General Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

What is the rationale for burning your Nike shoes (that you have already paid for) to protest Nike using Kapernick in its ads?

Asked by elbanditoroso (30580points) September 5th, 2018

If the protestors want to boycott Nike for using Kapernick in their ads, then don’t buy shoes in the future.

How does burning shoes *that you already own do any damage to Nike?*

This seems like one of the more ill-thought-out protests that the right wing has come up with.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

43 Answers

notnotnotnot's avatar

It’s their way of announcing how white nationalist they are.

My concern is that this co-opting of Kap by Nike will result in people believing that buying Nike shoes is a political act.

Unofficial_Member's avatar

It’s merely a public symbolism of consumers’ anger, disappointment, and defiance. They will follow it up soon with their refusal to buy the product ever again in the future. Company wouldn’t be happy to see their product being used to make a bad rep for the company and to cause public uproar. The price of one pair of shoes to make the company look bad is really cheap.

tinyfaery's avatar

Rationale implies reason. You aren’t hurting a company when you ALREADY PAID for their product. Nike already has there money. If you don’t want to wear them anymore than give them away. It’s such a waste to destroy something someone else can use.

kritiper's avatar

Stupidity. And something to post on social media. No harm to Nike.

Jaxk's avatar

It’s a publicity stunt just like all boycotts and protests. Doing something (like burning sneakers) always gets more attention than not doing something (like not buying sneakers). Personally I don’t subscribe to any protest or boycott but they are not intended to be rational merely a statement of support or dissent.

si3tech's avatar

NO need to burn shoes. The people have spoken. Nike stocks tanked!

mazingerz88's avatar

The rationale if there’s any is protesting an athlete’s taking a knee as his way of protesting.

JLeslie's avatar

It’s symbolic, and it shows they won’t be wearing Nike.

Every time we wear Nike we advertise for them.

Nike has their logo on all (or at least most) of their products.

notsoblond's avatar

“We did all the math. We’re a $76 Billion dollar company that can afford to let go of all ‘make america great again’ customers. We would rather be on the right side of history.” – Stephen Bigelow NIKE CEO

ragingloli's avatar

It is akin to joining the AFD, instead of the NPD.
You want to kind of show your racism, but still want to maintain plausible deniability, because you are afraid of the backlash.

filmfann's avatar

Wearing the shoes is a type of advertising for the product.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@filmfann – I have to go out this afternoon. I will wear my Nikes for that reason alone.

Lightlyseared's avatar

Let’s face it… it’s probably better they’re burning shoes than crosses.

Inspired_2write's avatar

Politicizing Nike for taking a stand.
Notice those people burning the shoes..they are worn old shoes..don’t see them burning brand new ones do you?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

I’m sure all those workers in Asia who make Nike shoes for 25 cents an hour 80 hours a week appreciate Nike being so sensitive and supportive of those who stand up to social injustice.

notnotnotnot's avatar

^ Exactly. Nike is not our friend, and the Colin K ad is just marketing.

However, it is funny that racist shits are burning their sneakers.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Their stock did not really even take a hit. It’s back down about where it was earlier this month. That’s pretty well a mixed reaction by investors.

notnotnotnot's avatar

I’m hoping some antibiotic manufacturer runs a Kaepernick ad so they start burning their medicine to own the libs.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Whatever Nike is doing, it’s all about the money, and the nuts are buying right into it! Talk about free advertising! I find it so very odd that the people who mistrust government and big business the most, are the ones who suck right up to it.

@notnotnotnot Hoping Ford picks him up for their F150!

rebbel's avatar

Ever since I learned, in the eighties or the nineties, that small children’s hands were used to stitch Nike products I have never bought a single pair of shoes of theirs.
And I don’t like the swoosh.

rebbel's avatar

Next thing will be them burning books.


Demosthenes's avatar

It just goes to show that petulant protesting isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum.

Brian1946's avatar

What they should do in the spirit of true martyrdom, is burn their shoes while they’re wearing them.


“It is akin to joining the AFD, instead of the NPD.”

How would joining the Amsterdam Fire Department instead of the Netherlands Police Dept., make them appear to be less racist? ;-p

raum's avatar

Agree with @notnotnotnot. It’s a marketing strategy. And probably a smart one.

In 2017, Nike launched their Consumer Direct Offense.

“In the new alignment, the company will drive growth by deeply serving consumers in 12 key cities…New York, London, Shanghai, Beijing, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Paris, Berlin, Mexico City, Barcelona, Seoul, and Milan…expected to represent over 80 percent of Nike’s projected growth through 2020.”

They are also hoping to gain more footing in three particular markets: women, young athletes and runners

Given their target demographics, the decision to sign Kapernick makes a lot of sense.

