The Rock chose the right shoe for his high-energy introduction of the teams in the final game of the American football season, taking to the stage in the Cloud X.
Source: Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson Opens The Big Game in the Cloud X
5 Million dollars is the going rate to run an ad during the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl is one of the few television experiences that remain where the traditional form of advertising still carries considerable weight. Nike paid the NBA 1 Billion dollars to splash their logo on the uniforms. Nike’s deal with the NFL rings up at 1.1 Billion. This is important because by default Nike dominates the visuals around sportswear and football. The best thing that can happen for a sportswear brand is for an organic moment to take shape. On Running experienced this when The Rock wore their running shoes at the opening of the event.
As sports fans around the world searched for more information about ‘The Rock’s’ chosen shoes for game day, our website only just managed to keep up.
“We didn’t gift the shoes to him and were not prepared, so the On server had longer loading times for several minutes,” On Co-Founder David Allemann said.
This would be a great story if it weren’t for one detail… The Rock is signed to Under Armour.
I’ve written countless posts on this site that discuss the inherent problems of influencer marketing for sportswear companies. I’ve made it a point to establish that brands should be doing a better job of promoting the athletes who are signed to their brands as opposed to building entire campaigns around entertainers. The natural question to this statement is, “What’s the difference?”
Athletes tend to be brand loyal There is rarely a moment where I can find an athlete wearing gear from another sportswear company. The only time this does happen is with a company like Q4 Sports. They allow the athletes signed to their company to wear whatever they like off the court as long as they wear Q4 on the court. To make it to the level of a professional athlete requires dedication, persistence and considerable skill. These traits arrive with a sense of loyalty to those who help the athlete become great. The relationships become a part of who the athlete is and by extension their persona is defined by the commitment to the people and things that make the athlete.
When there is a moment where an athlete is wearing another brand it’s because they don’t have the product available for them:
PUMA Basketball Launches in 3 Days and Ayton Rocked Nike At Practice and in Preseason?
An athlete in high school is a commodity when they are special. Because they are seen as a commodity coaches and scouts with different brand affiliations pursue the athlete. At this point an athlete hasn’t committed to a brand. Once the athlete makes a decision to attend a particular college the athlete is then brand loyal and will tend to commit to that brand and wear that brand when they make it to the NBA. Notice that I’m using the NBA for this discussion and not the NFL. NFL athletes don’t really sell shoes and don’t really have the reach to be considered important enough to elevate by a brand.There are rare exceptions like Odell Beckham Jr or Victor Cruz who are both Nike athletes, but that’s rare in football. Under Armour has had Tom Brady and has never considered making a sneaker or product line for him. They did make pajamas… but this On Running debacle sheds light on why although The Rock has a gigantic following and has made several collections with Under Armour, the alignment of The Rock + Under Armour no matter how profitable or brand worthy, it was a mistake long term. Tom Brady should have had a shoe years ago. That would have been more authentic and genuine and Brady has what I called the “opportunity of legacy“.
Why Brands Have To Create Their Own Content In This Influencer Marketing Environment
In the post above I made this statement:
The problem is consumers pay attention and if they are being influenced by influencers then the last image they see becomes the most relevant. In this instance brands who decide to enlist influencers who are not loyal paid endorsers, run the risk of creating an aura of not being authentic; which could be overlooked if people aren’t paying attention.
I define the “opportunity of legacy” as the long term ability for a brand to create products around a player long after the player is finished competing. Michael Jordan begat Zion. The similarities in their games allows Jordan Brand to align itself with Zion. It’s too late for Tom Brady now, but think about six years ago and what a Tom Brady signature model would have spawned or potentially spawned. Under Armour decided to go with the more flamboyant Cam Newton, but a Brady line would have allowed Cam’s quick slide to irrelevance to be buried. Under Armour signed Leonard Fournette. Now, think about the optics on a Brady, Newton and Fournette marketing campaign for training gear. Instead what we get is another instance where the brand has to spend extra money on social ads to remind everyone that The Rock is an Under Armour athlete. When they could have modeled their training category launch on something similar to what Nike did here:
Below is a list of articles on this site focused on Influencers and Brand Loyalty. If a brand already has athletes under its umbrella the best long-term play is to build content and campaigns around those athletes. Unless you’re signing a woman entertainer. Women entertainers are loyal until their contracts end. Yep, I know that sounds bad, but test it by looking for women entertainers in apparel other than the brand they are signed with.
Vans ‘waffleheads’ vs Saucony (or insert brands) Influencers | Influencing Must Be Authentic
Is It Okay For Gary Vee to Rock the Nike Air Max 1 Parra When He Has His Own K-Swiss?
Insider Ties: Puma net profit up 4% on footwear, time to dump Meek Mill
One thought on “On Running Cloud X, The Rock and Under Armour | Influencer Marketing vs Brand Loyalty”