Nike’s 30th anniversary ad campaign has certainly created plenty of interest and condemnation. Many people support Nike’s choice but the loudest have been the detractors, lead by Donald Trump. We have been treated to a video of Nike shoes in a fire and a pair of socks minus the Nike logo. The mayor of New Orleans has forbidden city employees from buying Nike gear and stores have removed Nike product from their shelves. And many have questioned Nike’s stand on a social issue when they have been less than a social paragon .
What was Nike thinking? Some feel it is a public relations disaster. But after an initial dip the stock price has rallied and online sales have spiked.
Perhaps Nike knew exactly what they were doing. Good advertising should be targeted. Nike presumably knew their prime segment (millennials? ) are very sympathetic to what Kaepernick is trying to achieve and how he was doing it. So while it could be a social statement Nike felt compelled to make, it likely was a well thought out decision supported by extensive market research. And they must believe that after the initial blow back and some time, they will be seen as being on the ‘right side of history’.
Other companies, such as Ben and Jerry’s, Kellogg’s, Yuengling Beer and Patagonia have also taken stands that have alienated certain market segments. Levi Strauss pledged $1 million to support activists working to end gun violence. While not promoting changing the second amendment, the NRA and their supporters will have something to say about the decision. Interestingly, CEO Bergh said they had not done any market research on consumer gun control attitudes, noting that the appeal of Levi’s cuts across all demographics, which suggests a potential for some sales loss.
Marketing campaigns that take a social stand do create backlash, especially these days as our society becomes more fractious, split between left and right with little middle ground. But the truth is consumer activism in most cases is ineffective. Boycotts typically do not last long with the majority of us returning to our buying habits and brands. Nike knows this – they scored with the market segment they wanted to touch knowing that the controversy would subside.
While Nike seems to know exactly what they were doing by featuring Kaepernick in their ad campaign, I don’t think Kaepernick gave enough thought to his ‘campaign’ and how he delivered it.
Without a doubt, very few people would dispute his protest – that people of colour should not be subjected to prejudice. The rash of police shootings at the time should alarm anybody. And protest has been a part of American history – from the Boston Tea Party to Rosa Parks, Viet Nam and Martin Luther King Jr.
But communicating a protest or cause has to take into account the media channel or venue. It is not enough to craft a message – you have to deliver it in a clear, concise manner that is not subject to wide ranging interpretation. Rosa Parks’ simple refusal to move to the back of the bus was a clear message. It could not be confused with anything other than the demand to be treated equally. It upset many people at the time but the protest was clear.
Kaepernick’s protest, on the other hand, has been widely interpreted as an insult of the USA, the flag, its people and even veterans. An NFL game is a great way to get attention for your cause. But taking a knee during the national anthem was seen by most as grave disrespect and induced a robust emotional response. His message was lost on a large part of the audience as his protest descended into controversy and invective.
The lesson for marketers? Marshall McLuhan said a long time ago, “The medium is the message” – the form of a medium influences how the message is perceived.
Choose your channel of communication carefully. In today’s world of instant and wide spread communication, the message can quickly be misunderstood and lost. Worst case? The message received can be radically different from the message you meant to send.
Ken Jure - Copywriter 