Why Nike Won't Lose Out Over Kaepernick Pick

Nike's choice of Colin Kaepernick was controversial, for good reason.

Nike's  decision to use Colin Kaepernick in a recent ad campaign has certainly resulted in a lot of noise- not to mention a lot of burned sneakers. Many people  were swift to condemn Nike's action. Arguing that it was raising the profile of  Kapernick, and the NFL kneeling, anthem protests in which he had played a central role. Conversely, there will be many who have no issue with-or indeed support, Nike's choice.

Yet, are there dots to be joined in events surrounding Nike's actions? Perhaps he was chosen for the ad campaign primarily to give credence to the stance he took in the kneeling debacle.  Or to just to create noise and controversy. Whatever the reason, it looks to have been a smart marketing decision.

Here's why. Nike obviously has two audiences, domestic and worldwide. The home audience is critically important of course, and that's why such an uproar was created once the ad went live. Enter the Internet and a truly mobile connected planet, coupled with a sensational story and a mesmerizing array of methods for any brand to get its message shared in the social universe.

For global brands it is still costly to reach international markets and gain new exposure. Yes, they will obviously always do their best to keep a toe in the water where it matters - it's a necessary expense. But if there is a chance to also  capitalize on events that drive conversation..why not dig in?

So, in taking this controversial position, Nike can expect ongoing.. noise and descent is created at home- which spreads in shares, tweets and a variety of other ways. Spreads beyond the USA and into the faces of new people that might or might not know who Nike is, let alone its message.

It already seems to be working quite well, with some reports putting a value of $43M on the amount of 'free' advertising Nike may have enjoyed as a result.

Of course, as these folk click to find out more about the company that is obviously currently all over social media, they will read also about Nike the brand, its message and products.

Yet, what of the issues Kaepernick was understood to be standing up for, or  kneeling down for of course? They are still there ..but the newbies are more concerned about how to get their hands on some new Nike gear. Perhaps.

Yes the share price took a dive..but that was essential.. it made the discontent and anger more real. It has to be very real, if people are going to rise up and start spreading the bad news. which could be seen as good news since there  is no such thing as bad publicity of course. Certain US based organisations and entities are boycotting the use of Nike products in protest. This again is as might be expected- and it creates more news copy and social content, more noise.  

An apology will probably emerge later directed at the home audience, to reset the needle near enough to where it was. What will have changed however, is the global exposure of the brand. Don't think of that in terms of a needle- maybe an  ocean (that covers the entire planet).

The level of that rather large ocean went up, ever so slightly; for the relatively low cost of Kaepernick's pay for doing the ad. Add this to the increased value from all the free exposure, and ask yourself who will be next.. to just do it?

_____________________________________________________

For more from Politifoll follow us here or on Twitter @Politifoll

Disclaimer:Views expressed in this post are purely conjecture and should be read as such- the views stated here bear no basis in fact. 

   

Why The Recent NYT Op Ed May Actually Help The President.

Loyalty To The Country May Trump Anything Said In The Recent NYT Op Ed.

Have we witnessed very recently, why it is essential for any story in the Media to be clearly substantiated in order for it to be taken seriously? Not of course a prerequisite for those already faithful to the cause- yet essential if the opinions of others are to be swayed. Swayed that is to the point of altering accepted truth.

In the good old days wasn't it enough under certain circumstances, to simply publish a story that sounded highly believable, allow it to grow legs and make its way in the mixer?  Yet today's increasingly savvy electorate, is unlikely to chow down on the  end result as eagerly as they might once have done.

The current events surrounding Donald Trump, the Mid-Terms, Judge Brett Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation hearings, Bob Woodward's latest book, "Fear" and most recently the New York Times Op Ed; detailing the reported dysfunction within the White House, have at least one clear thing in common: timing. Most perhaps  would have thought that now is the absolute right moment for detractors of President Trump to create disruption. Disruption with at least some potential to possibly influence certain outcomes, bearing mind that such a lot is at stake.

So what is actually at stake? Firstly, the critical midterm elections. The results of which could mean an end to the investigations into corruption at the DOJ and FBI. Lets not forget the folk literally chomping at the bit, to impeach President Trump.. or permanently halt and indeed roll back the Trump agenda. Additionally the vote on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's potential appointment to the SCOTUS. Should he be confirmed, Kavanaugh will alter the balance of the Supreme Court for decades to come. Plus a whole lot more besides.

So, does the source of the New York Times Op Ed understand the power he or she possibly holds? Power to potentially influence opinion just enough to change an outcome- or at least offer the haters and detractors a last best hope of doing so.

Yet in order for any potential power to be realized, it would be necessary for the source to reveal his or herself. If the source truly was of a senior level, perhaps this fact alone may be enough to cause an element of discord in the ranks. So to have real power, the story requires a name. 

A name however, is unlikely to be forthcoming, much to the chagrin of many in the Media; that perhaps had hoped a little too much that 'such a story' unsubstantiated or not would be sufficient to 'get the job done' the 'job' being to discredit and critically wound the President. Apparently not.

It must be remembered that since the release of the Op Ed many senior members of the Administration have come forward on record to deny being the source of the article. In addition there have been categoric denials from many of the same people regarding elements of Bob Woodward's book. These numerous denials do nothing to add credence to the claims made in the Op Ed article.

The difficulty now for the President's detractors,  is that the cards have been played- and they of course cannot be unplayed. The fact that story was published based on anonymous sources, was always going to mean its impact would be limited. It will become lost in the news cycle churn, unless a name is forthcoming voluntarily, or otherwise. The fact that the source is unwilling to be named has the unintended consequence of playing into the hands of those who decry the Op Ed as just more  fabricated stirring. 

Finally, consider loyalty. Loyalty to The President of the United States, to the Country itself and its people. The fact that the source of the Op Ed apparently had little regard for such things- ironically is likely to increase the President's standing with voters. 

Sure, there will be those who may claim that certain behavior of President Trump seems disloyal. Yet, the majority of the electorate will likely first consider the much more candid admission from within the Op Ed: that he or she is doing everything possible to sabotage the duly elected President Of The United States. This at a time when each voter has perhaps never been more important, to both sides.

For more from Politifoll follow us here. or on Twitter @Politifoll