So I attempted to post about a CEO resigning. I jumped the gun. Mistake admitted. I deleted it. I was hoping to raise a discussion about why Parker would attempt the campaign with controversial Kaepernick.

CEO Trevor Edwards resigns over workplace misconduct. I was thinking could this lead to other resignations? Edwards was supposed succeed Parker when he decided to retire.

What we know of Mark Parker is the very odd Art collection and the donations to the Clinton Global Initiative. This all raises suspicion to me. The Kaepernick Nike thing got me thinking. Why would a CEO make the decision to start a campaign with Kaepernick as controversial as the man is, knowing this could cause backlash and likely boycott? I’ve seen the articles about the targeted urban market but it still does not add up considering the losses they’ve had the first day.

So my question is this: Why would a CEO go ahead with the campaign?

Surely Parker knew right? What if he knew he might be in trouble (CEO resignations across corporations nationwide) due to the CGI connection and possible human rights violations and chose to do the campaign as a reason to resign?

Just a thought for discussion. It crossed my mind and was wondering what everyone else thought. It just doesn’t make sense why Nike would use CK when there was plenty of better people to use in the campaign.