|
Post by robeiae on Nov 7, 2017 18:31:24 GMT -5
Well, the issue is (was?) PR for the NFL. They really didn't need to collude after Kaepernick left the Niners, because of the negative attention he was bringing. While Kaepernick was no criminal or the like, any team who signed him risked pissing off a lot of fans and advertisers. If there's a case of collusion to be made here, I think it would have to be some sort of memo that came from the NFL, discouraging teams from signing Kaepernick, that resulted in some inter-team correspondence. Seems unlikely to me. And as I think I've already said, it seems to me that there's no down side to signing Kaepernick now, depending on what he's willing to accept. It could be that there's collusion now, while there wasn't before.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 7, 2017 18:41:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 7, 2017 18:45:22 GMT -5
I heard the Cleveland Browns wanted to offer Kaepernick a multi-year deal but they couldn't figure out how to dial his agent's phone number correctly.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 7, 2017 18:46:57 GMT -5
For once, Kaepernick catches a break.
And I'm a Cleveland fan.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 7, 2017 20:17:07 GMT -5
Well, the issue is (was?) PR for the NFL. They really didn't need to collude after Kaepernick left the Niners, because of the negative attention he was bringing. While Kaepernick was no criminal or the like, any team who signed him risked pissing off a lot of fans and advertisers. If there's a case of collusion to be made here, I think it would have to be some sort of memo that came from the NFL, discouraging teams from signing Kaepernick, that resulted in some inter-team correspondence. Seems unlikely to me. And as I think I've already said, it seems to me that there's no down side to signing Kaepernick now, depending on what he's willing to accept. It could be that there's collusion now, while there wasn't before. There was collusion before and there's collusion now. You know what really pisses off a lot of fans and advertisers? Lousy football. The kind of lousy football where a starting quarterback goes out and his backup runs out of the field and stinks up the joint. The way Tom Savage did in Houston before the coach saw he sucked dead donkey dicks and benched his ass after ONE QUARTER in the first game and that's where Savage stayed until rookie stud Deshaun Watson ripped up an ACL on a non-contact play during practice and in when Savage back in the line-up only to see Savage still sucks dead donkey dicks. The same thing is playing out in Green Bay where Aaron Rodgers is gone and his backup has been turrible. Or in Cleveland where they're playing ring-a-round-a scrub QB (and haven't won a game) or in San Francisco, where they got rid of Kaepernick and brought in three replacements and two of them are already gone and they haven't won a game either. How do you think dogshit teams like those two are doing without Colin Kaepernick? Better or worse? Negative attention has never stopped a NFL owner from signing a player who brought plenty. Jerry Jones had no problem signing a woman-beating shitbag like Greg Hardy calling him one of the "real leaders" of the Cowboys. This was after Hardy had gone on a sideline tirade and knocked a clipboard out of the hands of an assistant coach. Negative attention didn't deter Mike Brown from drafting Joe "I Be Breakin' Bitches Jaws" Mixon for the Bengals. Negative attention hasn't stopped the NFL from reinstating WR Josh Gordon to Browns despite his admission he played every game in his career after sparking up a blunt or slamming down a few shots of alcohol. Negative attention? In the NFL? Sheeeeeeeeeeit.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 7, 2017 20:32:27 GMT -5
"Texans management claimed that their comments were 'just locker-room talk'."
