University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Just buy it: Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and branded activism

(USC Thesis Other)

Just buy it: Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and branded activism

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

JUST BUY IT:
NIKE, COLIN KAEPERNICK, AND BRANDED ACTIVISM
by
Erin Brown

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ANNENBERG SCHOOL
FOR COMMUNICATION AND JOURNALISM
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Erin Brown

ii
Table of Contents

List of Figures iv

Abstract v

Introduction 1

“Dream Crazy” 4
Take A Knee: Kaepernick’s Protest and Repercussions 9
Public Response: Nike Consumption as Ideological Expression 11
Campaign Implications & Analysis 17

Nike Branding 20
Branding Strategies: Traditional vs. Cultural 20
Nike Branding History 22

Branded Activism 34
The Politics of Sports 34
Athletes & Issue Awareness 36
Athlete Activism & Social Media 37
Athlete Activism: Branding Impacts 38
Corporatizing Activism 40
Commodity Activism 42
Activism as Mind-Share Branding 45

Methodology 46
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 47

Data Results & Analysis 48
Data Codes 48
Data Categories 52
Category Analysis: Advertisement 53
Contextual Advertisement Viewing 54
Message Congruency 55
Category Analysis: Endorser 55
Athlete Activism 60
Endorser Influence 61
Category Analysis: Brand 63
Co-Branding Theory & Issue Agreement 65
Category Analysis: Politics 67
Co-Branding Theory & Contextual Viewing 69
Mind-Share vs. Cultural Branding 70
Additional Observations: Commodity Activists 72

iii
Conclusion 73

References 76

Appendix A 87

Appendix B 88

iv
List of Figures

Figure 1. Nike’s first “Just Do It” advertisement featuring Walt Stack. 5

Figure 2. Just Do It 30
th
anniversary campaign poster featuring Odell Beckham Jr. 6

Figure 3. Just Do It 30
th
anniversary campaign poster featuring Lacey Baker. 6

Figure 4. Just Do It 30
th
anniversary campaign poster featuring Serena Williams. 7

Figure 5. Nike Twitter graphic of Serena Williams posted after the French Open’s ban on
catsuits. 7

Figure 6. “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign poster featuring Colin Kaepernick. 8

Figure 7. President Donald Trump calls for the NFL to fire or suspend protesting players on
Twitter. 10

Figure 8. Viral Twitter post featuring burning Nike shoes. 13

Figure 9. Jenifer Lewis interviewed at the 2018 Emmys. 13

Figure 10. Culture jamming manipulation of “Just Do It.” 15

Figure 11. Culture jamming manipulation of Kaepernick’s poster text and “Just Do It.” 16

Figure 12. Nike’s “There Is No Finish Line” print advertisement. 25

Figure 13. Screenshot from Nike’s “Revolution” video. 27

Figure 14. Screenshot from Nike’s “If You Let Me Play” video. 28

Figure 15. Screenshot from Nike’s “Hello World” video. 29

Figure 16. Screenshot of a Nike video depicting black children playing basketball in a Chicago
ghetto. 31

Figure 17. Screenshot of a Nike video depicting a makeshift basketball hoop in a Chicago
ghetto. 31

Figure 18. Screenshot from a 1993 “Nike Barbershop” video featuring Chris Webber (left) and
Charles Barkley (right). 32

Figure 19. Screenshot from a 1994 “Nike Barbershop” video featuring Tim Hardaway (left),
Dennis Rodman (center), and David Robinson (right). 33

v
Abstract

Modern consumers increasingly expect companies to take positions on social issues, with these
stances impacting both brand image and purchase intention. Companies have thus begun to enter
the activism space to meet this expectation. The author defines these actions as “branded
activism.” However, many consumers have expressed distrust and skepticism of branded
activism. Scholars have likewise critiqued such activism as appropriative, inauthentic, and
ineffective. This thesis examines the complexities of branded activism through a case study
analysis of Nike’s “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign featuring controversial activist Colin
Kaepernick. An inductive textual analysis of the Kaepernick campaign video’s YouTube
comments revealed that consumers primarily discussed the campaign through four key frames of
reference: the advertisement, the endorsers, the Nike brand, and modern politics. The data
consistently expressed diametrical viewpoints across all categories, suggesting that the campaign
exacerbated existing societal divisions. Additionally, the data contained relatively minimal
discussion around concerns related to branded activism. The author concludes that branded
activism is best understood as a form of mind-share branding. Companies must thus weigh the
benefits of targeting key demographics against the potential alienation of other market segments
when undertaking branded activism.
Keywords: activism, branding, purchase intention, Nike, Colin Kaepernick

1
Introduction
The Birth of “Brand Democracy”

In August 2019, 181 CEOs from America’s most influential companies assembled to
discuss a question at the heart of the country’s economy: what is the purpose of a corporation?
For decades, business leaders have taken the view that maximizing shareholder wealth provides
the answer (Andrews, 2019). The 2019 Business Roundtable statement, however, challenged that
assumption, arguing that shareholders should no longer claim primacy in the modern
corporation’s purpose. Instead, companies must strive to maximize benefits for all stakeholders,
including customers, employees, suppliers and communities. “CEOs work to generate profits and
return value to shareholders, but the best-run companies do more. They put the customer first
and invest in their employees and communities. In the end, it’s the most promising way to build
long-term value,” said Tricia Griffith, president and CEO of Progressive Corporation (Business
Roundtable, 2019).
The Business Roundtable statement reflects a growing acceptance of social impact and
engagement as a key business function. Consumers have increasingly begun to hold companies
accountable for practicing socially conscious behavior, with approximately two-thirds (64
percent) of global consumers willing to “buy or boycott a brand solely because of its position on
a social or political issue” (Edelman, 2018). According to Richard Edelman, president and CEO
of global public relations firm Edelman, these findings indicate:
the birth of Brand Democracy; as consumers are electing brands as their change agents.
Brands are now being pushed to go beyond their classic business interests to become
advocates. It is a new relationship between company and consumer, where purchase is
premised on the brand’s willingness to live its values, act with purpose, and if necessary,
make the leap into activism. (Edelman, 2018)

2
The “Brand Democracy,” therefore, describes a new era in which brands act as primary political
changemakers. Indeed, Edelman’s (2018) study found that 53 percent of consumers believe that
brands create social change more effectively than governments, and nearly half (46 percent)
believe that brands have better ideas for solving societal crises. In the “Brand Democracy,” then,
companies must go beyond merely practicing socially conscious behaviors and begin to
participate in activist causes to earn consumer attention. The author defines such actions as
“branded activism.” This term encapsulates any form of activism or activism-related efforts
undertaken as a branding activity to differentiate a company from its competitors (see “Branded
Activism”).
Perhaps no brand has made a bigger splash in the “Brand Democracy” than Nike. In
September 2018, the athletic apparel retailer partnered with controversial quarterback and social
activist Colin Kaepernick to commemorate 30 years of its iconic “Just Do It” tagline.
Collaborating with the polarizing figure predictably generated backlash from Kaepernick’s
detractors. But disapproval also came from those who supported the athlete, with such critics
citing concerns over the authenticity of Nike’s messaging and the corporatization of activism. As
Hemal Jhaveri (2018) wrote in USA Today’s sports blog For The Win, “the reality [of Nike’s
partnership with Kaepernick] is murkier and more problematic than the feel-good ad campaign
would want you to believe. …For all their good intentions, this is the inevitable result of tying a
political movement to a brand.”
The Kaepernick campaign thus presents a nuanced case study on activism in the new
“Brand Democracy.” Does the risk of a controversial social stance – or a controversial endorser –
outweigh the reward for brands? How does the average consumer evaluate the “moral
murkiness” described by Jhaveri, if at all? Do consumer companies, such as those that sell

3
athletic apparel, have a right to speak on social issues? The following thesis will explore these
complexities from both the brand and consumer perspective. The author begins by examining the
background of both the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign and Nike’s overarching brand
history. After providing this background, key theories on athlete, corporate and commodity
activism are discussed. Finally, the author completes an inductive textual analysis of the
Kaepernick campaign video’s YouTube comments to provide insights on how consumers view
branded activism in the “Brand Democracy.”

4
“Dream Crazy”

“We live in a cultural economy of signs and Nike’s swoosh is currently the most
recognizable brand icon in that economy,” Robert Goldman & Stephen Papson (1998, p. 1) write
in the opening line of Nike Culture: The Sign of the Swoosh. “While the logo carries the weight
of currency, Nike’s ‘Just Do It’ slogan has become part of the language of everyday life”
(Goldman & Papson, 1998, p. 1). This should come as no surprise given the substantial annual
investment Nike makes in its brand. In 2019, for example, the company spent approximately
$3.75 billion on advertising and promotion, far outspending its closest competitor, Adidas
(O’Connell, 2019). The effects of this investment are displayed in Nike’s position as the most
well-known sports brand in the United States, the world’s top apparel company, and near-
universal knowledge of its “Just Do It” slogan (O’Connell, 2019). Indeed, these three words have
become a ubiquitous part of Nike’s brand, empowering all athletes – “nationwide, across all
sports, and all levels of play” (“Nike’s New Just Do It Campaign,” n.d.) – to overcome obstacles
and achieve greatness.

30 Years of “Just Do It”
Advertising executive Dan Wieden reportedly coined the iconic “Just Do It” tagline in
1987 by melding together two sentences: “let’s do it” and “just say no.” The former came from
murderer Gary Gilmore’s final words on death row in 1977, while the latter came from First
Lady Nancy Reagan’s 1980s anti-drug campaign (Kessler, 2018). To imbue the patchworked
phrase with an identity, meanwhile, Wieden and Nike turned to “the heart of traditional
American ideologies” (Goldman & Papson, 1998, p. 20) by portraying sport as a societal
equalizer in which the most resolute prevail. The first “Just Do It” spot, for example, featured
80-year-old runner Walt Stack conquering his daily 17-mile run in San Francisco (see Figure 1).

5
In 1993, “La Tierra de Mediocampistas” (The Land of the Shortstops) framed the poverty of
squatting peasants and junkyard playgrounds in the Dominican Republic against the country’s 70
MLB shortstops. Two years later, NBA All-Star Penny Hardaway narrated his journey “from
nothing to something,” opining, “I had to work to be great” before “Just Do It” flashed on screen.
Regardless of the specific images used, each of Nike’s “Just Do It” advertisements extolled gritty
determination in the face of physical and societal barriers. The tagline thus came to signify
“resilience and empowerment” over the next three decades while offering “a fleeting sense of
coherency and purpose in an otherwise increasingly fragmented social and cultural formation”
(Goldman & Papson, 1998, p. 173).

Figure 1. Nike’s first “Just Do It” advertisement featuring Walt Stack (Ehrbar, 2013).

In 2018, Nike chose to celebrate the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary by highlighting athletes
that embrace the slogan’s motivational call: “a rally cry that inspires self-belief and has helped
athletes from around the [world] become their best by leveraging the power of sport” (“Just Do
It: Serena Williams,” n.d.). The campaign included a “Just Do It” film series and five posters
featuring household names and unknown athletes alike. One poster, for example, displays
Cleveland Browns wide receiver Odell Beckham Jr. making a signature one-handed catch with
the caption, “Don’t wait until you’ve won a ring to play like it” (see Figure 2). Another reads,

6
“You don’t have to change who you are to change your world” with an image of Lacey Baker, a
queer professional skateboarder who advocates for LGBTQ rights in the sport (see Figure 3).

Figure 2. Just Do It 30
th
anniversary campaign poster (n.d.) featuring Odell Beckham Jr.

Figure 3. Just Do It 30
th
anniversary campaign poster (n.d.) featuring Lacey Baker.

Nike debuted the campaign in August 2018 with “Voice of Belief,” the first installment
in the “Just Do It” film series. The spot chronicles tennis star Serena Williams’ path to her first
Grand Slam title, intercutting archival videos of a young Williams training on public courts in
Compton against current footage of her professional matches. “Be tough, just like you want to
win,” the star’s father says in a voiceover, underscoring Williams’ on-screen drive to overcome
her disadvantaged background. The video’s paired poster, meanwhile, features Williams mid-
serve with the caption “Girls from Compton don’t play tennis. They own it” (see Figure 4).

7

Figure 4. Just Do It 30
th
anniversary campaign poster (n.d.) featuring Serena Williams.

Nike notably launched the video three days after the French Open banned Williams’ infamous
“Black Panther” inspired catsuit from its tournament, drawing criticisms of misogyny and racism
(McLaughlin, 2018). The fortuitous timing – along with Nike’s Twitter defense of Williams as a
“superhero” (see Figure 5) – supercharged the video’s virality, recording over 4.5 million
YouTube views and 9.5 million Twitter views in its first week (Adams, Tode, & Kelly, 2018).

Figure 5. Nike Twitter graphic of Serena Williams posted after the French Open’s ban on
catsuits (Nike, 2018).

On September 3, 2018, one week after the debut of “Voice of Belief,” Nike announced
social activist and former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick as the face of the 30
th
anniversary
campaign. Kaepernick’s promotional poster, uploaded to his Twitter and Instagram accounts,
featured a black-and-white image of his face overlaid with the words, “Believe in something.

8
Even if it means sacrificing everything” (see Figure 6). Nike released the corresponding “Just Do
It” film, titled “Dream Crazy,” on Kaepernick’s social media accounts two days later.

Figure 6. “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign poster (n.d.) featuring Colin
Kaepernick.

“Dream Crazy,” narrated by Kaepernick, opens on a tight shot of skateboarder Nyjah
Huston, followed by three clips of Huston crashing to the ground during attempted rail grinds.
Isaiah Bird, a 10-year-old boy without arms, then appears in a wrestling match on screen,
followed by footage of Muslim boxer Zeina Nassar wearing a Nike Pro Hijab. Other featured
athletes include world champion surfer Kai Lenny, mental health advocate and wheelchair
basketball player Megan Blunk, soccer player Alphonso Davies, linebacker and homecoming
queen Alicia Woollcott, Ironman and cancer survivor Charlie Jabaley, and one-handed football
player Shaquem Griffin. As the two-minute video progresses, Kaepernick’s narration intertwines
with the on-screen footage to provide expository background framed in motivational language
(see Appendix A). “Don’t try to be the fastest runner in your school or the fastest in the world.
Be the fastest ever,” Kaepernick says, for example, as Kenyan long-distance runner Eliud
Kipchoge crosses a finish line in triumph. As the company noted in its press release, each story –
including Kaepernick’s – shared a “common denominator: [leveraging] the power of sport to
move the world forward” (“Nike’s New Just Do It Campaign,” n.d.). The video ends with a

9
mosaic of the featured athletes overlaid with the text, “It’s only crazy until you do it.” The first
five words then fade away to reveal the word “Just,” creating Nike’s “Just Do It” tagline, before
the Nike swoosh replaces it. The video has since accumulated more than 11 million views on
Kaepernick’s Twitter account, 3 million views on his Instagram page, and captured a polarizing
public debate.

Take A Knee: Kaepernick’s Protest and Repercussions
Examining the reaction to the Kaepernick campaign first requires an understanding of his
controversial image. Two years prior to “Dream Crazy,” Kaepernick – then a quarterback for the
San Francisco 49ers – sparked outrage by refusing to stand during the pregame national anthem.
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and
people of color,” Kaepernick said after his first protest. “To me, this is bigger than football and it
would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people
getting paid leave and getting away with murder” (Wyche, 2016). His protest of racial injustice
and police brutality continued throughout the 2016-17 NFL season and inspired waves of
athletes across the country to “take a knee.” Participants included 13 NFL players, United States
women’s national soccer team star Megan Rapinoe, and the WNBA’s Indiana Fever (Schmidt,
Shreffler, Habrick, & Gordon, 2018; Mather, 2019). Proponents applauded Kaepernick’s use of
his platform to enact social action; critics, including fellow NFL players, league executives, and
politicians, attacked his protests as disrespectful and unpatriotic (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al.,
2018). By refusing to stand, “nearly every dimension of the embattled Kaepernick’s identity –
from his love for his country to his racial identity, the particulars about his family life to his
personal relationships” (Beydoun, 2016) entered the public forum for critique and debate.

10
Kaepernick opted out of his 49ers contract at the end of the 2016-17 season, preempting
the team’s reported plans to cut him from its roster, and became an unrestricted free agent. He
remained unsigned by the start of the following season, leading to public speculation that the
NFL had blacklisted the quarterback. “[T]he NFL’s coldness toward Kaepernick is not accidental
or rooted in analytics, advanced or otherwise,” Kevin Blackistone wrote for The Washington
Post in 2017. “[A] stiff arm in free agency was the only punishment for Kaepernick available…
[for daring to] spit in the NFL’s eye.” The protest did not wither without its leader on the
sidelines, however, and instead blossomed into a wave of defiance across professional sports.
Player demonstrations reached a peak during Week 3 of the 2017-18 NFL season after President
Donald Trump urged the league to fire or suspend protest participants (Davis, 2017; Mather,
2019; see Figure 7). An estimated 204 players protested during the national anthem that week,
including the full rosters for the Tennessee Titans and Seattle Seahawks (“NFL player protests,”
2017). Hashtags relating to the protest, such as #TakeAKnee, also garnered over 1.6 million
mentions and 3 billion impressions during that timeframe (Lacy, 2017).

