There are many companies proclaiming they do digital. Only some have actually done intelligent things in digital. Then there’s even fewer that are actually doing intelligent things on a regular basis. While only the very few have incorporated it into the wider business and its becoming part of who the company is. However, of all the companies who actually do digital, there’s perhaps none better than Nike.
Nike has embraced digital communications and realise its value of creating, building and enhancing relationships with its customers. Whether it’s NikePlus, mobile apps or social media content that begs to be watched and shared (as per the below video which was part of the FuelBand campaign), you have to appreciate the brilliance of Nike’s digital strategy.
Nike used to rely on the mass media to convince customers to buy its products. However, Nike now uses digital to create a more lasting and intelligent edge to its marketing and brand building. As Stefan Orlander, VP Digital Sport, Nike, said at the launch of his co-authored book Velocity: “Once you have established a direct relationship with a consumer, you don’t need to advertise to them.” Therefore Nike has used its digital services in order to latch onto customers in order to develop a deeper and more meaningful relationship. And once this relationship has been created and nurtured, the customer will be more inclined to buy Nike and also advocate on behalf of the brand.
The below video (via the link) of Stefan speaking at the WIRED Business Conference is definitely worth a watch. In it he discusses the thinking behind some of Nike’s digital initiatives including the FuelBand, NikePlus and sharing data with its customers.
Adidas’ miCoach app was launched a while agi with a bit of a bang through a high-profile advertising campaign featuring a string of the brand’s star athletes. According to the company spiel, the app allows people with smartphones to turn their device into a personal trainer. The award-winning miCoach app is itself a piece of marketing for Adidas, but no doubt the aim of the advertising campaign was to create an online buzz through Twitter and YouTube and help the video go viral, much in the same way Nike’s World Cup advert did earlier this year.
The online buzz which the Adidas spot was intended to create would have helped drive people to Adidas’ website and towards the iPhone application. Even with so many stars crammed into a one minute spot the advert was far from epic despite the potential, in fact it only generated just over 200,000 views compared to Nike’s effort which was seen well over 20 million times
Adidas also managed to get a couple of decent hits in some top publications through a bit of PR work. There were stories featuring Adidas’ sponsored athletes including Chris Hoy on the Daily Mail Online, Andy Murray in the Sun, and David Davies (swimmer) on Skysport.co.uk. Now some nice hits, but the miCoach is not the narrative of the story, it merely gets a scant mention at the end. The launch of the app also managed to generate a bit of coverage in the marketing, tech and some high-profile titles, and it also continues to be mentioned in various fitness related articles in the press.
Don’t get me wrong the app is a fantastic idea and a great way for a sports brand to connect with its market and build brand loyalty. However the whole communication plan for the app has been below par compared to the amount of potential the app presents; therefore the app would be best promoted through a digital campaign.
The campaign is all about using the app to reach the top of your game and becoming the best you can be. The advertising implies that these top athletes are helped in their quest for excellence by the miCoach app and therefore indirectly by Adidas. In order for the marketing potential for the app to be reached I would launch the miCoach challenge through a digital campaign.
The focus of the campaign would be a mission to turn ordinary people into the best athletes they can be. Adidas would find people with average fitness around the country and then over a course of three/four months these people would use the miCoach app to train with the aim of improving their fitness. People from different areas of the country would be chosen who compete in different sports. The variance in gender, geography, and sports would help engage a wide audience throughout the UK.
The central focus of the campaign would be a microsite with interactive features, such as blogs and vlogs from the competitors who could talk about their training with a personal slant. People could comment on the blogs/vlogs and offer encouragement and ask questions. Addidas’ sponsored athletes could also be filmed training with the competitors and the videos put on the site. The athletes could answer questions and host webcasts from the public sent in through Twitter, email and text.
Various social media applications can be embedded into the site including Twitter and Flickr, where the competitors could engage with their followers. Adidas’ sports scientists would track the progress of the competitors throughout the period the campaign is taking place, and the winner would be the person who has improved their fitness the most. As a follow up challenge they could all participate in the London Marathon and the person who finished first would be crowned the ultimate champion. The marathon lends itself to a great digital campaign as the competitors could be fitted with GPS in order to track their progress throughout the marathon.
The microsite would help build a community around the miCoach app and help allow it to become the focus of the marketing campaign instead of in the background. People are bombarded with so much marketing that is becoming easier to ignore, so therefore brands need to think creatively in order to connect with their audiences.
Legendary Romanian tennis player Ilie Năstase had just won his second Grand Slam, triumphing over Nikola Pilić in straight sets at Roland Garros to win the 1973 French Open. He won the US Open the previous year and was now the World’s number one tennis player. So he seemed like an obvious choice to be paid to wear Blue Ribbon Sports’ new tennis shoe.
He was the first person the company endorsed and he would be the first in a long line of winners and champions that the company would align itself with. But Năstase was also a notorious womaniser, he was named by Maxim magazine in its top ten “Living Sex Legends” list, reportedly having slept with over 2,500 women. This was a sign of things to come for the company, as he would be first in a long line of their winners and champions who would cause sexual scandals. When Năstase’s career petered out in the late 70s Blue Ribbon Sports turned to a new tennis star. The company signed up John McEnroe in 1978 and in the same year renamed itself Nike Inc.
A string of Nike’s athletes have been involved in murky sexual dealings recently. Wayne Rooney reportedly slept with vice girls, Tiger Woods cheated on his wife with a string of women, Christiano Ronaldo fathered a love child, Ashley Cole is now divorced after bedding a number of women, and Frank Ribery solicited sex from an underage prostitute.
But what happens to the public’s perception of Nike when their athletes go bad, does it adversely affect Nike’s brand and reputation and have a knock on effect on their sales?
So there seems to be a short term hit on one of Nike’s brands but what is the long term damage? Nike has stood by their athletes, generally releasing statements saying it is a private matter for the stars. But by standing by their athletes – and effectively not condoning their behaviour – is the company doing serious damage to its brand in the eyes of the public and specifically women?
We look at the actions of Rooney and Cole who have allegedly wronged their other halves, Coleen Rooney and Cheryl Cole, who are both role models and are viewed very positively by women in the UK. Would Nike supporting athletes such as Cole and Rooney have more of an effect on whether women choose Nike over its rivals, or does Nike’s association with top women athletes have more of an effect? What would be the stronger influence in the mind of women when choosing a sporting goods brand, is it positive role models the brand associates itself with or the brand not condoning the sleazy antics of its male athletes?
Two of the trio of champions have been causing trouble for Gillette.
There is a bit of rumbling in the press that Tiger Woods’ love of mistresses may cost a fortune in future careers earnings as sponsors look to distance themselves from the golfer.
He signed a deal with Gatorade in 2007 for what is believed to be worth $100 million over five years. But they announced they are set to axe their Gatorade Tiger drink, however the PepsiCo brand says the decision to drop the drink was made months ago, the scandal is just a happy coincidence they say.
Woods also has deals with Cadillac, Accenture, AT&T, TAG Heuer, Electronic Arts, Nike and of course Gillette, that have helped him become the world’s first dollar billionaire sportsperson, according to Forbes. All these sponsorship deals and endorsements actually make up 90% of Tiger’s income.
Nielsen, the US TV ratings and advertising measuring guru, says there has been a Tiger Woods advertising blackout since two days after the scandal broke. Despite the research by Nielsen, Woods’ sponsors say they have not changed their advertising plans have said they are sticking with their media schedules.
But out of all the brands I feel sorry for Gillette, they are having a right old tough time with their sponsors of late. We all know Thierry Henry was a very naughty boy, and it seems that Woods has been a very, very naughty boy. They must be nervous that a scandal will break about Roger Federer. Behind his squeaky clean image Gillette must be terrified he is actually a crack addict who he enjoys nothing more than kicking puppies and is having a sordid affair with Sue Barker. My money is on the affair.
