It may just be the most crazy thing any brand could do. When sportswear and athletic shoe giant Nike rolled out a new global campaign ‘Dream Crazy’ featuring outcast American footballer and activist Colin Kaepernick, it created an instant storm. This was the player who refused to stand before the US national anthem in 2016, sinking to a knee in protest against the killings of African-Americans. He said he did not want to stand up and show pride in the flag of a country that oppresses black people. His move angered many and eventually he was ousted from the NFL league.
But despite widespread criticism and even tweets from the US President Donald Trump, Nike refused to pull out the ad. Its share price plummeted. Social media was awash with pictures of people hurling flaming sneakers. In the US a college team turned out in grey T-shirts rather than wear Nike colours.
Can the Nike brand withstand the backlash? It is the 16th most valuable brand in the world with a brand value of $29.6 billion. Should Nike have opted for a less controversial ad?
But the ad is a brave stand by a courageous brand. In the long term, Nike may just run away with more profits, thanks to the strong messaging in it: “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” “Don’t ask if your dreams are crazy. Ask if they are crazy enough.”
The powerful ad crafted by Wieden+Kennedy may have polarised the US but the rest of the world is showering Nike with respect. Also, if you look at the report ‘Black Impact’ by Nielsen, while African-Americans make up just 14 per cent of the US population, their spending power is $1.2 trillion and they have outsized influence in many categories, including sports. This is a constituency that Nike has won over. Serena Williams, who stars in the ad too, has after all strongly endorsed it. Nike’s strong statement may not be crazy after all.
Editorial Consultant