Announced on Monday, Nike's 30th anniversary "Just Do It" campaign has been quickly met with considerable criticism nationwide. The controversy seems to be primarily due to its feature of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, the quarterback's decision to kneel during the national anthem in protest of police violence caused much dispute. Now, with Kaepernick as the face of the campaign, the debate has been rejuvenated. In response to the campaign, protesters have burned Nike products and called for a boycott of Nike products, ultimately leading to a drop in Nike stocks. President Trump has also spoken out, calling the ad a "terrible decision." Meanwhile, others praise Kaepernick and Nike's decision as being a clever method of both representing the brand and promoting social activism.
Comparing it to other nonviolent protest such as the Occupy Wall Street and Civil Rights movements, Kaepernick and his supporters have backed his actions as simply exercising his freedom of speech, a core principle of the United States government.
Questions:
1. Do you think it was a good decision for Nike to include Kaepernick in the campaign (economically, socially, etc.)?
2. It has almost been two years since Kaepernick first kneeled, and there have been many other events since then that have influenced the debate. However, despite two years having passed, there seems to be little progress on either side of the argument. Why do you think this is so? When it comes to controversy over such nonviolent protests, will there ever be a consensus? If so, what will need to be done?
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/09/04/trump-calls-nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-a-terrible-message-but-tempers-criticism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cbc6ce0e2c4f
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nike-kaepernick/kaepernick-ads-spark-boycott-calls-but-nike-is-seen-as-winning-in-the-end-idUSKCN1LK1DK
This ad is not very surprising coming from Nike. Nike has been taking sides on political and social issues for a while; examples being the equality collection and black history month collections. They knew the consequences of putting out this ad, and chose to do it anyway. Sometimes doing the right thing comes with a price. This ad sends out a great message. It says that it takes sacrifice to get what you want. Some may argue that Kaepernick didn't sacrifice much because he still gets checks from Nike. This is not true, for if we look at the big picture, he sacrificed his career and reputation that sticks with him forever. Furthermore, the politics are what makes the ad better. This ad brings more attention to a cause that has not seen progress for a while. It sparks the attention of the millions of Nike customers, who now have the opportunity to take sides. Wearing the Nike swoosh can go as far as being considered a form of passive resistance. In addition, Nike puts a lot of pressure on the NFL to take a stance, for the NFL and Nike are partners. I do not think there will be a unanimous consensus over such nonviolent protests, but I think Nike is taking the right steps to ignite some progress.
ReplyDeleteTo start, he actually didn't risk much at all, he first kneeled when he was benched for 3 games before that. He wasn't a good quarterback and probably wouldn't have made a team even if he didn't kneel. Second, even if the NFL took a stance on it (which they already have, they are against it), it would far from solve the problem. There's a common theme with 21st century protests in the notion that they believe that all of their problems with just instantly be solved. This is not how it works at all, Kaepernick hasn't written any sort of specific demands for police officers, he has just kneeled and wore Dictator shirts and offensive police officer socks. To be honest I'm not sure why he's even the face of this movement, he stated that he wouldn't kneel anymore if he could play again, so this clearly shows that this is a desperate political stun.
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/oct/08/colin-kaepernick-stand-for-anthem-nfl-quarterback
Well, I wouldn't say that people expect all of their problems to be solved simply from a protest. The essence of this protest is the amount of attention it has brought to the issue of police brutality. If some of the most influential figures in the black community aren't going to stand up for their rights, who will? Bringing attention to this issue in and of itself prompts change, because the spotlight forces police offers to be wary of their actions since the entire country is watching. Kaepernick deserves to be the face of this movement because he had the courage to take a stance and defend his beliefs regardless of the consequences. The fact that a corporation like Nike would make Kap the face of their company just shows how widely supported he is, and will attract the attention of more high profile members of the community to defend this cause.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteBringing things to attention doesn't necessarily mean they will prompt change. He's been protesting for about 2 years now, and has there been a single piece of legislation or anything done to help this issue? Not that I know of. Just because a left-leaning politically charged brand supports and pays Kaepernick, doesn't mean he's widely supported. If he was widely supported, Nike wouldn't have lost 3 Billion dollars in 2 days from releasing the ad. 72% of people in America disagree with him: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/09/24/poll-72-percent-see-kaepernicks-national-anthem-antics-as-unpatriotic-n2385646
So, I'm not sure why people think what he's doing is successful, stats show it clearly isn't, and I don't realistically say he will ever be, unfortunately.
