Nike choose Dylan Mulvaney to promote womens sportswear range.

[viques]

Do you know what Nike? Forget about “just do it”, as far as I am concerned you can just do one.

*“I am rather happy that Bud have had 3bn wiped off their share price, I hope it continues to fall.

Next stop Nike.”*

3 Billion?
GOOD!
Should not be insulting women by parodying them.

As others have said, How would it go down if a woman was chosen to endorse a product as a “Male”, and was using Male stereotypes like burping, farting, man-spreading, wolf whistling?
It wouldn’t be appreciated by men, surely?

According to the NY Post the share price is now down $5bn

https://nypost.com/2023/04/12/anheuser-busch-down-5b-in-value-amid-dylan-mulvaney-bud-light-controversy/

Five billion?

Strewth.

I mean, I'm no marketeer, but I was under the impression that marketing was meant to increase sales.

I have no doubt Nike will brazen it out, they have no choice.

But bloody hell, that's a sharp lesson for anyone else looking at their advertising through rainbow tinted glasses

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/04/12/dylan-mulvaney-nike-backlash-trans-influencer-adidas-new-balance-reebok/

What if I were to reveal all the major sports brands have worked with LGBT+ influencers?

It’s Apples and Triangles to put LGB in with DM. It’s not about sexual preference or the sex someone falls in love with usually.

It is about the actual sex of the person getting the advertising dollars. It is about a highly offensive and child-like portrayal of women. It’s about giving advertising dollars from the pot that should go to women as a sex (gay, straight, black, white, etc) and then saying they’ve done their job to be inclusive.

Someone’s declared “gender” has nothing to do with anyone’s sex. (And most of us don’t declare one.)

But nice job trying to conflate these things. It’s something the gay community has talked about for at least a decade. It’s also something many are uncomfortable talking about but now we are all being forced.

It would not surprise me in the slightest.

Regardless, this particular campaign was especially ill advised.

I see DM is touting the line that the backlash is because they recently transitioned (though the term transition is very loose in DM's case).

No.

It's because the whole concept of DM's 365 days of girlhood is planned pantomime of womanhood and the advert denigrated female athleticism.

One of DM's early TikTok's even describes how a friend has invented this "character" for them.

We all know what sex DM is and we all know why a failed musical actor is grifting for $$$ sheltered from the rain of mediocrity and misogyny by the trans umbrella.

@BreadInCaptivity hear hear.

$3B stock value drop?!?!?

Any marketing executives looking to make a career move? I'm gonna bet there'll be an opening at Budweiser in 3...2...1

I'd also like to point out the obvious, that when it comes to LGBT influencers, having a prominent lesbian sportswoman representing a female sports clothing range would have been viewed as anything but positive.

Frankly I'd like to see more of it. In the context of gender non conforming girls being brainwashed into thinking they must be trans I'd love to see brands being actually progressive (rather than faux progressive) by promoting talented women who don't conform to stereotypes.

In that context it demonstrates selecting a "loosely" trans "girl" with no sports prowess whatsoever for the batshit regressive virtue signalling it is.

They have probably worked with many more LGB sports people who haven't publicly come out.

Their sexuality isn't an issue.

It's the T parodying women that is offensive, and in Nike's case doubly so, because DM is parodying women doing sport.

Even if Dylan wasn't trans and had still been used in an advertising campaign sales still would have tanked because he is so bloody irritating.

It would only prove that you are missing the point completely.

Bud light drinkers are not interested in a beer with a side order trans activism served up by a grifter. It's the pointless and unecessary virtue signalling they object to.

The Nike ad is just offensive to women. It reminded me of Hailey Bailey.

Victoria Wood’s parody is so much more competent, athletic, and aesthetically pleasing than the Mulvaney awfulness. And of course very very funny.

It would tell me that, once again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. If Nike had picked Nicola Adams or Jill Scott for this sponsored ad, do you really think we’d be angry about it?! Of course not, female (and lesbian) representation for female sports clothes.

What is really annoying is that Dylan prances about like a clown, ha ha, because women doing sport is funny isn’t it? He’s a parody of womanhood, he’s taking the piss out of women, and why on God’s green earth should we be happy about that? Just have a think about what you’re saying before you come out with such lame arguments.

Having seen footage from when DM was a mere gay man on a game show pre discovery of the lucrative con that is pretending to be a ditzy parody of the worst of feminine stereotypes I suspect you are correct.

He isn't trans. He is an actor. He started this as a skit and because everyone has lost their minds, people started throwing money at him and that's why he has kept it up.

It is mindblowingly offensive but because it is just parodying women, nobody gives a shit.

I'm just reading the back end of this thread, and it reminds me (yet again) that the issue - and confusion - for many is the conflation of LGB with the gender borg. The latter being quite sexist and homophobic.

I'm sure I read some headlines when I was looking for the original bud ad that said he'd been dropped by both Nike and Bud. But I can't find the actual articles.

That's interesting. Because personally, I would doubt Nike or Bud would ever admit to dropping him. That would be throwing down the gauntlet to the trans terrorists.

I think I read Bud trying to minimise it tho. Saying something like it was a customised crate of beer, not one they sell to the public And although I'm not sure of the relevance of any of that, it looked like an attempt at minimisation, without any kind of criticism, or even acknowledgement of what people are saying.

I mean, even if you couldn't entirely predict that, guess what, yes women are going to be pissed off if you publicly make a mockery of them, what about Dylan banging on about tampons, and handing them out to women and girls in toilets??

No one can deny that's not absolutely fucking creepy.

It was also April fools day when that advert was released. I mean it's still appalling, and I don't think the Nike one was, but I could understand it better if it was a play on the delightful
Audrey Hepburn chugging back a tinnie.

And I mean, he's a bloke and all, but he looks quite good in that advert and the one with the plaits over his head.
Sssh!

It was also April fools day when that advert was released.

I'm still waiting for DM to announce this was a joke that got out of hand. I mean, no-one could be this ridiculous in their parody of women, could they?

The other issue with the American backlash is that this is going to look like solely a right-wing/conservative issue: rednecks don't like anyone who is different and they're going to go round shooting pallets of beer in retaliation. I'm not sure all this comes across as we might hope it does, not least because it risks lumping women's rights campaigners in with intolerant right-wingers?

That is so irritating. If only socially aware, left leaning voices would get off their arses and call it out.

Given the apparent disgust and contempt Mulvaney has for women and trans people, it’s astonishing he has such a huge and lucrative profile.

Howard Stern, poster child for misogyny, major contributor to the decline of the US culture doesn’t see what the problem is with DM.

That’s how you know it’s a problem.