Malcolm Gladwell backs Boris

I have no problem with Nike in general, but this is a no-brainer, Nike is wrong. Does anyone take Nike's side on this?

#FreeBoris

You could say that Boris limited himself by not sticking to his Nike agreement.

But I agree that Nike should back off here and leave the poor guy alone.

I think Nike has done a lot to prop up the sport but just let this one go.

elephino wrote:

I have no problem with Nike in general, but this is a no-brainer, Nike is wrong. Does anyone take Nike's side on this?

I don't think Nike should have done anything, but it seems pretty clear, based on what I have heard, that Boris was in the wrong, legally speaking.

I think it was a bad call because losing a PR war can be a lot more expensive, in terms of customers cooling buying nike stuff. We are talking about the sport of running, so maybe the difference is hardly measurable for a giant like Nike, but maybe NB will come out ahead.

Its like NB and Boris are David and Nike is Goliath, to reference the title of one of Gladwell's books.

I love the fact that he got a photo with Cam Levins, given their strong likeness. On that twitter page, he calls it "Afro meets Jew-fro."

contracting wrote:

Nike might be losing this PR battle.

https://twitter.com/Gladwell/status/740178853692329984

Does the Mafia care about bad PR? Nike does not want to be liked. Nike wants to be feared. Crushing Berian sends the message Nike wants to send.

Malcolm loves Salazar

contracting wrote:

Nike might be losing this PR battle.

https://twitter.com/Gladwell/status/740178853692329984

Who is Malcom Gladwell? Never heard of him.

It's a Sicilian message. wrote:

contracting wrote:

Nike might be losing this PR battle.

https://twitter.com/Gladwell/status/740178853692329984

Does the Mafia care about bad PR? Nike does not want to be liked. Nike wants to be feared. Crushing Berian sends the message Nike wants to send.

This is not about sending a message to Berian. It is about sending a message to New Balance.

Foda pooda wrote:

Who is Malcom Gladwell? Never heard of him.

Every heard of the Fifth Avenue Mile?

[

Who is Malcom Gladwell? Never heard of him.[/quote]

Get out of your little bubble, and go experience the world. Holy crap.

Damn. I saw the thread title and thought Gladwell had weighed in on Brexit.

Undah watah wrote:

I don't think Nike should have done anything, but it seems pretty clear, based on what I have heard, that Boris was in the wrong, legally speaking.

That is not clear at all and will be up to legal interpretation.

Undah watah wrote:I don't think Nike should have done anything, but it seems pretty clear, based on what I have heard, that Boris was in the wrong, legally speaking.

It's not at all clear whether Nike's contract with reductions matched the material provisions of NB's contract without reductions. Based on the limited facts out there, who is legally right is at least debatable.

That's bad, man. I'm wiggin out.

nike is nothing like the mafia, which operates in the dark by murder and threats and physical intimidation, nike is just a large bullying corporation, trying to sell product which the mafia does not .

Undah watah wrote:

I don't think Nike should have done anything, but it seems pretty clear, based on what I have heard, that Boris was in the wrong, legally speaking.

You've heard wrong. Based on what's public right now, Nike has a very weak case.

Capriotti wrote: “Notwithstanding your email, because the New Balance Offer is silent on reductions and NIKE is only obligated to match the terms stated in the New Balance Offer, we will send to you a new contract which will include the stated terms of the New Balance Offer as received. However, if material terms were omitted from the New Balance Offer, such as the purposeful exclusion of reductions, please provide to us a for review a revised offer from New Balance that reflects that and all other material terms.”

This is a ridiculous interpretation. "Silent on reductions" doesn't mean that reductions are presumed. No court would buy that. What's worse, from Nike's standpoint, is that Capriotti admitted, in writing, that the "purposeful exclusion of reductions" is a material term.

To be fair to Capriotti, it's entirely fair that he didn't want to be on the hook for a no reduction contract if NB's contract had reductions that weren't listed on the term sheet. But to claim that Nike was allowed to "match" by offering reductions when there was nothing in writing indicating that NB had done the same is just wrong.

Nike's case is even weaker on the question of injunctive relief (whether they can stop Berian from competing in NB). I would not be surprised to see a very strongly worded decision siding with Berian on the TRO.

Could this backfire for Nike?

As a company with a lot of money they have a lot to lose and little to gain.

Boris wearing a New Balance doesn't hurt Nike much at all.

But imaging suing Nike for damages if Boris is not allowed to run the Trials and goes on to run the world lead or something like that.

They could get sued for a lot of money and get very bad press.

I doubt they would lose but why is worth the risk?