Johnson, Scholes and Whittington , p.
April 21, 3: Last Updated April 24, It was the Adidas Superstar, a streetwear staple known for its three stripes and iconic shell toe that dates back to Various Nike running shoes also made the Top 10, as did the classic Converse owned by Nike Chuck Taylor All-Star Low, and the Air Force 1 low — the first sneaker to ever be re-issued and the best-selling athletic shoe in history.
That business is up for grabs. In , it held At the same time, the company is successfully growing its outlet and e-commerce business, even as sales with wholesale partners soften, owing in part to weakness in the performance basketball segment the company has long dominated. It continues to grow its retro basketball business by increasing the number of pairs in the market. Whether sneaker connoisseurs like it or not, there has been an increase in Air Jordan shoes hitting the market.
From an investor point of view, Nike is much cheaper than Adidas on a price to earnings basis, with the stocks trading at The swoosh also generates a A winning brand strategy will see a higher online following and an engaged audience.
For every dollar spent on marketing, what are the returns that these two brands see during the World Cup? In order to make a reasonable estimate, I looked at data from the World Cup, along with the current values of national kit deals from each brand.
That allows adidas to advertise within every stadium for every game; adidas is tasked with designing the Ball of the Match; adidas gets to outfit all FIFA personnel, referees, ball kids, volunteers and more with adidas gear. The actual figure was never disclosed. This year, adidas has sponsored ten teams in the World Cup. Its most costly teams are: It focuses almost exclusively on sponsoring winning teams and players.
Aside from that, it also has its fair share of national teams that it sponsored. So who gets more bang for their buck? In , both brands established new personal records for revenue following the World Cup.
But adidas saw more soccer-related revenue than Nike following the World Cup. For the World Cup, adidas will sponsor just one more team than Nike. But of the teams sponsored, only a few are real contenders for the World Cup. On that scale, adidas and Nike are evenly matched. Germany and Spain have been long-term adidas teams.
France is a relatively new team for Nike, but perhaps it will be worth the cost. We know who the major contenders are for this year. The World Cup has its share of surprises. Italy failed to qualify this year too bad, Puma! The underdog, Argentina, advanced to the finals instead. Underdogs help drive revenue because they encourage more spending in unexpected places. Supporting the underdog at the right time has proven to be lucrative for some major brands.
Factoring in the few teams that could surprise us, adidas arguably sponsors the strongest contenders overall to win the cup or at least make a good run for it.
Nike only sponsors two real favorites. Left to right top: Which brand has the most marketable players that could potentially make the finals? Sponsoring a national team means sponsoring that organization. It allows the brand to design the team jerseys and incorporate their logo into that design.
The individual players can also be sponsored. We looked at a list of the top-ranked players and found that Nike sponsors over half of them. Now, we also want to know if these brands have sponsored the right mix of players. When we consider some likely World Cup Finals matchups, we can determine which brand will see more of its stars drawing in the biggest crowds.
From examining the breakdown, and looking at some of the more likely finals matchups, Nike players will dominate the World Cup finals. There is even an opportunity for a Nike-only finals, if Brazil and France were to face one another. Both brands have involved themselves heavily in the World Cup.
Their player sponsorships and long-term kit deals play a significant role in getting the upper hand in this branding tournament. But what do their global audiences think about them? At a glance, Nike seems to be ahead of adidas by leaps and bounds. So whose audience is more tuned in? Nike has about 8M more followers than adidas with roughly the same number of posts.
While on Facebook, Nike has about 15M more followers than adidas. On Twitter, Nike has slightly more followers, but has 15, more tweets and joined the platform a year before adidas. But in the past three months leading up to the World Cup, adidas has received double the amount of views.
Similarly, adidas is half as active on Twitter compared to Nike, but has nearly the same number of followers. For its efforts, adidas is the most visible brand on social media , receiving an average of 6.
World Cup Golden Ball Trophy. Before we wrap up our analysis, there is one more aspect of the World Cup worth looking at for its marketing potential.
The Golden Ball is an award that recognizes a single player who performed exceptionally well and stood out during the entire World Cup. This is a great example of how adidas has helped shape the World Cup a sporting event. And perhaps, this is also a look at how adidas can influence certain outcomes within the World Cup. If a Nike team were to nab the World Cup this year, it would be a major branding victory. Looking at the previous winners in recent years, there is a trend.
We have a Nike-sponsored player win the Golden Ball in Ronaldo, makes his World Cup debut at the age of 22 and scores 4 goals to take Brazil to the finals that year. Since then a Nike-sponsored player has never received the Golden Ball.
In and both players were sponsored by adidas and on adidas teams. In , a Puma-sponsored player won the Golden Ball.
Copyright © 2017 · All Rights Reserved · Maine Council of Churches