Nike: Just Do It and how it grew into a brand for everyone who exercises

The situation

On Monday 3 September 2018, Colin Kaepernick posted a black-and-white image on social media with the caption “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” It was the face of Nike’s campaign for the 30th anniversary of “Just Do It”, and it appeared two years after he began kneeling during the US national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice. He had not played in the NFL since 2016. The same day, some people were filming themselves burning Nike shoes.

Ten days later the result looked different. Nike’s shares closed at an all-time high on Thursday 13 September. The company had gained 170,000 Instagram followers, and Kaepernick’s post had become its second most liked ever, behind a World Cup post. A poll provided to CNN found 44% of 18 to 34 year olds supported the decision and 32% opposed; among 35 to 44 year olds it was 52% for and 37% against. About two-thirds of Nike’s sneaker customers were under 35, according to an NPD Group analyst.

The campaign was a late step in a long story. The slogan dates from 1988, and it was written for a brand that wanted to speak to everyone who exercises, not only to elite athletes. This case looks at that wider move, how the brand reached the 2018 decision, and what the evidence does and does not show about the results. Several of the older figures usually quoted for the campaign could not be checked against primary sources, so this case uses them sparingly and lists the gaps at the end.

Background

A running brand and its agency

Nike’s long-time advertising agency, Wieden+Kennedy, was founded on 1 April 1982 and took Nike as a client from the start. Its first ads were three television spots for Nike that aired during the New York City Marathon in October 1982. Adweek reported in 2014 that these were also Nike’s first national broadcast ads, and that two of the three had been lost for decades before the agency found them.

That early work belonged to a brand known for performance running and, later, basketball. The agency went on to make some of Nike’s best-known advertising, including the “Bo Knows” campaign with Bo Jackson and the Air Jordan ads in which Spike Lee played Mars Blackmon.

A brand that did not talk to women

Nike’s early advertising largely left women out. A Wikipedia summary of academic work by Shelley Lucas says Nike ran no ads aimed at women before 1987, because it believed they would weaken its serious sports image. Reebok, by contrast, chose women as its main target market in 1981. In 1987 Nike began to put more women in its ads, but the early attempts were too aggressive in tone and many considered them a failure. These points come from a secondary summary of Lucas, whose article could not be opened for this case, so they should be read as reported rather than confirmed.

The business today

For scale, Nike’s fiscal 2026 results, for the year ended 31 May 2026, show revenue of $46.4 billion. Its 10-K for fiscal 2026 says NIKE Brand and Converse sales in the United States were about 44% of revenue, and 56% came from outside the United States. At the end of fiscal 2025 the company employed about 77,800 people. These figures show how far the brand has grown since its agency made its first national broadcast ads in 1982.

The industry

Reebok and the fitness boom

In the 1980s the sport shoe business was shaped by a fitness boom. Wikipedia’s summary of the campaign says Reebok built its advertising around aerobics during this period, and the Lucas summary says Reebok had targeted women since 1981. A pair of shoes sold for exercise class had a different customer from a pair sold for racing or basketball, and Reebok targeted that customer first.

Where Nike sat

Nike’s strengths in performance running and basketball put it in front of male athletes. The same summary says Nike took a “tough, take no prisoners” approach and aimed at all Americans regardless of age, sex or fitness level. The sentence describes the stance of the 1988 campaign: instead of copying Reebok’s aerobics focus, Nike widened its message to include anyone who moved.

Rivals and the role of athletes

Sports brands have long competed by signing athletes. In 2018 the burning-shoe videos showed another feature of the market: one user said he might buy Adidas instead, so rivals were visible in the reaction. The sources opened for this case do not give market share figures, so the size of Nike’s lead in any year is not stated here. The numbers sometimes quoted for 1988 to 1998 are not confirmed by a primary source and are listed under unverified.

The decision

The 1988 choice: whom to speak to

The 1988 choice was about audience. Nike could keep addressing serious athletes, follow Reebok into fitness and aerobics, or speak to everyone who exercised. The slogan “Just Do It” suited the third option. It named an action, not a type of person, so a marathon runner and a beginner could both apply it to themselves. According to the Wikipedia summary of a 2009 New York Times article, Dan Wieden coined it at an agency meeting, drawing on the last words of the executed murderer Gary Gilmore, and removed the opening word of his phrase so the line would not credit Gilmore.

