Believe in Something. Even If It Means Sacrificing Everything

[Timmy]

I did not claim the ad made any difference to the product, I explained why I have no emotional attachment to the issue. You on the other hand have your clear thinking being hampered by your emotional response to the ad.

Yes, you were buying them and your emotional response to the ad will likely keep you from doing so in the future. So far your view seems to be the minority view

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend and they didn't have to., and that's fact, not my view any way you want to look at it.

But if 3 more decide to buy Nike instead, they make money .

They got all kinds of free publicity and sales have shot up .

It’s all about money .

 

[Timmy]

Why hasn’t Kapernick kept up his skills by playing in the CFL or new Alliance for American Football? He had an opportunity with the Ravens and blew it. The reality is that his days as a starter are done and he can make more money as a martyr.

John Elway already stated publicly he offered a job! So kneeler lied!

Yeah . BEFORE the kneeling thing . Right wing is all about misinformation.

Need me to post his comment? Just say it. Kneeler is a liar

Go ahead . Also point out when that offer was made .

 

[jc456]

Why hasn’t Kapernick kept up his skills by playing in the CFL or new Alliance for American Football? He had an opportunity with the Ravens and blew it. The reality is that his days as a starter are done and he can make more money as a martyr.

John Elway already stated publicly he offered a job! So kneeler lied!

Yeah . BEFORE the kneeling thing . Right wing is all about misinformation.

Need me to post his comment? Just say it. Kneeler is a liar

Go ahead . Also point out when that offer was made .

Sure!

 

[jc456]

Why hasn’t Kapernick kept up his skills by playing in the CFL or new Alliance for American Football? He had an opportunity with the Ravens and blew it. The reality is that his days as a starter are done and he can make more money as a martyr.

John Elway already stated publicly he offered a job! So kneeler lied!

Yeah . BEFORE the kneeling thing . Right wing is all about misinformation.

Need me to post his comment? Just say it. Kneeler is a liar

Go ahead . Also point out when that offer was made .

 

[Hiryuu]

But if 3 more decide to buy Nike instead, they make money .

They got all kinds of free publicity and sales have shot up .

It’s all about money .

So what, I haven't argued that Nike will go tits up over the ad. All I said is that their choice resulted in them not getting money they could have, if they had made another choice.
There is no reason to argue with that, it is happening.

If you think saying it is more about the money they could get than their products, I am not going to argue with the fact Nike doesn't care about selling their products on the value of the product, nor would I argue that they care at all about their customers.

If you want to suggest Nike could earn more money slamming the door in the face of some of their customers, in favor of others customers, that will never change the fact they chose not to put their existing customers first, and obviously don't mind losing "that money", which they will.

You can try and justify whatever you want, I only said that Nike put their politics and the money ahead of providing the customer with a better product or service, and they will lose the money they would have been getting from the customers they chose to ignore, no matter what.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

 

[Hiryuu]

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

Maybe an analogy will help some fruitcakes understand simple business concepts and the facts they involve.
Let's say you own a restaurant, and decide to put a sign on the door that reads ... "We Don't Support People Who Like the Color Red".

A. You have just pissed off the people who like the color red, and told them you don't want their money.

B. You have just pissed off the people who don't give shit about the color red, but think you are stupid for thinking it makes a difference, and told them you don't want their money.

C. You didn't have to piss anyone off, or tell them you didn't want their money, and whatever the color red means to you has nothing to do with the food you are serving to start with.

There is no need to argue with that.
Whatever you think the stocks will do will never make a difference to those facts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to change shoe companies because of KaperKlown. They will lose customers, but not gain any additional ones.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

Maybe an analogy will help some fruitcakes understand simple business concepts and the facts they involve.
Let's say you own a restaurant, and decide to put a sign on the door that reads ... "We Don't Support People Who Like the Color Red".

A. You have just pissed off the people who like the color red, and told them you don't want their money.

B. You have just pissed off the people who don't give shit about the color red, but think you are stupid for thinking it makes a difference, and told them you don't want their money.

C. You didn't have to piss anyone off, or tell them you didn't want their money, and whatever the color red means to you has nothing to do with the food you are serving to start with.

There is no need to argue with that.

It is a shitty analogy as Nike did not say they do not support anyone. What they did say, to use your analogy is that they support people who do not like the color red.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to change shoe companies because of KaperKlown. They will lose customers, but not gain any additional ones.

On one hand I have a guy on the internet that uses stupid nicknames like KaperKlown and on the other I have a proven corporation that has had a greater than 50% stock value growth in the last 12 months.

Which one do I think holds more value in this discussion?

That is a tough one, but I think I will stick with the proven folks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I did not claim the ad made any difference to the product, I explained why I have no emotional attachment to the issue. You on the other hand have your clear thinking being hampered by your emotional response to the ad.

Yes, you were buying them and your emotional response to the ad will likely keep you from doing so in the future. So far your view seems to be the minority view

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend and they didn't have to., and that's fact, not my view any way you want to look at it.

But if 3 more decide to buy Nike instead, they make money .

They got all kinds of free publicity and sales have shot up .

It’s all about money .

You don't know what sales are doing because they didn't happen yet.

If you're talking about more orders, those are probably done by shoe companies who are anticipating higher sales; likely other anti-Americans. In any case, if they normally buy 50 pairs of shoes for their store every month, they ordered 150 instead. Now if their sales drop to 30 pairs a month, they will have enough shoes to last them the next 5 months, and that's when you'll see sales drop down.

