly the same period. This ad campaign signifying the 30th anniversary of “Just do It” may not benefit their reputation or long-term relationships with individual consumers and the NFL. Although I may disagree with some of the inferences from this ad, I remain mostly a neutral stance on all the parties involved. I believe this ad is simple-minded, because its social implications are unclear, and it seems to have strained relations with Nike consumers, NFL viewers and the league itself. Personally, I am neutral regarding my decision as a consumer toward these companies and people. However, I disagree with some of sentiments, including “sacrificing everything.” However, this ad has an inspirational message and encourages people to overcome obstacles, which is a theme common to Nike’s advertisements.

Reply
Eric S Herbein
9/14/2018 11:56:12 am

I find that what Nike did with Kapernick is a great marketing opportunity for Nike as a company. They talk about being your own person, and standing out from the crowd. This is exactly what Colin is doing with his approach to NFL football. He is not getting treated the way he should have been for just believing in what he believes. So Nike used that to show athletes that they should believe in themselves no matter what people are saying. There's a lot of mixed feelings when it came to the release of this commercial. From a social media standpoint, from a younger generation, people did not like it. Although from a financial standby people did like what Nike did.

I’ll have to say that I think that this commercial and what Nike did, is mindful marketing. This certainly did increase Nike’s societal values, and we can see that from the message that it protests in the commercial. I think it does create stakeholder value because if you look at Nike’s Stock, it has risen and does continue to rise. So overall I believe that this Commercial is Mindful.

Reply
Jared Newcomb link
9/14/2018 12:33:56 pm

Nike burst onto the scene last week with the debut of their "Dream Crazy" ad to commemorate their 30th "Just do it" campaign. Many folks iterate with the NFL is not has surly heard about Keapernick and how he initiated the kneeling for the National Anthem. His silent protests started a wave across the NFL that other prominent athletes began to imitate and do the same. He actions, some believe, were the reason he is no longer in the league. This is not the first time that Nike has paired up with an athlete that has gone across the popular societal grain. They have featured Muhammend Ali in ad campaigns who was a lot voice as well when it came to social justice. When running advertising there is always a chance that you will lose or alienate consumers while also hoping to gain new ones. However, none have been as bold as Nikes most recent. When one delves deeper into the ad want cant help but feel good about the perceived message. Do sacrifice material things for something you feel is paramount and meaningful. We all, to a certain expect, can respect and understand that and really calls the viewers to internalize and look inward on our ourselves. Will Nike lose customers? Yes. Will they gain new ones? Probably. Nike is also betting on the longterm view. They are looking forward to the next 30 years and want to be on the right side of history and hope that in 30 years some of the more intimate details in peoples memories will fade and much like their Ali feature they will be known for their boldness and forward thinking advertising despite popular culture. ON the other hand Nike might need to look at their own self and take their own advice. Nike has numbers manufacturing facilities in other countries with low paying wages, child labor and very poor living conditions. If Nike really believed their own ad why wouldn't they increase and elevate their own processes with better working conditions and wages. No company is ever perfect or without faults and if looking closely enough one can find faults with any brand or company or person.

Mindful marketing is more than creating a solid ad it's creating an ad that represents your company wholly, not simply what you want people to believe or what you wish to represent. While this campaign is mindful to a certain extent I think Nike can still do more.

Reply
Trevor Doyle
9/17/2018 11:09:26 am

I believe what Nike did with Kaepernick was a smart marketing decision and beneficial to both parties. Obviously he has tremendous controversy surrounding him and Nike decided that taking on that controversy would be worth that controversy. And boy were they right. as mentioned here Nike's sales were up tremendously when compared to last years numbers during the same time period. The goal of almost all marketing is to create value and get more people to purchase your product and Nike accomplished this goal. In addition this add has brought with it an insane amount of talk about the company. When two people disagree about Kaepernick and are able to have a constructive conversation about it they end up inevitable talking about Nike and it is always good to have people thinking about your company. The one concern was their share price which recently hit an all time high, so it is a concern no longer.

I believe this is mindful marketing because Nike is creating value for their customer by showing that pro athletes still use their stuff and they are upholding societal values by supporting someone who fights against social injustice.

Reply
Mason E Kemble
9/17/2018 11:34:54 am

Some would consider the usage of Colin Kaepernick for a Nike ad as a sporting goods brand at this point in time would be a bit outdated. Colin has been out of the league for several years now and he has become basically irrelevant in the sports world. However, Nike is more than just a brand for sporting goods and athletic wear. Nike is so big of a world brand that it has say and power in the world of social issues and politics. Nike promotes a very progressive image and who better to have frontline their advertisements than Colin Kaepernick, perhaps the most controversial figure in the world of sports politics in the past ten years. As a company Nike strives to be the most modern and progressive out of all brands in the world in order to stay seen as the number one sports brand position that they hold.
I believe this is mindful marketing by Nike, as criticisms will be short-term and overall they will continue their reign as the most successful sportswear brand in the world by pushing their progressive agenda.

