I'm not commenting that Nike's Kaepernick ad will hurt them financially. So far, it has hurt them (in their stock price) but people are people and will buy things for a variety of reasons. Using Kaepernick as a 'theme' is, however, polarizing on many levels. For some people, the ad may spur sales. For many others, the ad will lead them to spurn the brand. If we look back at the Chick-fil-A and In 'n Out 'boycotts', we're resolved to recognize boycotts which are designed to exact retribution will often result in exactly nothing to harm a firm.
The difference with Nike was their ad is not a perceived slight. It's deliberately offensive. Nike raised the stakes in the marketing wars, and I don't think what they did will benefit them. This wasn't just a misguided statement or an ill-conceived donation. This was taking the Social Justice Warrior mentality and turning it into and ad. It's big question - can social justice be branded? Can the "revolution" of Progressive Thought be promoted in an ad campaign. I'd say no, and the fruits of this campaign may have people talking about Nike...but Nike doesn't need people to be talking about them in this fashion.
Let's start from the beginning. Kaepernick and other players have the right to kneel during the anthem. We all do. Excoriating them for this is silly, uninformed, and ignores the right to free speech. So set that aside. Let's discuss the real problem, which is the outcome of that decision to kneel, because that's where Nike messed up. They took a relatively benign issue, and amped it up on steroids.
The NFL has a Game Day Operations Policy it chose to not implement, which stipulates players which do not stand for the anthem MAY be fined. Not enforcing this has hurt the NFL's image and proved it to be a business at the mercy of its employees' political views. Try breaking YOUR employers' policies and see what happens. Good luck with that. But, hey - it's the NFL, and these guys are "STARS". So yeah, I guess if you have no backbone, you can ignore your own policies and assume everything will turn out fine.
I guess that worked out well, because in the midst of all the other good work the NFL had done with domestic violence and brain trauma, they enhanced their image enough to see ratings for football games plummet.
Basically, the NFL punted on the issue, and it's hurting them. Which is a problem, since the cause which the players are kneeling for is opposition to police violence, specifically against persons of color. That's a laudable cause and even when the NFL did something, it wasn't really noticed.
I don't fault the players for being concerned with an issue like this. Police violence is a very real problem. It doesn't mean police are a problem. It means some police are, and sometimes they go too far. DWB - Driving While Black - is a serious issue, and one which needs to be addressed. We can opine all day long about racial profiling, whether we're for or against it, but the reality is that black people are stopped, and can be victims of violence by the police, far more frequently on a percentage basis than white people and often for no good reason. This is simply a fact, and accepting it proves a complaint here isn't based on an issue of race.
The real issue the NFL and Nike have, from my perspective, can't be race and it's not kneeling for the national anthem. It's a deliberately divisive attitude and not paying attention to your audience. Michael Jordan famously stated "Republicans buy sneakers, too," after being prompted (and declining) to make a political statement. In any business, when you take a political stance, or somehow endorse one, you take a massive risk. You risk alienating potential consumers. Most businesses funnel money to both parties. Very few (and these are often pointed out by both sides in a political battle) only contribute to one party. From my POV, the BEST answer is don't give money to any party (it allows you to reduce costs to the consumer and you don't have to answer uncomfortable questions except "why don't you give money to XYZ?" and the proper answer is "I have consumers who support AND oppose XYZ.").
Kneeling has diverted attention from a worthy cause, one that definitely deserves a conversation, to the players themselves and to another cause - disrespect for a nation that allows its citizens the right to protest. Kaepernick's (and others') point of view is that they can't show respect for a nation that treats their people a certain way. Which way would that be, though? Giving them a voice, the ability to raise an issue and have a conversation about what concerns them? They justifiably complain about treatment on the basis of race, but hide behind a tool unavailable in many other nations (free speech) when the method (not the nature) of their complaint is questioned.
This is where the disconnect begins. As I pointed out to someone who called me 'racist' "Does it make me racist to tell you that I agree with what you're saying but disagree with you shouting it in people's faces to the point of annoyance?" It is possible to understand the complaint and disagree with the method used to make the complaint.
It is at this point Nike made a critical error. Because Kaepernick himself was not the issue. Until he made himself the issue. Not just by kneeling. That was small potatoes. Suddenly, he became a self-styled "activist", appearing at a press conference wearing a T-shirt with Malcolm X and Castro and completely misrepresenting the entire concept of the shirt's significance, and supporting Castro. Then he donated money to group supporting the cop-killer Joanne Chesimard, who escaped jail and fled to Cuba. Chesimard, now known as Assata Shakur, was also the recipient of a birthday greeting tweet from Kaepernick. Quotes of hers are sometimes featured in his tweets. His ties to communism are not light. The West Point grad who was released for holding a "Communism will win" sign at graduation was also supporting Kaepernick.
Assuming that Kaepernick has "sacrificed everything" as Nike assumes in its ad, is absurd in the extreme. Kaepernick is a multi-millionaire not just from playing football, but from his Nike contract. Kaepernick has risked very little and sacrificed even less, to be the face of an ad campaign which purports to turn him into some sacrificial lamb. He is a martyr/hero to Nike. But what has he lost? What has he risked?
He was a mediocre quarterback at the point he opted out of his contract. His salary was outsized compared to his performance. He compounded that issue by developing an attitude, which he has now taken to court to complain about "collusion". He is no hero. He is a lightning rod. There is a huge difference.
Nike failed to recognize this difference. A hero, who played football and sacrificed everything, was Pat Tillman. A hero who sacrificed everything was a fireman or a cop at the World Trade Center on 9/11. A hero who sacrificed everything for a cause was Martin Luther King, Jr. Kaepernick GETS RICH to 'sacrifice everything' and the poorly-informed and poorly educated supporters of his will call you a racist if you don't agree. It's not that we don't support his cause - many of us can and do support the CAUSE - it's that we don't support his METHOD.
Nike has paid a non-hero, branded him a 'hero' for their brand, paid him huge sums of money to 'sacrifice everything' and created a massively ironic advertisement campaign. They have alienated at least half of their consumer base. Some people may forget that in a week or two. Many will not. I know I will no longer purchase Nike gear. That should concern Nike. Not that they've lost my money. But that in seeking to turn their version of 'social justice' into an advertising campaign, they've undermined their own cause and created an issue of division. Advertising should draw people to your product - not drive them away.
