Afternoon workshop, 13:30 to 16:00, Fashion Base Room. Hand this in before you leave: your Nike audit, your customer profile and your range concept. Bring it to Session 4.
For each real Nike name on screen: is it an occasion, an athlete and a moment, a creator’s reference, or a shared design story? Which kind will yours be?
Six rows. Two must be codes from the morning (Swoosh, Just Do It, athlete first, Air, Flyknit, ZoomX), one must be a franchise (Air Force 1, Air Max, Dunk, Air Jordan, Pegasus, Cortez). Every row needs evidence from an official Nike source with a date. At 13:50 swap with the next pair and argue against one “fixed” code.
| Code or choice | Fixed or flex? | Evidence (source, date) | How our range uses it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Air Force 1 shape | Flex, on purpose | Nike x Nigo LO2, Nike newsroom, 22 Apr 2026 | Keep the AF1 base; change the leather, not the shape |
Underline every claim. Next to each one write a source, or the word untested. Untested is allowed. Invented is not. Leave age, city or budget blank if no evidence supports them.
Starter facts for your territory (all accessed 20 Oct 2026). Read who was counted before you use a number.
Seven decisions, the same seven as the Year of the Mamba example. No supporting product without a job. No price without a dated comparable in the same currency. Your name is a working name, not a Nike-approved one.
| 04 Supporting product | Its job in the customer’s day | Shared design reason |
|---|---|---|
| 06 Price hypothesis | Entry | Middle | Hero | Currency | Comparable (brand, item, price, date) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Swap concepts with another pair. Draw two scenario cards. Revise the weakest decision in the concept you were given and hand it back with one practical research action.
| Theory | The question it answers | Core reference (Harvard) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H | Kapferer’s brand identity prism | Which parts of Nike’s identity stay, and which change locally? (physique, personality, culture, relationship, reflection, self-image) | Kapferer, J.-N. (2012) The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and strategic thinking. 5th edn. London: Kogan Page. |
| I | Brand personality | If the range were a person, what would it be like, and can you show it? (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, ruggedness) | Aaker, J.L. (1997) ‘Dimensions of brand personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), pp. 347 to 356. doi:10.1177/002224379703400304 |
| J | Brand extension and fit | Why would people accept this from Nike? What transfers, and where does it stretch? | Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990) ‘Consumer evaluations of brand extensions’, Journal of Marketing, 54(1), pp. 27 to 41. doi:10.1177/002224299005400102 |
Recommended pairs with Session 2: identity prism + glocalisation; extension fit + authenticity. Limits: the prism organises an argument but does not prove what customers think; the personality scale was built in the US; fit does not prove cultural respect, permission or demand.