More specifically they'd buy into the idea that everything would be better if they just did/bought/adopted X. And they did this a lot with everything; technology, processes, organization principles, etc. During my short time there they adopted scrum, then extreme programming, then back to scrum, they switched their development from monoliths to extreme micro-services (one verb/service), they reorganized the teams 3 different times based on different principes... this continued ad nauseam.
I'm not sure that's true. Strong marketing for sure, but I think they're more akin to Apple in this regard.
Where (to use Steve Jobs' comparison) Pepsi's core competency is marketing (they rarely put out "new" products, so revenue is driven almost entirely by marketing), Nike's core competency is probably more apparel (specifically athletic) design - since, essentially, every new thing they release is a new product, and they release a lot of new things.
One first-hand anecdote: the women's track team at a university was given a generous sponsorship and all they had to do was wear free high-end Nike shoes. Unfortunately, the shoes caused physical discomfort for almost everyone, so the team collectively decided to only wear them in competition.
My impression is that Nike apparel is designed to support the brand, not the athlete.
Either way, I'm not sure that it points to marketing as a core competence over apparel design (though it may point the focus of the design away from the athlete).
More specifically they'd buy into the idea that everything would be better if they just did/bought/adopted X. And they did this a lot with everything; technology, processes, organization principles, etc. During my short time there they adopted scrum, then extreme programming, then back to scrum, they switched their development from monoliths to extreme micro-services (one verb/service), they reorganized the teams 3 different times based on different principes... this continued ad nauseam.