Kaepernick: Quarterback is the face of new Nike campaign

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Kaepernick comes out if it pretty ****ing well, Matt, yes. How can he not? 

 

I'm no real fan of rich sportsmen being paid millions to help cynical companies make billions off exploited foreign labour, over charging for products that cost 50p to make in awful conditions. 

Does he? He's taking millions off a company whose working practices, market ethics and tax evasion have already had a deleterious effect on millions of people whilst campaigning for social justice, some are obviously more equal than others.

 

I can see why Nike are doing it, put themselves in a positive light to those millenials who are becoming politically engaged and in general oppose those things they do and have done.

 

The hypocrisy of it is pretty absurd. Matthew Syed has done a pretty good piece in The Times today exposing it at total bullshit - I'll post it when I get home.

[Guest MattP]

Articulates it far better than me. (Copied and pasted as behind a paywall)

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nikes-appropriation-of-colin-kaepernicks-moral-stand-takes-hypocrisy-to-new-level-w9gz3h2vs

 

Nike is clever. It manufactures cheap clothing and trainers and sells them at an eye-watering mark-up. Other brands offer almost identical products, but are blown out of the water by the American giant. In many ways, Nike exploits a mysterious facet of consumer psychology; one that is unlikely to go away. They call it the power of association, but there is a more plausible term: bullshit.

Its latest ruse is stunning in its audacity: co-opting Colin Kaepernick into the 30th anniversary of its “Just Do It” advertising campaign. Kaepernick is an NFL player who has become a symbol of divisions in North America. He refused to stand for the national anthem in protest at racism, a stance (if you’ll forgive the phrase) that has galvanised liberals, but angered conservatives. Kaepernick has been out of work for a year, and argues that this is due to his activism.

Whatever your view on the politics, however, one can only marvel at Nike’s decision to step into the controversy. The company has grown through the industrial-scale use of associational psychology. Since Josiah Wedgwood and Sons started using a royal warrant of appointment to promote its chinaware in the 18th century, companies have used celebrities to sell products. In the 1960s, tobacco companies used actors. In the 1970s, perfume brands used actresses.

 

In the mid-1980s, this niche aspect of advertising was turned into an art form when Nike signed a deal with Michael Jordan, the basketball player. It was a moment that not only reverberated around sport, but came to challenge economic orthodoxy. The hitherto quaint notion was that consumers purchased products because of their tangible qualities. That customers were rational and objective.

This all changed when T-shirts started flying off shelves despite astonishing margins. When almost identical products bereft of the famous swoosh couldn’t be given away. Nike’s market capitalisation grew in direct proportion to the mystification. Air Jordan trainers, nothing more than an adequate training shoe, became the must-wear accessory of the late 1980s. A feature in The New Yorker in 1998 was breathless in its admiration: “Michael Jordan has become the greatest corporate pitchman of all time. As a 20th-century sports hero, he has plausible competition from Babe Ruth and Muhammad Ali; as an agent of brand equity, he is without peer.”

 

Nike doubled-down as celebrity endorsement became a key engine of capitalism. Andre Agassi, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams and others all featured in campaigns, edited to Hollywood standards. The slogan “Just Do It”, created by the legendary advertising executive Dan Wieden, became a meme. Other brands piled into the psychological space. Gillette offered Woods and Roger Federer vast deals. David Beckham advertised Samsung and whisky. Nike, for its part, was willing to pay whatever it took to sign the latest big name. In 2013, Rory McIlroy, then the No 1-ranked golfer, signed a multi-year deal worth a reported $125 million (about £115 million).

The artifice was blatant, but that didn’t seem to matter. McIlroy reached the top of golf without any help from Nike. There was no association, no synergy. He belatedly endorsed its products not because of some meeting of minds, as insinuated at a ludicrous launch in the Middle East, but because it offered a huge cheque. There were punitive clauses that forbade him from wearing anything else. This wasn’t an association; it was a transaction.

At a rational level, consumers recognise all this. The term “endorsement” is pure euphemism. Federer doesn’t advertise Gillette because he believes it makes the best razors and, besides, is not exactly an expert on the matter. And yet, the connection works, triggering the mysterious impulse to buy one brand rather than another; what retailers call “the transaction moment”.

It is as though the qualities of the celebrity attach to the product. Jordan is world class, so the T-shirt must be world class. Federer is smooth so the razor must be smooth. Advertisers talk about “brand synergy”, but the truth is more basic. Corporations are strategically appropriating marketable values from global icons through the power of subliminal association.

