Let me post the chart again.
This information is dated, five-six days in the marketing world can be a lifetime in public opinion. I believe Morning Consult has released two additional surveys since this where the numbers are shifting somewhat. They released one that took place after the initial ad aired, which showed something like a 39/52/9 favorable/indifferent/negative result. The ad was pretty harmless and you’d have to be pretty feeble to be outraged over that. Granted, it’s only one ad and if they start airing subsequent ads with him kneeling and shit like that I’m sure you’ll see the negative/unfavorable numbers skyrocket.
Actually the only thing I need to admit is that you're about as disingenuous a poster as there is on this site. If this were an actual debate, you would have been laughed out of the room with your "avoidance" tactic. Do you think comments just magically go away because you ignore it? Do you think repeating BS over and over suddenly makes it true?
If I were to point out to a "normal", rational person that tv ratings are down across the board (most in double digits), they would probably look at the NFL numbers and conclude (how could you not), that they're actually quite better than the trend. They would not conclude that the sole cause for the drop was some dickhead kneeling (but obviously that's not the way your convoluted mind works). If it is pointed out to you that Under Armor and Adidas stock are down more than NIKE in the last week, a rational person would not conclude that the reason NIKE is down is because some dickhead is kneeling and give no correlation why the main competitors were down also.
Instead you really on subjective polls as your only source. We already discussed the last election and how accurate polls are, but let me share with you another reason why I will never rely on a poll again. I had a friend that was a high powered lawyer that shared an interesting story with me. He used polls all the time in his case to lend credibility to his argument. His firm would use a focus group and ask a question in which they were looking for a specific answer. If they didn't get the answer that they wanted, they tweaked the question. And they kept tweaking it until they got the answer they wanted and then released the question wide. He said they did it all the time, and guess what, it worked. That's because you can twist questions to get specific answers and you can also use a demographic that is not really a cross section of the audience as a whole. If that's all you've got as your credible evidence, then good luck to you. I'll look at revenue and stock price over the long term to determine what impact this has.
Do continue to ignore everything presented to you. Most people reading this thread can see right through you.
Keep your head buried in the sand.
Americans don't like the kneeling and Americans don't like companies aligning themselves with certain political beliefs. There's a reason Twitter and FB had to testify in front of congress about their selective enforcement of standards and ESPN's ratings have dropped like a two pound turd.
You can believe whatever you'd like but all the evidence is in front of you. It would smack you in the face if it could.
Nike bet that politics would sell. Looks like it was wrong
Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.
As an exhortation, it's banal, the sort of thing a kindly granddad imparts toward the end of a Hallmark Channel movie. As ad copy for Nike, superimposed on a photo of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's face, it's apparently more electric.
On Wednesday, Nike unveiled the advertising campaign featuring Kaepernick, who in 2016 catalyzed some National Football League players' refusal to stand for the national anthem as a protest of police brutality toward Americans of color.
Social-media political performance artists leaped into action. Nike shoes were burned. Swooshes were snipped from socks. America's tweeter in chiefpredicted doom for the brand.
It seemed as if we were in for yet anoShortly after Nike's announcement, the consumer-research firm Morning Consult released a survey showing that Nike had indeed, as President Trump predicted, taken a reputation hit from its overtly political campaign. Interviews with 8,000 Americans showed a nearly 50 percent decline in Nike's favorability after announcing the Kaepernick ad campaign. Consumer interest in buying Nike products dropped by 10 percentage points.
Which you might expect. A polarizing political endorsement is going to cost a company with customers on the other side of the issue, though it may still pay off in terms of greater loyalty from people who agree. But surprisingly, the endorsement wasn't really all that polarizing. Yes, the percentage of Republicans saying they were likely to buy Nike shoes fell from 51 percent to 28 percent, but support also dropped among Democrats, albeit only by five percentage points. Blacks and young people, two demographic groups that the Nike campaign presumably was intended to woo, also seem to have been turned off: The number of African Americans interested in buying Nike dropped from 64 percent to 61 percent, and 18- to 21-year-olds reported a decline of nearly 20 percentage points.
The groups no doubt have different reasons for disliking the campaign: Conservatives resent the politicization of their consumer purchases, while the left objects to the consumerization of their politics. Nonetheless, if the Morning Consult findings hold up, the new ad campaign appears to be a lose-lose proposition for Nike.
One survey of a small fraction of the U.S. population is not a comprehensive picture of every American's opinion, and the company points to preliminary data showing strong online Labor Day sales. But how nice it would be if the poll is right. Maybe companies would think twice before injecting politics even into people's shopping decisions.
Companies have historically avoided entering the political fray for fear of just what this survey shows: You often alienate far more customers than you gain. And that's especially true for big companies. A brand with a left- or right-wing identity can thrive in a smaller niche where most of their customers lean in one direction. But larger-scale operations need to be able to sell into the whole market, so they've generally eschewed any moves that would alienate sizable portions of their potential customer base.
But as America has divided into distinct camps — geographic, demographic, political — more companies have started chasing explicitly political identities. Starbucks's leftward lean has famously roused conservative ire, but many on the left still haven't forgiven Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy's remarks opposing same-sex marriage a few years ago. The result is a world in which every decision, even what kind of fast food to buy, has taken on a political aspect.
That's not healthy for America, which needs more points that people have in common, not more ways to divide into separate teams. Politics and fighting for causes are vital pursuits, of course. I admire Kaepernick for sticking to his principles. But if we Americans are to stay in top fighting form, we also need spaces where we can rest and recharge without agonizing over which brand of chewing gum is the most politically appealing.
And just as 24/7 political arguments sap the strength needed for the important fights, commercializing politics weakens messages that need to be heard. Everyone understands that advertising copy has a bedrock cynicism: The advertiser's sincerest belief is in selling something, not in the truth or importance of its message. For someone trying to convince the world of the righteousness of a cause, linking it to an ad campaign doesn't help.
Yet how many of us would turn down that advertising contract if it were offered? How many brands will resist the drive to color their products red or blue if customers reward them for it? That's why the Morning Consult survey is such an encouraging sign.
Maybe Americans aren't divided on this one. Maybe they agree on what they want: a marketplace that's above politics, and a politics that's above crass market imperatives. And maybe companies will take the cue and focus instead on making good products, leaving the politics to politicians and voters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.1ddc84de575e
Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.
As an exhortation, it's banal, the sort of thing a kindly granddad imparts toward the end of a Hallmark Channel movie. As ad copy for Nike, superimposed on a photo of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick's face, it's apparently more electric.
On Wednesday, Nike unveiled the advertising campaign featuring Kaepernick, who in 2016 catalyzed some National Football League players' refusal to stand for the national anthem as a protest of police brutality toward Americans of color.
Social-media political performance artists leaped into action. Nike shoes were burned. Swooshes were snipped from socks. America's tweeter in chiefpredicted doom for the brand.
It seemed as if we were in for yet anoShortly after Nike's announcement, the consumer-research firm Morning Consult released a survey showing that Nike had indeed, as President Trump predicted, taken a reputation hit from its overtly political campaign. Interviews with 8,000 Americans showed a nearly 50 percent decline in Nike's favorability after announcing the Kaepernick ad campaign. Consumer interest in buying Nike products dropped by 10 percentage points.
Which you might expect. A polarizing political endorsement is going to cost a company with customers on the other side of the issue, though it may still pay off in terms of greater loyalty from people who agree. But surprisingly, the endorsement wasn't really all that polarizing. Yes, the percentage of Republicans saying they were likely to buy Nike shoes fell from 51 percent to 28 percent, but support also dropped among Democrats, albeit only by five percentage points. Blacks and young people, two demographic groups that the Nike campaign presumably was intended to woo, also seem to have been turned off: The number of African Americans interested in buying Nike dropped from 64 percent to 61 percent, and 18- to 21-year-olds reported a decline of nearly 20 percentage points.
