The Downfall of Nike. Go Woke…Go Broke?
When Brands Chase New Customers and Lose the Ones Who Built Them
Nike is trading around $35.51 as of September 21, 2026, near multi-year lows. The stock is down 39.3% year-to-date and roughly 50% below its 52-week high of $76.97. Zooming out further, Nike has fallen 79% from its 2021 high, and has lost about 77% of its market value from previous highs according to one recent analysis.
Nike’s struggles over the past several years trace back to one central strategic bet: the direct-to-consumer (DTC) pivot pursued under former CEO John Donahoe from 2020 to 2024. The logic seemed sound on paper — by owning the customer relationship directly through its own stores, app, and website, Nike could boost margins and control its brand narrative more tightly. In practice, the strategy created a cascade of problems that the company is still working to unwind.
Pulling back from wholesale backfired. Starting around 2020, Nike deliberately cut ties with many wholesale accounts, including Foot Locker and DSW, redirecting sales toward its own channels. But stepping back from these partners reduced Nike’s everyday visibility and shelf presence at exactly the moment competitors were eager to fill the space it left behind.
Innovation stalled. Rather than pushing new performance breakthroughs, Nike leaned heavily on legacy franchises like the Air Force 1, Dunk, and Jordan 1. As sneaker resale and hype culture cooled, that reliance on old hits made the brand feel stale and overexposed rather than fresh.
The brand drifted from sport toward lifestyle. Critics argue Nike spent too much energy on lifestyle positioning and marketing spectacle, and not enough on the performance-athlete roots that built its reputation. That opened the door for competitors like On, Hoka, New Balance, and Adidas to win over performance-focused customers with sharper product storytelling and genuine innovation.
The China bet soured. Nike’s major investment in the Chinese market initially looked like a win, but conditions have since deteriorated as Chinese shoppers increasingly favor domestic brands like Anta and Li-Ning — a shift compounded by tariffs and broader trade tensions.
The damage has been slow to reverse. Elliott Hill returned as CEO in 2024 specifically to repair these wholesale relationships, but rebuilding trust and retail “heat” takes time. JPMorgan warned in August that the financial effects of Hill’s “Win Now” strategy could weigh on earnings through fiscal 2028, while Nike’s Greater China reset alone could create more than $1 billion in annual revenue pressure.
Taken together, the picture is one of a company trying to tighten its grip on the customer relationship through DTC, while simultaneously weakening the retail ecosystem that had long carried its cultural presence — all while losing ground on product innovation to nimbler rivals and absorbing a consumer shift in China. A Middle East conflict has added further pressure, disrupting Nike’s business across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
Other Brands That Lost Focus
Nike’s pattern — chasing new customers or channels at the expense of the base that built the brand — is far from unique. It shows up again and again across retail and consumer brands.
JCPenney (Ron Johnson era, 2011–2013) is the textbook case. Incoming CEO Ron Johnson, formerly of Apple, eliminated JCPenney’s coupon and discount culture in favor of everyday low pricing and boutique-style “shops” — alienating the deal-hunting, coupon-clipping core customer almost overnight. Sales dropped 25% in a single year, and Johnson was fired within 17 months. JCPenney never fully recovered, eventually filing for bankruptcy in 2020.
Gap Inc. spent the 2010s chasing a younger, trendier customer with logo-heavy, fast-fashion styling, while its core value-driven, basics-focused shopper drifted toward Old Navy, Uniqlo, and Target. The Gap brand has been in decline for over a decade — ironically, its “unfashionable” sibling brand, Old Navy, now outperforms it.
Abercrombie & Fitch, prior to 2017, built its identity on exclusivity and a narrow, controversial “cool kids only” image under CEO Mike Jeffries. That positioning alienated a broad swath of potential customers and eventually triggered serious backlash over hiring and marketing practices. Sales collapsed through the mid-2010s, and the brand only recovered after a near-total overhaul and change in leadership after 2017.
Harley-Davidson spent years trying to court younger, urban riders with smaller bikes and lifestyle-driven marketing, while its aging, loyal core base of older, rural riders felt increasingly overlooked. Core U.S. sales have declined for most of the past decade, even as the company pushed hard into new segments.
Bud Light followed a similar arc to Nike and JCPenney: an attempt to broaden its audience through a high-profile influencer partnership provoked a strong reaction from its existing core customer base, and market share has never fully recovered.
Peloton rode a wave of mass-market growth during COVID, expanding well beyond its original premium, dedicated fitness-enthusiast base. When that pandemic-driven surge of customers proved far less loyal than its founding audience, the company had little to fall back on. Its stock has fallen more than 90% from its 2021 peak.
Under Armour chased a broader “athleisure” and lifestyle audience, moving away from its original identity built around hardcore performance athletes. That shift left it squeezed from both sides — outmatched by Nike and Adidas on performance, and by Lululemon on lifestyle — with distinct positioning against neither group. Revenue has stagnated for years as a result.
Starbucks lost its footing during COVID by drifting away from its role as the “third place” between home and work. The company leaned heavily into drive-through and to-go orders, opening locations without café seating. It’s now attempting to reconnect with its core customer through its “Back to Starbucks” strategy.
Chipotle (2015-2017, food safety era) — Slightly different mechanism, but similar effect: an E. coli/norovirus outbreak crisis combined with a shift toward faster, more processed-feeling operations to scale, and its health/quality-focused core customer base didn’t trust the brand for years. It took new leadership (Brian Niccol) and a genuine return to “food with integrity” messaging to rebuild trust.
