3 ms·

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 argume

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.
- mikestew 18d ago
  At the same time, Nike put out banners in Boston before the Boston Marathon that said "Runners welcome, walkers tolerated" and caught a rash of shit for it. Keeping in mind that runners have to qualify to run Boston (we'll ignore charity runners for the time being), and those qualifying standards are not easy. You're not going to walk your way to a Boston-qualifying time. (I'd guess 85-90% of actual runners can't qualify in their age group.) My point being, times have changed, too, and what Nike used to get lauded for (I loved their ads on the back of Runner's World in the 70s/80s) now gets called out as "not inclusive".
- jerlam 18d ago
  I loved their commercial with now-disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong at the time for its rebellious competitive spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U It was purely a commercial for the brand - Nike didn't sell any noteworthy cycling products.

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.

mikestew 18d ago
At the same time, Nike put out banners in Boston before the Boston Marathon that said "Runners welcome, walkers tolerated" and caught a rash of shit for it. Keeping in mind that runners have to qualify to run Boston (we'll ignore charity runners for the time being), and those qualifying standards are not easy. You're not going to walk your way to a Boston-qualifying time. (I'd guess 85-90% of actual runners can't qualify in their age group.) My point being, times have changed, too, and what Nike used to get lauded for (I loved their ads on the back of Runner's World in the 70s/80s) now gets called out as "not inclusive".
jerlam 18d ago
I loved their commercial with now-disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong at the time for its rebellious competitive spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U It was purely a commercial for the brand - Nike didn't sell any noteworthy cycling products.