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.