Figure 7. President Donald Trump calls for the NFL to fire or suspend protesting players
on Twitter (Trump, 2017).

Debate remained limited to the public and media, however, with corporate brands opting
to forgo any mention of the conflict. According to Brandwatch, companies reportedly wanted to
avoid both the “ragingly divided conversation” and the attention of consumers “calling for an
NFL boycott” (Lacy, 2017). Papa John’s, a longtime partner of the NFL, went so far as to cancel

11
its official NFL sponsorship deal and remove its branding from games to combat declining sales
(Rapaport, 2018). Kaepernick, meanwhile, fared even worse: he appeared in no major
sponsorship campaigns after the protest began, despite making more than $3 million in
endorsements during the previous year (Liffreing, 2017). “If they take football away, my
endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right,” Kaepernick had commented in
an interview with NFL.com after his first protest, foreshadowing what was to come (Wyche,
2016).
Such a fate nearly befell Kaepernick’s Nike contract. The brand reportedly verged on
dropping Kaepernick from its roster in 2017 due to internal concerns about both his image and
profitability (Creswell, Draper, & Maheshwari, 2018). Moreover, despite retaining the former
quarterback, Nike continued to shy away from the prospect of using him in any brand
communications. According to Nike co-founder Phil Knight, the debate over whether or not to
include Kaepernick in the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign went down to the wire: “[Nike
Chairman Mark] Parker looked at [Kaepernick’s ad] and went, ‘Gulp.’ And [the advertising
team] said, ‘Well, here’s the deal. If we’re going to get this in time for the campaign, you’ve got
24 hours [to decide]” (Snyder, 2019). Parker and Knight ultimately approved Kaepernick’s
video, however, and “Dream Crazy” made its television debut on opening night of the 2018 NFL
regular season.

Public Response: Nike Consumption as Ideological Expression
Public opinions on the Kaepernick campaign split sharply down political lines (Bain,
2018; Berr, 2018). Polling conducted by Harris Insights & Analytics found that consumers who
identified as conservative opposed the campaign, while those who identified as liberal supported
it (Berr, 2018). Kaepernick’s inclusion drew particular ire from critics of the ongoing “Take a

12
Knee” protest, with viral #BoycottNike social media posts documenting consumers
performatively destroying their Nike products. Perhaps the best example comes from Twitter
user @sclancy79 (see Figure 8), who posted a video of burning Nike shoes with the caption:
First the @NFL forces me to choose between my favorite sport and my country. I chose
country. Then @Nike forces me to choose between my favorite shoes and my country.
Since when did the American Flag and the National Anthem become offensive? (Clancy,
2018)

Conversely, campaign supporters highlighted how it both amplified and absorbed Kaepernick’s
message into a powerful corporate brand. Actress Jenifer Lewis, for example, wore Nike to the
2018 Emmys, stating in a red-carpet interview, “I am wearing Nike to applaud them for
supporting Colin Kaepernick and his protest against racial injustice and police brutality”
(Variety, 2018; see Figure 9). Both sides thus tended to conflate purchasing Nike with ideals
beyond simple product consumption. For those boycotting Nike, wearing the brand became a
symbol of disrespecting the country; those in favor of the campaign perceived buying Nike
products as a means of supporting Kaepernick’s activism. Essentially, then, the public viewed
“Dream Crazy” as a political statement. Although the campaign does not directly mention
Kaepernick’s protest – or, indeed, any activist issues – consumers understood Kaepernick’s
inclusion as a tacit endorsement of his actions.

13

Figure 8. Viral Twitter post featuring burning Nike shoes (Clancy, 2018).

Figure 9. Jenifer Lewis interviewed at the 2018 Emmys (Variety, 2018).

Nike’s perceived stance diverges from typical corporate behavior, as evidenced by mass
brand aversion of the NFL protest. Experts agree that companies tend to avoid controversial
topics, such as racial injustice, when engaging with politics (Siegel & Wang, 2018).
Occasionally, however, brands have purposefully courted controversy. Research suggests that

14
the “shock” produced by provocative campaigns results in heightened consumer attention,
advertisement retention, and message-relevant behavior modification (Dahl, Frankenberger, &
Manchanda, 2003). Clothing manufacturer Benetton, for example, successfully executed award-
winning social issue education campaigns in the 1990s. The advertisements featured images such
as a bloody military uniform, a dying AIDS patient, and depictions of an interracial relationship.
When campaigns violate social norms too strongly, however, the public backlash may outweigh
the benefits garnered through controversy (Dahl et al., 2003). Such a case occurred when
Benetton debuted its “Death Row” advertisement in 2000, sparking heavy brand criticism and a
debate over the use of social issues by commercial businesses (de Chenecey, 2000). Benetton
thus provides both a success story and a cautionary tale for brands seeking to incite controversy.
Criticism of provocative advertisements may also prompt behavioral opposition to
corporations and their practices, also known as anti-brand activism. This activism tends to focus
on strong global brands (Romani, Grappi, Zarantonello, & Bagozzi, 2015). It primarily occurs
when consumers view “imposed meanings or values that are prescribed by a brand” (Hollenbeck
& Zinkhan, 2006, p. 480) negatively and attempt to resist those meanings. Common concerns
leading to such behavior include corporate globalization, environmental and human rights
transgressions, and marketing propaganda (Hollenbeck & Zinkhan, 2006; Romani et al., 2015).
Resistance typically occurs through boycotts, culture jamming, and online discussion (Romani et
al., 2015). While boycotts attempt to disrupt sales, culture jamming – a process of guerilla
activism that appropriates brand messaging – seeks to subvert and renegotiate brand meaning
(Madden, Janoske, Winkler, & Harpole, 2018; Carducci, 2006). Romani et al. (2015) also note
that anti-brand activism develops “stories of hate,” with “humiliating and damaging [stories]”
strengthening “the appeal of such stories as topics of conversation” (pp. 659-660) to resist the

15
imposed brand meanings in public discourse. The internet has played a crucial role in amplifying
these stories, bolstering the impact of anti-brand activism in recent years (Hollenbeck &
Zinkhan, 2006).
Critical consumer behavior around the “Just Do It” 30th anniversary campaign
exemplifies anti-brand activism. Those opposed to Kaepernick’s inclusion viewed the
campaign’s tacit protest endorsement as conflicting with patriotic values. Consumers thus
advocated for a Nike boycott and destroyed the company’s products to convey active resistance.
Culture jamming, meanwhile, involved manipulating both the “Just Do It” tagline (see Figure
10) and the text on Kaepernick’s campaign poster (see Figure 11). Additionally, hashtags such as
#BoycottNike and #burnyournikes on social media allowed consumers to participate in anti-
brand dialogue, developing “stories of hate” that achieved virality (see Clancy, 2018; Figure 8).

Figure 10. Culture jamming manipulation of “Just Do It” (Real Conservatives Unite,
2018).

16

Figure 11. Culture jamming manipulation of Kaepernick’s poster text and “Just Do It”
(Ramirez, 2018).

Anti-brand activism initially led to widespread concerns over Nike’s profitability,
highlighted by a three percent stock decline on the day following the Kaepernick reveal
(Linnane, 2018; La Monica, 2018). However, apprehension over such behavior was unfounded.
An analysis by social data intelligence company TickerTags, for example, found that posts
mentioning a Nike boycott did not support a strong negative call against the company (Bary,
2018). TickerTags also reported that Nike boycott posts had a lower frequency rate than other
tracked consumer protests, such as the 2017 and 2018 Starbucks boycotts (Bary, 2018).
Likewise, research firm M Science reported that the frequency of Nike boycott posts ranked only
sixth among protests studied by the firm over the past six years (Novy-Williams, 2018b). Nike
ultimately earned a reported $6 billion in value from the campaign, triggered by a 31-percent
increase in online sales and strong stock recovery (Abad-Santos, 2018; Linnane, 2018; Berr,
2018). From an emotional standpoint, meanwhile, a study into campaign reactions found that 39
percent of Americans reported feeling “very positive” about “Dream Crazy,” compared to just 9
percent who reported a negative opinion (Morning Consult, n.d.). Overall, 60 percent of

17
respondents indicated positive feelings about Nike after watching the video (Vredenburg, Spry,
Kemper, & Kapitan, 2018).

Campaign Implications & Analysis
Two years removed from the campaign launch, debate continues over “Dream Crazy”
and its endorser – specifically in regards to its goals and authenticity. Why did Nike choose to
feature Kaepernick? Does the company genuinely support his message, or is it merely catering to
its core consumer group to increase sales? Analysis of the campaign’s media impact and Nike’s
target audience suggests that business considerations primarily drove its production. However,
authentic messaging and business factors need not be mutually exclusive, as demonstrated by
Nike’s past behavior.
“Buzz” generation clearly played a significant role in the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary
campaign. Analysts have found that the frequency of “negative posts [during controversies]
generally are closely correlated with positive posts,” (Bary, 2018) indicating that highly
polarized subjects produce greater attention. Nike thus likely chose Kaepernick not only to adopt
his message but to capitalize on the discussion generated by his controversial persona. From this
standpoint, then, the campaign was a verified success. “Dream Crazy” prompted a public debate
that reportedly sparked “record engagement with the [Nike] brand” (Creswell et al., 2018).
Nike’s mentions on social media soared by 1,678 percent in the three days following the
campaign launch, while Kaepernick’s mentions grew by 362,280 percent in this same timeframe
(Linnane, 2018). The company also received an estimated $43 million of media exposure in the
24 hours following the reveal, of which the majority rated neutral to positive (Novy-Williams,
2018a). Kaepernick’s ability to generate discussion thus likely played an important role in Nike’s
campaign deliberations.

18
The campaign’s target audience also aligns with Nike’s core customer base, further
supporting a financially-motivated view of “Dream Crazy.” According to research firm NPD
Group, approximately two-thirds of Nike’s core customers are under 35 and tend to support
Kaepernick’s issue advocacy (Novy-Williams, 2018a; Bain, 2018). Additionally, “the steady
support of black Americans… [and] the creative energy of America’s rich and influential black
culture” (Bain, 2018) has helped sustain Nike’s financial growth since the 1980s, and little
debate over Kaepernick exists in this minority group (see “Nike Branding History”). Targeting
Nike’s customer base thus provided a key consideration in “Dream Crazy” campaign production.
Video dial-test results from brand intelligence firm Morning Consult confirms that younger
consumers, Democrats, and black Americans were more receptive to the campaign’s messaging
and spokesperson than white Americans and Republicans (Morning Consult, n.d). Howe Burch,
the former head of U.S. marketing for Reebok, agrees with these findings, stating, “Nike cares
most about [reaching their most important customers] – nearly all of whom will embrace
[Kaepernick’s presence]. They know they will lose some customers short-term but not the kind
of customers that really drive their business” (Novy-Williams, 2018a). Kaepernick’s starring role
in the 30
th
anniversary campaign thus served as a means of targeting Nike’s core customer base –
and did so effectively.
To argue that business factors solely determined Nike’s campaign choice, however,
ignores the company’s history of supporting diversity and equality. Over half of Nike’s U.S.
employees identify as ethnic minorities, with black (21%), Hispanic/Latino (18%), and Asian
(7%) forming the largest subgroups (Kell, 2016). The company also launched an internal task
force in 2016 to facilitate employee dialogue on discrimination and racial injustice. Nike

19
Chairman Mark Parker’s email announcement of this task force included several statements
reinforcing the company’s commitment to denouncing discrimination:
Nike has a long history of supporting the marginalized and those whose voice is not
always heard. …As a company, I’m proud that Nike takes a stand on issues that impact
all of us, our athletes and society as a whole. And I am proud that Nike stands against
discrimination in any form. We stand against bigotry. We stand for racial justice. We
firmly believe the world can improve. We are a diverse company and, as we stated in our
recent Sustainable Business Report, are firmly committed to making it more diverse and
inclusive. (McGirt, 2016)

Several of Nike’s most famous black endorsers, meanwhile, such as Williams, LeBron James
and Carmelo Anthony, regularly speak out on racial injustice. Additionally, Nike advertisements
have long embraced social causes (see “Nike Branding History”), and the company often pairs
donations for these causes with its advertisements. With the launch of “Dream Crazy,” for
example, Nike made a financial contribution to Kaepernick’s “Know Your Rights” youth
organization. The endorsement choice for the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign clearly
aligns with Nike’s previous messaging and behavior, lending support to its authenticity. While
business decisions may have primarily driven the campaign, suggesting that these were the only
contributing factors does not track with Nike’s long-standing history of supporting social issues.

20
Nike Branding
The Swoosh in Contemporary Culture

The “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign exists both as its own entity, as discussed
above, and as a key addition to the Nike brand. This section thus seeks to examine how the
campaign fits into Nike’s overarching brand strategy. The discussion will first present an
overview of four branding models: mind-share, emotional, viral, and cultural branding. After
surveying these models, the author provides a historical analysis of Nike’s brand development.

Branding Strategies: Traditional vs. Cultural
Keller (1993) defines brand image as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory” (p. 3). Corporate trends indicate that brand image has
become an increasingly important business function, with more companies moving towards
emphasizing branding over specific product marketing (Klein, 2002). Klein (2002) argues that
the concept “that successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to
products” explains “the astronomical growth in the wealth and cultural influence of multi-
national corporations” (p. 3) in recent decades. While the relative importance of brand image has
undoubtedly grown in recent years, however, branding itself does not constitute a new
phenomenon. Early branding activities date back to at least 2500 B.C., with archeological
excavations in the Indus Valley uncovering pictorial symbols on square seals to differentiate
craftsmen’s work (Moore & Reid, 2008). During the 20
th
century, branding expanded to include
a “personality” dimension, which allowed the company to differentiate itself within its product
category (Moore & Reid, 2008). Holt (2004) identifies three primary models of contemporary
branding – mind-share, emotional, and viral – which “account for virtually every consumer
branding initiative” (p. 13) and help to develop this “personality” dimension.

21
Mind-share branding established itself as the dominant corporate method during the
1970s, developing out of advertising’s “unique selling proposition” (Holt, 2004, p. 15). This
method requires companies to determine the market “gap” – the functional benefit “most valued
by consumers and least dominated by other brands” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 9) – and own that
position in product communications. Mind-share branding asserts that repeatedly communicating
a single, distinct benefit will help the company to stand out to consumers amongst the waves of
other corporate mass communications. Holt (2004) notes that this strategy applies most
effectively to low-involvement brands, such as soap brands, because “distilling the product to a
handful of key benefits simplifies decision making for the consumers” (p. 20).
Emotional branding evolved out of mind-share branding in the 1990s. It maintains mind-
share’s premise that companies should continually communicate a key position, but also
addresses how to communicate this message (Holt, 2004). Unlike mind-share branding, which
generally takes a functional and utilitarian approach, emotional branding seeks to build bonds
with consumers. To do so, “a brand must emphasize its personality and forge an intimate
connection,” which “spur[s] emotionally charged relationships” (Holt, 2004, p. 21). Brand
communications become more personal and experiential for the audience, helping to develop
brand loyalty. The same principles apply to internal branding programs, in which companies turn
“inward to truly understand their identity and then inculcate the brand spirit… in everything they
do” (Holt, 2004, p. 22).
Viral branding, the newest of the three methods, developed from internet culture and
ignores the assertions put forth by mind-share and emotional branding. It flips the traditional
concept of branding as a business-to-consumer enterprise, viewing it instead as an exercise in
public influence. This method “assumes that consumers, and not firms, have the most influence

22
in the creation of brands” (Holt, 2004, p. 28) and identity value. Power to develop a brand’s
image thus lies with the consumers, and brand managers must consequently place the brand in
the right consumer groups for proper development (Holt, 2004). As a result, consumers “own”
the brand and spread it through word of mouth, diffusing it through online networks like a virus.
This method accentuates what Holt (2004) deems “covert public relations,” with branding efforts
focused on generating “talk value,” locating “opinion-leading trendsetters,” and identifying the
“newest, coolest culture” (p. 29).
Holt (2004) asserts that the rise of “iconic brands,” however, such as Nike and Coca-
Cola, requires a fourth branding strategy: cultural branding. This strategy functions by locating
the contradictions and anxieties that govern society during moments of historical disruption. The
brand then addresses those tensions through its “identity myth,” the story created to “stitch back
together otherwise damaging tears in the cultural fabric of the nation” (Holt, 2004, p. 8). Over
time, consumers begin to associate the myth with “category benefits, to spread the myth by word
of mouth, to emote, and to gather together” (Holt, 2004, p. 35). These characteristics, primarily
associated with the three traditional branding strategies, thus develop strategically out of the
company’s overarching cultural narrative.

