Post by Krishna Toshniwal

Sometimes, a legal notice becomes better marketing than an advertisement. One case that caught my attention was Nike's unreleased SB Dunk Low v/s 7-Eleven The sneaker was heavily inspired by 7-Eleven's iconic green, orange, and red colour scheme. Unsurprisingly, 7-Eleven objected and reportedly sent Nike a legal notice over trademark concerns. But what fascinates me isn't the legal battle. It's what happened around it. The moment people heard about the dispute, the sneaker became a topic of conversation across sneaker communities, media pages, and social media. Whether intentional or not, the controversy generated massive attention. And it reminded me of another famous Nike moment. Back in the 1980s, when the NBA banned Michael Jordan's coloured sneakers and fined him for wearing them, Nike turned the controversy into one of the most iconic marketing stories in sports. Instead of avoiding the spotlight, the brand embraced it and built an unforgettable narrative around Air Jordan. One thing stands out of all these: Controversy doesn't build a brand. But if your brand is already strong, controversy can amplify the conversation around it. Not every legal battle is a marketing strategy. But time and again, Nike has shown that it knows how to turn moments of conflict into moments of culture. Maybe that's why some campaigns are remembered long after the product itself. What do you think? Can controversy be a marketing asset, or is it a risky strategy that only a few brands like Nike can pull off? #Marketing #Nike #BrandStrategy #SportsMarketing #PR #ConsumerBehavior #SneakerCulture #MarketingInsights