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 13, 2017 22:02:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 7, 2018 17:56:42 GMT -5
Not about Kaepernick specifically, but still related to the kneeling brouhaha: www.vox.com/2018/6/5/17429276/trump-nfl-eagles-protest-fox-newsI'll give Fox News a modicum of credit for correcting the story, although I can't help suspect they knew exactly what they were doing and only made the correction because of the heat they caught.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 5, 2018 19:35:18 GMT -5
The NFL kicks off this Thursday and once again, Colin Kaepernick won't be on the roster of any of the 32 teams. But you best believe every last mother's son in the NFL from scrub player to billionaire owner has had Colin Kaepernick's name pass through their brains. First there was this. And then there was this. Some folks--only White folks that I've seen---have responded to Kaepernick becoming the face of Nike by taking scissors to their Nike T-shirts and socks and burning their Nike shoes. I got news for you kid. Nike already has your money, dumbass. As long as you paid $100 for them Nike doesn't care if you eat the fucking shoes. Nike doesn't care if Trump says the Kaepernick ads send "a terrible message." They love the free publicity Trump gives them by ranting and frothing at the mouth in his usual race-baiting way. Which suckers like this dopey kid slurp up and regurgitate. But I do love your hate. It amuses me. It amuses me greatly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2018 19:41:24 GMT -5
This was a great move by Nike, and I suspect will end up being a smart business move. The demographic that will hate it and not buy athletic stuff are likely older and not buying much of it anyway. Younger people who buy more athletic gear IMO are more likely to be supportive of the campaign.
And yeah, nothing dumber than the "I will destroy expensive stuff I already own" crowd. Dudes, that's not a boycott and it only hurts you, but hey, you be you.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 5, 2018 20:02:19 GMT -5
I don't know that it was a great move by Nike. It may turn out that way, for sure, but so far the market isn't happy about it. Nike is way up for the year, but this campaign has taken a bite out of those gains (and again, it may be temporary).
And yeah, cutting up and burning stuff that one paid good money for is stupid, imo. And it's not a boycott at all. Though I'm not sure how many people are actually burning their Nike stuff.
But I think it fair to remember some realities here: Nike--the company--doesn't give a shit about the issues in all of this. They're hardly a model org, after all. They're just looking for the best way to separate people from their money. I'm not going to buy Nike stuff because of this ad campaign, but neither am I not going to buy Nike stuff. And I did run in Nike shorts this evening.*
Beyond all of that, it is a good looking ad, imo.
* Not in Nike shoes, though. I think their running shoes kinda suck. I'm actually running in a pair of Vans these days, which are not only awesome, but also far less expensive than any shoe I'v had in the past four or five years.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Sept 6, 2018 9:05:07 GMT -5
Here's someone engaging in an actual boycott (well, a personal one) and their justification for doing so: www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/09/04/colin-kaepernick-ad-boycotting-nike-column/1189989002/From it: I think that's nonsense. I may not be a fan of Kaepernick (and I think the idea that he sacrificed "everything" is a tad hyperbolic), but I'm sure he'd much rather have been playing pro football in the NFL these last few seasons than not. And: I think that's nonsense as well. Nike isn't putting "politics above sports" with this ad, it's just using Kaepernick's public image to hopefully line its pockets. I don't object to his choice--his money, his decision--but I don't find it particularly impressive.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Sept 7, 2018 19:15:15 GMT -5
www.marketwatch.com/story/nikes-online-sales-jumped-31-after-company-unveiled-kaepernick-campaign-2018-09-07I like the ad. And I'm glad Nike is doing well. I have a soft spot for Phil Knight. My daughter attends the University of Oregon, and he's done so much for that school, including paying all costs for the Mock Trial team to compete and travel throughout the country (which my daughter does), and for swag for the club volleyball teams (daughter plays club there), not to mention the HUGE stuff he's donated and continues to donate. Good on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 19:29:19 GMT -5
I'm not surprised the sales went up and the stock followed suit. Truly, I think it only makes sense that the bulk of Nike's potential customers are likely to be supportive of (or at worst indifferent to) the campaign. It's just demographics.
Have I mentioned that I really, really don't get the people who set their own possessions on fire? My favorite was that some nut on Twitter bought Rick Wilson's book and sent him a picture of it burning. Rick suggested that the guy buy a bunch more of his books and make a bonfire.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Sept 7, 2018 19:33:16 GMT -5
I think most are honestly indifferent to the ad.
|
|