I’m beating a dead horse. Just after I wrote my analysis on Under Armour yesterday with a bit of hope although I stated clearly that UA had not utilized Sloane Stephens, the Baltimore Sun reports that Sloane has signed with the Swoosh. Which takes me back to this post:
Which also makes me really frustrated with UA all over again. It’s not that I am an Under Armour Stan, but UA represents my dream of owning a footwear company. I’ve had Sho-Shot and ARCH and both of my shoe companies ran on a shoestring budget and it was extremely hard to accomplish things. I always had Under Armour as a goal, so I wanted the brand to win. My logo for ARCH is part Under Armour, part Swoosh and is a reference to containing the Swoosh in a box and fracturing Under Armour to grow ARCH. Look at the logo up there at the top of this page.
What’s most important here is that at a moment when every brand is attempting to connect to women and the fact that Black women are beginning to workout and move into fitness like no other time in history, Under Armour allows a Grand Slam champion to walk to the most powerful footwear company in the world. The brand that has Serena Williams and now they have what could be considered a successor to the throne narrative if they want to build that with Serena and Sloane. I’m talking a Kobe vs LeBron narrative that will allow a new generation of girls to look up to the two tennis stars under the Swoosh.
Maybe UA couldn’t prevent this… I’m thinking they could have though. When Sloane won that Grand Slam, UA should have acted. If the marketing team doesn’t begin pulling together more than a YouTube show as storytelling the hopes I had for the brand could come crashing down in 2018.