备忘录耐克为何需要空气

1984 年,耐克需要改变。

现在,耐克公司的收入已经超过了世界上除 80 多个国家以外的所有国家的国内生产总值,39 年前,耐克公司做出了历史上最重要的商业决定之一。1984 年 10 月 26 日,迈克尔-乔丹(Michael Jordan)同意与耐克公司合作,这将改变整整一代人的运动事业。这一年,一个销售额为 9.19 亿美元的鞋类品牌成为地球上最强大的公司之一,有些奥威尔式的意味。为了实现这一目标,他们与一名未经证实的 NBA 新秀签订了一份体育界从未有过的合同。

乔丹签约八个月后,《纽约时报》的一篇报道详细描述了公司的困境。在这位 NBA 新秀的帮助下,该公司在两年后摆脱了困境。

1984 财年,耐克公司的收益下降了 29%,这是 10 年来首次下降。"耐克公司的共同创始人、董事长兼首席执行官菲利普-H-奈特(Philip H. Knight)在公司的年度报告中说:"奥威尔是对的:1984 年是艰难的一年。然而,1985 年更加艰难。在最近的两个季度中,耐克公司首次出现了亏损。

今天,耐克不仅仅是一家鞋类和服装制造商。它的广告和公共关系战略为全民共识做出了贡献。耐克公司的影响远远超出了体育领域,它已经深入到文化、经济甚至政治领域。它就像国旗的纤维本身一样,是美国肌理的一部分。

现在是 2023 年。耐克的知名度仍然比许多美国总统的名字还要高。但现在已经发生了翻天覆地的变化。

1985:迈克尔-乔丹与 2023 年蒂芙尼 x 耐克胶囊

虽然体育作为一门生意的规模从未如此之大,但它需要像耐克这样的企业加大投入,才能与它曾经保持的影响力相媲美。如今,耐克的 "Swoosh "或迈克尔-乔丹(Michael Jordan)标志出现在每件 MLB、NBA 和 NFL 运动服上,而在 NCAA 的生态系统中,耐克的 "Swoosh "或迈克尔-乔丹(Michael Jordan)标志更是数不胜数。

职业运动员影响力的下降和耐克影响力份额的减弱是两个相互关联的现象。当勒布朗-詹姆斯打破 NBA 历史得分纪录时,耐克的销售业绩本应大增。相反,他参与耐克与蒂芙尼合作的推广活动,比勒布朗的 "得分王 "特别版球鞋更有可能带来红利。他是公司知名度最高的(现役)明星运动员。但这不过是又一个过眼云烟;菲尔-奈特坐在场边,对眼前的景象显得无精打采、百无聊赖。他一生中见过无数次这样的时刻,但几十年过去了,这些时刻已经失去了意义。事实上,他几乎创造了瞬间广告经济。我在《耐克与万能品牌》一书中解释道:

对许多人来说,迈克尔-乔丹是耐克最伟大的运动员。对其他人来说,他是科比-布莱恩特(Kobe Bean Bryant)、克里斯蒂亚诺-罗纳尔多(Cristiano Ronaldo)、泰格-伍兹(Tiger Woods)或塞雷娜-威廉姆斯(Serena Williams)。对我来说,则是史蒂夫-普雷方丹。耐克的第一位运动员为该品牌数十年的反叛和反直觉思维奠定了基础。普雷的精神永存。

因此,让我们来探讨一下运动员影响力的下降和耐克影响力的减弱之间有什么联系,以及是哪些因素促成了这些变化。

耐克公司成立于 1964 年,当时名为 "蓝丝带体育"(Blue Ribbon Sports)。多年来,它已成为世界上最大、最知名的品牌之一。然而,近年来,该公司面临着影响力下降的问题,一直在努力维持其运动服装行业领导者的地位。

导致耐克影响力下降的最大因素之一,是来自企业品牌和直销品牌的竞争日益激烈。近年来,新的创新型运动服装公司不断涌现,为消费者提供了更多选择,也迫使耐克适应不断变化的市场需求。

Under Armour、阿迪达斯和彪马等公司的市场份额都大幅提升,对耐克在行业中的主导地位构成了挑战。这些公司能够以更实惠的价格为消费者提供高品质的产品。耐克公司的对策是进一步扩大市场份额,将普通消费者甩在身后。此外,Lululemon 等运动休闲品牌的日益流行也对耐克的影响力产生了影响。但是,上述每家公司仍然面临着一个相似的问题:与十年前相比,职业运动员的关注度有所下降。

随着社交媒体的兴起、具有商业价值的音乐家的崛起以及运动员人数的增加,有才华(或无才华)的人成为名人并获得大批追随者变得更加容易。这导致了市场的饱和,使运动员个人更难脱颖而出并保持其影响力。随着运动员影响力的减弱,他们的效力也随之减弱。看看阿迪达斯目前的困境就知道了:

去年,阿迪达斯与音乐家坎耶-韦斯特(Kanye West)发生了混乱的分裂,这可能会使其全年销售额减少约12亿欧元,营业利润减少5亿欧元,这比阿迪达斯四个月前计算的损失还要大。纽约时报

这种解释在乔丹还在打球的时候是不可理喻的。一个说唱歌手取消合作影响了全年 12 亿欧元的销售额?在耐克转向奢侈品并垄断职业体育的同时,小公司正在用磨平的石头击败巨人。我们在最近的会员简报中对这一发展中的现象进行了报道。

更多信息欧元 DTC 入侵

但导致耐克衰落的最大因素或许是消费者对公司本身态度的转变。近年来,耐克公司因其用工方式和对环境的影响而饱受批评。从在发展中国家使用血汗工厂,到在生产产品的同时造成环境恶化,这对现代消费者来说已不再是公平的交易。NBA 球员伊内斯-坎特-自由就是这种消费转变的化身

他称自己不仅仅是一名运动员。他自称是人权活动家或自由斗士,所以我对他选择金钱和商业而非道德、价值观和原则感到非常失望。很显然,他与耐克这样的公司签约,而耐克在中国几乎使用奴隶劳动和血汗工厂,他谈论世界各地发生的所有问题,但当涉及到一个特定的话题,即中国时,他保持沉默。这就是虚伪,所以我想揭露它。

因此,这导致了消费者对该品牌的负面看法,他们越来越关注所购买产品的道德、社会政治和环境影响。耐克正试图解决一些问题。还记得人们对明星运动员兴趣下降的情况吗?流行歌手 Billie Eilish已经取代了铁人明星

耐克公司与美国创作型歌手比利-艾利什(Billie Eilish)携手推出了全新的 Air Force 1 Low 运动鞋,以践行他们对可持续发展的承诺。

尽管世界在不断变化,耐克仍然是世界上最大、最知名的品牌之一。关于菲尔-奈特最重要的商业决策的传记电影即将上映,这绝非巧合。

耐克需要 "Air "来提醒消费者,体育很重要,运动员很重要,他们是比流行文化更可靠的风向标。影片将在 3000 家电影院首映,随后将在 240 多个国家和地区(亚马逊)提供流媒体服务。

1985 年,《纽约时报》对耐克公司进行了案例研究,最后得出的结论在 38 年后的今天依然适用:"现在的问题是,管理层能否让耐克继续朝着正确的方向前进。耐克认为自己已经准备好再次起跑。但这次的比赛将更加艰难"。

作者:Web Smith | 编辑:Hilary Milnes,美术:Alex Remy 

Member Brief No. 18: The Puma Report

Watermark_ByTailorBrands-2.png
Recently released: Puma’s first basketball shoe in 20 years.

Brands. If you’ve built a great product, you’ll need an audience. And if you’ve built a captive audience, you’ll need a great product. Draft night has come and gone. This year, a brand was the night’s biggest story. Puma was last relevant in the basketball world when NBA legend and current Knicks commentator Walt “Clyde” Frazier played in the 1970’s. Founded by the younger brother of Adidas’ Adolf Dassler, Rudolf’s Puma brand is historically viewed as the little brother to Adidas.

