Please be kidding.
Don’t get me wrong. Throughout the whole MIke Vick controversy, I’ve ticked off plenty of people with my “he’s paid his debt to society, so let’s give him a chance — the same way we gave Teddy Kennedy a second chance after Chappaquidick.”
I’m not “all that” opposed to Mike being back in the NFL. But getting an endorsement deal? Are you kidding? One of the world’s biggest, most respected brands is re-signing Mike Vick?
Here’s one quote from the AP’s story about the re-signing. “It is quite evident that athletes that run afoul of the law are by no means relegated to obscurity when it comes to pitching products,” said David Carter, a professor of sports marketing at the University of Southern California. To Carter, Nike likely made a calculated business decision that the benefit of sales tied to Vick outweighed any potential public outrage.
Are you kidding? So this is about money, huh? Not brand values. Not what NIke stands for as a company. Not about the millions of kids who believe that the Nike brand is right up there with Jesus?
Vick’s primary agent, Joel Segal, confirmed the deal in a statement to Sports Business Daily: “Mike has had a great relationship with Nike and is excited to be part of the Nike team again. He has always been a fan of the brand and looks forward to the relationship,” Mr. Segal said. [Whatever! Mike. I suppose you ARE excited.]
Will Dick’s Sporting Goods cave next? Not too long ago, MyFoxPhilly ran an article announcing Dick’s wouldn’t be stocking or selling Vick’s No. 7 Eagle’s jersey. A spokesperson for the sporting goods retailer said the chain wouldn’t carry the Vick jerseys until it evaluated the reaction of Eagle fans.
I’m glad to say I bought a pair of Asics a week or so ago.
Am I wrong to be so disappointed?
P.S. Tiger, Roger, MJ, Serena — how does it feel to be on the same team?
Share this article | Permalink | 4 comments
Posted by Donna Bowling on October 1, 2009 at 7:24 am
Filed under: Ramblings, What were they thinking?
Tags: Dick' Sporting Goods, Michael Vick, Nike
Because we “have” to. That’s the one and only reason. [Well. I suppose we don't really have to, but as a business owner doing my best to keep my staff employed, often we do feel the obligation to respond.]
If you’re ever involved in writing one of these boogers, please, if only for me, try to avoid ridiculous terms, demands and requests.
For example, here’s a paragraph taken directly from a recent RFP:
Monthly Invoicing and Reimbursement of Project Expenses
The successful candidate will be required to submit monthly invoices for all program expenses incurred during the prior month by the 10th of the month following. Invoices must include detailed documentation supporting all program expenses, and expenses must be incurred according to the budget established at the beginning of each year.
The successful candidate will be reimbursed for all properly submitted and approved invoices within five working days after the receipt of payment from our funding source. Based on our 2009 experience one can expect that payment for one’s January services will be processed in May and that subsequent monthly invoices to be paid every 30 days thereafter. The average payment cycle is expected to be 120 days from the date of invoice.
So, in other words, I have 10 days — not 10 business days, mind you, 10 days — to get my sh*t together, but the entity who MIGHT hire me, has 120 days (4 months!) to pay me???
Wonder what what happen if we paid our taxes 4 months late?
Give me a break. I despise RFPs.
Share this article | Permalink | No comments
Posted by Donna Bowling on August 28, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Filed under: Ramblings, What were they thinking?
Tags: RFPs
Remember back in February when Starbucks closed stores from 5:30 to 9 to get back to basics? Yeah, I remember, too. It was February 26th.
As a marketer, I thought “how cool is that! Starbucks is willing to lose revenue for a few hours but those losses will payoff tenfold plus after the fact.” I even used the store closings as an example of embracing your mission and living your brand in numerous meetings with clients and colleagues.
Wow! Go Howard Schultz! Now that’s sticking to your guns. Six-weeks after returning as CEO, and five days before the store closings, Mr. Schultz shared an email with Starbucks’ partners and staff about his plans for changes that would enhance the customer experience and return to the company to its core: all things coffee. Read the message here.
Earlier this week, I opened USA Today and an interesting ad caught my eye. I had to read it a couple times to realize it was a Starbucks’ ad. The ad was introducing Vivanno smoothies.
Whatever! So much for gun-sticking. On the heels of making a big deal about closing stores for the bettering of baristas, enhancing the customer experience and getting back to their coffee-core, and of course, closing 600 stores, Starbucks, a branding case study, is adding a non-coffee product to their lineup.
To make sure I wasn’t being unfair to my perception of what was happening, I visited the Starbucks’ website to read their mission statement. Yep. It’s supposed to be all about the coffee. That’s (supposed to be) their “brand.”
Damn. I’m disappointed.
My advice to Starbucks, my clients, and clients-to-be: Don’t be emulative. Don’t be all things to all people. Just because everyone else is doing “all this” or offering “all that” doesn’t mean you should, too. Be bold enough to be who you are and do what you do best. Stick to it. Do “that” better than anyone else and the “right” people will find you and love you for it and they’ll stay loyal for a long, long time.
See ya. I’m going to Dunkin’ Donuts. And, I don’t even have to shower first.
Share this article | Permalink | No comments
Posted by Donna Bowling on July 26, 2008 at 10:26 am
Filed under: What were they thinking?
Tags: branding, mission, smoothies, Starbucks, Vivanno
