Tag: Advertising

Nike Nearly Dropped Colin Kaepernick Before Embracing Him

Screen Shot 2018-09-27 at 4.14.01 AM

Nearly a month after Colin Kaepernick was revealed as the face of Nike’s groundbreaking new advertising campaign, the unveiling videohas garnered more than 80 million views on Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

The ads have sent Kaepernick into a new realm of celebrity, quickly becoming among the most talked-about and successful campaigns in recent years. And they have allowed Nike, which has a history of provocative marketing campaigns, to capitalize on the so-called Resistance movement in a way it only recently realized it could.

They are also yet another vehicle for Kaepernick to raise his own profile as a sort of civil rights entrepreneur unlike anyone before has, certainly in sports. He has signed deals to write a book — which is set to be published next year and will be accompanied by a speaking tour — and to develop a comedy series.

But it almost didn’t happen. In the summer of 2017, a debate raged in Nike’s headquarters in Beaverton, Ore., over whether to cut loose the controversial, unemployed quarterback — and the company very nearly did, according to two individuals with knowledge of the discussions who requested anonymity because of nondisclosure agreements each has with Nike.

When the company did decide to embrace the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, it risked angering the National Football League, a Nike partner since 2012, but the company ultimately decided it was a risk worth taking, given the credibility the company would gain with the young, urban market it has long targeted.

Kaepernick ignited a national discourse in 2016 when he began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before games to protest racism, social inequality and police brutality. He left the 49ers after the 2016 season and became a free agent, but executives throughout the N.F.L. considered him radioactive because of his on-field protests, which drew vocal criticism from President Trump, and no team signed him.

That left Nike’s sports marketing group flummoxed. There seemed to be little they could do with a lightning-rod professional football player who was not playing football.

Before the company severed ties with Kaepernick, though, its top communications executive persuaded his colleagues to reverse course because of the potential for negative publicity. Kaepernick would remain on Nike’s roster of sponsored athletes — though he was largely ignored for nearly a year.

Through interviews with current and former Nike employees, individuals close to Kaepernick, analysts and others involved with the ad campaign, a picture emerged of Nike’s about-face in which the company concluded that getting behind Kaepernick’s crusade, at the urging of its longtime advertising firm, made good business sense despite the risk of angering the N.F.L.

When the company did decide to embrace the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, it risked angering the National Football League, a Nike partner since 2012, but the company ultimately decided it was a risk worth taking, given the credibility the company would gain with the young, urban market it has long targeted.

Kaepernick ignited a national discourse in 2016 when he began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before games to protest racism, social inequality and police brutality. He left the 49ers after the 2016 season and became a free agent, but executives throughout the N.F.L. considered him radioactive because of his on-field protests, which drew vocal criticism from President Trump, and no team signed him.

That left Nike’s sports marketing group flummoxed. There seemed to be little they could do with a lightning-rod professional football player who was not playing football.

Before the company severed ties with Kaepernick, though, its top communications executive persuaded his colleagues to reverse course because of the potential for negative publicity. Kaepernick would remain on Nike’s roster of sponsored athletes — though he was largely ignored for nearly a year.

Through interviews with current and former Nike employees, individuals close to Kaepernick, analysts and others involved with the ad campaign, a picture emerged of Nike’s about-face in which the company concluded that getting behind Kaepernick’s crusade, at the urging of its longtime advertising firm, made good business sense despite the risk of angering the N.F.L.
READ MORE:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/sports/nike-colin-kaepernick.html

Win, Fail, or Racist?

More than 111 million people tuned into the 2012 Super Bowl, the most-watched program in television history. Sunday night could be another record-breaker.

The commercials that air during the game are becoming a large part of the Super Bowl experience and companies will pay top dollar to be included. CBS sold out its ad inventory for Super Bowl XLVII at prices averaging between $3.7 million and $3.8 million for each spot, according to Ad Age.

The commercials will make some people laugh, some people cry and infuriate others.

Take a look at the commercials listed and tell us if you think they’re a win, a big fail or racist.

Read it at Colorlines.

Pepsi Backlash: Does Beyoncé Have A Responsibility To Endorse Healthy Products?


Desktop736
Late yesterday evening, Beyoncé revealed a preview from her Pepsi commercial, set to air after the Pepsi-sponsored Super Bowl half-time show on February 3, 2013, which she is headlining. Beyoncé’s Pepsi commercial is a part of a $50 million dollar deal which names her the global brand ambassador to the brand and includes limited-edition cans, which show a pop art-inspired outline of her fully made-up face. The ad campaign will coincide with the release of new music from the superstar. Of the high profile collaboration, the singer, who has already appeared in four Pepsi ad campaigns, said: “Pepsi embraces creativity and understands that artists evolve. As a businesswoman, this allows me to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my creativity.” Reactions have been mixed. Fans view the campaign as a momentous accomplishment for the singer, while others chide Beyoncé for supporting a sugary-soda brand which is a health affront to many American consumers. They even accuse the diva of hypocrisy for appearing in Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative to encourage good health among children and later, shelling Pepsi cans. One commenter said: “Parkinson’s, heart disease, obesity, stroke and Alzheimer’s tincture. Another celebrity getting paid to keep America on their mainline like heroine. I respectfully decline supporting this travesty.” Another writes: “With diabetes and other ailments at an all time high, one would wonder why celebrities who claim to care so much about their fans would endorse soda. Almighty dollar.” While Pepsi isn’t great for your health, is it Beyoncé’s responsibility to make sure America drinks less soda?

What are your thoughts, Clutchettes? Should Beyoncé only endorse products that promote good health?