Nike: Politics, Punditry, Profit or Purposeful Marketing?

Like many people, I couldn’t help but have a “knee-jerk” reaction to Nike’s latest controversy involving their Air Max 1 USA shoe featuring the iconic Betsy Ross flag, which sent ripples across the U.S.—and maybe across the world—just in time for July Fourth. In fact, I probably jerked both knees as I vacillated between admiring support and cynical skepticism. And like most cases of viral media reporting with ensuing public outcry, it was more mainstream news media that drove the story and kept it alive than it was anything digitally social.

The mainstream news media narrative seemed to be that Kaepernick suggested the flag itself was a symbol of oppression and that Nike subserviently acquiesced to his demands to pull the show. This version of the story became exponentially greater as some jumped on it to agree and amplify it, while others jumped on the same bandwagon to say both Nike and Kaepernick were un-American and overly PC.

Needless to say, my opinions altered when I dove into the story, trying to get to the source that reported on what exactly Colin Kaepernick’s objections were. And interestingly, although there has been no direct quote published, many news outlets quoted an anonymous source “familiar with the conversation” whose words made this story a bit more nuanced for me, as you will see.

In case you’ve been caught unawares, or only follow Adidas or Converse, here is a quick synopsis: Nike seemingly created a special July Fourth edition of their Air Max 1 sneakers, which featured the 13-star Betsy Ross Flag. The same flag, in fact, that formed part of the backdrop of Barack Obama’s second inauguration address in 2013. Colin Kaepernick, as the public story goes, objected to the use of this flag because it symbolized oppression, causing Nike to pull the shoes.

Now this is the thing—it would seem that the chatter around the incident and the pundits who eagerly jumped in to comment, changed the tone of the entire story—as what Keapernick had apparently actually pointed was that the flag had come to be appropriated by white nationalists and other hate groups as a symbol of racial supremacy.

What had begun as a catalyst to discuss the hijacking of an important national symbol by white supremacists was quickly distorted into a discussion of Nike’s degree of patriotism and PC culture. And what could have been a truly fertile national discussion on how to reclaim this symbol from haters became drowned by the noise of chatter from people who entirely missed the point.

As I mentioned, Nike chose to pull the shoe from their shelves. Without getting too cynical as to how the story broke, whose fault it was, who distorted the narrative and who is ultimately right or wrong, I wonder if there could have been a different, more powerful response from Nike.

Could they have helped to re-claim the symbol by creating a stylized or altered version of it? Could they have doubled down and insisted on selling it, while created a campaign of awareness around the shoe, the symbol and its true meaning? I have no skin in the game, of course, but I do know that there might have been alternate opportunities in which Nike and others could have changed the entire course of the conversation.

Putting aside the more existential question of the symbol, from the brand’s perspective, Nike’s decision to err on the side of political correctness and stand by their ambassador clearly worked in their favor. As Forbes recently reported, “Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since canceling the kicks.”

“Pretty much every metric you can look at was positive for Nike…They are clearly aligned with their core customer base — the millennial and the Gen Z consumer — and if they have alienated others, those are not the folks who buy a lot of Nikes,” Matt Powell, a sports industry analyst for the NPD Group, told the New York Times.

Whether or not Nike’s decision was truly altruistic, a beautiful gesture of standing by their brand ambassador in the face of racism, a move of purposeful marketing, or cynically, a great marketing ploy, it has everything to do with them knowing who their customer is. Listen:

“The first step in exceeding your customer's expectations is to know those expectations” — Roy H. Williams

Nike’s knows who buys their shoes—what they value, what they like, and what they believe in. While congressmen and media figures dither on about Nike’s decision, their core customers are clamoring to buy more, standing by the company that they feel is standing by them. Bottom line, good on Nike—in fact, I just bought a new pair. What do you think?