“I was listening to some sports radio this morning and they made a good point that there target market isn't 40 something year old white males, it is brainwashed soy eating teenagers.” (Sorry for the copy-paste but I’m on my phone and I can’t get it to respond directly)

This is key- they would love to sell to 40+ y.o. white males, but they have made the calculation that it’s worth sacrificing them for a whole new generation self-righteous, self-important, “woke” David Hoggs.

Quote: (09-04-2018 02:26 PM)Stirfry Wrote:  

The deplorables can vote, hence Trump, but they have no money, hence companies can ignore them. They also have short attention spans, like most Americans. Let’s see how the midterm elections turn out. Let’s see Nike stock 6 mos. or a year from now before we smugly predict the demise of Nike.

You've got this one half wrong. Trump voters, on average, are wealthier than the general population. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...7d3850e60f
https://www.salon.com/2017/06/07/can-we-...ing-class/

What you do have right is that blacks and Hispanics spend a lot more money on athletic shoes and clothes than more affluent white and Asian populations. According to one study, they send about 30% more on labels and according to another around $2300 more a year.
"Compared to white households of similar income, the typical black and Hispanic household spent $2,300 more per year on visible items. To do that, they spent less on almost all other categories except housing, and they saved less."
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/artic...e-on-what/

Additionally, blacks and hispanics are MUCH more likely to interact with brands on social media and the impact of blacks on popular culture is vastly greater than their wealth or demographic influence.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...15/433725/

So, I agree that this makes more sense for Nike, but if you look at the impact a move to the left has had on ESPN or the NFL, I'm much less convinced....

Smart move for Nike, the people outraged at this weren’t exactly lining up to buy $200 Lebrons anyway. I think they were happy to concede the $40 clearance racks to Under Armour.

Quote: (09-04-2018 02:26 PM)Stirfry Wrote:  

The deplorables can vote, hence Trump, but they have no money, hence companies can ignore them. They also have short attention spans, like most Americans. Let’s see how the midterm elections turn out. Let’s see Nike stock 6 mos. or a year from now before we smugly predict the demise of Nike.

Stirfry, you're intellectually dishonest. People have since posted some information on the wealth level as well as distribution of spending based on race. Maybe you could do some research and make statements that could be close to reality.

As for elections, members of this forum made over a half million dollars betting on a winner. The same "let's see how Nike Stock does 6 months to a year from now" applies to your smug confidence that this will make Nike more money while in the same breath stating complete falsehoods about Trump voters.

The NFL is hurting and a big part of it is disingenuous protesting and the management focusing on the wrong demographics. This is more of the same.

It will take them a long time to recover from these fumbles.

Blacks and urban inhabitants will buy whats trendy regardless of the price or how much money they have- that’s what I meant, and why the average income of trump voters doesn’t really matter here. They are also more likely to adopt such clothing and brand identity as a lifestyle- a form of brand loyalty that ensures future purchases. I’m not sure any of this applies to middle class whites. I’m guessing this was part of Nike’s strategy.

I still don’t know why it was necessary, however. If I’m the CEO of Nike, why would I want to anger any demographic at all? I want everyone to buy my sweatshop shoes.

Either the payoff has to be spectacular (i.e. the increase in market share of blacks and urban millennials more than offsets the loss of middle class white males) or this fails and it’s an enormous miscalculation, like that Pepsi commercial. I think it will be the former, as part of a continuing cultural shift. But I’m a pessimist.

   

Hey say,why are these cats going out of their way to cut up nike products that they already bought? Nike got their money from them so whats point of that?

Probably been mentioned at some point, but Nike is only down 3% on the day. Guess that social media shitstorm didn't affect them as much as I'd have thought.

Quote: (09-04-2018 08:49 PM)trippin_squares Wrote:  

Probably been mentioned at some point, but Nike is only down 3% on the day. Guess that social media shitstorm didn't affect them as much as I'd have thought.

Market cap is $127 Billion after today.

3% of over $100 Billion is a lot of money.

Of course to individual investors 3% is 3% no matter what amount you own (so you have a point.)

