Nike Sticks with Athletes, Even When They Badly Misbehave

It starts with Kobe Bryant being accused of rape in 2003. Bryant's face was all over the news, and the nation wanted to see him gone from nearly every product that he might possibly endorse. The case never went to trial and the civil suit was settled quietly. McDonald's dropped Bryant, but Nike did not.

Fast forward to Tiger Woods and his recent sex scandal. Accenture felt that Woods was not a good person to endorse their products. AT&T soon left his side also. But Nike? No way -- they stayed right there to the end, with Nike chairman Phil Knight saying that in the long-run, this whole situation would be nothing but a blip on the radar screen in the otherwise brilliant career of Tiger Woods.

Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers has been accused of rape not once, but twice. We don't know exactly what Ben actually did, but we know that he was never sent to jail for it. We also know that Ben was on television apologizing to the country for something, which probably says that he did something he wasn't supposed to be doing in the first place. Did Nike get rid of Ben? Nope.



Nike has a model of corporation decision-making that is unlike most other companies across America. When an athlete misbehaves, even in a very public way, Nike is one of the few companies to stand strong against the backlash and not drop the athlete from their list of sponsors. This strategy has worked for the company for 40 years, and it seems to be working to this day.

"Nike, perhaps better than just about any other company, understands what motivates its customers to buy -- or even what may prevent them from buying," David Carter, executive director of the University of Southern California Sports Business Institute, told USA Today. "The outrage is not only relative, but consistently wanes over time. Where were all the protesters that were anticipated upon Michael Vick's return? How quickly did Kobe Bryant rehabilitate his reputation after some championships and an 81-point game?" Carter also noted that, "The behavior of the athletes Nike has under contract has far less impact on their sales because they are an endemic brand, and fans separate performance-related attributes from the police blotter."

What Professor Carter is trying to say is that Nike doesn't need its athletes to be good people, they only need them to be champions and winners. Some companies need athletes to behave in a manner that is acceptable to society, since companies choose them to endorse their products due to the respect the world has for them. Success on the playing field can translate into positive character portrayals in mass media. But with Nike, athletes only need to win on the court or the field, and even if they are bad people, Nike's customers will continue to buy the company's products. This makes good business sense.

Most can't argue that the Nike formula for success hasn't worked. The company started with almost nothing in 1964 and is now worth $30 billion dollars. For all the questions people might have of their business strategy, you have to believe they're doing something right.

Lawrence Watkins is the CEO of the Great Black Speakers Bureau. For more information, please visit LawrenceWatkins.com.

Comments: (14)

Add a comment

Page 2 of 2

Add a Comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password."

Most Commented Articles

Daily Drama

The Best Clips From TV's Hottest Shows


More Daily Drama >>

Find a Message Board

Discover conversations on everyone from Barack to Beyonce. There are nearly 50 forums, so click on a category below and find the right one for you.