Reply
Ridge Hagar
9/24/2018 07:16:08 pm

Nike's "Dream Crazy" ad prompted a lot of mixed feelings toward the ad, both from the public and myself. Colin Kaepernick's impact on the league socially has been ever present since he first started kneeling during the national anthem. Kaepernick's protest has left more of a legacy on the field than his play ever will, giving way to other athletes looking to make an impact within sports and touching on something larger than themselves. I would say the ad raised stakeholder value for Nike consumers, although the ad only registered to consumers looking to buy from a company that holds a stake in societal issues. The ad targets consumers inspired by a dream, saying "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything." I can understand their point, although similar to what the blog said, I think it's done in poor taste. Especially since the controversy between Kaepernick and Law Enforcement/Military exists, with many people losing their lives. Ultimately, I think the ad does uphold societal values and creates stakeholder value, meaning the ad is mindful. Although, I think the ad would have been better suited had they included military members as well as Colin Kaepernick to show unity, despite how hard that might be.

Reply
Curtis Roush
9/25/2018 03:57:02 pm

I love the actual message of the Nike add, and can understand why they chose to make Colin Kaepernick the poster boy for this add. Yes, I believe that the add upholds societal values and creates stakeholder value, so it is mindful. My issue with the add is that it is such a volatile topic, I can't seem to understand why Nike would run it. With the new football season starting, the kneeling during the National Anthem movement seemed to just be getting behind us and then Nike goes and runs this add. There has to have been a safer way to project the same message without further dividing an already split consumer base, perhaps pleasing both sides by showing a soldier or police officer. Taking such a public stand is a very respectable thing to do, but I don't think that most of their consumers know how to react. On one hand their sales increased and on the other their stock dropped in price. But at the end of the day, any publicity is good publicity and people are definitely talking about Nike.

Reply
Colin Dorrell
9/25/2018 08:25:55 pm

The ad was very controversial. It brought a large amount of backlash to Nike. Along with the backlash its received praise for making a statement. I personally see this as a problem for Nike, in that the company is using someone who the NFL would least want to see. The company is running a risk with the ad since they are the official gear supplier. For agreeing to a deal with the NFL then running an ad with a player that cost the NFL a lot of money is extremely risky to the deal they have in place. The jersey sales Nike makes also would have to go to the NFL in a way. The company could very well be costing the NFL more money with the ad they run. On the other hand the company could profit from this with having people who agree with ad now being more willing to buy their products. Overall the company can be losing the NFL as a supplier if it runs more ads with Colin Kaepernick in them. It might not be a major hit on Nike because the company does excellent with sales of their shoes and apparel outside of the NFL. Only major loss for Nike in this situation would be their credibility.

Reply
Brett Snyder
9/25/2018 08:41:40 pm

I believe this ad by Nike could be one of the best ads to date for a company. Never did I think that I would be talking about and hearing so much conversation about an advertisement for a company that sells shoes and apparel. The ad contains a controversial topic which helped gain it so much publicity. This mindful ad no doubt would have been very inspirational and awe inspiring without Kaepernick, but adding his voice and then showing him at the very end is like teasing the viewer so to speak. If you are not familiar with his voice, you may not have known it was him until they showed him. If you do know his voice, you are either familiar with him in positive or negative way so you want to see what he is doing in a Nike commercial. Nike very well knew what they were doing putting Kaepernick in the commercial. The arguable #1 apparel store in the world would not be naive enough to just throw Colin Kaepernick into a commercial for no reasoning behind it. It could be that they agree with his point of view, or realize how much publicity they could get off of signing him to the ad. Either way, it sends people like Adidas, Reebok and Puma scrambling to do something to get into the spotlight again. Nike has seemingly stolen away all the attention from its competition and now the spotlight is on them as they make the next move.

Reply
Bryn Randall
9/25/2018 10:05:26 pm

When Nike first aired the Colin Kaepernick ad, my initial thought was, “what are they doing”. With as much controversy as Kaepernick caused by kneeling during the national anthem, I originally thought that it was a poor decision from Nike to air an ad that featured him. However, upon thinking on the matter further, I realized that Nike had made a smart marketing decision but could have improved upon their decision in several ways.

First, Nike launched the ad with the intention that people would start talking about the ad, and Nike definitely created a negative storm when the ad first went live. However, even with all the negative backlash they received, Nike also received a lot of media attention regarding their decision to air the ad. Nike’s initial airing of the ad created a whirlpool effect, so much so that people were doing their marketing for them. Not only were news reporters, talk radio shows, and twitter talking about it – we even discussed the matter in class. The ability to reach so many people by featuring one person was very impactful and effective. With that said, I think Nike could have generated a more positive response from the public if they would have also included U.S. Veterans and other people that the general population could relate to. This would have added more representation, therefore reaching a larger audience, therefore generating more interest in the company and the products that they are selling. Furthermore, I think Nike could have placed more emphasis on the product they were selling instead of the person they were using to market it. Overall, I believe that Nike made an effective marketing decision that could have been improved by being more mindful of their audience.

Reply
Brooke Breinich
9/25/2018 10:59:38 pm

After finally seeing the advertisement, I can now understand why it has caused such discontentment with Nike. This commercial is undoubtedly a risk through its use of Colin Kaepernick as the narrator. Coming from a neutral perspective is difficult as I have a bias, which I am sure many others have, too. This is an advertisement that upholds the values of society and utterly fails at upholding stockholder value so, again, it is difficult to judge the mindfulness. Aside from the controversial portion of the advertisement, it seemed to be an awe-inspiring and emotional video.

Throughout the advertisement, viewers are encouraged by seeing people overcome adversity and take chances. Conversely, using a controversial public figure was a mindless activity. Most of the athletes featured in the film had to overcome physical setbacks or were world-renown competitors, while Kaepernick was choosing to defy the “norm” in football: two seemingly unrelated areas of sports. The fortune 500 company obviously expected a wider array of positive reactions than what they did, but it was evident in the $2 stock-price drop that most of the stockholders found this commercial to be mindless. The risk seems to be damaging their brand image: the most detrimental action that can occur to any business. I believe the company should have continued with simple, inspirational videos such as the one featuring Serena Williams’ lifetime rise to greatness. This would have been mindful and could have protected the company’s reputation.

After reading the blog post and watching the video, I still feel as if Nike attempted to gain publicity, whether it was negative or not. If so, my question is “why?” Why would a world-renown company knowingly publish a debatable commercial? Obviously they knew it would have some negative reactions, but did they truly know the extent of it? Was this their plan all along? The commercial has me questioning Nike’s intentions, but what I do know is this: whatever the business’ intentions were, the commercial itself was a mindless matter.

Reply
Courtney Dunlop
9/26/2018 04:10:10 pm

Like many others, the first time I saw this advertisement, with Colin Kaepernick as the face and spokesperson for it, I immediately questioned Nike's decision. I wondered why such a successful company would risk losing a portion of their customer base so that he could be at the forefront of their campaign. However, after I watched the ad and learned more about the campaign, as well as Nike's sales data after the ad's release, I changed my mind.
To begin with, the ad's message is nothing but positive, it is only Colin as the narrator that struck criticism. Choosing Colin as the narrator and face of this campaign was a bold choice for the company, but I think it will pay off for them. Nike's target market is teens and young adults. And, as the blog post says, this age group increasingly desires for companies to take a stand on social issues. Take Nike's 30% increase in online sales in the days after the ad's release as a sign of this age group's loyalty to Nike. While I agree that not all publicity is good publicity, in this case, I believe that the dialogue that this campaign started was to the advantage of Nike. This is because, unlike someone like Harvey Weinstein, there is not a clear right or wrong side of the debate. Therefore, the more people argue about the ad, the more Nike as a company is being brought up into conversations.
To sum up, I think that Nike’s new “Dream Crazy” advertisement is Mindful, when put on the Mindful Matrix. It creates stakeholder value by increasing loyalty, and therefore sales, in their target market of teens and young adults specifically. The ad also upholds societal values because the ad itself promotes chasing your dreams and working hard, and the choice of Colin Kaepernick as the narrator sparks a necessary dialogue in the U.S. today.

Reply
Tyler
9/26/2018 05:23:10 pm

Nike’s decision to hire Colin Kaepernick as spokesperson for their new ad campaign was extremely risky and, I believe, single-minded. In order to apply this campaign to the “Mindful Matrix,” we have to look at it from two perspectives: whether or not it was ethical and its impact on stakeholder value. From the ethical lens, we have to ask ourselves what Nike’s intentions were in picking a side on this issue. There are two likely possibilities: (1) that Nike chose to support Colin Kaepernick because it truly did think it was the right thing to do, or (2) that Nike chose to support Colin Kaepernick because it foresaw it as a way to associate their brand with positive change, and therefore reap massive rewards in the long run. As inspiring as the first possibility is, I believe it to be far less likely than the second. Nike most likely chose to side with Kaepernick because they saw him and his desire for social justice as a long-term investment. Nike knew that it would take some hits on its stocks but is expecting those stocks to gradually increase to much higher than before the Kaepernick-incident. Depending on its intentions, Nike either was or was not ethical in its decision to support Kaepernick, and I believe the latter to be true. In terms of the impact this decision has on Nike’s stocks, I think this was a brilliant move. Nike is fully expecting future generations to loyally subscribe to them because they will be associated with social justice and positive change. Although its stocks may have taken a momentary dip, I think they will soar in the future. Because I see this decision as unethical and good for stakeholder value, I feel that this decision was single-minded.

Reply
Keegan Hurley
9/26/2018 06:06:27 pm

I agree with Nike's decision to run this new marketing campaign. They seem to have more tastefully commented on a social issue than companies who have tried to run similar ads in the past. For example in April of 2017, Pepsi ran an ad surrounding the topic of police brutality and was met with intense negative criticism. The ad over simplified the situation and seemed to make it seem as if it wasn't an important issue to discuss. On the other hand, I felt that Nike taking a side in the issue may have been more divisive, but it made the ad seem more authentic. Pepsi seemed to undermine the issue rather than undermine it. I also think Nike did a really good job of making their add applicable outside just the political commentary that Nike was providing. The add focuses on dreaming big in the sports world...then it suggests the importance of Kaepernick's stand and story. I think overall this is a Mindful ad and long-term a smart decision from Nike.

Reply
Liam Holohan
9/26/2018 06:08:10 pm

When considering the new Nike ad "Dream Crazy" and its efficiency in marketing it is very hard to restrain from personal opinion. The idea of the ad I believe is pure and upholds society's values however Nike did not take a smart approach. The idea behind the ad of "sacrificing everything" does not fit the spokes people of the ad which in turn creates much controversy and divide. Pro athletes such as Kaepernick are making millions a year plus the endorsement from Nike to be spokes people. So what are the really sacrificing? Anything? Rather than uniting people against adversity it has pitted fans and athletes alike against one another creating further tension and divide. The purpose of the movement was lost in politics by Nike's commercialized activism, hoping on the bandwagon like many organizations many Americans would say. With all this being said it can be seen why so many Americans have torn views on the subject from those who have truly sacrificed everything they've had for this country to those seeking racial justice and equality. However like the blog has said "lets give the ad the benefit of the doubt and say it uphold societal values" I still disagree that it does just because all the controversy and divide it has created by i feel taking a political side rather than just being a marketing business. I personally would place this ad in the mindless category for two reasons. One I feel it does not hold the values of society nor is it making way for a high market share due to the drop of sales and protests.

Reply
Colin Lloyd
9/26/2018 06:31:47 pm

When I first heard about this advertisement, I honestly thought it was a great move for Nike. While Colin Kaepernick is a very controversial person in today's society, he is also a very popular and well-known person all across America. Sure, there are many cons to releasing a major advertisement with his face slapped on the front of it, but I believe the pros outweigh the cons by quite a bit. Some people may mention the drop in stock value or the boycotts against Nike, but these are simply short-term problems. With the company already being one of the most popular apparel producers in the world, I find it hard to believe that a few people who plan to "boycott" the brand or even burn the products will cause too much damage to the company overall. Honestly, most of the people who disagree with Nike's choice will probably forget about the whole thing in a few months time and continue to buy the products, because they are still great quality. However, many new customers will be gained from this advertisement because of the support to Colin Kaepernick's views on social justice. As the debate between kneeling or not kneeling continues to be one of the most talked about topics in America, the ad will keep it's relevance for a very long time and continue to gain views and popularity.

Another reason I think this choice was great by Nike was because the ad was about much more than just Colin Kaepernick. The features of other athletes, such as LeBron James, gave people even more reason to watch the ad and to try and sympathize or relate to the message they were trying to convey. The ad showed how LeBron represents young children who's families are struggling to make ends meet, how Serena Williams represents women and their struggle to gain equal rights and respect in modern times, and how Shaqueem Griffin represents disabled people who are often overlooked and told, "you can't do that", among many others. Colin Kaepernick, although he is the narrator and the face of the ad, really is just one piece to a large puzzle the ad is trying to represent. With this being said, Nike most likely went with Kaepernick as the spokesperson of this campaign mainly because of his massive recent following and all of the talk centered around him. Since they likely chose him in order to gain more money, it makes this decision slightly unethical. Even if it is mostly for the money, the message Nike displays in the ad is still very inspirational. I also believe the ad was a terrific move in the long run for creating stockholder value. As I said before, the amount of customers gained will be much more than those lost in the coming years because of this ad campaign. Because I think this campaign was slightly more non-ethical than ethical, while also being smart in terms of creating stockholder value, I would say this falls into the "single-minded" portion of the marketing matrix. It is very close to being mindful, however, because of it's strong message of believing you can accomplish whatever you set your mind to.

Reply
Josiah Stoltzfus
9/26/2018 08:35:23 pm

I want to commend this post for staying neutral. Especially with an issue as controversial and polarizing as this one, an objective viewpoint is hard to come by. And I’ve found that people will often ignore or downplay something if they find it antagonistic of their side. While I will admit to holding some strong opinions on the subject, I want to follow this example and try to set them aside in my response.
The main aspect tainting this whole thing is the fact that Nike wants to make money. It’s a business. That’s what businesses do. That’s its number one priority. Any social justice cause it might support comes secondary. But this ad seems to be wanting you to think the opposite. I have no issue with a company wanting to make money. I do think it gets somewhat unethical when they try to hide that. I doubt Nike cares about inspiring young athletes as much as it wants those athletes to buy its products. The way Nike portrays itself runs contrary to its true motivations.
Nike took a calculated risk when they ran this add. They knew this was an extremely controversial subject. They knew some people would despise them for it. and they knew some people would love them for it. It was only a matter of appealing to one side, and use their support to counterbalance the backlash from the opposite side. They didn’t so much care about whether what they were saying was right. They only cared about what would be popular with the most people. If they though they stood to gain more for taking the opposite position, they would have taken the opposite position. Once again, the main purpose was to increase sales.
All That being said, If the message of the ad was genuine, then I would say Nike was upholding societal values. It doesn’t really matter whether I agree with them or not. Nike may say or hold any position it likes.