And this is what makes the Kaepernick sponsorship a watershed. Nike has hitherto shied away from political controversy. If you are a gigantic retail brand, why would you take a stance on a divisive issue and risk alienating customers who have a different view? When Jordan was asked to endorse a campaign to unseat Jesse Helms, an extreme right-wing senator, he is reported to have rejected the offer with the retort: “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

This is why, for many years, press conferences became so banal. Athletes had been warned by commercial advisers to say nothing contentious. Woods took this to an extreme, offering manicured soundbites that expressed nothing except words. The idea, described to me by one of his former handlers, was that he would become a blank slate on to which Middle Americans could project their hopes and dreams, and advertisers their slogans.

 

The tie-up between Nike and Kaepernick hints at a new era. Kaepernick had an existing relationship with Nike, but low-key. The new campaign is high profile and highly politicised. The slogan Nike has chosen is, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything”, framed against a black and white still of Kaepernick, which the athlete recently tweeted alongside the hashtag #JustDoIt. Some liberals have expressed concern that Kaepernick has allowed a moral cause to be hijacked by a corporation. Others point to the money Nike has paid into his campaign, in addition to his bank account.

What is certain is that Nike executives have made a clear calculation. They know that Kaepernick is admired for his integrity. They know that he has taken personal risks for his cause. And they believe that his virtue will attach to its products and help to mitigate persistent concerns, particularly among educated millennials, about its labour practices and off-shore tax avoidance exposed by the Panama Papers. It is a naked play for the high ground, a means of bringing intangibles such as integrity and moral courage to the mass production of high mark-up apparel.

A minority of conservatives are up in arms. Some have cut the Nike swoosh from their clothes while others have burnt their trainers. Some turbulence was inevitable, but Nike believes that the long-term brand uplift will be worth it. I don’t condemn Nike for partnering with Kaepernick. It is not doing anything illegal or, as far as I can see, immoral. And I don’t doubt that it has trialled the slogan with focus groups and verified that it triggers “the transaction moment”.

It is nevertheless, though, worth shining a light on the hypocrisy. Pretty much all celebrity endorsement rests upon sleight of hand, and Nike has exploited this more than almost any other major brand. Appropriating the moral reputation of an athlete via a multi-million-dollar cheque takes the strategy to a new level. Nike believes that bullshit works. Thus far, it has been proved right.

[Guest MattP]

Of course Kaepernick is a raging capitalist as well, he's a sportsman who sells his labour to the highest bidder, or now his morals.

 

99% of people are. Some just won't admit it. 

Edited 5 September 2018 by MattP

[davieG]

I'd like to believe that all this doesn't work for me if anything it turns me off completely as I sit there thinking they probably don't use this product and why should i buy from a company that forks out £miilions to some celebrity. The difficulty is they're all doing it so when I need something I try very hard to push any celebrity endorsements to the back of my mind and concentrate on the product. I'll reject something if the logo is too prominent.

 

I also often think when I see some of the endorsements for certain products by someone I admired why have they lowered themselves to endorsing that crap surely they're not that desperate for money.

 

I was quite interested in buying an LCFC product until I say a massive King Power logo on the back urgh!

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, davieG said:

I'd like to believe that all this doesn't work for me if anything it turns me off completely as I sit there thinking they probably don't use this product and why should i buy from a company that forks out £miilions to some celebrity. The difficulty is they're all doing it so when I need something I try very hard to push any celebrity endorsements to the back of my mind and concentrate on the product. I'll reject something if the logo is too prominent.

 

I also often think when I see some of the endorsements for certain products by someone I admired why have they lowered themselves to endorsing that crap surely they're not that desperate for money.

 

I was quite interested in buying an LCFC product until I say a massive King Power logo on the back urgh!

I'm exactly the same, no interest in being a walking advertisement with it plastered all over me.

 

Becoming a far more ethical shopper as well, I don't even like buying cheap shorts for a holiday because I think about the conditions they could be made in now.

[Finnegan]

I don't particularly disagree with that segment but I also don't think it says anything particularly damming about Kaepernick or his politics and morality. 

 

Kaepernick has protested against well documented police brutality against African Americans. As far as I'm aware, that's about it? 

 

Like I said, if he was protesting against factory workers rights and then signed a deal with Nike it would be hypocritical. But just because his cause is a social one, it doesn't mean that he must back every social cause.

 

I believe in animal welfare, I dislike animal cruelty and I'd campaign against factory farming and testing cosmetics on animals. I'd still eat a free range steak and support animal testing of life saving drugs.

 

People's morality is rarely all or nothing, not everyone is ozleicester, jumping on literally any generic "liberal" cause more because they think that's what they're meant to do than because they actually care. 

 

Kaepernick has a very specific axe to grind and getting Nike to grind it for him is intelligent, provocative and the fact we're discussing it means it's working. I personally don't think that Nike's business practices invalidate his cause but then I'm personally not a member of the alt right looking for any possible angle to try and knock the guy back down a peg. 

