I own a "small" retail running store in which Nike has about 11% of my business. Asics, Saucony, NB, Mizuno, Brooks all have much larger percentages for me. After what I saw take place in NM, my partner and I have decided to no longer purchase Nike apparel or footwear. In the big picture probably not much of an impact but a bump for the other companies (I also will really push Brooks in light of Gabrielle).
JG
Boo freaking hoo.
I too own a small chain of running specific stores. Nike will no longer be on any of my shelves or racks.
You will push Brooks even if Brooks isn't in the customer's best interest? Seems like discontinuing Nike will also affect your business a fair bit. When I worked at a running shop, every high school kid came in around the start of track season for one thing--Victory spikes. Regardless of the goings on in professional running, Nike still makes quality stuff for runners. Why are you denying a wider variety of quality actions for your customer?
Why not wait till it plays out. Do you think Duke gets some extra calls at home because of coach K? New England or Denver because of Billcheck, Brady, or Manning.
mt man wrote:
I own a "small" retail running store in which Nike has about 11% of my business. Asics, Saucony, NB, Mizuno, Brooks all have much larger percentages for me. After what I saw take place in NM, my partner and I have decided to no longer purchase Nike apparel or footwear. In the big picture probably not much of an impact but a bump for the other companies (I also will really push Brooks in light of Gabrielle).
JG
Well done!
Shoe technology hasn't changed in decades and every company makes a shoe that will work for a given individual. Same with apparel.
Sunny SanDiego wrote:
Shoe technology hasn't changed in decades and every company makes a shoe that will work for a given individual. Same with apparel.
So why deny a wider variety for the customer to choose from? Or when a customer comes in and says he saw a commercial for Nike Frees and wants a pair, you're just going to let the customer walk, potentially giving up future business?
Skechers.
mt man wrote:
I own a "small" retail running store in which Nike has about 11% of my business. Asics, Saucony, NB, Mizuno, Brooks all have much larger percentages for me. After what I saw take place in NM, my partner and I have decided to no longer purchase Nike apparel or footwear. In the big picture probably not much of an impact but a bump for the other companies (I also will really push Brooks in light of Gabrielle).
JG
You will not order Nike stuff because of this DQ thing but you were okay ordering it before while Nike engages in child sweat shops? What kind of morals do you have that you whine about this but you are fine and dandy with the Nike child sweat shops putting together their shoes? I find that reprehensible on your part.
Because they think their protesting will make a point...which it won't.
I think these boycotts can get a little sanctimonious and can easily get carried away. But I can't imagine a situation where I couldn't find a product I was in need of produced by someone other than Nike that would force me to purchase a Nike product. In other words, all else being equal, I'll happily give my money to someone other than Nike.
So while I'm not going to walk around shouting "I'm boycotting Nike!!", I really doubt I'll ever purchase something they make again.
“Just Do It.” Three simple words, yet together they represent one of the most popular sports apparel companies in the world: Nike. However, over the years their great success has come with an even greater cost to those who suffer under their inhumane sweatshop practices.
All over the globe, from first to third world, Nike employs more than 1 million workers in approximately 841 different factories. But what is truly interesting about these 1 million plus employees is how they are distributed throughout different countries. The U.S. is currently home to 66 of these factories, and employs 8,151 men and women. Comparatively, Indonesia, a smaller and poorer country, has only 40 factories, yet employs 171,276 workers — the majority of which are young women and children. How is it that, in a much smaller developing country, the ratio of factories to workers is so drastically higher than in the U.S.?
Indonesia and other countries such as Vietnam and China present Nike with the attractive manufacturing quality of inexpensive sweatshop labor. On a day-to-day basis, their employees work long hours under terrible conditions for a small sum of money. Jim Keady, founder of the nonprofit organization Team Sweat that works to end Nike’s use of sweatshop labor, demonstrated the severe ramifications of these low wages. Keady traveled to Indonesia where he lived for a month with the families of those employed by these factories. There, he survived off the same wage these men and women were paid. Consequently, Keady lost approximately 24 pounds during one month from not being able to afford proper nutrition.
Besides the unfair wages, Nike constantly abuses their workers in unimaginable ways. Stories have surfaced of workers who were beaten with Nike shoes, and some were even mutilated by machetes and left to die in the gutter. While direct violence is common in most sweatshops, Nike sweatshop supervisors have pushed this abuse to the next level. One of these dangerous punishment techniques is what the supervisors call “sun drenching.” In this practice, the supervisors will find an employee who is working too slow on the production line, pull them out of line and have them stand under the hot sun for hours. In countries like Indonesia, which are located close to the equator, it's common for temperatures to reach over 100 degrees on a daily basis, which can cause health effects such as heat stroke.
Since the creation of the United Nations, the U.S. has played an important role as a permanent member on the Security Council. The Security Council, comprised of 15 countries, makes executive U.N. decisions based on keeping peace and maintaining the security and well-being of the world. So if the U.S. holds such a powerful position in enacting global policy, then why do we continue to let one of the companies based in our nation exploit the men and women of other nations? After all, the way Nike treats its workers is violating numerous articles in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declares all persons to be treated equally and held to the same level of human dignity.
Groups such as Team Sweat have advocated their own change in persuading Nike to rethink some of their practices, yet our own government has failed to do the same in recent years. However, in the end, it takes all of us to end the sweatshop labor practices of Nike and other corporations. Even our school as a whole can take charge in ending the way we dehumanize others for our own profit. After all, how can we foster men and women who will enact change if we overlook the fact that each and every one of our athletes wears a uniform created through the blood, sweat and tears of those trying to make a better life for themselves?
Lol. I'll give you 8/10. Lot of bites.
That's nothing. Once I got turned down for a date by some chick....I severely disagreed with her decision, so instead of just moving on... I CASTRARTED myself!!!! Top that!!!
Curious... how old is this copy and paste? I thought I had read that Nike had done a lot over recent years to improve working conditions in their overseas factories. Plus, where are NB, Brooks, Saucony, etc. made? Can you say for certain that all of your clothing purchases are from companies who don't use sweat shops? Nike is far from perfect, but also an easy target.
With regards to the OP, do you really think boycotting Nike is good for the sport? (I'm not defending what happened at USAs this past weekend by the way.) Whether you like Nike or not, you've got to admit they sponsor a boat load of track & field athletes. Without Nike's support, some of these athletes would get picked up by other shoe companies, but many would not. Plus, many of the other companies would have to drop some of their current athletes to make room for their new stable of former Nike athletes. None of these companies have unlimited budgets for sponsoring runners.
Fully support this. As a long time runner(1981) I will no longer purchase Nike stuff for me or my family. I can't believe how far the white mole has allowed his company to drift from what it was in the 70s and 80s. Where is the edge? the innovation? the pride in running and T&F
So basically you want Nike to cut funding to Schumacher's group (or any other non-NOP Nike athlete) because of something Salazar did at USAs?
mt man wrote:
... my partner and I ...
JG
Whatever. You're just jealous that your partner prefers Hasay's boyish frame over your skinnyfat azz.
I too have a small store been with Nike for 24 years ($1.5 million in sales) and just got dropped by Nike running, for being too small. I am now classified Nike general which means no access to Vomero, Triax, Pegasus or spikes. How do you keep your running account?