Reply
Noah Thomas
9/26/2018 08:51:36 pm

I think that this ad does not really fit into any of the four categories because it has aspects from all of them, but it really depends on the person looking at it. Some would say the it is a great ad that holds up societal values and I would say that society has lost a lot of its moral values and twisted a lot of what is left so upholding societal values could still not be a good thing. I would say that it does not uphold societal values because it is encouraging disrespect to the country that literally lets these NFL athletes to play a game for a few months out of the year and get paid more then most Americans could make in their whole lifetime, but the athletes seem to complain about how oppressed and down trodden thy are. All while they drive their expensive cars that cost more than a lot of peoples houses, and while they are revered and looked up to by many youths of today. So, on that side they do not uphold societal values. Now will this allow Nike to make more money off its product could be time will tell. There is a big back lash, but there is also a lot of support. But essentially Nike is just trying to make money on dividing and playing to political differences in America, and this is just further separating American and causing division at a time when America needs to come together as a nation the most. So this is a tricky issue and I think has many facets that can change based on what a person’s perspective on the underlying political issue that Nike is trying to exploit.

Reply
Tyler Long
9/26/2018 08:58:46 pm

This advertisement from Nike is very interesting from all viewpoints. Nike made a bold move putting themselves out there and was willing to take the heat from consumers and investors to show how they feel on a topic. They are acting quite differently from what a typical company would do. They didn't play it safe by sticking to topics that have a definitive right side to choose. Instead they went for a topic that is very controversial and doesn't have that definitive side to pick. I respect Nike greatly for this bold move. I think more companies should be willing to stick there necks out there and show their company values to the people who really care about there brands. Now Nike has had to have put some serious thought behind this ad because they are a company trying to turn a profit and making such a bold move could have really cost them in sales. Now they did see some retaliation at the beginning with people burning their shoes but that has since subsided and I think people are starting to realize what it is exactly Nike did and how different it is from any other company.

Reply
Will Young IV
9/26/2018 11:04:27 pm

First, I would like to start off by saying that this was a fantastic article to read. I loved the way all possible bias was put aside and both sides of the argument over this ad were looked at and analyzed fairly and effectively. However, I respectfully disagree with the score of a 2 on the mindful meter. and here's why.

For beginners,I think that this ad from Nike was an incredible move. Whether Nike is just trying to gain more money by playing off of the division of our country, which I pray is not the case, over societal issues that are quite prevalent in our world today. Or whether this was a genuine ad from Nike to cause some awareness to world issues, either way it was a great move by Nike and honestly if many Americans would put their pride, bias and whatever feelings, god or bad, that they have toward Colin Kaepernick away, I think that they would agree that this ad has a great message. Although Kaepernick is the face of the ad, many people are forgetting the message of the ad in its entirety and that is to “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”. Isn't that what America was founded on? Our nation wouldn't be what it is today without people believing in something, whether that be the end of slavery, the ceasing of wars, women's rights etc. and ultimately sacrificing everything they had to make sure that those within the generations to come could have the luxury and experiencing things that they were not able to. This is what makes this ad so great to me is because this motto applies to people of of different cultures, different races, different backgrounds and so forth and what upsets me the most is that the same people burning the nikes because they are "supporting" Kaepernick, are the same people with sons and daughters who are teaching them to live by the same principles that Nike is promoting in this ad. This not only contradicts their beliefs that they are instilling in their children but it also just makes them look plain foolish as well. Now that I am off my soapbox, let me get back why I believe this ad is a 4 on the mindful meter scale rather than a 2.

I believe that this add creates stakeholder value because it was definitely effective marketing in every way. It informs those who are unaware of the issues going on within our country right now, it persuades ALL people with different beliefs and opinions o believe in something, whatever that something may be, and it reminds those who who are currently fighting to just believe, whether that be fighting against racial injustices or against negative people trying to stop them from accomplishing their dream. I also believes that it upholds all the societal values, making it 100% mindful in my eyes.


Reply
Sophia Thomas
9/27/2018 09:00:29 am

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. I believe that it accurately portrayed both sides of the argument in an effective way. The ad clearly provoked a huge discussion in American society about what we as a country should be promoting, standing up for, and allowing just for money's sake. Part of me could care less about what the ad was promoting because I don't have an inherent investment in how the Nike company gets their profits or that Colin decided to kneel during a football game. I would not have personally done that but that was his decision and he has had to face the responses. I do think that the ad upheld the societal value of fair. It was fair to allow him to make that decision and to promote his side. But it was not necessarily smart. Likewise, it is fair for someone to argue against his position, whether or not they are right about it. Although others will not, I will continue to buy Nike products because I have been doing so in the past and I like their quality of products. Another issue to consider was if the ad created stakeholder value. I think it did create value but maybe not necessarily in the way that most people think. It maybe didn't create a sudden increase in profits but it did create an awareness of their company, something that new customers will still want to purchase from or others will decide to move away from. Thus, it may prove to break-even in the end. Thank you for the thought provoking article.

Reply
Luke Kapp
9/27/2018 11:15:39 am

The idea of this Nike Ad is a good one. However, I do not believe that Colin Kapernick is the right person to be the face of this ad. I liked this article since both sides were stated unlike the typical blog post which only states one side of the argument. In reality, Colin Kapernick did not sacrifice much compared to others such as soldiers, police officers, and other first responders. If Nike wanted to make this ad more effective instead of dividing their customer base even more, they should have chosen a different spokesperson. Colin Kapernick had one or two good NFL seasons, but he is simply not a good quarterback. So if he thinks people are colluding to keep him out of the NFL, he is wrong, as it has also been reported that several teams put in a offer and turned them all down because it was not enough money for him. I personally am not a fan of Kapernick, but I do respect him for donating money to charity, and this also proves the point that there is a positive thing in any situation. This ad will be one that always remains controversial, and being a business that has so many high stakes in it and partnerships with other companies (such as the NFL), I do not think this was a good ad to run because as stated in the article Nike and the NFL's relationship has probably gotten worse then it already might have been. I would put this ad in the Mindless category. I just do not think they should have picked Kapernick. Can I think of someone right now? No, but there are people out there who have actually had to make sacrifices to get to where they are at right now. Nike ran this ad with a person who does not support law enforcement, which is still widely accepted across America and always will be. So Nike picked a bad time to use this ad because of all the controversy and political turmoil in the United States today, had they ran it when he was taking the 49ers to a superbowl run, there would not have been much backlash at that point, and we would not have nearly as much trouble as there is right now. So bottom line, Mindless ad because Nike keeps dividing their customer base and pitting them against each other, and Colin Kapernick is just not a good QB, and he performed those acts of protest as a way to try to become relevant again.

Reply
Nicholas Desola
9/27/2018 11:47:00 am


When I first watched this ad, I noted that it would be extremely polarizing from the beginning. Due to the recent posts and news articles over the past year, Colin Kaepernick has become the face of moments and, more specifically, peaceful protests around the country. From the NFL, to personal promotions and now Nike, Kaepernick has been at the front of the culture for some time. Many are with him and many are against him, but it is not my call to make whether is was right or wrong, so I am going to attempt to make an unbiased report on this ad.

From a stakeholder standpoint, many people respect Kaepernick for what he did and what he stands for, which can be concluded to create stakeholder value. However, there are just as many people who disagree with him and will stop purchasing Nike products. To dive deeper on this thought, I think that the board of members for Nike are the ultimate decision on the stakeholder value, which had to be positive for them due to the release of the ad. I believe that if Nike didn't think that stakeholder value would have been created, then the ad would never have run. They can have whatever societal values they want, but if they didn't think that this ad would make them money, then it surely would go to the public.

Moving to upholding societal values, I do not believe that there is something holding this ad back from checking off this box. Many people disagree with what he did, and I'll be honest, I'm not with Kaepernick on this one at all. I believe that you should stand for flag; that there is a time and place for everything, but during the NAtional Anthem is not one of them. However, I also belive in the First Amendment, which is is subject to, and he has the right to peacefully protest in whatever form he wants. That being said, he is being honest on his feelings and is doing it in, what some may say and others refute, a "respectful" manner.

Reply
Reid Ruark
9/27/2018 12:09:43 pm

As a football fan and a sports enthusiast I have watched many videos and watched many sports reporters talk about Colin Kapernick and his influence on and off the field. I also was not very surprised when Nike came out with this and and similar ads discussing controversial topics in our society. A couple years ago Nike came out with an ad similar to this, but used the famous golfer Tiger Woods. This was after the time Tiger was accused of cheating on his wife and Nike stood behind '"their face of golf". However, the Kapernick ad is different. Kapernick was the first to kneel during the National Anthem and shortly after that lost his job as a starting quarterback for the San Fransisco Forty-Niners. However, Nike has kept Colin as a "Nike Athlete" and recently came out with an ad talking about standing up for what you believe in. I personally think this is a bad marketing decision for Nike due to the fact that their is a lot of talk a out this amongst the NFL and Nike is the lead brand for the league. I also agree that this is a simple minded add because it hurts stakeholder value but really reaches out for the societal values.

Reply
Ashlyn Stonge
9/27/2018 02:31:06 pm

This specific advertisement from Nike I found to be very interesting. From what I understand, Nike chose to take this risk, knowing that this ad would be very controversial. This really made me think. At first I thought this was a bad marketing idea for Nike, as it upset many people. However, after taking a closer look at it and thinking about it more, I think that it was actually a bold but smart move for Nike. Nike’s a company that is trying to promote its brand and make money. They are a large enough company that almost everyone knows them, so that must thoroughly think through every ad and promotion well, as most of the world will see them. With this being said, they also need to make bold moves that put them above their competitors like Under Armor. Making a controversial ad can backfire, as it will turn people away. However, it will become insanely well known and the topic that is being talked about. For example, I probably wouldn’t be writing about just any Nike ad right now, but this ad has become one that everyone is talking about due to its controversy. The point is that Nike is getting a ton of attention and promotion, both good and bad. In the end however, I think both the positive and negative attention that Nike is getting will end up benefiting them. I do however, think that this ad is single-minded, as it does promote and draw attention to Nike, but does not respect different people’s views and values.