The groups no doubt have different reasons for disliking the campaign: Conservatives resent the politicization of their consumer purchases, while the left objects to the consumerization of their politics. Nonetheless, if the Morning Consult findings hold up, the new ad campaign appears to be a lose-lose proposition for Nike.
One survey of a small fraction of the U.S. population is not a comprehensive picture of every American's opinion, and the company points to preliminary data showing strong online Labor Day sales. But how nice it would be if the poll is right. Maybe companies would think twice before injecting politics even into people's shopping decisions.
Companies have historically avoided entering the political fray for fear of just what this survey shows: You often alienate far more customers than you gain. And that's especially true for big companies. A brand with a left- or right-wing identity can thrive in a smaller niche where most of their customers lean in one direction. But larger-scale operations need to be able to sell into the whole market, so they've generally eschewed any moves that would alienate sizable portions of their potential customer base.
But as America has divided into distinct camps — geographic, demographic, political — more companies have started chasing explicitly political identities. Starbucks's leftward lean has famously roused conservative ire, but many on the left still haven't forgiven Chick-fil-A owner Dan Cathy's remarks opposing same-sex marriage a few years ago. The result is a world in which every decision, even what kind of fast food to buy, has taken on a political aspect.
That's not healthy for America, which needs more points that people have in common, not more ways to divide into separate teams. Politics and fighting for causes are vital pursuits, of course. I admire Kaepernick for sticking to his principles. But if we Americans are to stay in top fighting form, we also need spaces where we can rest and recharge without agonizing over which brand of chewing gum is the most politically appealing.
And just as 24/7 political arguments sap the strength needed for the important fights, commercializing politics weakens messages that need to be heard. Everyone understands that advertising copy has a bedrock cynicism: The advertiser's sincerest belief is in selling something, not in the truth or importance of its message. For someone trying to convince the world of the righteousness of a cause, linking it to an ad campaign doesn't help.
Yet how many of us would turn down that advertising contract if it were offered? How many brands will resist the drive to color their products red or blue if customers reward them for it? That's why the Morning Consult survey is such an encouraging sign.
Maybe Americans aren't divided on this one. Maybe they agree on what they want: a marketplace that's above politics, and a politics that's above crass market imperatives. And maybe companies will take the cue and focus instead on making good products, leaving the politics to politicians and voters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.1ddc84de575e
Of course you don't because you can't make a correlation.
And now playing dumb, got it? Explain how it is that TV Ratings are down across the board (most as much as double digits), but when the NFL numbers are down (but not as much as tv ratings across the board) that it somehow correlates to a dickhead kneeling. How do you explain the across the board drop for everything else then? A rational person would at least have to massage the data, use the reasons rating went down from all networks, and pull that info from the NFL numbers....DUH!
Again, when I made that earlier observation that you were clueless, it wasn't an insult. You simply don't understand math and statistics.
Since Kaepernick started kneeling and the President weighed in on the topic, NFL ratings are down more than 20% which equates to losing approximately $600M per year in revenue.
I could point out a million reasons why mixing politics and sports doesn't work and you wouldn't believe me. It's all good.
For the Day Traders (even though the rest of us don't give a damn about the daily gyrations of a stock and look at the long term)....
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/10/nik...rked-by-controversialkaepernick-campaign.html
Nike regains share losses sparked by controversial Kaepernick campaign
Even though there's honestly no correlation (despite what CNBC wants to claims since Under Armor and Adidas got took losses last week also). Under Armor is up 1.4% today also.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/10/nik...rked-by-controversialkaepernick-campaign.html
Nike regains share losses sparked by controversial Kaepernick campaign
Even though there's honestly no correlation (despite what CNBC wants to claims since Under Armor and Adidas got took losses last week also). Under Armor is up 1.4% today also.
