5 ms·

don’t buy stuff from people who hate you. https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men

by dijit 19d ago

kgwgk 19d ago
Great link.
- dijit 19d ago
  i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on. It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
  - kergonath 18d ago
    > i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. You could have provided more context to avoid that.
    - dijit 18d ago
      people would have ignored that too.
  - throwawayffffas 18d ago
    It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."
    - baud147258 18d ago
      Funny, I read it as 'Nike tried to chase after another market, while neglecting its core market in its advertising'...
    - deleted 18d ago
      [deleted]
    - dijit 18d ago
      > "Nike is bad because it went woke." They tried expanding their audience for a perceived larger audience. Eventually they realised that the "weight" of bringing in this larger audience meant letting some things go. The things they let go were their core demographic. They were unable to bring in the whale anyway. Thus, greed, not malice (or a political agenda) lead them to lose their standing. It's not more political than that.
      - triceratops 18d ago
        > It's not more political than that. I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.
        dijit 18d ago
        My statement was neutral, you shouldn't buy from people who hate you. They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi. I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have. Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.
        triceratops 18d ago
        But you yourself said Nike's decisions were driven by "greed, not malice". Wtf is non-malicious hate? If it's greed, it can't be hate. Hate is often ideological, or political, and nearly always personal. Greed is generally detached and apolitical. Tl;dr Nike doesn't hate you. Because it's not a person and is therefore incapable of emotions. Calling its gestures towards inclusion, even done for entirely cynical, money-driven reasons, "hatred" makes you sound political. > you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction You can do what you want. I didn't flag you and I honestly don't care if you don't buy Nike products. I don't either but mostly because I'm a cheapskate. Neither the "macho" nor the "woke" ads make any difference to me. I haven't even seen them. > because... of a prejudice you have What prejudice is that?
  - mikestew 18d ago
    I’m not reading that disjointed wall of text to the end. If you have a point to make, spit out, don’t proxy it to someone else. Links are to support your argument, not make it for you.
    - dijit 18d ago
      Your call, aside from the opening being a bit long winded, it's actually a well written bit of text that goes into what made Nike successful historically, and the psychology of corporate greed and it's ability to destroy vision. The point that was made was that their brand had historically been very competitive and celebrated that competitiveness, that was their whole marketing. However they completely abandoned that way of marketing because there was a "whale" just off the bow which was much more lucrative (or so they thought) and what if they could just capture that whale... and eventually capturing that whale comes at any cost, including the alienation of your core purchasing demographics. But they tell themselves it's worth it, if only they can just bring in the whale. So, clearly they don't care about anyone, least of all if you used to be a customer. the point made in the text is properly versed and written, you do yourself a disservice by choosing not to read it because it makes a really good point that doesn't compress well.
      - mikestew 18d ago
        Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I lightly read half-way, but it didn’t catch me like it apparently did you. That aside, what you’ve said (and, AFAICT, what TFA was trying to say) matches the scatterbrained marketing and product vision I’ve witnessed recently, at least from the perspective of a competitive runner who has used their shoes since the ‘70s. From my POV, shopping Nike is schizophrenic in that I don’t know which piece of gear is the fashion brand and which is for athletes. Which fits what you’re saying: who are they even trying to sell to anymore? And thus, as a person who was their core (Phil Knight start Nike selling running shoes out of the trunk of his car), I mostly run in other brands these days.
    - triceratops 18d ago
      Tl;dr Men made up 2/3 of Nike's sales. Its ads and marketing and celebrity endorsements reflected that focus: masculine (Michael Jordan), heavy on themes of competition, focus, and win-at-all-costs high achievement. Ads that are practically "boyhood fantasy" and which some would call "toxic" masculinity. Then, realizing that women actually spend more money than men, by far, on shoes and clothing, Nike tried a different tack. The marketing downplayed masculinity and emphasized inclusion and diversity. It tried to more overtly target women. This turned men off the brand without bringing more sales from women. The author argues that Nike's previous marketing resonated because it reflected real life and truth on some level: guys really like sports and winning, and they'll spend money with a brand that embodies those ideas. The new "woke" marketing didn't really appeal to anyone at the same level, even if they agree with the message. Posts like this are red meat for some people. But does Hoka or On have really "macho" advertising? FWIW I think Nike's direct-to-consumer pivot was the actual cause of their current situation.
randunel 18d ago
It's so annoying that more than half of the videos on there show up as "private" to users from my country.

don’t buy stuff from people who hate you. https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men

by dijit 19d ago

don’t buy stuff from people who hate you. https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/nikes-end-of-men

kgwgk 19d ago

Great link.

