Let's just say you have a frame line that essentially has, as it's main feature, branding.
Say that brand has been doing things that alienate some of your clientele, and they're apparently doubling down on doing that, now, to alienate even more client segments.
What would be the correct move to make?
I quit carrying Nike years ago, I don't miss them one bit!
Was I that obvious?
I can read between lines fairly well. I will not buy any of their products.
I've always felt that if you carry a product that you believe in the company that is making it.
I find almost all Marchon product to be pretty dull. Skaga used to be fairly decent before Marchon purchased Scandinavian Eyewear. Not terrible quality but styling seems uninspired for most lines.
Last edited by Elvis Is Alive; 04-10-2023 at 03:12 PM.
what did I miss?
Our office is in a conservative area and we carry nike. It does alright but its definitely not high volume. Every once in a while we will get someone who will make a comment about the brand but overall any controversies have never been an issue.
We'll have to see. I hear now Kate Spade is partnering with the same fellow for their marketing.
I don't really care, as long as the brand doesn't tank and I'm caught with unpopular product.
I know, right? We all want the hot goss drk. Spill that teaOriginally Posted by iD
Well, I'm not telling anyone anything they didn't know, already. The people that corporations hire to do things like "brand management" (usually young people in their 20's and 30's, because that's the demographic companies assume [wrongly] are the big decision-makers) choose their marketing campaigns in a very immature way.
They don't seem to understand their customers very well. Or, they don't care to understand, they only care about their own religio-socio-political beliefs that have been inculcated in their colleges or virally-absorbed from media, and are too self-unaware to realize that no one really cares what they think. They are entitled to their beliefs, but so is everyone else, and the seemingly logical way to deal with the plurality is to avoid unnecesary divisiveness. Selling sportswear or sports marketing should not include sexual preference or politics, in my opinion, because discussion of religion and politics is really not polite, in mixed company. It goes to respect.
I don't subject people to my political or religious views in the process of doing commerce. It's a free country, and Nike and Kate Spade and Anheiser-Busch is welcome to do what they want, but then it narrows their market appeal.
As a business owner, I want to TRULY be inclusive. I don't want to offend other genders, "races", religions, national origins, political people, etc. So we talk about commonalities such as eye care, and leave the divisive stuff alone. That's inclusivity, IMHO.
So really, in the misguided attempt to be "inclusive"--or, just to make a buck, they think---these companies are pressing on sore spots in our society. Race, gender, religion, politics, etc. really have no business in business, in my view, if you truly care about all people.
oh so i'm assuming Nike is doing some rainbow LGBQT+ type of frames that you don't want to carry?
Can't wait for this thread to get locked. But this is by far the worst take in optiboard history. Wow. My disappointment is immeasurable.
Are you willing to give your take, so I can see if you're being serious or facetious?
Absolutely serious.
Well, then...
I mean, if you think these controversy-associated ad campaigns are not signed off on by higher level executives (as opposed to the presumed 20 year old brand managers of your post), that seems kind of naive. Especially when they likely have a whole wing of the company whose duty it is to perform cost:benefit analysis for what segments of the population it will alienate (likely over represented by older folks, as they trend more conservative, but whose consumer lifespans are on the back-end from an economic standpoint) vs. engender goodwill (likely younger, and which is a burgeoning market demographic hunger for more diverse representation and with long-term purchase potential). And it's not like Nike in question has shied away from the "any publicity is good publicity" kind of thing (see: Colin Kaepernick).
I disagree with your assessment, not because of the specifics of the issues at play, but because of the economics of the situation. I think Nike is making a business move for future consumers, as well as present ones. Fashion, especially athleisure, is a lot more accessible broadly across the economic stratum than, say, real estate ownership is. And honestly, eyewear is probably a very, very small percentage of their revenue stream.
It may be disproportionately affecting your demographics, and consequently your sales figures, but being in a smaller town, rural-serving private optometry office, I cannot imagine actually meeting a patient who is going to get up in arms enough about this to care, or that I can't pivot from and say "ok, cool, let's look at these other lines, then!"
I have a brother who works in advertising at a high level, so my representation of things is accurate and not naiive.
I didn't say "conservative", juno, you did. That's kind of a tired, cliched, gestalt that you are invoking. I'm talking about a particularly small subset of, say, Nike or Bud Light's market. What does the bigger subset think? Women? Are they "conservative"? Males? Are they "conservative"? Someone in their '70's graduated high school in the late sixties. These people are not "conservative" either. This doesn't turn on "conservative" vs. "not conservative". It turns on what appeals to the biggest subset of their market. That's how I would market and advertise, anyway.
My demographics are very broad in a very test-markety city. So I see a little of everything. I'm doing fine. But I am getting some negative reactions to the brand I haven't explicity named, and I expect more. I don't need polarized frame brands. I don't need to carry a brand that offends some of my patients. I'm just going to try to keep everyone as happy as possible and make money serving their needs.
I'm curious as to what your patients say about this brand. Also did they feel a certain way when a certain athlete was signed as well? I'm trying to see what kind of demographic you have. Also, would this type of demographic outweigh the opposite side of the spectrum?
The comments I've heard are "not interested in Nike, thanks". Generally men. We've put up with that for awhile, now. Given that our main market for sports eyewear are men, that is a problem. I can, of course, get one of several other brands for sports eye wear, and some with a net positive brand equity.
It's too soon to see if women are offended, but we don't market to women with Nike. We do youth and men. Mom's control the youth, so there's that.
On the other hand, while I don't expect people to say "Ooooh! Nike! I likey!" and I'm more desirous of a subtle internal nod of approval and a purchase, I certainly haven't heard anyone say "Nike! I like their marketing! I want it." The opposite occurs. You do the math. I thought it was a net positive, but I feel that it has proven to be a brand that alienates more than it attracts.
I would say this happens more in (anti)tabacco, (anti)marijuana commercials more so than Nike/Bud Light. Depending on your tolerance for certain things.
I heard a handful of men say some variation on "Not interested in Nike, thanks." after they signed Colin Kapernick a few years ago, but it didn't seriously affect sales, and the brand continues to be one of our top sellers. Excellent frames, excellent durability, excellent profitability for us. Bottom line.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
This article lists Nike's Kaepernick campaign as (checks notes) a massive success for the company. So I'm not sure the point you're making here?
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
It's not an argument. It's a discussion. That's a good article about the subject, I thought.
Yup. Nike absolutely, absolutely knows what they are doing, and it's not a handful of 20-somethings doing it.
I would love to get into the actual isses here, but this is not the place.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks