quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
No other shoe fits as well AND holds up like Nike for me. It sucks but I’ll never buy their shit as long as they’re paying that turd.

If you can get over them looking like "old man shoes" (my wife's opinion) try the American made New Balance, not cheap but very well made.

It's either NB or Saloman (sp) for me...

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
This won't hurt Nike much, many who buy their stuff don't know or care about this.....many others support this POS.

Sorry, I don't agree. I think this is going over the line and will be recognized and dealt with by those who find it offensive. I see their sales dropping big time. If I were an owner of their stock, I'd be selling.

https://hotair.com/archives/20...-nikes-payroll-time/

Charles Robinson of Yahoo Sports later reported that Kaepernick and Nike agreed to a new contract despite the fact Kaepernick has been with the company since 2011. Robinson added that “interest from other shoe companies” played a part in the new agreement.

Per Robinson, the contract is a “wide endorsement” where Kaepernick will have his own branded line including shoes, shirts, jerseys and more. According to Robinson, Kaepernick signed a “star” contract that puts him level with a “top-end NFL player” worth millions per year plus royalties.

some sacrifice

One ESPN reporter jumped on the obvious question which the news release generated. We haven’t seen much of Kaepernick in terms of advertisements, endorsements, etc. since all this National Anthem protest nonsense started. But if we’re reading Nike’s announcement correctly, Kaepernick has been on their payroll all this time.

quote:

Nike hitches their wagon to Kaepernick - name him the face of their 30th anniversary 'Just Do It' campaign

Someone must have calculated that the added publicity would outweigh the costs of lost business.

My bet is they calculated wrong.

quote:

I think this is going over the line and will be recognized and dealt with by those who find it offensive. I see their sales dropping big time. If I were an owner of their stock, I'd be selling.

You are not alone... currently down 3% in Pre-Market trading.
79.76 -2.44 (-2.97%)
9:06AM EDT

quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
This won't hurt Nike much, many who buy their stuff don't know or care about this.....many others support this POS.

I disagree. But we'll see.

There's a lot of people/organizations that don't have a choice and have to buy Nike for one reason or another.

I don't see people going, "Oh shit, this is great! I'm buying MORE Nike shit!"

Is this new line Leisure Wear since k isn't playing? Something to wear on the sidelines.

The starving, under privileged, oppressed masses with their $300 sneakers. The oppressed never had it so good.

SJWs don't get capitalism.

It looks like some Dick's moved to Nike.

quote:

The starving, under privileged, oppressed masses with their $300 sneakers. The oppressed never had it so good.

Yep.... and Nike doesn't care where they get the $300 to buy their sneakers either.

What a brilliant marketing campaign.



The intetwebs are having fun with Nike’s genius move.

By “sacrificing everything” they must mean getting lucrative endorsements and being worth millions. Right?

September 4, 2018

Did Nike make a huge NFL-like mistake embracing Colin Kaepernick?

Is there business logic for Nike embracing Colin Kaepernick? I think there is, for the NFL and athletic shoe business are very different. In the conservative blogosphere, on Fox News, and among my friends, the name of Nike has been forever damaged by the brand’s embrace of Colin Kaepernick, who sparked the widespread disrespect for our flag by NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. Pictures and videos of Nike gear burning already are proliferating among the outraged.

Given the damage that the NFL has suffered from failing to confront players over their disrespect, many are wondering how on earth Nike could be so stupid.

But, I suspect that this was a calculated decision, not an impulse based on the ideology of the CEO. Successful companies the size of Nike (2017 sales of $34 billion, 74,400 employees) closely analyze serious decisions such as selecting Kaepernick for a very visible endorsement. Focus groups, survey research, and a close analysis of which demographic slices buy which products, with what profit margins, almost certainly preceded the decision.

I strongly suspect that Nike’s most lucrative target market is young males, particularly urban youth. Among many young people, athletic shoes have become a way to signal one’s identity and affiliations, and having the “right” shoe can be worth hundreds of dollars more than an alternative shoe that does the functional job just as well. A good comparison can be made to wristwatches, which at least before the rise of cell phones were an opportunity to signal one’s level of affluence and taste. An accurate wristwatch can be had for a few dollars, but people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on something from Switzerland with a famous brand name and maybe some precious metals and stones.

Nike has recently been losing ground to Adidas. The endorsement power of Michael Jordan for the Air Jordan line of shoes had been hugely profitable, but that power is fading.

Charles Robinson, NFL reporter for Yahoo News, tweeted out that Nike faced competition for Kaepernick’s continuing endorsement:

Charles Robinson ✔
@CharlesRobinson

A lot behind the curtain here. @Nike had Kaepernick since 2011 but this is actually a new deal done by Kaepernick’s reps @markgeragos & @meiselasb. Nike sat on Kaepernick for 2 years w/ no idea what to do with him. Interest from other shoe companies absolutely changed their tune.


My guess is that Nike was worried that a rival like Adidas would jump on Kaepernick as a weapon to use against Nike, painting it as a has-been company stuck in the era of Michael Jordan’s NBA career. Their niche among young African-American style-setters might be the most profitable element in the entire company, and they feared its loss.