[AKCJ]

15 hours ago, Unabomber said:

Why are people mad that this guy protested against police brutality/racism? I need to keep up. And by being mad they are burning things they already paid for as if nike would care? Just more advertisement for them. Almost makes me want to buy Nike things, so fair play to them.

The lad kneeled during the national anthem and apparently worse than police brutality and racism. Who knew?

[Samilktray]

Those pesky black folk, standing up for something that shouldn't still be an issue in 2018 and even worse, getting paid as a result. 

[leicsmac]

I can see the arguments here, but for me the prime thing is as Finn said: "Kaepernick has a very specific axe to grind and getting Nike to grind it for him is intelligent, provocative and the fact we're discussing it means it's working."

 

As long as this raises more awareness of the cause Kaepernick is behind - and it does, and it should, and quite frankly I would question everyone who thinks otherwise about their particular views on police action towards black people in the US - then that's a net good. Yes, Nike's own business practices are hardly stellar, but just because all bad things can't be sorted shouldn't mean just one shouldn't be tried.

[Ian Nacho]

It's so strange that no team has signed him up as by all accounts he's a decent player. I think there's too much sentiment over in the States. Didn't Aurier pretty much got phased out of PSG due to homophobic behaviour and it didn't deter Tottenham from buying him, heard nothing of it since. Kaepernick didn't even do anything wrong either. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

46 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

It's so strange that no team has signed him up as by all accounts he's a decent player. I think there's too much sentiment over in the States. Didn't Aurier pretty much got phased out of PSG due to homophobic behaviour and it didn't deter Tottenham from buying him, heard nothing of it since. Kaepernick didn't even do anything wrong either. 

He's garbage. Something like 1-12 in his last 13 starts. Couldn't hit water if he was throwing from a boat. His only ability is as a runner, and defenses have figured that out and shut it down. Probably lower-tier backup quality so should still be in the league though.

[Bert]

1 hour ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

He's garbage. Something like 1-12 in his last 13 starts. Couldn't hit water if he was throwing from a boat. His only ability is as a runner, and defenses have figured that out and shut it down. Probably lower-tier backup quality so should still be in the league though.

That’s not all down to him though, a pretty shit offense and o-line played their part in that, he took the 49ers to the super bowl not so long back so with a decent o and o-line he can’t be that bad. They’ve been crap since that super bowl with or without him. 

[AKCJ]

On 05/09/2018 at 11:10, Samilktray said:

Those pesky black folk, standing up for something that shouldn't still be an issue in 2018 and even worse, getting paid as a result. 

The irony is that if he'd stood up then there wouldn't be a problem  

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

It's so strange that no team has signed him up as by all accounts he's a decent player. I think there's too much sentiment over in the States. Didn't Aurier pretty much got phased out of PSG due to homophobic behaviour and it didn't deter Tottenham from buying him, heard nothing of it since. Kaepernick didn't even do anything wrong either. 

Not really. The last match I saw him play he went something like 0-5 and had a QB rating verging on zero. The fact Gabbert was selected ahead of him said it all.

 

Maybe it is a conspiracy, more likely though he's just not worth the money he wants.

 

It is a shame as that season he deposed Smith at SF and took them to the Superbowl he was brilliant. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

33 minutes ago, Bert said:

That’s not all down to him though, a pretty shit offense and o-line played their part in that, he took the 49ers to the super bowl not so long back so with a decent o and o-line he can’t be that bad. They’ve been crap since that super bowl with or without him. 

He burst onto the scene that season (along with RGIII) with the advent of the run/pass option offense. Had defenses flummoxed for a while there. But he's been sussed now. Keep him contained in the pocket and he struggles badly. Like I said before though, he should still be in the league as he's still better than some of the dross some teams have as their backup QB.

[Guest]

too many of you seem to care about this issue.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

19 minutes ago, FIF said:

too many of you seem to care about this issue.

Why do you care that we care? Bore off back to RealGM. No wonder your posts are limited.

Edited 6 September 2018 by SouthStandUpperTier

[Brizzle Fox]

On 04/09/2018 at 17:02, StanSP said:

some melt decided to burn their Nike trainers while they were still wearing them

Maybe Walmart had sold out of crosses to burn and this was the most flammable item he could find?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Why do you care that we care? Bore off back to RealGM. No wonder your posts are limited.

 

Wow! That was a personal response to a general post. I guess I must have wronged you many times without realising it. I apologise.

 

I now care because I'm worried about your mental and physical health .

 

My post wasn't an attack on anyone. My point was that a lot of people in the world seem to care about what is simply a marketing ploy by Nike. Their only interest is making money, they don't have a social or political agenda.

