« AC #24 - Guaranteed to kick all other podcasts' asses! | Main| Final Proof that Apple is better than Microsoft. »


October 25, 2005

Nike: The Brand

While catching up on the latest issue of Creativity Magazine, I ran across this list -- Ten Reasons to Love Nike:

  1. Nike listens.  Always the key inredient to a great relationship.
  2. Nike is never satisfied--they push us.
  3. Reliance on instinct.
  4. Trust that goes both ways.
  5. They are passionate about their brand, the history of their brand, the future of their brand.
  6. Willingness to embrace risk.
  7. There is inherent drama in the category, in sport.
  8. History of great work.
  9. Innovation is valued.
  10. Willingness to evolve.

Marsblackmon_1What an interesting list.  Makes me think about how I feel about Nike's brand.  Plain and simply put, I love the Nike brand.  Thinking back, I've liked Nike ever since Mars Blackmon and the "Bo Knows" campaign.

But in my head, it seems like the Nike from the past doesn't quite compare to the Nike of the present.  The Nike from the past was fun and kinda campy, the present, much more introspective and individualistic, almost.

Regardless, the above list is very telling of what the Nike brand is about and probably where we all wish a lot of clients could be with their brand.

The thing that was beat into my head about brands when in college, and now in the real world, is that the company doesn't state what the brand is... the consumer's opinion of the brand is what the brand is.  If that's truly the case, then how did Nike become what they are today and does it really take 20+ years for a brand to evolve like that?

Posted by SethyG on October 25, 2005 at 02:36 PM | Permalink
Categories: Advertising , Pop Culture , Sports

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ce32a53ef00d834677b3453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nike: The Brand:

Comments

The company does state what they want the brand to be, but it will always BE a composite of peoples thought and views.

I think Nike used to be a more light hearted brand, but in some aspects it still is. Some of its advertising still makes me laugh, and it still has the same core properties.

I think its trying to move towards being more sporty, rather than the sporty with "fashion" overtones it used to be. Indeed I have read several times that Nike HQ see the F word as a dangerous one.

Also, I dont think it took 20 years for Nike to evolve. Its been seen as a "huge" brand since the early to mid 80s. But that said, the history and importance of the brand's past is one of the things that I think keeps it pushing forward.

One of my favourite Nike ads in the uk was a n olympic bilboard with a long distance runner on it. It read:

"Ever heard the Ethiopian national anthem?

You will."

Posted by:Rob Mortimer | October 25, 2005 at 06:00 PM

I am so disappointed that no one else has responded to this post!

Posted by:Rob Mortimer | November 01, 2005 at 10:13 AM

Rob, I think the SethyG said it all. The willingness to evolve is, to me, even more imprtant than trust going both ways. How many brand managers have you worked with that willingly take a chance on doing something -- anything -- different, let alone have opened their minds to moving significantly forward? A good measure of this is how other sport brands have seemingly evolved ONLY to a speak in a Nike-esque voice. The real questions are:
1) Where will Nike -- because no one else will lead-- evolve next? (God, I'd love to be a part of that!)
2) How can us agency folk create similar relationships, and thus produce great work, with the brands with whom we do partner?

Posted by:ad6am | November 09, 2005 at 04:22 PM

Yeah.

1) I think other sports and clothing brands lead in different areas, but in an overall "branding" sense Nike definitely do lead.

2) I think part of that is the huge history between Nike and Wieden and Kennedy. They trust each other and that allows them to go further with their ideas.

After all, it was a brave step to completely remove the Nike name and any tagline from ads, but it paid off and made the brand even more powerful. A dodgy agency relationship and I bet that would have never happened.

Posted by:Rob Mortimer | November 10, 2005 at 05:38 AM

That brings up an interesting point. How much is your agency acting like a partner with clients? How much is the agency team really acting as a team? When I was at Portfolio Center, and I think this is true of many of the ad schools (at least it was true; I'm not sure about nowadays) we were taught we would need to sell our work to our AE's even before selling it to the clients. This may have only been implied, but frankly, in many agencies, it is the reality. And it might be the single biggest inhibitor to producing great work.

The "Devil's Advocate" thread on Ernie Schenck's blog -- http://eschenck.typepad.com/ernie_schenck_calls_this_/2005/10/devils_advocate.html -- is a vital discussion, methinks. Everyone wants to contribute their input, but it's teamwork and leadership that produces great work as much as breakthrough creativity.

We have met the enemy, and it's us.

Posted by:ad6am | November 10, 2005 at 10:40 AM

Great points ad6am and Rob! Thank goodness this is going again!

I love thinking that our agency is a partner to clients. Sure we do our fair share of just producing work, but ideally, we all want to be considered partners. We want their business to flourish, too... their successes are ours. Right? How long does it take for a client to see that, or to really live that with an agency? I bet W&K has(d) to do tons of work they didn't see as worthwhile or beneficial to the brand... I wonder what the percentage is. Maybe the boys need to have a good ol' sit-down with the CDs over at WK, they'll have much more insight than we do. What do you think JJ?

Posted by:Seth | November 10, 2005 at 10:50 AM

It boils down to the attitude of the agency and the client; and how well matched they are.

I bet if you asked agencies about the times when:

"We dont like it"
'But your customers are shown to love this kind of creative advert'
"But its too risky"

Happens... it would be thousands.

Its why things like make up / shampoo ads have remained almost identical for decades (I saw a 70s Loreal ad last week and apart from the music and fashion it was exactly the same as their ads are now).

From my visit to WK London, and from talking to people there; its clear that they are friendly and open, and they work as a team to come up with creative ideas that work.

Thats why clients trust them, thats why they produce better work, and thats why their clients stay with them.

Posted by:Rob Mortimer | November 10, 2005 at 04:14 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In





The Latest Podcast

Ad Age Power 150

As Heard On

Radio Talent Zoo

Categories

Audio Comments

Record a comment from your computer right now. Be pithy.

Archives

Recent Comments

Podcasting Links

Sites of Note

Talent Zoo Column

Everything I need to know about advertising I learned from Star Wars