Nike’s collaboration with Skims, Kim Kardashian’s billion-dollar shapewear empire, is one of the most talked-about partnerships in years. Within days of the announcement, Nike’s market cap surged by $6 billion, a clear signal that investors saw financial upside.
But beneath the headlines and the initial stock jump, there’s a more pressing question:
Is this a strategic evolution for Nike, or just another reactionary move to maintain cultural relevance?
Nike has always been the brand that led culture, not chased it, but recent years have painted a different picture. This Skims partnership could be a glimpse into Nike’s future, or it could be another short-term, hype-driven distraction that fails to address deeper issues.
This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.
To understand what this deal means, let’s break it down:
How We Got Here: The Shift from Innovation to Influence
Nike built its empire on performance, innovation, and athlete-driven storytelling.
- Air Max revolutionized running.
- Flyknit changed the way sneakers were constructed.
- ZoomX foam rewrote marathon history.
- Dri-FIT set a new standard for sports apparel.
But in the past decade, Nike has shifted from product-first innovation to culture-first collaborations, leaning on hype cycles, limited drops, and celebrity partnerships to drive interest.
The problem? It’s a short-term strategy that can inflate brand heat but doesn’t create lasting differentiation. Meanwhile, competitors like Lululemon, On Running, and Hoka are winning with actual product innovation.
Enter Skims…
Nike’s women’s business has underperformed relative to its men’s division, and Lululemon has taken a significant lead in the female activewear market. This partnership gives Nike instant access to Skims’ powerful audience of millennial and Gen Z women.
On the surface, it makes sense. But does Nike need Skims to win in this space? Or does the very existence of this partnership signal that Nike lacks the internal resources to do this themselves?
What This Partnership Means for Both Brands
What Nike Gets
- A shortcut into the highly competitive women’s lifestyle market
- Cultural credibility through Kim Kardashian’s influence
- A business hedge as sneaker sales slow and apparel becomes a bigger focus
What Skims Gets
- The Nike Swoosh—instant sportswear credibility
- Massive global distribution and retail expansion
- A stronger positioning in activewear, making a future IPO more attractive
The biggest winner here? Skims.
Skims is not an activewear brand—it’s a shapewear, loungewear, and underwear company. This partnership allows them to pivot into sportswear overnight.
Meanwhile, Nike—the undisputed sportswear leader—now borrows cultural capital from Skims.
That’s the contradiction:
- Nike is supposed to be the brand that defines culture.
- Now, it’s aligning with someone else’s brand to stay relevant.
Nike should be the one making Skims credible, not the other way around.
A Contradiction in Values: What Message Does This Send?
Nike has spent decades positioning itself as a brand that champions athleticism, empowerment, and performance. Its biggest female athletes—Serena Williams, Megan Rapinoe, and Simone Biles—have helped define what Nike stands for.
Now, Nike is partnering with Kim Kardashian—a business mogul, yes, but one whose brand is rooted in aesthetics, body sculpting, and influencer culture.
Nike’s press release states this collaboration is about making women feel “strong and sexy.”
But ask yourself this:
- When has Nike ever told young male athletes that they need to feel “sexy”?
- Is Nike’s definition of strength for women now tied to body image rather than performance?
Nike’s greatest risk isn’t irrelevance—it’s blindness.
If the next generation of female athletes sees Nike more focused on aesthetics than athleticism, they may start looking elsewhere.
Is This a New Direction for Nike—or Just a Quick Win?
Here’s the real test:
Will Nike use this partnership to truly innovate in women’s activewear, or will it be just another collaboration that fizzles out once the hype dies down?
We’ve seen this before:
- VF Corp acquired Supreme for $2.1B in 2020, only to sell it for $1.5B in 2024—a $600M loss after the hype wore off.
- Apple acquired Beats by Dre for $3B in 2014, but quickly pivoted to building its own competing product (AirPods).
- Adidas leaned heavily into Kanye West’s Yeezy brand, only to suffer major losses when the relationship soured.
Nike’s $6B market cap surge on the Skims announcement is exciting. But stock bumps don’t build brands—vision does.
The big question: Is this move part of a bigger strategic plan, or just a financial sugar high?
Nike’s Alpha Status is Now Its Biggest Risk
This is new territory for Nike. Everyone who knew what it was like to fight for the top spot is long gone. When you’ve been the alpha for this long, eventually, you stop looking over your shoulder.
Malcolm Gladwell said it best:
“Why do giants lose? Because they can’t see. When they become big and powerful, they lose the ability to appreciate the world around them.”
That’s the risk Nike faces today. It’s not seeing the shifts happening in real time—it’s reacting to them after the fact.
Nike isn’t leading culture anymore—it’s chasing it. And when you start playing defense instead of offense, you start losing ground.
The question is: Does Nike still have the hunger to fight like a challenger? Or has it become too comfortable being Goliath?
What Nike Should Be Doing Instead
If Nike truly wants to reclaim its leadership position, here’s what it should focus on:
1. Prioritize Innovation Over Borrowed Influence
Nike needs to stop relying on collabs and start creating products that change the game again. Where’s the next Air Max? The next Flyknit?
2. Fix the Women’s Business at the Product Level
Marketing is great, but women don’t just want resized men’s shoes. Nike needs to invest in women-specific innovation, fit, and performance.
3. Rebuild Retail & Wholesale Relationships
Nike’s DTC-only approach hurt more than it helped. They need to rethink their retail strategy and make their products more accessible again.
4. Get Back to Building a Cult, Not Just Selling Products
Nike’s most powerful moments weren’t just about shoes—they were about belief. The brand needs to reignite that emotional connection.
5. Stop Playing Defense—Lead Again
Nike should be creating the future, not reacting to competitors.
Final Take: Nike needs to Decide What It Stands For. If it continues to prioritize aesthetics over athleticism, it risks something far worse.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by R.J. Abbott, Founder @ Neighborhood Cult
At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable at pivotal moments of change. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education
FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers
Post Views: 71
