Nike learns lesson number one of social media, the hard way

Apparently Nike has not been briefed on the Streisand
Effect.

To quote the bastion of internet memes that is Wikipedia:
“The Streisand effect is an internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor
or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be
widely publicized.”

The term was coined in 2003, when singer Barbara Streisand
sued a photographer who took an aerial photo of her California beach house, and
demanded the picture be removed from the website Pictopia.com, citing privacy
concerns.

As a result, the subsequent trial raised public knowledge of
the damaging photograph, which became somewhat of an internet sensation and
spread like wildfire through the various channels of social media, in their
infancy at the time.

The bottom line is that much more people saw the photograph
than if Streisand wouldn’t have made such a fuss in the first place, no doubt
due spite – and to the nefarious nature of the act, suppressing freedom in an
era of free.

It’s common sense, and should be rule number one for brands
dealing with social media.

Even the mere idea of trying to hide something should be
ultimately abandoned, as the internet will seek it out, and air it for all to
see, simply out of principal – even if it’s something stupid photograph of some
stupid house, among 10,000 others.

Imagine the backlash if a brand had something actually
juicy, something actually worth sweeping under the rug.

Bad Nike, bad.

The sportswear brand, known for sponsoring the world’s
finest athletes, has a real cracker on its hands with LeBron James – the 24
year old basketball phenom, good enough to be the next Michael Jordan, if he
could ever get a decent supporting squad.

But ultimately, he’s brandable. And dependable, with a long,
winning career ahead of him. Pure Nike.

So, when hosting a training camp for young college players
earlier this month, LeBron James was ‘dunked-on’ by a 20-year-old nobody named
Jordan Crawford.

A ‘posterising’ dunk (ie one you would find on a basketball
poster), the ultimate humiliation, two-handed, over the head of the hapless
victim.

Not something you want caught on video, your star sponsor
being jumped over, dunked on, shamed, disgraced, mortified, etc.

Soon after the event took place, without much more than a
few hoots and hollers from the hundreds watching in the stands, Nike demanded
CBS, who was filming the event, confiscate all the tapes of the dunk – creating
instant demand for said video, virtual currency.

Did Nike really think no one in the bleachers would be
filming? Surely not. But its plan backfired, badly.

Of course, the video found its way onto YouTube, although admittedly taking longer than usual, about two weeks compared to the requisite two hours or so.

After watching the video (which I plan on posting, kinda the
point of this post, no?) the dunk is hardly noticeable, and would have likely
escaped besides a stray ‘Didja see…?’ among the few in attendance.

But no, Nike didn’t want the internet to see it, so
naturally, the internet sought it out, and make sure everyone else does
too. It’s Streisand, brands beware.