Reply
Matt Glogowski
10/1/2018 08:44:31 pm

Nike’s ad with Colin Kaepernick was a masterful advertisement that went far beyond achieving revenue. This topic was appealing to me for one because I play sports and I can understand where he is coming from. Although plenty controversial, this ad is one of Nike’s most motivational advertisements. When you take a step back and listen to the quote, “believe in something, even if it means giving up everything” we see that Colin Kaepernick gave up his successful job just to stand up for what he believed in. His actions have motivated others to do the same. Other than the fact that people ridicule him and burn jerseys and now Nike products, what was his main objective in starting to knee in the national anthem? Colin asked a veteran of war what the most respectful way to go about using his stage to bring to light the social injustices in America was, and the veteran told his instead of sitting, he should kneel. Colin was not undercutting the military forces, he was simply bringing awareness to social injustices. I believe this ad is actually mindful; I don’t believe this is single-minded. My reasoning for this can be explained by facts. The dream crazy ad has over 26 million views, there are billboards with Colin’s face and quote on it, the internet went completely berserk when this aired and this topic has continued for over a year now. This ad has made Nike millions of dollars and is continually giving them profit. All in all, one two-minute video caused an uproar that upholds societal values and I believe, creates stakeholder value. My thoughts, Nike did a great job creating an ad that speaks truth, makes profit, and simultaneously gives people motivation, which is exactly what Nike wants to do.

Reply
Carson Spangler
10/2/2018 10:48:36 am

To start off, I believe that Nike knew exactly what they were getting themselves into when making this ad, and I think it paid off for them. Last year, kneeling during the national anthem was one of the most controversial topics. Not only did all football teams talk about it, but almost all other sports teams did as well. I play a sport so this topic is very interesting to me and has had a minor effect on my life. I remember last year my baseball team had a meeting and this topic was one of the main reasons for it.

The affect this has had on Nike has been very large, whether good or bad. The blog talks about how the ad produced 220 million in publicity. The numbers were almost even with the amount of people who supported it and didn't support it. Although, the highest amount was the amount of people that were neutral. I am not surprised by this statistic because I think that many people tend to take the easy way out when confronted with a tough topic, therefore they just say they don't have an opinion.

Overall I think that Nike didn't create this ad to gain a crazy amount of money. In the blog there is a quote that says, "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything." This seems to be the mentality that Nike had when making this ad. They weren't necessarily trying to have everyone agree with them, but they were just trying to show what they believe in even if it costs the company something in the long run.

Reply
Ye Eun Jang
10/30/2018 02:36:11 am

After hundreds of articles and social media posts about the division in American society regarding what Kaepernick did during the national anthem, it is not surprising that a big-name brand such as Nike has participated in the discussion. Though this topic is controversial and risky if communicated wrong, I believe Nike was strategic in involving themselves in such a market. By placing themselves in between the division and controversy, the general public recognizes that the company is not afraid to step into these issues and make a statement. Although Nike may have lost some dollars in shares and some consumers, their boldness in showing that they take part in social issues is smart marketing as it displays the willingness of the brand to vocalize what they believe is right. I also recognize that Nike may have used this social issue as a chance to generate more revenue, but also most likely analyzed the consequences of participating in this heated debate. Therefore, I would conclude that Nike endorsed Kaepernick not solely for profits, but also to highlight themselves as an influential company not afraid to be involved in social issues and uphold values.

Reply
Will Shannon
11/3/2018 12:13:53 am

I remember when Nike first put out this ad, since I am a huge fan of their products and anything to do with sports. I was shocked that decided to go for such a controversial commercial. Especially since Nike does all the uniforms for the NFL and Collin Kaepernick is creating touch publicity for them. Personally I had mix feelings on the ad. The blog explains this perfectly, as they say there are credible arguments on both sides. I don’t think that anyone will change their minds on the stance they are taking. I believe that something that could hurt Nike’s ad is people are reacting to it with their perception of Collin Kaepernick when that is not what the ad is saying. After saying this, I do believe that Kaepernick was the best person to be the image of the campaign. The message of the ad is to bring attention to social injustice. It is a great message for everyone, not just athletes. This can play in Nike’s favor because they are attracting people who support the message that do not normally shop at Nike. This is a good move by Nike but they are also taking a huge risk in losing the customers who do not like Kaepernick. I think in the long run, this ad will be successful because it supporting something greater than athletics and it should unite all of us to fix this social injustice.

Reply
Angelique Calvillo
11/5/2018 09:14:53 pm

Great blog and analysis of this popular controversy. I was first intrigued by your usage of what motivated you to go forward with writing this blog the phrase, "just do it." That's what its about, however, I would agree what it effective? I believe the overall message behind this ad aligned with their brand, however, I don't know if it was heard because the figure carrying the message was too distracting.

Reply
Bella Burchett
11/6/2018 12:51:56 am

This blog post did a great job of covering a very controversial topic. The issue in this case, isn't so simple to come to a full conclusion since both sides make good arguments. I believe that Nike wanted to get attention by using the ex pro football player, whether it was negative publicity or positive in the end they got publicity. The message of the ad was inspiring and evokes uplifting emotions, however, the use of the football player takes spotlight over the message. Whether someone were to agree with the use of the football player or not we can all admit that Nike saw a unique opportunity and took it.

