Nike Reactland: make the product trial worth doing

Wieden+Kennedy created Reactland for the Nike React launch, turning an in-store trial into a game across four stores and one pop-up. [1]

Our reading of this choice: the demonstration earned its place because the product was needed to take part. The activity gave a shopper a reason to move beyond looking at a display. The commercial question became whether the experience was relevant to their own use.

That is useful for products people hesitate to buy from a description alone. A customer may need to understand fit, setup, maintenance or the difference between two models. Start by choosing one uncertainty you can resolve honestly; entertainment can help open that conversation.

UNIT9 describes photographing participants, making personal avatars and having them run on a treadmill in React shoes. Their characters travelled through a virtual world, with a chance to buy the shoes afterward. [2]

The useful design principle is participation with a purpose. Instead of asking the visitor to watch a product promise, the experience made them do something related to it. Personalisation gave the action an individual frame, while the product remained central.

A small shop should decide what it can demonstrate convincingly before choosing effects. A game about luggage might draw attention to compartments; a quiz at an equipment stand might explain cleaning steps. Neither interaction, by itself, proves durability, comfort or performance. Keep those claims tied to actual evidence and hands-on inspection.

The agency’s purchase figure describes people who played during the activation. Its report does not provide the participant count, normal trial-to-purchase rate or a control group. [1]

The number is commercially interesting because it concerns a purchase. It still cannot tell a retailer how much better the game performed than a normal fitting. Participants had already reached a store and chosen to try the product; an online audience opening an unfamiliar link is a different group.

For your pilot, keep the same distinction. Record how many people start, complete the activity, ask for a demonstration and later buy. These stages answer different questions. A correct quiz answer is evidence of a response, not a qualified sales opportunity or a promise to purchase.

Our suggested adaptation is deliberately small: use a short activity to prepare a useful product conversation. The employee should be able to connect the game to a real demonstration without inventing a story afterward.

• Choose a real decision Ask which surface an accessory fits or what is needed before first use. Avoid trivia about the founder that does not help the visitor choose.
• Teach before asking for a commitment Make the explanation after each answer useful, including when the player is wrong. A newcomer should leave understanding something without needing an expert score.
• Give the next step a clear owner Name the person or team who will handle the request. Explain what the visitor receives, which purchase conditions apply and when a response is possible.

Imagine a small supplier demonstrating a countertop coffee machine at a trade show. A QR beside the machine invites visitors to explore three practical questions: installation needs, cleaning and an appropriate use case. The answers come from the actual product documentation, and staff can demonstrate the relevant step.

This is our example, not Nike’s rollout. The commercial offer might be one named cleaning accessory with an eligible trial order after the show. State the model, region, availability and ordering conditions. A general promise of a special prize creates work for the sales team and uncertainty for the visitor.

Use a simple budget: $25 for one published game for a calendar month, printing, staff time and the cost of accessories actually supplied. Record requests separately from orders. An order connected to a code is useful evidence of use, but does not establish that the customer would otherwise have bought nothing.

Review the pilot with the people answering enquiries. Did the questions reduce repeated explanations? Were customers expecting the right offer? If the game creates more confused requests, improve the invitation and conditions before spending on wider distribution.