Ethical Analysis of Colin Kaepernick and Nike's 'Take a Knee' Commercial

This study evaluates the ethical aspects of the commercial of Colin Kaepernick and Nike named “take a knee”. It covers the literature and concepts, justifying the involvement of Nike in this concerned matter of social issue. The study analyzes the Code of Ethics and the systematic and well-defined principles controlling the ways of communication that occurs between the seller and the buyer. It also discusses the benefits and challenges of ads and the significance of ethics in advertising. The study concludes that Nike took a brave step while taking a stand for the social issue, which no company has ever done before.

Topic 3: Colin
Kaepernick and Nike

The present study is based on critically evaluating and analyzing whether the commercial of
Colin Kaepernick and Nike named “take a knee” was ethical or not. The study covers the
literature and concepts, justifying the involvement of Nike in this concerned matter of social
issue. It can be said that companies big or small, prioritize their profits while giving analyzing
their ethical concepts. Main motive of the company is to generate profitability at the end while
acting in the interest of the audience and doing well (Bjelica et al. 2016). At the same time, some
companies pride themselves by being more ethical as possible, and they are still encouraged
primarily by their profit as in the case of Nike. While there are undeniably ethical or pro-
environment emotions that propel such companies, yet their motive always lies in monetary
aspects. These companies conduct careful calculus and suppose if they place themselves with
some movement or act in a sympathetic manner to a political wave, then ultimately there will be
an increment in their profits. In the celebration of the completion of 30 years motto ‘Just Do it’,
Nike had instigated a new ad campaign in America with the selection of Colin Kaepernick to
present their support for racial justice. The objective of selection was that in the year, 2016
Kaepernick go down during the national anthem, for showing objection against cultural
discrimination by putting his entire career on a stake (Mindock, 2018). As a result, social media
exploded into two groups; often, those admiring Nike for its strategic decision, those who get
disappointed, aggressive and began to burn the clothes of Nike.
Colin Kaepernick, a football star of America commenced the “take a knee” national anthem
protest in opposition to the police brutality, and the same was covered as the new face of “Just
Do It” campaign meant for its 30th anniversary. Regardless of the appearance of Kaepernick in
it, the new Nike commercial is not explicitly political. However, it has no reference to the taking
of knee; rather it was emphasized on the inspiring tone that “Just Do It” campaign is renowned.

Advertisement of 'Just Do It' by Colin Kaepernick by firstly unveiled by Nike itself (Lawton,
McGuire & Rajwani, 2013). The two-minute commercial emphasizes on the superstar athletes
namely LeBron James, Serena Williams and others and strikes to the controversial aspects of
NFL players that protested to the police brutality, racial inequality and other related problems by
kneeling at the time of national anthem.
Code of Ethics states the legal and ethical rules and regulations of formulating and broadcasting
an advertisement. It controls an advertiser for the promotion of any product/service via
unreliable, wrong and misleads information (Adelstein & Clegg, 2016). This sort of data and
information might damage the basic rights of individual or corporate reputation, and can tarnish
their image and honour. Hence, the law avoids any kind of advertisement that breaches public
belief, values, morals and norms. Moreover, it also daunts formation of any kind of
advertisement that includes disrespectful assessment with any other similar products (of the
similar nature or distinct) to for the maintenance of ethical competition. In this aspect, any kind
of statement, disrespecting phrase, dishonest comparisons and related aspect are strictly
prohibited. Disruptive phrase is inclusive of any kind of disrespectful comment in regards with a
race, sex, caste, religion, nationality, profession, social background, age, language and so on.
Ethics present in advertising are systematic and set well-defined principles controlling the ways
of communication that occurs between the seller and the buyer. Further, ethics are considered as
the most significant characteristic in the advertising sector as a whole. (Percy & Elliott, 2016).
Although, there are several benefits of ads, then there are certain aspects which does not
compliment the ethical norms of advertising.

By considering this approach in terms of the current case, the deal of endorsement among the
Nike and Kaepernick caused a number of debates, with certain insisting for prohibiting products
of the company. After the commencement of protest by Kaepernick, criticism was made on him
for the introduction of politics into the sport. Several reported that football is kind of sacrosanct,
and it must be a place in which individuals rise above politics (Matten & Moon, 2008). However,
there was nothing unethical about advertisement as it was not at all controversial in terms of
decency and falsification. Nike took a brave step while taking a stand for the social issue, which
no company has ever done before. Kaepernick turned out to be the individual who united and
divided people in the world of sports aftermath of considering a dominant role in protests and
kneeling at the time of the national anthem against social inequality as well as racial injustice.
After the launch of commercial, Nike gained over $43 million worth of exposure of media is not
more than 24 hours, with the massive amount of coverage in either positive or neutral ways.
The significant area on which emphasis is made by an advertiser is improvising their sales, earn
more and retain more consumers and increase their product demand by representing a good, eye-
catching and ethical ad. They assert that their product is of top quality, as compared to the
customers, and are relatively valuable and cost-effective. (Suchman, 1995). The same approach
is used by the company as by considering the past practices of the company. It can be noticed
that Nike believes in getting benefit from this stand, its core US demographics and global basis
are younger and blacker as compared to the individual protesting them. It was held that younger
Americans provided strong support to the protest of Kaepernick and they are also considered as
the leading customer of Nike products. It is also acknowledged by Nike, that consumer
establishes brand loyalty on an initial basis and maintain the same for a sustainable longer period
(Rathbone, 2018) . The image, i.e. the usual stark of Nike, the strong black and white style,

starring Kaepernick directly in front of the camera covered by the text named “Believe in
something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Just Do It.”
The advertisement acquired a considerable amount of response on social media. Majority of the
people highly praised the highlights of Nike of such an overtly political figure. On the other
hand, some of them were furious that the brand made an endorsement of an individual who in
their opinions lacks loyalty to the values of America. The remaining were offended regarding the
ways confrontation and protest were employed to establish the corporate brand. Some of them
felt satisfactory that Kaepernick, who has been yet to be approved to an NFL team. As agreement
relating to same was close to expiry. Evaluation and recognition of branding has attained a new
height in present era, as failure in attainment of norms relating to same leads to challenging
political brutality. Moreover, it can be attained with an ease with fundamental social as well
cultural relationships (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011). The implementation of the brand to sell dispute
is not a new strategy of the business. Customers act in a political way while purchasing some
brands over other competitors in the market, where particular brands are involved with political
purposes and objectives. By considering the given case situation, it can be articulated that Nike
did not make unethical in announcing this commercial, the company has no intention to promote
unethical aspects, and rather the company took a great stand on this social issue of racial
inequality and police brutality. Nike has a long history of making use of political movement in
their advertisement; the recent effort made by Nike was to connect the brand with the proposed
political project is definitely not the first (Scherer, Palazzo & Matten, 2014). In the year 1992,
the company formed one of the initial girl empowerment advertisements; it was the first one that
particularly placed sports as a meant to empower girls and women as a whole. “If You Let Me
Play,” the campaign, develop prior to the existence of hashtags, and it was initially published on

the print advertisement. Under this campaign, the company started its first company efforts to put
its products into sale along with empowerment, self-confidence and strength for girls and
women.
Ethics is also based on what people believe. In a situation where, advertisers make advertisement
on the belief that the consumer will interpret, convince them to think and make actions on their
advertisement then this result in positive outcomes, and there would be no unethical aspects
involved in the ad (Trevino& Nelson, 2016). In this aspect, the Nike and Kaepernick
advertisement campaign stepped on the risky ground, given that the public outrage faced by the
Kaepernick for its political stance in opposition to the racial violence in the United States, not to
describe that the history of Nike with questioned labour practices barely makes it a progressive
defender. Therefore, mere base of opposing views of audience cannot be considered as a viable
ground to define an advertisement unethical It is seen that the history of Nike is related to
connecting politics as an element of its branding and at the same time company highly
controversial, overtly advocating for political standpoints has not created an impact over the
brand. The brand culture forms a link within which customer involvement is not merely
indicated by the transactions, but by the relationship and brand loyalty, connecting brand to the
politics, social activities and lifestyle. Nike was known about the fact that it was doing, and when
it made decisions to endorse Kaepernick; the company knew well that the advertisement would
infuriate customers who speak about their aggression around the kneeling of NFL players in
protest. It was also acknowledged by Nike that the campaign would further strengthen it as a
socially developing company which is significant for the majority of its younger customers, who
distort liberal and showcase themselves as the future customers of the company.

The propagation of the commodity activity like Nike renders as the severe indicator that there is
no external to the logic of modern capitalism; social activism might be shifting structure into a
marketable commodity in itself. However, it is characterized by the latest campaign of Nike Just
Do It” is yet another company misappropriation, a complicated exercise in artifice that intents to
trick the customer and safeguard more of profits. On the other hand, the advertisement of
Kaepernick, and the message delivered by him might also light up the assurance of innovative,
creative forms, inclusive of the advertisement. In the Nike partnership, he played a role as a
cultural intervention that is required in the present era, as it enables individuals tocritically
consider about the dominance modes and resistance in the evolving social, political and cultural
areas. The campaign of Nike risks pushing away some public in the US who are not agreed with
this message, but it also has been considered as a calculated risk. Moreover, Nike has a great
record of sponsoring new talent and people having polarized personality; it will have conducted
its work on any possible damage that this campaign could result into.
It can be concluded that, Nike considers strategic decisions regarding what matters to the future
of company and public. Nike with any celebrity support has united with the brand ambassadors
that show its brand idea but connects the same to its key target audience. A great decision was
made by Nike in regards with the comparative value of the people that will take offence with this
cited campaign and the audience who feel it will definitely connect with it (Cody & Goodwin,
2018). Along with this, implementing a position that emphasizes on the significant issue, this
advertisement is primarily focused on promoting their tagline through consideration of the social
issue. Ultimately, the Nike campaign is an outstanding move; it sheds light both on the brand and
the issue. It reflects that the brand can and must get engaged in such issues, apart from their key
business. It shows the opportunity for the brand to develop more by doing good.

References
Adelstein, J., & Clegg, S. (2016). Code of ethics: A stratified vehicle for compliance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 138(1), 53-66.
Bjelica, D., Gardašević, J., Vasiljević, I., & Popović, S. (2016). Ethical dilemmas of sport
advertising. Sport Mont, 14(3), 41-43.
Cody, S., & Goodwin, S. (2018). Taking a Stand Is Taking a Risk. Risk Management, 65(10), 4-
7.
Lawton, T., McGuire, S., & Rajwani, T. (2013). Corporate Political Activity: A Literature
Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 86-105.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008) “Implicit and explicit” CSR: A conceptual frameowrl for a
comparative undersanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,
33(2), 404-424.
Mindock, C (2018) ‘Taking a knee: Why are NFL players protesting and when did they start to
kneel?’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/taking-a-knee-national-
anthem-nfl-trump-why-meaning-origins-racism-us-colin-kaepernick-a8521741.html [Accessed
on 8th March 2019]
Percy, L., & Elliott, R. H. (2016). Strategic advertising management. Oxford University Press.
Rathbone, C (2018) ‘Nike’s courageous new ad campaign mixing racial politics with sport will
be vindicated’, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/nikes-courageous-new-ad-

campaign-mixing-racial-politics-with-sport-will-be-vindicated-102707 [Accessed on 8th March
2019]
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A
review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and
democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899-931.
Scherer, AG, Palazzo, G, Matten, D (2014) 'The Business Firm as a Political Actor', Business &
Society, 53(2), pp.143-156
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy
of management review, 20(3), 571-610.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do
it right. 6th edition. John Wiley & Sons, UK.