The Kaepernick background

Kaepernick was the first player to take a knee during the anthem. Other players joined the protests after him, and they continued after he left the San Francisco 49ers. Global News reported that he had opted out of his 49ers contract in 2017 and had not been signed by an NFL team since. A brand using him in 2018 was therefore choosing an athlete who was out of the league and at the centre of an active legal dispute and political argument. That differs from a conventional endorsement, where a brand pays for a current star’s success on the field.

The women’s decision

Nike’s women’s advertising was a separate decision. After the poor results from 1987, the summary says the company changed tack around 1990. A team of about 40 female employees from Nike and Wieden+Kennedy worked on a new campaign that spoke to women’s emotions and created a sense of community. Jean Grow’s study of the first decade of that work, covering 1990 to 2000 and 27 print campaigns, concluded that storytelling was the most binding element.

The 2018 choice: whether to feature Kaepernick

The 2018 decision carried clear risk. Kaepernick was a divisive figure. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence had described the protests as disrespectful to the flag and the military, and at an Alabama rally Trump said a kneeling player should be taken off the field in strong language. The NFL had announced in May 2018 that teams would be fined if players did not stand, then put the policy on hold in July. Kaepernick had also filed a grievance against NFL owners, which an arbitrator allowed to proceed days before the campaign.

The options were to feature him, to feature other athletes with less political baggage, or to avoid a statement. Nike’s vice president Gino Fisanotti said Kaepernick was “one of the most inspirational athletes of this generation”. Choosing him meant accepting a loss of some customers in return for stronger loyalty among others. The CNN data on customer age suggests why that trade looked sensible to the company: the core buyer was young.

What they did

1982: building the agency relationship

The first move was structural. Nike and Wieden+Kennedy worked together from the agency’s founding in April 1982, and the October 1982 marathon spots opened a relationship that is still running. Wikipedia’s page on the agency describes it as still Nike’s agency of record.

1987 to 1990: finding a voice for women

Nike put more women in its ads from 1987, saw the first attempts fail, and reworked its approach around 1990 using the joint Nike and agency team. One account says Reebok’s shift to women’s advertising came with a 13% rise in market share while Nike’s fell 28%. The summary gives no date for those figures, so they are a rough indicator of the pressure Nike felt and not a measurement.

1988: the slogan

“Just Do It” launched in 1988 and ran on merchandise, outdoor billboards and print.

3 September 2018: the first post

The campaign reached the public through Kaepernick’s own post on the Monday, before the full advertisement. That gave the athlete the first word. CNN later reported that the post became the second most liked in Nike’s Instagram history and drew twice as many comments as any other Nike Instagram post.

September 2018: the anniversary campaign

For the 30th anniversary, announced in early September 2018, Nike featured Kaepernick with Serena Williams, Odell Beckham Jr. and Shaquem Griffin, a rookie linebacker whose left hand was amputated when he was four, according to Rolling Stone. Wikipedia names the video as “Dream Crazy” and lists LeBron James among the athletes shown. The Wieden+Kennedy page dates “Dream Crazy” to fall 2018.

What happened

The immediate backlash

Social media filled quickly with calls for a boycott and with videos of people destroying Nike products. Global News reported examples on 3 September: one user filmed shoes burning and said he might buy Adidas instead, another played the national anthem over burning shoes, and a third threw products in the bin before setting them alight. Other users mocked the protests or suggested giving the clothing to charity.

Early commercial signals

By 14 September CNN reported that Wedbush analyst Christopher Svezia saw early signs that sales were up, which he credited to the campaign. He called it “authentic, culturally relevant, experiential and emotionally engaging” and said it raised loyalty among core customers and brand awareness. The shares had hit a record the day before. The article gave no figures for online sales, brand value or market share.

Table of the reported 2018 signals

Longer-run results

The longer-run picture is mixed and is covered under “Since then”. The evidence in the sources opened for this case runs only to mid-September 2018, so it cannot show the effect on a full year of sales.

Other views

Political critics

The right of US politics objected to the campaign, with Rolling Stone describing an immediate backlash on the right and calls for a boycott. Trump and Pence had already criticised the anthem protests as disrespectful. For these critics the issue was not Nike’s marketing technique but its choice of side.

Analysts and the limits of early evidence

Analyst comment in September 2018 was positive but early. Svezia described “early indications” of higher sales, and CNN said the article had no data on online sales or share. Wikipedia notes that many analysts judged the campaign a success because its target group endorsed it. A share price record also reflects many other factors in a single week.

Polls showed a divided public

The poll figures show the risk was real. Among 18 to 34 year olds one in three opposed Nike’s decision, and among 35 to 44 year olds more than a third did. A campaign can succeed commercially if its supporters are the right customers, even when a large share of the public disagrees.