dijit 19d ago
i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on. It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
- kergonath 18d ago
  > i think the people flagging me haven’t bothered to try reading it, they just assume that they know what it says and thats enough. You could have provided more context to avoid that.
  - dijit 18d ago
    people would have ignored that too.
- throwawayffffas 18d ago
  It does so in an incredibly long winded stream of consciousness that meanders all over the place, and half way through reads as "Nike is bad because it went woke."
  - baud147258 18d ago
    Funny, I read it as 'Nike tried to chase after another market, while neglecting its core market in its advertising'...
  - deleted 18d ago
    [deleted]
  - dijit 18d ago
    > "Nike is bad because it went woke." They tried expanding their audience for a perceived larger audience. Eventually they realised that the "weight" of bringing in this larger audience meant letting some things go. The things they let go were their core demographic. They were unable to bring in the whale anyway. Thus, greed, not malice (or a political agenda) lead them to lose their standing. It's not more political than that.
    - triceratops 18d ago
      > It's not more political than that. I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.
      - dijit 18d ago
        My statement was neutral, you shouldn't buy from people who hate you. They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi. I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have. Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.
        triceratops 18d ago
        But you yourself said Nike's decisions were driven by "greed, not malice". Wtf is non-malicious hate? If it's greed, it can't be hate. Hate is often ideological, or political, and nearly always personal. Greed is generally detached and apolitical. Tl;dr Nike doesn't hate you. Because it's not a person and is therefore incapable of emotions. Calling its gestures towards inclusion, even done for entirely cynical, money-driven reasons, "hatred" makes you sound political. > you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction You can do what you want. I didn't flag you and I honestly don't care if you don't buy Nike products. I don't either but mostly because I'm a cheapskate. Neither the "macho" nor the "woke" ads make any difference to me. I haven't even seen them. > because... of a prejudice you have What prejudice is that?
- mikestew 18d ago
  I’m not reading that disjointed wall of text to the end. If you have a point to make, spit out, don’t proxy it to someone else. Links are to support your argument, not make it for you.
  - dijit 18d ago
    Your call, aside from the opening being a bit long winded, it's actually a well written bit of text that goes into what made Nike successful historically, and the psychology of corporate greed and it's ability to destroy vision. The point that was made was that their brand had historically been very competitive and celebrated that competitiveness, that was their whole marketing. However they completely abandoned that way of marketing because there was a "whale" just off the bow which was much more lucrative (or so they thought) and what if they could just capture that whale... and eventually capturing that whale comes at any cost, including the alienation of your core purchasing demographics. But they tell themselves it's worth it, if only they can just bring in the whale. So, clearly they don't care about anyone, least of all if you used to be a customer. the point made in the text is properly versed and written, you do yourself a disservice by choosing not to read it because it makes a really good point that doesn't compress well.
    - mikestew 18d ago
      Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I lightly read half-way, but it didn’t catch me like it apparently did you. That aside, what you’ve said (and, AFAICT, what TFA was trying to say) matches the scatterbrained marketing and product vision I’ve witnessed recently, at least from the perspective of a competitive runner who has used their shoes since the ‘70s. From my POV, shopping Nike is schizophrenic in that I don’t know which piece of gear is the fashion brand and which is for athletes. Which fits what you’re saying: who are they even trying to sell to anymore? And thus, as a person who was their core (Phil Knight start Nike selling running shoes out of the trunk of his car), I mostly run in other brands these days.
  - triceratops 18d ago
    Tl;dr Men made up 2/3 of Nike's sales. Its ads and marketing and celebrity endorsements reflected that focus: masculine (Michael Jordan), heavy on themes of competition, focus, and win-at-all-costs high achievement. Ads that are practically "boyhood fantasy" and which some would call "toxic" masculinity. Then, realizing that women actually spend more money than men, by far, on shoes and clothing, Nike tried a different tack. The marketing downplayed masculinity and emphasized inclusion and diversity. It tried to more overtly target women. This turned men off the brand without bringing more sales from women. The author argues that Nike's previous marketing resonated because it reflected real life and truth on some level: guys really like sports and winning, and they'll spend money with a brand that embodies those ideas. The new "woke" marketing didn't really appeal to anyone at the same level, even if they agree with the message. Posts like this are red meat for some people. But does Hoka or On have really "macho" advertising? FWIW I think Nike's direct-to-consumer pivot was the actual cause of their current situation.

randunel 18d ago

It's so annoying that more than half of the videos on there show up as "private" to users from my country.