The New York Times' Nike Problem

Posted by Abe Sauer on April 22, 2010 01:27 PM

With hyperbolic lines like "You have to go a long way to find anything as disgusting as a night on the town with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger..." and "the real pariah is the lone athlete not carrying Nike’s water," The New York Times breaks out the soapbox and climbs on up.

NYT's Opinionator blog this week, in a post titled "Nike's Women Problem" by Timothy Egan, savages Nike for maintaining ties to athletes embroiled in sex scandals, asking, "What, exactly does it take for Nike to dump a jock?"

It's a terribly simplified rant with a poorly-thought-out title. (Way to stay classy and make it about women; isn't it a "man" problem?) But does the author have a point when he wonders, "Perhaps a certain creepy cred does help move product?"

No. He doesn't. To paraphrase, "It's the performance, stupid." Nike maintained its sponsorship with Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger not because of their poor off-field performances but because of their exceptional on-field ones.

Nike is an athletics brand, not a moral authority. Its role is not to judge conduct unless that conduct is of the athletic variety. Once the brand starts moralizing, where does it end? Should Nike not sell shoes to men who cheated on their wives? Indeed, should readers abandon the Times because of Jayson Blair?

When its sponsors do run afoul of the law Nike has dropped the hammer. As the author mentions, Michael Vick found himself without his Nike sponsorship once convicted.

It also dumped Newcastle United's Joey Barton when he landed in jail. It said bye-bye to sprinter Justin Gatlin after he tested positive for illegal performance-enhancing drugs. UFC fighter Yoshihiro Akiyama lost his Nike sponsorship for cheating; he used Oil of Olay before a fight to make himself more slippery.

Is Roethlisberger's behavior admirable? Of course not, but the point is that Nike rewards and punishes performance, because that is its brand.

Later in the bluster, Egan points out that, through sponsorship, "Nike helps obscure female athletes train and find a community of equally motivated women."

So, again, what's the "problem"?

More about: Nike, New York Times, Oil of Olay

Julien Anderson says:

An IMAGE that is associated with a brand is a vital component to that brand’s success. How can it not be! If you think about it, if the IMAGE wasn’t so important to a brand, then why did the brand link up with the IMAGE in the first place. You are asking a lot when you want an individual to bypass the IMAGE, and instead look directly at the product. You are asking for the IMAGE to be relevant only when it’s convenient.

April 22, 2010 04:29 PM #

Roham says:

Actually,I agree with the post above.Nike has kept Tiger because of those positive associations such as successful performance that surrond him .Nike should not be worried about the personal life of his endorsers.In fact,this company should be concerned with the unethical behaviours of their endorsers in contests.I think that young adults and teenagers who make up the majority of Nike's consumers are not willing to judge athletes (endorsers) based on their behaviours in their personal life.Therefore,I do believe that Nike has chosen the right policy.

April 23, 2010 02:52 AM #

Shadow says:

Julien has a point.  Companies tie their brands to stars because they want the star's luster to transfer to the product.  Buy these cleats and you can move in the pocket just like Ben.  Buy Nike golf clothes and you can hit like (or at least look like) Tiger.

But the association works both ways.  I find Tiger's actions reprehensible.  And Nike's recent Tiger ad was creepy.  So now I look for Under Armour or Adidas before I look at Nike.  From talking to people, I think that a number of women feel the same way.  Most men on the other hand seem to focus much more on the on-field performance so they don't have the same reaction to the brand.

Your comments that Nike rewards performance on the field miss the mark.  Nike and other marketers should reward performance in the stores.  Does association with this athlete move product?  It doesn't matter if the athlete's on-field performance is head and shoulders above everyone or if he or she is middle of the road but likeable.  What matters to a marketer should be whether people buy the product because of the association. If the answer is yes, then and only then does your somewhat farfetched question about selling shoes to men who cheat on their wives start to make sense.

The male sports market is larger than the female so Nike may feel the impact of Ben and Tiger's behavior will not be very great on overall sales.  That is certainly a legitimate marketing decision.  But like all decisions, it has some downsides too.  In this case that may be a weakening of the Nike brand with women.

April 23, 2010 08:04 AM #

Tom Whitsed says:

@ Julie - you are on the money with the IMAGE association. Nike is sell a multitude of products so you can emulate your favorite athlete - "be like Mike". These athletes become brands under the Nike umbrella and it's not limited to on field performance. Mr. Sauer poses a pitiful question, "Should Nike not sell shoes to men who cheated on their wives?"...trying to blur the line of selling an IMAGE to the mass market consumer against selling a product to a certain consumer who only fit a certain IMAGE. If anything, Nike should state exactly what you have pointed out - we only endorse our players on field performance. After they do that, they should stand behind EVERY ENDORSED ATHLETE unless they have done something that removes them from the sport - that means they would still support Vick and Barton since both are still playing their sports. In fact you should read the very articles you link to. From the Barton article: Nike "felt that Barton ... had damaged their reputation." Sandino-Taylor: "We have provisions in all our sponsorship contracts to take into account any actions by athletes that bring the brand into disrepute". I guess cheating and screwing everything in site bring no disrepute to Nike.

April 23, 2010 08:27 AM #

Mike says:

This comes down to a business decision. Because Nike has more money invested in Tiger Woods than any other athlete, by far, they would be out of their minds to dump him. It would be like GM dumping the Chevrolet brand. You're simply not going to throw out the world's best-known athlete that you've invested hundreds of millions of dollars in for his LEGAL personal indescretions. I think that's an important point that Abe makes - if it were an illegal activity, that makes all the difference. If Nike had to examine the moral character of every athlete they sponsor, they'd be left with just a handful. Let's face it, society has put these people on a pedestal, basically condoning the behavior we get to debate on these blogs. It's not right, but we only have ourselves to blame. Remember Clinton and Lewinski??

April 23, 2010 09:56 AM #

A Sauer says:

I agree. I think the NYT is barking up the wrong tree here but it's a lot easier for them to point the moral-outrage finger at a faceless corporation and brand than to point it at its readerships, the market for Nike and Big Ben, and put the responsibility of moralizing squarely where it belongs. At the end of the day, if there were considerable consumer outrage against Nike over Ben and Tiger, Nike would probably drop them. Asking our moral authority begin with corporations is misled.

April 25, 2010 11:01 AM #

Agree and disagree - it's a vicious circle. It comes down to what you believe in. But come on, we aren't "Asking our moral authority begin with corporations," we're trying to see it they have any morals at all.

April 25, 2010 07:51 PM #

Carole Mayer says:

So let me get this straight... these role model/spokesmen who are guilty of morally reprehensible behavior are only taken to task (fired) if they are convicted in a court of law. Pretty low standard, if you ask me. And as far as Tiger, his attitude was very unsportsmanlike at the Masters. Is winning the only thing that matters anymore?

April 23, 2010 10:15 AM #

Again, in Nike's case you have to look at the investment and weigh that against the damage to the brand. I think the investment far outweighs the damage. Like I said - everybody forgave our President in rather quick order. And you'd think he'd be held to a higher standard than an athlete.

April 23, 2010 11:00 AM #

Advertising is all about reputation. No one will ever look at Tiger Woods the same way again. Just as Clinton's reputation will forever be tarnished, although he has the opportunity to redeem himself through his actions in ways that are far more important than the ability to hit a golf ball.

April 23, 2010 11:42 AM #

Carole G says:

It's very interesting to read your comments on the subject, as I am currently researching endorsement's effects on brand image, using this as an example. What associations are transferred from Tiger Woods, in this instance, to Nike? Can one overlook the actions of his personal life and simply judge him on his performance on the golf course? You all seem to have opinions on the matter so if you would take my survey I would be very grateful! http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/282895/0043db80cc1b

April 25, 2010 12:27 PM #

I. Quiroz says:

Carole Mayer has a good point: "these role model/spokesmen who are guilty of morally reprehensible behavior are only taken to task (fired) if they are convicted in a court of law. Pretty low standard, if you ask me"

About Nike, I think they have indeed a problem but not with women, but with moral. Let´s read Nike message: They... "consider any cruelty to animals inhumane and unacceptable" so they dump Michael Vick, but cheating on your wife with more than 10 women is OK, no big deal, so they keep Tiger Woods. Worst of all, they try to capitalize the situation doing a disgusting ad with Tiger and his defunct dad. Who is running Nike's marketing department? Adidas executives?

April 28, 2010 12:48 AM #

The New York Times' Nike Problem

find a job

key topics

top news

archives

Brand Chatter on Twitter

Register for our newsletter

elsewhere on brandchannel

most viewed posts