Nike Branding History
Nike’s communication efforts have constructed its brand as “an icon that embraces a
larger image system that possesses both a philosophy and a personality” (Goldman & Papson,
1998, p. 19). Analysis of the company’s campaigns reveals properties associated with the three
traditional branding strategies: it creates “distinctive and favorable associations” (mind-share),
cultivates “core consumers with deep emotional attachments” (emotional), and “generates buzz”
(viral) (Holt, 2004, p. 35). However, in Cultural Strategy: Using Innovative Ideologies to Build

23
Breakthrough Brands, Cameron & Holt (2010) argue that Nike achieved its iconic status through
cultural branding. This section provides a historical overview of Nike’s brand development as
viewed through the cultural branding framework presented by Cameron & Holt (2010).
Nike’s initial branding strategy coincided with the rise of mind-share branding in the
1970s. The company, founded as a running shoe distributor in 1964, initially experienced little
success in the market. Nike’s small consumer inroads adhered to the standard principles of
market development: technical innovations in comfort and performance surpassed those made by
its rivals. Nike primarily focused on reducing shoe weight through developments such as the
“moon shoe” and the waffle sole, attracting the attention of “competitive runners, for whom even
subtle functional improvements were crucial to their success” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 21).
Established shoe brands, however, continued to dominate the mass market, in which technical
innovations did not impact purchase intention for daily footwear.
Nike’s advertisements during this period notably mimicked the standard “athlete
endorsement” model for shoe companies – a technique based on mind-share branding and
explained by the three-stage model of meaning transfer. Meaning transfer theory dictates that a
celebrity endorser’s symbolic properties transfer to his or her endorsed good and, ultimately, to
consumers of the product (McCracken, 1989). In athlete endorsement campaigns, then,
companies feature star athletes wearing branded products while showing off their physical
prowess. This stimulates an association between the athlete’s feats and the brand worn, inspiring
consumers to purchase the same products with the hopes of improving performance (Cameron &
Holt, 2010). Although Nike would master the art of the athlete endorsement in later years –
perhaps most significantly through its 1984 signing of Michael Jordan – the company’s early
endorsers did not considerably differentiate its brand in the mass market. As Knight (2016) notes

24
in his autobiography Shoe Dog, “The company, my company, born from nothing… was on life
support” (p. 177).
In the late 1970s, Nike experienced its financial and cultural branding breakthrough.
During this decade, the post-war era of American prosperity had begun dwindling. The economy
entered a period of stagflation and, by the end of the decade, went into a deep recession that
collapsed the country’s comfortable lifestyle. Americans developed a new mindset to cope with
the “rough-and-tumble free-agent economy,” reviving the “original industrious version of the
American Dream” and pushing “rugged individualism… back in vogue” (Cameron & Holt,
2010, p. 24). As a company embedded in the runners’ subculture, Nike understood this mentality
better than others. Running, an individual event, evoked a grueling, “go at it alone” attitude
without the flash and spectacle of popular team sports.
Nike leaned into this ideology during the late 1970s while its competitors continued to
rely on athlete endorsements. Its branding activities “celebrated the mundane trials of individual
competition,” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 27) focusing on unknown athletes who personified the
runner’s mentality. Nike’s 1977 “There Is No Finish Line” advertisement perhaps best embodied
this identity myth (see Figure 12). The poster displays an unrecognizable runner training alone
on a road, surrounded by only a forest and telephone poles. A bold line of text declaring “There
Is No Finish Line” stands out beneath the image, followed by paragraphs extolling the personal,
euphoric feeling of the “runner’s high.” The text concludes by stating, “Beating the competition
is relatively easy. But beating yourself is a never ending commitment.” Nike thus took the
opposite route from its competitors, highlighting the unheralded “everyman” with a “unique,
seemingly masochistic urge to train tirelessly regardless of hardships” (Cameron & Holt, 2010,

25
p. 28). Such a story deeply resonated with the cultural anxieties of the American public, helping
Nike to surpass its competitors in market share by 1980 (Bain & Banjo, 2015).

Figure 12. Nike’s “There Is No Finish Line” print advertisement (Old Sneaker Posters,
2014).

Nike had not yet realized the power of this identity myth, however, and returned to mind-
share branding throughout the 1980s. When market research revealed that the average consumer
now enjoyed technical innovations in footwear, Nike adapted its athletic shoe line into casual
shoes. The decision proved disastrous for the company. Between 1983 and 1985, Nike’s profits
fell by more than 80 percent, a shocking plummet from its 44 percent annual growth rate
throughout the previous five years (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 29). The company failed to

26
recognize that the mass market had consumed its shoes not for functional benefits, but because
they resonated with the identity myth of solo achievement. As Cameron & Holt (2010) note,
“customers wanted to wear Nikes to get a piece of the… ideology that the company had instilled
in the brand” (p. 29). Creating a shoe line meant explicitly for casual wear thus erased Nike’s
identity myth and its dominant edge in the market. By 1987, Reebok’s $1.4 billion in sales
decisively overtook Nike’s position as the U.S. leader (Bain & Banjo, 2015; Cameron & Holt,
2010, p. 29).
Nike’s financial turnaround in the late 1980s once again corresponded with a turn
towards cultural branding: the debut of the iconic “Just Do It” tagline. With the rise of the
Reagan administration, American cultural ideals had shifted towards neoliberalism, believing
that a “society is a meritocracy based on hard work not handouts” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p.
31). Nike identified this cultural disruption and updated its branding efforts accordingly. “Just
Do It” advertisements featured athletes who personified grit and determination, such as 80-year-
old Walt Stack conquering his daily 17-mile run (see “30 Years of Just Do It”). Perhaps no video
better dictated this myth than Nike’s “Revolution” television spot, which opens to the blasting
power chords of The Beatles’ “Revolution.” The video then displays a montage of athletes
practicing their sport, intercut with Nike product shots, while John Lennon’s vocals proclaim,
“We all want to change the world” (see Figure 13). The featured athletes on screen exist “apart
from commercialization and celebrity,” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 32) symbolizing American
society’s neoliberal ideals and how each individual can revolutionize the world through hard
work. Advertisements such as “Revolution” thus positioned the company as embodying the “soul
of sports”: a world in which “the most determined and conscientious and confident – not

27
necessarily those whom society has favored with the most privileges and support – will win”
(Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 33).

Figure 13. Screenshot from Nike’s “Revolution” video (The Daily Street, 2014).

Nike’s post-1980s branding efforts further refined the “Just Do It” myth by embracing
the world beyond sports. This choice distinguished the company by expanding its setting from
traditional playing fields into broader competitive landscapes. Nike athletes now faced societal
obstacles such as sexism, racism, and poverty in addition to physical limitations. Brand
placement in advertisements also took on a “secondary [role] to the interactions and symbolic
settings captured and portrayed” through each story, allowing the viewer to focus on “human
interaction, experience, and emotion” (Armstrong, 1999, p. 281). In 1995, for example, Nike
released “If You Let Me Play,” an advertisement addressing women’s rights in sports. The
campaign aimed to frame the imbalance between funding for men’s and women’s sports “as a
massive form of discrimination, faced by all women, that handicapped them in life” (Cameron &
Holt, 2010, p. 38). The video slices between quick takes and slow-motion shots of preteen and
teenage girls on a playground, each of whom informs the viewer about the long-term advantages
gained by female participation in sports. “I will be 60 percent less likely to get breast cancer,”
one says, while another comments, “I will be more likely to leave a man who beats me.” The

28
phrase “if you let me play” echoes throughout the video, weaving through the statistical
soundbites in a repetitive rhythm. Notably, the video makes only two references to the Nike
brand: one girl wears a Nike shirt (see Figure 14), and the iconic swoosh appears at the end of
the video over a black background. “If You Let Me Play” thus stood out amongst the
contemporary advertising landscape “because it did not make truth claims for the product, but
rather about the benefits of sport for girls” (Goldman & Papson, 1998, p. 135).

Figure 14. Screenshot from Nike’s “If You Let Me Play” video (Knights, 2007).

Nike videos during this period also heavily featured race, marking a “180 degree turn”
from the company’s past advertisements (Goldman & Papson, 1998, p. 113). Nike’s endorsement
deal with multiracial golfer Tiger Woods played a significant role in this reversal, highlighted by
1996’s “Hello World” advertisement. The spot contains a montage of Woods throughout various
life stages overlaid with white text describing his accomplishments. After accounting for Woods’
three consecutive U.S. Amateur titles, the text shifts to discuss racial discrimination in golf (see
Figure 15). The ensuing clips read: “There are still courses in the U.S. I am not allowed to play
because of the color of my skin. Hello World. I’ve heard I’m not ready for you. Are you ready
for me?” Like the previous year’s “If You Let Me Play,” “Hello World” repeats its title
throughout the video, contains a strong social message, and displays minimal references to the

29
Nike brand. According to Nike publicist James Small, the video aimed “to raise awareness that
golf is not an inclusive sport,” (Goldman & Papson, 1998, p. 113) with Woods representing
black golfers who were regularly excluded from U.S. courses due to their race. “Hello World”
thus allowed Nike to position Woods as “yet another minority athlete who overcame seemingly
insurmountable barriers of discrimination to make it to the top” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 41) –
despite the fact that he grew up in a comfortable, middle-class family.

Figure 15. Screenshot from Nike’s “Hello World” video (jclyon41, 2006).

Through spots such as “If You Let Me Play” and “Hello World,” Nike expanded its
cultural story beyond athletics and into the broader societal realm. Its advertisements repeatedly
emphasized “messages of hope and encouragement to overcome social, physical, and
psychological barriers that may seem insurmountable” (Armstrong, 1999, p. 279) while placing
the Nike brand in a secondary role to emotion and human experience. This issue messaging
painted sports as an arena in which all athletes – not just superstars such as Woods – could
achieve “personal transcendence, despite the seeming bleakness of the situation” (Cameron &
Holt, 2010, p. 38) if they harnessed their determination to “Just Do It.”
Cultural codes also played a significant role in developing and ingraining the “Just Do It”
story during this period. Nike specifically adopted codes from marginalized groups to reinforce

30
the imagery of societal barriers present throughout its branded communications. Nike’s 1993
advertisement “Hardrock Miner,” for example, takes viewers through a typical day in the ghetto,
lingering on shots of chain-link fences, public housing projects, and black teens methodically
practicing basketball on public courts. A miner’s song, stylized as gospel, plays over the footage,
painting “Nike’s poor black teens working on their basketball technique as… [resilient] young
men, who summon the will to achieve despite the grim realities of the ghetto wasteland in which
they live” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 37). Similarly, a 1997 ad set in inner-city Chicago opens
on a group of black children playing basketball against the backdrop of crumbling buildings (see
Figure 16). Later on, a young boy dribbles a ball over the litter-strewn ground, then shoots his
ball into a makeshift hoop formed by a laundry basket hung from a chain-link fence (see Figure
17). According to Goldman & Papson (1998), such images represented “deeper reflections of
capital flight and deindustrialization that drained away productive resources” and were “directly
linked to the forces of economic abandonment” (p. 104) that generated widespread American
anxiety. Social discrimination, as expressed through culturally coded imagery, thus dramatized
the Nike identity myth by serving as a metaphor for the challenges facing the nation in an
increasingly globalized world. The advertisements “took us to the ghettos and the barrios, so that
we could appreciate that the seemingly insurmountable challenges in our own lives have nothing
on the barriers of racism, sexism and global poverty” (Cameron & Holt, 2010, p. 45-46).

31

Figure 16. Screenshot of a Nike video depicting black children playing basketball in a
Chicago ghetto (BenWilsonTribute, 2012).

Figure 17. Screenshot of a Nike video depicting a makeshift basketball hoop in a
Chicago ghetto (BenWilsonTribute, 2012).

Nike did not just invoke cultural codes to strengthen its identity myth, however. As
Armstrong (1999) notes, “when consumers are exposed to advertisements that contain elements
that are drawn from their culturally constituted world, they process the information and are
actively involved in assigning meaning to the advertised product” (p. 268). Using cultural codes
thus allowed Nike to effectively communicate with minority consumers, capturing this growing

32
segment of the market. The company’s post-1980s branding efforts place a particular emphasis
on communication with black audiences (Armstrong, 1999). Advertisements primarily took place
in public spaces routinely identified as significant locations in black culture, such as inner-city
basketball courts and street corners (Goldman & Papson, 1998). In 1993, for example, the
company launched a series of “Nike Barbershop” videos that featured various NBA stars
shooting the breeze at a local barbershop, highlighting a traditional cultural experience for black
Americans (see Figure 18).

Figure 18. Screenshot from a 1993 “Nike Barbershop” video featuring Chris Webber
(left) and Charles Barkley (right) (Helm, 2010a).

Moreover, Armstrong’s (1999) analysis of the company’s 1992-1994 communications revealed
that “the grammar/packaging/contextualization of Nike advertisements was constructed with an
appeal to some aspects of African American culture” (p. 280) and that the frame of reference “is
not only the immediate situations or individual circumstances, but rather a collective community
that many Black consumers may relate to” (p. 281). One installment in the “Nike Barbershop”
series, for example, features basketball stars Dennis Rodman, Tim Hardaway and David
Robinson (see Figure 19). Armstrong’s (1999) linguistic analysis found that the video’s

33
conversational styles mimicked speech patterns commonly expressed in black communities.
Such patterns appear throughout the ad, as exemplified by this exchange between Hardaway and
Rodman:
Hardaway: Before he had them two rings he was like…
Rodman: Aw, them rings don’t mean anything really.
Hardaway: Oh them rings don’t mean nothin’?
Rodman: Naw, they’re a part of history.

Utilizing cultural codes thus served a two-fold purpose: dramatizing Nike’s identity myth and
establishing its credibility with minority audiences.

Figure 19. Screenshot from a 1994 “Nike Barbershop” video featuring Tim Hardaway
(left), Dennis Rodman (center), and David Robinson (right) (Helm, 2010b).

Rebellion, political messaging and transcendence through sport have become
synonymous with the Nike brand throughout the past five decades. As Nike’s brand evolved
from indistinct athlete endorsements in the 1970s to tackling societal discrimination in the 1990s
and beyond, it has grown to encompass the belief that “sport can be a powerful force for
individual and collective social change” (Kaufman & Wolff, 2010, p. 154). The company’s use
of Kaepernick as the face of the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign – along with its
perceived endorsement of his social activism – should thus come as no surprise.

34
Branded Activism
Sports, Corporations & Commodities

Nike’s engagement with social issues played a crucial role in developing its
contemporary brand. However, as the company began addressing topics such as sexism (“If You
Let Me Play”), racism (“Hello World”), and poverty (“Hardrock Miner”), it also began to
experience public backlash. Since the 1990s, consumers have viewed Nike’s “social agenda”
with skepticism and cynicism, often voicing concerns over the company’s involvement with such
issues (Goldman & Papson, 1998). As one critic of the “If You Let Me Play” ad wrote, “Does
Nike really have a social conscience, or are they just trying to sell shoes?” (Goldman & Papson,
1998, p. 134). To better understand how and why Nike’s social engagement provokes consumer
controversy, this section explores three types of issue advocacy: athlete, corporate, and
commodity activism. The discussion addresses how these categories contribute to branded
activism – that is, activism or activism-related efforts undertaken to differentiate a brand from its
competitors – before examining the tension between Holt’s (2004) cultural branding strategy and
branded activism.