Corporations will still take strategic risks that the market doesn't agree with. It could be a good move by Nike, lots of interesting marketing stats on the board about who is actually buying their product. They have the branding strategy, they have the target markets sorted out, this doesn't come out on a balance sheet or income statement filed quarterly. So we will see - the market could be right too.

Still I wonder about these companies playing SJW politics, it has to take your edge off. SJW just isn't bad, athletic apparel consumers should be the last ones going for that shit.

On another note,l participation seems to be waning on the fantasy football league front, along with football talk. NFL was so high, it had to come down. It became too huge. Thursday night games were when they pushed it to the max.

The beauty about Sports is when you Do not win you LOSE... since Kaperdork is a morale problem looks like his ACLU lawsuit against the NFL for no team picking him up actually insured no NFL team would go within a mile of him and now he brings his National High Profile Loser Mentality to dumber than dirt NIKE.

49ers - Lose because of Kaperdork
NFL - Still losing from Kaperdink
Nike - Now losing with kaperstink...

A record of Lose, Loser, Loseiest = a Hat Trick Loser - and I now choose to boycott Nike and anyone who wears Nike.

Nice when the Communist Freaking Red China slave labor factory loving Fortune 500 Multinationals self-select to self-destruct.

All around a good day when Anti-American pro-Communist Corporations blatantly out themselves with ballyhoo and fanfare even.

Quote: (09-04-2018 10:59 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

49ers - Lose because of Kaperdork
NFL - Still losing from Kaperdink
Nike - Now losing with kaperstink...

A record of Lose, Loser, Loseiest = a Hat Trick Loser - and I now choose to boycott Nike and anyone who wears Nike.

Nice when the Communist Freaking Red China slave labor factory loving Fortune 500 Multinationals self-select to self-destruct.

All around a good day when Anti-American pro-Communist Corporations blatantly out themselves with ballyhoo and fanfare even.

Heading out to buy some Basketball shoes soon, I'll make a point to check out the adidas. But I'll buy the best pair, I get it that you don't like them, but I have a basketball game to play and win myself. I need good shoes and the product is good. If the shoe fits, wear it.

They would have to do a lot more than give kapernick a job to seriously piss me off enough to switch up my purchase on that basis. He's a private citizen, suing everyone being an idiot, so I don't like him that much, but he's a pawn of the media machinel. At the moment he is bigger than he ever would have been as a QB.

At the end of the day he will be a bad investment for Nike if he can't get a real QB job - whether the SJW strategy plays of not long term. I liked Micheal Vick, more exciting to watch and at least he had some cred and went to jail. Kapernick will just get his old SJW head concussed if he plays. and sue the NFL again Plus, what QB just sits out, becomes an Activitst, then comes back to dominate. Doubtful

Nike’s doubling dowm - I don’t know a single pro athlete in the nfl or nba under contract with Nike that likes trump (or has publicly spoken in favor of him) might as well lock down your core customer base.

“It’s not personal, it’s strictly business”
Michael corleone

The Deplorables and The Hillbillies have no money and no buying power?

Quote:[/url]

Quote:

Quote:

Never underestimate the buying power of The Deplorables and The Hillbillies.

Edit.

Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1037198741550391297]

^^^^
NFL releases statement on Kaepernick

Quote:Quote:

...
“The National Football League believes in dialogue, understanding and unity,” president of communications and public affairs Jocelyn Moore said in the statement. “We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities. The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action.”

Kaepernick has an active collusion grievance against the NFL, which cleared a hurdle last week when the league’s request to dismiss the grievance was rejected. A trial hearing that requires testimony from NFL owners could happen at some point in the future.

President Donald Trump chimed in Tuesday afternoon in an interview with the Daily Caller.

“I think as far as sending a message, I think it’s a terrible message and a message that shouldn’t be sent,” Trump said. “There’s no reason for it.”

Kaepernick is entering his second NFL season without being on a roster, after he began kneeling in protest of racial injustice during the national anthem in August of 2016.

A Nike ad released on Monday featured a black-and-white closeup of Kaepernick’s face and the words, “Believe in something. Even it if it means sacrificing everything. Just do it.” The ad is part of the company’s 30th-anniversary “Just Do It” campaign.