Consumers who stayed or left

The reaction online was not one-sided. Global News noted that some users burned other brands’ goods or used fire as a joke, that others mocked the protesters, and that one person asked for size 14 shoes instead of having them destroyed. Social media posts are a poor guide to what shoppers actually did, and the sources opened do not report any measured loss of customers.

Weaknesses in the older numbers

Figures often quoted for the first decade of the slogan, including a rise in North American market share from 18% to 43% and worldwide sales growth from $877 million to $9.2 billion, appear on Wikipedia but could not be traced to a primary source here. They are left out of the analysis. The 13% and 28% share change figures for Reebok and Nike are likewise undated and secondhand.

Reading it through a framework

The Ansoff matrix

The Ansoff matrix sorts growth options by whether the products and the markets are new or existing. Nike’s move from serious athletes to everyone who exercises is market development: the same shoes and clothing sold to a wider group. The women’s campaign of around 1990 is the clearest example, since it aimed existing products at a market Nike had ignored while Reebok served it from 1981.

The slogan made that growth possible without changing the products. A line built around action, not a type of athlete, could be applied to a new market at little cost. The matrix also shows the risk. Entering a new market through a new voice, as the failed 1987 ads show, can misfire if the tone does not fit the audience.

Stakeholder mapping

Stakeholder mapping lists the groups affected by a decision and rates their power and interest. The 2018 decision involved customers, who were mostly under 35; the athlete himself; the NFL, which had a dispute with him; politicians who had criticised the protests; investors who watched the share price; and rival brands. Nike judged that its core customers outweighed those who objected. The poll results and the record share price a week later fit that judgement, though they do not prove it for the longer term.

The same exercise shows who had little say. Nike’s retail partners and employees do not appear in the sources opened for this case, so the analysis cannot place them.

The two lenses give different readings of timing. Ansoff shows why the 1988 slogan was a growth decision, aimed at expanding the group of buyers. Stakeholder mapping shows why the 2018 decision was a risk decision, aimed at winning the support of one group at the cost of another. Both depend on knowing who the customer is, which is why the age data in the CNN article mattered more than the volume of the online argument.

Since then

Nike’s results for fiscal 2026, reported on 30 June 2026, show a company with a large base but little recent growth. Revenue was $46.4 billion, flat on a reported basis and down 2% in constant currency. NIKE Brand revenue was $45.2 billion. Wholesale rose 6% to $27.5 billion, while NIKE Direct, the company’s own stores and digital channels, fell 6% to $17.7 billion, with digital down 12%. Converse fell 31% to $1.2 billion. Gross margin was 42.9% and net income $3.1 billion, down 3%.

Chief executive Elliott Hill said the company had “made meaningful structural improvements to lay the groundwork for our Sport Offense” and was “encouraged by progress in performance product”. The release does not explain the term “Sport Offense” or say how it relates to the broad audience that Just Do It addressed. Brand revenue declined in Greater China and EMEA and grew in North America.

The Kaepernick grievance against the NFL, which an arbitrator had allowed to proceed in late August 2018, is outside the scope of the sources opened here beyond that date, so its outcome is not reported in this case.

The sources opened here do not show whether the 2018 campaign had lasting sales effects or how the slogan is being used now, so the connection between the 2018 spike and later results remains open.

What to take from it

• A slogan that names an action, not a type of person, can be applied to new customers without rewriting the product. “Just Do It” lets a beginner and a champion use the same words.
• Entering a market that rivals already serve takes more than adding faces to existing ads. Nike’s first attempts to reach women in 1987 were too aggressive and are described as failures.
• A brand statement on a divisive topic is a trade between customers. Nike accepted public anger in 2018 because polling and customer age suggested its core buyers would respond well.
• Early commercial signals need time. A record share price and an analyst note a week after launch are encouraging but do not measure a full year.
• Figures that circulate widely about famous campaigns are often secondhand. Anyone using the 1988 to 1998 numbers should find the primary filing first.

Questions to think about

1. Is “Just Do It” still a promise to everyone, or has Nike’s growth into a $46 billion company changed who the words are for?
2. What would you want to measure, beyond share price and followers, to judge whether the Kaepernick decision paid off?
3. When should a company decline to take a side on a divisive issue, and what does it risk by staying silent?
4. If Reebok had a head start with women in 1981, was it better for Nike to catch up with a different message or to copy what worked?

Concepts at work

Market development, stakeholder mapping and brand positioning are the three ideas this case illustrates most clearly. Explore them in Insights.

Written from the public sources listed below. Figures are as those sources report them.