Nike weighed the expected backlash from the Kaepernick campaign against potential profitsGETTY IMAGES
Nike's ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick is "political," but it also shows the company values "business first," according to Kevin Williams of the CHICAGO TRIBUNE. As much as someone may want to "applaud the retailer's public consciousness at getting behind the struggle," the campaign "never would have happened had someone not figured out that the bottom line would be massive" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/5). In DC, Barry Svrluga notes a company with Nike's marketing savvy "surely weighed the potential backlash with what it might gain and made a decision to enlist Kaepernick" (WASHINGTON POST, 9/5). In Nashville, Joe Rexrode writes he believes Nike "didn't make this decision haphazardly, nor with the idea of taking a financial bath in the name of pro bono social commentary" (Nashville TENNESSEAN, 9/5). In N.Y., Carron Phillips writes this ad campaign was "just as much about business for Nike as it was about being on the right side of history" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 9/5). In Boston, Jenee Osterheldt wrote under the header, "Nike Play Makes It Clear: Kaep Still Runs The Ball" (BOSTONGLOBE.com, 9/4).
MONEY MATTERS: In Philadelphia, David Murphy writes a "brand-conscious multinational corporation" like Nike does not "make a decision like this without first having completed a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the impact on the bottom line." Nike is "not acting in a manner that we should consider courageous or heroic or intrepid." For-profit corporations are "not selfless." They "exist to generate profit, and we can be sure that, somewhere in Nike headquarters, there exists a rational, evidence-based plan that suggests its current pivot will enable Nike to sell more stuff." That is "just reality" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 9/5). FORBES' Terence Moore wrote Nike officials and their peers "think profit, profit and more profit before they consider anything else." They are "obsessed with that more than philanthropy." Nike officials "realize that despite the heated words and presidential tweets hurled Kaepernick's way ... he makes people money" (FORBES.com, 9/4). ESPN's Mike Golic said, "They're not a non-profit. They're for profit. ... Did we think anything different in any of their campaigns? Did any of them not make them millions of dollars? That's what they do" ("Golic & Wingo," ESPN Radio, 9/5). THE RINGER's Michael Baumann wrote Nike is a "for-profit company" worth tens of billions of dollars. Baumann: "You can't build a multi-billion-dollar company from scratch in 54 years if social justice is anything approaching a primary concern." Companies like Nike are "by nature aggressively amoral" (THERINGER.com, 9/4).
GOOD ON NIKE: In Phoenix, Greg Moore writes Nike "should be applauded for taking corporate social responsibility to a new place." Moore: "Good for Nike for standing behind a prominent member of that community as he attacks a problem affecting that community" (ARIZONA REPUBLIC, 9/5). In DC, Sally Jenkins writes what Nike sees in Kaepernick is "not just a digital poster but the face of an entire new wave" (WASHINGTON POST, 9/5). In Toronto, Bruce Arthur notes while the NFL is "scared of Kaepernick, and protest," Nike has "decided it's worth embracing" (TORONTO STAR, 9/5).In Las Vegas, Alan Snel writes Nike is a company "in the business of making money and its Kaepernick hiring will eventually force the NFL to respond one way or another to protesting players" (LVSPORTSBIZ.com, 9/4).
HAVING IT BOTH WAYS? In S.F., Scott Ostler in a front-page piece writes Nike "plans to make money by selling Kaepernick gear." But if Nike "didn't have its heart and soul in this campaign," why would the company "take the enormous and obvious risk in alienating millions of customers?" (S.F. CHRONICLE, 9/5). In Ft. Lauderdale, Omar Kelly writes Nike "should be commended for using the polarizing former NFL player turned activist to sell their products." People "don't have to agree on everything," but if there can "have a healthy debate, one where each side actually listens to the other's point of view to understand their agenda, we'd all be living in a better America" (South Florida SUN SENTINEL, 9/5).
