Politics in Advertising? : Data

It is often thought that inserting political views into a corporation’s marketing is a terrible idea as often it will turn customers away who would otherwise buy a product. That seemed to be the case in the days following the release of the controversial Nike ad campaign involving american football player Colin Kaepernick. For those who don’t know, Colin Kaepernick was an american football player on the San Francisco 49ers who generated a media storm after kneeling for the national anthem in an attempt to protest police brutality and racism. Nike’s tactic seemed to backfire and although it sparked much search interest on and near the release date September 5, 2018, according to the New York Times article “Nike Returns to Familiar Strategy With Kaepernick Ad Campaign the Tuesday after the ad was released the “shares of Nike...were down $2.60, or more than 3 percent”. Yet despite the initial outlash overall, the plan seemed to work as Yahoo stated in a news video published on September 24 that “Nike’s market value has surged by nearly $6 billion dollars since [Nike]...unveiled its proactive ad campaign starring Colin Kaepernick”.

The commercial appealed to the younger and generally more socially acceptable audience, the millennials. With that information it is not to anyones surprise that New York topped the searches as they rank third in the total number of millenials for all of the states (graph done by Quartz).  While this ad campaign caused a firestorm in the media this was not the first time a company employed such a strategy. In fact in 2014 Cheerios released a super bowl commercial featuring an interracial couple which also generated much controversy.  

For more information go to the next page!: Politics in Advertising? : Summary.