The Politics of Sports
Nike’s willingness to push sports into the political realm plays a significant role in
generating controversy. The public often assumes a “neutrality vision of sport,” in which athletic
competitions seemingly exist outside of societal realities (Kaufman & Wolff, 2010). In truth,
however, these two areas have overlapped extensively throughout history. Kaufman & Wolff
(2010), for example, write that “there is no denying the fact that sports are imbued with political
meanings. From the financing of stadiums through public tax dollars to the display and
veneration of the flag, sports are inherently political” (p. 165). Indeed, some of the most

35
powerful and iconic political moments in recent memory occurred in sporting arenas. Such
events are:
embedded in our collective consciousness, as countless as they are unforgettable: from
Jackie Robinson breaking the Major League Baseball color barrier against the backdrop
of Jim Crow; to Nelson Mandela rooting for the South African rugby team in the 1995
World Cup; to former basketball star Dennis Rodman trying to repair American-North
Korean relations during a rendezvous with dictator Kim Jong Un. (Gift & Miner, 2017, p.
130)

Such examples represent iconic flashpoints in history preserved through the memory of sport.
However, these instances occur rarely, and most contemporary sports consumption defaults to
the neutrality vision.
Scholars often attribute this perceived neutrality to sports’ role as an escapist activity for
the public, diverting “spectators from the burdens of normal existence” (Mandelbaum, 2004, p.
4). When the political edges into this arena, escapism collapses, and the public thus seeks to
maintain separation. As Zirin (2008) writes, “It is certainly easy to understand why [sport
neutrality] is so readily accepted. Many of us watch ESPN to forget at all costs what they are
doing on C-SPAN” (p. xii). Other forms of escapism, however, do not experience the same
backlash for political messaging. Schmidt, Frederick, Pegoraro, & Spencer (2019) found that
athletes receive different treatment than other entertainers, such as musicians and actors, who
wade into political territory. Likewise, Kaufman & Wolff (2010) write that “it is generally
accepted when Hollywood celebrities use their status to advance social and political issues,” but
“when the personal becomes political in sports, the cheerleading often comes to an abrupt halt…
[with athletes] criticized and pushed to the sidelines” (p. 156). Thus, although sports form a
subsection of entertainment, the public does not view its political intertextuality in the same way.
Athletes commonly hear refrains of “stick to sports” while other entertainers receive applause for
speaking out (Gift & Miner, 2017; Kaufman & Wolff, 2018; Schmittel & Sanderson, 2014).

36

Athletes & Issue Awareness
Praise for celebrity activism primarily focuses on commending public figures for using
their platforms to raise issue awareness. Social activism scholars agree with this depiction,
finding that celebrity advocacy functions as a “form of entertainment-oriented mobilization that
operates outside the formal policy process to seek attention, dramatize social problems, and
popularize issues” (Gotham, 2012, p. 109) based on celebrities’ power to attract media attention.
Research into group advocacy efforts likewise reveals that successful lobbying campaigns utilize
“political entrepreneurs” who spur action among sympathizers (Gift & Miner, 2017, p. 146).
Schmittel & Sanderson (2014) suggest that professional athletes exert similarly strong
mobilization influence because fan admiration often extends beyond athletic accomplishments,
affecting both attitudes and beliefs. This gives athletes the same capacity to affect social change
as other celebrities, effectively filling the role of the “political entrepreneur” (Gift & Miner,
2017).
The 1960s and 1970s provide a prime example of athletes’ ability to increase issue
awareness in the general public. During this period, athletes routinely used their platforms to
highlight topics such as the Civil Rights movement, anti-war activism, and sexism. The pinnacle
of these efforts occurred during the 1968 200-meter Olympic medal ceremony when American
sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists in the Black Power salute. The iconic
protest led to Smith and Carlos’ expulsion from the Olympics, but inspired countless others to
engage with activism and raised vital awareness about racism and black poverty (Schmittel &
Sanderson, 2014). Discouraging athletes from political engagement thus eliminates a key
platform for raising issue awareness.

37
Such a case occurred during the 1990s and early 2000s when mounting athlete fears of
“backlash from the media, coaches, teammates, and their fans, as well as the financial backlash
from a loss of sponsor or team contract” (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al., 2018, p. 33) led to decreased
politicization. Cunningham & Regan (2012) expand upon this analysis, suggesting two
additional factors that may have impacted activism levels: the belief that social inequalities were
no longer as prevalent as in previous decades and a mentality shift that prioritized physical
achievements over advocacy. Scholars also cite the lack of activism from Michael Jordan, one of
the most influential athletes of the period, as significantly discouraging contemporary athletes
from engaging with social issues (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al., 2018; Schmittel & Sanderson, 2014).
When asked why he did not support a black Democratic political candidate, for example, Jordan
famously replied, “Republicans buy sneakers, too” (Wagner, 2016).

Athlete Activism & Social Media
The rise of social media has aided a recent resurgence in athlete activism, particularly
among black and other minority athletes (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al., 2018). In 2016, for example,
Jordan released an article titled “I Can No Longer Stay Silent” that walked back his decades-long
apolitical stance. Jordan (2016) writes:
As a proud American, a father who lost his own dad in a senseless act of violence, and a
black man, I have been deeply troubled by the deaths of African-Americans at the hands
of law enforcement and angered by the cowardly and hateful targeting and killing of
police officers. I grieve with the families who have lost loved ones, as I know their pain
all too well.

Schmidt, Shreffler, et al. (2018) characterize these new instances of athlete activism across an
effort level spectrum. Physical protests or attempts for change, like Kaepernick’s “Take a Knee”
demonstration, fall on the high end; token forms of support, such as Jordan’s written statement,
land on the low end (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al., 2018). High effort activism tends to draw stronger

38
criticism – and, correspondingly, stronger consequences – than low effort activism (Schmidt,
Shreffler, et al., 2018). Therefore, social media’s role in increasing activism stems not just from
its accessibility, but from its facilitation of low effort activism, invoking the weakest behavioral
consequences.
Scholars typically refer to such low effort forms of activism as either “slacktivism” or
“clicktivism.” Halupka (2014) defines clicktivism as “a unique form of online political
participation” (p. 124) that typically features impulsive actions, a lack of ongoing commitment to
the cause, and action repetition. Common examples of clicktivism include signing petitions,
sharing content, and engaging with social buttons such as the Facebook “like.” The relative ease
of participating in clicktivism has thus led scholars to question both its effectiveness and
legitimacy as a political action, with some asserting that it has weakened societal dispositions
towards offline mobilization (Halupka, 2014). Regardless of these debates, however, clicktivism
has become common practice for professional athletes. Schmittel & Sanderson (2014) argue that
such activities offer a particularly important mechanism for “African Americans and other
minority athletes to engage in activism and initiate important conversations about social justice
issues” (p. 332). The power of clicktivism – specifically in regards to athletes – may thus lie in
its ability to draw attention to important issues, rather than facilitate traditional offline
mobilization.

Athlete Activism: Branding Impacts
As more athletes step into the activist realm, it has become increasingly important to
understand how such actions may affect business considerations, specifically in regards to
endorsement deals. Co-branding theory, which examines the reciprocal relationship between two
or more paired brands, provides a framework for analyzing these impacts. Seno & Lukas (2007)

39
write that a co-branding relationship, such as an athlete endorsement deal, “takes the form of a
continuing exchange, or flow… [of image attributes] between the co-branding parties that can be
managed in an exclusive and dynamic process” (p. 123). In essence, then, co-branding suggests
that paired brands transfer their properties – either positive or negative – to each other. Schmidt,
Shreffler, et al. (2018) describe co-branding from a celebrity endorsement perspective, noting
that “the more favorable the view of the endorser, the more favorable the view of the product”
(p. 33) and that high consumer regard for the endorser may increase purchase intention. This
property enhances when consumers observe consistency between the endorser’s characteristics
and the endorsed product (McCracken, 1989).
Co-branding theory thus helps to explain how and why athlete activism may affect public
perceptions of an athlete’s endorsed brand. When athletes and brands enter into an endorsement
deal, the two entities become “paired” in the consumer mind. Opinions on the athlete’s activism,
therefore, also impact brand perceptions due to the co-branded relationship. Schmidt, Shreffler,
et al. (2018) note that high effort athlete activists, such as Kaepernick, draw stronger criticism
than low effort athlete effort activists (e.g., clicktivists). Consequently, the authors found that
consumers viewed brands that featured high effort athlete activists more negatively than brands
that featured low effort athlete activists (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al., 2018). Consumers also
reported a lower purchase intention towards brands featuring high effort athlete activists
(Schmidt, Shreffler, et al., 2018). However, the authors ultimately found that using either type of
athlete activist netted favorable overall outcomes for brand image (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al.,
2018). This research suggests that featuring athlete activists as endorsers can benefit brands, but
that organizations must use this approach with caution.

40
Corporatizing Activism
Athletes are not the only ones politicizing their place of work. Although brands have
historically tended to avoid social and political issues, changes in consumer expectations in the
“Brand Democracy” have prompted companies to engage with such matters. Most research
exploring corporate activism focuses on the specific subset of corporate social responsibility
(CSR). Dodd & Supa (2014) define CSR as “the voluntary actions that a corporation implements
as it pursues its mission and fulfills its perceived obligations to stakeholders, including
employees, communities, the environment, and society as a whole” (p. 3). Important areas of
CSR include adhering to legal and ethical principles, using eco-friendly practices, and supporting
charity (Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001, p. 47). CSR activities thus consist of “socially
responsible” practices, undertaken voluntarily, that operate independently of traditional business
functions. Recent studies indicate that these activities “can have a significant impact on
[consumer] behavioral intentions as well as evaluations of products and companies,” which may
explain the recent rise in such practices (Mohr et al., 2001, p. 52).
Consumer-issue agreement plays a primary role in determining CSR’s effect on
consumer behaviors. Dodd & Supa (2014) note that the more a consumer agrees with a corporate
stance, the greater intention to purchase; likewise, lesser agreement results in lesser intention to
purchase. Attitudinal surveys reflect these findings: consumers who expect firms to follow
responsible practices base purchasing decisions on knowledge of these firms’ behavior (Mohr et
al., 2001, p. 49). In a recent survey by research and consulting firm Clutch, for example, 75
percent of respondents reported a stronger inclination to buy from a brand that supports an issue
they agree with (Cox, 2019). CSR has thus become an increasingly important tactic for
companies to maintain consumer loyalty and affect purchase intention.

41
With the rise in CSR, however, consumers have also grown more suspicious of corporate
actions. Twenty-nine percent of respondents to the Clutch survey stated that they believe
businesses primarily engage in CSR to earn money (Cox, 2019). This figure remains unchanged
from Mohr et al.’s (2001) findings, in which roughly one-third of surveyed consumers viewed
CSR as self-interested behavior on the part of the company. Even consumers with positive
attitudes towards socially responsible firms report skepticism about CSR activities. Reservations
commonly include questioning a company’s honesty or motivations, distrusting ways of
practicing socially responsible behavior, and doubting that CSR can actually make an impact
(Mohr et al., 2001, p. 59). Companies can partially mitigate these consumer suspicions by
crafting CSR initiatives around topics that relate to their fundamental brand values. According to
Werder (2017), “issues that directly relate to the corporation’s core mission produced
significantly higher levels of legitimacy” (p. 9) and thus produced a greater return-on-
investment.
In addition to CSR, some brands have begun to promote activism through partnerships
with advocacy groups, such as nonprofit organizations (Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014). In 2010,
for example, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) partnered with breast cancer nonprofit Susan G.
Komen to create “Buckets for the Cure.” During the campaign, KFC replaced its standard
buckets with pink breast cancer buckets and promoted a website featuring breast cancer facts.
Dauvergne & LeBaron (2014) link this rise in partnerships to growing advocacy group trust in
corporate activism. This trust largely stems from two factors associated with neoliberalism: the
growing recognition of “markets as an efficient and acceptable means to pursue nonprofit
objectives” and the global trend “among citizens towards… personal acts as a way of trying to
promote change (riding a bike to raise funds for cancer research) rather than by participating in

42
more strategic collective action” (p. 46). On the corporate side, meanwhile, brands have realized
that engaging with advocacy efforts outside of CSR does more than project a caring image.
Similar to CSR’s effect on purchase intention, linking a brand to a desirable cause can fuel
consumer demand (Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014). Thus, while advocacy groups see an
increasing need to leverage the capitalist market, brands have simultaneously discovered the
benefits of publicly pledging to support activist causes.

Commodity Activism
In recent years, brands have also increasingly begun to partake in what Mukherjee &
Banet-Weiser (2012) term “commodity activism,” or the conflation of consumption with
advocacy. Unlike corporate activism, which traditionally operates independently of standard
business functions, commodity activism takes place at the point of sale. Dauvergne & LeBaron
(2014) describe this action as using “consumerism to finance a cause, leaving consumers guilt-
free, even feeling honorable, when shopping. The more one buys, the more good one will do,
turning capitalism into a dynamic solution for social ills” (p. 52). U2’s Bono, a co-founder of
noted commodity activism brand (PROJECT) RED, may have described it best, stating:
You buy a RED product over here, the RED company buys life-saving drugs for someone
who can’t afford them over there. That’s it. So why not shop ‘til it stops? Why not try
some off-the-rack enlightenment? We can spend and destroy. We can wear our inside
out. You will be a good-looking Samaritan because – and this is very good news for some
of us – sinners make the best saints. (Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014, p. 52)

Giesler & Veresiu (2014) link this concept of “responsible consumption” to neoliberal market
ideals but also theorize that such behavior “requires the active creation and management of
consumers as moral subjects” (p. 840). Brands, therefore, operate as stewards of commodity
activism by attaching specific causes to their products: buying Starbucks supports fair trade
while purchasing Dove aids body positivity. Consumers then “act politically by purchasing

43
particular brands over others in a competitive marketplace,” (Banet-Weiser, 2012) generating a
socially responsible image for the brand that helps to differentiate it from competitors.
Scholars traditionally trace commodity activism to the development of the “citizen-
consumer” and “consumer power” in the 20
th
century (Mukherjee & Banet-Weiser, 2012;
Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014). During this period, the American public experienced a surging
post-war economy that encouraged “patriotic” forms of conspicuous consumption (Mukherjee &
Banet-Weiser, 2012). Changing social institutions, meanwhile, led to a simultaneous decline in
community associations and the rise of identity by consumption (Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014).
Consumerism thus expanded past its traditional role as “a product of industrialization,” and
became “central to notions of self-identity, morality, economic progress, and political freedom”
(Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014, p. 103). Additionally, American culture embraced a mass media
market dominated by celebrities, advertising, and for-profit media companies, from which
celebrities began “endorsing and legitimizing consumerism as a vital form of political action”
(Duvall & Guschwan, 2013, p. 302). Mukherjee & Banet-Weiser (2012) note, however, that
throughout history, “consumers have consistently – and often contradictorily – embraced
consumption as a platform from which to launch progressive political and cultural projects” (p.
6). Thus, while each of these 20
th
-century cultural transformations contributed to commodity
activism’s rise, the action itself is not a modern phenomenon.
Social activism scholars routinely critique commodity activism for failing to enact
meaningful change. Dauvergne & LeBaron (2014) write that this behavior “tend[s] to do far
more to encourage consumption rather than [create] any deep change... [Commodity activism]
can end up ‘selling’ the suffering of others and marketing feelings of empathy rather than
necessarily doing good in any broad sense” (pp. 10-11). (PROJECT) RED provides a particularly

44
incriminating example of this critique. Founded in 2006 by Bono and American attorney Bobby
Shriver, the private company licenses its RED logo to other brands and then donates a portion of
profits to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. However, a 2007
investigation into the RED U.K. campaign found that its corporate sponsors spent approximately
$100 million on RED marketing while raising just $18 million for the Global Fund, less than
one-fifth of its projected goal (“Does shopping for a good cause really help?”, 2007). This
finding demonstrates that commodity activism’s consequences are two-fold: it encourages
consumers to substitute traditional involvement for “feel good” shopping, while simultaneously
lacking an enforcement mechanism to check corporate accountability. As the RED wave reveals,
then, commodity activism campaigns can easily “do more to buoy up consumption than deliver
appreciable social benefits” (Dauvergne & LeBaron, 2014, p. 54).
Commodity activism also receives criticism for commercializing injustices and social
identities. Duvall & Guschwan (2013) argue that the term’s very existence implies the
appropriation of activist identities by “capitalist institutions that sell the idea and identity of
activism in a tidy, depoliticized package” (p. 299). Moreover, not all social causes are equally
“brandable.” Some partnerships, such as RED’s commitment to fighting AIDS or Dove’s support
of “Real Beauty,” tackle fairly uncontroversial issues. After all, Banet-Weiser (2018) notes,
“even when brands harness politics to sell their products, they don’t want to alienate too much of
their consumer base.” These partnerships become problematic when brands choose divisive
public issues to address through consumption. Scholars commonly identify Nike as a repeat
offender in this arena. When describing “Dream Crazy,” for example, Chadwick & Zipp (2018)
write:
By exploiting injustice for commercial purposes, Nike may be undermining or demeaning
the causes it declares to support.… Nike’s choice of Kaepernick to front the latest ad

45
campaign commercialises issues such as racism, Islamophobia and human rights
violations. Their framing of these problems beneath one catchy slogan seems to imply
that there is equivalence between the experiences of kneeling NFL players, Muslim
women wearing hijabs in a boxing gym, people overcoming cancer and urban white male
skateboarders.

Other accusations towards Nike include the commodification of feminism, racial unity, and black
culture (Duvall & Guschwan, 2013; Goldman & Papson, 1998).

