Look around you. How many brands surround you right at this very moment? Close your eyes and make a quick mental inventory of the items surrounding you. As you perform the exercise, pay close attention to how many items have touched your senses long enough to be remembered mostly for the logo/brand/slogan/tagline on the product. It’s difficult to dismiss the promotional marketing medium when put into that context. While each of you will answer with a slightly different number, almost no one will say zero, reinforcing the effectiveness of our medium.
Subconsciously, when we make a decision to allow a brand into our lives, we do so with at least some consideration given to how the addition of that brand fits into the overall narrative of our lives. Some portion of how we self-identify is rooted in that which we choose to surround ourselves with. The people. The way we commute. The food we eat. Where we live. It’s all part of what we construct to reinforce and support our personal ideology. If a purchase decision doesn’t have a place at the ideology table, the importance of a brand choice is reduced and other factors (like price) start to take a larger role in the decision-making process.
I’ve watched with fascination this week as Nike’s Colin Kaepernick ad campaign dropped and set the internet afire. At least shoes. There were definitely shoes on fire this week, as those angered by the campaign took to the streets (and social media) in a display of defiance against the brand and set their kicks ablaze. Others took to the same channels to support and defend the campaign in similarly outspoken and vociferous ways.
Most of us own a Nike product. They are definitely in the stable of brands that the entirety of the Burnett family identify with and have historically accepted into the group of brands representing our personal ideology. I suspect many of you feel the same, but what I’m struggling with is how to have an open and honest discussion about what Nike has done, and the fact that in delivering this campaign, Nike is forcing many of us into a renewed decision-making process about their brand within the stable of our long-standing relationships.
It’s uncomfortable.
I don’t like the discomfort, but as I grapple with it, I’m reminded of the fact that Nike has a long history of inserting an element of controversy into their brand story. What we’re being forced to decide is if this time, in their quest to be controversial, they’ve gone too far to allow them to remain in your ideological stable of brands. The answer to that question is personal, but it’s important that each of us take a moment to decide. Frankly, I won’t change my opinion of you regardless of your answer, but it’s good to be able to articulate your thoughts on the matter, even if your position is the whole thing is stupid.
If we listen to what we’re being told, Millennials want to stand with brands that stand for something. We also know that this generation and the one after it have the most buying power of any group of consumers, ever. What’s clear to me in all of this is that Nike decided to take a stand, what’s yet unclear is how that move will play with those generations of consumers. It’s a big gamble, Nike, and it’s going to be very interesting to watch what happens from here.
Roger has spent 20+ years making complex concepts more understandable for both buyers and sellers alike, and has devoted the majority of his recent career to writing and executing sales and marketing plans for early and mid-stage businesses. He is a student of organizational behavior and the disciplines successful selling organizations use to achieve the greatest reach, even in instances of scarce resources. He loves the outdoors and seeks memorable experiences whenever possible. Contact Roger at roger@branded-logistics.com or 810-986-5369