July 20, 2007
Nike Sidelines Michael Vick Shoe
Where Michael Vick goes, bad news seems to follow and the latest in a series of troubling events in the Atlanta Falcons quarterback’s life may cost him the last major endorsement deal he has.
Nike announced it was putting off the release of a new shoe endorsed by Mr. Vick after he was indicted on felony charges regarding his alleged role in a dog-fighting ring.
The company issued the following statement: “Nike is concerned by the serious and highly disturbing allegations made against Michael Vick and we consider any cruelty to animals inhumane and abhorrent. We do believe that Michael Vick should be afforded the same due process as any citizen; therefore, we have not terminated our relationship. We have however made the decision to suspend the release of the Zoom Vick V and related marketing communications. Nike will continue to monitor the situation closely and have no further comment at this time.”
The Humane Society of the United States has criticized Nike for not going far enough in the matter. The group called for Nike to recall “Vick Hero” t-shirts currently being sold on nike.com. RetailWire confirmed the shirt was available for purchase on the company site along with six other items bearing the quarterback’s likeness and/or name.
“Michael Vick is no hero. A string of dead, wounded and suffering animals has been left along the Eastern Seaboard as a consequence of this dog-fighting ring. Federal authorities have charged Vick with felony offenses. This is no moment to tell America’s youth to look up to such a man,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.
A search of retailer websites by RetailWire found many merchants continuing to sell a variety of goods including jerseys, sneakers, footballs, posters and other items with Mr. Vick’s endorsement. A Google product search turned up 7,660 items under a Michael Vick query. Dick’s Sporting Goods (79 items), Sports Authority (76 items), NFL.com (75 items) and Modell’s (71 items) were just some of the merchants that had Michael Vick merchandise available for purchase.
Discussion Question: Did Nike make the right decision concerning Michael Vick? Should retailers pull Michael Vick merchandise off shelves until his innocence is proven in court?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Using celebrities as advertising spokesmen and woman has its rewards but it is risky business. A few thoughts regarding Nike and Michael Vick:
o The connection to animal cruelty will be more difficult to overcome than most of the other usual stigmas. Products bearing Vick’s endorsement will suffer a setback.
o Sometimes the negative publicity that surrounds a celebrity becomes erroneously positive in terms of notoriety and potentially momentous new attention and business. This will not be the case for Michael Vick because this image will be too difficult to overcome with the eco-masses that purchase Nike products.
o Frankly, I was surprised when Michael Vick was chosen to be the endorsement, even in the first place. Vick has never had a great reputation with the public and even as a player, I think most would agree he has not lived up to the high expectations.
Nike doesn’t need to be the judge nor the jury. Companies have the right to do hire and fire celebrities at will if the contract allows. At the end of the day, Nike will do whatever it perceives is best for their business.
This is exactly the problem with celebrity endorsements. When celebrity turns to notoriety (justified or not), the manufacturer is left holding the bag. Nike, given its history with sports celebrities, is probably more cognizant of the challenge than most. But with retailers jumping on the celebrity “inspired” private label craze–Kate Moss and Top Shop, and Madonna and H&M come to mind–this should serve as a painful reminder. Celebrity tie-ins can sink just as much as they might soar–for reasons way beyond your control.
All reputable retailers should pull all the Vick product lines immediately from their stores and online sites. Unfortunately, there will still be a few buyers who will consume this merchandise; some because they are into the thug culture. Others, if they are clueless–for its shock value (think Mao and Che Guevara merchandise). These buyers, who hopefully are few and far between, will be able to find sufficient Vick merchandise on underground sites, flea markets and on eBay.
This is one of the clearest “cut and run” marketing situations I have ever seen.
Absolutely YES, pull any product associated with any ‘role model’ where they are involved in an inappropriate situation.
How else will society distinguish what should be acceptable and why people need to be accountable and responsible for their actions?
” Evil exists because good people do nothing ”
Barry Souter. Director. Munns The Man’s Store. New Zealand.
Nike, it seems, has always pushed the envelope with its image; this was, after all, the company who for years had as its motto “Just Do It.” And while that message is ambiguous, it’s safe to say that many saw it as a reflection of “win at any cost” and “we don’t care what you do as long as you win” mentalities: that they ended up getting burned is indeed inevitable; sad, it is not.
