Why Adidas Can't Beat Nike. For Now

[BrandMooreArt]

thought this was a good read: http://davidhieatt.typepad.com/doonethingwell/2012/09/why-adidas-cant-beat-nike-for-now.html

[CDixonDesign]

Good read, but man that italicized type is hard to read.

[BBTV]

Aside from being painful to read (it's clear that he's not a writer), it didn't really say anything. I get the point - adidas is just a product - something you buy, while Nike is something much more - it has a soul, an identity, makes you feel like part of a movement, but I don't think he in any way proved that (though maybe I missed it since I'm not used to reading such choppy writing since I gave up on the Sports eCyclopedia.)

That being said, while I understand the point he failed to make, I think it's a little over dramatic. I think it comes down to two things. 1 - Nike does a better job of communicating to the younger audience through catchy slogans and product design, and (more importantly IMO) 2 - the swoosh. It's possibly the greatest (or at least most successful) logo ever made. It conveys movement and aggression, while the adidas logo is rather stagnent and stationary. If you take the same piece of gear and replace one brand logo with a swoosh, it's going to be preceived as better in many people's minds. I don't know that it necessarily has a soul or anything like that (other than the combined souls of the 5-year-olds making the shoes over in Asia) but it's just better and has more impact than any other logo out there in their core market.

[Jer15]

So....Nike's better at marketing, that's essentially it.

[Saintsfan]

Erm yeah I buy trainers because they have feeling? Wtf! Nope didn't make the aegument at all.

If Nike is way more successful than Adidas, and I am not convinced of that argument, it's because they market individuals, across a range of sports, rather than teams. Be it Tiger or Andre Agassi or Michael Jordan etc etc etc. in the modern sporting world, where sports stars are transient, Nike have built on the cult of celebrity rather than the cult of society.

[Mingjai]

Adidas--smart soccer since 2012. . . Makes you wonder what kind of soccer they were playing before that.

I won't mind Adidas so much if they didn't always try to run three stripes the length of entire sleeve. I like the way the three stripes look on shoes, because they're not so overwhelming.

For soccer kits, I like that Nike has moved away from templates for their primary clients.

[andrewharrington]

Grammatical errors and caliber of writing aside, I think that's a pretty good read. I think it's always interesting to see how the public perceives the brand and it's initiatives as opposed to how I perceive them, since I have the advantage of knowing more about the brand and what goes into each project. I could tell people how things may or may not have intended to be interpreted, but that doesn't mean a lick if no one actually perceives things that way.

[oddball]

It wasn't earth shattering or anything of the sort, I skimmed the article because it failed to catch my attention in the first 3 sentences. But I got the jist of it. Okay, so Nike has a voice and Addidas doesn't. How and when did Nike get that voice and since that time, what has been Addidas' or any other shoe company's reply or lack there of? That's what would've been interesting. A similar "argument" would be Yankees are good, Royals are bad. Actually that's what they article should've said, "Nike good, Addidas bad." And that's all it should've said, because that's really what it said.

[STL FANATIC]

Think you all are being a bit harsh. I can totally relate to what he said.

I own a lot of adidas products. And I like them a lot. I'm a guy who can easily become a brand loyalist, and as a former soccer player, I always wanted to be one for adidas. There was a time I didn't like big, bad Nike. But adidas never reeled me in. I kept buying them when they made a product I liked (which is often enough), of course. But I don't love them. They're not my brand.

Conversely, Nike gets me going. I love Nike gear. I trust Nike gear. I give it the benefit of the doubt because of how I feel in Nike gear. Nike could put out the exact same thing as adidas and they both might be crap, but I'd get a special feeling for Nike and believe it's good. That's what brand loyalty does, and Nike has earned it from.

It's not the same as Apple vs. PC where my initial reaction is that Apple is always good and Microsoft is always bad. Because, I do like adidas. But I don't love them.

I realize neither I nor the original blogger said anything scientific, but I don't think that was the point. It was to discuss, on the surface level, a consumers connection to a brand. I think he did a good job and made a good point.

[BrandMooreArt]

Think you all are being a bit harsh. I can totally relate to what he said.

I own a lot of adidas products. And I like them a lot. I'm a guy who can easily become a brand loyalist, and as a former soccer player, I always wanted to be one for adidas. There was a time I didn't like big, bad Nike. But adidas never reeled me in. I kept buying them when they made a product I liked (which is often enough), of course. But I don't love them. They're not my brand.

Conversely, Nike gets me going. I love Nike gear. I trust Nike gear. I give it the benefit of the doubt because of how I feel in Nike gear. Nike could put out the exact same thing as adidas and they both might be crap, but I'd get a special feeling for Nike and believe it's good. That's what brand loyalty does, and Nike has earned it from.

It's not the same as Apple vs. PC where my initial reaction is that Apple is always good and Microsoft is always bad. Because, I do like adidas. But I don't love them.

I realize neither I nor the original blogger said anything scientific, but I don't think that was the point. It was to discuss, on the surface level, a consumers connection to a brand. I think he did a good job and made a good point.

very well said

[slapshot]

The difference between Nike and its competitors is that Nike emphasizes it's brand and look first, where other companies promote their performance and functions first. In general, anyway.

When I see Nike commercials or advertising, it seems to just be "we're Nike, look at our image", or "look at your image when you wear our products". I can't remember the last time I saw Nike advertising showing how or why their shoes fit more comfortably, more supportive, or function in a way to improve one's performance. They just seem to state that the swoosh itself, and not the interior workings, are what makes their products great. An athlete in their commercials may be shown dominating his or her game, but you never really know why, you only know that they're wearing stuff with the swoosh on it.

When I see commercials for adidas, Reebok, Puma, etc., they do more to show their products in action (specifically footwear) then the image they're projecting. Reebok's ZigTech line, for example, spends a lot on showing how the soles provide cushioning or spring-action or something. Adidas and Puma footwear emphasize its lightness.

Even take football uniforms. What's the biggest thing that Nike has emphasized with its Pro Combat line? For the most part, it's the styling and graphics. (Same thing with UnderArmour, although UA was pretty much a compression apparel company at first). Adidas has its Tech-Fit line, and ugly as most of the releases have been, at least "Fit" is emphasized in its name. It's a super-tight uniform that emphasizes its fit and compression.

So, to summarize...

Nike = image

adidas = function

[STL FANATIC]

That's true in what they promote, but not true in what they are.

And by that I mean, I'm certain that the Nike gear stacks up every bit as good or better than Adidas, Reebok, etc. in function. It's not that Nike is just some hollow image with awful gear, it's great gear that promotes it's great image.

And that's the difference. We long ago learned to trust Nike's performance. And now they've gotten many of us to also trust and love their brand. They don't have to tell us their gear is top of the line--we already know it. So they focus on making sure we want to be seen in it.

And it works.

[andrewharrington]

Well said all around. The thing that a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of gear is the same. One guy might like a particular Under Armour shoe, while another like a similar Nike shoe, and they may very well be nearly the same shoe made in the same factory with the same materials by the same hands and machines. Not every product is like this, of course, but you get the point. I think Nike does a great job of getting people excited to rep their brand as opposed to maybe only getting people excited about what goes into its products.