Post: #1

I wanted to make a safe space for us racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic neo nazis to revel in the downfall of some of these corporations that try to inject far left politics, SJW rhetoric, or the liberal agenda into their brand. Sadly some of these corporations are to big to fail but we can still snicker at their financial losses.



Feel free to post about any company that you know of that has "got woke, and went broke"

Post: #2

Battlefield V for Vagina
This one was interesting to see.





Cliffs
EA promises this game will be the most immersive Battlefield yet, set in WW2
The reveal trailer features a one armed female with blue face paint
Angry fans speak out and EA's chief design officer Patrick Soderlund says the following
“I have a 13-year-old daughter that when the trailer came out and she saw all the flak, she asked me, ‘Dad, why’s this happening?'” he continued. “She plays Fortnite, and says, ‘I can be a girl in Fortnite. Why are people so upset about this?’ … I just said, ‘You know what? You’re right. This is not ok.’ These are people who are uneducated – they don’t understand that this is a plausible scenario.

“Listen: this is a game. And today gaming is gender-diverse, like it hasn’t been before. There are a lot of female people who want to play, and male players who want to play as a badass woman. And we don’t take any flak. We stand up for the cause, because I think those people who don’t understand it, well, you have two choices: either accept it or don’t buy the game. I’m fine with either or. It’s just not OK.”

The fans accept EA's challenge to not buy the game
Preorders for the game are the lowest for any Battlefield game ever
EA pushes the game back a month from the initial release date to add more "polish"
EA stock plummets

Post: #3

(09-03-2018 12:35 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Woke to broke

Post: #4

(09-04-2018 07:32 AM)IveBeenFramed Wrote:  Nike's Kaepernick Ad Has Cost The Company Over $3 Billion So Far

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-0...ion-so-far

Quote:Since announcing their new advertising campaign will be led by Colin Kaepernick, the social media backlash has dominated the virtue-signaling efforts we presume they hoped for.

With images of Nike apparel and footwear being burned and real sacrifice being discussed, it appears investors are growing disillusioned as NFL fans as Nike shares are down 2.4% in the pre-market.

If the public backlash against other corporate brand names who have taken a vocal political stance is any indication, Nike faces considerably more pressure: companies from Dick's (which saw a sharp decline in sales after it stopped selling guns), to ESPN, to Papa John's, to Twitter and Facebook, to In-N-Out burger, have all seen an angry customer backlash - from either the left or the right - once these corporations entered the political arena, resulting in a hit to the top line, and ultimately, the shareholders' pocket.

Back to my classic Puma sneakers then if that's how Nike wants to be.

Post: #5

With the Ghostbusters 2016 movie, they have destroyed one of the most famous movie brand ($$$), and Ghostbusters has the huge advantage that you can sell a lot of toys for the kids ($$$$$).

Ghostbusters had so much potential it was crazy, a once in a lifetime opportunity for a producer. It's super easy to write a good story based on Ghostbusters.

But it was deemed more appropriate to spit in the face of the fans, and to make a very unpleasant feminist movie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbuste...Box_office

Quote:Ghostbusters grossed $128.3 million in North America and $100.8 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $229.1 million.[6] With a net production budget of $144 million[78] Due to the large amount spent on marketing, the studio stated that the film would need to gross at least $300 million to break even.[79] Before the release, director Paul Feig stated "A movie like this has to at least get to like $500 million worldwide, and that’s probably low."[80]

The Hollywood Reporter estimated the film's financial losses would be over $70 million.[79][81][82] A representative of Sony found this loss estimate to be "way off," saying: "With multiple revenue streams [...] the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not even remotely close to that number."[79][81] According to Variety, sources familiar with the film's financing estimate the total loss to be about $75 million, of which, due to co-financing with Village Roadshow, Sony would lose about $50 million.[83] Sony insiders have projected, along with co-financing, a total loss of about $25 million.[83] Bloomberg News estimated the film lost $58.6 million.[84] By August 2016, sources such as Forbes and The Wall Street Journal had begun calling Ghostbusters a box office bomb.[12][85][86][87] The film's performance contributed to Sony taking a $1 billion writedown in January 2017.[88]

In the United States and Canada, the film opened Friday, July 15, across 3,963 theaters, earning $17.2 million on its first day,[89] including $3.4 million it made from Thursday preview screenings.[90] The film earned $46 million in its opening weekend, finishing second at the box office behind The Secret Life of Pets ($50.8 million).[78] It procured the biggest opening weekend ever for director Feig and star Melissa McCarthy and was the biggest live-action comedy debut since Pitch Perfect 2 in May 2015.[91] In its second weekend the film dropped 54% to $21 million (compared to the first film increasing in its sophomore week by 11%), dropping to 5th at the box office.[92]