Greed has its consequences. Nike has enrolled a number of border line “role models” in an effort to extend its “Air Jordan” franchise to the younger generation. Based upon the headlines, Jordan is and was a worthy roll model. Many of the current crop are questionable. Vick and others have histories, but when the game is to convince 10 year olds that they have to have a $100 pair of sneakers then I guess stretching the definition of “role model” is “acceptable behavior.” Frankly, I think Nike would get more mileage out of a new commercial showing Vick using his Nike brand sneakers to escape the jaws of his fighting dogs….
Although not convicted yet, there is enough overwhelming evidence pointing to guilt. As one MSNBC news commentator said this morning, regarding Vick’s claims he didn’t know what was going on at his own home and wasn’t involved, “Michael Vick is either a liar or the world’s dumbest person.”
Nike is doing the right thing and should consider dropping him all together. He won’t come back from this even if acquitted. Think back to O.J. I believe (and the animal lover in me hopes) that consumers will boycott any products associated with Vick.
The Atlanta Falcons and the NFL should, at the least, suspend him until his trial is over. If convicted, they should fire him and ban him from football permanently altogether.
As for stores continuing to carry Michael Vick products, I predict you will see them on clearance for 75% off in the near future. Retailers would be better served donating them to homeless shelters. There comes a time when conscience and doing the right thing has to trump greed.
If Nike did anything wrong, it was putting their brand with Michael Vick in the first place. The man may not have broken the law over the past few months, but he has done enough to upset the public (see the Atlanta-New Orleans game last year) with his antics.
PETA and the Humane Society have already forwarded 100,000 e-mails onward to whomever they feel should shoulder this. Most manufacturers get wobbly when they get one or two negative letters from customers, but this many? Already?
Pull the plug!
Nike made the right decision. They already have enough dubious endorsers in their vast marketing and merchandising stable. Why risk enraging the large army of animal lovers and others who detest animal and human cruelty? With so many people loving their dogs more than high profiled football players, and when people continue to rent automobiles without endorsement of a tarnished football player hurdling through an airport, then why not move on without such possible transients?
Absolutely Nike made the right decision. They have, as others have stated, many celebrity products. Those celebrities have a responsibility when they signed on to get the endorsement. Vick is in violation of that responsibility.
Should the stores take other products off the shelf? Once guilty, yes! We should wait till the judge decides. For now I believe the sales will slow among some. Unfortunately, we have youth today that will be more inclined to buy Vick’s products now.
I live in Atlanta also, and am outraged by the allegations. With an 18-page indictment, including government witnesses, it’s likely Vick is involved. Personally, I’d like to see the Atlanta Falcons boot him off the team for good. As Senator Byrd stated, there is a special place in hell for abusers.
Should they launch, and promote, a new product? No.
Should they pull existing products? Also no.
Being one who objects, in principle, to manufacturers perpetuating the so-called celebrity culture by getting z-list people famous for nothing at all to promote their products, I am also a believer in letting consumers vote with their wallets. If there are so many disgusted by this guy’s antics, proven or not, then they simply will not buy anything with his name on it. Let them make their own decisions, say I.
Nike made the right decision to suspend rollout and marketing of its new Michael Vick shoe model. It would be inappropriate to enable any sort of image rehabilitation through a marketing push, while Vick is under a shadow if not actually proved guilty of anything yet. Nike may find that the damage is already done and that a full blown launch effort may never fly.
As to other retailers (and Nike) pulling existing product off the shelves…consumers need to weigh in on that issue. (Let’s keep in mind: “Innocent until proven guilty.”) If sales plummet as fast as expected, and if consumers express their displeasure to various outlets’ PR departments, you won’t see this product available for sale much longer…at least, not outside Atlanta.
Did Nike make the right decision? Yes!!! Should everyone pull their licensed merchandise until the verdict is in? Probably. Their are just too many animal lovers (and folks with some sense of common decency) around. Continuing to market the merchandise would be like holding up a target in front of the brand.
