Nike spent forty years building brand equity in China. Starbucks convinced a tea-drinking nation to pay seven dollars for burnt coffee. GM taught Chinese consumers that American cars could be just as unreliable as everyone said.
Then the Chinese decided they'd rather buy from Chinese companies. Geopolitics played a role. Consumer preferences shifted. Domestic rivals got better at making the exact same sh*t for less money.
Turns out—and I cannot stress this enough—people don't actually care about your logo when the local version costs half as much and doesn't remind them of trade wars.
Retail traders saw this coming from a mile away, which is why they're currently bagholding NKE calls they bought after watching a YouTube video titled "China Growth Story Still Intact." The growth story was intact. Just not for Nike.
Starbucks is particularly f*cked because their entire value proposition was selling aspiration to Chinese millennials who wanted to feel Western. Those same millennials are now thirty-five and drinking at Luckin Coffee because nationalism is trendy and saving money is practical.
GM's problem is simpler. They make cars in the country where BYD exists. BYD makes electric vehicles that don't catch fire as often and cost what a used Camry costs in Ohio. GM's response was to continue making sedans nobody wants.
The technical analysis here is crystal clear: none of this matters. The stock charts don't care about your market share in Chengdu. They care about whether algos think other algos will buy. But please, tell me more about how important it is that Nike's China revenue dropped while you're down forty percent on shares you bought because someone on CNBC said "long-term value."
American brands spent decades assuming Chinese consumers would stay loyal. Chinese consumers spent decades waiting for a better option, and then seventeen better options showed up at once wearing the same swoosh but spelled backward.
Photo by on Unsplash
Leave a Comment