In the eyes of the sponsors Woods is damaged goods and they will no doubt be scrambling to get away from anything to do with him. It was his golfing ability that made his name but it was a nice-guy family image that built his brand to allow him to become a billion dollar sportsman. But in my very humble opinion what Henry did is far worse than what Tiger has allegedly done. Tiger’s cheating is nowhere near as bad as Henry’s. These men have lucrative sponsorship deals because they rose to the top in their particular sporting arena. They became the best of the best. Gillette sponsors them because they are champions. They were not chosen because of their apparent wholesome family image but they have both been endorsed by brands as they symbolise excellence, winning and success. They have been sponsored because of their profession and not their private life.
Tiger may have cheated in life but Henry cheated on the field of play, he cheated in his profession, and this is worse in my mind. Henry handled he ball not once (perhaps forgivable), but twice in order to direct it onto his foot, onto William Gallas and into the goal. It was a clear breach of the fair play ethos of what football, being a sportsman and a role model should all be about.
Henry and Woods are sponsored by Gillette because they are sportsmen, but Henry’s conduct was terribly unsportsmanlike. While Gillette stood by Henry and backed him up almost immediately they have so far remained quiet on Woods, they are no doubt waiting for the scandal to reveal its full extent. Their silence on Woods’ behavior is likely to mean that they will be dropping him or at least scaling back their use of him in their marketing activities. But if they were to drop anyone it should be Henry for his reputation has been damaged beyond rehabilitation. If anything would make me consider boycotting Gillette it would be because Henry and not Tiger Woods.
Nike has used football to create a massive Facebook following for its brand
Branding on social networking sites has reached new levels on sophistication with companies setting up Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. This has allowed people to become connected with their brands and allows companies to touch with their market.
I am going to use Nike as my case study on Facebook and Twitter as what they have done has top notch. Nike has been clever on Facebook and has set up a ‘Nike Football’ Facebook page, reinforcing Nike’s association with football was a good move as people are more passionate about football than they are about Nike. For marketing on social media to be effective brands have to imaginative and think if ways they can enhance people’s lives. Nike has put training videos, photos and football updates on their page that will engage people and keep them returning. It has also cleverly associated itself with their sponsored star players through updates on their performances, videos of them and links to their own Facebook Page etc.
Now onto Twitter, Nike Golf have set up a wonderful page. They have updates, news and behind the scene pictures of their sponsored players and links to their Twitter page. Also questions that are asked are quickly answered so there is a conversation with the brand and its Twitter followers. They are inviting people into their community and allowing them to connect with the brand. But at all the while at the same time showing of their stash and marketing their brand.
Marketing Potential
But I think there is further potential for marketers and brands to exploit social networking potential. Individual’s Facebook and Twitter profiles have a huge amount of personal information on which can be used by marketers. On Facebook people list their favourite books, films, TV shows, sports, activities, interests and also their membership of groups and fan pages. This kind of detailed information on millions of people is a market researcher’s dream.
If a program could scan people’s profiles it could then allow advertising to be targeted at individual profiles, concentrating their message on the right people and not using a scatter gun effect that may mean their advertising is irrelevant to many of the people it is seen by. They could advertise by popping up in the person’s news feed, a wall post or by sending them a message and on Twitter companies could Tweet an advertising message at people.
Privacy Issues
There may be a bit of concern with privacy but people have published this information and therefore it is public information. People live their lives around these sites, they are so heavily invested in them that they would not leave them. Also people may feel the advertising would be invasive but no more than adverts that take over your computer screen or television adverts that are uninvited into people’e houses everyday.
Think of the potential – I am suffering my a severe bout of Manflu, so I put a status update in my Facebook ‘Matt has a cold and is feeling unwell’. Now this would be picked up and advertising for Lemsip, Vicks or Nurofen would be targeted towards my Facebook profile.
It is no different to standing in the middle of Leicester Square after a night out a screaming ‘I need to get home!’ Now you would be grateful when a taxi-man, a limo chauffeur, a train, bus or tube driver came up to you and offered you their services.
