It may. The thing is, Nike is already such a dominant player, they could recover the way J&J recovered after the Tylenol scare - which is now, still a trusted brand in their portfolio.
This was just completely unnecessary. What demographic were they trying to pull in by embracing him that they didn’t already have?
Makes no sense.
What demographic were they trying to pull in by embracing him that they didn’t already have?
That is what would infuriate me as a stockholder...there weren't trying to pull in another demographic.
They were simply virtue signalling. The WORST kind of Virtue Signalling...CORPORATE virtue signalling.
IMO, if you want to virtue signal on your own, with your own money and reputation on the line, go for it. Be stupid. Do all you want, the more the better, actually.
But when it is NOT your money, and your stupid virtue signalling affects others, you should be fired.
Let's say you are a famous conservative athlete and you use their products. You are going to change if you can, and you might actually intrinsically like the product, the way it feels, you are used to it. Or you own stock. You probably want to sell.
These people suck and should be punished by the market.
Look at what happened to "The Red Hen" (and the entire town)