I think it was a good idea socially for Nike to include Kaepernick in their campaign. Not only is it a subtle nod to the current social issues of today, it also shows that big corporations have a right to express their opinions on debates as well. Although there may be a temporary crash in sales because of the boycott, I believe that after a few months people will start to buy their products again because right now it is just the initial shock that people are overreacting to. I think this is a big reason why the debate over kneeling is still going on: people are not open minded and stubborn. We live in a society in which a lot of our ideals and values clash with each other. A lot of the controversies today are because each side has a right to free speech, but doesn’t agree with what the other side is saying. In this case, people don’t agree with Colin Kaepernick who is just exercising his right to free speech. I think that in the long run the heat of this debate will die down or at least a law will be passed of some sort that gives a consensus, but until that point I think there will be more fights and backlash to things like the Nike Ad.
ReplyDeleteOnly time will tell if this advertisement was a good idea. Nike made the decision in an effort to market to young African Americans who mostly support Kaepernick and spend more on shoes and clothing statistically. Nike is also hoping for President Trump to sound off on this and drive people on the left to Nike. As I said earlier only time will tell if the ad works. The reason we still see this kneeling controversy for a few reasons, number one is that the president got involved and that blew up across the media. the other reason is that people have such a strong belief on this and are almost unwilling to compromise and not willing to hear the other side.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, Nike is making Kaepernick the face of their campaign not because they want to promote racial equality, but because they want to appeal and profit off of those who align with his ideals, particularly African Americans. Nike's scheme is evidently working as they garnered more than 3 million mentions in the first 21 hours after Kaepernick's initial tweet of the campaign. The company understands that making Trump and NFL owners angry will only convince more people to buy their product. By promoting Kaepernick, powerful figures like Serena Williams and Lebron James will continue to support them and they are able to continue appealing to the young/athletic audience. In the end, this is just a giant marketing scheme for Nike. As long as there exist different groups with interests and concerns of their own, conflicting opinions will always arise over topics such as the kneeling protest. It is highly unlikely for Trump/NFl executives and those supporting the kneeling protests to reach a consensus as they have adamantly refused to compromise their stance for the past two years.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Nike made a good decision putting Kaepernick as the face of their campaign. Although Nike's stocks dropped, Nike is making a statement by using Kaepernick's face to promote social activism. I agree with Joseph that Nike is using the face of their campaign to reach out to Kaepernick's supporters to buy their product. Nike may even be reviving the controversy in order to get more people to express their rights and freedom of speech. Even in the statement on the campaign, "believe in something," Nike is clearly standing by Kaepernick's side. Nike's stocks may be suffering, but they are putting their point out their stirring up talk.
ReplyDeleteIt was not a good decision by Nike to include Kaepernick in their ad because they ultimately lost money because of the decision, as seen by the boycotts and drop in stock value. It was not a good idea to use such a controversial figure in their commercial because, while Nike may believe that they are promoting actions against racism and freedom of public speech, many people view it as an act against their loyalty to the nation. This add ended up offending many people. The debate over Kaepernick's decision to kneel is not gaining any progress because the two sides on the topic are incredibly polarized. One side believes that he is making a statement about racism, the other side believe that he is showing disloyalty to the United States.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Nike should not include politics into their ad campaign, although it is totally within their right to do so. NFL players' decision to kneel during then national anthem is disrespectful to the nation as a whole and other veterans, but it is them exercising their freedom of speech. There are other ways to protest police brutality, and Kaepernick being the face of the campaign just includes more animosity towards the company. Although not a good PR move, I can see how Nike would want to generate more attention to the issue in an athletes' lens because it is an athletic brand.
ReplyDeleteThis is Jeremy Ho by the way.
