Most brands avoid anything that could split their customers in half. In September 2018, Nike picked the most polarizing athlete in America to front the 30th anniversary of its most famous slogan.
The context
Colin Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, began kneeling during the national anthem in 2016 to protest police brutality and racial injustice. The protest spread across the NFL and became a national argument. By 2018 Kaepernick was out of the league, and he had become a symbol: of principled protest to some, of disrespect to others.
The campaign
Ahead of the anniversary, Nike revealed a black-and-white close-up of Kaepernick with the words: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”
On September 5, 2018, it released the full film, “Dream Crazy.” Narrated by Kaepernick, it featured famous athletes including LeBron James and Serena Williams alongside everyday athletes who had overcome disability, injury or discrimination, all urging viewers to dream bigger. Nike began airing the spot during NFL broadcasts that week.
The backlash
The reaction split along familiar lines. Some former fans demanded a boycott; some went further and burned Nike shoes or destroyed other Nike merchandise on camera. The campaign’s supporters, many of them young, praised Nike for standing behind an athlete who had paid a price for his views.
What happened to sales
The numbers suggested Nike had read its customers well. According to an analysis by Edison Trends provided to Marketing Dive, Nike’s online sales grew 31% from Sunday through Tuesday over the Labor Day weekend, compared with a 17% increase over the same period in 2017.
Survey data pointed the same way. Ace Metrix found that just 13% of surveyed consumers were less likely to buy from Nike after seeing the ad, falling to 10% of millennials and 6% of Gen Z. Among general viewers, 56% said they were more likely to buy. African-American consumers rated the ad 42% higher than advertising norms.
Why it worked, for Nike
- Nike knew its core customer. Its biggest growth audiences were young and urban, and they were far more likely to side with Kaepernick than against him.
- The messenger had skin in the game. Unlike brands that borrow a cause, Nike used an athlete who had lost his career over his stance, which made the message feel earned.
- The line matched the brand. “Believe in something” fit three decades of “Just Do It” messaging about determination and risk.
- Backlash spread the ad. Every boycott video and news story put the campaign in front of more people.
Why “mixed”
Nike lost some customers, and the campaign deepened the perception of Nike as a politically aligned brand, which carries long-term risks. The short-term sales data is strong, but a few days of online sales can’t show the full effect on a company of Nike’s size. It’s best understood as a calculated gamble that paid off with the customers Nike cared most about.
The contrast with Pepsi’s 2017 Kendall Jenner ad is instructive. Both touched on protest. Pepsi’s ad used protest as a backdrop; Nike’s put the protester himself at the center, and made the message about the cost of taking a stand.