Reply
Trisha Chiu
11/6/2018 02:41:52 am

I've heard this topic talked about in so many conversations lately. When I first heard about it I questioned what the big deal was. But I hadn't thought about it all together. At first I thought that it was alright because people kneeled in football games when someone was injured out of respect but as I read this article and thought about it more, it didn't really make any sense because this was the national anthem, which is a much bigger deal. I really liked how in this article it gave such great detail and also opinions but didn't just start ranting on the topic but explained the reasoning and also kinda of gave a warning or hinting at his stance of the situation.

Reply
Joseph DePaul
1/12/2019 11:50:51 am

This ad is a very complex and interesting one. I believe that if the advertisement was published with a different spokesperson, someone who isn't controversial, this ad could easily be mindful marketing. But because of Kaepernick, this changes the whole view for some people. The whole idea behind Nike's ad is to "sacrifice everything", and people who disagree with Kaepernick would argue he didn't sacrifice anything. He was raised in a wealthy, white neighborhood with a family that supported him since adoption. And he didn't start kneeling until after he lost his starting role. Some would say it could've been a publicity stunt just to make a name for himself. So with him being the main person of the ad, this makes the ad already controversial. The other parts of the ad with amateurs athletes and some professionals depict tremendous sports achievements that are motivational. There is nothing wrong there. I think the ad does hold societal values in itself, showing how amazing people are and how sports can let people do amazing things even with struggles they face. Where I could argue that the ad doesn't hold societal values would be with Kaepernick, and the respect and decency factors. He wore socks that depicted cops as pigs as well as a shirt of Fidel Castro, who murdered millions of his people. I would say this isn't the image you want to support. Other would overlook this, some would hold this argument firm. As for the ad creating stakeholder value, again, this depends on the audience. For supporters of him or just die hard Nike lovers, this ad was motivational and would make you want to buy and support Nike. For people who disagree with Nike and their sweatshops or Kaepernick's stance, this made them boycott the company and it's products. Since Nike did publish this ad, that means they viewed the value, or benefits to be greater than the costs. They thought supporting Kaepernick through this video would make them more money than lose them, The supporters would buy more merchandise than the boy cotters would stop buying.
Overall, I think the ad is mindful. I disagree with the stance of Kaepernick, but I think more people supported the video than didn't. I believe it did uphold societal value because of how Nike displayed the company helping the youth and inspiring the audience. I think the audience overall took Kaepernick being involved as a positive, not a negative. I think the ad created stakeholder value because their sales jumped up after a short fall. It seems like they made money off of the video and it was talked about. For the week this video came out, it was the talk of the sports community. I think while Nike did lose some supporters, I think it pulled in new ones and took the stance it wanted to take. A majority of athletes are african american and care greatly about social issues like Kaepernick and that is a big chunk of their customers, so of course they supported that. And it isn't like they did anything outlandish, he just voiced over the ad. While I disagree with the ad, I think Nike did it to take a stance and to create "buzz" around the topic.

Reply
Anthony Cheverez
1/14/2019 05:02:30 pm


This case is concerned with Colin Kaepernick and his social injustice movement and how Just divided over Nikes new Ad is in the middle of this case. I choose this ad because I enjoy sports and how it relates to marketing. Colin Kaepernick is a former NFL quarterback who took a knee during the pledge of allegiance. The Ad dream shows that your dreams are not crazy, is it that the dream is not big enough. This Ad is powerful and positive when I first saw it. With the issue concerning Kaepernick, Nike’s sales raised to 30 percent since it happened. That is why they had to make a commercial about it. The reason that Kaepernick took a knee was to create a protest for people that believe that racial injustice is growing in America. After he had took a knee he was the face for professional sports. So I think that when he protested he created more opportunities to let people hear him about social injustice. I do not agree that he should have taken a knee. I probably would not have taken a knee in front of everyone while singing the pledge of allegiance. The first reason is that I believe that America is strong and I believe in the flag and what it represents. My second reason is that I would not have take a knee is that I do not think I believe in the social justice movement, that is my opinion. There are two sides about this ad that you can argue. For a few years, Kaepernick was a very good NFL quarterback, who even played in a Super Bowl. Before he began his anthem protest, he had been demoted to backup status.

Reply
Andrea Martinez
3/16/2019 07:14:05 pm

This Nike commercial is a very interesting form of advertising. Using Colin Kaepernick as the face and voice of the ad was a risky move and one that has caused controversy. I wonder how different the audience's reaction to this ad would have been if instead of Colin, another athlete would have been the narrator. The fact that Kaepernick was the athlete chosen for this ad makes me think about Nike's real purposes. Were they really aware about how this ad would start a controversial debate and the consequences of using this ad? I believe that, whether positive or negative, this ad brings a lot of attention to Nike as a brand. Despite the negative comments and opinions, Nike has continued with its campaign. They have recently shared its "Dream Crazier" commercial narrated y Serena Williams. This one didn't generate as much attention as "Dream Crazy", so I wonder how their sales have been impacted, in comparison to the commercial narrated by Kaepernick.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly