[–] common_sense 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It you believe this you might have a mental disorder.
[–] stealthninjataliban [S] 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
Go proudly wear your Kapernack jersey faggot
[–] common_sense 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Get back to me in a year when Nike is still the leading sports apparel brand.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 ago
Nike made a bad choice - now they will have to live with it, if they can.
I say tax them some more.
[–] New_years_day ago
This seems plausible. Why the fuck else would they destroy their US market
[–] theshopper 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
If you vote Trump in 2020 he'll add 3 inches to your penis!!!!!
[–] voatusernamevoat 1 point 15 points 16 points (+16|-1) ago
I missed where they explain the losses from china tarrifs are helped by adding losses from bad branding.
[–] whisky_cat 1 point 9 points 10 points (+10|-1) ago (edited ago)
The article is terrible. Who the fuck writes the paragraphs of a thesis using numbered bullet points which resemble that of a PowerPoint presentation. But, allow me to be fair and not apply an ad-hominem attack to a clearly flawed case and point.
So, Let's Do This.
From a pure economic/financial perspective this branding campaign doesn't make sense.... unless, you realize a much bigger picture. A hidden bigger picture.
Cool. A creative intro.
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?
This could possibly have a reverse Streisand effect, in that instead of intelligent athletes or amateurs, Nike could easily make more money off of less intelligent people regardless of what their skills or political positions are. Nike isn't above or beneath branding their merchandise to a new (perhaps more useless) audience. I'm just speculating though,
I've spoken to some very excellent business actuaries on this today; and one specific conversation finally helped to make it all make sense.
Unsourced source is unsourced.
A multinational corporation would never make a branding decision adverse to their financial interests. Unless...
False cause.
The bigger financial risk to the Nike Corporation has everything to do with Geopolitics and International Trade.
Hmmm, interesting. How so?
Here's the hidden aspect.... the most quantifiable risk stems from specific China and North Korea contracts.
If the information is available, it is not hidden. It is fair to say China is relevant in trade negotiations, but let's get back to that.
The current Donald Trump administration objective toward renegotiated trade deals with China represents the most significant and mostly quantifiable threat. This is the epicenter of the issue.
"I have a theory, it's related to Trump".
President Trump is likely, some would say predictably, about to levy a massive round of tariffs on imported Chinese goods. Nike would be one of the U.S. manufacturing companies hardest hit by such a move.
The hearings on $20 billion worth of Chinese tariffs ended today.
It's actually sourced, though Nike is not on the hearings panel at all. Suggesting the political ads aren't a coincidence is a slippery slope.
The Nike contracts with China have almost certainly been sub-contracted to non-publicized, generally secret, manufacturing facilities in North Korea.
This holds water. And doesn't apply to just Nike, it is a common business practice in business where middlemen amongst middlemen take their cut.
The people I have spoken to virtually guarantee that Nike goods and apparel are made in North Korean sweatshops.
Wait, the author is the source? Does he cite the names of anyone he has "spoken with"? I can't even give false appeal to authority credit here. It's heresay.
Points 13-24 ....
Obvious points, and reiterations, some extra creative theory. But let's touch on #17.
17. Losing the entire supply chain, all future inventory, and the inability to manufacture goods would cost much more than if half of the U.S. consumer base stopped buying Nike products.
Heh, right. Trump's alleged tariffs will cost Nike it's "entire supply chain". OK... seems like a stretch.
The Nike economic decision is to align with China, and by extension North Korea, for a position of mutual benefit.
Nike's decision to be complete faggots is not a blind alliance with China... "and by extension" North Korea. That would be the dumbest fucking thing an internationally branded company would do.
• some thoughts:
Believe it or not, this shitty website wants people to subscribe for $30/yr for what is clearly Twitter clickbait.
Like the article? Why not pay for Twitter content while you're visiting???
For christ's fucking sake I hope people post something less retarded than this article in the future. And sorry to piggyback on your post... I started typing here and let it ride.
[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Who the fuck writes the paragraphs of a thesis using numbered bullet points which resemble that of a PowerPoint presentation.
This is a series of tweets. The numbers are there to make it clear which one goes where. The linked site combines everything into a single page for ease of reading.
[–] New_years_day 3 points -3 points 0 points (+0|-3) ago
So don't even entertain the possibility? lmao.
I hope some people post less retarded comments than this in the future.
[–] Amphiprion 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Thanks for taking time to break it down.
[–] shawnfromnh69 ago
They would have been so much safer and smarter using Dennis Rodman as their Spokesman but try to tell that to a liberal with blinders on.