The Common Thread
Across nearly every one of these examples, the pattern is remarkably consistent. A company facing slowing growth in its core market decides to expand into a new demographic or sales channel to reignite momentum. In the process, it under-invests in whatever made its original customers loyal in the first place — and often ends up disappointing both groups at once. The new audience was never there for the brand’s original identity, and the old audience feels abandoned by a brand that no longer seems to be speaking to them.
When recovery happens — as it did for Abercrombie and Chipotle — it almost always follows a leadership change and a deliberate, disciplined return to the brand’s original core identity, rather than a continued chase after the audience that never fully materialized.
A separate narrative — that Nike “went woke” — is worth acknowledging, even though it’s a distinct claim from the operational missteps above. Advanced mostly by conservative commentators and some retail investors, this argument points to specific flashpoints: the 2019 Colin Kaepernick ad campaign, which drew boycott calls from some customers; a 2023 campaign featuring transgender athlete and influencer Dylan Mulvaney, which triggered significant backlash; and a broader critique that Nike’s marketing leaned too far into social and political messaging at the expense of its athletic-performance identity.
“Go Woke, Go Broke”?
The phrase has become a reflexive shorthand in business commentary — a brand takes a political stance, backlash follows, and sales supposedly collapse. But the reality behind this narrative is considerably messier than the slogan suggests. The companies most frequently cited got hit with multiple pressures simultaneously — boycotts, inflation, shifting consumer spending habits, and unrelated strategic missteps — and untangling how much of any sales decline traces specifically to a controversy versus everything else happening at once is genuinely difficult, even for analysts who study these companies closely.
With that caveat firmly in place, here’s an honest look at where the most commonly cited brands actually stand.
Target: The Clearest Case of an Unresolved Slump
Target represents the most sustained example of trouble, though the cause is far from simple. Comparable sales have declined or been flat in 11 of the last 13 quarters, with full-year 2025 net sales down 1.7% to $104.8 billion and comparable sales down 2.6%. The company brought in a new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, in February 2026 specifically to engineer a turnaround, and is now projecting a return to growth in 2026.
What makes Target’s situation particularly hard to pin down is that analysts point to a mix of factors pulling in opposite directions. There was the 2023 Pride merchandise backlash, but then a 2025 backlash after Target scaled back its DEI programs — a move that alienated progressive-leaning customers in the exact opposite direction. Layer onto that tariff-driven cost pressure and share loss to Walmart and off-price retailers like TJ Maxx, and you have a retailer that’s arguably taken hits from both political directions while also facing ordinary competitive pressure. Cleanly attributing the slump to “going woke” oversimplifies a much more tangled set of causes.
Bud Light: The Strongest Case for Lasting Damage
If there’s one brand where the narrative holds up under scrutiny, it’s Bud Light. Following the 2023 partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, sales dropped sharply, and by early 2024 the brand had fallen from the top-selling Super Bowl beer to posting a large year-over-year decline. Bud Light has largely lost its position as America’s top-selling beer to Modelo Especial and hasn’t reclaimed that spot as of the most recent industry data. This is probably the clearest example of a controversy producing a durable, measurable shift in market position — not just a short-term dip in sentiment or stock price.
Jaguar: A Different Kind of Backlash
Jaguar’s troubles followed its controversial 2024 rebrand, though this wasn’t really a “woke” controversy in the political sense — it was more a brand-identity backlash, with customers and critics reacting negatively to a dramatic departure from the brand’s established look and feel. Still, the fallout was real: the company saw a steep sales collapse and ended up replacing its design chief.
Where the Narrative Doesn’t Hold Up
Much of the broader “brand went broke” storyline falls apart under closer examination. Nike is a useful example — its stock price is down significantly, but as detailed elsewhere, mainstream financial analysis attributes that primarily to its direct-to-consumer and wholesale strategy missteps, along with a softening China market, rather than any specific social-messaging controversy.
Disney, Coca-Cola, Costco, and several other companies show up regularly on “woke brand” listicles, but none display clear, sustained sales damage in their financial reporting that can be traced back to a specific controversy. For these companies, the narrative appears to be driven more by online commentary and political framing than by measurable business outcomes.
The Honest Bottom Line
Bud Light stands out as the case with the most durable, measurable market-share loss tied to a specific controversy. Target has genuinely experienced a multi-year sales slump, but cleanly attributing it to “going woke” versus “rolling back DEI” versus broader macro retail pressure remains contested even among neutral retail analysts — Target absorbed backlash from both political directions in consecutive years, which complicates any tidy narrative.
Most other brands that regularly appear on these lists show short-term stock or sentiment dips without the kind of lasting sales damage that analysts can trace back to the controversy itself. The lesson isn’t that political controversies never matter to a brand’s bottom line — Bud Light proves they can. It’s that the phrase “go woke, go broke” gets applied far more often than the financial data actually supports, and each case deserves scrutiny on its own terms rather than being folded into a single sweeping narrative.
Are you so focused on winning new customers that you’re overlooking the loyal customers who built your business? Contact The DiJulius Group for a complimentary call to discover how we can help you create a customer experience strategy that strengthens loyalty, increases retention and referrals, and drives sustainable growth.