Absolutely. I live in Atlanta and our city is just disgusted by this whole thing. No, he hasn’t been proven guilty. But there’s enough floating out there to know that he’s highly involved. The fact is that the man knew better and he made a series of choices that put him in this situation. What he was involved in is deplorable behavior and his talent as an athlete has nothing to do with it! Any brand associated with him until this is worked out risks hurting their own brand equity significantly…for good reason.
When a brand builds a business based on the endorsements of live human beings, the unexpected happens from time to time. A few get arrested, a few make fools of themselves in public, etc. Statistically, it has to happen from time to time. Nike has many endorsements, and undoubtedly expects some of them to blow up from time to time. The losses can be budgeted, like an insurance company that expects 1 out of 10 people to have a car accident. And sometimes the celebrities do public penance and make a comeback. Michael Vick is not the first and he will not be the last.
On the other hand, as one not usually interested in sports, I’ve been shopping for a pair of Michael Vick shoes. I’ll bet they’ve got a good price/quality ratio. And they make a statement–about PR business.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Using celebrities as advertising spokesmen and woman has its rewards but it is risky business. A few thoughts regarding Nike and Michael Vick:
o The connection to animal cruelty will be more difficult to overcome than most of the other usual stigmas. Products bearing Vick’s endorsement will suffer a setback.
o Sometimes the negative publicity that surrounds a celebrity becomes erroneously positive in terms of notoriety and potentially momentous new attention and business. This will not be the case for Michael Vick because this image will be too difficult to overcome with the eco-masses that purchase Nike products.
o Frankly, I was surprised when Michael Vick was chosen to be the endorsement, even in the first place. Vick has never had a great reputation with the public and even as a player, I think most would agree he has not lived up to the high expectations.
Nike doesn’t need to be the judge nor the jury. Companies have the right to do hire and fire celebrities at will if the contract allows. At the end of the day, Nike will do whatever it perceives is best for their business.
This is exactly the problem with celebrity endorsements. When celebrity turns to notoriety (justified or not), the manufacturer is left holding the bag. Nike, given its history with sports celebrities, is probably more cognizant of the challenge than most. But with retailers jumping on the celebrity “inspired” private label craze–Kate Moss and Top Shop, and Madonna and H&M come to mind–this should serve as a painful reminder. Celebrity tie-ins can sink just as much as they might soar–for reasons way beyond your control.
All reputable retailers should pull all the Vick product lines immediately from their stores and online sites. Unfortunately, there will still be a few buyers who will consume this merchandise; some because they are into the thug culture. Others, if they are clueless–for its shock value (think Mao and Che Guevara merchandise). These buyers, who hopefully are few and far between, will be able to find sufficient Vick merchandise on underground sites, flea markets and on eBay.
This is one of the clearest “cut and run” marketing situations I have ever seen.
Absolutely YES, pull any product associated with any ‘role model’ where they are involved in an inappropriate situation.
How else will society distinguish what should be acceptable and why people need to be accountable and responsible for their actions?
” Evil exists because good people do nothing ”
Barry Souter. Director. Munns The Man’s Store. New Zealand.
Nike, it seems, has always pushed the envelope with its image; this was, after all, the company who for years had as its motto “Just Do It.” And while that message is ambiguous, it’s safe to say that many saw it as a reflection of “win at any cost” and “we don’t care what you do as long as you win” mentalities: that they ended up getting burned is indeed inevitable; sad, it is not.
Greed has its consequences. Nike has enrolled a number of border line “role models” in an effort to extend its “Air Jordan” franchise to the younger generation. Based upon the headlines, Jordan is and was a worthy roll model. Many of the current crop are questionable. Vick and others have histories, but when the game is to convince 10 year olds that they have to have a $100 pair of sneakers then I guess stretching the definition of “role model” is “acceptable behavior.” Frankly, I think Nike would get more mileage out of a new commercial showing Vick using his Nike brand sneakers to escape the jaws of his fighting dogs….
Although not convicted yet, there is enough overwhelming evidence pointing to guilt. As one MSNBC news commentator said this morning, regarding Vick’s claims he didn’t know what was going on at his own home and wasn’t involved, “Michael Vick is either a liar or the world’s dumbest person.”
