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 com

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.