Remember how NFL player Colin Kaepernik knelt by way of protest against racial discrimination, and selective police brutality? This was a political stance that received a great deal of support but also some very strong criticism; including some rather colourful abuse from the POTUS. Now Nike has come out with an ad that is being seen as taking a political stand. People are responding in very different ways.
The ad is a close-up of Kaepernik's face with the tagline “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”
A major portion of the Tweeple thought that the stand Nike took was admirable and voiced their support for the brand.
There was a storm of protest against the Nike ad. Many thought Nike irresponsible and asked whether they thought that a deal was worth the backlash.
Soon hashtags such as #NikeBoycott and #JustDontBuyIt were trending with people expressing their displeasure with Nike. Many commentators announced that they would no longer be buying their fitness products from Nike; would choose other brands instead.
People were angry enough with Nike to trend this hashtag (punning the brand's Just do it tagline), even putting up pictures and videos of burning or binning Nike products.
Donald Trump as always been very vocal about his displeasure with Kaepernick and the NFL in general, and appeared to be having a characteristic hissy fit in reaction to this as well. In his tweet he invoked falling ‘ratings’ as being the absolute indicator of failure or success of any kind.
For some reason, people have chosen to contrast military heroes with a sportsperson who took a political stand. Many on Twitter chose to equate the two and create false binaries between a protest against a specific issue and military personnel who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
For this commentator, those “tweeting with #BoycottNike or #NikeBoycott is ok with systematic racism and police brutality”. This is also a false binary. However he is not wrong when he points out the fact that Kaepernik’s protest is against racism and brutality, not against the flag, anthem or the military.
People who burned or threw away their Nike products may be making a statement of protest, but it is not one that hurts Nike, pointed out this commentator.
This commentator thought that Nike had already sold the products that were now being destroyed so it didn’t really care
Following the massive backlash to the new Nike ad, the company share prices were seen to take a beating.
This commentator suggested that any Nike Airmax shoes that someone did not want could be sent to him. The flippant comment seems to indicate that this commentator doesn’t care about the backlash or that he is trying to put all the overreaction into some realistic perspective.
Obviously this was a calculated risk that the global giant took. Nike had to have anticipated the backlash and possibly the impact on the company shares as well. Perhaps companies have to take such risks to stay relevant? Perhaps companies have to take a stand for or against political issues even if it means taking a stand against that of those in positions of power?
This tweet says it best with these words… “I stand because I love this country, you kneel because you love it too” Personally, I am really pleased that I recently bought a pair of (what I think are vastly overpriced) Nike shoes. I will not be burning those shoes now or at any time in the future.
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
