Brand Activism: Nike And Colin Kaepernick Case Solution
This case discusses the selection of Nike for advertisement, Nike had selected Colin Kaepernick for its iconic campaign “Just Di It”. Nike had selected Colin Kaepernick as the spoke person at the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the advertisement campaign. The campaign had become successful within the 24 hours of the campaign,but later Nike came into the talk of media as a political flash-point for the consumers of America. This case discusses whether the choice of Kaepernick was positive or negative for the company. How would the association affect the brand, would it be positively or would it start a vague discussion on social media?As Nike’s management team found that during the protest; people burnt their Nike shoes, and the debate had started on the company’s business decision(Pauwels, 2019).
Nike’s choice of Colin Kaepernick
I agree that Nike’s decision of appointing Colin Kaepernick was right, because the initial results, after the advertisement, were appealing. Since its launch; the advertisement was trending on Twitter,and after Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the anthem; there were mixed reviews from the consumers and public. Some consumers were offended by his behavior and found it disrespectful but others applauded and supported his protest. Irrespective of the protest and people burning their shoes; the sales of Nike went up by 31%. I support Nike’s decision because it was beneficial for the company. Brands like Nike, have a huge influence over the lives of people,making it important for the companies to have a diversified and positive environment. Having a political view is important for Nike, because it will help the brand in attracting the distracted consumers. According to the research; 66% of Americans said that it was important for brands to take a public stand related to the social and political issues. In long run no doubt it was a risk but the returns were worth the risk.Nike’s“just do it” campaign, has changed drastically in thirty years. While it is still the brand of choice for sportsmen;its advertisement has evolved into a more motivational and humorous campaign that continues to be relevant and encourages people to try new things. Despite a change in its tone; it still aims to motivate people and help them become better athletes. Nike’s “just do it” campaign is now a household name and continues to be a popular advertising medium. Nike decided to collaborate with Colin Kaepernick. The ad is a powerful message that reaches a global audience, while at the same time impacts the capitalization of black culture and sweatshops. The ad has already generated millions of dollars in earned media impressions, which will only increase as the campaign grows. Moreover, the ad is a positive symbol for athletes and fans alike, as it brings an attention to the causes of people who have suffered racial oppression. It has also raised awareness and has influenced discourse on racism in sports.
Positive and negative Aspects
The data in the Case Exhibits shows the purchasing likelihood of the consumers and shows the consumer’s response to brands taking a stand for social and political issues. The positive aspect of linking advertisement with Kaepernick was an increase in the company’s sales, as its distracted consumers were attracted. According to the exhibit number 15; females were emotionally connected with this advertisement and their response was positive. The advertisement received a positive response. The “dream crazy” had 5 million views on YouTube, within a month it reached to 80 million views on Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. 29% of people said they would prefer to buy the product; whereas 21% people said that they don’t. Whereas the negative aspect of this advertisement was that it was associated with racism issues. After this incident, the hashtags of BycottNike had begun to trend……………………….
This is just a sample partial case solution. Please place the order on the website to order your own originally done case solution.