Setting the Scene
In 2018, Colin Kaepernick was one of the most divisive figures in American sports, having kneeled during the national anthem in 2016 to protest racial injustice, a move that sparked intense backlash from parts of the public and reportedly contributed to him going unsigned by any NFL team afterward. He was, by any conventional marketing measure, exactly the kind of figure a risk-averse brand would typically steer clear of.
Nike chose him anyway, making him the face of a major 30th-anniversary "Just Do It" campaign, complete with the now-famous tagline: "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything."
What Happened When the Campaign Launched
The backlash was immediate and loud. Some consumers publicly burned or destroyed Nike products in protest, and the hashtag boycotting the brand trended heavily across social media in the days following the announcement. For a brief period, it genuinely looked like Nike might have miscalculated badly, and plenty of commentators at the time predicted real financial damage.
That's not how it ultimately played out. Nike's stock price, after an initial dip, recovered and climbed to new highs in the weeks following the campaign's launch. Online sales reportedly saw a significant spike in the days immediately after the ad debuted, and the campaign went on to win a Creative Arts Emmy, cementing it as one of the most talked-about pieces of advertising of that entire year.
Why It Actually Worked
Part of what made this bet pay off was Nike's existing brand identity. The company had spent decades positioning itself around athletic excellence, personal conviction, and a certain rebellious edge, which meant aligning with Kaepernick's stance felt consistent with the brand's broader story rather than a jarring departure from it. A brand with a more conservative or family-friendly image attempting the same move might have faced a very different outcome, since audience expectations and brand fit matter enormously in how a controversial partnership gets received.
There's also a generational and demographic factor worth understanding. Nike's core younger consumer base skewed toward audiences who were more supportive of Kaepernick's protest and his underlying message, meaning the backlash, while loud, came disproportionately from a demographic that wasn't necessarily central to Nike's primary growth strategy at the time.
What This Case Teaches About Brand Risk
This example gets referenced so often in marketing discussions because it illustrates a genuine tension brands face: playing it safe doesn't guarantee protection from criticism, and taking a stand doesn't guarantee disaster. The actual outcome of a controversial partnership seems to depend heavily on whether the celebrity's persona and the controversy itself align authentically with a brand's existing identity and its core audience's values, rather than being a calculated risk unrelated to who the brand already is.
It's also worth noting that this kind of bet doesn't always pay off for every brand that tries it. For every widely cited success story like this one, there are less publicized examples of brand partnerships with controversial figures that didn't generate the same positive outcome, which is part of why marketing teams still treat this kind of decision with genuine caution rather than treating it as a proven formula.
What to Keep in Mind
Approach any story about a "controversial partnership that paid off" with a healthy amount of nuance rather than assuming it's a repeatable playbook. What worked for Nike relied on a specific alignment between the brand's history, its audience, and the cultural moment, factors that don't automatically transfer to a different brand or a different celebrity in a different controversy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Nike's sales actually increase after the Kaepernick campaign? Multiple reports at the time indicated a notable spike in online sales in the days following the campaign's launch, alongside the company's stock reaching new highs in the following weeks, though isolating the campaign's exact long-term financial impact from other business factors is genuinely difficult to measure precisely.
Has Nike continued working with Kaepernick since the campaign? Nike maintained its partnership with Kaepernick well beyond the initial 2018 campaign, continuing to feature him in various capacities in subsequent years.
Do brands regularly use controversial figures in marketing? It happens periodically but remains relatively rare compared to safer celebrity endorsement strategies, largely because the outcome is genuinely unpredictable and depends heavily on specific brand and audience alignment.
Betting on a controversial figure remains one of the riskier moves in celebrity marketing, and the Nike and Kaepernick campaign stands out specifically because it's one of the clearer, well-documented examples of that bet paying off. It's a genuinely useful case study in brand risk, even if it's not a formula every brand can safely replicate.
📚 Sources
Reuters, Nike Sales Jump Following Kaepernick Ad Campaign – https://www.reuters.com
Ad Age, Nike's Kaepernick Campaign Wins Emmy – https://adage.com
🔍 Explore Related Topics