Activism as Mind-Share Branding
It is important to note that branded activism – either through athlete, corporate or
commodity activism – operates from a premise of mind-share branding. Brands that take part in
activism and social movements typically select causes that resonate with their target audiences.
Such decisions make financial sense: as noted previously, stronger consumer-issue agreement
correlates to stronger purchase intention (Dodd & Supa, 2014). Selecting causes that align with a
company’s target audience can thus generate greater levels of consumption. In essence, then,
branded activism occurs when brands claim a distinct position – in this case, supporting a social
cause – and repeatedly articulate it in branding efforts to distinguish their products. When
companies successfully achieve this distinction, mind-share branding occurs.
Critiquing Nike from a branded activism standpoint thus sits at odds with Holt’s (2004)
model of cultural branding. While the former view implies that the company appropriates and
commercializes social causes to generate profit, the latter views social engagement as a core
piece of Nike’s identity myth, helping to embody the “Just Do It” mentality of conquering
seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Examining this tension from the consumer perspective – as
well as how consumers generally perceived the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign – thus
forms the basis for the author’s primary research. This research will provide insight into how
brands can navigate the complexities of advertisement campaigns in the “Brand Democracy” era.

46
Methodology

Nike’s “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign demonstrates how the complex interplay
between cultural branding and branded activism trends shaped a prominent global campaign. The
author completed a textual analysis of social media comments on Nike’s “Dream Crazy”
advertisement to further examine the tension between cultural branding and branded activism, as
well as the impact these concepts had on consumer reactions. The methodology used to collect
and analyze the primary research data is discussed below.

Data Collection
Data were collected on October 26, 2019, from the comments section of YouTube user
Hoops Daily’s “Dream Crazy” repost. The original “Dream Crazy,” posted on Nike’s official
YouTube channel, was no longer publicly available at the time of data collection. The author
selected Hoops Daily’s video as the replacement data source due to its position as the highest-
viewed “Dream Crazy” repost on YouTube. The initial data set contained all 457 comments,
including replies, left on the video between its initial posting (October 17, 2018) and the date of
data collection (October 26, 2019). After examining the data, the author removed “spam”
comments (e.g., user requests for “follows,” emojis, etc.) and replies to comments that did not
advance thematic or topical discussions (e.g., personal attacks on other posters, requests for
clarification, etc.). The final data set contained 301 comments. Appendix B provides additional
quantitative details related to the final data set.

47
Data Analysis
The author conducted three rounds of inductive textual analysis to examine how
consumers viewed and expressed opinions on “Dream Crazy” and its related components. Each
comment served as a unit of analysis in this exploration.
Analysis began with a general data review to familiarize the author with the content and
the themes of the comments. The second round of analysis non-exclusively coded each data
point with thematic and topical descriptors (see “Data Results & Analysis: Data Coding”). The
author then reviewed the identified codes and grouped related codes together. This grouping
produced four general categories (see “Data Results & Analysis: Data Categories”). In the third
round of analysis, the author exclusively sorted the data into the four categories generated by the
codes. Each data point was placed into the category that encapsulated the majority of its codes.
In cases where the data point expressed an equal number of codes for different categories, the
author placed the comment into the category that best reflected its subject.
.

48
Data Results & Analysis

The author’s primary research produced both quantitative and qualitative data for
analysis. The results of this analysis revealed insights into the frames of reference through which
consumers perceived and communicated about the “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign. In
this section, the author discusses both the codes identified through the inductive analysis and the
categorical groupings of these codes. The author then provides an interpretation of the data
results through the concepts identified in the literature review. All examples used in the
discussion are taken verbatim from the data set. Grammar and spelling have not been altered.

Data Codes
The author’s inductive textual analysis of the data set produced twenty codes. Each of the
codes contained the following keywords and definitions (examples provided from the data set):

1. Athlete activism: statements mentioning an athlete’s use of his or her platform to
address social issues and/or raise issue awareness, most commonly in reference to
Kaepernick.
Example: “Football doesn’t matter he using his plate form to voice his opinions”

2. China controversy: references to China, Daryl Morey, the Houston Rockets, and/or
Nike removing merchandise from Chinese stores.
Example: “So, when is Nike going to stand with Houston Rockets GM Daryl
Morey”

49
3. Commodity activism: statements mentioning terms related to price, business/finances,
and/or consumer purchase behavior, such as sellout, overpriced, corporate, sales,
profit, etc.
Example: “nike literally made this ad because they were losing many sales”

4. Dream Crazy: references to content in the “Dream Crazy” video, such as descriptions
of the featured athlete stories or quoting Kaepernick’s narration.
Example: “[at] 0:33, the basketball female player bouncing 2 balls at the same
time on a wheelchair, and the prom queen/linebacker!!”

5. Culture jamming: manipulations of Kaepernick’s narration or the Nike slogan.
Example: “seems more like, ‘Believe in profits, even if it means appeasing an
authoritarian human rights violator’”

6. Hypocritical: explicit use of the word “hypocritical” and/or statements juxtaposing
Nike’s past behaviors against the inspirational/activist message in “Dream Crazy.”
Example: “This ad was entirely hypocritical, just preying on people who don’t
know better.”

7. Kaepernick as athlete: statements discussing Kaepernick’s professional achievements
in the NFL and/or references to football terms such as quarterback, benchwarmer, San
Francisco 49ers, etc.
Example: “he is a nothing but the Worst player in the NFL”

50
8. Kaepernick hate: statements mentioning the poster’s disapproval of Kaepernick or his
actions, expression of strong negative emotions about Kaepernick, and/or
profanities/insults directed towards Kaepernick.
Example: “I an American on the other hand have no respect for Colin
Kapernick.”

9. Kaepernick identity: references to Kaepernick’s identity outside of his athletic career
and activism, such as his biracial heritage, middle-class upbringing, and alleged
religious conversion to Islam.
Example: “First, Colin is NOT even a ‘Black man’. He is a 1/2 white dude that
was raised by a WHITE family, that took him in after his black father
abandoned him. He was raised upper class, and in whitest towns in America.”

10. Kaepernick protest: references to Kaepernick’s physical protests during the 2016-17
NFL season and/or verbs describing the action, such as kneeling.
Example: “why support a kneeling loser”

11. Kaepernick support: statements mentioning the poster’s approval of Kaepernick
and/or expression of strong positive emotions about Kaepernick or his actions.
Example: “I admire Colin for his cause”

12. Nike boycott: statements alleging that the poster will no longer purchase Nike
products, calls-to-action for others to boycott the company, and/or references to
online boycott hashtags (e.g., #BoycottNike).
Example: “Done with Nike. Used to buy Nike always. Now I buy Nike never.”

51
13. Nike branding: references to previous Nike advertisements and/or statements that
explicitly mention the Nike marketing/advertising department, the “Just Do It”
slogan, or the Nike swoosh.
Example: “my favourite nike commercial is that with lance Armstrong”

14. Partisan: references to political parties or systems at large (as opposed to specific
politicians, see “Trump/2016 Election”) and/or using political descriptors to address
other users or groups.
Example: “spoken like a gullible, liberal, Demwit doofus”

15. Patriotism: describing actions as American or anti-American; direct references to
veterans, the Star-Spangled Banner, or the American flag.
Example: “a flag that represents our nation and what it stands for, liberty
freedom, and justice. Don’t ever fucking disrespect our flag.”

16. Physical/emotional reaction: statements expressing how the video provoked a
physical reaction and/or descriptions of the feelings evoked by the video.
Example: “This commercial ALWAYS gives me chills.”

17. Race: statements about an identified racial group and/or describing an individual’s
race, either in reference to a Nike endorser, the commenter, or society at large.
Example: “I wish non-white people and black people in particular well in the
US.”

18. Social issues: references to contemporary social issues such as police brutality,
racism, or feminism, typically related to the topics addressed in Kaepernick’s protest.

52
Example: “All lives should matter and police brutality should be dealt with and
those individuals should be held accountable for abusing the law.”

19. Nike factories: statements about Nike’s manufacturing facilities in Asian countries
such as China and Indonesia, descriptions of those facilities (e.g., slave labor,
sweatshop, etc.), and/or references to the company’s 1990s scandal over factory
conditions.
Example: “they support and enforce human slavery in the inhuman factories”

20. Trump/2016 Presidential Election: statements mentioning President Donald Trump
by name or other descriptors, references to the 2016 election through involved parties
or campaign rhetoric, and/or discussions about the electoral system.
Example: “Trump is worse than Nixon He belongs in jail”

Data Categories
After coding the data, the author examined the identified codes and grouped related codes
together. This grouping revealed four general categories expressed by the data: 1) advertisement,
2) endorser, 3) brand, and 4) politics. Each category consisted of the following codes:

1. Advertisement: Physical/emotional reaction, Dream Crazy
2. Endorser: Kaepernick support, Kaepernick hate, Kaepernick identity, Kaepernick as
athlete, Kaepernick protest, athlete activism
3. Brand: China controversy, culture jamming, Nike boycott, Nike branding, Nike
factories, hypocritical, commodity activism
4. Politics: Partisan, patriotism, race, social issues, Trump/2016 election

53

Category Analysis: Advertisement
Comments classified as “Advertisement” contained the following codes:
physical/emotional reaction and “Dream Crazy” content. These comments thus primarily focused
on discussing the advertisement’s visual or audio substance, as well as the reactions evoked by
this content. 54 out of 301 data points fell under the “Advertisement” category (see Appendix B
for additional quantitative data).
“Advertisement” comments primarily communicated emotional reactions to the video, of
which the majority expressed positive sentiments. Common emotional descriptors included
“inspiring,” “beautiful,” and “heartwarming.” Comments also described how the advertisement
stimulated physical actions, either as an involuntary emotional response (e.g., “OMG this ad
makes me teary-eyed, every single time! Beautiful,” “Still gives me goosebumps”) or as a
motivator (e.g., “Im going to change the world now,” “I watch this video for motivation”).
Negative comments about the advertisement, however, were not expressed through an
emotional lens. Users instead described their disapproval of the video by attacking its storyline
and messaging. One comment, for example, succinctly summarized the video as a “fucking
joke,” suggesting that the user did not take its content seriously; another comment described the
video as “propaganda garbage.” Interestingly, the majority of adverse reactions to the
advertisement stemmed from its thematic focus on dreaming big. These comments argued that
the story imparted bad advice to viewers, who likely would never achieve the same level of
success as the featured athletes. For example, one user wrote:
Telling kids they can be anything they want to be when 99% of them cannot IS really bad
advice. I have seen young adults, who had very little athletic talent, wasting their most
productive years trying to make it in a sport they had no chance at, instead of putting their
time and energy into getting a realistic career to make a living.

54
Another comment, meanwhile, played off of the video’s title, noting, “If people think you’re
crazy, that’s most likely a red flag. Seek help, mental illness is a treatable disease.”
The remaining “Advertisement” comments analyzed the video’s political messaging.
Several users expressed confusion over the thematic struggles Nike inserted into the video. One
commenter, for example, wrote, “Where are all the police brutality examples, I thought that was
what this is about. This looks like globalism to me,” while another said, “I’m really confused as
to what this advertisement has to do with our soldiers.”

Contextual Advertisement Viewing
Prior to analysis, the author expected that comments discussing the actual content of
“Dream Crazy” would form the second largest category. However, the “Advertisement” category
ranked third among category size, containing only 13 more comments than the “Brand” category
(41 total comments) and one fewer comment than the “Politics” category (55 total comments).
Comments thus discussed the advertisement’s content, Nike’s brand, and political issues at
relatively similar levels. This indicates that commenters viewed “Dream Crazy” in a heavily
contextual manner, basing discourse around prior knowledge of Nike’s brand and willingness to
engage with contemporary political issues. Essentially, then, consumers have linked Nike with
politics, lending support to a mind-share analysis of the company’s branding strategy. This
finding also demonstrates that “Dream Crazy” functioned as a critical installment in the Nike
brand anthology, with discussions addressing the company’s overarching brand nearly as
frequently as the advertisement itself. To argue that the video’s content does not matter would
take this concept too far. However, it does suggest that campaigns function as frames for past
brand history in addition to advancing new imagery.

55
Message Congruency
“Advertisement” comments also displayed the power of communicating consistent
messaging. Positive comments in this category described “Dream Crazy’s” motivational impact
on behaviors, with posters recounting how the video inspired them to pursue new challenges.
These anecdotes resonate with the “Just Do It” identity myth described by Cameron & Holt
(2010) as part of Nike’s proposed cultural branding strategy. The video’s script notably evokes
the calls-to-action inherent in advertisements such as “Revolution.” Kaepernick’s inclusion,
meanwhile, recalls the brand’s overtly political messaging of the 1990s through spots such as
“Hello World” and “If You Let Me Play.” These videos also featured the Nike brand in a
secondary role, shifting the focus to the emotional and human connections communicated
through the storylines – a concept echoed in “Dream Crazy.” The Kaepernick video thus displays
congruency with Nike’s previous branding efforts, resulting in a powerful emotional response
from consumers. In this instance, the company doubled-down on inspiration, a key component of
its carefully crafted image. Even detractors, who expressed fundamental issues with nearly every
aspect of the advertisement, did not criticize the emotions evoked by “Dream Crazy.”

Category Analysis: Endorser
Comments classified as “Endorser” contained the following codes: Kaepernick support,
Kaepernick hate, Kaepernick identity, Kaepernick as athlete, Kaepernick protest, and athlete
activism. This category thus primarily focused on discussing the video through the lens of its
featured athletes. “Endorser” was the largest category within the data set, with 151 of 301
comments classified under this reference frame (see Appendix B for additional quantitative
data). Notably, these comments focused almost entirely on Kaepernick, as indicated by the
included codes; most commenters did not address the other athletes in the video, whose stories

56
provided the content for Kaepernick’s narration (see Appendix A). Only one of the categorized
comments specifies “Dream Crazy” athletes other than Kaepernick:
I love how they show women in hijabs as a sign of “Strength”. When all these women
would be put in jail and force to wear them in the Eastern world. Its NOT a “choice of
feminist strength” there. But of life and not going to jail. As for the women’s soccer
team, they are great, for a womens team, but ANY top high school male soccer team
would smoke their feminist azzes.

The “women in hijabs” refers to Zeina Nassar, a five-time Berlin boxing champion, while “the
women’s soccer team” cites the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team. The comment uses an
acerbic, belittling tone to mention these endorsers and does so only after four sentences spent
discussing Kaepernick. The poster also conspicuously specifies the athletes who most strongly
symbolize feminism in the advertisement. Here, however, the descriptor of feminism is applied
in a seemingly mocking attempt at discreditation. This singular mention of the advertisement’s
other athletes was thus likely used in an effort to devalue its endorsers and its message.
Given Kaepernick’s polarizing public persona, it is not surprising that the vast majority of
“Endorser” comments communicated viewers’ reactions to his presence. These comments
expressed either support (47 comments) or, more commonly, disapproval (94 comments) of
Kaepernick. Negative responses to Kaepernick were conveyed as emotional statements through
both simple sentences (e.g., “I hate that guy,” “He is such a loser”) and longer, substantive
comments (“Colin Kaepernick: THE MOST UNINFORMED, USELESS, OVER-RATED,
UNETHICAL, IGNORANT INDIVIDUAL SINCE RICHARD M. NIXON.”). Such comments
frequently featured non-constructive, confrontational language. Commenters repeatedly used
variants of the phrase “fuck Kaepernick” and other forms of vulgarity, such as “piece of shit,”
“douchebag,” “asshole,” and “pussy.” Additionally, negative comments routinely discussed
Kaepernick through the commenter’s knowledge of his protest, viewing it as unpatriotic. One

57
viewer, for example, claimed, “HE’S a coward and disrespected the countless who ACTUALLY
sacrificed everything to create this nation,” while another wrote, “Good job Colin, you won. You
sacrificed your career just you could disrespect your own country. You definitely won the race to
crazy.” This poster’s two congratulatory “you won” phrases suggest that Kaepernick views
himself as succeeding in his protest, perhaps in light of his campaign with Nike. However, the
comment’s sarcastic, flippant tone – when coupled with “crazy” and “disrespect your own
country” – demonstrates an attempt to frame Kaepernick’s apparent success as failure, thus
downplaying both his protest and appearance in the campaign.
Support for Kaepernick, meanwhile, also came in both short (e.g., “Thank you Colin
Kaepernick…keep inspiring the world”) and long-form comments (e.g., “I think Colin
Kaepernick deserves a lot of respect and credit for putting his own career on the line for a
common purpose not to disrespect out flag bug to shine a light on the injustices we hear about
time and time again”), but did not rely on the use of valanced language. These comments instead
primarily employed logical reasoning to frame their support of Kaepernick, while also
attempting to educate other viewers on his protest. One comment particularly embodied this
trend:
Allow me to clarify – I was not talking about kneeling, I was talking about this
advertisement. Since you have made the leap to kneeling, allow me to elaborate: Colin
Kaepernick explicitly stated his reasoning for kneeling, “I am not going to stand up to
show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color”. He
said he would not stand until “[the American flag] represents what it’s supposed to
represent”. When Kaepernick started his protest, he did so sitting but switched to
kneeling for the PURPOSE of showing more respect to former and current U.S. military
members. He has explained that he DOES support the U.S. military. He has
acknowledged that not all cops are bad, addressing the cops that commit violence as
“rogue cops”. He maintained that he knows many cops with good intentions, and he is
not kneeling to protest them, but the cops that commit acts of violent oppression. What
kneeling in front of the flag has to do with oppression is that the flag represents this
country, and some of what this country represents right now is against the morals and
basic inalienable rights of many of Americans.