DeleteI think that socially Nike made a good decision, as it allows them to show their opinions and still appeal to consumers. As a lot of the above comments said, this is a great strategy to appeal to African American and more politically left buyers, rather than those opposed to Kaepernick's kneeling. I think that because it has caused their stocks to go down, it may not be the best choice economically, but on the other hand, it has drawn a lot of attention to the brand. Whether criticism or praise, the attention provides the potential for more profit.
ReplyDeleteI personally think it can't be called a good or bad decision, because Nike definitely knew what they were doing. I think this is a way Nike is trying to express their own opinion and viewpoint indirectly. Although it did affect their stocks I think Nike already knew that it was going to happen, and they chose to express their opinion over the money they lost. Another possibility is that Nike could've done this campaign just for the purpose of attention, whether it was good or bad attention.
ReplyDeleteI think that Nike made a very progressive decision in making Colin Kapernick the face of the new Nike campaign as it supports equal rights movements, specifically the black rights matter capaign. This was a very political move and, while I agree with it, many customers, specifically republicans in the deep south, have vowed to no longer purchase any Nike products. I think that because Nike, a large influential brand, has revealed their stance on the matter, this will bolster all equal rights movements and may help society / our government come to a consensus on this issue.
ReplyDeletethis is Grace Simenc
DeleteI think that it was a good idea for nike to put Colin Kapernick as the face of the Nike campaign because like Gianna said it promotes social activism and change while it illustrates that they support the ideas of Black Lives Matter and want to see change. I think they are a big enough company already that they should use their power and influence to show the world their opinions. Their stocks plummeting and causing controversy does hurt them, but they still have already made a name for themselves where they can withstand any backlash against them.
ReplyDeleteI think that Nike made a good decision in making Colin Kapernick the face of their ad campaign. Although their stocks did go down after the campaign was released, they obviously were expecting it to occur since Kapernick kneeling already stirred up so much controversy. They decided to display their stance in support of the equal rights movement. I believe that it is not only brave but beneficial to the society since Nike is such a well-known and influential brand.
ReplyDelete^Zoe Wilson
DeleteI think it was a good decision for Nike to include Kaepernick in the campaign from a social standpoint. It raises awareness towards the Black Lives Matter Movement, and it shows that large companies such as Nike are willing to back the movement. From an economic or financial standpoint, it was probably not the best idea for Nike to put such a controversial figure as the face of their campaign since they have now lost many customers as a result. However, like Kayla said, this is probably a temporary drop in sales, and many long-time customers of Nike will go back to the brand as soon as all of the initial controversy fades away. To answer the second question, there will probably never be a clear-cut solution for the issue at hand since race relations is such a touchy and complex subject. Even working towards improvement will take a long time to inspire permanent change.
ReplyDeleteNike obviously weighed all of the pros and cons of producing their new campaign, and although their stock did see a rapid dip after the market reopened after the long weekend, it has steadily rose back to its original value, indicating no long term effects to their brand value. I believe that Kaepernick's decision to lead the kneeling movement will not cause immediate change like most other social movements.
ReplyDeleteI think it was an social mistake for Nike to including a former NFL player turned politician in their advertising. Economically speaking, it is as Trump says, a "terrible decision" in general for clothing brands to adopt controversial political standings because the companies will appeal to less people and that is just economically illogical. Overall in the news and on social media I have personally only seen negative remarks and actions towards this Nike campaign so clearly this was a bad idea socially as well. Regarding the second question, I think there has been little progress made because people are very headstrong about their opinions and do not make the effort to understand each other which a necessity to inspire progression in societal debates.
ReplyDeleteNike has always been at the forefront of racial controversies. This was also evident back in the day when Michael Jordan had his Jordan 1 shoe debut, which was banned by the NBA for having a lack of White on the shoe(The shoe was mostly black and red). Nike paid fines every game that Michael Jordan played, which made the shoe a very popular yet controversial shoe. Using Kaepernick as a way to create revenue is a smart choice, obviously they learned from the Michael Jordan incident. However, Nike also paid attention to the detail, making their stand in this incident definite.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that such a simple ad would create this much controversy. The fact that people are boycotting Nike for this ad just shows the social importance of it. It is funny how people criticized Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem, saying that he was overreacting yet these are the same people that are "boycotting" a company that is just trying to sell shoes. Ultimately, I applaud Nike for facilitating this project. I think it is important for these companies that have a lot of influence to give people a platform to inspire change. How can we start understanding each other if we choose to avoid things that make us uncomfortable such as a simple Nike ad?
