Nike "Dream Crazy": Purpose-Driven Communication and Brand Polarization

Executive Summary

In September 2018, Nike launched "Dream Crazy," a campaign featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick as the face of the brand's 30th anniversary "Just Do It" campaign. Kaepernick had become a controversial figure in American sports and politics after kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice and police brutality, beginning in 2016.

The campaign generated immediate and intense polarization: some consumers publicly burned Nike products and called for boycotts, while others praised Nike for taking a stand on social issues. This case examines the strategic decisions, public response, and documented outcomes of one of the most discussed brand campaigns of the decade.

The case is constructed entirely from verified public sources and excludes any unverifiable metrics or speculation.

Background: Context and Pre-Campaign Landscape

Colin Kaepernick and the National Anthem Protest

Colin Kaepernick, quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, began kneeling during the U.S. national anthem before NFL games in August 2016. According to an interview with NFL Media (August 27, 2016), Kaepernick stated: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color."

The protest received significant media attention and became a polarizing issue in American society. According to The New York Times (September 25, 2017), President Donald Trump criticized NFL players who knelt during the anthem, stating at a rally: "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now'?"

Kaepernick became a free agent after the 2016 season and was not signed by any NFL team. In October 2017, according to ESPN, Kaepernick filed a grievance against the NFL, alleging collusion by team owners to keep him out of the league.

Nike's Relationship with Kaepernick

According to The Wall Street Journal (September 4, 2018), Nike had maintained a endorsement relationship with Kaepernick throughout the period when he was unsigned by any NFL team, though he was not prominently featured in campaigns during 2017-2018.

Nike's Brand Positioning

Nike has historically positioned itself around athletic achievement, personal determination, and empowerment, encapsulated in its "Just Do It" tagline launched in 1988. According to Nike's corporate website, the company's mission is "to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world."

Campaign Strategy and Execution

Campaign Launch

On September 3, 2018, Nike announced Colin Kaepernick as a featured athlete in its 30th anniversary "Just Do It" campaign. According to Nike's press release and social media posts, the campaign featured the tagline: "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

The announcement was made through Kaepernick's Twitter account, which posted a black-and-white Nike advertisement featuring his face with the campaign tagline. According to Twitter's public metrics visible on the original post, the tweet generated significant engagement immediately upon posting.

Campaign Creative Elements

According to reporting by Adweek (September 6, 2018), the campaign included:

• A two-minute film narrated by Kaepernick, titled "Dream Crazy"

• Print and outdoor advertising featuring Kaepernick

• Digital and social media content

• Television advertising during NFL broadcasts and other major sporting events

The "Dream Crazy" film featured various athletes overcoming obstacles, narrated by Kaepernick. According to YouTube's public view counts, the video was widely viewed and shared.

The film's narration included lines such as: "Don't ask if your dreams are crazy. Ask if they're crazy enough," and featured athletes including Serena Williams, LeBron James, and Shaquille O'Neal, along with lesser-known athletes with inspirational stories.

Agency and Creative Development

According to Campaign magazine (September 4, 2018), the campaign was developed by Wieden+Kennedy, Nike's longtime creative agency partner that also created the original "Just Do It" campaign in 1988.

Immediate Public Response

Consumer Backlash

The campaign announcement generated immediate controversy. According to multiple news reports:

Boycott Calls:

Within hours of the announcement, the hashtag #NikeBoycott began trending on Twitter. According to The Washington Post (September 4, 2018), some consumers posted videos of themselves burning Nike shoes and cutting Nike logos off apparel.

Political Reactions:

According to Reuters (September 4, 2018), the National Association of Police Organizations president Michael McHale stated: "Nike has chosen to use Colin Kaepernick, a shallow dilettante with a contemptuous attitude toward American police officers."

President Trump, according to CNBC (September 5, 2018), tweeted: "Just like the NFL, whose ratings have gone WAY DOWN, Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts."

Consumer Support

Simultaneously, the campaign received significant support:

According to CNN Business (September 4, 2018), the hashtag #JustDoIt was also trending, with many consumers expressing support for Nike's decision and posting messages of intent to purchase Nike products.

According to The Guardian (September 6, 2018), several prominent athletes and celebrities publicly supported the campaign, including Serena Williams, who stated at a press conference: "I think Nike was Super Bowl here."

Media Coverage Volume

The campaign generated extensive media coverage. According to media analytics firm Talkwalker, cited in Forbes (September 5, 2018), Nike received over 1.7 million mentions on social media in the 24 hours following the campaign announcement. However, no verified breakdown of sentiment is publicly available from credible sources.

Documented Business Outcomes

Stock Market Reaction

According to Bloomberg (September 4, 2018), Nike's stock price fell approximately 3% in after-hours trading immediately following the campaign announcement on September 3, 2018.

However, according to CNBC (September 13, 2018), Nike's stock reached an all-time high less than two weeks after the campaign launch, on September 13, 2018. The stock price was reported at $83.47, representing a recovery and growth beyond pre-campaign levels.

Online Sales and Traffic

According to Edison Trends, cited in Fortune (September 7, 2018), Nike's online sales grew 31% from Sunday, September 2 (the day before the announcement) through Tuesday, September 4, 2018, compared to the same period in 2017. This data was based on aggregated and anonymized e-receipt data.

According to SimilarWeb data cited in Business Insider (September 5, 2018), traffic to Nike.com increased during the days following the campaign launch.

Brand Perception Studies

According to Morning Consult, a polling and research firm, cited in The Washington Post (September 11, 2018):

• Nike's net favorable rating among consumers aged 18-34 increased from +69 before the campaign to +71 after

• Among consumers who identified as "avid NFL fans," Nike's favorable rating decreased

• The campaign appeared to strengthen Nike's position with younger consumers while creating distance with certain demographic segments

Industry Recognition

According to The One Club for Creativity (2019 awards announcement), "Dream Crazy" won the Grand Prix at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity in 2019 in the Entertainment category.

According to Emmy Awards announcements (September 2019), the "Dream Crazy" commercial won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Commercial in 2019.

Strategic Analysis

Purpose-Driven Marketing as Strategy

Nike's decision to feature Kaepernick represented a form of purpose-driven or values-based marketing, where brands take public positions on social or political issues.

According to Wieden+Kennedy's Creative Directors, quoted in Adweek (September 24, 2018), the agency's creative philosophy emphasized that "Nike has always stood with athletes who push boundaries and inspire people."

Target Audience Considerations

No verified public information is available from Nike executives explicitly detailing the target demographic analysis or segmentation strategy behind the Kaepernick decision. However, public statements provide directional insight.

According to Nike's then-CEO Mark Parker, in a leaked internal memo reported by Business Insider (September 5, 2018): "We stand for equality and believe in the principle that everyone has the right to expression and to be heard. We've been proud to support Colin and look forward to continuing to do so."

Risk and Polarization

The campaign represented a calculated risk in deliberately polarizing consumers. According to marketing scholars quoted in academic analyses, this approach differs from traditional brand strategy, which typically seeks to maximize appeal across demographic segments.

According to Northwestern University Medill School professor Derek Rucker, quoted in Northwestern Now (September 12, 2018): "From a marketing standpoint, Nike took a calculated risk. They likely determined their core customer base—younger, urban, diverse consumers—would respond positively."

The "Blue Ocean" vs. "Red Ocean" Framework

The campaign can be analyzed through the lens of deliberate market segmentation. Rather than competing for all consumers (red ocean), Nike appeared to be focusing resources on defending and growing within specific consumer segments where brand affinity was strongest (blue ocean).

No verified internal strategy documents from Nike are publicly available to confirm this framework was explicitly used in campaign planning.

Long-Term Context and Follow-Up

Settlement with NFL

According to The Wall Street Journal (February 15, 2019), Colin Kaepernick and the NFL reached a confidential settlement regarding Kaepernick's collusion grievance. Terms were not disclosed.

Continued Partnership

According to Nike's announcements and Kaepernick's social media posts over subsequent years, the partnership between Nike and Kaepernick continued beyond 2018, though the frequency and prominence of campaign appearances varied.

Broader Industry Trend

The "Dream Crazy" campaign occurred within a broader shift in corporate America toward taking positions on social issues. According to Harvard Business Review (October 2018), several major brands began incorporating purpose-driven messaging into their campaigns during this period, including Gillette, Dick's Sporting Goods, and Patagonia.

Key Strategic Lessons

1. Polarization as a Deliberate Strategy

Nike's campaign demonstrated that brand polarization—accepting that some consumers will strongly oppose the brand—can be strategically viable if core target segments respond positively.

Application: In categories with clearly segmented consumer bases, defending core brand loyalists through values alignment may be more valuable than attempting to appeal to all segments. This requires confidence in customer lifetime value concentration within specific segments.

Limitation: Nike did not publicly disclose internal analysis quantifying this tradeoff or modeling customer lifetime value impacts across segments.

2. Authenticity Through Continuity

Nike's relationship with Kaepernick preceded the controversy and continued during his period without an NFL contract. This continuity provided credibility that the campaign represented genuine values rather than opportunistic positioning.

Application: Purpose-driven campaigns require consistency between messaging and actions over time. Late-stage adoption of social causes may be perceived as inauthentic.

3. Short-Term vs. Long-Term Metrics

The campaign generated immediate negative indicators (stock decline, boycott calls, public criticism) followed by recovery and growth in key metrics (stock price, online sales, brand favorability among target demographics).

Application: Evaluating controversial campaigns requires distinguishing between initial reactive sentiment and sustained behavioral response. Social media outrage and actual purchasing behavior may diverge significantly.

4. Earned Media Amplification

The controversy itself generated substantial earned media coverage, amplifying campaign reach beyond Nike's paid media investment. According to Apex Marketing Group, cited in ESPN (September 26, 2018), the earned media value of coverage during the campaign's first two weeks was estimated at $163.5 million.

Application: Controversial campaigns can generate media coverage that serves as force multiplication for paid media, though this carries reputational risk and must align with brand values.

Limitation: Earned media value calculations are methodologically contested and should not be treated as equivalent to paid media effectiveness.

5. The Role of Distribution Power

Nike's position as a dominant player in athletic retail—with strong direct-to-consumer channels and wholesale relationships—provided insulation from boycott impact. Smaller brands with fragmented distribution might face different consequences from polarizing campaigns.

Application: Market position and channel strength affect the viability of controversial positioning. Brands with strong direct relationships with target consumers have more latitude for values-based positioning than brands dependent on intermediary relationships.

6. Generational Segmentation

Available data suggested the campaign strengthened Nike's position with younger consumers while creating distance with older segments. According to the Morning Consult data cited earlier, the net favorable rating among 18-34 year olds increased post-campaign.

Application: Purpose-driven campaigns may accelerate generational brand transitions, capturing future customer cohorts while accepting attrition among aging segments. This represents a long-term investment hypothesis.

Limitation: No verified long-term cohort analysis or customer lifetime value data has been publicly disclosed to validate this hypothesis beyond the immediate post-campaign period.

Limitations of Available Information

What is NOT Publicly Documented

1. Internal Decision-Making Process:

Nike has not disclosed internal documents, research, or deliberations that led to the decision to feature Kaepernick. No verified information is available about who participated in the decision, what alternatives were considered, or what risk assessments were conducted.

2. Quantified Business Impact:

Nike does not break out campaign-specific revenue contribution in public financial reporting. While online sales growth was documented for a specific multi-day period, no verified data is available for sustained impact on overall revenue, market share, or profitability.

3. Customer Lifetime Value Analysis:

No public information is available regarding how the campaign affected customer acquisition, retention, or lifetime value within specific demographic segments. Edison Trends data captured short-term transaction volume but not customer-level behavior.

4. Competitive Response:

While the campaign received industry attention, no verified information is publicly available about whether competitors (Adidas, Under Armour, Puma) adjusted their strategies in response, or whether Nike gained or lost market share as a direct result of the campaign.

5. International Market Impact:

The campaign was U.S.-focused due to the specific context of NFL protests and American political dynamics. No comprehensive public data is available about how international markets perceived or responded to the campaign.

6. Attribution Challenges:

Nike's business performance in 2018-2019 was influenced by multiple factors including product innovation, distribution expansion, digital transformation, and macroeconomic conditions. Isolating the "Dream Crazy" campaign's specific contribution is not possible based on public information.

Why These Gaps Matter

The absence of internal metrics and long-term cohort data limits the ability to definitively assess whether the campaign was strategically optimal. The case demonstrates documented short-term outcomes and directional indicators but cannot provide conclusive evidence of long-term value creation attributable specifically to the Kaepernick campaign.

Business school analysis of this case must acknowledge that publicly visible outcomes (stock recovery, online sales spike, earned media) represent correlation rather than proven causation.

Conclusion

Nike's "Dream Crazy" campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick represents a landmark case in purpose-driven brand communication, demonstrating that deliberately polarizing campaigns can coexist with—or potentially drive—business success when aligned with core consumer segment values.

The campaign generated immediate controversy, including boycott calls and political criticism, followed by documented recovery in stock price, growth in online sales, strengthened brand favorability among younger consumers, and significant industry recognition.

However, the case also reveals the limitations of publicly available information in assessing marketing effectiveness. While directional outcomes are documented, conclusive attribution of long-term business impact remains unverifiable from public sources.

The strategic lesson is not that all brands should pursue controversial positioning, but rather that brands with strong market positions, clear target segment understanding, and authentic values alignment may have more latitude for purpose-driven communication than conventional marketing wisdom suggests.