Nike is doing the right thing and should consider dropping him all together. He won’t come back from this even if acquitted. Think back to O.J. I believe (and the animal lover in me hopes) that consumers will boycott any products associated with Vick.
The Atlanta Falcons and the NFL should, at the least, suspend him until his trial is over. If convicted, they should fire him and ban him from football permanently altogether.
As for stores continuing to carry Michael Vick products, I predict you will see them on clearance for 75% off in the near future. Retailers would be better served donating them to homeless shelters. There comes a time when conscience and doing the right thing has to trump greed.
If Nike did anything wrong, it was putting their brand with Michael Vick in the first place. The man may not have broken the law over the past few months, but he has done enough to upset the public (see the Atlanta-New Orleans game last year) with his antics.
PETA and the Humane Society have already forwarded 100,000 e-mails onward to whomever they feel should shoulder this. Most manufacturers get wobbly when they get one or two negative letters from customers, but this many? Already?
Pull the plug!
Nike made the right decision. They already have enough dubious endorsers in their vast marketing and merchandising stable. Why risk enraging the large army of animal lovers and others who detest animal and human cruelty? With so many people loving their dogs more than high profiled football players, and when people continue to rent automobiles without endorsement of a tarnished football player hurdling through an airport, then why not move on without such possible transients?
Absolutely Nike made the right decision. They have, as others have stated, many celebrity products. Those celebrities have a responsibility when they signed on to get the endorsement. Vick is in violation of that responsibility.
Should the stores take other products off the shelf? Once guilty, yes! We should wait till the judge decides. For now I believe the sales will slow among some. Unfortunately, we have youth today that will be more inclined to buy Vick’s products now.
I live in Atlanta also, and am outraged by the allegations. With an 18-page indictment, including government witnesses, it’s likely Vick is involved. Personally, I’d like to see the Atlanta Falcons boot him off the team for good. As Senator Byrd stated, there is a special place in hell for abusers.
Should they launch, and promote, a new product? No.
Should they pull existing products? Also no.
Being one who objects, in principle, to manufacturers perpetuating the so-called celebrity culture by getting z-list people famous for nothing at all to promote their products, I am also a believer in letting consumers vote with their wallets. If there are so many disgusted by this guy’s antics, proven or not, then they simply will not buy anything with his name on it. Let them make their own decisions, say I.
Nike made the right decision to suspend rollout and marketing of its new Michael Vick shoe model. It would be inappropriate to enable any sort of image rehabilitation through a marketing push, while Vick is under a shadow if not actually proved guilty of anything yet. Nike may find that the damage is already done and that a full blown launch effort may never fly.
As to other retailers (and Nike) pulling existing product off the shelves…consumers need to weigh in on that issue. (Let’s keep in mind: “Innocent until proven guilty.”) If sales plummet as fast as expected, and if consumers express their displeasure to various outlets’ PR departments, you won’t see this product available for sale much longer…at least, not outside Atlanta.
Did Nike make the right decision? Yes!!! Should everyone pull their licensed merchandise until the verdict is in? Probably. Their are just too many animal lovers (and folks with some sense of common decency) around. Continuing to market the merchandise would be like holding up a target in front of the brand.
Absolutely. I live in Atlanta and our city is just disgusted by this whole thing. No, he hasn’t been proven guilty. But there’s enough floating out there to know that he’s highly involved. The fact is that the man knew better and he made a series of choices that put him in this situation. What he was involved in is deplorable behavior and his talent as an athlete has nothing to do with it! Any brand associated with him until this is worked out risks hurting their own brand equity significantly…for good reason.
When a brand builds a business based on the endorsements of live human beings, the unexpected happens from time to time. A few get arrested, a few make fools of themselves in public, etc. Statistically, it has to happen from time to time. Nike has many endorsements, and undoubtedly expects some of them to blow up from time to time. The losses can be budgeted, like an insurance company that expects 1 out of 10 people to have a car accident. And sometimes the celebrities do public penance and make a comeback. Michael Vick is not the first and he will not be the last.
On the other hand, as one not usually interested in sports, I’ve been shopping for a pair of Michael Vick shoes. I’ll bet they’ve got a good price/quality ratio. And they make a statement–about PR business.