58

Supporters like the above made explicit attempts to acknowledge Kaepernick’s actions as
opposing police brutality and racial inequalities. In short, proponents focused on Kaepernick’s
original intentions, while detractors emphasized the symbolism through which his actions
became publicly viewed.
The author theorizes that this difference in discussion style stems from both media
coverage and the commenter’s political party. Protest participation notably reached its peak
during Week 3 of the 2017-18 NFL season after President Donald Trump tweeted against the
protests. The media responded accordingly, with headlines such as “NFL player protests sweep
league after President Donald Trump’s hostile remarks” (2017). The rise in protesters that week
thus became viewed as a statement against Trump, effectively diluting the original message and
reframing the conversation. The protest was no longer about police brutality and racial
inequality, but about opposing the president and, by extension, the Republican party. Emotional
defensiveness typically arises in response to group or identity criticism, with individuals
commonly choosing to “bully, degrade or discredit the integrity of the messenger” (Hornsey,
Frederiks, Smith, & Ford, 2007, p. 697-698). Thus, commenters expressing disapproval of
Kaepernick likely turned to emotional comment styles as a self-defense mechanism. For those
supporting Kaepernick, meanwhile, the protest never lost its original intent: although it garnered
more coverage and participation due to Trump, it still stood for social activism.
Commenters within the “Endorser” category also regularly framed their thoughts on
Kaepernick through his athletic accomplishments. Individuals that did not support Kaepernick
fixated on perceived shortcomings, writing comments such as: “You should have believed you
could have been a better QB,” “Funny how kapernick is telling people to be there best by using
examples of other people when he’s one of the worst ranked qbs in the league,” and “Imagine

59
saying u sacrificed everything when that year u were one of the worst ranked Quarterbacks in the
NFL.” For these commenters, then, Kaepernick’s athletic ability provided a rationalization for
dismissing his voice. Conversely, supporters felt that Kaepernick’s performance merited a spot in
the NFL, arguing that only his protest prevented him from playing. One comment, for example,
stated:
He is still starting quarterback quality, he was never the best, he had the potential to be.
He could start now, on several teams that need a QB. But the NFL is bull$hit and full of
racists.They only want us colored people to play ball and make money FOR THEIR
POCKETS. Never mind standing up for equality and justice.

Kaepernick fans and detractors thus both used his athletic ability as a major discussion point for
“Dream Crazy.” Despite referencing the same accomplishments, however, each group came to
substantially different conclusions on his playing capabilities.
Other comments about Kaepernick focused on aspects of his identity beyond the world of
sport. These posts most commonly addressed Kaepernick’s upbringing and current status as a
multi-millionaire. One poster, for example, wrote:
Says the privileged boy raised by 2 adopted white parents who were wealthy put him
through college and then watched as he used virtue signaling to spit on them as he
claimed racism in america... really if anyone knows white priviledge its colin
kaepernick... shit he grew up more privilaged than most white kids do ungrateful son of a
bitch

Others made statements such as, “I don’t like him saying ‘even if it means sacrificing
everything’ like tf is he saying he got 60-80 million from the NFL and millions more from
Nike,” and “a muti-millionaire worth tens of millions, who lives in the moxt exclusive Private-
GATED community in California then bought some Che Guevara shirts and started pretending
he was a communist, lmao.” In each of these examples, the commenters reference Kaepernick’s
identity to imply that he has not faced significant discrimination, thus downplaying the
importance of his protest and discrediting him as an activist. Ironically, however, comments that

60
suggested Kaepernick “made up” his crusade were more likely to discuss his race or make racist
references. Such comments commonly singled out the same physical trait: his hair. In “Dream
Crazy” Kaepernick sports an afro, a hairstyle typically associated with black culture. One
commenter described him as “kolin big haired idiot” and another claimed that “he grew an Afro
for the 1st time in his life, ONLY when he was on his way out of NFL.” For these posters,
Kaepernick’s afro seemed to symbolize how he “manufactured” his racial identity and
discrimination.

Athlete Activism
“Endorser” comments exhibited a distinct focus on the politics of sports. Interestingly, no
comments expressed obvious anxiety over the entanglement between politics and sports
presented by Kaepernick (e.g., “stick to sports”), as suggested by the literature review of athlete
activism. Kaepernick had not played in the NFL for over a year at the time of the video’s release,
which may explain the lack of traditional anti-athlete activist refrains. Instead, comments
reversed the “stick to sports” frame. Rather than trying to prevent an athlete from engaging in
issue advocacy, they claimed that Kaepernick’s perceived failure as an athlete discredited him as
an activist. The former seeks to separate the two concepts, while the latter directly connects
them. One comment – albeit from a Kaepernick supporter – even explicitly acknowledges the
link between sports and politics, stating, “He had had every right to do what he did because he
lives in this country. Politics and Sport go hand and hand... You can’t separate them...
Everyone’s America is not the same.” These findings suggest that the new wave of athlete
activism, spurred by social media, may have already brought about changes to traditional views
on mixing sports with politics. As more athletes continue to engage with activism issues, it will
likely become both a prominent and necessary part of American sports. Michael Jordan may

61
have avoided such a stance in the 1990s, but today’s superstars and their audiences appear
discontent with adopting apolitical attitudes.
Analysis of the “Endorser” comments also aligns with Schmidt, Shreffler, et al.’s (2018)
research into high effort and low effort athlete activism. Kaepernick’s protest, as a physical act
for change, falls on the high effort end and thus, according to the model, should experience
stronger consequences than a low effort action (Schmidt, Shreffler, et al., 2018). Low effort
actions encompass token forms of support, such as clicktivism. The author thus proposes that the
other “Dream Crazy” endorsers classify as low effort athlete activists: they support Kaepernick’s
cause through the video but are not otherwise associated with physical protests. The “Endorser”
data analysis revealed that commenters focused almost entirely on Kaepernick, the high effort
athlete activist. Only one comment mentioned the other low effort endorsers. This comment,
although mocking and sardonic, did not exert the same level of negative expression as
Kaepernick repeatedly received throughout the data set. The data analysis thus supports Schmidt,
Shreffler, et al.’s (2018) finding that high effort athlete activism invokes stronger consequences
than low effort athlete activism.

Endorser Influence
The overwhelming prominence of comments focusing on Kaepernick also speaks to the
power of endorsers. Kaepernick’s role in “Dream Crazy” generated more discussion than Nike,
its products, or the content of the video itself. This suggests that the endorser featured in a
branding campaign plays as large of a role as the content of the campaign. Kaepernick’s
abnormally polarizing reputation likely created a partial skew in the data, but this result still
holds relevance. Previous research into celebrity advocacy as entertainment-oriented
mobilization that amplifies issue messaging reflects this finding (Gotham, 2012, p. 109).

62
Moreover, the “Endorser” data also supports past analyses of controversies, such as the 2017
Starbucks boycott, which have shown that polarized subjects produce greater attention (Bary,
2018).
However, the attention garnered by celebrity endorsers – particularly controversial ones –
may not always net positive results. A divisive figure such as Kaepernick certainly generated
more campaign impressions, but at the cost of public acrimony and anti-brand behavior, as
evidenced by #BoycottNike and online culture jamming. Previous research has found that the
number of negative posts during a controversy typically matches the number of positive posts,
but the results of this study did not support that finding (Bary, 2018). “Endorser” comments
coded as “Kaepernick hate” (94 total comments) appeared twice as frequently as comments
coded as “Kaepernick support” (47 total comments). This discrepancy between previous research
and the author’s data results may be explained by the platform studied. YouTube’s comment
section is regarded as “one of the internet’s most infamous cesspools” (Alexander, 2018) and
houses notoriously toxic posters. Numerous factors may contribute to the overwhelming
negativity found in the YouTube comments section, such as its lack of moderators or community
voting mechanism. On Reddit, for example, users can either “upvote” or “downvote” a post to
change its net score, which affects the post’s visibility. While YouTube also features a “thumbs
up” and “thumbs down” system, downvotes do not modify the comment’s displayed score or
contribute to its visibility. The author thus expects that performing the same inductive analysis
on a different platform would alter the balance of negative and positive endorser comments.
Regardless, however, the implication remains that selecting endorsers involves a balancing act.
Companies must carefully weigh the traffic generated against the net number of supporters and
detractors.

63

Category Analysis: Brand
Comments classified as “Brand” contained the following codes: China controversy,
culture jamming, Nike boycott, Nike branding, Nike factories, hypocritical, and commodity
activism. These comments thus focused on discussing Nike at large, as well as how “Dream
Crazy” specifically impacted the commenter’s perception of the company. 41 out of 301 data
points fell under this category (see Appendix B for additional quantitative data). Discourse
within the category trended towards two dominant sub-themes: describing Nike’s “hypocritical”
business and the consumer boycott of Nike products.
Comments labeling Nike as hypocritical referred to past production and sales practices.
Most comments on the production side accused Nike of running sweatshops or using slave labor.
These allegations refer to the company’s 1991 scandal involving low wages and poor working
conditions in its Indonesian factories. After an initially slow corporate response to the factory
report – and an aggressive campaign by United Students Against Sweatshops – Nike eventually
implemented policy changes to improve worker conditions. Comments referencing the scandal
included statements such as, “Does this mean Colin Kaepernick bout to be kneeling for them
abused, underpaid Asian ppl making Nike shoes????” and “Meanwhile in a sweltering rodent-
infested sweat shop in Southeast Asia...”.
Criticism of Nike’s sales policies, meanwhile, revolved around another international
incident: the company’s removal of merchandise from Chinese stores. The controversy occurred
in October 2019 when Daryl Morey, general manager of the Houston Rockets, tweeted support
for ongoing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong. Chinese organizations quickly invoked
sanctions for Morey’s statement, such as suspending streaming partnerships with the Rockets
and canceling NBA events in China. Six days after the tweet, Nike pulled its Rockets

64
merchandise from major Chinese cities. Comments on “Dream Crazy” thus emphasized how this
business choice did not align with the message conveyed by the video. These commenters saw
Nike as hypocritical for violating its “social activist” brand image in a perceived profit-chasing
move. For example, one user wrote:
So, when is Nike going to stand with Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey, and support
freedom and democracy in Hong Kong? Or, was this ad just a bunch of empty words?
Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything. Now, it seems more like,
“Believe in profits, even if it means appeasing an authoritarian human rights violator”.

In both instances of brand criticism, then, viewers pinpointed disconnects between the
company’s actions and the image it promotes, specifically within the context of “Dream Crazy.”
These identified inconsistencies provided the grounds for several commenters to explore
commodity activism concepts. Such comments typically made direct references to business,
finance, or sales terms. The logical reasoning of such commenters asserts that if Nike truly cared
about social justice issues, as implied by “Dream Crazy,” it would not exhibit behaviors that
contradict these issues. Since Nike has displayed such behaviors, it does not genuinely care about
advocacy, and hence only uses social causes to increase sales. One user, for example, wrote,
“overpriced shoes made by children for pennies! Nike just wanted to milk people for their money
and leave them floundering when their words didn’t hold up. It’s disgusting.” The logic behind
these comments thus views the world in uncompromising absolutes. Consumers can and should
expect companies to behave ethically. However, with companies as large as Nike, it seems
unreasonable to believe that moral transgressions will never occur. Moreover, past mistakes
should not necessarily define or discredit a brand’s present intentions. While the China
controversy presented a fresh error for public debate, Nike’s “sweatshop” scandal broke in 1991
– 27 years before the debut of “Dream Crazy.” Holding a mistake from nearly three decades
prior up as evidence of commodity activism presents an unfair level of scrutiny.

65
“Brand” comments also largely discussed consumer behavior modification, specifically
in regards to boycotting Nike. Most of these comments did not justify the boycott and simply
made statements such as “Done with Nike. Used to buy Nike always. Now I buy Nike never.”
Users who provided more detail on their alleged boycott primarily referenced the messaging of
“Dream Crazy” and Kaepernick’s presence as motivators. One commenter claimed that the ad
presented “Just another reason why I will never buy anything from Nike,” while another wrote,
“Ban NIKE forever…I believe in the AMERICAN FLAG.” From textual analysis and secondary
research, the author infers that race also provided an underlying factor in provoking the boycott.
One user, for example, expressed discomfort with Nike and Kaepernick’s relationship by
writing:
Nike, one the largest and most successful companies in the world letting some black man
(whose demographic is about 7 percent of the U.S. population), dictate to them what they
can or cannot market. Fuck the PC agenda and fuck Nike.

However, only one comment about the brand directly acknowledged race’s role in the boycott,
noting, “For those of you boycotting nike,use caution!you showing how racist you really
are!#blacklivesmatter.” YouTube comments about the Nike brand thus also became a way for
consumers to discuss broader political issues, such as the Black Lives Matter movement. This
theme is explored in greater detail in “Category Analysis: Politics.”

Co-Branding Theory & Issue Agreement
Co-branding theory describes the relationship between two or more paired brands as
reciprocal, with the perception of one impacting the perception of the other. Positive views of the
endorser result in positive perceptions of the endorsed brand and vice versa. However, this can
also apply to negative opinions of a co-branded party. The “Brand” data directly reflects this
principle, with several comments mentioning Kaepernick as the reason the posters no longer

66
support Nike. One commenter, for example, explicitly makes the co-branding connection,
writing, “It’s simple Nike, your link to Kaepernick is why i don’t buy your products anymore.”
This finding thus also invokes the principles of issue agreement. Research demonstrates that
consumers respond more favorably to brands that support the causes they agree with, which
improves both brand image and purchase intention. When consumers do not agree with a cause,
however, purchase intention and brand image decline. Through co-branding theory, then,
Kaepernick’s message became associated with the Nike brand. Consumers who did not support
this message thus stated their intention to stop purchasing Nike products, illustrating a lack of
issue agreement. This supports the results of Schmidt, Shreffler, et al.’s (2018) recent study,
which found that consumers viewed brands that featured high effort athlete activists more
negatively than brands that featured low effort athlete activists.
Co-branding and issue agreement may also explain why “Brand” comments trended
towards discussions of Nike’s hypocrisy. These concepts postulate that consumers perceive
higher levels of legitimacy when a company takes on issues related to its core mission (Werder,
2017). Moreover, studies show that a majority of consumers already hold doubts about corporate
activism motivations and believe that profit drives “socially responsible” behaviors (Cox, 2019;
Mohr et al., 2001). Nike’s past actions, therefore, likely amplified pre-existing consumer
skepticism over its choices and reinforced revenue as a major driving force for the company.
From this standpoint, financial growth becomes the company’s “core mission.” Supporting
activist causes does not relate to that mission and thus damages its legitimacy. This operates
alongside the obvious dichotomy between Nike’s past behaviors and brand image, intensifying
consumer belief in its corporate hypocrisy. Notably, however, the China incident occurred more
than a year after “Dream Crazy” premiered, while the factory scandal occurred nearly three

67
decades prior. Had a similar scandal occurred at or near the time of the campaign’s release, Nike
would have likely faced far greater consumer scrutiny for hypocritical behavior. Public relations
teams, therefore, must always stay abreast of campaign release timing and tap into audience
perceptions of brand behavior.
The above discussion implies that controversial figures such as Kaepernick provide
highly polarized splits in purchase intention and brand image amongst consumers. This
reinforces the concept that brands must carefully weigh the net impact of a divisive endorser, as
previously examined in the “Endorser” category. In the case of Nike and Kaepernick, supporters
clearly outweighed detractors, with Nike sales booming after the campaign announcement.
Endorser-brand consistency, an additional form of issue agreement, may have also aided the
Nike sales bump. Kaepernick naturally fits with the brand imagery Nike has utilized since the
1990s. Nike athletes conquer physical and social barriers; Kaepernick leads campaigns to
eliminate these barriers while fighting against his NFL blacklisting. Other athletes, such as those
featured in “Dream Crazy,” have also overcome obstacles, but Kaepernick perfectly embodies
the video’s sacrificial theme.

Category Analysis: Politics
Comments classified as “Politics” contained the following codes: Partisan, patriotism,
race, social issues, and Trump/2016 election. These comments thus focused on discussing
“Dream Crazy” through the frame of political figures, events, and ideologies. 55 out of 301 data
points fell under this category (see Appendix B for additional quantitative data). A majority of
comments in this category discussed the issues related to Kaepernick’s protest, such as racism or
police brutality, as viewed through the poster’s political leaning.

