(09-04-2018 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nike made a marketing decision based on their estimates of the impact. It remains to be seen how much the Kaepernick affiliation will cost them, and how much they will benefit.

Chick-fil-A obviously made a decision, and it appears that their primary market has supported it strongly. it will remain to be seen what happens to Nike.

Chick-Fil-A didn't make any decision. Their primary owner did what he had always done. Stalinists changed the rules and tried to harm his business because of his political beliefs.

Nike is making a decision knowing the rules.

Just curious what the appropriate amount of diffusing the situation would be to satisfy the anger with his actions? I feel that is an unanswerable question for CK supporters since he can't really do anything except take his money to Chicago and start a gun buy back program with gift cards. That would be start because the end line of every criticism of people protesting police violence is black on black crime.

Or take Kaplony's stance that nothing can be done because the whole thing they are protesting is make believe anyways. That works too, at least he is honest.

(09-04-2018 11:45 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 08:28 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Unsure how sticking a middle finger up to half of your customer base is a good financial standpoint. But, I could be wrong.

I find it extremely hard to believe that half of Nike's customer base would oppose this campaign...much less oppose it enough to stop buying their items.

Nike and their marketing department are some of the best in the business. I have no doubt they did their research before letting this fly. I'm sure they expect to lose a small percentage of a portion of their current market, while picking up even more support in existing ones.

However, I agree with you that I'd like to see this campaign extended to other people than just Kaep. Aly Raisman is a no-brainer, IMO.

We realize you live in a bubble. But half the country was offended by Kapernick's actions, even if none of your friends were. How many will take action against Nike? Unclear. But some will. And it just creates negative goodwill around a very strong brand. Just dumb.

Nobody would be upset by Nike using Serena Williams who backs Kapernick. But she is backing him on her own personal time and earned her fame with her performance. Nike is hiring him because of his kneeling when he was supposed to be on the job.

(09-04-2018 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 03:42 PM)Momus Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 03:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 03:37 PM)Momus Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 03:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still have the same question: Has Kaepernick, or have any of the other kneeling protesters, actually done anything to try to defuse the situation? Anything? Any of them? I'm not aware of any, but maybe I don't know the whole story.

Law enforcement and legislative bodies have the power to defuse the situation. Kaepernick has neither the power, nor responsibility, to do so. His efforts, beyond the million dollars he has funneled into charities over the past 18 months, is to call attention to the inequalities that minorities face in America. Judging by the fact that we are now 10 pages deep into a thread about a Nike marketing decision on a yakity-yak sports board, I’d say Kaepernick is doing an outstanding job.

So that's a no?

You were asking earlier whether he had actually done anything for the causes he speaks for, and I’m assuming you figured out how to use the Googly Box and discovered he does an incredible amount of community work. So now you’ve shifted your question. Go find out and report back.

"Incredible amount of community work" =/= defusing this particular situation.

So I take it that's a no.

Momus has an issue about making really cute pithy statements that dont answer questions and/or are irrelevant.

For ***** and grins, ask him about the relevance of Hillary having more votes than Trump.

(09-04-2018 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody would be upset by Nike using Serena Williams who backs Kapernick. But she is backing him on her own personal time and earned her fame with her performance. Nike is hiring him because of his kneeling when he was supposed to be on the job.

The jive I get from people on my social media isn't that they are supporting the causes he supports, but they are using CK specifically. He hasn't played sports in what 3 years? But he is the face of a Nike campaign? Has Nike used up there whole stable of athletes that wouldn't offend anybody. People that have actually sacrificed everything? His career might not have been over, but his dreams of superstardom were. What did he really sacrifice?

Forget offending half of your market, why would you offend anybody? This isn't an oped, you want as many people to buy your **** as you can.

Except you are taking a gamble and fanning the flames and praying you don't get burned.

(09-04-2018 04:06 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  Just curious what the appropriate amount of diffusing the situation would be to satisfy the anger with his actions? I feel that is an unanswerable question for CK supporters since he can't really do anything except take his money to Chicago and start a gun buy back program with gift cards. That would be start because the end line of every criticism of people protesting police violence is black on black crime.

Or take Kaplony's stance that nothing can be done because the whole thing they are protesting is make believe anyways. That works too, at least he is honest.

It's the absolute truth. You can't do anything to diffuse a situation created by a myth.

(09-04-2018 03:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I still have the same question: Has Kaepernick, or have any of the other kneeling protesters, actually done anything to try to defuse the situation? Anything? Any of them? I'm not aware of any, but maybe I don't know the whole story.

I responded to this earlier in the thread - go look at it.

(09-04-2018 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:45 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 08:28 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Unsure how sticking a middle finger up to half of your customer base is a good financial standpoint. But, I could be wrong.

