Brilliantly outlined in Jere Longman’s attached article, USA Track and Field has relaxed their rules of allowing another sponsors besides footwear to be on Athlete Track and Field Uniforms. For the struggling USAT, this is at least one move that potentially will drive more sponsorship dollars to athletes in this Olympic year.
But there are a number of sides to this news. Let’s start with how did we get here? That answer is not as interesting as to the “why?” Initially, Running Clubs had to be entered into a race and the footwear and apparel companies served as those teams. Team Nike, Reebok, etc. As Nike grew to dominate the sport, they looked at sponsored athletes (rightfully so) as extensions of their brand. Therefore, they wanted the athletes branded “Nike” and Nike only; thus, working with USA Track and Field, Nike made it difficult to have co-sponsors on the uniform similar to other Olympic Sports such as cycling, triathlon, etc. Leading Marketing for PowerBar in this segment, I ran into this hurdle on a daily basis.
Ironically, the practice was referred to athletes “being clean”. Post Marion Jones, we now use that term differently.
So what does that mean for sponsorship in the sport?
First, after a short and tumultuous reign of Doug Logan as CEO, this is an innovative step in right direction for this organization and their customers—the athlete
But the irony here is that shoe companies have even more power to decide where sponsorship marketing is headed. This decision could force the footwear companies to recognize that sponsorship is a combination of innovation, engagement, marketing and science; and, no longer the “Brandalism” that they are still practicing a decade ago. The industry may grow up and realize that sponsorship can go beyond just a logo on the uniform. This opens the possibilities for the Google -Nike Team and having videos of the athletes across the internet bringing running onto everyone’s phones and I-pads. A dream for a sport that gains attention once every four years and on a Sunday and Monday. (New York Marathon and Boston Marathon)
So what is ironic?
Well, if Nike, Puma, Adidas and others say to athletes that they will only pay cash sponsorships for athletes that are “clean” or exclusive to their brand, you may very well see the athlete (or consumer) hurt in the process. If Nike is offering $20,000 and the athlete figures they can get $15,000 from Subaru and $15,000 from Nike, you can do the math, it is better for the athlete to have two sponsors. But if Nike insists their brand is exclusive, the athlete (or consumer) is hurt in the process. Similarly, Nike could pull cash sponsorship and only offer shoes and apparel for anyone who has an additional sponsor.
It is a bit unfair to keep using Nike as the example. But it will be fascinating to see if Nike, Under Armour, Asics or New Balance actually embrace this opportunity to find winning partnerships that allow for a win (the brand) win (the partner) win (the sport) and win (the athlete)
The Nike+ Apple Team could allow for athlete content on all the I-pods in the world. I would even put songs on the uniforms instead of the Apple Logo.
How about “Born to Run”?
Baby we were born…
No comments:
Post a Comment