Now, it’s quite possible that Nike miscalculated, and that boycotts and burnings by the sort of people like me who don’t spend a lot of money on the latest athletic shoe or wear will cost it more than it would have lost by letting Kaepernick power a rival’s gear with his endorsement. But for good reason, Nike doesn’t care what I think about its image because I think it is stupid to pay lot of money for a brand image or an endorsement by an athlete. I am not their kind of customer.

This will be something to watch. Will there be picket lines in front of its stores? Will people make nasty comments to those wearing Nike products?

America is splitting into mutually antagonistic subcultures, and that’s a terrible danger sign. One thing that is clear is that Nike doesn’t care.

https://www.americanthinker.co...olin_kaepernick.html

I guess we know what demographic they are aiming at.
Also the government dollar is a good foundation. There are several companies that are going after the business of ppl on the government tit.

I expect a backlash, and I believe Nike expects one. The question is whether it will be larger than they expect, and whether it will impact their revenue. Conservatives have not been not much into threatening boycotts and protesting corporate types, but I think that is changing. Certainly the NFL painted themselves into a corner, largely because they failed to understand their customer demographic.

My guess is there will be a significant impact on their golf brand, a demo which tends to be conservative. They couldn't compete with their golf equipment, and in a high profile failure pulled it from the market. So, they've miscalculated badly before.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Nike wouldn't do something like this without knowing the repercussions. They know which demographic groups will like it, and which ones will hate it. They've decided that gaining traction with the demographics where this will play well (almost certainly younger) will make them much more money than the lose in sales from the demographics that are negative to it.

You forget that some moron came up with the idea fornthe movie Sharknado and then a larger group of morons (aka management committee) funded the movie. In other words, large corporations can and do step on their wangs.

Whatever happened to New Coke? It tasted just like Pepsi.

New Coke wasn't as big of a flop as most ppl believe. The product itself was a flop, but all the marketing and free publicity reignited popularity in Coca-Cola Classic and increased market share against Pepsi. It also gave Coca-Cola the opportunity to permanently switch out cane sugar for cheaper high-fructose corn syrup w/ hardly anyone noticing.

As for Nike, I agree w/ BBMW and the few other contrarians here. Nike is a huge corporation w/ a huge marketing dept. A lot of you know about the 80/20 principle. I think Nike feels confident that the older crowd they alienate will be more than offset by the revenue gained from the younger market they solidify. This isn't as bone-headed a move as say Yeti slapping the hunting and fishing crowd in the face.

It'll also be interesting to see how competitors such as Under Armour and adidas respond. UA is #2 in the US to Nike. UA is already popular w/ the hook & gun crowd, military, and LE. UA advertises their sponsorship of the Wounded Warrior Project. I think Nike's move gives UA an opening to pick up a lot of former Nike buyers.

quote:

Originally posted by MagiaNera:
I suspect Nike took into account a certain amount of discontent, and will be just fine. I for one applaud both Nike and Kaepernick for having the courage of their convictions. I wouldn't kneel myself, but don't begrudge the man his right to do so...just as those have the right not to buy Nike or watch the NFL.

The right to protest, no. To willfully choose to protest something on optics alone and ignore the actual facts of the situation? Yes, Ill pick nits on that subject. The entire movement is built on a flat out lie. Its supporters choose to ignore the facts in not only the Ferguson shooting but ALL the deaths in the black community.

When Colin and Nike want to do something about the issues that actually plague the black community then I'll help.

Until then, they can all GTFO.

quote:

Originally posted by jigray3:
I expect a backlash, and I believe Nike expects one. The question is whether it will be larger than they expect, and whether it will impact their revenue. Conservatives have not been not much into threatening boycotts and protesting corporate types, but I think that is changing. Certainly the NFL painted themselves into a corner, largely because they failed to understand their customer demographic.

Their customer demographic has changed.
When I was in high school (1979-1983)... the leather Nike Cortez was THE shoe to wear and be seen wearing.



BUT... their customer demographic is no longer the same. I probably haven't bought a pair of Nike in 30 years.

The Nike Cortez was created by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight. The men first met in 1957: Bowerman was the track and field coach at the University of Oregon, and Knight competed on Bowerman's team. The two friends became business partners soon after Knight purchased a large sum of Onitsuka Tiger brand athletic shoes from Japan. The initial name of their business was Blue Ribbon Sports and was later changed to Nike in 1972.[1] Although the business was distributing decent athletic shoes, Bowerman believed that athletes deserved a better track shoe than what was available. After years of designing and experimenting, Bowerman finalized his image of the Nike Cortez in 1968; and in 1972 the shoe was released.

Impact on Nike
It is widely thought that the Nike Cortez was key to the success of Nike, Inc. The shoe was introduced to the general public at the peak of the 1972 Summer Olympics. The demand for the shoe grew exponentially nearly immediately after the public noticed that the Nike Cortez was being used by the 1972 U.S. Olympic athletes. Sales reached $800,000 during the first year the shoe was released, which was a 100% sales increase over the 8,000 sales inquiries reached after the first year of selling the Tiger brand shoes.[1] This massive business investment ignited the start to placing Nike, Inc. on the pathway to triumph. Today Nike, Inc. has grown into a multi-billion dollar corporation and conducts business in more than 160 countries while employing more than 35,000 people.

If you want the authentic sports shoe, buy ASICS. I'm not an athlete anymore but that's what I wore back in the day and they were very high quality.

where they might get hurt is if every time someone is wearing something w the



then they get asked

"So you won't stand up and show pride in our flag ?"