I find it extremely hard to believe that half of Nike's customer base would oppose this campaign...much less oppose it enough to stop buying their items.

Nike and their marketing department are some of the best in the business. I have no doubt they did their research before letting this fly. I'm sure they expect to lose a small percentage of a portion of their current market, while picking up even more support in existing ones.

However, I agree with you that I'd like to see this campaign extended to other people than just Kaep. Aly Raisman is a no-brainer, IMO.

We realize you live in a bubble. But half the country was offended by Kapernick's actions, even if none of your friends were. How many will take action against Nike? Unclear. But some will. And it just creates negative goodwill around a very strong brand. Just dumb.

If you think 50% of Nike’s customer base are offended by this, you’re the one in a bubble.

(09-04-2018 04:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nike made a marketing decision based on their estimates of the impact. It remains to be seen how much the Kaepernick affiliation will cost them, and how much they will benefit.

Chick-fil-A obviously made a decision, and it appears that their primary market has supported it strongly. it will remain to be seen what happens to Nike.

Chick-Fil-A didn't make any decision. Their primary owner did what he had always done. Stalinists changed the rules and tried to harm his business because of his political beliefs.

Nike is making a decision knowing the rules.

I enjoy watching companies putting that gun to their head and pulling the trigger. People vote with pocketbooks. Dumbasses.

Some try to equate this to Chik-fil-a. If Chik-fil-a put out a product called the "aborted fetus patty" as part of their campaign, that might be. The recent issues have been about *owners* of places making contributions.

Here we have a full company itself promoting not just someone who pisses on the flag as their spokesman, they make it central to the theme of the campaign around them.

Nike has every right to do that. And they have every right to accept the literally 10's, maybe 100's of millions of dollars of lost sales they just proclaimed they are wholeheartedly for. Doesnt sound like a really smart group at the top of that company. I hope they realize that for every 'street ball' kid that wants a pair of sneakers, there are at least one, maybe more, ex-servicemen and others with connections in other uniforms that are coaches of teams, and involved with the leagues themselves at some level.

Trading a 200 dollar pair of sneaker sales for literally a team's worth of equipment, multiplied thousands , if not tens of thousands of times, sounds like the best business judgement in the world.

I contribute to the local little league. And pop warner league. And I volunteer time. I will go out of my way to make an effort that no Nike equipment is used by teams I help out, or leagues that I help. Bummer that Nike just made me an anti-salesman for their products. Wash, rinse, repeat ten thousand, maybe 100 thousand. At those levels you are talking decent chunks of your product that doesnt just fail to meet the 'competitive threshhold', you have active campaigners against their use.

There is a real reason why I will buy a Ford car, and refuse absolutely to consider the GM products. Even though my good friend, next door neighbor, and sister in law have ties to them. As does my immediate family for over four generations....

As I said, bummer. /sarcasm off

(09-04-2018 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody would be upset by Nike using Serena Williams who backs Kapernick. But she is backing him on her own personal time and earned her fame with her performance. Nike is hiring him because of his kneeling when he was supposed to be on the job.

Apparently Kaep isn’t the only face of this campaign. He’s just the first.

(09-04-2018 04:31 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:45 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 08:28 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Unsure how sticking a middle finger up to half of your customer base is a good financial standpoint. But, I could be wrong.

I find it extremely hard to believe that half of Nike's customer base would oppose this campaign...much less oppose it enough to stop buying their items.

Nike and their marketing department are some of the best in the business. I have no doubt they did their research before letting this fly. I'm sure they expect to lose a small percentage of a portion of their current market, while picking up even more support in existing ones.

However, I agree with you that I'd like to see this campaign extended to other people than just Kaep. Aly Raisman is a no-brainer, IMO.

We realize you live in a bubble. But half the country was offended by Kapernick's actions, even if none of your friends were. How many will take action against Nike? Unclear. But some will. And it just creates negative goodwill around a very strong brand. Just dumb.

If you think 50% of Nike’s customer base are offended by this, you’re the one in a bubble.

Even at a measly 5 per cent or ten per cent, that is one huge frigging hit. Who cares if 50 per cent isnt the correct number. Or fixate on that. Whatever it is Nike will lose customers for life; and create anti-salesman out of a portion of those.

Sound smart to you?

(09-04-2018 04:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Nike has every right to do that. And they have every right to accept the literally 10's, maybe 100's of millions of dollars of lost sales they just proclaimed they are wholeheartedly for. Doesnt sound like a really smart group at the top of that company. I hope they realize that for every 'street ball' kid that wants a pair of sneakers, there are at least one, maybe more, ex-servicemen and others with connections in other uniforms that are coaches of teams, and involved with the leagues themselves at some level.

Trading a 200 dollar pair of sneaker sales for literally a team's worth of equipment, multiplied thousands , if not tens of thousands of times, sounds like the best business judgement in the world.

This!

They are already going to have to sell a bunch of $200 sneakers just to replace what they lost with my friend's organization, and that's just four teams. Imagine what it's going to cost them when a large youth league decides they don't want to be associated with Nike's SJW methods. The Dixie Youth league here has 30 something teams across all age levels every year, and we are an EXTREMELY conservative county. TBH because of how conservative a county this is I could see this even becoming an issue for the school district because Nike is their uniform supplier too.

(09-04-2018 04:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 04:31 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 11:45 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 08:28 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Unsure how sticking a middle finger up to half of your customer base is a good financial standpoint. But, I could be wrong.

I find it extremely hard to believe that half of Nike's customer base would oppose this campaign...much less oppose it enough to stop buying their items.

Nike and their marketing department are some of the best in the business. I have no doubt they did their research before letting this fly. I'm sure they expect to lose a small percentage of a portion of their current market, while picking up even more support in existing ones.

However, I agree with you that I'd like to see this campaign extended to other people than just Kaep. Aly Raisman is a no-brainer, IMO.

We realize you live in a bubble. But half the country was offended by Kapernick's actions, even if none of your friends were. How many will take action against Nike? Unclear. But some will. And it just creates negative goodwill around a very strong brand. Just dumb.

If you think 50% of Nike’s customer base are offended by this, you’re the one in a bubble.

Even at a measly 5 per cent or ten per cent, that is one huge frigging hit. Who cares if 50 per cent isnt the correct number. Or fixate on that. Whatever it is Nike will lose customers for life; and create anti-salesman out of a portion of those.

Sound smart to you?

It's going to cost them. Their European market is strong right now but the Italian debt issue could seriously impact their market over there. The timing is lousy for them given their overseas markets. Those folks won't care about the anthem issue, but they may be tightening their belts severely within a year and if so they won't be buying enough Nike product to make the loss in the American market.

(09-04-2018 07:53 AM)Momus Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 07:36 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 06:37 AM)JTiger Wrote:  This should be fun to watch.

I find it hard to believe that Nike would go to bat for a QB who is washed up like Kap.

It would be one thing if this was a QB like Rodger, Brady, or even Goff.

I guess the thinking is to appeal to the neighborhoods where they support Kap and steal their shoes.

Get the popcorn ready.

FIFY

Elaborate more on those neighborhoods if you would. I’d love to hear more, although I suspect you won’t say anything else.

He might not but I will be glad to. These are neighborhoods where gangsters and drug dealers rule, innocent people are getting shot and no one cares about these black lives. Kaepernick, Michael Bennett and others of that ilk are just out for personal gain and could care less about the crime in these neighborhoods.

In fact, Bennett is a big liar and proved it in Vegas.

Why isn’t Bennett, Kap, Serena Williams and the rest of these frauds in the neighborhoods where they could have influence? Because it would not line their wallets.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nike believes this is a good business decision in that it will increase market share by gaining Kapernick supporters. I think that niche is fairly small and likely Nike already has a considerable share of it. More likely they'll see a net loss of market share as a result. In addition Nike lost $3.75billion of market cap today so investors must believe this is a bad business decision. I thought CEOs got fired for bad business decisions.

(09-04-2018 04:35 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody would be upset by Nike using Serena Williams who backs Kapernick. But she is backing him on her own personal time and earned her fame with her performance. Nike is hiring him because of his kneeling when he was supposed to be on the job.

Apparently Kaep isn’t the only face of this campaign. He’s just the first.

First, middle, last, doesn't matter. It's a bad look. It alienates a segment of their customer base. And for what? For a guy who depicts cops as being pigs on the socks he wears while making a ton of money playing football?
The guy is a poser.

(09-04-2018 06:40 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 04:35 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(09-04-2018 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody would be upset by Nike using Serena Williams who backs Kapernick. But she is backing him on her own personal time and earned her fame with her performance. Nike is hiring him because of his kneeling when he was supposed to be on the job.

Apparently Kaep isn’t the only face of this campaign. He’s just the first.

First, middle, last, doesn't matter. It's a bad look. It alienates a segment of their customer base. And for what? For a guy who depicts cops as being pigs on the socks he wears while making a ton of money playing football?
The guy is a poser.

What would make him not a poser in your mind?

The leaders at Nike are not very smart. I have no need to purchase any more Nike products. I hope their stock crashes. If Jerry Jones can sign a new uniform provider for the Cowboys, that would be nice.