In light of recent discussion on how brands can be associated to beliefs, topics, people, etc various articles were released this morning that claimed Michael Vick had been re-signed to the Nike label as an endorser of the brand. Yes, I was just as shocked as you were. Only a mere two years ago Vick was indicted for malicious dog fighting and spent time behind bars. He was signed to the Philadelphia Eagles for this NFL season and has since been trying to put forth a more positive image speaking out against dog fighting and cruelty towards animals. Frankly, this is doing nothing to regain confidence among his fans since the evidence of his crimes were so incredibly disturbing, however maybe it is giving him a more peaceful sleep at night. Despite his own attempts to get back in his fans' good graces, re-signing with Nike will only push consumers further away from both brands.
As I looked into this claim further, Nike has since released a statement that they have not signed Vick back to their brand. Phew. Nike, way to stand strong. A company representative said that they have indeed agreed to supply him with product as they supply a multitude of other athletes with gear, however there are no deals being made to have Vick endorse products of the brand (like these unreleased shoes above). While I think sending him free loot is just as harmful to the brand as plastering his face on a huge billboard in Times Square, it is the lesser of two evils. I don't mind him strutting around town in Nike kicks because for all I know he could have bought them on his own, however the backlash on other blog posts and articles surrounding this accusation that Nike resigned Vick should give them proof enough that if they ever were entertaining the idea they shouldn't go forward with Vick.
Brands don't tend to do well in the midst of a dramatic media storm. Nike is just one of the brands that pulled out of their endorsement deals when Vick was accused of his horrific treatment of animals, and as swiftly as it happened, Nike avoided the spotlight of being attached to his actions. Had Nike stuck by Vick they would have undergone just as much scrutiny as the athlete has in the past two years. Nike has been in hot water before being accused of using "sweatshops" in other countries, underpaying workers who survive the day in rough conditions to produce a high amount of product. Many consumers have not felt the same about Nike since these accusations were made a number of years ago, however with so much star power behind their brand and association with athletic success, they still continue to be a dominating force in the world of sports.
Had this news actually been fact, the repercussions for Nike are unimaginable. While Nike's moral ground has been in question for some time, the attention and the ill-feelings towards Vick have been so wide spread across the country that his actions are entirely inexcusable. It is one thing for a major brand to pull out of a contract when an endorser has done something against company beliefs but it is quite another for a company to give someone of this magnitude a second chance. Some may argue that what has happened personally with other athletes such as Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger (yes I can spell that from memory) is enough for a sponsor to pull their endorsement contracts from under their feet, however Vick was found guilty and has admitted to his actions. Not to say beating dogs and hitting women are not equally as horrific, however the magnitude and proof of actions do make a difference.
Nike is a symbol of so much more for athletes than the athletic gear that they manufacture. For years the Nike swoosh has been a symbol of overcoming obstacles, perseverance, strength, power and sometimes even superhuman achievements. Nike strives to provide athletes of all ages with the empowerment to train and to reach for sports success and endorsing a player like Vick does not align with that mission. I believe in second chances, but not at the risk of a brand's reputation.
It is refreshing to see that Nike seems to have their shoes on the right foot in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment