Nike & Colin Kaepernick — A Case Study on Authentic Cause Marketing
Hate it or love it, Nike’s campaign with Colin Kaepernick drew a ton of attention in the fall of 2018. Why was it so polarizing? How did it land with consumers? What lessons can marketers learn from this campaign?
Read more in Part 6 of my article series from 3-Win Sponsorship, where you’ll learn about the principle of authenticity in effective sponsorship marketing. I hope you enjoy.
**
Consumers in 2019 can and will call out your brand if they sniff a hint of inauthentic messaging or marketing. They can see through the BS, and they can put you on blast at any moment if they feel like it. This is a reality that all marketers must keep in mind, and it is especially important for sponsorship marketers to understand.
The second principle of 3-Win Sponsorships is authenticity. Buzzword or not, the very best sponsorship professionals understand that their deals must be activated in a way that is genuine to the brand’s story and to the property’s story. When thinking about sponsorships that are built for social good, it is even more critical to structure your sponsorships in an authentic way. If you don’t, consumers will bury your brand on Twitter.
To understand the principle of authenticity better, let’s look at how one of the most iconic sports brands of all-time stayed true to itself in the face of a polarizing athlete endorsement campaign.
**
On Monday, September 3, 2018, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, posted a photo on his personal Instagram page. The close-up, black and white photo of Kaepernick’s face had two lines of white text superimposed over his nose, which read, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” At the bottom of the photo was the iconic “swoosh” logo of Nike, along with their equally iconic tagline, “Just do it.”
Kaepernick’s post was the launch of an advertising campaign, designed to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of Nike’s “Just Do It” brand motto. The campaign, and Kaepernick’s inclusion as a lead endorser in it, quickly turned into an international news story and political firestorm in the United States.
As Jill Avery and Koen Pauwels cover in their Harvard Business School case study entitled, “Branding and Politics: Nike and Colin Kaepernick,” the choice of Colin Kaepernick as the face of Nike’s latest “Just Do It” campaign sparked a great deal emotions, both positive and negative, among consumers.
At this time, Kaepernick’s public reputation had been tied to his protest of police brutality, racism, and social injustice. In 2016, during his tenure with the 49ers, Kaepernick began silently protesting by kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem before games. It had become customary in American culture to stand during the National Anthem, and Kaepernick’s protest was perceived by some citizens as disrespectful toward the country and the men and women who have served in the U.S. military.
In truth, the anthem protest was intended to bring attention to the larger Black Lives Matter movement that had been spreading across the country. “I am not going to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick said of his demonstration.
Avery and Pauwels describe in their case study how, “Kaepernick’s protest proved to be highly polarizing along racial, generational, and political lines.” A poll during the 2016 season named him the most disliked player in the league, with 37% of Caucasians saying they “disliked him a lot” while 42% of African Americans said they “liked him a lot.” 46% of Nike’s recent customers, however, viewed him favorably, while 23% of recent customers viewed him unfavorably. Similarly, Kaepernick was viewed far more favorably by Democrats than Republicans, and by younger citizens than elder citizens.
Kaepernick became an NFL free agent after the end of the 2016 season, but went through the entire 2017 offseason without receiving a single job offer from an NFL team. In the fall of 2017, Kaepernick accused NFL owners of “blackballing” him, or conspiring together to not hire him in order to avoid the political baggage associated with his personal brand.
Around the same time, Nike executives were considering whether or not they wanted to cancel the endorsement deal with the former star quarterback, which he had signed in 2011 after being drafted in the second round of the NFL draft by the San Francisco 49ers. When, in 2018, rival athletic footwear and apparel brand Adidas expressed interest in signing Kaepernick to an endorsement deal, the pressure was on Nike to decide how they wanted to move forward with their relationship.
Kaepernick’s legal case against the NFL and its owners found sufficient evidence of collusion to support going to trial. GQ magazine named him its Citizen of the Year and Amnesty International awarded him its Ambassador of Conscience honor.
Nike decided to stick with the polarizing Kaepernick, and in fact, elevate his status among its roster of athlete endorsers. So when it released the 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign, Nike’s brand leadership team members were taking a calculated risk. They knew full well how Kaepernick’s high profile protest might rub some of its consumer base the wrong way, yet they moved forward with it anyway.
Social media platforms went completely insane after the September 2018 Instagram post on Kaepernick’s page. A large number of Nike supporters chimed in with words of praise and encouragement for Nike and Kaepernick’s partnership. However, a great deal of social media accounts began posting photos and videos of their #BoycottNike stance, with some customers even cutting Nike logos of off their socks or burning Nike footwear or apparel that they already owned.
The critical and positive reviews from business and political pundits began pouring in on both sides of the campaign, with President Donald Trump even chiming in with his own negative review on Twitter. One thing was clear though: Nike’s stand with Colin Kaepernick had captured a ton of attention.
Some campaign reviewers asked, how could Nike be so “arrogant” and take such a massive risk at “alienating” so much of their potential consumers?
Others were much more complimentary, such as Tim Crow of sports marketing firm Synergy, who wrote “Like all smart companies, Nike realizes that what it makes is not what it is about. It needs to stand for something within culture. In this instance, it’s on the side of athletes, young black kids, civil rights proponents and people who are against Donald Trump.”
**
In this article series, I share excerpts and stories from my book, 3-Win Sponsorship. I hope you enjoyed this post — if you want to connect you can reach me via email — john@thirdwin.com — or connect with me on Twitter or LinkedIn. You can also find my book on Amazon.
