Also, ironically, the pitch was supposed to be a win win: If we cut out the middleman and stop spending so much on sponsoring athletes and sports, we can pass those savings on to customers, bringing us more sales at lower cost to consumers and higher margin for us because our cost structure is lower.

Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.

I'm not saying that I could do better but just curious about this specific case. I mean, I know that in the web bubble most of us thought that what COVID-19 brought was there to stay forever (shift to mostly online, 100% white collar remote work etc) but from a corporation like Nike which should have a different point of view, I would expect a different line of reasoning as well.

And I've been in enough companies to see that the pitches about "we are going to do this next" are always painted as a bright future and there is no "if it goes wrong we will do X instead", because it will never go wrong.

It went great because they started it in the pandemic when essentially all shopping shifted to online, and at that point, why not buy direct from Nike vs online from Macy’s or whatever.

I totally see why they thought the strategy was a hit but hindsight is 20/20 and it seems now that this was a correlation and causation mixup. They should have been asking why they were losing mindshare to their competition instead of asking how they could wring more profit out of the same customer base.