68
Comments on police brutality and racial injustice debated the existence of these issues in
a manner similar to “Endorser” comments. However, comments categorized as “Politics” did not
use Kaepernick’s protest to frame the issues, instead bringing up such causes independently of
the endorser. For example, one comment arguing against the prevalence of police brutality
mentioned the following individuals: Michael Brown, Donald Trump, Kim Kardashian, Hillary
Clinton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Gardner, and Barack Obama. The comment contained
833 words, of which only 43 words related to Kaepernick. The commenter claims (edited for
length):
Fact is, police shoot more white people in America anyways. Usually criminals, or stupid
white people. And MOST of the black people they do shoot are also criminals or idiots
resisting… You think Police are out there hunting innocent black people because the
media hyper focuses or cherry picks some bad incidents and focuses on them 24/7 for
months to herd the politically brainwashed with emotions???? As for criminal reform, the
ONLY person to actually do something in past 20 years in Trump and Kim Kardashian
with their 2nd chance Act, and Prison reform guidelines. In fact, BLM and Colin support
people like Hillary and the Clintons who only created “SuperPredator” crime bills and
prison industrial complex that has led to targeting of millions of black people unfairly.

Here, Kaepernick provides an incidental reference to the discussed issues, with his name
appearing only in passing. Kaepernick thus becomes linked to political figures who the user
argues have promoted racism and police brutality, rather than fought it. This serves as an attempt
to discredit Kaepernick’s position as an activist while also minimizing his contributions to social
justice. Other comments, meanwhile, discussed these issues in reference to the contemporary
political climate. Such comments specifically cited President Donald Trump’s election as proof
of racism’s prevalence. One commenter, for example, writes, “It’s just that people learned to
keep their racism to themselves in fear of being prosecuted, but it all surfaced again after
Trump’s election, as they become emboldened by his rhetoric and actions.”

69
Partisan support and patriotism provided additional trends in the “Political” category.
Anti-Trump comments, for example, attacked the president for corruption (e.g., “Any ordinary
descent human being is far better than Trump Trump is worse than Nixon He belongs in jail”),
while supporters defended his actions (e.g., “It’s sad that you actually think trump is a bad guy
because he’s putting his country first”). Comments also disputed the outcome of the 2016 U.S.
Presidential Election and referred to presidential campaign rhetoric, such as “deplorables.”
Thematic references to patriotism most commonly occurred within this discussion on modern
politics. Trump supporters saw the Republican party as embodying patriotism (e.g., “Yes, be
Crazy Yes, be crazy; be the only one who wears a Make a American Great Again red ball cap in
a all pro Democratic public school, Yes, be crazy.”) and listed disrespect for the flag and military
as unpatriotic (“I pledge to God and dream of a country where we respect our soilders”).
Conversely, Trump detractors viewed supporters’ anti-Nike behavior as unpatriotic, with several
arguing that “Banning something because you disagree with it is the most unamerican thing you
can do.”

Co-Branding Theory & Contextual Viewing
Although “Dream Crazy” does not explicitly reference social activism, political
discussions around this topic area rivaled the size of discussions about the video’s actual content.
This supports previous research into public discourse around the campaign, which found that
opinions split sharply down political lines, as well as the author’s view that consumers
understood Kaepernick’s inclusion as a tacit statement of support (Bain, 2018; Berr, 2018).
Moreover, this finding suggests that, as previously mentioned in the “Advertisement” section,
audiences viewed campaign materials in contextual ways. For consumers, brand activities form a
subset of the modern communications ecosystem and thus make references to other topic areas in

70
discussions. The use of Kaepernick likely strengthened this contextual reading. From a co-
branding standpoint, then, Kaepernick’s image transferred not only to the Nike brand at large but
also to the non-political script of the advertisement and viewer conversations around it.

Mind-Share vs. Cultural Branding
The political comments on “Dream Crazy” provide further insight into the mind-share vs.
cultural dichotomy found in Nike’s branding analysis. Identity myths, which provide the base for
cultural branding, seek to address public apprehensions at periods of historical disruption. The
2016 U.S. Presidential Election clearly marked such a disruption. For conservative Americans, it
embodied growing discontent over shifting social norms and progressive ideology; for liberal
Americans, it created anxiety over fear of regressive policies and backlash to minority
empowerment. According to Holt’s (2004) cultural branding theory, an identity myth addressing
this historical disruption should seek to reconcile these growing fissures within the American
public.
“Dream Crazy,” however, arguably takes the opposite route. Rather than providing a
myth that the mass market can embrace, such as Nike’s “Revolution” ad, “Dream Crazy” situates
itself as aligned with liberal ideology through both Kaepernick’s presence and narration.
Kaepernick’s appearance in the video, as noted previously, implies an endorsement of his social
justice advocacy, which traditionally rates as liberal on the U.S. political scale. Further evidence
for this claim comes from Harris Insights & Analytics’ polling results on consumer political
views and campaign reception (Berr, 2018). Kaepernick’s narration, meanwhile, seems to subtly
reference calls-to-action inherent in contemporary youth liberal movements, which position
millennials and Gen Zers as fighting against a daunting system. During the 2018 March for Our
Lives rally in Washington, D.C., for example, Cameron Clasky proclaimed, “our voices are

71
powerful and our votes matter. We must educate ourselves and start conversations that keep our
country moving forward and we will. We hereby promise to fix the broken system we’ve been
forced into,” while Emma González succinctly said, “Fight for your lives before it’s someone
else’s job” (Segarra, 2018). Kaepernick’s narration echoes and reinforces these statements with
motivational phrasings, such as the ad’s opening line: “If people say your dreams are crazy, if
they laugh at what you think you can do… good. Stay that way” (see Appendix A). This analysis
suggests that Nike’s 30
th
anniversary campaign intentionally aligns itself with one side of a
polarized historical disruption, rather than seeking to heal it. Therefore, the campaign does not
meet Holt’s (2004) criteria for a cultural branding identity myth.
Mind-share branding provides a model better suited for dissecting the campaign. Nike’s
core consumer base trends towards traditionally young, urban, and underrepresented audiences.
Indeed, the company’s 1990s advertisements, which featured political messaging and cultural
codes, represented a specific move to target such consumers. “Dream Crazy,” however, does not
take the overtly political stance found in spots such as “Hello World,” instead relying on cues
such as Kaepernick’s presence to present its position. Consumer ability to identify this core
messaging without an explicit reference to politics reveals how strongly Nike’s brand has
imbedded itself in the public consciousness. The company has effectively distinguished itself
among the market as a brand willing to address political issues, leading to a distinct association
in consumer minds. This, in turn, gives the company a competitive advantage in attracting
consumers who agree with such stances. In short, the author suggests that “Dream Crazy” is best
understood as a form of mind-share branding that targeted Nike’s core consumer base.

72
Additional Observations: Commodity Activists
The literature review of emerging activism trends revealed significant scholarly work into
commodity activism. Given Nike’s known history of co-opting social issues and appropriating
minority cultural codes, the author believed that commenters would discuss this topic at length.
However, the data revealed only minimal user explorations of commodity activism concepts,
most commonly in relation to descriptions of Nike’s brand as hypocritical (see “Category
Analysis: Brand”). This tracks with the belief that consumers typically experience commodity
activism through brand platforms, with companies curating products to embrace this trend.
Interestingly, however, several comments also expressed a belief that Kaepernick – not
Nike – commodified his activist image for financial gain without regard to social change. One
commenter writes:
This dude is a sell out. This commercial had NOTHING to do with what his original
“protest” was for. Was a great time to remind or let people know of his grievances but
being a cooperate whore is enough for him I suppose.

Other comments, meanwhile, made claims such as, “pretending one is a ‘Social justice’ hero is
good marketing to the dumb. It makes them millions as the sheep give the fakes awards and
praise,” and “You wont hear from this piece of shit or all the shitheads i n blacklives matter
anymore because they all got paid. It pays good to play the race card.” Some posters also cited
other athletes, such as LeBron James, as perceived examples of activists who commodify their
causes for personal gain. This suggests that as more individuals – particularly those who exert
public influence – continue to endorse activist causes, critiques and discussion on commodity
activism will continue to grow. This topic area will thus provide an important avenue of
exploration for future study.

73
Conclusion

This thesis presented a case study on Nike’s 30
th
anniversary “Just Do It” campaign to
investigate the complexities of branding in the new era of the “Brand Democracy.” The author
first provided a background on the campaign and its controversial endorser before widening the
discussion to encapsulate Nike’s broader brand history. This historical review revealed that two
dominant branding models – mind-share and cultural branding – shaped the development of
Nike’s brand, with the literature suggesting that the latter defines its current strategy. Activism
was also identified as playing a crucial role in Nike’s brand over the past three decades. The
author then discussed three types of social engagement – athlete, corporate, and commodity
activism – to further examine activism’s role in modern branding. Critiques of branded activism,
specifically regarding its authenticity and appropriation of social causes, were also identified.
This examination illuminated a tension between branded activism, which operates on the mind-
share branding premise, and the previous literature arguing for cultural branding as Nike’s
preferred strategy.
The author’s primary research undertook an inductive textual analysis of YouTube
comments on Nike’s “Dream Crazy” advertisement to examine consumer reactions to Nike’s
brand strategy, particularly in relation to the debate over the company’s preferred model of
branding. The analysis revealed that consumers primarily viewed and discussed the video
through four frames of reference: 1) advertisement, 2) endorser, 3) brand, and 4) politics. Each of
these categories displayed topical and thematic trends identified by their data codes. The
overarching results of each section consistently presented diametrical viewpoints expressed by
commenters. The author interpreted this finding as a signal that, consistent with previous
discussions on “Dream Crazy,” Nike’s video exacerbated existing societal divisions. Such an

74
effect does not match with cultural branding theory, which proposes that identity myths should
seek to provide a salve for mass-market cultural anxiety. The author instead suggests that Nike’s
campaigns better represent the mind-share branding model, wherein a brand attempts to
distinguish itself by identifying a distinct property and continually repeating it in messaging.
The data set also produced insights into the increasing trend towards branded activism.
Studies into consumer behavior indicate that the public increasingly factors a brand’s social
engagement into purchasing decisions. Corporate activism, such as CSR, and commodity
activism represent brand responses to this trend. Scholars have critiqued these forms of branded
activism as inauthentic forms of appropriation. The author’s data analysis, however, revealed
relatively minimal discussion around such concerns in the data set. This suggests that viewers
either did not see the consumption-advocacy link in “Dream Crazy” or did not regard this
conflation as problematic. Unless significant consumer pushback around this practice occurs,
companies will likely continue to “market” social causes. The author notes, though, that several
extenuating factors may have contributed to the low frequency of branded activism comments in
the data set. “Dream Crazy” does not explicitly mention social issues or directly associate Nike
products with advocacy efforts. Kaepernick’s presence, along with the diversity of the video’s
featured athletes, heavily implies a connection to activist causes but creates no concrete links.
Investigating factors affecting consumer perceptions of branded activism thus presents an
additional avenue for study.
The primary research in this thesis included several limitations, primarily related to the
size of the data set. The author’s analysis was restricted to data scraped from a single “Dream
Crazy” repost on one social media platform (YouTube). Expanding this analysis to include
comments from other “Dream Crazy” reposts would thus expand the scope of the study and may

75
reveal additional data codes and observations. Moreover, as noted previously, the platform
studied is widely acknowledged as containing a toxic comment section. This likely skewed the
data results, which were overwhelmingly negative in tone. The author suggests that future
studies expand the research to other platforms, with data scraped from additional social media
sites such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. Such a study would yield a greater depth
of results, and thus provide a more accurate reflection of public opinion, while also generating
insight into the varying nature of comment expression between platforms. Finally, the research
analyzed comments posted over one year (October 17, 2018, to October 26, 2019). As Nike’s
brand history details, brand perceptions and “identity myths” often take years, if not decades, to
develop. The author proposes that any future analysis use a more extensive timeframe for study,
which would provide details on if, how, and why consumer responses to such campaigns vary
over time.
Nike’s “Just Do It” 30
th
anniversary campaign represents a broader trend towards the
“Brand Democracy,” where consumers increasingly expect corporations to encompass ethical
values and take advocacy stances. However, as the “Dream Crazy” comment analysis reveals,
this “Brand Democracy” puts companies into a murky dilemma. Selecting an activist cause may
inspire one group of consumers while alienating others. Authenticity and consumer skepticism
provide another layer for consideration: even consumers who agree with a brand’s stance may
regard such a move as a transparent play for sales. No roadmap exists for navigating this new
world of branded activism. Thus, although the “Brand Democracy” purports that companies must
take a stand – or, in Kaepernick’s case, a knee – understanding how to do so effectively may
very well be a crazy dream.

76
References

Abad-Santos, A. (2018, September 24). Nike’s Colin Kaepernick ad sparked a boycott – and
earned $6 billion for Nike. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2018/9/24/17895704/nike-colin-
kaepernick-boycott-6-billion
Adams, P., Tode, C., & Kelly, C. (2018, August 31). Campaign trail: Nike aces Serena Williams
ad; Snickers’ rap battle; Alexa belts ‘Mamma Mia!’. Marketing Dive.
https://www.marketingdive.com/news/campaign-trail-nike-aces-serena-williams-ad-
snickers-rap-battle-alexa-b/531343/
Alexander, J. (2018, February 18). Can YouTube fix its comment section? Polygon.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/16/17020326/nikolas-cruz-youtube-comment-section
Andrews, D. (2019, September 24). 5 ways companies can show their commitment to improving
the world. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2019/09/24/business-roundtable-corporate-social-
responsibility/
Armstrong, K. L. (1999). Nike’s communication with black audiences: A sociological analysis of
advertising effectiveness via symbolic interactionism. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 23(3), 266–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723599233003
Bain, M. (2018, September 29). Nike’s Kaepernick ad is what happens when capitalism and
activism collide. Quartz. https://qz.com/1400583/modern-corporate-social-activism-
looks-like-nikes-kaepernick-ad/
Bain, M., & Banjo, S. (2015, June 30). How Phil Knight turned the Nike brand into a global
powerhouse. Quartz. https://qz.com/442042/more-than-anyone-else-it-was-phil-knight-
who-built-nike-from-scratch-into-the-worlds-biggest-sports-brand/

77
Banet-Weiser, S. (2012). “Free self-esteem tools?”: Brand culture, gender, and the Dove Real
Beauty campaign. In R. Mukherjee & S. Banet-Weiser (Eds.)., Commodity activism:
Cultural resistance in neoliberal times (pp. 39-56). New York University Press.
[BenWilsonTribute]. (2012, September 27). Ben “Benji” Wilson – Nike commercial 1997 –
NBA playoffs [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCloi-BR4VM
Bary, E. (2018, September 11). Here’s what Twitter data say about the Nike boycott.
MarketWatch. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-what-twitter-data-says-about-
the-nike-boycott-2018-09-08
Berr, J. (2018, September 14). Nike stock price reaches all-time high after Colin Kaepernick ad.
CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nike-stock-price-reaches-all-time-high-
despite-colin-kaepernick-ad-boycott/
Beydoun, K. A. (2016, September 3). Colin Kaepernick: Mix of racism, anti-Islam rhetoric are
increasingly toxic. The Undefeated. https://theundefeated.com/features/colin-kaepernick-
mix-of-racism-anti-islam-rhetoric-are-increasingly-toxic
Blackistone, K. B. (2017, March 23). The NFL has effectively blackballed Colin Kaepernick.
The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/the-nfl-has-
effectively-blackballed-colin-kaepernick/2017/03/23/d0b754d6-0fd1-11e7-ab07-
07d9f521f6b5_story.html
Business Roundtable. (2019, August 19). Business Roundtable redefines the purpose of a
corporation to promote ‘an economy that serves all Americans’.
https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-
corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans

78
Carducci, V. (2006). Culture jamming: A sociological perspective. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 6(1), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540506062722
Clancy, S. [@sclancy79]. (2018, Sept. 3). First the @NFL forces me to choose between my
favorite sport and my country. I chose country. Then @Nike forces [Tweet; video].
https://twitter.com/sclancy79/status/1036749717206691840
Cox, T. (2019, January 7). How corporate social responsibility influences buying decisions.
Clutch. https://clutch.co/pr-firms/resources/how-corporate-social-responsibility-
influences-buying-decisions
Creswell, J., Draper, K., & Maheshwari, S. (2018, September 26). Nike nearly dropped Colin
Kaepernick before embracing him. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/sports/nike-colin-kaepernick.html
Cunningham, G., & Regan, M. (2012). Political activism, racial identity and the commercial
endorsement of athletes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(6), 657–669.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690211416358
Dahl, D., Frankenberger, K., & Manchanda, R. (2003). Does it pay to shock? Reactions to
shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students. Journal of
Advertising Research, 43(3), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849903030332
The Daily Street. (2014). 1987 Nike Air ‘Revolution’ TV advert [Video]. Vimeo.
https://vimeo.com/89811766
Dauvergne, P., & LeBaron, G. (2014). Protest Inc.: The corporatization of activism. Polity Press.

