Post by Martin W.

What Nike may be losing in China is not only market share, but its old position as an external signal of modernity. René Girard might describe this as a form of mimetic desire — but in business terms, it is really about how brands become external signals of aspiration. And this goes far beyond fashion. It shapes how consumers choose food, drinks, cars, wellness, healthcare, and medical services. It takes years for a brand to build that kind of signal — to stand for professionalism, modernity, and identity in the consumer’s mind. It can also take years for that signal to weaken and shift. Yet once the turning point is reached, market outcomes can move very quickly. Nike’s trajectory in China can therefore look asymmetric — slow to rise, fast to fall — even if the deeper process is less abrupt than it appears. This is what makes the China market so distinctive. It is not just large; it is highly unified in terms of supply chain, distribution, and demand amplification. In that sense, only the US shows a similar capacity to scale demand shifts at speed. Europe, India, the Middle East, and Africa remain more fragmented, which slows both replication and displacement. So the real issue may not be that Nike is simply losing competitiveness in the traditional sense. The deeper shift is that the era of automatic Western brand advantage is ending. Global brands now have to win on innovation and cultural relevance, not legacy reputation alone.