Their market positions would confirm as such. Adidas is currently trading at a $35 billion market cap, nearly five times the size of Puma’s $7.5 billion market position. But that’s where the disparaging ends. Puma, an American mountain cat known for its secrecy, has made one of the biggest brand splashes in recent memory. It caught the entire industry off guard.

本会员简报专为以下人士设计 执行委员为了方便加入,您可以点击下面的链接,获取数百份报告、我们的 DTC 权力清单和其他工具,帮助您做出高水平的决策。

在此加入

第265期DNVB 能否实现现代奢华?

Om Malik and Lean Luxe‘s Paul Munford had a thought-provoking exchange. Does the modern luxury go-to Lean Luxe (and the industry as a whole) have a grasp on what luxury means in online retail? On its face, a physical product that makes itself available to the masses cannot be a luxury product.

Lean Luxe on Twitter

@om Sure, by the old definition of luxury – you’re correct. But don’t judge modern luxury brands’ bonafides using the old set of luxury rulebooks. More here: https://t.co/ZLjoBdxYUz and here: https://t.co/uHYOPzsI9n

There are very few products, if any, that digitally vertical native brands (DNVB) sell that would qualify as traditional luxury goods. Here is Munford’s definition:

The key strength of a modern luxury brand is its emphasis on the entire package, rather just the product (or logo) itself. It’s a different mode of operation that takes some getting used to, but it disperses with the conventions of the old, blingy version of luxury, and is best optimized for today’s new consumer behaviors and expectations.

The fact of the matter is that competing on product quality alone leaves a brand open to exposure. MLCs have smartly understood that a better overall package or bundle — in an open market like today’s — can be far more compelling to shoppers than just product alone can.

Lean Luxe

Munford makes an important point that I’d like to take a bit further. Lean Luxe tends to maintain a narrow focus on hard goods and the packaging that they arrive in. But what about the purchase process and the attentiveness to customer happiness? And what about time?

The definition of luxury: an inessential, desirable item that is expensive or difficult to obtain.

Luxury, however you define it, is a brand’s embodiment of characteristics that make it desirable. Historically, those characteristics have been more ‘What’ features like quality, exclusivity, and cost. You can still define luxury as characteristics that make a brand desirable, but those characteristics have shifted. Quality is table stakes.

The characteristics that make brands more desirable are ‘how’ features like excellent customer experience (how do I experience the brand), meaningful brand mission (how do they give back/make a difference), and community engagement. Is it artist-created and excessively expensive? Maybe not. But if it is a product, or even an entire experience that is highly desirable, it can be considered a luxurious brand. DNVBs just so happen to possess a great infrastructure to support the characteristics that define modern luxury.

Luxury is always relative; it is loosely defined to meet the times and the market. If you walk through a great mall in the United States, you will visit brand experiences that will provide a luxurious taste. Take Ohio’s Easton Town Center as an example. The indoor / outdoor mall features Burberry, Tiffany and Co.,  and Louis Vuitton. However, your perception of luxury changes when you walk through the Bal Harbour Shops in North Miami Beach.  Bal Harbour is considered the finest mall in America. Both malls are considered “luxury” malls but neither are as luxurious as Dubai’s mall.

But can a DNVB be a luxury brand?

The notion of luxury is often applied to tech fashion brands. I partially agree with Om Malik’s statement here.

[Lean Luxe] is again confusing smoke / mirrors marketing and what is really luxury. All I know is that AllBirds and Brandless and Casper are not luxury, And no amount of your linguistic gymnastics will convince me of what is luxury, FWIW, LV is not luxury either. Too common.

AllBirds, Brandless, and Casper do not make luxury products but Munford isn’t suggesting that their products-alone are what classifies them within the modern luxury space.

Louis Vuitton was first hired as a personal box maker and packaging expert for the Empress of France. He was charged with “packing the most beautiful clothes in an exquisite way.” It was the practice that helped him to gain influence among the elite and royals, catapulting Louis Vuitton’s namesake to luxury status.

Louis Vuitton began with an early product and the two advantages commonly seen in the DNVB space:

  • Packaging
  • Maniacal focus on customers

The definition of a DNVB: a brand born online with a “maniacal” focus on the customer experience. A DNVB may start online but it often extends to a brick-and-mortar manifestation. Digitally native vertical brands control their own distribution.

Luxury brands don’t always begin as purveyors of luxury products. And due to a macroeconomic consumer shift from materialism to investing in luxury experiences, there are a large number of consumers who prefer DNVB’s luxury-experience over traditional luxury products. For many in the business and wealth classes, it’s a symbol that their money is better spent on even finer things than goods. The definition of luxury is changing.

Here are two relevant passages from 1994’s The Idea of Luxury:

Page 18

Page-18.png

Page 35

Page 34

购买体验胜过购买消费品是奢侈品群体的一种趋势。对于那些有能力和意识在DNVB品牌购物的顾客来说,奢侈品一词的含义完全不同。斯基弗特(Skift)的最新研究表明,高端游客对更具变革性的旅游体验的需求发生了明显转变(Skift / 2017年5月2日)。过去,昂贵的产品是消费者的愿望:而现在,产品、社区和服务扮演着促成体验经济的角色。

Pine-Transformative-Travel-1

Many DNVB products (see the database here) are marketed to enable this type of consumer: Mizzen+Main (No. 86) is for the traveling business class male. Ministry (No. 91) is for the well-educated, urban millennial. AllBirds (No. 56) is worn by the business casual, aspiring member of the investor-class. Rogue (No. 8) turned a garage into a coveted space in a home.

Digitally vertical native brands are founded with these basic questions:

(1) How do we make a great product?

(2) How do we build a community around it?

(3) How do we provide an elegant solution for commerce?

(4) How do we enable customers to save time and focus on what matters?

“One fundamental trap that people run into when assessing the merits of a modern luxury brand is the tendency to judge that brand using the ‘best-in-class’ framework,” says Lean Luxe’s Paul Munford. Lean Luxe’s definition is mostly right. Munford discusses packaging as part of the bundle: “[These brands] offer a better bundle to offset [traditional definitions of luxury] — more convenience, transparency, connection, better messaging, pricing, etc.”

But a selection of modern luxury brands are also marketing time as part of the proverbial “bundle” and that’s the only place where Munford and my thoughts differ.

It’s no longer sufficient to define luxury products by how difficult they are to attain. Time is the scarcest resource and the ultimate luxury. Being a modern luxury brand is about being self-aware. These brands sell time as a scarcity and then build products around it.

There may be no greater example of the community / product / service paradigm than Peloton, a DNVB that Malik’s True Ventures joined back in 2015.

Peloton is now shifting gears with a new financing program ($97 per month for 39 months for both the bike and subscription service), an ad campaign that’s more relatable to a diverse consumer base and an NBC Olympics sponsorship. Peloton counts NBCUniversal among its investors, and has raised nearly $450 million in total funding to date.

“We had this idea of a very affluent rider who many of our early adopters were,” she said. “We realized, through conversations with our community, that there was a huge opportunity with people who thought $2,000 was a huge investment but were [buying] it over and over again because the product is so important to them.”

How Peloton is Marketing Beyond the Rich

Peloton is not a traditional luxury product, but it shares consumers with traditional luxury brands. Think about the type of living arrangement necessary to house a wi-fi enabled bicycle or a $4,000 VR treadmill. It’s a brilliant piece of hardware that blends community with product and service. The brand’s proposition explicitly states that the purpose is to free the owner to focus more on experiences.

Peloton’s value proposition is as much about what you can accomplish away from the treadmill. Why take the time to travel to a gym? That time could be better spent elsewhere. This is the mark of a modern luxury brand.

点击此处阅读更多相关内容。

By Web Smith and Meghan Terwilliger | About 2PM