ReplyDeleteMary Entoma
DeleteI think Nike's decision to go through with this advertisement campaign was a very smart business decision. By taking a political stance that leans towards the left, it draws attention from people who align with the Republicans, who then attack it for not falling in line with President Trump. This then creates controversy, causing news outlets to cover the situation, and gets Nike positive press from left leaning media outlets for standing up against President Trump, while only drawing fire from the smaller minority that support President Trump. At the end of the day, I believe that the primary motive of corporations is to make money, and while some executives at Nike may have intended this to be political activism, it certainly doesn't hurt that it was also a good business move.
ReplyDeleteI believe Nike shouldn't have made their advertisement with Kaepernick at the forefront. Nike becoming socially and politically active in this debate simply divides people even more. In addition, Nike loses many of their consumers from the ad, which may have a huge effect in the future to come. Although I am not against NFL players being able to kneel, I feel like the fact that Nike is taking sides will not bring any resolve to this situation, and rather bring more argument.
ReplyDeleteI think this an incredibly smart decision by Nike to involve Kaepernick in their new campaign. If you look at Nike's stocks and their online sales in the following days since this campaign was announced. This has been an lucrative deal for Nike, along with Kaepernick too. This has given Kaepernick some well needed attention in the mainstream, as he has been lacking in that department. Looking at the aspect of kneeling and the ethics of that, I do not believe there will ever be a solid general understanding on whether or not kneeling and other non-violent protests are actually either beneficial or the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was the best decision for Nike to choose to make Kaepernick the face of their campaign. For social reasons, it seems to undermine their core message of believing in something even if it means sacrificing everything. True, Kaepernick had lost his role in the NFL, but the statement is ironic since by signing in with Nike to be part of their campaign, he is instead gaining more monetarily. It seems as if they are taking advantage of an important social movement in order to profit. The entire ad campaign only serves to bring into question the importance of the movement by introducing corporate interests. Economically, at least so far, Nike appears to be doing better shortly after announcing the campaign. However, this could be due to supporters of the campaign deciding to buy more Nike products, and only time can tell if the campaign has an adverse effect since they won't be damaged by the decisions of future buyers who may decide to boycott their products until later. In fact, poles have demonstrated that the campaign has an adverse effect on how favorable Nike is among the people, especially in the core audience the campaign is targeted towards.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great move for Nike, as they say there is no such thing as bad publicity, and they´ve just built a lot of brand loyalty with liberals and a lot of universal brand awareness their stock will also bounce back because anyone buying Nike stock at a low rate will make a lot of money once they get back to normal, which will incentivise people to buy their stock, and by doing so raise it again. Peaceful protests will always be controversial because any act of protest is controversial, and one so publicized as police violence and kneeling on the big screen is even more controversial. People have different opinions, and that´s OK, controversy over protests is not a problem to be resolved, but something to instead be appreciated because it shows open discourse, so long as it´s civil.
ReplyDeleteEconomically, this was a great move by Nike. Although their stock dropped initially, it has been steadily growing since, hitting an all-time high of $83.50 as of now. This is the first time their stock has been over $83. Furthermore, this move basically solidified their base of consumers, encouraging many of those on the liberal side of the political spectrum to continually buy their products. Although many claim to be boycotting Nike products, since Nike produces so many things, and also owns several other brands (like converse), I do not think their sales will be impacted; In fact, I think that many people "boycotting" will eventually purchase some Nike products.
ReplyDeleteWhile a major company like Nike getting involved in politics is always risky, I think it's not all a bad thing. While Nike risks losing sales, standing up for their beliefs is also important. Although here, I think it's Kaepernick who's the one benefiting, as he's getting the support of a powerhouse, and the immense influence that Nike has on others.
ReplyDelete