As for the logic of burning shoes, I’d consider it more of a social media thing. A political photo prop.

snowberry's avatar

If I wanted to protest Nike by burning pair of Nike shoes (and I don’t, by the way), I’d go buy a pair at a secondhand store, and set fire to them!

notsoblond's avatar

^Sad. Someone who needs shoes could use them. Why not donate?

kritiper's avatar

It makes more sense to me to just take a Nike ad with Kapernick’s face and stick it on your dart board.

Patty_Melt's avatar

Maybe steal Colin’s shoes, and burn them. Hahahahah!

ScienceChick's avatar

I LOVE watching this stuff. People out themselves as ignorant racists. Catholic priest raping children… crickets….. Nike hires Kaepernick and people are rage quitting and flipping tables. People are dumb. Also, the Nike stocks dropped 3 percent (in a day where trade landed in an over all drop) and people are trying to read something into it. All these high branded bullshit companies are the same. Sports sponsorship and idolising big dumb men who kick and throw a ball around tells me everything I need to know.

ScienceChick's avatar

Also, wearing a product with a logo on is not advertising. Wearing a product with a logo on it is you telling folks how much you spend on your stuff and perhaps what sport you watch on TV. Someone was complaining about a cake at a wedding that was made to resemble a brand name product. They said that the couple should have gotten money for advertising the product at their wedding. I brought up that the cake represented the unauthorised and unlicensed use of a trademark and the couple could be sued by the maker of the product for using it without permission. They still didn’t understand, but sometimes, I don’t like to get my crayons out to explain things, so I dropped it.

JLeslie's avatar

^^The logo is both advertising and a status thing. If you don’t think it’s advertising then you don’t understand how advertising works. Every time a company puts their logo in front of people it is building brand recognition and putting the idea of buying that brand in people’s heads.

ScienceChick's avatar

It’s a marketing strategy, but it isn’t advertising. They wouldn’t put a 3XL women in their ads, but they put their logo on 3XL shirts and sweatpants.
Branding is what your company believes in, why it exists, and how consumers feel about your business and products. Branding promotes loyalty and long-term commitment. The visual components of your brand include your company name, logo, tagline, fonts, and colour scheme. These elements identify your brand and create an association in people’s minds between their desires and beliefs and your company’s ideals.
Marketing encompasses strategies to build awareness of your company’s products and services. It also involves promoting and protecting the brand. Every message about your company is part of your marketing. This includes all social media interactions, customer service, personal relationships, printed materials, websites, social media profile pages, and anything that contains your brand imagery.
Advertising is a subset of marketing, focused mostly on acquiring customers and driving sales. It generally relates to paid campaigns that are carefully written and designed to reach a target audience through various media, including online, newspapers, magazines, posters, television, and radio.

JLeslie's avatar

Oh ok. Lol. So, Nike doesn’t want overweight people to buy their products. Sure.

Ok, she’s not 3XL, but she’s not a waif.

Abocrombie and Fitch doesn’t make large sizes (unless that has changed recently) and got in trouble when they commented that they don’t make XL for girls, because that’s not their market, they market to “cool kids.” Nike does make large sizes.

Whether you want to get overly technical about definitions or not, the logo is a form of promotion and branding. It increases awareness of the brand. Burning and throwing away Nike garments is a symbolic gesture in protest and if fewer people are wearing the logo then fewer people are seeing it.

I have a degree in Marketing by the way. Not that it matters.

ScienceChick's avatar

But, here we are talking about Nike and you’re looking up pictures of their products and linking to them. Sounds like their marketing is working just fine. And how the hell did you read into what I wrote that Nike doesn’t want 3XL folks wearing their clothes. That isn’t at ALL what I said. Is that something you have a hard time with?

JLeslie's avatar

^^What? I don’t understand your point? Plus, I’ll just add that even the US federal government looks at logo as an advertisement. Putting a logo on an item can be deducted as an advertising expense.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming I’m one of the people against Nike, or who agrees that kneeling during the anthem is an affront to our soldiers and to America. You are wrong if you do.

I have supported the kneeling since the beginning. I’m never going to be angry about a non-violent protest. I’m never going to be in favor of requiring anyone to stand or cite our pledge or whatever. These people who accuse citizens of being anti-American for kneeling, or who gave decuded that these men kneeling are spitting in the face of soldiers, rather than understanding this is a civil rights issue that needs attention are being hostile in my opinion.

I don’t know if I’d choose not standing during the anthem myself, I’d find a different way probably, but I certainly would never even think for a second that the men who chose to protest this way are against America or those who have fought for her. It’s ridiculous to me, and many soldiers whom I know.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated
ScienceChick's avatar

Does everyone remember when New Balance was claimed at the official white supremacists shoe? Great advertising, that was.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ha ha haha ha ha ha! It’s all a ploy!

JLeslie's avatar

I wore my Nikes today. Funny, I didn’t even remember they were Nike’s, I only wear those particular sneakers rarely.

Maybe I’ll really throw the people off here and wear my American flag t-shirt and my Nike sneakers. Lol.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther