don’t buy stuff from people who hate you.
Despite the fact that I suspect many would agree with the core sentiment, no matter which political side you’re on.
It argues that greed causes loss of direction, and that large corporations can’t help themselves but to be greedy.
You could have provided more context to avoid that.
They tried expanding their audience for a perceived larger audience.
Eventually they realised that the "weight" of bringing in this larger audience meant letting some things go.
The things they let go were their core demographic.
They were unable to bring in the whale anyway.
Thus, greed, not malice (or a political agenda) lead them to lose their standing.
It's not more political than that.
I agree, the article wasn't political. But your commentary on it "don’t buy stuff from people who hate you." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49692857) made it seem political.
They seem to really dislike me, and I would say the same to any person who was going to buy something from somewhere. You wouldn't be flagging me if it was a person buying products from an open nazi.
I think it's you who have chosen to make it political, and you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction because... of a prejudice you have.
Whether you'd like to admit that or not, that's on you. But the statement is purely neutral and applies to everyone.
Wtf is non-malicious hate?
If it's greed, it can't be hate. Hate is often ideological, or political, and nearly always personal. Greed is generally detached and apolitical.
Tl;dr Nike doesn't hate you. Because it's not a person and is therefore incapable of emotions. Calling its gestures towards inclusion, even done for entirely cynical, money-driven reasons, "hatred" makes you sound political.
> you're effectively saying I don't get to make this distinction
You can do what you want. I didn't flag you and I honestly don't care if you don't buy Nike products. I don't either but mostly because I'm a cheapskate. Neither the "macho" nor the "woke" ads make any difference to me. I haven't even seen them.
> because... of a prejudice you have
What prejudice is that?
But motive and content aren't the same thing. A company can platform contempt cynically, for cash, and it's still contempt. "Don't buy from people who hate you" was never a claim that Nike feels anything. It's about what they chose to sell, and who it's aimed at.
And it's the content that I object to, greed is mercurial, but those campaigns openly denigrate men to elevate women.
Do that to women, or gay people, or Muslims, and "it's just marketing, they don't really hate you" wouldn't fly, not for a second (in fact, it didn't in Nikes own history- the Boston Marathon "walkers tolerated" campaign was not well recieved). Nobody would tell the target of that derision to get over it then.
For some reason, I don't get that latitude, apparently; because it's men. I'm not really comfortable with the double standard, and it's the whole of my point to you now.
I haven't seen 'em, no idea. The only "woke ad" on that article ("The Land of New Football") was boring and cringe. But I didn't see any denigration of people based on immutable characteristics.
> This is prejudice, and implying that I'm not permitted to feel offended by it
You straight up called me prejudiced. I'm a sports-loving, hetero guy too bro. I already told you you're free to be offended at whatever you like.
The point that was made was that their brand had historically been very competitive and celebrated that competitiveness, that was their whole marketing.
However they completely abandoned that way of marketing because there was a "whale" just off the bow which was much more lucrative (or so they thought) and what if they could just capture that whale... and eventually capturing that whale comes at any cost, including the alienation of your core purchasing demographics. But they tell themselves it's worth it, if only they can just bring in the whale.
So, clearly they don't care about anyone, least of all if you used to be a customer.
the point made in the text is properly versed and written, you do yourself a disservice by choosing not to read it because it makes a really good point that doesn't compress well.
From my POV, shopping Nike is schizophrenic in that I don’t know which piece of gear is the fashion brand and which is for athletes. Which fits what you’re saying: who are they even trying to sell to anymore? And thus, as a person who was their core (Phil Knight start Nike selling running shoes out of the trunk of his car), I mostly run in other brands these days.
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.
My point being, times have changed, too, and what Nike used to get lauded for (I loved their ads on the back of Runner's World in the 70s/80s) now gets called out as "not inclusive".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U
It was purely a commercial for the brand - Nike didn't sell any noteworthy cycling products.