Hello! I'm your friend, an economist and financial journalist. Today, we're going to talk about Nike's six-year journey of "losing its way as a luxury brand" and then making a "difficult comeback."
This article from "New Eyes" is actually a review of a very classic business case: What happens when a traditional manufacturing giant tries to transform itself using the logic of an internet company, and if it takes too big a step?
In simple terms, around 2020, Nike hired a CEO from Silicon Valley, John Donahoe, and launched a radical reform focused on "decentralizing intermediaries" and going digital. The result? Instead of becoming a more efficient tech-driven sports company, it messed up its core business, losing a market value of $1.5 trillion, and eventually had to bring back its former CEO to fix the mess.
Below, I'll break down this news into five key points to explain the logic behind Nike's mistakes in plain language.
---
1. **Getting Rid of Channels: Pushing Out Distributors, Only to Fall into a Pit**
Core Logic: Nike thought intermediaries were taking too much profit and wanted to sell directly to consumers. But what happened was that they lost their distribution channels and couldn't reach customers.
Previously, Nike sold shoes mainly to large retailers like Foot Locker and Macy's (a wholesale model). Although some of the profit went to these retailers, the benefits were:
1. Risk Sharing: If shoes didn't sell, the inventory risk was on the retailers, not Nike.
2. Wide Reach: Consumers could try on shoes in physical stores and get recommendations from salespeople, which is the most natural way to build brand awareness.
After Donahoe took over, he implemented a strategy called "CDA" (Consumer Direct Acceleration), which meant Nike wanted to deal directly with consumers, keep all the profits, and control all the data.
Nike then started to cut out half of its wholesalers and even reduced its presence on Amazon, forcing everyone to buy shoes through the Nike App.
Why was this a mistake?
- The Boom Masked the Problems: During 2020-2023, due to the pandemic, people stayed at home and bought online, so Nike's online sales soared, making the strategy seem successful.
- The Embarrassment After Recovery: Once the pandemic eased, people returned to physical stores. Nike had cleared out its inventory, and competitors like Adidas, HOKA, and On Running quickly filled the gap. Consumers found fewer Nike products, or they had to go to dedicated Nike stores, which were not widespread enough.
- Inventory Nightmare: Before, if shoes didn't sell, retailers absorbed the loss; now, all the pressure was on Nike. When sales slowed, Nike had to discount products, which damaged its "luxury, professional" image and disrupted its pricing structure.
Comparison:
- Adidas: Also went direct, but didn't completely eliminate wholesalers; instead, it focused on partnering with the best suppliers.
- Anta: After acquiring FILA, it continued to use a mix of direct and wholesale models.
Conclusion: Nike underestimated the value of physical stores and distribution networks. Cutting off direct connections with consumers and relying solely on the App made it hard to maintain the popularity of a mass-market sports brand.
---
2. **Misusing Data: Having a Gold Mine but Using It for the Wrong Purpose**
Core Logic: Nike thought it would use data to develop better products, but instead, the data was mainly used for "hunger marketing" and creating a demand for limited-edition shoes.
The goal of digital transformation should be to use data to understand consumer needs and develop better products. Nike had a wealth of data from its apps, SNKRS, and Run Club.
But the Reality:**
- SNKRS Became a Tool for Scarcity Marketing: The app focused on limited-edition draws rather than recommending shoes based on users' running habits. Old models like the Dunk and Air Force 1 became popular through constant collaborations and color variations.
- Short-Term Profit, Long-Term Damage: This approach increased short-term sales but led to consumer fatigue. Too many color variations made it hard to distinguish products, and the brand lost its "professional" image.
Comparison:
- Adidas: Used data in 3D design to shorten development times, benefiting both marketing and product development.
- Anta: Created a "global data platform" to integrate online and offline data, leading to successful products like the PG7 and Traveler series.
Conclusion: If data is only used for marketing rather than product development, digitalization becomes a form of superficiality that dilutes the brand's essence.
---
3. **Rigid Organizational Changes: Forcing a Sports Company to Become an Internet Company**
Core Logic: To adapt to digitalization, Nike reorganized its departments by audience rather than by sport, breaking its traditional structure.
Donahoe, coming from Silicon Valley, thought Nike should be managed like an internet company. He dismantled Nike's traditional "category-based" structure:
- Previously: There were departments for running, basketball, and soccer, each with experts and athlete resources.
- Later: These were replaced by departments for men's, women's, and children's clothing.
The Disaster:
1. Disruption of Expertise: Experts in running technology and data analysts for women's products worked in different systems with different goals, leading to poor collaboration.
2. Shift in Focus: Nike's metrics shifted from sports performance to data growth and direct sales efficiency. Resources were directed towards trendy marketing rather than essential sports research and development.
3. Cultural Conflict: New digital employees clashed with traditional sports staff, making systems more complex without improving core operations.
Result: Nike transformed from a sports company into a fashion-oriented one. When the DTC strategy failed, its large technical team became a burden, leading to 1,400 layoffs.
---
4. **The Battle of Ideas: Silicon Valley Elites vs. In-House Experts**
Core Logic: An outsider might not understand the company's culture as well as its internal experts.
- John Donahoe: A Silicon Valley executive with a bright background (eBay, ServiceNow), he brought a standardized, profit-driven, and digital-focused management style. He tried to redefine Nike using financial metrics but ignored its core values.
- Elliott Hill: A long-time Nike employee who returned to fix the company's problems. He represented the traditional "Shoedog" culture of passion for sports and products.
What Hill Did:
1. Admitted Mistakes: He acknowledged that the radical digital strategy harmed the market.
2. Reconnected with Partners: He restored relationships with wholesalers and abandoned the decentralized model.
3. Returned to the Roots: He launched the "Win Now" plan, focusing on sports rather than fashion.
Key Actions:
- Reinvited the Founder: 90-year-old Phil Knight appeared to emphasize Nike's original mission of serving athletes.
- Reorganized Departments: He restored the traditional category-based structure for running, basketball, and training.
Conclusion: For companies with a strong brand culture and expertise, understanding the industry is more important than just management skills. External managers can improve efficiency, but they may not preserve the company's unique strengths.
---
5. **China's Special Needs: Addressing Product Shortcomings**
Core Logic: In China, Nike needed to fix its global strategy and improve product quality.
China is a key market for Nike, but competition is fierce (with local brands like Anta, Li Ning, and Xtep).
- Management Change: Nike appointed a product-focused CEO in China, shifting from a finance background to a product expert.
- Focus on Offline: Resources were reallocated from online apps to physical stores. This is important because offline experiences and community activities are crucial for building brand loyalty.
- Learning from Anta: Anta's success in China came from a strong offline network and data-driven marketing.
Conclusion: Nike's adjustments in China reflect a global strategic shift. It realized that in this market, brand image and online traffic alone are not enough; it needs to focus on products and offline experiences.
---
Conclusion: Lessons for Everyone
1. Don't Overrely on Decentralization: For most physical products, offline channels and distributors are essential for brand building and risk management. Cutting them out can lead to a loss of direct connections with consumers.
2. Use Data for Product Development: Data should support product development, not just marketing. If it doesn't lead to better products, it's a waste.
3. Respect Industry Culture: Sports brands should maintain their core values. Trying to manage them like internet companies can undermine their expertise.
4. Return to the Original Purpose: When companies get lost in complex strategies, focusing on their founding mission often helps them find the right direction.
Nike's six-year journey of mistakes is a common trap for traditional companies undergoing digital transformation. Its story teaches us that technology is a tool, not the end goal; efficiency is a means, not the ultimate goal. For brands, culture and expertise are always more important than structure and data.