ESPN reported that Nike kept paying Kaepernick — who signed with the brand in 2011 — for two years despite not using him in ads in order to bring him back at the right time.

Nike has been the NFL’s licensed-apparel maker since the league switched from Reebok in 2012. In March, the sides signed a new eight-year extension to their agreement, which now runs through 2028.

—Field Level Media

I don’t follow the NFL but it seems bizarre to me that the NFL and Nike would back this Kapernick guy even though it must be clear to them that it’s harming the product.

Is it just this guy that has some magical hold over them or are there other players doing the disrespectful kneeling thing?

James Woods selling his Nike stock is meaningless. What’s the ratio of people like James Woods and Roseanne Barr in Hollywood to people like Brad Pitt and George Clooney and that disgusting doughy woman from “Girls” (not even considering that the latter have much greater cache and cultural influence and raise/donate vast sums of money for their liberal causes).

I should again emphasize that saying the deplorables have no money is inaccurate. There are rich Trump supporters too, who are quite annoyed with Nike at the moment. But who is more likely to buy their ugly, tacky, flashy, youth-oriented clothes, the suburban dad and rich stockbroker, or the high school or college kid or inner city youth, every one of whom considers themselves an oppressed activist?

Hell, with this dip in stock prices maybe I’ll pick up a few shares and wait for the inevitable boost when they start introducing the apparel to the public ;-). Can you imagine the publicity and hype when that happens?

Just look at Kaepernick and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton- if Martin Luther King were around today he would have his own shoe, and he would be worth billions.

Whitlock who we have chatted about in here recently speaks on the Nike situation...
Some other guy is comparing Kap to Martin Luther King.... thats a bit of a stretch

The real story is, Nike can lose a couple billion...but ultimately they are siding with China as their manufacturer over America or else they could lose hundreds of billions in tariffs and production costs to actually make their shit in the USA.

Nike, NFL, and Levis Strauss Political Business Strategy – The Much Bigger Geopolitical and Trade Picture….
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/201...e-picture/

On its face, it just seems absurd. Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?

I’ve spoken to some very excellent business actuaries on this late today; and one specific conversation finally helped to make it all make sense. During that conversation a good ally shared: “a multinational corporation would never make a branding decision adverse to their financial interests. Unless there is a hidden risk unrelated to what is visible on the surface.” ….BINGO, there it is, the lightbulb went on.

A hidden risk that likely has nothing whatsoever to do with Colin Kaepernick.

The bigger risk to Nike has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, U.S. Consumers, or Antifa-like political advocacy. The bigger financial risk to the Nike Corporation has everything to do with geopolitics and a reset of international trade agreements.

Here’s the hidden aspect with research to back it up. Nike Inc. has hitched its massive corporate existence to a 10-year business plan that is dependent on the continuance of recently negotiated manufacturing contracts.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trade-...ccounts-mw

President Trump is likely, some would say predictably, about to levy a massive round of Section 301 tariffs on imported Chinese goods. Nike would be one of the U.S. manufacturing companies hardest hit by such a move. The current Trump administration objective toward renegotiated trade deals with China represents the most significant and mostly quantifiable threat to the Nike business plan.

This is the epicenter of the issue.

The hearings on $200 billion worth of Chinese tariffs ended today. It is not coincidental that Nike stakes out a political position in opposition to those pending tariffs.

But wait…. it gets worse. The Nike contracts with China have almost certainly been sub-contracted to non-publicized, generally secret, manufacturing facilities in North Korea.

DANDONG, China (Reuters) – Chinese textile firms are increasingly using North Korean factories to take advantage of cheaper labor across the border, traders and businesses in the border city of Dandong told Reuters.

The clothes made in North Korea are labeled “Made in China” and exported across the world, they said.

Using North Korea to produce cheap clothes for sale around the globe shows that for every door that is closed by ever-tightening U.N. sanctions another one may open. The UN sanctions, introduced to punish North Korea for its missile and nuclear programs, do not include any bans on textile exports.

“We take orders from all over the world,” said one Korean-Chinese businessman in Dandong, the Chinese border city where the majority of North Korea trade passes through. Like many people Reuters interviewed for this story, he spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. (more)

The people I have spoken to virtually guarantee that Nike goods and apparel are made in North Korean sweatshops. The contracts are with Chinese companies, but a corrupt Beijing process allows many -approved by China- companies to use DPRK sweatshops as sub-contractors.

Due to the scale of operations, Nike uses contracted manufacturing in multiple nations. The use of sub-contractors allows plausible deniability toward the North Korean facilities by the parent corporation signing the contract(s).

This presents a dual risk. #1 there are likely to be tariffs on Chinese imports; and #2 there are current sanctions against any companies operating in North Korea.

A multinational company doing simultaneous business with ASEAN nations, China and North Korea for the majority of their manufacturing is extraordinarily exposed to the risks inherent within a U.S. -vs- China/DPRK trade reset.

A 20% drop in Nike value (based on current evaluations), as a result of branding themselves with controversial and political Kaepernick, is nothing compared to the staggering financial risk inherent within multi-billion manufacturing contracts that can become worthless overnight.

Losing the entire supply chain, all future inventory and an inability to manufacture goods would cost much more than if half of the U.S. consumer base stopped buying Nike products. Many of the current DPRK sanction breeches have been overlooked (but not unnoticed) by President Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Therefore the Nike Company would be sympathetic to, and financially dependent on, alignment with the objectives of the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, with so much on the line, Chairman Xi Jinping would openly embrace and assist anti-U.S. endeavors around trade.

To that extent Beijing (the ultimate decision-maker and approval body) would willingly lower production costs to offset any drops in U.S. revenue for parent corporation, Nike. A rather interesting quid-pro-quo.

And that answers the question: “Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?”

They, wouldn’t; and they didn’t.

The Nike political branding position is reconciled when you look at the bigger picture and see where the real financial risk aligns. The Nike economic decision is to align with China, and by extension North Korea, for a position of mutual benefit. It is all about the proverbial $$$$ and Nike’s best financial play is to mitigate risk and assist Communist China in their trade strategy.

China is willing to subsidize Nike (lower production costs), and replace any dropped revenue, in exchange for mutually beneficial political opposition against Trump and by extension his policies that are a risk to Beijing. As a result there is minimal financial risk to the Nike Corporation.

And with the current multinational Wall Street agenda now being confronted, we should not expect this approach to stop at Nike. Likely, many more multinational (globalist) corporations, specifically those in the apparel sector, will stake out a similar position.

Remember, part of the NFL brand and business is also apparel; an industry virtually wiped out in the U.S. by outsourced manufacturing in Asia. Small companies, those more nationally minded, gain from the Trump business tax cuts, expensing and investment opportunities. However, the big brand Wall Street multinationals don’t benefit as much from Trump policy and are invested overseas.

Nike = Apparel
NFL = Apparel
Levi Strauss = Apparel

See the connection? Remember, there are TRILLIONS at stake.

Now, does this also make sense?

The multinational Wall Street firms are aligning with domestic political positions that align with Democrats; that is to say they align against President Trump and the economic/trade policy therein.

The agenda is to defeat the Trump-trade-reset; however, they, in this example Levi Strauss, cannot openly side with China and Asia against the United States. The PR optics would be horrible…. So they do it covertly by supporting domestic political policies and opposition toward the President who is threatening the construct of their multinational business model.

Together the NFL, Nike and Levi Strauss stand to retain their current level of trade benefit (profit) if President Trump is blocked from instituting America-First trade and manufacturing policies. Supporting gun control (Levi Strauss) or supporting BLM/Antifa (Nike) is simply a tool to support the political opposition of the policy-maker adverse to their financial interests.

Can you see what’s happening?

^^@Damien

If that is even remotely true Big Baller Brand and Tom's shoes are about to jump in value. We need to make a shoe line, shit.

“a multinational corporation would never make a branding decision adverse to their financial interests. Unless there is a hidden risk unrelated to what is visible on the surface.”

Ah, thank you, Damien. This makes a little more sense now.

I was puzzled by this move- even if they don’t care about marginalizing middle class white NFL fans, those people still have money to spend so there would be a downside (the mild backlash happening now is suggestive of that). I assumed that the increase in market share of “woke” millennials would more than make up for it, but what you’re saying makes even more sense. Thank you for that research.

I’m a pessimist and a cynic, but when it comes to the behavior of large corporations, politicians and public figures such as performers, my instincts rarely let me down. For every flowery speech about equality, I know there is a hidden, more sinister motive, which ALWAYS involves money (or in the case of actors/performers, fame, influence, and eventually money). While the motives behind many large multinational corporations aren’t always clear to those on the outside, they rarely involve pure altruism, unless it’s free publicity to boosts sales and stock prices, or benefits the bottom line in some way.

DamienCasanova...


I summarized so I can regurgitate it when the conversation comes up...

Because of stupid people's sensitivity to news sources, I would intro with something like "Yeah, I've read a bit about why a company like the NFL would position themselves like this because it doesn't seem to make sense..."

Nike's entire manufacturing and supply chain is dependent on contracts with China...these contracts far more vital than a % of their consumers (say, a short term 20% drop in stock price). You'll see the giant apparel companies continue to take anti-customer based positions to maintain contracts. No company, certainly not NFL-oriented, in it's right mind would put themselves in the kneeling position...it wouldn't make sense, unless there's something bigger at stake. I propose, trade contracts with China (who sub-contract to sweatshops in (gasp) North Korea).

(if the conversation gets into China - NK talk, ..."one thing I suspect, not sure it's sourced, but suspect is that Trump's hard position on China is it's somewhat secret apparel sub-contractors with North Korean sweatshops")


Edit: So the NFL itself has been against the kneeling movement from the beginning, right?

Quote: (09-04-2018 07:32 AM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  

Nike's Kaepernick Ad Has Cost The Company Over $3 Billion So Far

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-0...ion-so-far

Quote:Quote:

Since announcing their new advertising campaign will be led by Colin Kaepernick, the social media backlash has dominated the virtue-signaling efforts we presume they hoped for.

With images of Nike apparel and footwear being burned and real sacrifice being discussed, it appears investors are growing disillusioned as NFL fans as Nike shares are down 2.4% in the pre-market.

If the public backlash against other corporate brand names who have taken a vocal political stance is any indication, Nike faces considerably more pressure: companies from Dick's (which saw a sharp decline in sales after it stopped selling guns), to ESPN, to Papa John's, to Twitter and Facebook, to In-N-Out burger, have all seen an angry customer backlash - from either the left or the right - once these corporations entered the political arena, resulting in a hit to the top line, and ultimately, the shareholders' pocket.

Back to my classic Puma sneakers then if that's how Nike wants to be.

Most people overlook the fact that Nike has already crunched the numbers. Their stance is not even a "calculated" risk. They are the league's official supplier for another 8 years. They are not betting against themselves here and that is the crux that the outraged conservatives miss. The fall in stock prices will be short-lived. Nobody signs an 8 year contract without considering multiple scenarios. The numbers are big, based on their 1 billion USD deal with the NBA. In any case there has clearly been a change in the fortunes of the major leagues. This is not the 1990s. Audiences are not growing. I repeat- Nike will do just fine. Boycott them if you want but they have made their point.

Guys, hate to say it, but Nike is going to be fine.

Sure they might get shit, but guess what? They're getting millions in free advertisement.

A huge company like that doesn't make moves like this on a whim - they do it long in advance, they probably were looking at this for over a year since the controversy started.

It was Nike who paid that $500K bribe to the chief of the International Cycling Union (UCI) in order to get Lance Armstrong off the hook for a positive drug test. I'm not sure if that investment paid off for them in the long run, but Armstrong still enjoys quite a bit of support in the cycling community for reasons I don't understand.

I wish they would suffer some sort of bad consequences from the Kaepernick deal, but they won’t. In fact, I think it’s a relatively low-risk move for everyone involved. Even obvious miscalculations would only have a negligible effect on the bottom line of a giant conglomerate like Nike. Remember new coke? And clear Pepsi? Those companies practically committed corporate suicide and they are still around, stronger than ever.