Nike's LeBron James social media fiasco

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, 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.

(via Brand Republic)