The variety of reactions has been extremely interesting to see (and valid) from both sides of the discussion. Like you said, Nike has always found strength in being divisive.
For me the most interesting thing here is that this appears to be a long term, mass market partnership and not a higher priced, limited drop. Which creates a platform for sustained storytelling over time. What I’m curious to see is how that storytelling can be sustained outside of an athlete’s context especially at this stage of maturity in Kim/the Kardashian empire’s story where they’re not all over the tabloids
I agree, what’s interesting here to me is that it’s a long term play rather than a short term hype drop, which leaves scope for trial and error, joint storytelling and product development season over season.
Transparently I’m not a fan. I think Skims will definitely make out in this deal more so than Nike. Skims considers itself inclusive and perhaps that’s true from offering extended sizes and shades available in their Neutrals category.
But they are not inclusive when it comes to less feminine presenting athletes, they did not showcase their darkest available neutral in the WNBA campaign and the very idea of shape wear is to create a “feminine form” (their words) which is more suited for the male gaze and perspective. I want to believe this is antithetical to Nike values for athletes and customers.
Agree with @Abiola around the maturity of the Kardashian brand/influence. Kim’s alignment with the current administration of the US (see article in The Cut) will also be problematic for the 50% of the country that also intersect with Nike Fandom.
Kardashians are polarizing regardless which is your point of course so def smart from a marketing perspective bc there’s a lot of discourse.
And I personally don’t think she’s completely untainted by Kanye despite divorce.
Just my 2 pennies (until they disappear)
I don’t think Kim & Jens have the same level of talent as Virgil Abloh.
The variety of reactions has been extremely interesting to see (and valid) from both sides of the discussion. Like you said, Nike has always found strength in being divisive.
For me the most interesting thing here is that this appears to be a long term, mass market partnership and not a higher priced, limited drop. Which creates a platform for sustained storytelling over time. What I’m curious to see is how that storytelling can be sustained outside of an athlete’s context especially at this stage of maturity in Kim/the Kardashian empire’s story where they’re not all over the tabloids
I agree, what’s interesting here to me is that it’s a long term play rather than a short term hype drop, which leaves scope for trial and error, joint storytelling and product development season over season.
Also think it’s more like a franchise than a collab. Own (brand) logo with multiple collections.
Transparently I’m not a fan. I think Skims will definitely make out in this deal more so than Nike. Skims considers itself inclusive and perhaps that’s true from offering extended sizes and shades available in their Neutrals category.
But they are not inclusive when it comes to less feminine presenting athletes, they did not showcase their darkest available neutral in the WNBA campaign and the very idea of shape wear is to create a “feminine form” (their words) which is more suited for the male gaze and perspective. I want to believe this is antithetical to Nike values for athletes and customers.
Agree with @Abiola around the maturity of the Kardashian brand/influence. Kim’s alignment with the current administration of the US (see article in The Cut) will also be problematic for the 50% of the country that also intersect with Nike Fandom.
Kardashians are polarizing regardless which is your point of course so def smart from a marketing perspective bc there’s a lot of discourse.
And I personally don’t think she’s completely untainted by Kanye despite divorce.
Just my 2 pennies (until they disappear)
I don’t think Kim & Jens have the same level of talent as Virgil Abloh.