 

[dcbl]

Boycott Nike for child slavery and being a corporate traitor to America.

my first amendment right correct?

More like your America Express, Visa, MasterCard right. You don't even have to say anything to stop buying their products. They have corporate headquarters in the Netherlands, Shanghai China and Beaverton, Oregon. They have embraced the globalists, and I'm not too sure they really care what you have to say.

Nike will see.

Yes, Nike will continue to see increased sells and their stock will be above where it was when the first ad aired by next week.

Doesn't mean crap. It won't mean anything for several weeks or perhaps a few months. Then the results will be in, but not beforehand.

The sea numbers got an initial push, but will be down for the critical next quarter, which includes Black Friday and Christmas shopping

I'm willing to wager on this

 

[BluesLegend]

I believe in destroying the left and I'm willing to sacrifice them.

 

[Hiryuu]

It is a shitty analogy as Nike did not say they do not support anyone. What they did say, to use your analogy is that they support people who do not like the color red.

They supported Colin Keapernick when they chose him to be the sponsor for the ad, The message the ad sends specifically identifies his struggles (as it relates to him, what he believes and any sacrifices he has made), and you can pretend it doesn't if that suits your ignorance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to change shoe companies because of KaperKlown. They will lose customers, but not gain any additional ones.

On one hand I have a guy on the internet that uses stupid nicknames like KaperKlown and on the other I have a proven corporation that has had a greater than 50% stock value growth in the last 12 months.

Which one do I think holds more value in this discussion?

That is a tough one, but I think I will stick with the proven folks.

Nike has been successful for well over a year now. This means nothing unless sales level off or drop. Take note that as their stock prices rose, they weren't involved in politics. Now they changed that, and I'm willing to bet it's going to have negative ramifications. For the life of me, I can't see anything positive coming out of it for Nike.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

my first amendment right correct?

More like your America Express, Visa, MasterCard right. You don't even have to say anything to stop buying their products. They have corporate headquarters in the Netherlands, Shanghai China and Beaverton, Oregon. They have embraced the globalists, and I'm not too sure they really care what you have to say.

Nike will see.

Yes, Nike will continue to see increased sells and their stock will be above where it was when the first ad aired by next week.

Doesn't mean crap. It won't mean anything for several weeks or perhaps a few months. Then the results will be in, but not beforehand.

The sea numbers got an initial push, but will be down for the critical next quarter, which includes Black Friday and Christmas shopping

I'm willing to wager on this

It is possible, but doubtful there will be any significant drop. Also, Nike is looking 10 years down the road, not 3 months. Nike just signed a new contract with the NFL, they can handle a bump in the road if it happens.

 

[amethyst]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to change shoe companies because of KaperKlown. They will lose customers, but not gain any additional ones.

I bet you also doubted people would stop watching football.

My neighbors, hubby, and I have not watched football in 2 years.

No more nike Anything!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to change shoe companies because of KaperKlown. They will lose customers, but not gain any additional ones.

On one hand I have a guy on the internet that uses stupid nicknames like KaperKlown and on the other I have a proven corporation that has had a greater than 50% stock value growth in the last 12 months.

Which one do I think holds more value in this discussion?

That is a tough one, but I think I will stick with the proven folks.

Nike has been successful for well over a year now. This means nothing unless sales level off or drop. Take note that as their stock prices rose, they weren't involved in politics. Now they changed that, and I'm willing to bet it's going to have negative ramifications. For the life of me, I can't see anything positive coming out of it for Nike.

You are not who this ad campaign is geared towards, so you will never get it. This is about 15-17 year olds, not us middle aged dudes

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to change shoe companies because of KaperKlown. They will lose customers, but not gain any additional ones.

I bet you also doubted people would stop watching football.

My neighbors, hubby, and I have not watched football in 2 years.

No more nike Anything!

Football viewership has been declining for the past 6 to 7 years and did not decline any faster after the kneeling started.

You stopped watching it, I started again after about a 10 year break!

 

[amethyst]

The ad is nothing more than an attempt to access emotion in order to sell a product. No matter what happens, it will cost Nike money they didn't have to lose if they had picked someone else.

Again, two very simple concepts that don't even warrant arguing with.
Nike will lose the money I was going to spend, while they didn't have to, and that's a fact (because they won't be getting the money they would have been), not simply my view any way you want to look at it.

It's going to happen, they won't be getting that money I would have spent, and it is the result of the decision they made.

IF Nike gains someone to replace your money, then they have lost nothing. Seems pretty simple.

Nike themselves have said this ad campaign is targeted towards 15-17 year old, their future customers. It seems Nike is willing to lose people like you to ensure a strong future customer base. You are looking 20 minutes down the road, they are looking 10 years.

I seriously doubt anybody is going to change shoe companies because of KaperKlown. They will lose customers, but not gain any additional ones.

On one hand I have a guy on the internet that uses stupid nicknames like KaperKlown and on the other I have a proven corporation that has had a greater than 50% stock value growth in the last 12 months.

Which one do I think holds more value in this discussion?

That is a tough one, but I think I will stick with the proven folks.

Nike has been successful for well over a year now. This means nothing unless sales level off or drop. Take note that as their stock prices rose, they weren't involved in politics. Now they changed that, and I'm willing to bet it's going to have negative ramifications. For the life of me, I can't see anything positive coming out of it for Nike.

You are not who this ad campaign is geared towards, so you will never get it. This is about 15-17 year olds, not us middle aged dudes

And who buys them their shoes? Us old folk.