Outside North America, Ghostbusters earned $19.1 million in its opening weekend from a handful of markets on 3,900 screens. IMAX contributed $1 million from 105 IMAX screens.[93] It had number one openings in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland ($6.1 million), number one in Australia ($3.7 million), and number three in Brazil ($2.2 million).[78] It debuted at number one on the DVD and Blu-ray charts after its release on home media in North America.[94]

In a June 2017 television appearance, Aykroyd blamed the film's underperformance on Feig. According to Aykroyd, Feig refused to shoot additional scenes requested by Aykroyd and Sony until test screenings demonstrated they were necessary, costing an additional $30–40 million in reshoots (although Sony claimed reshoots only cost $3–4 million).[95] He wrote a few days later: "Paul Feig made a good movie and had a superb cast and plenty of money to do it. We just wish he had been more inclusive to the originators. It cost everyone as it is unlikely Kristen, Leslie, Melissa and Kate will ever reprise their roles as Ghostbusters which is sad."[96]

Post: #6

(Reuters) - Dick's Sporting Goods (DKS.N) reported a bigger-than-expected drop in quarterly same-store sales on Wednesday and forecast further declines this year, hit by tighter gun controls and a drop in Under Armour sales.

Shares in the company fell as much as 10 percent after it posted a 1.9 percent drop in same-store sales, bigger than analysts' average estimate of a 0.62 percent dip.

Dick's was one of the first retailers to stop selling assault rifles and high-capacity magazines as well as bar the sale of guns to people under age 21 following a massacre at a Florida high school in February.

Post: #7

On the other side of the scale, when SJWs started a campaign to hurt Chick-fil-A after the chairman disapproved of gay marriage, yearly sales increased by 14%.

https://www.ajc.com/business/chick-fil-k...lFUfxZQ3L/

Post: #8

Commie convergence culls corporate coffers...

Post: #9

I think Nike is fairly independent, not sure (I don't think it's under some umbrella like Time-Warner etc.) Many key stock holders are probably key stock holders in other corporations however.

Anyway, the way all these companies are intertwined it makes sense for oligarchs to fuck up a company completely for political reasons if those reasons either enrich the owners or other companies within that system.

Post: #10

The fact that corporations still incorporate SJWisms even after losing buckets of money either points to something sinister, or they are playing the long game in the hopes that the disappoving opposition dwindles in numbers and eventually will accept the poz. Honestly i find its getting difficult to separate the agenda pushers from regular money making business. I just presume they are all globalists with varing levels of malice. Basically corporations, were a mistake.

Post: #11

After-all, what are Nike really saying?
Our shoes are the best when it comes to running from the police...?

Post: #12

Everything the Wachowskis have done since the Matrix

Post: #13

San Francisco's unionized, worker-owned strip club tanked in 2013 after discovering that a self-organizing collective of obese blue-hairs weren't able to make rent.

https://www.newyorker.com/business/curre...strip-club

Post: #14

(09-04-2018 07:37 PM)uncledick Wrote:  The fact that corporations still incorporate SJWisms even after losing buckets of money either points to something sinister, or they are playing the long game in the hopes that the disappoving opposition dwindles in numbers and eventually will accept the poz. Honestly i find its getting difficult to separate the agenda pushers from regular money making business. I just presume they are all globalists with varing levels of malice. Basically corporations, were a mistake.

Stop and think about it though.

As an experiment go on LinkedIN and find 30 or so C suite executive bios at fortune 500 companies.

Let me know if you see anything in common that the overwhelming majority of them have and think about what kind of upbringing most of them have.

Once you notice it you'll see why it makes perfect sense that most of them would be be cowardly, weasel globalists.

Hint is that they've actually done studies and most execs aren't not particularly competent or intelligent. They're slightly above average frat boys who are good at being popular

Post: #15

I believe that this is currently the frontrunner.



But let's see how this Nike thing plays out.

I'm of the mind that this will be felt at home but the Chinese, all however the fuck many of them, who have zero time for this social justice faggotry but all the time in the world to status whore, will keep both Starbucks and Nike afloat.

Every time something like this happens, Trump gains 2 electoral college votes in 2020.

Post: #16

The ultimate irony is that Starkbucks gets its coffee from companies with low wages. Wages that are kept lower than the usa due to borders............

Post: #17

When your whole country is the corporation...

Post: #18

Nike just made Colin Kapernick the #1 guy of the " Just Do It" campaign. Some people are pissed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colin-kaepe...d-boycott/

I think it's kind of funny. Colin Kapernick is like a SJW poster child, but Nike isn't too good with their human rights history.

Even funnier that he's the face of "Just Do It" because I believe the poor Bangladeshi kids that make the shoes think that slogan means "Just Shut Up and Sew the Shoes, and Maybe We'll Feed You" or something like that.

Maybe this will be the downfall of Nike and Colinn Kapernick in one big swoop, and the Bangladeshis will be set free.

Aloha!

Post: #19

Marvel comics went full-retard years ago and has paid the price.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/0...-insanity/

Quote:“We’re seeing the worst falloff of Marvel and DC sales in the store’s 38-year history,” complained one comic book store owner in an industry forum. “Both companies are losing established readers who no longer feel that the company’s output reflects the sort of comics they enjoy.

I guess, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is enough to prop up the comics for now. But the MCU is about to crash hard any day now and when it goes, there'll be nothing left. Like locusts, they'll move on to the next thing and destroy that as well.

Quote:People read comic books to escape the real world, and readers have had enough of being called privileged cis white men, or misogynist MRAs, in the real world, let alone the one place they get to escape it. If you want to put these things in your comic books, go ahead, but readers are just going to stop buying them.

Post: #20

(09-05-2018 05:20 AM)Kona Wrote:  I think it's kind of funny. Colin Kapernick is like a SJW poster child, but Nike isn't too good with their human rights history.

Even funnier that he's the face of "Just Do It" because I believe the poor Bangladeshi kids that make the shoes think that slogan means "Just Shut Up and Sew the Shoes, and Maybe We'll Feed You" or something like that.

I don't really know how to handle this, because I already exclusively buy Nike in order to maximize the suffering of children in the third world.

Now I feel like I need to find another brand of slave.

Post: #21

Good old ESPN started down the path of the liberal and its been dying ever since.




Man...woman....peoplekind of the year!

Post: #22

(09-05-2018 05:20 AM)Kona Wrote:  Nike just made Colin Kapernick the #1 guy of the " Just Do It" campaign. Some people are pissed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colin-kaepe...d-boycott/

I think it's kind of funny. Colin Kapernick is like a SJW poster child, but Nike isn't too good with their human rights history.

Even funnier that he's the face of "Just Do It" because I believe the poor Bangladeshi kids that make the shoes think that slogan means "Just Shut Up and Sew the Shoes, and Maybe We'll Feed You" or something like that.

Maybe this will be the downfall of Nike and Colinn Kapernick in one big swoop, and the Bangladeshis will be set free.

Aloha!

More like North Korean kids... when you manufacture all your products in China and NK's sweatshops...you're not going to be a fan of America First policies

Nike, NFL, and Levis Strauss Political Business Strategy – The Much Bigger Geopolitical and Trade Picture….
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/201...e-picture/

On its face, it just seems absurd. Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?

I’ve spoken to some very excellent business actuaries on this late today; and one specific conversation finally helped to make it all make sense. During that conversation a good ally shared: “a multinational corporation would never make a branding decision adverse to their financial interests. Unless there is a hidden risk unrelated to what is visible on the surface.” ….BINGO, there it is, the lightbulb went on.

A hidden risk that likely has nothing whatsoever to do with Colin Kaepernick.

The bigger risk to Nike has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, U.S. Consumers, or Antifa-like political advocacy. The bigger financial risk to the Nike Corporation has everything to do with geopolitics and a reset of international trade agreements.

Here’s the hidden aspect with research to back it up. Nike Inc. has hitched its massive corporate existence to a 10-year business plan that is dependent on the continuance of recently negotiated manufacturing contracts.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trade-...ccounts-mw

The contracts for the manufacture of the Nike products are almost exclusively based on international agreements with Asian companies. Some are ASEAN countries; but specifically the most quantifiable risk stems from Chinese and North Korea contracts.

“Apple, Nike and 18 other U.S. companies have $158 billion at stake in China trade war” (details)

President Trump is likely, some would say predictably, about to levy a massive round of Section 301 tariffs on imported Chinese goods. Nike would be one of the U.S. manufacturing companies hardest hit by such a move. The current Trump administration objective toward renegotiated trade deals with China represents the most significant and mostly quantifiable threat to the Nike business plan.

This is the epicenter of the issue.

The hearings on $200 billion worth of Chinese tariffs ended today. It is not coincidental that Nike stakes out a political position in opposition to those pending tariffs.

But wait…. it gets worse. The Nike contracts with China have almost certainly been sub-contracted to non-publicized, generally secret, manufacturing facilities in North Korea.

DANDONG, China (Reuters) – Chinese textile firms are increasingly using North Korean factories to take advantage of cheaper labor across the border, traders and businesses in the border city of Dandong told Reuters.

The clothes made in North Korea are labeled “Made in China” and exported across the world, they said.

Using North Korea to produce cheap clothes for sale around the globe shows that for every door that is closed by ever-tightening U.N. sanctions another one may open. The UN sanctions, introduced to punish North Korea for its missile and nuclear programs, do not include any bans on textile exports.

“We take orders from all over the world,” said one Korean-Chinese businessman in Dandong, the Chinese border city where the majority of North Korea trade passes through. Like many people Reuters interviewed for this story, he spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. (more)

The people I have spoken to virtually guarantee that Nike goods and apparel are made in North Korean sweatshops. The contracts are with Chinese companies, but a corrupt Beijing process allows many -approved by China- companies to use DPRK sweatshops as sub-contractors.

Due to the scale of operations, Nike uses contracted manufacturing in multiple nations. The use of sub-contractors allows plausible deniability toward the North Korean facilities by the parent corporation signing the contract(s).

This presents a dual risk. #1 there are likely to be tariffs on Chinese imports; and #2 there are current sanctions against any companies operating in North Korea.

A multinational company doing simultaneous business with ASEAN nations, China and North Korea for the majority of their manufacturing is extraordinarily exposed to the risks inherent within a U.S. -vs- China/DPRK trade reset.

A 20% drop in Nike value (based on current evaluations), as a result of branding themselves with controversial and political Kaepernick, is nothing compared to the staggering financial risk inherent within multi-billion manufacturing contracts that can become worthless overnight.

Losing the entire supply chain, all future inventory and an inability to manufacture goods would cost much more than if half of the U.S. consumer base stopped buying Nike products. Many of the current DPRK sanction breeches have been overlooked (but not unnoticed) by President Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Therefore the Nike Company would be sympathetic to, and financially dependent on, alignment with the objectives of the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, with so much on the line, Chairman Xi Jinping would openly embrace and assist anti-U.S. endeavors around trade.

To that extent Beijing (the ultimate decision-maker and approval body) would willingly lower production costs to offset any drops in U.S. revenue for parent corporation, Nike. A rather interesting quid-pro-quo.

And that answers the question: “Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?”

They, wouldn’t; and they didn’t.

The Nike political branding position is reconciled when you look at the bigger picture and see where the real financial risk aligns. The Nike economic decision is to align with China, and by extension North Korea, for a position of mutual benefit. It is all about the proverbial $$$$ and Nike’s best financial play is to mitigate risk and assist Communist China in their trade strategy.

China is willing to subsidize Nike (lower production costs), and replace any dropped revenue, in exchange for mutually beneficial political opposition against Trump and by extension his policies that are a risk to Beijing. As a result there is minimal financial risk to the Nike Corporation.

And with the current multinational Wall Street agenda now being confronted, we should not expect this approach to stop at Nike. Likely, many more multinational (globalist) corporations, specifically those in the apparel sector, will stake out a similar position.

Remember, part of the NFL brand and business is also apparel; an industry virtually wiped out in the U.S. by outsourced manufacturing in Asia. Small companies, those more nationally minded, gain from the Trump business tax cuts, expensing and investment opportunities. However, the big brand Wall Street multinationals don’t benefit as much from Trump policy and are invested overseas.

Nike = Apparel
NFL = Apparel
Levi Strauss = Apparel

See the connection? Remember, there are TRILLIONS at stake.


The multinational Wall Street firms are aligning with domestic political positions that align with Democrats; that is to say they align against President Trump and the economic/trade policy therein.

The agenda is to defeat the Trump-trade-reset; however, they, in this example Levi Strauss, cannot openly side with China and Asia against the United States. The PR optics would be horrible…. So they do it covertly by supporting domestic political policies and opposition toward the President who is threatening the construct of their multinational business model.

Together the NFL, Nike and Levi Strauss stand to retain their current level of trade benefit (profit) if President Trump is blocked from instituting America-First trade and manufacturing policies. Supporting gun control (Levi Strauss) or supporting BLM/Antifa (Nike) is simply a tool to support the political opposition of the policy-maker adverse to their financial interests.

Can you see what’s happening?

Post: #23

Post: #24

It's a Houston thing I guess, kinda wanna go.

Post: #25

Sargon did a pretty good takedown: