CNBC's Nike Feature Lags - As feared, Swoosh! Inside Nike didn't do much besides tell the public what the company has done. The company gambled on Michael Jordan, and it paid off. He wanted to sign with Adidas, but Nike granted a better offer. We knew that. They used irreverent and sometimes controversial advertising. They created the Just Do It slogan. Just Do It took off. Blah, blah, blah.

They had labor problems. They still do, but they're improving. Wow. How enlightening.

After a few stumbles, Nike cracked the skateboard market. They did so by infiltrating skate shops. No doi.

CNBC mentions Nike's $1 billion-plus revenue from the soccer market. What CNBC fails to mention are the barriers Nike had to break to find success in that market. I still don't know the details. As little as ten years ago, just like skateboarding, Nike was not a global soccer giant like Adidas. Today, they are. Nike makes the world's best soccer shoes, and they are worn in countries like Portugal, Brazil and France. Just look at those nations' national teams.

The segment about Nike's success in the skateboard market made me laugh. The company's success amuses me because of the resistance from old-line skaters who rail against large corporations like Nike. Nike's success in skateboarding translates to failure for the resistant, the non-believers who would prefer to wear inferior skate shoes because they hate advertising and corporate culture. How silly is that? Like Donald Trump, I like to see bad people fail. It's funny. I'm amused. I revel in it. I love it when efficiency exposes inefficiency.

The reason a lot of skateboarders buy Dunks and P-Rods and Blazers is because these shoes are still great, perhaps not so great for basketball these days, but they still work for skateboarding.

Knowing what I know now, having seen it happen, I'm not surprised Nike is kicking everyone's tail in the skateboard market, nor am I surprised with the success in soccer. And I remember when neither was so. Nike began as an upstart in the running market too, and then basketball. Michael Jordan and his signature Air Jordan helped change the dynamic quickly. It's been Nike, then everyone else ever since. And they all lived happily ever after. Nice story isn't it?

As far as CNBC's effort goes, I have to give them a grade of C. They got all of their facts right, but they were facts we all knew. I did learn how much Nike's marketing matters as far as creating buzz. Furthermore, I understand better the importance of buzz. The company generates buzz like no other in its industry. The best branding comparisons I can come up with are Coca-Cola, Barbie, Star Wars and Harry Potter. And if anyone could learn something from CNBC's piece, it's our car companies. Maybe Ford, Chrysler and GM will wake up and tap into what Nike does. They should emulate Nike so they can topple Toyota. They can do it if they just do it. Ha! See what I did there?

Anyway, CNBC gets a C because their program lasted only an hour, and the reporter, Darren Rovell, whom I've never heard of, didn't do a good job of communicating the inspiration that drives the company. Maybe he did, and I just missed it. I also think it would have been nice to see interviews from industry analysts and corporate experts about why Nike is so successful. What does Nike do right? What does Nike do better than others? Apparently, Nike excels in marketing and advertising to generate brand strength, consumer loyalty and sales. But Rovell barely touched on the importance of product innovation. We never really saw how products grow from idea to executed product.

Perhaps Rovell pursued that angle and got rebuffed. He did call Nike "secretive." Oh well. The study continues. Maybe CNBC will do a better job in the future covering a company like Microsoft or McDonald's.