 

I certainly wasn't replying to your comments about Kaepernick - who I think has proven by making the NFL that he has skill and who has every right to use his sporting position for a social/moral comment if he so wishes nor anyone elses thoughts on that matter.

 

Big chill pill and then hugs. I don't know you from Adam.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

19 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

Wow! That was a personal response to a general post. I guess I must have wronged you many times without realising it. I apologise.

 

I now care because I'm worried about your mental and physical health .

 

My post wasn't an attack on anyone. My point was that a lot of people in the world seem to care about what is simply a marketing ploy by Nike. Their only interest is making money, they don't have a social or political agenda.

 

I certainly wasn't replying to your comments about Kaepernick - who I think has proven by making the NFL that he has skill and who has every right to use his sporting position for a social/moral comment if he so wishes nor anyone elses thoughts on that matter.

 

Big chill pill and then hugs. I don't know you from Adam.

Your comment came across like the subject was boring you. Why comment if you're not interested in a topic or have nothing of substance to add? Especially when you have limited posts. Anyway apology accepted, and thanks for caring about my mental health. Sorry if I got a bit personal there.

Edited 6 September 2018 by SouthStandUpperTier

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45472399

 

Endorsing a guy making a stand against police brutality against one demographic is actually good for your sales. Who knew?

[MC Prussian]

On 05/09/2018 at 11:29, Finnegan said:

I don't particularly disagree with that segment but I also don't think it says anything particularly damming about Kaepernick or his politics and morality. 

 

Kaepernick has protested against well documented police brutality against African Americans. As far as I'm aware, that's about it? 

 

...

 

Kaepernick has a very specific axe to grind and getting Nike to grind it for him is intelligent, provocative and the fact we're discussing it means it's working. I personally don't think that Nike's business practices invalidate his cause but then I'm personally not a member of the alt right looking for any possible angle to try and knock the guy back down a peg. 

Kaepernick has worn socks with policemen depicted as pigs. Not exactly un-flammatory himself, is he?

 

Quote

"While we certainly acknowledge Mr. Kaepernick's first amendment right to remain seated during the National Anthem, as inappropriate as that may be, we will not stand by while he attacks police officers in this country with statements such as, 'People are on paid leave while people of color are killed,' " SFPOA Martin Halloran said in a letter addressed to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and 49ers President and CEO Jed York and cc'ed to Kaepernick.

"Not only does he show an incredible lack of knowledge regarding our profession and 'officer involved' shootings, but also shows a naivety and total lack of sensitivity towards police officers."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-colin-kapernick-police-20160830-snap-story.html

Kind of odd to reward that with an Amnesty International award for "conscience".

He's also not your "typical poor black man rising up through the ranks", having been adopted by a white middle-class family and is rather well off still.

He's also not your typical role model in terms of sportive success - he's had one good season, and is/was considered by some the 32nd best quarterback out of 32 in his last NFL season so far.

https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/07/colin-kaepernick-backup-quarterbacks

He also had the chance of signing with the Broncos, but declined.

 

So, for Nike it's not about promoting a sportsman or sportive brilliance, it's about the brand, the scandal. And your money. D'oh.

[Guest MattP]

Still think the weirdest thing about the advert is the idea he "sacrificed everything" - even weirder now as I didn't know he turned down a contract from the Broncos.

 

If you really want to see an NFL player who genuinely sacrificed everything for his beliefs have a google of Pat Tillman.

[lildave3]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

Still think the weirdest thing about the advert is the idea he "sacrificed everything" - even weirder now as I didn't know he turned down a contract from the Broncos.

 

If you really want to see an NFL player who genuinely sacrificed everything for his beliefs have a google of Pat Tillman.

He didn’t turn down a contract when he was a free agent.

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Kaepernick has worn socks with policemen depicted as pigs. Not exactly un-flammatory himself, is he?

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-colin-kapernick-police-20160830-snap-story.html

Kind of odd to reward that with an Amnesty International award for "conscience".

He's also not your "typical poor black man rising up through the ranks", having been adopted by a white middle-class family and is rather well off still.

He's also not your typical role model in terms of sportive success - he's had one good season, and is/was considered by some the 32nd best quarterback out of 32 in his last NFL season so far.

https://www.si.com/mmqb/2017/06/07/colin-kaepernick-backup-quarterbacks

He also had the chance of signing with the Broncos, but declined.

 

So, for Nike it's not about promoting a sportsman or sportive brilliance, it's about the brand, the scandal. And your money. D'oh.

4

Obviously, but once again, all other factors aside, what this has done has highlighted the very real problem there is with relations between the fuzz and folks of colour in lots of places in the US - something that needs to be highlighted. Not entirely sure how wearing a pair of provocative socks compares to a rather higher rate of incident, incarceration, brutality and sometimes killing? (Though I know you didn't say that outright.)