79
Davis, J. H. (2017, September 24). Trump calls for boycott if N.F.L. doesn’t crack down on
anthem protests. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/politics/trump-calls-for-boycott-if-nfl-doesnt-
crack-down-on-anthem-protests.html
de Chenecey, S. P. (2000). When is it right to use shock ad strategies? Marketing, 19.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/214990222/
Dodd, M. D., & Supa, D. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring “corporate social
advocacy” communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance.
Public Relations Journal, (8)3.
https://doaj.org/article/3996d156ea764f7f9ae5dfdc94299e2a
Does shopping for a good cause really help? (2007, March 13). Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/does-shopping-good-cause-really-help-96121
Edelman. (2018, October 2). Two-thirds of consumers worldwide now buy on beliefs.
https://www.edelman.com/news-awards/two-thirds-consumers-worldwide-now-buy-
beliefs
Ehrbar, L. (2013, July 1). Original “Just Do It” ad, story of the Nike slogan [Online image]. Nike
Blog. http://www.nikeblog.com/on-25th-anniversary-watch-original-just-do-it-ad-story-
of-the-slogan/
Giesler, M., & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance
regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840–857.
https://doi.org/10.1086/677842
Gift, T., & Miner, A. (2017). “Dropping the ball”: The understudied nexus of sports and politics.
World Affairs, 180(1), 127-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0043820017715569

80
Goldman, R., & Papson, S. (1998). Nike culture: The sign of the swoosh. SAGE.
Gotham, K. F. (2012). Make it right?: Brad Pitt, post-Katrina rebuilding, and the specularization
of disaster. In R. Mukherjee & S. Banet-Weiser (Eds.)., Commodity activism: Cultural
resistance in neoliberal times (pp. 97-113). New York University Press.
Halupka, M. (2014). Clicktivism: A systematic heuristic. Policy & Internet, 6(2), 115–132.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI355
Helm, J. (2010a, September 21). Nike barbershop Chris Webber/Barkley [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9r0KVXRadc
Helm, J. (2010b, September 21). Nike barbershop Rodman/rings [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4b3B8pTnB8
Hollenbeck, C. R., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Consumer activism on the internet: The role of
anti-brand communities. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 479–485.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1560853655/
Holt, D. (2004). How brands become icons: The principles of cultural branding. Harvard
Business School Press.
Holt, D., & Cameron, D. (2010). Cultural strategy: Using innovative ideologies to build
breakthrough brands. Oxford University Press.
Hornsey, M., Frederiks, E., Smith, J., & Ford, L. (2007). Strategic defensiveness: Public and
private responses to group criticism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 697–
716. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X170315
[jclyon41]. (2006, June 15). Tiger Woods – Hello world [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSRzdXshLow&feature=emb_title

81
Jhaveri, H. (2018, September 4). Nike aims to replace activism with capitalism. USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2018/09/04/with-new-kaepernick-ad-nike-
wants-to-replace-activism-with-capitalism/111284852/
Jordan, M. (2016, July 25). Michael Jordan: ‘I can no longer stay silent’. The Undefeated.
https://theundefeated.com/features/michael-jordan-i-can-no-longer-stay-silent/
[Just Do It 30
th
anniversary campaign posters]. (n.d.). https://news.nike.com/content/a-crazy-
dream-becomes-reality-when-you-just-do-it-posters
Just Do It: Serena Williams. (n.d.). https://news.nike.com/featured_video/voice-of-belief-serena-
williams-just-do-it-film
Kaufman, P., & Wolff, E. A. (2010). Playing and protesting: Sport as a vehicle for social
change. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34(2), 154–175.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723509360218
Kell, J. (2016, May 12). Majority of Nike’s U.S. employees are minorities for the first time.
Fortune. https://fortune.com/2016/05/12/nike-staff-diversity/
Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252054
Klein, N. (2002). No logo: No space, no choice, no jobs (10
th
anniversary edition). Picador.
Knight, P. (2016). Shoe dog. Simon & Schuster.
Knights, R. (2007, March 4). Nike ad: If you let me play [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ_XSHpIbZE
La Monica, P. R. (2018, September 5). Nike investors aren’t happy about the Colin Kaepernick
ad. CNN. https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/04/news/companies/nike-stock-down-colin-
kaepernick/index.html

82
Lacy, L. (2017, September 25). #TakeAKnee generates plenty of conversation, but not from
brands. The Drum. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/09/26/takeaknee-generates-
plenty-conversation-not-brands
Liffreing, I. (2017, November 17). Why Colin Kaepernick has few brand suitors. Digiday.
https://digiday.com/marketing/colin-kaepernick-brand-suitors/
Linnane, C. (2018, September 17). Nike’s online sales jumped 31% after company unveiled
Kaepernick campaign, data show. MarketWatch.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-
unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07
Madden, S., Janoske, M., Winkler, R., & Harpole, Z. (2018). Who loves consent? Social media
and the culture jamming of Victoria’s Secret. Public Relations Inquiry, 7(2), 171–186.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X18764216
Mandelbaum, M. (2004). The meaning of sports: Why Americans watch baseball, football, and
basketball, and what they see when they do. Public Affairs.
Mather, V. (2019, February 15). A timeline of Colin Kaepernick vs. the N.F.L. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/sports/nfl-colin-kaepernick-protests-timeline.html
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement
process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310-321. https://doi.org/10.1086/209217
McLaughlin, E. C. (2018, August 27). Why Serena Williams’ catsuit ban matters, and what it
says about us. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/27/tennis/serena-williams-catsuit-
ban-racism-misogyny/index.html

83
Mohr, L., Webb, D., & Harris, K. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially
responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x
Moore, K., & Reid, S. (2008). The birth of brand: 4000 years of branding. Business
History, 50(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076790802106299
Morning Consult. (n.d.) Watch nearly 2000 consumers react to Nike’s Kaepernick ad.
https://morningconsult.com/form/nike-dial-test/
Mukherjee, R., & Banet-Weiser, S. (Eds.). (2012). Commodity activism: Cultural resistance in
neoliberal times. New York University Press.
NFL player protests sweep league after President Donald Trump’s hostile remarks. (2017,
September 25). USA Today Sports.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2017/09/24/donald-trump-nfl-player-protests-
national-anthem-week-3-response/697609001/
Nike. [@Nike]. (2018, Aug. 24). You can take the superhero out of her costume, but you can
never take away her superpowers. #justdoit [Tweet; image].
https://twitter.com/Nike/status/1033211014899060737.
Nike’s New Just Do It Campaign. (n.d.). https://news.nike.com/featured_video/just-do-it-dream-
crazy-film
Novy-Williams, E. (2018a, September 4). Kaepernick campaign created $43 million in buzz for
Nike. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/kaepernick-
campaign-created-43-million-in-buzz-for-nike-so-far

84
Novy-Williams, E. (2018b, September 5). Calls to #BoycottNike don’t crack top five on the
outrage meter. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-05/calls-
to-boycottnike-don-t-crack-top-five-on-the-outrage-meter
O’Brien, K. (2018, September 5). Colin Kaepernick narrates and stars in Nike’s ‘Dream Crazy’
film. The Drum. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/09/05/colin-kaepernick-narrates-
and-stars-nike-s-dream-crazy-film
O’Connell, L. (2019, August 9). Nike’s marketing expenses worldwide from 2014 to 2019.
Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/685734/nike-ad-spend/
Old Sneaker Posters. (2014, December 21). Nike “There is no finish line” [Online image].
http://oldposter.sneakerlab.net/nike/nike-there-is-no-finish-line-1977-20141221.html
Ramirez, M. (2018). Just blew it [Online image]. https://michaelpramirez.com/nike-just-blew-
it.html
Rapaport, D. (2018, February 27). Papa John’s is no longer the official pizza of the NFL. Sports
Illustrated. https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/27/nfl-papa-johns-pizza-sponsorship-
national-anthem-protest
Real Conservatives Unite. (2018, September 5). Just knee it [Online image].
https://realconservativesunite.com/2018/09/05/kaepernick-ad-has-cost-nike-over-3-
billion-so-far/
Romani, S., Grappi, S., Zarantonello, L., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). The revenge of the consumer!
How brand moral violations lead to consumer anti-brand activism. Journal of Brand
Management, 22(8), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2015.38

85
Schmidt, S. H., Frederick, E. L., Pegoraro, A., & Spencer, T. C. (2019). An analysis of Colin
Kaepernick, Megan Rapinoe, and the national anthem protests. Communication &
Sport, 7(5), 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479518793625
Schmidt, S. H., Shreffler, M. B., Habrick, M. E., & Gordon, B. S. (2018). An experimental
examination of activist type and effort on brand image and purchase intentions. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 27(1), 31–43. http://search.proquest.com/docview/2049663705/
Schmittel, A., & Sanderson, J. (2014). Talking about Trayvon in 140 characters: Exploring NFL
players’ tweets about the George Zimmerman verdict. Journal of Sport and Social
Issues, 39(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723514557821
Segarra, L. M. (2018, March 24). Here are the most powerful speeches from March for Our
Lives in Washington. TIME. https://time.com/5214452/march-for-our-lives-best-
speeches/
Seno, D., & Lukas, B. A. (2007). The equity effect of product endorsement by
celebrities. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2), 121–134.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710718148
Siegel, R., & Wang, A. B. (2018, September 5). Trump: Nike ‘getting absolutely killed’ with
boycotts over Colin Kaepernick’s ‘Just Do It’ campaign. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/04/people-are-destroying-their-nike-
gear-protest-colin-kaepernicks-just-do-it-campaign/
Snyder, B. (2019, March 6). Nike cofounder: Why I approved the controversial Colin
Kaepernick ad. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90314699/nike-cofounder-
why-i-approved-the-controversial-colin-kaepernick-ad

86
Trump, D. J. [@realDonaldTrump]. (2017, September 24). If NFL fans refuse to go to games
until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change [Tweet].
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/911904261553950720
Variety [@Variety]. (2018, Sept. 17). Jenifer Lewis: “I am wearing Nike to applaud them for
supporting Colin Kaepernick and his protest against racial injustice and [Tweet; video].
https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1041810060366577664
Vredenburg, J., Spry, A., Kemper, J., & Kapitan, S. (2018, December 5). Woke washing: What
happens when marketing communications don’t match corporate practice. The
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/woke-washing-what-happens-when-
marketing-communications-dont-match-corporate-practice-108035
Wagner, L. (2016, July 28). Did Michael Jordan really say “Republicans buy sneakers, too”?
Slate. https://slate.com/culture/2016/07/did-michael-jordan-really-say-republicans-buy-
sneakers-too.html
Werder, K. P. (2017, May). Issue advocacy and the corporation: A multicultural analysis of CSR
message effects on the communication behavior of publics. Paper presented at the 67th
Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. San Diego, CA.
Zirin, D. (2008). A people’s history of sports in the United States: 250 years of politics, protest,
people, and play. The New Press.

87
Appendix A
“Dream Crazy” Transcription

If people say your dreams are crazy
If they laugh at what you think you can do
Good
Stay that way
Because what non-believers fail to understand is that calling a dream crazy is not an insult
It’s a compliment
Don’t try to be the fastest runner in your school
Or the fastest in the world
Be the fastest ever
Don’t picture yourself wearing OBJ’s jersey
Picture OBJ wearing yours
Don’t settle for homecoming queen or linebacker
Do both
Lose 120 pounds and become an Ironman after beating a brain tumor
Don’t believe you have to be like anybody to be somebody
If you’re born a refugee, don’t let that stop you from playing soccer
For the national team
At age 16
Don’t become the best basketball player on the planet
Be bigger than basketball
Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything
When they talk about the greatest team in the history of the sport, make sure it’s your team
If you have only one hand, don’t just watch football
Play it
At the highest level
And if you’re a girl from Compton, don’t just become a tennis player
Become the greatest athlete ever
Yeah, that’s more like it
So don’t ask if your dreams are crazy
Ask if they’re crazy enough
(Quoted in O’Brien, 2018)

.

88
Appendix B
Primary Research: Quantitative Data

Quantitative Data Overview

Advertisement Category

Data Overview
• Number of comments: 54
• Number of unique posters: 50
• Number of replies: 14
• Word count: 921

Coding Categories
• Physical/emotional reaction: 40
comments
• Dream Crazy: 14 comments

Endorser Category

Data Overview
• Number of comments: 151
• Number of unique posters: 118
• Number of replies: 71
• Word count: 5,464

Coding Categories
• Kaepernick support: 47 comments
• Kaepernick hate: 94 comments
• Kaepernick identity: 14 comments
• Kaepernick as athlete: 29 comments
• Kaepernick protest: 34 comments
• Athlete activism: 3 comments

89
Brand Category

Data Overview
• Number of comments: 41
• Number of unique posters: 37
• Number of replies: 10
• Word count: 964

Coding Categories
• Nike branding: 7 comments
• China controversy 8 comments
• Culture jamming: 3 comments
• Nike boycott: 11 comments
• Nike factories: 7 comments
• Hypocritical: 15 comments
Politics Category

Data Overview
• Number of comments: 55
• Number of unique posters: 39
• Number of replies: 43
• Word count: 4,341

Coding Categories
• Partisan: 7 comments
• Patriotism: 14 comments
• Race: 20 comments
• Social issues: 20 comments
• Trump/2016 Election: 18 comments

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Modern consumers increasingly expect companies to take positions on social issues, with these stances impacting both brand image and purchase intention. Companies have thus begun to enter the activism space to meet this expectation. The author defines these actions as “branded activism.” However, many consumers have expressed distrust and skepticism of branded activism. Scholars have likewise critiqued such activism as appropriative, inauthentic, and ineffective. This thesis examines the complexities of branded activism through a case study analysis of Nike’s “Just Do It” 30th anniversary campaign featuring controversial activist Colin Kaepernick. An inductive textual analysis of the Kaepernick campaign video’s YouTube comments revealed that consumers primarily discussed the campaign through four key frames of reference: the advertisement, the endorsers, the Nike brand, and modern politics. The data consistently expressed diametrical viewpoints across all categories, suggesting that the campaign exacerbated existing societal divisions. Additionally, the data contained relatively minimal discussion around concerns related to branded activism. The author concludes that branded activism is best understood as a form of mind-share branding. Companies must thus weigh the benefits of targeting key demographics against the potential alienation of other market segments when undertaking branded activism.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Memes, meme marketing, and how brands and influencers can leverage them on social media

PDF

Under the influence: understanding cautious influencer marketing and relations

PDF

Generation Z: social media, influencers and brand loyalty in entertainment

PDF

Strategic planning model: how KFC China can attract Gen Z and Millennials through appreciating Chinese values

PDF

Experiential public relations: the importance of strategic messaging, understanding target audiences, and analysis of successfully curated brand-consumer interactions

PDF

Public relations as a diversity management approach: a big-data examination of CSR strategies and activities for corporate LGBTQ advocacy

PDF

Evolution of visual public relations: the essentials of branded video

PDF

Luring lovers: how brands make consumers fall head over heels

PDF

Why we follow influencers: the role of Asian female fashionistas in Los Angeles

PDF

Taking stances on social issues: case study on Lyft’s social-purpose programs and strategies

PDF

How Brand USA will reach its fastest-growing international market - China: Brand USA Chinese strategic public relations plan

PDF

An intercultural study on how consumers’ attitudes about corporate sustainability influence purchase intention

PDF

Doing the hard work: including diversity and inclusion in your public relations tool kit to build stakeholder relationships

PDF

The Digital Revolution and its impact on the beauty industry

PDF

Creating brand evangelists in the 21st century: using brand engagement through social media to develop brand loyalty in teens

PDF

Wake up PR practitioners, the Lovemark is here to stay: an analysis of the Lovemark theory with a discussion of the future of brands

PDF

Mexican-Americans & higher education: understanding cultural appeals as an effective recruiting tool for first-generation students

PDF

Luxury branding in today’s China: case studies of global consistency and local adaptation strategies of luxury fashion brands

PDF

The importance of cultural sensitivity for luxury brands

PDF

The influence of brand placement in Bollywood on the Indian consumer

Asset Metadata

Creator Brown, Erin (author)

Core Title Just buy it: Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and branded activism

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 04/24/2020

Defense Date 04/23/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag activism,branding,Colin Kaepernick,Nike,OAI-PMH Harvest,purchase intention

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kozinets, Robert (committee chair), Gretzel, Ulrike (committee member), Yang, Aimei (committee member)

Creator Email erinbrow@usc.edu,erinnbrown94@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-289756

Unique identifier UC11675367

Identifier etd-BrownErin-8320.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-289756 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BrownErin-8320.pdf

Dmrecord 289756

Document Type Thesis

Rights Brown, Erin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA