Nike's gutsy playcall
Being a fan of Nike ever since I could remember what brand name clothing was, any big news involving them always catches my eye. Not to mention this particular article involves the sport I grew up to love and play. So for me, it was a no-brainer to take a look at what happened in the past 3 weeks involving Colin Kaepernick being the face of Nike's 30th anniversary "Dream Crazy" campaign.
The article I read talked about the history revolving around Colin's spiraling downfall in the past couple of years. The constant hate that Colin was receiving when he knelt during the national anthem protesting police brutality against African-Americans caught Nike's eye. When Colin lost his job in 2017, Nike wanted to drop him from its roster because he wasn't currently on a team and him being represented by Nike could damage the relationship between Nike and the NFL. Right before they dropped him, Nigel Powell, the companies chief communications officer, stepped in and denied the drop saying it could look bad on their part. Nike's shares dropped 3 percent the day after the campaign was released but later showed to jump 10% in revenue and 15% in profit.
Nike's value proposition of the company revolves heavily around marketing and image. The challenge Nike was faced with is since their company's value proposition is based on the image, Colin kneeling made a lot of fans angry which gives Nike a bad image for being partnered with him. The marketing approach Nike used was insane and spectacular at the same time. They have a guy that half the world hates for doing what he did, someone that they came face-to-face with letting go and yet they put him on the front cover of their campaign.
If I was the brand/manager and put in this position I would've just used someone else. Nike has a very wide range of athletes that are very likable and well known in the community. Knowing the value proposition I would never put our image in danger even if the payout could raise our profit and revenue. I think the marketing solution, in the end, was good. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure why Nike didn't just go with a different athlete to be the cover. I think that would've been the safer way to market the 30th anniversary but in the end, it turned out to be a great advertisement. I learned from this article that sometimes risking the face of your company can turn out to be the best decision you've made.
The article I read talked about the history revolving around Colin's spiraling downfall in the past couple of years. The constant hate that Colin was receiving when he knelt during the national anthem protesting police brutality against African-Americans caught Nike's eye. When Colin lost his job in 2017, Nike wanted to drop him from its roster because he wasn't currently on a team and him being represented by Nike could damage the relationship between Nike and the NFL. Right before they dropped him, Nigel Powell, the companies chief communications officer, stepped in and denied the drop saying it could look bad on their part. Nike's shares dropped 3 percent the day after the campaign was released but later showed to jump 10% in revenue and 15% in profit.
Nike's value proposition of the company revolves heavily around marketing and image. The challenge Nike was faced with is since their company's value proposition is based on the image, Colin kneeling made a lot of fans angry which gives Nike a bad image for being partnered with him. The marketing approach Nike used was insane and spectacular at the same time. They have a guy that half the world hates for doing what he did, someone that they came face-to-face with letting go and yet they put him on the front cover of their campaign.
If I was the brand/manager and put in this position I would've just used someone else. Nike has a very wide range of athletes that are very likable and well known in the community. Knowing the value proposition I would never put our image in danger even if the payout could raise our profit and revenue. I think the marketing solution, in the end, was good. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure why Nike didn't just go with a different athlete to be the cover. I think that would've been the safer way to market the 30th anniversary but in the end, it turned out to be a great advertisement. I learned from this article that sometimes risking the face of your company can turn out to be the best decision you've made.
Comments
Post a Comment